25.6 F
Chicago
Monday, January 6, 2025
Home Blog Page 2533

Zelensky Blasts Israel For Turning “A Blind Eye To Russian Terror”

0
Zelensky Blasts Israel For Turning “A Blind Eye To Russian Terror”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has continued urging Israel to help “close the sky” over Ukraine even after statements from the Knesset made clear it will not send military aid to Kiev.

Zelensky made the repeat appeal in a virtual speech to a conference organized by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “Isn’t it time for your state to choose who you are with as well?” he said. That’s when he charged that in refusing to send arms Israel is turning “a blind eye to Russian terror”.

“Is it with the democratic world, which is fighting side by side against the existential threat to its existence? Or with those who turn a blind eye to Russian terror, even when the cost of continued terror is the complete destruction of global security,” Zelensky said provocatively of Israel.

The Ukrainian government has made multiple formal appeals for Israeli defense aid, particularly to obtain the Iron Dome anti-air defense system, since the Russian invasion began in February, after only humanitarian and protective aid has been sent. This limited aid has thus far included items like helmets and bulletproof vests.

“This is the decision of your governments… not to annoy the Kremlin, which was adopted a long time ago,” Zelensky said. “If we had immediately secured our skies when faced with a missile and drone threat, Russia would not even have a motive now to go to Iran and offer it something in exchange for assistance in terror.”

In essence Zelensky charged that Israel’s inaction is facilitating Iran’s expanding influence and its moving toward a nuclear weapon, as Axios described of his Monday remarks:  

The Ukrainian president claimed the alliance between Russia and Iran would not have happened if Israel had made a decision to provide air defense systems to Ukraine when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 — a decision Zelensky said was made under former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and hasn’t changed under the current Israeli government.

All of this comes at a sensitive moment in which Israel is fully aware of the widespread reports of Iranian drones deployed inside Ukraine by Russian forces.

Also on Monday Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz and his Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov spoke by phone. Gantz stressed that Israel stands by Ukraine. But the call readout also stated: “Gantz emphasized the operational limitations faced by the State of Israel. As a result, Israel will not provide weapon systems to Ukraine.”

These “limitations” are likely a reference to Syria, where Russia needs to maintain a strategic understanding with Russia concerning Iran’s military presence there in support of Syria’s Assad. Russia has in effect given a greenlight for Israel to strike Iranian forces and assets over recent years of the war.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 19:05

‘Woke’ Businesses, Meet The New Republican Congress

0
‘Woke’ Businesses, Meet The New Republican Congress

Authored by Ron Bonjean & Steve Rochlin via RealClear Wire,

In a nation bitterly divided between political partisans, corporations face fraught choices. The staying power of the new “woke” will likely face its greatest test if Republicans, as expected, capture a majority in the House of Representatives after the November elections.

For example, CPAC’s Matt Schlapp recently sent a letter to House Republicans warning that his organization won’t endorse any candidate for a leadership race unless they vow to reject meetings with “woke” corporations. “Pledge you will not meet with these CEOs or their leadership teams, especially their Government Affairs staff, who have been hostile to policies that help all Americans, until they change their ways.” 

Companies increasingly find themselves caught between two intractable forces: a majority of their customers, fueled by social media activism, who expect them to take a stand on issues that are important to them, and a growing backlash from conservatives who say consumer products have no business dictating social and environmental policy. 

Just look at J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s notable pivot at a hearing on Capitol Hill when he said his bank would not refrain from making new investments in major oil and gas development projects, telling House Democratic members, “Absolutely not, and that would be the road to hell for America.”

The shift is a harbinger of broader political expectations: an emboldened Republican majority with more populists in its ranks itching to take on companies for a variety of perceived transgressions, including statements and policies that are seen as nods to political correctness, as well as “socially responsible” and environmental investment policies.

One only has to look at the recent past. When Major League Baseball moved the 2021 All-Star Game from Atlanta to protest Georgia’s voter law, a handful of Republican lawmakers moved to strip the league of its antitrust protections. Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law to abolish Disney World’s self-governing district. He signed another law dubbed the “Stop WOKE Act” to restrict how race is discussed in schools, colleges, and workplaces. Additionally, 19 Republican state attorneys general are calling on BlackRock to justify its ESG policies.

With risks jumping out from every corner, what’s a conscientious brand leader to do?

With decades of experience supporting business decisions and communications related to social impact, we can point to a few answers. Our research with Penn State University found that 76% of voters feel that companies should be held accountable for making a positive impact on the communities in which they operate – with the sentiment shared almost equally among Democrats and Republicans. Yet only 37% of companies think they are doing a good job and, what’s worse, the gap between voters’ preferences and political rhetoric seems to be growing. 

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach for businesses and other brands to turn the ship. The C-suite must identify social risks that may require a response because of their impact on employees, customers, or other key stakeholders – and this requires a self-assessment 

Specifically, self-assessments to understand a company’s unique position in the marketplace from not only the product perspective but also a reputational one are critical. Paired with an analysis of internal and external stakeholders, as well as a review of the relationship between business lines and relevant external issues, this kind of audit prepares companies to build a framework for response that is cross-functional, aligned to priorities, and authentic. Finally, companies should be prepared to pressure-test their system for responding to external issues to ensure they have considered all potential landmines. 

These recommendations may seem easier said than done, but for those companies seeking a measured approach that allows them to both act on their values and maintain key relationships with policymakers, avoiding the preparation for a Republican Congress now all but ensures crisis down the road. By assessing the connection between business and brand values and creating structure around their decision-making frameworks, modern brand leaders, too, can emerge from the very different challenges of today with renewed bonds with policymakers, customers, and their communities.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 18:45

Passenger Plane Nearly Collides With Drone At 16,000 Feet

0
Passenger Plane Nearly Collides With Drone At 16,000 Feet

An Airbus A320, operated by Easyjet, was flying from Gatwick Airport in the UK to Rhodes in Greece when an “unidentified flying object” at 16,000 feet missed the commercial jet by only feet, according to Business Insider, citing a report by the UK Airprox Board.

Pilots of the A320 said the black and cylindrical object came within 10 feet of the plane in what they described as a “near miss.” 

Airprox’s report said the incident was labeled a “Category A,” implying if the object, most likely a drone, struck the plane, it would’ve resulted in severe damage. 

“In the board’s opinion, the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone,” the board said. 

UK’s National Air Traffic Services said the pilots first reported the incident in July at around 16,000 feet to London air traffic controllers. Here’s what they said:

“Going through FL160 we very nearly just hit a drone. We’re talking less than ten feet,” the pilot said. “We don’t think we’ve hit it, there was a bit of a thud, we’ll come back to you.”

Airprox determined the A320 didn’t hit the drone, and the noise came from within the cabin.   

A drone operating at 16,000 feet is more than 40 times the legal limit (of 400 feet) for unmanned aerial vehicles. 

Easyjet confirmed the incident to Insider: 

“We are aware of the report and will always fully support any investigation.

“Safety is always easyJet’s highest priority and our flight crew acted in accordance with our standard operating procedures to ensure the safety of the flight was not compromised.”

This isn’t the first time a drone has flown dangerously close to a commercial aircraft. In 2018, someone flew a drone hundreds of feet away from an A380 airliner, taking off

A shocking video from earlier in 2018 shows a drone dive-bombing a commercial jet in the US. 

And here’s what happens when a police drone in Canada collides with a small plane

It could only be a matter of time before a reckless drone operator collides with a large plane and sparks some aviation emergency or disaster. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 18:25

Microsoft Extends Losses On Cloud Margins, Weak Q2 Guidance

0
Microsoft Extends Losses On Cloud Margins, Weak Q2 Guidance

Update (1800ET): Microsoft shares are extending their losses during the earnings conference call as the tech titan gives its guidance for Q2:

The More Personal Computing sales outlook showed the biggest impact from the current business environment.

Microsoft is projecting sales in the range of $14.5 billion to $14.9 billion versus $16.9 billion analysts surveyed by FactSet had been forecasting.

The company said sales for its Productivity and Business Processes segment would likely come in around $16.6 billion to $16.9 billion, compared with $17.2 billion expected by Wall Street.

“In our consumer business, materially weaker PC demand from September will continue,” Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood said on the earnings call.

The Intelligent Cloud business segment is expected to see sales at constant currency of $21.25 billion to $21.55 billion, shy of the $21.8 billion according to the average of analysts surveyed by FactSet.

Microsoft said revenue growth in its closely watched Azure cloud-computing business will drop by five percentage points in the current period from the prior quarter.

Azure sales rose 42% in the fiscal first quarter, excluding the impact of foreign-currency exchange rates, meaning the forecast implies a gain of 37% for the second quarter (well below the 40.6% analysts expected)…

Finally, Hood estimated the company will pay $800 million in extra energy costs this fiscal year.

“A lot of it is in Europe,” she said.

“And it’s not just for the winter.”

Hood also suggested that more cost cuts could be coming to Microsoft, after the company confirmed layoffs of fewer than 1,000 employees earlier this month.

“While we continue to help our customers do more with less, we will do the same internally,” she said.

“And you should expect to see our operating-expense growth moderate materially through the year while we focus on growing productivity of the significant head-count investments we’ve made over the last year.”

MSFT is now down almost 8% from the close…

The combined effect of MSFT and GOOGL has erased all of the Nasdaq’s gains for the day…

*  *  *

At first glance, earnings for the tech giant looked solid as Microsoft beat on the top- and bottom-lines:

  • Revenue $50.12 billion (+11% YoY), better than the estimate of $49.56 billion

  • EPS $2.35 (less than the $2.71 EPS for Q1 last year), but better that the estimate of $2.29

However, the top-line growth was the weakest since 2017…

The breakdown shows the company beating in all the segments (but cloud was barely a beat):

  • Productivity and Business Processes revenue $16.47 billion, estimate $16.11 billion

  • Intelligent Cloud revenue $20.33 billion, estimate $20.31 billion

  • More Personal Computing revenue $13.33 billion, estimate $13.08 billion

  • Commercial Cloud revenue $25.7 billion, estimate $25.66 billion

But while the CFO projected strength in cloud…

“This quarter Microsoft Cloud revenue was $25.7 billion, up 24% (up 31% in constant currency) year-over-year. We continue to see healthy demand across our commercial businesses including another quarter of solid bookings as we deliver compelling value for customers,” said Amy Hood, executive vice president and chief financial officer of Microsoft.

Some traders pointed to problems, potentially affecting cloud margins as the MSFT slideshow discussed rising energy prices are boosting the costs of delivering cloud…

Gross margin dollars grew 20% (up 26% CC) and gross margin percentage decreased slightly. Excluding the impact of the latest change in accounting estimate for useful lives, gross margin percentage decreased roughly 3 points driven by sales mix shift to Azure and other cloud services and lower margins in Azure and other cloud services, primarily due to higher energy costs.

MSFT shares tumbled on the print, erasing all of the day’s gains…

“In a world facing increasing headwinds, digital technology is the ultimate tailwind,” said Satya Nadella, chairman and chief executive officer of Microsoft.

“In this environment, we’re focused on helping our customers do more with less, while investing in secular growth areas and managing our cost structure in a disciplined way.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 18:09

Alphabet Plunges After Missing Across The Board, Drags Nasdaq Lower After Hours

0
Alphabet Plunges After Missing Across The Board, Drags Nasdaq Lower After Hours

The tech earnings train has gotten derailed on the very first stop and it’s looking uglier by the minute: moments after Microsoft slumped after reporting otherwise solid earnings, and Texas Instruments guided below expectations again, it was Google’s turn to disappoint and it did just that when it reported earnings that missed on revenue and EPS for the second consecutive quarter, sending GOOGL’s stock sharply lower after hours (hardly a shock after the catastrophic Snapchat earnings last week).

Let’s dig into what was another mediocre at best (if perhaps not as ugly as some had expected) quarter for Alphabet:

  • EPS $1.06, missing estimates of $1.25, down from $1.40 Y/Y
  • Revenue $69.09 billion, up 6% Y/Y and 11% in constant currency,  and missing consensus estimates of $70.76 billion
  • Revenue ex-TAC $57.27 billion, missing estimates of $58.18 billion
    • Google advertising revenue $54.48 billion, missing estimates of $56.98 billion
    • YouTube ads revenue $7.07 billion, missing estimates of $7.46 billion
    • Google Services revenue $61.38 billion, missing estimates of $63.98 billion
    • Google other revenue $6.90 billion, beating estimates of $6.84 billion
    • Google Cloud revenue $6.87 billion, beating estimate $6.61 billion
    • Other Bets revenue $209 million, beating estimates $204 million
  • Operating income $17.14 billion, missing estimates of $19.71 billion
    • Google Services operating income $19.78 billion, missing estimates of $23.03 billion
    • Google Cloud operating loss $699 million, beating the estimated loss of $814.2 million
    • Other Bets operating loss $1.61 billion, missing the estimate loss $1.37 billion
  • Operating margin 25%, missing the estimate 27.9%
  • Capital expenditure $7.28 billion, missing the estimate $7.65 billion
  • Number of employees 186,779, vs estimate 177,845

The result visually:

And a more detailed breakdown:

Commenting on the quarter, CEO Sundar Pichai was laconic: “We’re sharpening our focus on a clear set of product and business priorities. Product announcements we’ve made in just the past month alone have shown that very clearly, including significant improvements to both Search and Cloud, powered by AI, and new ways to monetize YouTube Shorts. We are focused on both investing responsibly for the long term and being responsive to the economic environment.”

Mercifully, CFO Ruth Porat kept her comment also rather brief, trying to spin an otherwise ugly quarter: “Financial results for the third quarter reflect healthy fundamental growth in Search and momentum in Cloud, while affected by foreign exchange. We’re working to realign resources to fuel our highest growth priorities.”

To the disappointment of some, there were no incremental stock buyback announcements but recall that just two quarters ago GOOGL announced plans to buy back an additional $70BN in Class A and Class C shares, and also unveiled the 20 for 1 stock split.

That said, Alphabet did repurchase another $15.4bn of stock in the quarter (the same as last quarter) , a sign of GOOGL management continued focus on capital allocation and balancing investments/margins in a post pandemic environment. That may explains why Alphabet’s cash hoard declined for a fourth straight quarter, falling to $116 billion from $125 billion in Q2, $134 billion at Q1, and $139.6 billion at the start of the year.

In kneejerk reaction, the stock was not happy  with the across the board miss, and GOOGLE stock is down some 5% after hours…

… and together with MSFT and TXN dragging the Nasdaq down by 1%, cutting today’s gains in half.

Developing

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 16:16

MSFT Beats Top- & Bottom-Line; But Shares Slide On Rising Cloud Costs, Margin Pressure

0
MSFT Beats Top- & Bottom-Line; But Shares Slide On Rising Cloud Costs, Margin Pressure

At first glance, earnings for the tech giant looked solid as Microsoft beat on the top- and bottom-lines:

  • Revenue $50.12 billion (+11% YoY), better than the estimate of $49.56 billion

  • EPS $2.35 (less than the $2.71 EPS for Q1 last year), but better that the estimate of $2.29

However, the top-line growth was the weakest since 2017…

The breakdown shows the company beating in all the segments (but cloud was barely a beat):

  • Productivity and Business Processes revenue $16.47 billion, estimate $16.11 billion

  • Intelligent Cloud revenue $20.33 billion, estimate $20.31 billion

  • More Personal Computing revenue $13.33 billion, estimate $13.08 billion

  • Commercial Cloud revenue $25.7 billion, estimate $25.66 billion

But while the CFO projected strength in cloud…

“This quarter Microsoft Cloud revenue was $25.7 billion, up 24% (up 31% in constant currency) year-over-year. We continue to see healthy demand across our commercial businesses including another quarter of solid bookings as we deliver compelling value for customers,” said Amy Hood, executive vice president and chief financial officer of Microsoft.

Some traders pointed to problems, potentially affecting cloud margins as the MSFT slideshow discussed rising energy prices are boosting the costs of delivering cloud…

Gross margin dollars grew 20% (up 26% CC) and gross margin percentage decreased slightly. Excluding the impact of the latest change in accounting estimate for useful lives, gross margin percentage decreased roughly 3 points driven by sales mix shift to Azure and other cloud services and lower margins in Azure and other cloud services, primarily due to higher energy costs.

MSFT shares tumbled on the print, erasing all of the day’s gains…

“In a world facing increasing headwinds, digital technology is the ultimate tailwind,” said Satya Nadella, chairman and chief executive officer of Microsoft.

“In this environment, we’re focused on helping our customers do more with less, while investing in secular growth areas and managing our cost structure in a disciplined way.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 16:16

Surging Crypto, Swap-Spreads, Bonds, & Stocks Signal “Something’s Afoot”

0
Surging Crypto, Swap-Spreads, Bonds, & Stocks Signal “Something’s Afoot”

Ugly US housing and sentiment data were just the (bad news) spark to set stonks on fire today. Small Caps led the way, up around 3%, followed by a huge surge over 2% in the Nasdaq (ahead of this week’s epic earnings extravaganza). The Dow was the biggest loser of today’s winners, eking out a 1% gain…

…on the back of a massive short-squeeze (biggest daily gain for the ‘most shorted’ basket since May). Off of yesterday’s lows, ‘most shorted’ stocks are up a shocking 11%…

Source: Bloomberg

…with no fear of downside evident in the options market…

Source: Bloomberg

…but there was lots of chatter that something scary this way comes in the arcane details of the rates market as swap spreads notably decoupled from treasury yields today suggesting, as one veteran swaps trader remarked via text “something is afoot”.

The 10Y swap spread (red) is negative (means 10y swap rate is below 10Y treasury yield) and broke away from TSY yields today…

Source: Bloomberg

This decoupling is likely being driven by chatter about Treasury buybacks (as we explained in detail here), which is an effective pivot by The Fed and is implicitly backstopping Treasuries – hence TSY yields fall closer to swap rates. Belly swap spreads widened even more today than the long-end…

Source: Bloomberg

Widening swap spreads (less negative in this case) have traditionally signaled increased systemic risk (including liquidity anxiety). Simply put, a higher spread suggests market participants are willing to swap their risk exposures, suggesting overall risk aversion, although we would note that, as the same veteran trader noted, “a lot of these moves have been technically-driven” referencing the SOFR/LIBOR transition. Still, it’s a sudden and noteworthy shift.

Is that ‘anxiety’ why we saw cryptos explode higher today also? (we note some chatter on Chinese capital outflows after Xi’s 3rd term). Bitcoin ripped up to $20,400…

Source: Bloomberg

…and Ethereum soared back above $1500…

Source: Bloomberg

Gold was also bid on the chatter about a Fed shift…

US Treasuries were aggressively bid today with the mid- to long-end of the curve dramatically outperforming (2Y -3bps, 10Y -15bps). Notably, TSYs were well bid overnight then yields plunged on the shitty US data. The bid ended when Europe closed. This left 2Y yields unchanged on the week while 10Y yields are down around 13bps (a significant flattening)…

Source: Bloomberg

At the short-end, Fed rate expectations shifted dovishly today…

Source: Bloomberg

The market remains sure that The Fed will be cutting rates next year…

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar tumbled to 3 week lows today…

Source: Bloomberg

Cable soared today, squeezing shorts up to recent resistance levels…

Source: Bloomberg

Oil prices rallied back from overnight weakness with WTI hovering around $85 ahead of tonight’s API data…

US NatGas prices soared today as the Freeport LNG terminal appears set to reopen (allowing exports to Europe and thus tightening domestic supply)…

Finally, the era of negative-yielding debt is almost over. As Bloomberg notes, the total market value of negative-yielding debt worldwide has fallen to just under $1 trillion and consists entirely of short-dated Japanese securities…

Source: Bloomberg

…And overnight we saw 2Y JGBs trade above zero for the first time since 2015

Source: Bloomberg

At its peak there was over $18 trillion in global negative-yielding debt. How’d that cunning plan work out?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 16:00

Now That Housing Is Rolling Over, Is That Fixer-Upper A Deal?

0
Now That Housing Is Rolling Over, Is That Fixer-Upper A Deal?

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

So-called “cosmetic work” can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Now that housing is finally rolling over due to rising mortgage rates and bubble valuations, many of those who have been priced out of the market are hoping to take advantage of lower prices. In many cases, the most affordable segment is fixer-uppers, homes that are distressed for any number of reasons: a lack of maintenance; construction or drainage deficiencies; obsolete or defective foundations, water or termite damage, etc.

Longtime correspondent Daniel C. is familiar with my building experience, and so he asked a question that will benefit many potential homebuyers: “What advice would you give to someone with next to no homebuilding skills, but willing to learn, regarding getting into a fixer-upper?”

My answer is not gender-specific: for example, my wife is a much better plumber than I am. Together we’ve poured concrete, did a tear-off of multiple layers of comp roofing shingles down to the sheathing, repaired the sheathing and installed a new roof, completely rehabbed dozens of double-hung windows (new sash, window putty, repairing dryrot, etc.) in which she did the bulk of the work, and so on, in a very long list of renovation / rehab / new construction projects. Anyone can learn these skills and will benefit from learning as much as possible about how buildings are constructed, upgraded / repaired and maintained.

That said, being able to make an accurate assessment of the risks and costs embedded in a fixer-upper is an entirely different level of experience and skill–especially if the fixer “looks okay and just needs cosmetic work.”

Here is my response to Daniel and everyone else who is considering bidding on a fixer-upper.

That’s a tough question because there’s a lot to know before you can make an informed assessment and decision.

When I was younger, my partner and I built close to 100 houses in five years, from modest starter homes to pricey custom homes, commercial buildings and a 42-unit subdivision. Before that, I worked my way through college working for a contractor who did renovations, additions and luxury homes. I am still learning.

If I had to summarize a complex process, I would start with these points:

1. Many things can’t be fixed or can only be fixed at horrendous expense. Avoid buying any home / property with problems that can’t be fixed. These include (but are not limited to) poor drainage / flooding, soil settlement, bad neighbors, poor location, noise from freeways, railways, etc., deficiencies in construction, defective foundations, water and termite damage in the framing, poor floor plan and obsolete systems (heating, electrical, plumbing, etc.).

2. So-called “cosmetic work” can cost tens of thousands of dollars. It’s widely assumed “anyone can paint a house.” This is true if we mean paint a house badly, i.e. spray a thin coat of cheap paint without preparing the surface by removing all the loose paint, filling all the defects, sanding the surface, applying a good-quality primer and then applying a good coat of good-quality paint appropriate to the weather, sun exposure, etc.

The rule of thumb is 90/10: 90% of the work is preparing the surface professionally, 10% is applying the paint.

Not many amateurs have the time, equipment and experience to do this job properly on an entire interior and exterior of a house.

The prep work is when you discover all sorts of problems that were hidden behind the flaking paint: dry-rot and termite damage, water leaks, etc. If you can peel the paint off with your fingernail–which is what happens when somebody slapped paint over an unprepared semi-gloss surface–that inept paint job will only make the prep more time-consuming.

If there is lead-based paint that has to be removed due to decay, weathering, etc., that’s another issue entirely, and a costly one to remediate.

Paint and labor are both expensive. A quality paint job for a house that hasn’t been properly maintained might cost $25,000, and more for a larger house or one with major maintenance issues that must be repaired.

Toss in refinishing hardwood floors (another job best left to pros), a new roof (it looked okay from the outside but look in the attic and oops, see all those leaks?), new appliances, new flooring, and so on–all “cosmetic,” not structural–and the total cost might be $50,000 to $100,000, depending on what’s discovered as work progresses.

For buyers who scraped up every dime just to buy the place, the cost of this “cosmetic” work is a deal-breaker.

In other words, “cosmetic” doesn’t necessarily mean “cheap” or “we can do it ourselves.”

3. If you are serious about a house, I would find an experienced house inspector who would agree to do the inspection with you present so they can point out what they’re looking for and the systems that are OK and those that aren’t.

An experienced inspector will be looking at the fundamentals: drainage (water must flow naturally away from the house) , foundation / soil (settling due to poor compaction, etc.) roof (leaks), water-dryrot /termite damage, defective construction and obsolete plumbing/electrical/heating / insulation, etc..

Before you get that far, you can do a useful bit of investigation yourself in the initial walk-through. I bring a 4-foot level, a ladder and a good flashlight whenever I look at a house, which we occasionally do out of curiosity because we like the location or the design of the house.

The level tells me if the floor is basically level or not, the ladder and flashlight is to look in the attic to identify leaks, quality of construction, vents, insulation, etc., look under sinks for signs of leaks, and if there’s a crawlspace, crawl under the house and look for termites, settling, quality of construction, etc.

Realtors are typically surprised when I show up with a 4-ft ladder and the level. They’re not used to seeing anyone who looks beyond the superficial. The look and feel of a home is important, but that won’t yield an assessment of defects, costs and whether the investment needed to restore the house will actually increase the value above and beyond what you’re paying.

4. Research the history of the property in city/county records. Building permits are public records, and it’s useful to find out if whatever major work was done to the house was properly permitted or not. Unpermitted structural, electrical, plumbing, roofing, etc. work opens costly cans of worms, as work that’s not up to code can be dangerous (improper venting, etc.) and opens the door to legal issues when you try to sell the house.

Ideally, previous owners hired professionals who obtained permits. That’s what you want to see–evidence the renovation / repair work was done correctly by a licensed professional, or if done by an amateur, that the work was properly inspected and approved.

There is a lot to know, and I’m not sure how best to learn enough to be consequential. I’m not sure there are any shortcuts. Even with all my experience, I still consult with professionals on issues I don’t have enough experience to assess. The big mistakes are made by not seeing fundamental issues with the items listed above–the “bones” and location of the house having problems that can’t be fixed or only at horrendous expense. The other is to not look at the neighbors and traffic at various times, so you have to visit at rush hour and late at night.

A lot of older homes have better quality wood, stucco, etc., as the materials were often higher quality, but they tend to have obsolete / worn out plumbing, electrical, flooring, heating, etc., plus deferred maintenance which allowed small problems to become big problems.

In terms of future valuation, the location is paramount. My biggest mistake when I was in my 20s was not scraping up more money to afford a lot on the “good side” of town where valuations will increase much more reliably because of the enduring value of proximity to schools, shopping, etc., views, leafy tree-lined streets, etc.

The other essentials are the floor plan, orientation to wind and sun, proximity of neighbors and size of the lot. You can’t change any of that. A poor floor plan can only be changed with a gut-and-rebuild, which is as expensive as building a new house (or even more expensive due to the predictable emergence of “surprises.”)

What can you live with and what can’t you live with? Some things you might think you can live with but actually you can’t, and you will regret buying the place.

I would caution against over-estimating how much work you can do yourselves. Even apparently simple jobs like repainting wood kitchen cabinets can take a stupidly huge amount of time if the work is done right. Even with 49 years’ experience, I am still prone to under-estimating the time it will take to do difficult projects–and many projects are incredibly difficult, tedious and challenging.

Here’s an example. The entry to a lower-floor in-law unit flooded when it rained heavily. There was a drain in the concrete so I figured the drain pipe had corroded and needed to be replaced. After digging down in tight quarters due to retaining walls and live rock, I found the pipe extended out about a foot and ended. It had never been a proper drain. So we had to laboriously chisel out live rock to lay a drain line that actually functioned.

“New” doesn’t mean it doesn’t have deal-breaking issues. A friend of mine bought a relatively new house (less than 10 years old) house that had such severe termite damage to the structure that he tore it down and built a new house on the lot. (He knew about the damage and basically paid for the lot, not the house.)

Patience is a virtue here. Wait for the right property but be ready to jump when it appears. The more properties you visit and investigate, the better your knowledge base. Once you have a substantial knowledge of the market and what’s available, first impressions and instincts are useful.

I liked the house we bought as soon as I walked the property and walked around inside. Functional floor plan, good orientation to sun and wind, good-sized lot, neighbors not too close, good drainage, pleasant views, good location in town, solid foundation and roof, quality construction, previous owners did a good job with upgrades by hiring professionals for both cosmetic and electrical/plumbing work, mature fruit trees–sold!

Not everything had been fixed, of course. The house is 65 years old. The wood windows were painted shut, sash cords broken, etc. The yard had massive deferred maintenance and ill-suited landscaping. This didn’t mean there wasn’t backbreaking work to be done, but these improvements / repairs could be done over time and were within our skillsets and budget.

It took about four years of looking at dozens of inferior / defective properties before this came on the market. It was worth the wait. We weren’t looking for an “investment” to flip, we were looking for a place where we’d be happy.

Here’s another reason to be patient: bubble symmetry. 

Asset bubbles tend to take roughly the same time to deflate and they took to inflate. The recent run-up in housing valuations was extremely steep, and so we can anticipate the possibility that the decline will be similarly steep.

*  *  *

My new book is now available at a 10% discount ($8.95 ebook, $18 print): Self-Reliance in the 21st Century.  Read the first chapter for free (PDF)  

Become a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 15:50

Peter Schiff: When The Sucker’s Rally Ends, The Dollar Will Crash

0
Peter Schiff: When The Sucker’s Rally Ends, The Dollar Will Crash

Via SchiffGold.com,

The world loves dollars. Whenever there is a problem, people flock to the dollar as a safe haven. But the US has problems of its own. In a podcast, Peter Schiff said America’s problems will eventually catch up to the dollar and at that point, the greenback will crash.

Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss blew into office promising tax cuts in the face of historically high inflation. On the one hand, the Bank of England has been raising interest rates – a contractionary monetary policy. But tax cuts with no corresponding spending cuts increase budget deficits – an inflationary fiscal policy. The British markets recognized this contradiction. The British pound tanked and plunged to a record low.

The government quickly backtracked on the tax cuts and Truss ended up stepping down.

This raises a question that US policymakers need to wrestle with. Why exactly were the British markets concerned about tax cuts?

As Peter pointed out, they were concerned about increasing debts. The debt to GDP ratio in Great Britain is already around 85%.

Now, that is a big number. It is a number that should cause concern. I think, really, anything above 50% of GDP is too big a number. So, because these tax cuts threatened to send British debt to GDP even higher, investors rightly dumped the pound.”

But what did they do?

They bought dollars.

They sold pounds for dollars. But they were selling pounds because Britain has a debt problem. The irony is they were buying dollars despite the fact that the United States has an even bigger debt problem.”

The US national debt pushed above $31 trillion in early October. And the US government continues to pile onto that number. Uncle Sam ran a $1.3 trillion deficit in fiscal 2022. The debt to GDP ratio in the US is already 125%.

And as Peter pointed out, it is actually higher than 125% when you factor in state and local debt. When you include state and municipal debt, the ratio balloons to 140%.

We’re in a much bigger fiscal mess than Great Britain. So, selling pounds and buying dollars because you’re worried that Britain has too much debt is jumping from the frying pan into the fire.”

Why are people doing this? Because there is a perception that US debt doesn’t matter because the dollar serves as the global reserve currency. Therefore, the US dollar is the go-to when there is a problem, even if the problem is bigger in the US. Peter recalled that when S&P downgraded US Treasuries, people bought US Treasuries because they were worried about the downgrade.

People bought US Treasuries as a safe haven from US Treasuries. That shows you how ridiculous it is.”

In the same way, it’s absurd to sell a country’s currency because you’re worried about debt and buy dollars when the US has even more debt.

It’s important to factor state and municipal debt into the equation in the US because all of these governments are funding themselves from the same tax base.

These governments are trying to get blood from the same turnips. Because Americans are broke. We have no savings. So, can we possibly repay this debt? Of course not. Repaying the debt is impossible. So, what’s going to happen? We’re going to default.”

Peter said there are two possible ways the US can default — the honest way or the dishonest way.

But either is a disaster if you own US Treasuries. The honest way is just to admit that we can’t pay and we default. We restructure the debt and we tell our creditors, ‘You are not going to get your money.’ But I don’t think politicians have the integrity to do that. They’re going to take the coward’s way out. They’re going to print. They’re going to inflate the debt away. That’s the only way out of this problem — monetize that debt and repudiate it through inflation, which is why it’s crazy for anyone to believe that the Fed is going succeed in reducing inflation back down to 2%. It can’t succeed.”

The government can’t inflate the debt away at 2% per year. They actually need higher inflation to handle the debt.

There’s another problem. The only reason the US government has been able to push the debt down the road for this long is that interest rates have been low. As rates go up, the problem gets bigger.

This is why Peter calls this a sucker’s rally. And when it ends, the dollar will crash.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 15:34

MSNBC Legal Analyst Declares Trump Could Be Charged With Manslaughter

0
MSNBC Legal Analyst Declares Trump Could Be Charged With Manslaughter

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We previously discussed the declaration of Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe that former president Donald Trump could be charged with the attempted murder of former Vice President Michael Pence.

Now, MSNBC legal analyst and Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade has gone one better. She told MSNBC viewers that Trump could be charged with manslaughter for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot.

Just as Tribe declared his theory was “without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt,” McQuade appeared equally certain that this was a serious and possible charge.

Anchor Nicolle Wallace was bouncing off comments of Rep. Liz Cheney on what the House might do to Trump when she turned to McQuade for legal analysis:

Wallace: “Let me ask you, I think what they’re saying is that even if you were that deluded, quote, ‘You may not send an armed mob to the Capitol or sit for 87 minutes and refuse to stop the attack. You may not send out a tweet that incites further violence.’ It sounds like around the violence. She’s looking at what the committee talks about as dereliction of duty. Is that a specific crime you can charge someone with, Barbara?”

McQuade: “It’s not a federal offense, but there actually is an interesting legal theory here for manslaughter, which Federal law defines as a death that occurs on federal property when a person acts with a recklessness mindset or even gross negligence. And so Donald Trump, unlike most ordinary citizens, has not only a duty not to do something bad, but an affirmative duty to take action to protect people. I think you could possibly put together a theory based on the facts that Liz Cheney just described to make Donald Trump responsible for the deaths that occurred that day.”

So let’s recap. Trump could be prosecuted for manslaughter because he had an “affirmative duty to take action to protect people”?

The problem is that many officials had an affirmative duty to protect individuals on that day, including congressional leaders and officials. There is no question that Trump waited too long to call back his supporters. Many of us criticized Trump for his insistence that Pence could effectively block certification of the election. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given. However, I know of no case that would impose this affirmative duty on Trump as a criminal legal matter.

That does not change due to Trump’s speech before the riot. Indeed, such a use of the speech would contradict controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

It is common for political leaders to call for protests at the federal or state capitols when controversial legislation or actions are being taken. Indeed, in past elections, Democratic members also protested elections and challenged electoral votes in Congress.

The problem for prosecutors is that Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

If McQuade is referring to 18 U.S.C. § 1112, the courts have imposed an element that she does not mention even for involuntary manslaughter: proximate cause. United States v. Main, 113 F.3d 1046, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 1997) (“When the jury is not told that it must find that the victim’s death was within the risk created by the defendant’s conduct an element of the crime has been erroneously withdrawn from the jury . . . It is not relevant that § 1112 does not expressly mention proximate cause.”).

Thus, the standard jury instruction requires the following:

            First, the defendant committed an act that might produce death;

            Second, the defendant acted with gross negligence, defined as wanton or reckless disregard for human life;

            Third, the defendant’s act was the proximate cause of the death of the victim.  A proximate cause is one that played a substantial part in bringing about the death, so that the death was the direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the defendant’s act;

            Fourth, the killing was unlawful;

            Fifth, the defendant either knew that such an act was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the defendant to foresee that such an act might be a threat to the lives of others; and

            Sixth, the killing occurred at [specify place of federal jurisdiction].

Putting aside the accuracy of the portrayal of this crime, McQuade’s definition is so broad it could be used against the congressional leaders and staff for their own gross negligence and “affirmative duties.” The one area that has been studiously avoided by the House leadership and J6 Committee is the failure of Congress to take steps to prepare adequately for this protest despite warnings of potential violence. Indeed, the media has assisted in this effort with its own focus in coverage.

The Democrats in the final hearing hammered away at documents showing that the agency knew about violent threats in the days leading up to Jan. 6th. However, the Democrats have refused to pursue the lack of preparations on Capitol Hill as a focus of the hearing. On the day of the riot, many of us noted (before the breach of security) that there was a relatively light police presence around the Capitol despite the obvious risk of a riot. Once the crowd surged, they quickly were able to gain access to the building. Conservative media have featured a video showing an officer standing by as crowds poured into the building.

That obviously does not mean that there was not violence or that Capitol police did not bravely fight to protect the building. Most of us have denounced the riot as a desecration of our constitutional process.

Moreover, at some point, officers may have shifted to deescalating as crowds surged into the building. The question is why there were not more substantial barriers, like those used at the White House. Instead, some barriers were composed of a few officers using their bikes.

The available evidence indicates that the House was warned and that the need for National Guard deployments were discussed. There is a concern that, after criticizing such deployment and fencing around the White House in the earlier riots, the Democrats did not want to be seen following the same course.

An Inspector General report indicated that police were restricted by Congress in what they could use on that day. Previously, it was disclosed that offers of National Guard support were not accepted prior to the protests. The D.C. government under Mayor Muriel Bowser used only a small number of guardsmen in traffic positions.

There is a danger to adopting this type of broad definition of manslaughter and I would also oppose such a charge against Capitol officials. What Professor McQuade is suggesting would allow for the wholesale criminalization of negligence. While it is true that involuntary manslaughter can include a gross negligence basis, it is not as fluid as suggested on MSNBC.

This was not an impulsive suggestion by Professor McQuade. She has been hammering away at this charge for months. In July, she tweeted that Trump could face five manslaughter charges. She explained:

“Of course, he himself was the one who set this risk in motion by summoning the mob and then lighting the fuse with his Ellipse speech urging them to march to the Capitol, but that conduct raises some sticky 1st Amendment concerns. His inaction in stopping the violence does not.”

She then added: “DOJ, you up yet?”

Notably, in those tweets, McQuade emphasized a charge under “DC law, manslaughter” which can then be charged under the federal Assimilative Crimes Act. Again, the use of such a law would fail for the reasons above.

The Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 4.25.B emphasize that, while you do not need actual knowledge of the extreme risk of death or serious bodily injury, there must still be a showing of a gross deviation from the standard of care:

“The essential elements of involuntary manslaughter, each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are: 1. That the defendant caused the death of the decedent; 2. That the conduct which caused the death was a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care; and 3. That the conduct which caused the death created an extreme risk of death or serious bodily injury. The gist of the difference between second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter is in whether the defendant is aware of the risk. To show guilt of second degree murder, the government must prove the defendant was aware of the extreme risk of death or serious bodily injury. For involuntary manslaughter, the government must prove, not that the defendant was aware of the risk, but that s/he should have been aware of it.”

The failure to do more in the face of a violent mob is not a compelling basis for such a showing and would likely fold back into those “sticky” constitutional concerns.

It is also noteworthy that D.C. officials have not moved to charge Trump on this or other crimes despite their earlier public statements.  After the riot, DC Attorney General Karl Racine announced that he was considering arresting Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks and charging them with incitement. So what happened to that much discussed prosecution? Was that because Trump is just too popular with D.C. officials or there is a lack of interest in such prosecutions? It is because the desire to prosecute over January 6th outstripped the law and the evidence.

As with Tribe’s sensational claim, the suggestion of a manslaughter charge obviously thrills many viewers. However, it creates a misleading portrayal of the existing law and its limitations in my view.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/25/2022 – 13:35