TULSI 2020
America —
Trump is betraying our troops.
With just one tweet he offered to place our military - my brothers in sisters in uniform - under the command of Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, the dictator of Saudi Arabia.
He tweeted: “We are locked and loaded … but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!”
Trump’s actions are a gross betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform, the American people, and our Constitution.
We are not Trump’s prostitutes, and we will not be pimped out to war for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.
Make no mistake: President Trump is making our country Saudi Arabia’s b*tch — this is not “America First.”
His willingness to pimp out our military to the highest foreign bidder is a betrayal of my proud brothers and sisters in uniform.
Servicemen and women who are ready to put our lives on the line for our country — not for the Islamist dictator of Saudi Arabia.
President Trump has shown time and time again that he is unfit to serve as our Commander in Chief.
Our country, my brothers and sisters in uniform, our children - we deserve a Commander in Chief who will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Who will honor our service members and put the wellbeing of our people and our country above all else.
For years I’ve been calling out Presidents from both political parties, the foreign policy establishment and the military industrial complex, for perpetuating wasteful regime change wars.
These wars cost American lives, trillions of taxpayer dollars, pain and suffering in the countries where we wage them, all while undermining our national security.
These wars are not only stupid, they’re unconstitutional.
I introduced the bipartisan No More Presidential Wars Act because -- and this might come as news to President Trump -- the President does not have the power under the United States Constitution to declare war.
Not on Iran, not on North Korea, and definitely not on behalf of Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Our country deserves a Commander in Chief who both understands and respects the rule of law.
One who will never stop calling out the warmongers in both parties, and who will end unconstitutional wars.
One who will honor those who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country by only sending them on missions worthy of their great sacrifice.
For the love of our country,
Tulsi Gabbard
THE DAILY NEWS
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
The Wall Street Journal.
"Banks warm to mortgage bonds that burned them in 2008"
Ben Eisen and Telis Demos
16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Banks are getting back into the business of building mortgage bonds, laying the groundwork for a market that stands to grow as the Trump administration tries to reduce the government’s role in housing finance.
Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., and JPMorgan Chase & Co. over the past year have restarted or expanded the business of spinning fresh pools of mortgages into securities.
They are adding a jolt of energy to efforts to revive the so-called private-label market for mortgage bonds, which virtually disappeared after it blew up during the financial crisis of 2008.
Smaller operators have long tried, but mostly failed, to rebuild what was once among the most significant businesses on Wall Street.
Last year, some $70 billion of mortgages ended up in private-label mortgage bonds, according to the Urban Institute.
Though that is far below a peak of more than $1 trillion in precrisis years, it is the most since 2007.
And this market could continue to grow if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shrink, traders and executives say, opening up more room for private players to take over this middleman role of packaging and selling mortgages.
The Trump administration this month proposed privatizing the two government-sponsored mortgage giants, and the administration is expected to shrink them even if it can’t return them to private hands.
The fact that many investors say they are once again getting comfortable buying these bonds also underscores the broader market’s search for yield.
Instead of viewing these bonds as toxic reminders of the financial crisis, many money managers see them as an opportunity to generate more income in a low-rate world.
Fannie and Freddie don’t make loans.
Instead, they buy mortgages, package them into securities and sell them to investors.
Investors view these securities as safe because the government-backed mortgage giants assume much of the default risk.
The bonds packaged and sold by the banks don’t have the same protection, so investors demand higher yields to compensate them for taking on more risk.
Many banks soured on making mortgages after the financial crisis.
Today, the majority of U.S. mortgages are made by nonbanks, which are less regulated than their bank counterparts and sometimes thinly capitalized.
Even so, banks still see an opportunity to make money by supporting the infrastructure that underlies the U.S. mortgage system.
Citigroup, for example, recently purchased a pool of 932 mortgages from a nonbank lender called Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc. and used them to back bonds worth more than $350 million.
The deal closed last month.
While some banks never fully extricated themselves from the private-label market, they typically issued bonds in the years after the crisis only to package odds and ends, such as old loans that had defaulted and been modified in some way.
Some deals were done to help out important clients.
What is different now is that banks are also stepping into the role of buying loans from third parties and underwriting the securities they piece together.
This more closely resembles the precrisis days when banks would bid on loans that were up for sale by the lenders that made them.
Banks today are buying both mortgages that are eligible to be sold to Fannie and Freddie as well as ones that aren’t because they are too large or they are considered riskier — often because they use alternative documentation to approve the borrower.
These are baby steps back into the market, to be sure.
Largely gone are the complex derivatives once overlaid on these deals.
And the market is tiny compared with precrisis days: In the first half of this year, 2.1% of mortgages went into private bonds.
That is up from 2009, when private-label issuance was virtually nonexistent.
But private bonds made up 41% of the market at a peak in 2005, according to the Urban Institute.
One problem with precrisis deals was that data about the underlying mortgages was often difficult to come by, even for the bankers originating the deals.
In the Impac deal, Citigroup is working with startup dv01 Inc. to provide data to investors about the underlying mortgages, according to a report by ratings firm DBRS Inc.
JPMorgan restarted its private-label program several years ago but has recently broadened it.
In April, the nation’s largest lender by assets did a deal with a group of its own mortgages that didn’t qualify to be bought by Fannie and Freddie.
Wells Fargo introduced its first postcrisis deal last October and has done more since.
Goldman Sachs, which did one deal in 2014, stayed out of this market until March, but since then has done three deals.
Bank of America Corp. hasn’t reintroduced its own mortgage bonds, but aggregates loans that are issued through Chimera Investment Corp., a real-estate investment trust, according to people familiar with the matter.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realesta ... P17#page=2
"Banks warm to mortgage bonds that burned them in 2008"
Ben Eisen and Telis Demos
16 SEPTEMBER 2019
Banks are getting back into the business of building mortgage bonds, laying the groundwork for a market that stands to grow as the Trump administration tries to reduce the government’s role in housing finance.
Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., and JPMorgan Chase & Co. over the past year have restarted or expanded the business of spinning fresh pools of mortgages into securities.
They are adding a jolt of energy to efforts to revive the so-called private-label market for mortgage bonds, which virtually disappeared after it blew up during the financial crisis of 2008.
Smaller operators have long tried, but mostly failed, to rebuild what was once among the most significant businesses on Wall Street.
Last year, some $70 billion of mortgages ended up in private-label mortgage bonds, according to the Urban Institute.
Though that is far below a peak of more than $1 trillion in precrisis years, it is the most since 2007.
And this market could continue to grow if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shrink, traders and executives say, opening up more room for private players to take over this middleman role of packaging and selling mortgages.
The Trump administration this month proposed privatizing the two government-sponsored mortgage giants, and the administration is expected to shrink them even if it can’t return them to private hands.
The fact that many investors say they are once again getting comfortable buying these bonds also underscores the broader market’s search for yield.
Instead of viewing these bonds as toxic reminders of the financial crisis, many money managers see them as an opportunity to generate more income in a low-rate world.
Fannie and Freddie don’t make loans.
Instead, they buy mortgages, package them into securities and sell them to investors.
Investors view these securities as safe because the government-backed mortgage giants assume much of the default risk.
The bonds packaged and sold by the banks don’t have the same protection, so investors demand higher yields to compensate them for taking on more risk.
Many banks soured on making mortgages after the financial crisis.
Today, the majority of U.S. mortgages are made by nonbanks, which are less regulated than their bank counterparts and sometimes thinly capitalized.
Even so, banks still see an opportunity to make money by supporting the infrastructure that underlies the U.S. mortgage system.
Citigroup, for example, recently purchased a pool of 932 mortgages from a nonbank lender called Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc. and used them to back bonds worth more than $350 million.
The deal closed last month.
While some banks never fully extricated themselves from the private-label market, they typically issued bonds in the years after the crisis only to package odds and ends, such as old loans that had defaulted and been modified in some way.
Some deals were done to help out important clients.
What is different now is that banks are also stepping into the role of buying loans from third parties and underwriting the securities they piece together.
This more closely resembles the precrisis days when banks would bid on loans that were up for sale by the lenders that made them.
Banks today are buying both mortgages that are eligible to be sold to Fannie and Freddie as well as ones that aren’t because they are too large or they are considered riskier — often because they use alternative documentation to approve the borrower.
These are baby steps back into the market, to be sure.
Largely gone are the complex derivatives once overlaid on these deals.
And the market is tiny compared with precrisis days: In the first half of this year, 2.1% of mortgages went into private bonds.
That is up from 2009, when private-label issuance was virtually nonexistent.
But private bonds made up 41% of the market at a peak in 2005, according to the Urban Institute.
One problem with precrisis deals was that data about the underlying mortgages was often difficult to come by, even for the bankers originating the deals.
In the Impac deal, Citigroup is working with startup dv01 Inc. to provide data to investors about the underlying mortgages, according to a report by ratings firm DBRS Inc.
JPMorgan restarted its private-label program several years ago but has recently broadened it.
In April, the nation’s largest lender by assets did a deal with a group of its own mortgages that didn’t qualify to be bought by Fannie and Freddie.
Wells Fargo introduced its first postcrisis deal last October and has done more since.
Goldman Sachs, which did one deal in 2014, stayed out of this market until March, but since then has done three deals.
Bank of America Corp. hasn’t reintroduced its own mortgage bonds, but aggregates loans that are issued through Chimera Investment Corp., a real-estate investment trust, according to people familiar with the matter.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realesta ... P17#page=2
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
BLOOMBERG
"Fed injects $75 billion into markets as key rate breaks cap"
Liz Capo McCormick and Alexandra Harris
18 SEPTEMBER 2019
The Federal Reserve injected $75 billion into U.S. money markets as policy makers’ benchmark rate broke outside their preferred band, ratcheting up the pressure on central bank officials to find a long-term fix for the financial system’s plumbing.
There is evidence things are calming down.
For instance, the rate for general collateral repurchase agreements dropped to 2.43% on Wednesday, down from the record high of 10% reached Tuesday.
But that’s still above last week’s levels, when it was mostly below 2.20%.
Now attention turns to this afternoon’s Federal Open Market Committee decision to see what, if any, further steps are taken to remove pressure from the overnight lending business and ensure higher rates don’t harm other parts of the economy.
Action is nearly certain after the New York Fed said Wednesday that the effective fed funds rate busted through policy makers’ 2.25% cap the day before, coming in at 2.30%.
That’s bad because it shows the Fed is losing its grip on short-term interest rates, undermining its ability to guide the financial system.
Adjusting something called the interest rate on excess reserves, or IOER, is one likely remedy.
Longer-term solutions include expanding the Fed’s balance sheet to replenish reserves in the banking system.
“These money markets are a very powerful part of the financial system and everything flows through,” said John Herrmann at MUFG Securities in New York.
“What the Fed has been doing so far to address the issues is like being a fire department chasing the fire instead of sort of installing fire hydrants through facility."
"They need to do more.”
The Fed’s dose of cash Wednesday follows a $53.2 billion liquidity injection Tuesday.
It had been more than a decade since traders at the central bank jumped into U.S. money markets to add cash.
And they seemed to get the reaction they wanted Tuesday morning, instantaneously driving down key short-term rates that had spiked, threatening to muck up everything from Treasury bond trading to lending to companies and consumers.
But the move didn’t last long.
By the end of the trading session, rates were grinding back up, prompting Fed officials to fire off a second missive late in the day: They would be back Wednesday morning to offer another $75 billion of cash.
The moves underscored just how deep the structural problems in U.S. money markets have become.
Namely, there is often not enough cash on hand at major Wall Street firms to meet the funding demands of a market trying to absorb record Treasury bond sales needed to cover U.S. budget deficits.
The solution, according to longtime observers, would be for the Fed to continue to inject cash on a regular basis.
“The underlying problem is that there isn’t enough liquidity in the system to satisfy the demand and the job of the central bank is to provide such liquidity,” said Roberto Perli, a former Fed economist and partner at Cornerstone Macro in Washington.
“What the Fed did was just a patch.”
A couple of catalysts caused the liquidity squeeze in this esoteric, yet vital, corner of finance known as repurchase agreements.
There was a big swath of new Treasury debt that settled into the marketplace -- adding to dealer balance sheet holdings -- just as cash was sucked out by quarterly tax payments companies needed to send to the government.
If left unchecked, the escalation in rates could do damage to the broader economy by hiking borrowing costs for companies and consumers.
The timing couldn’t have been worse, with Fed leaders and many key New York Fed staffers gathered in Washington for a two-day policy meeting that will end Wednesday. Fed officials are widely expected to cut their target rate by a quarter-point.
But the money-market problem threatens to overshadow that, as Wall Street is ready to find out the Fed’s long-term solution is.
“The increase in repo and other short-term rates is indicative of the reduced amount of balance sheet that financial intermediaries -- particularly primary dealers -- are either willing or able to provide those in search of short-term financing,” said Tony Crescenzi, market strategist at Pacific Investment Management Co. and author of a 2007 edition of “Stigum’s Money Market,” a widely read textbook first published in 1978.
“It serves as a reminder of the challenges that investors could face in other ways if and when they seek to transfer risk -- sell their risk assets -- during a risk-off mode.”
This is far from the first bout of volatility in the over $2 trillion repo market, but eye-catching moves tend to happen only at quarter- or year-end when liquidity sometimes dries up -- not in the middle of the month, as it is now.
Even setting aside this week’s huge spike, turmoil has been more pronounced following the 2008 crisis because reforms designed to safeguard the financial system have driven some banks out of this market.
Fewer traders can lead to rapid swings by creating imbalances between supply and demand.
Fed interventions in the repo market, like the ones deployed Tuesday and Wednesday, were commonplace for decades before the crisis.
Then they stopped when the central bank changed how it enacted policy by expanding its balance sheet and using a target rate band.
The tumult seen Monday and Tuesday doesn’t mean another global funding crisis, even though trouble getting funds through repo a decade ago doomed Lehman Brothers and almost snuffed out the global financial system.
But, many experts say, these wild few days show that there’s not enough reserves -- or excess money that banks park at the Fed -- in the banking system.
That means traders are this week having to pay up to get these funds, even as bank reserves total more than $1 trillion.
And it suggests the Fed may again have to grow its $3.8 trillion balance sheet through quantitative easing, or debt purchases that create fresh reserves.
There are other remedies.
The Fed has considered introducing a new tool, an overnight repo facility, that could be used to reduce pressure in money markets.
And some strategists predict it may make another technical tweak to IOER, something that’s already been done three times since last year in an attempt to keep markets in line.
“There were a confluence of factors that triggered the issues this week,” said Darrell Duffie, a Stanford University finance professor who’s co-authored research on repos with Fed staffers.
“But the fact that it’s happening means something at the Fed should be done."
"For the Fed to be really confident in ending the issues, they will have to grow the balance sheet.”
The U.S. government has made matters worse over the past year by adding a record amount of new debt, and that will likely only increase as the deficit swells past $1 trillion.
That has buoyed the amount of debt that dealers have on their balance sheets, and the repo market is one way they finance those positions.
That said, their Treasury holdings are down from a peak in May, so that’s not necessarily behind this week’s big moves.
“Supply is a backdrop contributor to the issues, as there is just that much more collateral that needs to be financed,” said Seth Carpenter, a former adviser to the Fed Board of Governors who is now chief U.S. economist at UBS Securities LLC.
“The market is still trying to deal with tight balance sheets from dealers."
"Overall this is all part of the market shifting through time to a new set of realities.”
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... P17#page=2
"Fed injects $75 billion into markets as key rate breaks cap"
Liz Capo McCormick and Alexandra Harris
18 SEPTEMBER 2019
The Federal Reserve injected $75 billion into U.S. money markets as policy makers’ benchmark rate broke outside their preferred band, ratcheting up the pressure on central bank officials to find a long-term fix for the financial system’s plumbing.
There is evidence things are calming down.
For instance, the rate for general collateral repurchase agreements dropped to 2.43% on Wednesday, down from the record high of 10% reached Tuesday.
But that’s still above last week’s levels, when it was mostly below 2.20%.
Now attention turns to this afternoon’s Federal Open Market Committee decision to see what, if any, further steps are taken to remove pressure from the overnight lending business and ensure higher rates don’t harm other parts of the economy.
Action is nearly certain after the New York Fed said Wednesday that the effective fed funds rate busted through policy makers’ 2.25% cap the day before, coming in at 2.30%.
That’s bad because it shows the Fed is losing its grip on short-term interest rates, undermining its ability to guide the financial system.
Adjusting something called the interest rate on excess reserves, or IOER, is one likely remedy.
Longer-term solutions include expanding the Fed’s balance sheet to replenish reserves in the banking system.
“These money markets are a very powerful part of the financial system and everything flows through,” said John Herrmann at MUFG Securities in New York.
“What the Fed has been doing so far to address the issues is like being a fire department chasing the fire instead of sort of installing fire hydrants through facility."
"They need to do more.”
The Fed’s dose of cash Wednesday follows a $53.2 billion liquidity injection Tuesday.
It had been more than a decade since traders at the central bank jumped into U.S. money markets to add cash.
And they seemed to get the reaction they wanted Tuesday morning, instantaneously driving down key short-term rates that had spiked, threatening to muck up everything from Treasury bond trading to lending to companies and consumers.
But the move didn’t last long.
By the end of the trading session, rates were grinding back up, prompting Fed officials to fire off a second missive late in the day: They would be back Wednesday morning to offer another $75 billion of cash.
The moves underscored just how deep the structural problems in U.S. money markets have become.
Namely, there is often not enough cash on hand at major Wall Street firms to meet the funding demands of a market trying to absorb record Treasury bond sales needed to cover U.S. budget deficits.
The solution, according to longtime observers, would be for the Fed to continue to inject cash on a regular basis.
“The underlying problem is that there isn’t enough liquidity in the system to satisfy the demand and the job of the central bank is to provide such liquidity,” said Roberto Perli, a former Fed economist and partner at Cornerstone Macro in Washington.
“What the Fed did was just a patch.”
A couple of catalysts caused the liquidity squeeze in this esoteric, yet vital, corner of finance known as repurchase agreements.
There was a big swath of new Treasury debt that settled into the marketplace -- adding to dealer balance sheet holdings -- just as cash was sucked out by quarterly tax payments companies needed to send to the government.
If left unchecked, the escalation in rates could do damage to the broader economy by hiking borrowing costs for companies and consumers.
The timing couldn’t have been worse, with Fed leaders and many key New York Fed staffers gathered in Washington for a two-day policy meeting that will end Wednesday. Fed officials are widely expected to cut their target rate by a quarter-point.
But the money-market problem threatens to overshadow that, as Wall Street is ready to find out the Fed’s long-term solution is.
“The increase in repo and other short-term rates is indicative of the reduced amount of balance sheet that financial intermediaries -- particularly primary dealers -- are either willing or able to provide those in search of short-term financing,” said Tony Crescenzi, market strategist at Pacific Investment Management Co. and author of a 2007 edition of “Stigum’s Money Market,” a widely read textbook first published in 1978.
“It serves as a reminder of the challenges that investors could face in other ways if and when they seek to transfer risk -- sell their risk assets -- during a risk-off mode.”
This is far from the first bout of volatility in the over $2 trillion repo market, but eye-catching moves tend to happen only at quarter- or year-end when liquidity sometimes dries up -- not in the middle of the month, as it is now.
Even setting aside this week’s huge spike, turmoil has been more pronounced following the 2008 crisis because reforms designed to safeguard the financial system have driven some banks out of this market.
Fewer traders can lead to rapid swings by creating imbalances between supply and demand.
Fed interventions in the repo market, like the ones deployed Tuesday and Wednesday, were commonplace for decades before the crisis.
Then they stopped when the central bank changed how it enacted policy by expanding its balance sheet and using a target rate band.
The tumult seen Monday and Tuesday doesn’t mean another global funding crisis, even though trouble getting funds through repo a decade ago doomed Lehman Brothers and almost snuffed out the global financial system.
But, many experts say, these wild few days show that there’s not enough reserves -- or excess money that banks park at the Fed -- in the banking system.
That means traders are this week having to pay up to get these funds, even as bank reserves total more than $1 trillion.
And it suggests the Fed may again have to grow its $3.8 trillion balance sheet through quantitative easing, or debt purchases that create fresh reserves.
There are other remedies.
The Fed has considered introducing a new tool, an overnight repo facility, that could be used to reduce pressure in money markets.
And some strategists predict it may make another technical tweak to IOER, something that’s already been done three times since last year in an attempt to keep markets in line.
“There were a confluence of factors that triggered the issues this week,” said Darrell Duffie, a Stanford University finance professor who’s co-authored research on repos with Fed staffers.
“But the fact that it’s happening means something at the Fed should be done."
"For the Fed to be really confident in ending the issues, they will have to grow the balance sheet.”
The U.S. government has made matters worse over the past year by adding a record amount of new debt, and that will likely only increase as the deficit swells past $1 trillion.
That has buoyed the amount of debt that dealers have on their balance sheets, and the repo market is one way they finance those positions.
That said, their Treasury holdings are down from a peak in May, so that’s not necessarily behind this week’s big moves.
“Supply is a backdrop contributor to the issues, as there is just that much more collateral that needs to be financed,” said Seth Carpenter, a former adviser to the Fed Board of Governors who is now chief U.S. economist at UBS Securities LLC.
“The market is still trying to deal with tight balance sheets from dealers."
"Overall this is all part of the market shifting through time to a new set of realities.”
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... P17#page=2
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 15, 2019 at 5:48 pm
Paul Plante says :
And thank you to the Cape Charles Mirror once again for hosting this discussion, which lets an old disabled, certified poor person like myself have as equal access as do the well-to-do yacht owners who proliferate in the balmy clime of Cape Charles, Virginia (yes, I drove through one time with my windows down just to experience it first-hand, and I thought it was lovely, far better in fact than even San Diego or Burbank, California, or Marseilles, France, for that matter), and to Mr. Otton for bringing us back to the reality that a small group of people, at best 32% of the American people, called the Democrats are unilaterally attempting to enact an insane policy known as the “GREEN NEW DEAL (see, Cape Charles Mirror 7 April 2019 http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g ... ent-138950 ) that will cause chaos in this country that will greatly impact the lives of the 68% of us who are not Democrats and who will be harmed by this while being denied a voice at the table, which brings us American citizens who care about due process of law, which is to say, citizenship as opposed to being a cud-chewing consumer as so many Americans have become, to this issue of the Democrats in Congress, and here we are talking directly about this AOC, inviting this young Swedish girl who is spouting nonsense to appear before something called the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, a select committee established in the 116th United States Congress in 2019 when Democrats regained the majority of the United States House of Representatives chaired by Congresswoman Kathy Castor of Florida, without someone standing there right beside her to question her “science” and to then rebut it, as it should be, given that it is nothing more than ignorant rubbish, and I say that as an American citizen who openly resents this spoiled and willful rich and manipulative Swedish teen-ager coming over here to tell me, “You are not mature enough to tell it like it is, even that burden, you leave to us children,” which is ignorant horse****, although not to the Democrats who are exploiting this girl to push their “green new deal” agenda in this upcoming presidential race, by having poor little Greta Thunberg come on camera to chide us all for being so morally irresponsible, which will have the Democrats on the panel openly weeping and possibly tearing at their clothes while flagellating themselves with chains to expiate their sins, which they will then project onto the rest of us, as well, while telling us to our faces as she did at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland this year, when she told government and business leaders:
“I want you to panic.”
“I want you to feel the fear I feel every day.”
end quotes
As to the existence of that particular committee, in November and December of 2018, youth climate activists with the Sunrise Movement pushed House Democrats to form a select committee with the mandate to draft “Green New Deal” legislation, working with incoming freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who proposed language for the committee’s authorization.
As can be seen, that was entirely one-sided, with no input from those of us who are not in favor of the Green New Deal for legitimate reasons the Democrats are keeping out of the record.
As to keeping us out of the discussion, which is very un-democratic, a hallmark of the Democrats, it is only necessary to go to their website https://climatecrisis.house.gov/ where they make it incandescently clear (The science is in. We know the cause. Burning fossil fuels and destroying tropical forests are driving the climate crisis.) that thank you very much, the discussion is over, we have all the facts and we have all of what we need to know, so go back home and STFU if you don’t agree with the green new deal, which makes you an obstructionist trying to steal the future of people like Greta Thunberg.
Which raises the existential question of why are the Democrats bringing this girl over from Sweden to try and turn our children and grandchildren against us by accusing us of stealing their futures because we are all a bunch of self-centered gluttons and wastrels, a characterization I frankly resent and find extremely insulting as an American citizen, which has me standing up in here to protest this Swedish trouble-maker appearing before our Congress without equal time for rebuttal being offered on behalf of the American people themselves, who are quite obviously being left out of the discussion by the Democrats.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-177191
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 16, 2019 at 6:25 pm
Paul Plante says :
It is absurd, Sorin Varzaru, at least from an engineering point of view employing thermodynamics and heat and mass transfer, if you have any of your own experts in those areas you want to bring into the conversation, to say that the heat energy produced by human activity has no impact whatsoever on the weather, and hence, the climate.
It is, however, far more absurd, and dangerously so, to insist, as these Democrats are doing, that humans can actually stop climate change, when climate change is a function of what the earth wants it to be, not the whims of 16-year old Greta Thunberg, who incidentally in my estimation as a grandfather and American citizen is the biggest fraud to be perpetrated on the public at large in the name of “science,” since the famous Piltdown Man hoax back in 1912, or AOC, for that matter, who is helping to perpetrate this fraud that is Greta Thunberg on us, in her own bid for considerable political power over our lives without our having a voice in the matter, which is tyranny.
As to the Piltdown Man, it was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.
The inauthenticity of the hoax was described in 1953.
An extensive scientific review in 2016 established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was its likely perpetrator.
In 1912, Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the “missing link” between ape and man.
In February 1912, Dawson contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum, stating he had found a section of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown, East Sussex.
That summer, Dawson and Smith Woodward purportedly discovered more bones and artifacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual.
These finds included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools.
Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesised that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years ago.
The discovery was announced at a Geological Society meeting and was given the Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni (“Dawson’s dawn-man”).
The questionable significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery.
It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the length of time, 41 years, that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its definitive exposure as a composite forgery.
end quotes
And here we are once again, being confronted with an elaborate fraud, this one named Greta Thunberg, which fraud is being stage-managed by her father and PR dude, the famous Swedish actor Svante Thunberg, who is listed as a co-author of a book she wrote about herself entitled “Scenes from the Heart,” where we are informed that Greta has a “condition” that makes her far more intelligent than any of us churls or serfs out here spewing gobs of carbon dioxide into the air each day with our profligate lifestyle that Greta knows every American has, so that we should submit to her superior intelligence and do whatever it is she tells us to do.
Svante Thunberg, born 10 June 1969, the year I was in Viet Nam, father of Greta and manipulator of us, is a Swedish author, arts manager and producer, and actor, and he is the son of actors Olof Thunberg and Mona Andersson, so acting runs deep in that family as we can see in this YouTube video of Svante Thunberg smoothly spinning his web of lies to capture the minds of America’s youth, to twist them to his cause, which is promoting Greta as a serious financial asset:
Greta & Svante Thunberg – Straight Talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiD04TRwebQ
Personally, I think every parent and grandparent in America should watch that video with their children and grandchildren to see exactly what kind of mind poison they are being fed here in the name of “science,” which this is a mockery of.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-177783
SHE MEANS LISTEN TO THE DEMOCRAT SCIENTISTS AS OPPOSED TO THE REPUBLICAN SCIENTISTS ...THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 14, 2019 at 10:07 pm
Paul Plante says:
Thus, all of these politicians running their mouths at high speed telling us the untruth that the world is going to come to an end in ten years if we don’t enact the Green New Deal right now are themselves contributing greatly to climate change, assuming their model is correct that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which shows some of the ignorance and hypocrisy and scientific voodoo at play here from those who want us to be scared so we are easier to manipulate, which takes us to Greta’s carbon fiber sailboat.
Carbon fiber is manufactured by refining oil to obtain acrylonitrile and then spinning this acrylonitrile and baking the spun yarn.
Due to the high baking temperature of 1000℃ or more, 20 tons of CO2 are emitted to manufacture 1 ton of carbon fiber.
So Greta’s crossing of the Atlantic in a high-tech, carbon fiber sailboat was hardly emission-free as we are being told by the media.
Why do you think they lie to us, Sorin?
Any guesses?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-177191
CNN
"Greta Thunberg, 16-year-old climate activist, tells Congress to listen to the scientists and take real action"
By Leah Asmelash, CNN
18 SEPTEMBER 2019
Greta Thunberg has had a busy week.
On Wednesday, the Swedish 16-year-old climate activist appeared in front of Congress before a hearing on climate change, just days after she met with former President Barack Obama.
Thunberg, though, told Congress she didn't have any prepared remarks.
Instead, she said she was attaching her testimony -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's special report on global warming, which reported a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
"I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don't want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists," she said.
"And I want you to unite behind the science."
"And then I want you to take real action."
Strong words from the teenager, but this isn't the first time she's spoken up to governments.
Thunberg first made a name for herself while staging weekly sit-ins outside the Swedish Parliament, which led to over 100 similar protests worldwide.
Thunberg is in the US to speak at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York on September 23, but she's had other things on her agenda, too -- including appearing on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah in New York and receiving Amnesty International's top award in Washington for her activism.
But she didn't travel to the US by plane.
To cut down on emissions, Thunberg spent two weeks sailing across the Atlantic on a zero-emissions sailboat.
That's dedication.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... P17#page=2
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
THE FED IS PANICKING AS WE HEAD TOWARDS ANOTHER RECESSION ...
MARKETWATCH - The Fed
"Fed lowers interest rate by a quarter-point, and is open to the idea of more easing"
By Greg Robb
Published: Sept 18, 2019 5:35 p.m. ET
The Federal Reserve Wednesday lowered its benchmark interest rate by a quarter-point, and expressed an openness to more easing.
In a move to support the economy in a time of greater uncertainty about the outlook, the Fed reduced its benchmark short-term rate to a range between 1.75% and 2%.
Wednesday’s was the second cut in as many months.
Fed officials think a few rate cuts will help the economy weather the uncertainty caused mainly by President Donald Trump’s trade war with China.
There were three dissents from the quarter-point cut.
That’s the first time that trio of no votes have been case since September 2016.
Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Kansas City Fed President Esther George voted against the move because they wanted the Fed to hold rates steady.
They also voted against the Fed’s cut in July.
St. Louis Fed President James Bullard dissented because he wanted a more aggressive half-point cut.
At his press conference, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said the Fed will “act as needed.”
Seven Fed officials said they believed there would be one more rate cut this year.
Roberto Perli, a former Fed staff member and now an analyst at Cornerstone Macro, said he thinks this group includes Powell and other Fed leaders.
“Overall, my expectation for now is that, unless things improve markedly, the Fed will probably skip October before cutting again in December,” Perli said.
Powell will have to deal with some reluctance of the 17 member Fed committee.
The Fed’s dot plot projections show five officials believed that this rate cut would be the year’s last.
Five more members thought no move was needed after July, including at Wednesday’s meeting.
“Our business contacts around the country have been telling us that uncertainty is weighing on U.S. investment and exports,” Powell told reporters at a briefing.
Powell said the Fed sees a favorable economic outlook, but said there were risks.
“If the economy does turn down, then a more extensive sequence of rate cuts could be appropriate,” he said.
To address the volatility seen in money markets this week, the Fed trimmed the interest rate it pays banks for excess reserves parked at the central bank by 5 basis points to try to keep that rate within the range of the fed funds rate.
The interest rate on excess reserves (IOER), will now be set at 1.80%.
Financial firms had to pay much higher interest rates for excess reserves over the past two days.
Analysts said that some in the bond market might be disappointed by Powell’s evasiveness about the balance sheet.
“At one point, he almost sounded tone-deaf,” Perli said.
“Eventually, Powell said that it’s possible that the Fed will have to restart growing the balance sheet sooner than it thought."
"I would say it’s not only possible -- it’s a virtual certainty,” Perli said.
Stocks traded lower ahead of the Fed’s decision and deepened that drop in the wake of the announcement but then turned sufficiently upward in the final half-hour of the session to close modestly higher.
Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group, said he saw a likelihood that this might be the last rate cut of the year.
“So call this a hawkish cut,” he said.
But others were impressed by the seven officials calling for another rate cut this year.
“The fact that seven dots are calling for another cut means that our call that the next cut isn’t until March is at risk,” said Seth Carpenter, economist at UBS.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-l ... latestnews
MARKETWATCH - The Fed
"Fed lowers interest rate by a quarter-point, and is open to the idea of more easing"
By Greg Robb
Published: Sept 18, 2019 5:35 p.m. ET
The Federal Reserve Wednesday lowered its benchmark interest rate by a quarter-point, and expressed an openness to more easing.
In a move to support the economy in a time of greater uncertainty about the outlook, the Fed reduced its benchmark short-term rate to a range between 1.75% and 2%.
Wednesday’s was the second cut in as many months.
Fed officials think a few rate cuts will help the economy weather the uncertainty caused mainly by President Donald Trump’s trade war with China.
There were three dissents from the quarter-point cut.
That’s the first time that trio of no votes have been case since September 2016.
Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Kansas City Fed President Esther George voted against the move because they wanted the Fed to hold rates steady.
They also voted against the Fed’s cut in July.
St. Louis Fed President James Bullard dissented because he wanted a more aggressive half-point cut.
At his press conference, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said the Fed will “act as needed.”
Seven Fed officials said they believed there would be one more rate cut this year.
Roberto Perli, a former Fed staff member and now an analyst at Cornerstone Macro, said he thinks this group includes Powell and other Fed leaders.
“Overall, my expectation for now is that, unless things improve markedly, the Fed will probably skip October before cutting again in December,” Perli said.
Powell will have to deal with some reluctance of the 17 member Fed committee.
The Fed’s dot plot projections show five officials believed that this rate cut would be the year’s last.
Five more members thought no move was needed after July, including at Wednesday’s meeting.
“Our business contacts around the country have been telling us that uncertainty is weighing on U.S. investment and exports,” Powell told reporters at a briefing.
Powell said the Fed sees a favorable economic outlook, but said there were risks.
“If the economy does turn down, then a more extensive sequence of rate cuts could be appropriate,” he said.
To address the volatility seen in money markets this week, the Fed trimmed the interest rate it pays banks for excess reserves parked at the central bank by 5 basis points to try to keep that rate within the range of the fed funds rate.
The interest rate on excess reserves (IOER), will now be set at 1.80%.
Financial firms had to pay much higher interest rates for excess reserves over the past two days.
Analysts said that some in the bond market might be disappointed by Powell’s evasiveness about the balance sheet.
“At one point, he almost sounded tone-deaf,” Perli said.
“Eventually, Powell said that it’s possible that the Fed will have to restart growing the balance sheet sooner than it thought."
"I would say it’s not only possible -- it’s a virtual certainty,” Perli said.
Stocks traded lower ahead of the Fed’s decision and deepened that drop in the wake of the announcement but then turned sufficiently upward in the final half-hour of the session to close modestly higher.
Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group, said he saw a likelihood that this might be the last rate cut of the year.
“So call this a hawkish cut,” he said.
But others were impressed by the seven officials calling for another rate cut this year.
“The fact that seven dots are calling for another cut means that our call that the next cut isn’t until March is at risk,” said Seth Carpenter, economist at UBS.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-l ... latestnews
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
MARKETWATCH
"U.S. stocks close mixed after Fed cuts rates but casts doubt on future stimulus"
By Chris Matthews and Andrea Riquier
Published: Sept 18, 2019 4:26 p.m. ET
U.S. stocks ended Wednesday flat to higher, after the Federal Reserve announced it would cut its benchmark federal funds rate a quarter percentage point, in line with market expectations, but included language in its accompanying statement and economic projections that called into question whether there will be another rate cut this year or next.
Equities pared their losses during a press conference by Chairman Jerome Powell, led by bank stocks, and after he talked up the strength of the U.S. economy and suggested that the Fed may need to expand its balance sheet in order to combat a liquidity shortage that has beset money markets in recent days.
How did the major benchmarks fare?
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 36.28 points, or 0.1% to 27,147, while the S&P 500 added 1.03 point, or less than 0.1%, to 3,006.73.
The Nasdaq lost 8.63 points, or 0.1%, to close at 8,177.39.
At session lows, the Dow was down 211.65 points, the S&P had lost 26.97 points and the Nasdaq fell 99.80 points.
What drove the market?
The Fed announced it would cut the benchmark federal funds rate a quarter percentage point to a range of 1.75% to 2% Wednesday afternoon, but said in an accompanying statement that “sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2% objective are the most likely outcomes.”
The language of the statement appeared to communicate that Wednesday’s rate cut would be the final one of the year, while fed funds futures markets have shown that investors expected at least another rate cut between now Dec. 11, the interest-rate setting committee’s final meeting of 2019.
The Fed also released a survey of Fed Board members and regional Fed bank presidents, which showed that the median respondent believes the Fed funds rate would be at present levels through the end of 2020.
Three members of the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate setting committee voted against Wednesday’s decision, with Kansas City Fed President Ester George and Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren voting against a rate cut, while St. Louis Fed President James Bullard preferred to cut rates by 50 basis points, rather than 25.
“The statement was largely unchanged from July and, along with the new economic projections that were also almost completely unchanged – it suggests most Fed officials still see a rebound in economic growth as their base case scenario, which means any further rate cuts would be limited,” wrote Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, in a note.
During a news conference following the decision, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell talked up the strength of the economy, saying that the Fed funds rate was cut “in order to provide insurance against risks,” including weak global growth and concerns over trade policy.
Bond yields rose in the wake of the decision, with the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note paring its losses from 7 basis points to 2 basis points, to 1.788%.
The yield on the 2-year U.S. Treasury note rose 3 basis points to 1.754%.
Those moves buoyed the banking sector, with shares of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. rising 1% and shares Goldman Sachs Group Inc. adding 0.5%.
The two moves combined to add roughly 16 points to the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
“Markets were already pricing in a 25 basis-point cut, and what they wanted to learn was whether there would be more cuts in the future,” Shawn Cruz, manager of trader strategy at T.D. Ameritrade told MarketWatch.
“The details we got out of the meeting and the tone of the press conference told us it’s not a sure thing that we’ll see a continuation of stimulus.”
Investors were also watching the central bank’s intervention in money markets on Wednesday to resolve unexpected liquidity issues.
Major stock indices pulled back from their worst levels on the day after Powell said “It is certainly possible that we’ll need to resume the organic growth of the balance sheet sooner than we thought,” in response to the liquidity shortage.
Though Powell stressed that balance sheet expansion would not be a resumption of quantitative easing, or Fed purchases of debt securities in an effort to reduce long-term interest rates, equities moved higher nonetheless.
“It’s still considered accommodative as it can serve to put more dollars in circulation,” Cruz said, explaining the move.
The New York Fed held a second repurchasing auction early Wednesday, injecting another $75 billion by temporarily buying securities from Wall Street dealers.
The Fed on Tuesday carried out its first overnight repurchase auction in a decade to bring the benchmark federal-funds rate, which jumped to a high around 9%, back into a desired 2%-2.25% range by purchasing repos worth $53 billion.
Markets are also watching Middle East developments after Saudi Arabia’s oil-processing hub was attacked over the weekend by reported drone and missile attacks.
On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia’s Defense Ministry exhibited debris from the recent attack on its facilities, saying they are evidence that Iran was “unquestionably” behind the strike, adding the attack did not originate from Yemen to the south but from the north and Iran.
President Trump has said he does not want war with Iran though U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo is heading to Saudi Arabia and Trump on Wednesday called for more sanctions on Iran.
Saudi Arabia will soon restore most of its oil output and return to normal production levels in weeks, the country’s energy ministry said Tuesday, following the attacks last weekend on the country’s facilities that hobbled the world’s largest oil exporter.
The attack initially caused the Brent price, the international benchmark, to rise 15% on Monday, the biggest single-session rise on record dating back to 1988, but U.S. benchmark crude, West Texas Intermediate grade and Brent oil have been giving up much of their gains since then.
Which stocks were in focus?
Shares of FedEx Corp. tumbled 12.9% after the logistics group missed profit expectations and cut its outlook, citing “increasing trade tensions,” and global economic sluggishness.
Competitor UPS also saw its stock fall as Trump’s trade war takes its toll on international traffic.
Chewy Inc.’s stock declined 6.2% after the pet food retailer reported results.
CDW Corp.’s shares rose 5.8% on news the tech group will join the S&P 500 this month.
AT&T Inc.’s stock was in focus amid reports that bankers were pushing the telecom giant to unload its DirecTV unit.
Shares fell 1.1% Wednesday.
Altice USA Inc. shares rose 1.4% to a 2-year high Wednesday after the internet and phone services company’s CEO said he was “absolutely open” to the idea of being acquired.
Trade in McDermott International Inc. stock was halted late Wednesday morning due to pending news, announcing that it has engaged turnaround consulting firm AlixPartners LLP to help improve its financial performance.
The stock fell 63.3%, the largest single-day decline in the stock since it went public in 1982.
How did other markets trade?
Gold prices rose $2.40, or 0.2%, to settle at $1,515.80 an ounce, while the U.S. dollar, as measured by the ICE U.S. Dollar Index, a gauge of the buck against a basket of leading rivals, rose 0.3%.
In Asia overnight, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index fell 0.1%.
China’s CSI 300 Index gained 0.5% after a 1.7% drop on Tuesday, and Japan’s Nikkei 225 index fell 0.2%.
In Europe, the Stoxx Europe 600 closed virtually unchanged.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-st ... latestnews
"U.S. stocks close mixed after Fed cuts rates but casts doubt on future stimulus"
By Chris Matthews and Andrea Riquier
Published: Sept 18, 2019 4:26 p.m. ET
U.S. stocks ended Wednesday flat to higher, after the Federal Reserve announced it would cut its benchmark federal funds rate a quarter percentage point, in line with market expectations, but included language in its accompanying statement and economic projections that called into question whether there will be another rate cut this year or next.
Equities pared their losses during a press conference by Chairman Jerome Powell, led by bank stocks, and after he talked up the strength of the U.S. economy and suggested that the Fed may need to expand its balance sheet in order to combat a liquidity shortage that has beset money markets in recent days.
How did the major benchmarks fare?
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 36.28 points, or 0.1% to 27,147, while the S&P 500 added 1.03 point, or less than 0.1%, to 3,006.73.
The Nasdaq lost 8.63 points, or 0.1%, to close at 8,177.39.
At session lows, the Dow was down 211.65 points, the S&P had lost 26.97 points and the Nasdaq fell 99.80 points.
What drove the market?
The Fed announced it would cut the benchmark federal funds rate a quarter percentage point to a range of 1.75% to 2% Wednesday afternoon, but said in an accompanying statement that “sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2% objective are the most likely outcomes.”
The language of the statement appeared to communicate that Wednesday’s rate cut would be the final one of the year, while fed funds futures markets have shown that investors expected at least another rate cut between now Dec. 11, the interest-rate setting committee’s final meeting of 2019.
The Fed also released a survey of Fed Board members and regional Fed bank presidents, which showed that the median respondent believes the Fed funds rate would be at present levels through the end of 2020.
Three members of the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate setting committee voted against Wednesday’s decision, with Kansas City Fed President Ester George and Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren voting against a rate cut, while St. Louis Fed President James Bullard preferred to cut rates by 50 basis points, rather than 25.
“The statement was largely unchanged from July and, along with the new economic projections that were also almost completely unchanged – it suggests most Fed officials still see a rebound in economic growth as their base case scenario, which means any further rate cuts would be limited,” wrote Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics, in a note.
During a news conference following the decision, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell talked up the strength of the economy, saying that the Fed funds rate was cut “in order to provide insurance against risks,” including weak global growth and concerns over trade policy.
Bond yields rose in the wake of the decision, with the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note paring its losses from 7 basis points to 2 basis points, to 1.788%.
The yield on the 2-year U.S. Treasury note rose 3 basis points to 1.754%.
Those moves buoyed the banking sector, with shares of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. rising 1% and shares Goldman Sachs Group Inc. adding 0.5%.
The two moves combined to add roughly 16 points to the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
“Markets were already pricing in a 25 basis-point cut, and what they wanted to learn was whether there would be more cuts in the future,” Shawn Cruz, manager of trader strategy at T.D. Ameritrade told MarketWatch.
“The details we got out of the meeting and the tone of the press conference told us it’s not a sure thing that we’ll see a continuation of stimulus.”
Investors were also watching the central bank’s intervention in money markets on Wednesday to resolve unexpected liquidity issues.
Major stock indices pulled back from their worst levels on the day after Powell said “It is certainly possible that we’ll need to resume the organic growth of the balance sheet sooner than we thought,” in response to the liquidity shortage.
Though Powell stressed that balance sheet expansion would not be a resumption of quantitative easing, or Fed purchases of debt securities in an effort to reduce long-term interest rates, equities moved higher nonetheless.
“It’s still considered accommodative as it can serve to put more dollars in circulation,” Cruz said, explaining the move.
The New York Fed held a second repurchasing auction early Wednesday, injecting another $75 billion by temporarily buying securities from Wall Street dealers.
The Fed on Tuesday carried out its first overnight repurchase auction in a decade to bring the benchmark federal-funds rate, which jumped to a high around 9%, back into a desired 2%-2.25% range by purchasing repos worth $53 billion.
Markets are also watching Middle East developments after Saudi Arabia’s oil-processing hub was attacked over the weekend by reported drone and missile attacks.
On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia’s Defense Ministry exhibited debris from the recent attack on its facilities, saying they are evidence that Iran was “unquestionably” behind the strike, adding the attack did not originate from Yemen to the south but from the north and Iran.
President Trump has said he does not want war with Iran though U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo is heading to Saudi Arabia and Trump on Wednesday called for more sanctions on Iran.
Saudi Arabia will soon restore most of its oil output and return to normal production levels in weeks, the country’s energy ministry said Tuesday, following the attacks last weekend on the country’s facilities that hobbled the world’s largest oil exporter.
The attack initially caused the Brent price, the international benchmark, to rise 15% on Monday, the biggest single-session rise on record dating back to 1988, but U.S. benchmark crude, West Texas Intermediate grade and Brent oil have been giving up much of their gains since then.
Which stocks were in focus?
Shares of FedEx Corp. tumbled 12.9% after the logistics group missed profit expectations and cut its outlook, citing “increasing trade tensions,” and global economic sluggishness.
Competitor UPS also saw its stock fall as Trump’s trade war takes its toll on international traffic.
Chewy Inc.’s stock declined 6.2% after the pet food retailer reported results.
CDW Corp.’s shares rose 5.8% on news the tech group will join the S&P 500 this month.
AT&T Inc.’s stock was in focus amid reports that bankers were pushing the telecom giant to unload its DirecTV unit.
Shares fell 1.1% Wednesday.
Altice USA Inc. shares rose 1.4% to a 2-year high Wednesday after the internet and phone services company’s CEO said he was “absolutely open” to the idea of being acquired.
Trade in McDermott International Inc. stock was halted late Wednesday morning due to pending news, announcing that it has engaged turnaround consulting firm AlixPartners LLP to help improve its financial performance.
The stock fell 63.3%, the largest single-day decline in the stock since it went public in 1982.
How did other markets trade?
Gold prices rose $2.40, or 0.2%, to settle at $1,515.80 an ounce, while the U.S. dollar, as measured by the ICE U.S. Dollar Index, a gauge of the buck against a basket of leading rivals, rose 0.3%.
In Asia overnight, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index fell 0.1%.
China’s CSI 300 Index gained 0.5% after a 1.7% drop on Tuesday, and Japan’s Nikkei 225 index fell 0.2%.
In Europe, the Stoxx Europe 600 closed virtually unchanged.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-st ... latestnews
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
MARKETWATCH
"Opinion: Powell’s dilemma: Easing offsets trade uncertainty, but invites more of the same from Trump"
By Carmen M. Reinhart and Vincent Reinhart
Published: Sept 18, 2019 10:46 a.m. ET
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Project Syndicate) — Once a year, the leadership of both the European Central Bank and the U.S. Federal Reserve go to the mountains for policy enlightenment.
The ECB conducts a forum every June in Sintra, a town in the foothills of the eponymous Portuguese mountain range.
And the Fed convenes in late August in Jackson Hole, Wyo., for the Kansas City branch’s economic symposium.
In retrospect, this year’s remarks from on high by ECB President Mario Draghi and Fed Chair Jerome Powell provide insight into the global outlook and the two banks’ recent policy actions, which have been coincident, but not coordinated.
In Jackson Hole, Powell named the challenge to the global economic outlook, not personally (President Donald Trump), but operationally: Heightened trade uncertainty, he said, presented a new drag on aggregate demand.
Pitfalls of real-time policy making
Back in 2018, most Fed officials believed that 3% annual real gross domestic product growth was unsustainable, because resource utilization was already taut.
That assessment led the Fed to hike the policy interest rate by a quarter point four times.
That episode demonstrates the pitfalls of real-time policy making.
One year later, the Bureau of Economic Analysis trimmed almost half a percentage point from GDP growth for 2018, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics prepared to revise downward its estimate of monthly employment gains.
Among the mechanisms by which an increase in interest rates slows aggregate demand is the foreign-exchange market.
When the Fed is set on tightening as other central banks hug the effective lower bound of their nominal policy rates, the dollar’s value rises.
Essentially, dollar appreciation is a channel through which policy makers “donate” domestic economic strength to U.S. trading partners that now have weaker, more attractive currencies.
With the ECB’s policy rate distinctly negative and its asset-purchase program running out of steam, Draghi especially appreciated the gift of easier European financial conditions last year.
Of course, the transfer of domestic economic strength by an independent agency, the Fed, displeased the chief executive, and withering criticism ensued.
Less concrete will be poured
But it was not Trump’s carping about dollar appreciation that led the Fed to change course.
Rather, Trump’s trade policies elevated uncertainty about investment and growth.
Investment in long-term capital is always risky for a business.
When doubt about such an investment emerges before concrete is poured, less concrete will be poured.
By early 2019, the Fed viewed this new economic headwind as obviating the need to continue raising the federal funds rate.
As the year unfolded and the trade winds intensified, Fed officials switched course and began to ease policy.
Some economic mechanisms, however, are asymmetric.
When the Fed tightens its policy, other central banks do not always follow, preferring to allow their currencies to depreciate.
In contrast, when the Fed eases its policy, far fewer international partners are willing to let their currencies appreciate so that the dollar can depreciate.
No one volunteers because everyone fears upward exchange-rate pressure.
An earlier generation of central bankers would have relied on direct intervention in the currency market to pursue the same goal.
But while this is still done in emerging-market economies, the use of reserves by an advanced economy would draw its peers’ opprobrium.
Instead, they achieve the same end by changing policy interest rates to deflect appreciation and welcome modest depreciation.
Everyone pivoted
As a consequence, when the Fed pivoted, all other major central banks followed.
Draghi pushed the ECB in that direction in Sintra and followed through with further easing on Sept. 12.
This similarly drew Trump’s ire, as he viewed the move as directed toward the exchange rate.
He is right, indirectly.
A weaker euro is the intermediate result Draghi seeks in order to support a flagging economy and move inflation up to the ECB’s target of near, but below, 2%.
The ECB’s response, of course, means less dollar depreciation, weakening the stimulus effect of the Fed’s move.
And the consolation that by easing policy, the Fed single-handedly induced worldwide monetary accommodation does not get much credit from the White House.
Trump would prefer that Powell were faster than his counterparts in the race to the interest-rate bottom.
Powell’s problem is that the U.S. economy apparently does not require such stimulus.
Job gains remain robust, and wages are ticking up.
Global trade may be in recession, but the U.S. economy is not as dependent as its trading partners on global trade.
Increases re-election chances
Probably to Powell’s deep and never-to-be-expressed frustration, the Fed is setting monetary policy in a way that increases the likelihood that Trump will be re-elected next year.
That instruction is not contained in the Federal Reserve Act, of course, but the Fed is supposed to deliver maximum employment and stable prices.
Its mandate of sustainable economic growth thus requires Powell to attempt to offset the effects of policy uncertainty under Trump.
Fed officials are not thinking of intentionally letting the economy stumble between now and the 2020 election.
Thus, if Powell succeeds, Trump will not bear the cost of his words and actions.
This will invite more of the same.
There is a reason that Powell often has a haunted look, and not just at Jackson Hole.
This article was published with permission of Project Syndicate — Jerome Powell’s Dilemma.
Carmen M. Reinhart is professor of the international financial system at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Vincent Reinhart is chief economist and macro strategist at BNY Mellon, and worked at the Federal Reserve for 24 years, including stints as director of the monetary affairs division and secretary and economist for the Federal Open Market Committee.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/powel ... 2019-09-18
"Opinion: Powell’s dilemma: Easing offsets trade uncertainty, but invites more of the same from Trump"
By Carmen M. Reinhart and Vincent Reinhart
Published: Sept 18, 2019 10:46 a.m. ET
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Project Syndicate) — Once a year, the leadership of both the European Central Bank and the U.S. Federal Reserve go to the mountains for policy enlightenment.
The ECB conducts a forum every June in Sintra, a town in the foothills of the eponymous Portuguese mountain range.
And the Fed convenes in late August in Jackson Hole, Wyo., for the Kansas City branch’s economic symposium.
In retrospect, this year’s remarks from on high by ECB President Mario Draghi and Fed Chair Jerome Powell provide insight into the global outlook and the two banks’ recent policy actions, which have been coincident, but not coordinated.
In Jackson Hole, Powell named the challenge to the global economic outlook, not personally (President Donald Trump), but operationally: Heightened trade uncertainty, he said, presented a new drag on aggregate demand.
Pitfalls of real-time policy making
Back in 2018, most Fed officials believed that 3% annual real gross domestic product growth was unsustainable, because resource utilization was already taut.
That assessment led the Fed to hike the policy interest rate by a quarter point four times.
That episode demonstrates the pitfalls of real-time policy making.
One year later, the Bureau of Economic Analysis trimmed almost half a percentage point from GDP growth for 2018, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics prepared to revise downward its estimate of monthly employment gains.
Among the mechanisms by which an increase in interest rates slows aggregate demand is the foreign-exchange market.
When the Fed is set on tightening as other central banks hug the effective lower bound of their nominal policy rates, the dollar’s value rises.
Essentially, dollar appreciation is a channel through which policy makers “donate” domestic economic strength to U.S. trading partners that now have weaker, more attractive currencies.
With the ECB’s policy rate distinctly negative and its asset-purchase program running out of steam, Draghi especially appreciated the gift of easier European financial conditions last year.
Of course, the transfer of domestic economic strength by an independent agency, the Fed, displeased the chief executive, and withering criticism ensued.
Less concrete will be poured
But it was not Trump’s carping about dollar appreciation that led the Fed to change course.
Rather, Trump’s trade policies elevated uncertainty about investment and growth.
Investment in long-term capital is always risky for a business.
When doubt about such an investment emerges before concrete is poured, less concrete will be poured.
By early 2019, the Fed viewed this new economic headwind as obviating the need to continue raising the federal funds rate.
As the year unfolded and the trade winds intensified, Fed officials switched course and began to ease policy.
Some economic mechanisms, however, are asymmetric.
When the Fed tightens its policy, other central banks do not always follow, preferring to allow their currencies to depreciate.
In contrast, when the Fed eases its policy, far fewer international partners are willing to let their currencies appreciate so that the dollar can depreciate.
No one volunteers because everyone fears upward exchange-rate pressure.
An earlier generation of central bankers would have relied on direct intervention in the currency market to pursue the same goal.
But while this is still done in emerging-market economies, the use of reserves by an advanced economy would draw its peers’ opprobrium.
Instead, they achieve the same end by changing policy interest rates to deflect appreciation and welcome modest depreciation.
Everyone pivoted
As a consequence, when the Fed pivoted, all other major central banks followed.
Draghi pushed the ECB in that direction in Sintra and followed through with further easing on Sept. 12.
This similarly drew Trump’s ire, as he viewed the move as directed toward the exchange rate.
He is right, indirectly.
A weaker euro is the intermediate result Draghi seeks in order to support a flagging economy and move inflation up to the ECB’s target of near, but below, 2%.
The ECB’s response, of course, means less dollar depreciation, weakening the stimulus effect of the Fed’s move.
And the consolation that by easing policy, the Fed single-handedly induced worldwide monetary accommodation does not get much credit from the White House.
Trump would prefer that Powell were faster than his counterparts in the race to the interest-rate bottom.
Powell’s problem is that the U.S. economy apparently does not require such stimulus.
Job gains remain robust, and wages are ticking up.
Global trade may be in recession, but the U.S. economy is not as dependent as its trading partners on global trade.
Increases re-election chances
Probably to Powell’s deep and never-to-be-expressed frustration, the Fed is setting monetary policy in a way that increases the likelihood that Trump will be re-elected next year.
That instruction is not contained in the Federal Reserve Act, of course, but the Fed is supposed to deliver maximum employment and stable prices.
Its mandate of sustainable economic growth thus requires Powell to attempt to offset the effects of policy uncertainty under Trump.
Fed officials are not thinking of intentionally letting the economy stumble between now and the 2020 election.
Thus, if Powell succeeds, Trump will not bear the cost of his words and actions.
This will invite more of the same.
There is a reason that Powell often has a haunted look, and not just at Jackson Hole.
This article was published with permission of Project Syndicate — Jerome Powell’s Dilemma.
Carmen M. Reinhart is professor of the international financial system at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Vincent Reinhart is chief economist and macro strategist at BNY Mellon, and worked at the Federal Reserve for 24 years, including stints as director of the monetary affairs division and secretary and economist for the Federal Open Market Committee.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/powel ... 2019-09-18
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
MARKETWATCH
"Short-term Treasury yields pare decline after Fed divided on need for further rate cuts"
By Sunny Oh
Published: Sept 18, 2019 3:56 p.m. ET
U.S. Treasury yields came off their intraday lows on Wednesday after the Federal Reserve cut interest rates but it’s policy statement highlighted the divisions within its policy making committee on the need for additional rate cuts after September.
The U.S. central bank, as expected, cut its fed funds rate target by a quarter percentage point to a range between 1.75% to 2.00%.
What are Treasurys doing?
The 10-year Treasury note yield fell 2.8 basis points to 1.777%.
The 2-year note rate, sensitive to shifting expectations for Fed policy, rose 0.6 basis point to 1.741%, while the 30-year bond yield slipped 4.5 basis points to 2.226%.
What’s driving Treasurys?
The U.S. central bank cut interest rates by a quarter percentage point, but its rate setting committee was torn on the need for further easing.
Three out of the 10 voting members dissented against the policy decision, with James Bullard favoring a half point cut while Esther George and Eric Rosengren preferred none.
The policy statement also showed that more than half of the Fed officials saw another rate cut in the cards for this year, even as a minority expected none.
The Fed statement did not discuss the possibility of a standing repo facility which would supply liquidity to cap stresses in money markets and keep the fed funds rate within its target range.
However, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said they would consider the resumption of the “organic growth of our balance sheet.”
The central bank held another overnight repurchasing operation on Wednesday morning, promising to carry out up to $75 billion of repos.
The move comes as a surge earlier this week in the short-term repurchasing rate, used by banks and hedge funds to finance their trading operations, sparked a liquidity squeeze across Wall Street.
What did market participants’ say?
”With recession risk low, core inflation rising and full employment, the Fed did not feel that they could commit to a full easing cycle,” said Pramod Atluri, fixed-income portfolio manager at Capital Group.
“But given the high level of global uncertainty and the prevailing low level of interest rates, the cutting by 25 basis points adds a bit more insurance."
"The Fed is walking a fine line with the market.”
What else is on investors’ radar?
Investors initially took shelter in haven assets like U.S. government paper on Wednesday after reports said Iranian officials sent a note to Washington stating that any American move against Iran would receive an immediate response.
Tehran denied they were behind the drone strike on Saudi Arabian crude production plant, which briefly knocked out about half of the country’s oil output on Saturday.
In other economic data, the Commerce Department reported that U.S. housing starts rose 12% in August, running at an annual rate of 1.35 million.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/treas ... latestnews
"Short-term Treasury yields pare decline after Fed divided on need for further rate cuts"
By Sunny Oh
Published: Sept 18, 2019 3:56 p.m. ET
U.S. Treasury yields came off their intraday lows on Wednesday after the Federal Reserve cut interest rates but it’s policy statement highlighted the divisions within its policy making committee on the need for additional rate cuts after September.
The U.S. central bank, as expected, cut its fed funds rate target by a quarter percentage point to a range between 1.75% to 2.00%.
What are Treasurys doing?
The 10-year Treasury note yield fell 2.8 basis points to 1.777%.
The 2-year note rate, sensitive to shifting expectations for Fed policy, rose 0.6 basis point to 1.741%, while the 30-year bond yield slipped 4.5 basis points to 2.226%.
What’s driving Treasurys?
The U.S. central bank cut interest rates by a quarter percentage point, but its rate setting committee was torn on the need for further easing.
Three out of the 10 voting members dissented against the policy decision, with James Bullard favoring a half point cut while Esther George and Eric Rosengren preferred none.
The policy statement also showed that more than half of the Fed officials saw another rate cut in the cards for this year, even as a minority expected none.
The Fed statement did not discuss the possibility of a standing repo facility which would supply liquidity to cap stresses in money markets and keep the fed funds rate within its target range.
However, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said they would consider the resumption of the “organic growth of our balance sheet.”
The central bank held another overnight repurchasing operation on Wednesday morning, promising to carry out up to $75 billion of repos.
The move comes as a surge earlier this week in the short-term repurchasing rate, used by banks and hedge funds to finance their trading operations, sparked a liquidity squeeze across Wall Street.
What did market participants’ say?
”With recession risk low, core inflation rising and full employment, the Fed did not feel that they could commit to a full easing cycle,” said Pramod Atluri, fixed-income portfolio manager at Capital Group.
“But given the high level of global uncertainty and the prevailing low level of interest rates, the cutting by 25 basis points adds a bit more insurance."
"The Fed is walking a fine line with the market.”
What else is on investors’ radar?
Investors initially took shelter in haven assets like U.S. government paper on Wednesday after reports said Iranian officials sent a note to Washington stating that any American move against Iran would receive an immediate response.
Tehran denied they were behind the drone strike on Saudi Arabian crude production plant, which briefly knocked out about half of the country’s oil output on Saturday.
In other economic data, the Commerce Department reported that U.S. housing starts rose 12% in August, running at an annual rate of 1.35 million.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/treas ... latestnews
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
AND TRUMP IS JUST PLAIN STUPID …
MARKETWATCH
"Trump blasts Jerome Powell after Fed rate cut: ‘No ‘guts,’ no sense, no vision!’"
By Mark DeCambre
Published: Sept 18, 2019 3:46 p.m. ET
President Donald Trump on Wednesday afternoon delivered another blast of caustic criticism of the Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell after the central bank cut interest rates but was unclear on whether rates would fall further this year.
‘Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve Fail Again.'
'No “guts,” no sense, no vision!'
'A terrible communicator!’
- President Trump
The comments from the president via Twitter mark his latest demand from the Fed to aggressively slash benchmark borrowing costs and his most recent rebuke of the Fed boss for not doing so at Trump’s hoped-for pace and magnitude:
The 45th U.S. president has frequently blasted Powell, who he nominated, and has called on the Fed to deliver easier monetary policy to sustain the economic expansion in its 11th year, as well as boosting stock markets.
The Fed chairman has said that the central bank’s decisions aren’t political.
The Fed on Wednesday voted to cut interest rates by a quarter-percentage point to range of 1.75%-2%, as expected, marking the second cut this year.
Voting against the action were St. Louis Fed President James Bullard, who preferred to lower the target range for the federal-funds rate to 1.50% to 1.75%.
Kansas City Fed President Esther George and Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren both preferred to maintain the target range at 2% to 2.25%.
Powell & Co. have described the reduction decision, even as the U.S. economy has appeared to be relatively healthy, as an “insurance cut” to forestall the negative effects of the yearlong trade dispute between the U.S. and China that has hurt major corporations in the U.S., including FedEx Corp.
Internationally tariff disputes have threatened to dampen already-wobbly global economic growth.
Following the Fed rate moves, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 200 points, or 0.8% to 26,907, while the S&P 500 was 27 points, or 0.9%, lower, at 2,978.
The Nasdaq lost 99 points, or 1.2%, to trade at 8,089.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump ... latestnews
MARKETWATCH
"Trump blasts Jerome Powell after Fed rate cut: ‘No ‘guts,’ no sense, no vision!’"
By Mark DeCambre
Published: Sept 18, 2019 3:46 p.m. ET
President Donald Trump on Wednesday afternoon delivered another blast of caustic criticism of the Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell after the central bank cut interest rates but was unclear on whether rates would fall further this year.
‘Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve Fail Again.'
'No “guts,” no sense, no vision!'
'A terrible communicator!’
- President Trump
The comments from the president via Twitter mark his latest demand from the Fed to aggressively slash benchmark borrowing costs and his most recent rebuke of the Fed boss for not doing so at Trump’s hoped-for pace and magnitude:
The 45th U.S. president has frequently blasted Powell, who he nominated, and has called on the Fed to deliver easier monetary policy to sustain the economic expansion in its 11th year, as well as boosting stock markets.
The Fed chairman has said that the central bank’s decisions aren’t political.
The Fed on Wednesday voted to cut interest rates by a quarter-percentage point to range of 1.75%-2%, as expected, marking the second cut this year.
Voting against the action were St. Louis Fed President James Bullard, who preferred to lower the target range for the federal-funds rate to 1.50% to 1.75%.
Kansas City Fed President Esther George and Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren both preferred to maintain the target range at 2% to 2.25%.
Powell & Co. have described the reduction decision, even as the U.S. economy has appeared to be relatively healthy, as an “insurance cut” to forestall the negative effects of the yearlong trade dispute between the U.S. and China that has hurt major corporations in the U.S., including FedEx Corp.
Internationally tariff disputes have threatened to dampen already-wobbly global economic growth.
Following the Fed rate moves, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 200 points, or 0.8% to 26,907, while the S&P 500 was 27 points, or 0.9%, lower, at 2,978.
The Nasdaq lost 99 points, or 1.2%, to trade at 8,089.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump ... latestnews
Re: THE DAILY NEWS
MARKETWATCH
"Oil stretches losses to 2nd session, with Saudi output on the mend and U.S. supplies on the rise"
By Myra P. Saefong and Mark DeCambre
Published: Sept 18, 2019 3:13 p.m. ET
Oil futures fell on Wednesday, after suffering a sharp loss a day earlier, pressured as Saudi Arabia’s output levels looked to recover much sooner than expected and the U.S. government reported a weekly rise in domestic crude inventories, following four consecutive weeks of declines.
Prices briefly pared some of their losses in earlier dealings on the back of rising U.S. tensions with Iran.
President Donald Trump’s announcement via Twitter that he has ordered Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to “substantially increase” sanctions on Iran, however, helped oil prices pare much of their earlier losses.
U.S. intelligence indicates Iran was the staging ground for the attack in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi Defense Ministry on Wednesday also said Iran was responsible for the attacks, according to Dow Jones.
West Texas Intermediate crude for October delivery, the U.S. benchmark contract, lost $1.23, or 2.1%, to settle at $58.11 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after shedding 5.7% on Tuesday.
On Monday, it posted the largest daily gain for the most-active contract since Sept. 22, 2008 and finished at its highest level since May, according to Dow Jones Market Data.
November Brent crude shed 95 cents, or 1.5%, to $63.60 a barrel on ICE Futures Europe.
The international benchmark sank 6.5% Tuesday, following a 14.6% rise Monday, the sharpest percentage gain on record dating back to 1988.
Saudi Arabia’s energy minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman on Tuesday said at a news conference that Saudi Aramco has already restored 50% of lost production since the weekend disruption.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Saudis are using its reserves to supply oil to customers is already supplying customers at pre-attack levels and the kingdom expects normal production of 9.8 million barrels a day will return by the end of September.
“While these reassurances have helped calm the market since the mayhem that began the week, a geopolitical risk premium is expected to linger even after Saudi supply is completely restored,” said Christin Redmond, commodity analyst at Schneider Electric.
“The attacks demonstrate vulnerability of key global supplies, raising the question of whether similar attacks may happen in the future."
"Additionally, rising tensions both locally within the Middle East, as well as between the U.S. and Iran, bring further risks.”
The Saturday attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq plant and its Khurais oil field temporarily disrupted an estimated 5% of global production and it also heightened tensions between the Saudis and Iranians.
Oil traders also reacted to the latest figures on U.S. petroleum supplies.
The Energy Information Administration on Wednesday reported that U.S. crude supplies rose by 1.1 million barrels for the week ended Sept. 13.
They were forecast to fall by 2 million barrels, according to analysts polled by S&P Global Platts.
The American Petroleum Institute on Tuesday reported a climb of 592,000 barrels.
The EIA data showed that gasoline inventories climbed by 800,000 barrels, while distillate stockpiles rose by 400,000 barrels last week.
The S&P Global Platts survey revealed expectations for a supply decline of 800,000 barrels for gasoline and an increase of 300,000 barrels for distillates.
Back on Nymex, October gasoline fell 1% to $1.6577 a gallon and October heating oil shed 0.8% to $1.9733 a gallon, after its 4.5% fall a day earlier.
Both contracts logged declines of more than 4% Tuesday.
October natural gas fell 1.12 to settle at $2.637 per million British thermal units, ahead of the EIA’s weekly update Thursday on U.S. supplies of the fuel.
The data are expected to show a weekly rise of 76 billion cubic feet, according to an S&P Global Platts survey of analysts.
Oil prices also finished lower on Wednesday on the back of strength in the U.S. dollar, which followed the Federal Reserve decision to lower its benchmark interest rate by a quarter point.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-a ... latestnews
"Oil stretches losses to 2nd session, with Saudi output on the mend and U.S. supplies on the rise"
By Myra P. Saefong and Mark DeCambre
Published: Sept 18, 2019 3:13 p.m. ET
Oil futures fell on Wednesday, after suffering a sharp loss a day earlier, pressured as Saudi Arabia’s output levels looked to recover much sooner than expected and the U.S. government reported a weekly rise in domestic crude inventories, following four consecutive weeks of declines.
Prices briefly pared some of their losses in earlier dealings on the back of rising U.S. tensions with Iran.
President Donald Trump’s announcement via Twitter that he has ordered Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to “substantially increase” sanctions on Iran, however, helped oil prices pare much of their earlier losses.
U.S. intelligence indicates Iran was the staging ground for the attack in Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi Defense Ministry on Wednesday also said Iran was responsible for the attacks, according to Dow Jones.
West Texas Intermediate crude for October delivery, the U.S. benchmark contract, lost $1.23, or 2.1%, to settle at $58.11 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after shedding 5.7% on Tuesday.
On Monday, it posted the largest daily gain for the most-active contract since Sept. 22, 2008 and finished at its highest level since May, according to Dow Jones Market Data.
November Brent crude shed 95 cents, or 1.5%, to $63.60 a barrel on ICE Futures Europe.
The international benchmark sank 6.5% Tuesday, following a 14.6% rise Monday, the sharpest percentage gain on record dating back to 1988.
Saudi Arabia’s energy minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman on Tuesday said at a news conference that Saudi Aramco has already restored 50% of lost production since the weekend disruption.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Saudis are using its reserves to supply oil to customers is already supplying customers at pre-attack levels and the kingdom expects normal production of 9.8 million barrels a day will return by the end of September.
“While these reassurances have helped calm the market since the mayhem that began the week, a geopolitical risk premium is expected to linger even after Saudi supply is completely restored,” said Christin Redmond, commodity analyst at Schneider Electric.
“The attacks demonstrate vulnerability of key global supplies, raising the question of whether similar attacks may happen in the future."
"Additionally, rising tensions both locally within the Middle East, as well as between the U.S. and Iran, bring further risks.”
The Saturday attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq plant and its Khurais oil field temporarily disrupted an estimated 5% of global production and it also heightened tensions between the Saudis and Iranians.
Oil traders also reacted to the latest figures on U.S. petroleum supplies.
The Energy Information Administration on Wednesday reported that U.S. crude supplies rose by 1.1 million barrels for the week ended Sept. 13.
They were forecast to fall by 2 million barrels, according to analysts polled by S&P Global Platts.
The American Petroleum Institute on Tuesday reported a climb of 592,000 barrels.
The EIA data showed that gasoline inventories climbed by 800,000 barrels, while distillate stockpiles rose by 400,000 barrels last week.
The S&P Global Platts survey revealed expectations for a supply decline of 800,000 barrels for gasoline and an increase of 300,000 barrels for distillates.
Back on Nymex, October gasoline fell 1% to $1.6577 a gallon and October heating oil shed 0.8% to $1.9733 a gallon, after its 4.5% fall a day earlier.
Both contracts logged declines of more than 4% Tuesday.
October natural gas fell 1.12 to settle at $2.637 per million British thermal units, ahead of the EIA’s weekly update Thursday on U.S. supplies of the fuel.
The data are expected to show a weekly rise of 76 billion cubic feet, according to an S&P Global Platts survey of analysts.
Oil prices also finished lower on Wednesday on the back of strength in the U.S. dollar, which followed the Federal Reserve decision to lower its benchmark interest rate by a quarter point.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-a ... latestnews