Just hours before today’s shellacking in shares of Tesla, Morgan Stanley looked as though they were starting to wave the white flag not just on the Elon Musk-led company, but on electric vehicles as a whole.

In a note released Wednesday called “Tesla’s Decline: Will Big Auto ‘Blink’ On Electric Vehicles?”, analysts led by Tesla sycophant Adam Jonas posed the question of whether or not it is “time to consider alternative technological paths in addition to EVs”. 

The note can only be described as schizophrenic. In it, Jonas makes key arguments against Tesla and the industry, while noting the progress of Tesla’s competitors. Despite that, Jonas doesn’t change his overweight stance on the name. 

Despite skepticism, the note – which was released just hours before Tesla would shed another 11% – says it views the sell off in shares of Tesla as a “buying opportunity” and perfunctorily reiterated an overweight rating on the name. Great work, guys.

Jonas first explored the impact of rising rates on the sector: “It was far easier to take EV hegemony for granted at 0% Fed funds and when Tesla was a trillion $ company. Are we sure batteries are the only (or ultimate) path to decarbonizing transport? Is the technology cheap enough? Is our electric grid ready? Are the enabling policies viable? Stories like Porsche (covered by Harald Hendrikse) investing in eFuels as a ‘dual path’ / complementary technology to EVs is worth watching.”

And another brick in the wall of Jonas’ bull case, quizzically, was that Tesla was likely going to continue discounting: “Tesla’s price cuts started in China and we expect them to quickly spread to Europe and the US. While circular in nature, lower EV prices are important for the next leg of mass adoption, but depress the returns of many of the companies expected to compete against Tesla.”

Jonas also seemed to allude to how he thought Ford was leading the industry on the shift to EV: “We believe Ford’s divisional re-organization may be an important moment for the industry in understanding the trade-offs of capital allocation and margin loss vs. terminal value preservation in legacy autos. While the intercompany transfer pricing and impact of government incentives may take a while to sift through, we expect a more open and balanced understanding of the risk/reward for EVs”.

He also looked at Toyota as a new formidable competitor in the space: “Akio Toyoda, leader of the world’s largest and highest valued legacy auto company, Toyota (covered by Shinji Kakiuchi), refers to the ‘silent majority’ of auto executives who question over-committing to EV strategies at the sacrifice of other decarbonizing technologies. The vocal majority of auto industry followers (this author included) had criticized Toyota’s resistance to keep up with EV launches from competitors. While Toyota will eventually achieve scale in EVs, the later/follower approach may prove optimal over time.”

He also believes managing cash burn is going to be crucial for the industry: “With respect to emerging (non-Tesla) EV startup strategy we believe ‘hunkering down’ to manage the pace of cash burn is a winning strategy. We anticipate more challenging capital markets environment may limit the number of EV players that can achieve sustainable scale.”

Finally, he comments that many large players in the industry will be forced to rejigger their spending plans and timelines now that the playing field has become saturated and rates have risen:

“Volkswagen (covered by Harald Hendrikse) spends its entire enterprise value in combined capex + R&D in just ~1 year. How long companies spend at this rate? In our view, it’s the capital not deployed that can frequently create the most value in auto stocks. In 2023, we think legacy automakers like GM and Ford have an opportunity to reconsider the quantum and timing of their EV investment plans last established during a very different economic and interest rate environment of 2020/2021.”

By Heather Burke, Bloomberg markets live reporter and strategist

Big Tech’s fall from grace has been one of the abiding market themes of 2022. But the earnings outlook, macro backdrop and valuations offer little support for a big turnaround in 2023 after the worst year since the global financial crisis.

The Nasdaq 100 has plummeted more than 30% this year, lagging the S&P 500, as the Federal Reserve and other central banks aggressively hiked rates. Surging bond yields made highly-valued tech stocks look less attractive. This value destruction has made so-called FAANG stocks such as Amazon.com and Apple less important to the S&P 500 as some lost more than a third of their value

Now inflation and monetary tightening have raised the prospect of a global recession. If the US economy contracts, technology stocks will face a drag from lower corporate earnings.

The Nasdaq’s 12-month forward EPS has dropped more than 4% from the start of October through Dec. 16, compared with about 2.7% for the S&P 500. Another measure shows Nasdaq 100 EPS y/y growth has fallen to almost zero.

Big-tech earnings also don’t command the premium they used to versus bonds. The spread between the Nasdaq 100’s earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield narrowed to the least since 2009 in October. Tuesday’s premium of about 49 basis points is well below a 10-year average of around 191 basis points. This makes tech stocks less attractive, even if the Fed slows tightening.

Inflation may be decelerating in top-line economic data but that doesn’t mean it has fully worked its way through future earnings — especially with the sense that some behemoths have reached peak growth. Amazon projected the slowest holiday-quarter growth in its history and is cutting jobs. Subtracting still-elevated inflation from the Nasdaq 100 earnings yield leaves the real stock yield negative, although improving, and well below a 10-year average.

Tech is often seen as a long-duration play, yet has been unable to benefit from bonds’ horrible year. With debt traders betting on rate cuts in 2023 despite the Fed’s hawkish messaging, long-dated Treasuries could get a bid — further weighing on stocks’ relative attractiveness.

Valuations are a mixed bag. The Nasdaq 100’s 12-month forward P/E of about 20.3 is in line with the 10-year average of ~20.5. While the Nasdaq 100 is nowhere near the valuations seen before the dot-com bust, in 2002 valuations fell below 20. With the prospect of both an earnings and an economic recession, it’s conceivable there’s still froth to be shaken out. Bernstein noted this week that tech is trading at a 29% premium to the market, down from a Nov. 2021 peak of 52%, but still above its historical average of 25%.

The technical setup is not supportive for the Nasdaq 100. The gauge has been under its 200-DMA for the longest period since the tech bubble. It’s also testing a long-term uptrend in place since 2008 and has failed to overcome a technical downtrend that’s been in place since the start of the year.

To be sure, the Fed could engineer a soft landing and earnings may hold up — companies tend to beat.  If, however, the economy holds its poise, earnings may not be affected — but then the Fed would be less likely to cut rates, which won’t augur well for stocks

Tech’s 2023 may not be the nightmare of 2022, but its era of stellar growth has stalled, if not ended.

One day after we reported, Tesla Inc. implemented a hiring freeze and a new round of layoffs. News for the EV company worsened as it offered a rare discount on Model 3 and Model Y vehicles, a sign that demand is softening. 

Discounts on Model 3 and Model Y vehicles delivered in the US this month had discounts of $7,500, according to the company’s website. That’s up from the $3,750 credit it offered previously. On top of that, another perk was offered: free supercharging for 10,000 miles. 

Electrek pointed out customers have canceled their orders and held off on their purchases until new government tax credits take effect in January, weighing on demand.

Tesla was already offering a discount, and to double it, along with free supercharging, indicates the company is dissatisfied with demand figures for the holiday quarter. 

“The fact they seem to be cutting price to increase deliveries volumes doesn’t raise confidence, particularly at a time where we see increasing competition,” Craig Irwin, a senior analyst at ROTH Capital Partners, told Reuters. 

It’s unusual for Tesla to offer such discounts and perks. Elon Musk has said the company doesn’t discount. The billionaire also predicted an “epic” end of the year for the company but discounting and perks suggest otherwise. 

Furthermore, the news of the company expected to make layoffs during the first quarter of 2023 is another ominous sign of demand problems that may extend into the new year.  

Tesla said in October it would miss the vehicle delivery target for the year. Shares of the company have slid more than 60% year-to-date, possibly reflecting a bumpy future.  

None of this should be a surprise, as readers understand the auto market is collapsing. 

Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com,

The Federal Reserve would like you to think that it is scientifically guiding the economy with carefully calculated monetary policy.

The truth is the Fed is making things up as it goes along.

As Mises Institute senior editor Ryan McMaken noted in a recent article, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has admitted that the central bank doesn’t know what it will do in 2023. And if you look at the herky-jerky path we’ve been on the last few years, it should be clear it hasn’t had a clue the entire time.

As Peter Schiff put it in a recent podcast, the Fed is oblivious.

They still think that we have a robust economy. They still think that inflation can be brought under control and that everything is going to be fine… They are completely oblivious to the disaster that they have created in the same way that they were completely oblivious to the 2008 financial crisis even in the summer of 2008 when the crisis was just around the corner. They have no clue that what they’ve been looking at is just the mother of all bubbles.”

At the December FOMC meeting, the Fed slowed its roll slightly, hiking rates by 50 basis points. That pushed the federal funds rate to 4.5%. The last time rates were this high was in 2007.

While the pace of rate hikes appears to be slowing, Powell maintained a hawkish tone, saying, “My view and my colleagues’ view is that this will take some time. We have a long ways to go to get back to price stability.”

But McMaken raised a poignant question: what exactly does “a long way to go” mean? That is rather subjective. But we can get a sense of what the Fed is thinking by looking at its Summary of Economic Projections. McMaken sums it up.

Most members of the committee believe the target policy rate will peak at 5.5 percent or less in 2023 and then fall back below 5 percent by 2024. In other words, most on the FOMC believe only two more hikes of 50 basis points are going to be “needed”—at most—and the FOMC would then get back to cutting the target rate yet again by mid-2023.  So, while Powell’s tone was undoubtedly hawkish, the Committee gave many reasons to look for a return to Fed easing just a few months away.”

A lot of people in the mainstream aren’t buying what the Fed is selling. One economist told Bloomberg that “the market is not buying the Fed’s increasingly hawkish position that they are going to raise rates to a higher-than-expected level and keep them there.”

The market clearly thinks inflation is going to be on a much more desirable path than the Fed is anticipating.”

Market skepticism is based on the growing anticipation of a recession. Most people don’t believe the central bank will keep hiking as the economy tanks. This is a rational position given that the Fed has historically rushed in to prop up a sagging economy. Why should we expect anything different this time around?

Powell keeps pointing to a “strong” labor market to justify his view that a soft landing is still possible. Of course, when you dig more deeply into the data, it becomes clear that the labor market isn’t nearly as robust as advertised. The government job numbers simply don’t add up.

And as McMaken pointed out, employment is a lagging indicator.

But, there’s no reason to expect to see rising unemployment in the early phase of a Fed tightening cycle. History shows that rising unemployment tends to come months after the Fed ends its tightening and reverts to a loosening cycle. We can see this in the delays between peaking fed fund rates and peaking unemployment rates. For example, in the leadup to the recession in the early 1990s, the federal funds rate started going down again in June 1989. But unemployment did not peak until the summer of 1992. Similarly, the federal funds rate began to fall in late 2000, but unemployment in the dot-com bust did not peak until the summer of 2003.”

Despite his self-assured demeanor, Powell admitted that he doesn’t know whether the economy will dip into a recession or not.

I don’t think anyone knows whether we’re going to have a recession or not, and if we do, whether it’s going to be a deep one or not. It’s not knowable.”

This was a rather startling moment of honesty from a person who gets paid to make us think he’s got everything under control.

As McMaken put it, the Fed is actually winging it when it comes to what it will do next. And in fact, the Fed has been winging it all along.

In recent months, the FOMC has eliminated forward guidance as it has been forced to face the reality it was very wrong about ‘transitory’ inflation and the Fed’s ability to stop inflation before it started. The Fed had promised for months that it had a secret plan that would make everything turn out well. But nowadays, the Fed no longer even attempts to keep up the pretense that it has the situation well in hand. Thus, Wednesday’s press conference lacked all the cocksure pronouncements of there being no recession on the horizon, and how the Fed would guide everything to a favorable end. Powell instead was saying things like ‘I don’t know what we’ll do [at the next meeting]’ and ‘I don’t think anyone knows if we’re going to have a recession or not.’ He even said at one point ‘this is the best we can do.’”

If this is the best we can do – well – yikes!

Streaming giant Netflix plans to invest nearly a billion dollars in a state-of-the-art production facility at the former Fort Monmouth Army base on the Jersey Shore. 

Deadline Hollywood reported that the $848 million redevelopment project would be completed in two phases over the next several years. Netflix paid $55 million for the 289-acre site. 

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said the “transformative investment will serve as a cornerstone in our efforts to create a thriving industry from whole cloth,” adding the production facility will create jobs and allow an “entirely new ecosystem” to develop. 

“We’re thrilled to continue and expand our significant investment in New Jersey and North America,” Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos said. 

Sarandos added: “We believe a Netflix studio can boost the local and state economy with thousands of new jobs and billions in economic output.” 

The announcement was made Wednesday evening after the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Authority voted to accept Netflix’s bid for the former base.

The 289-acre site of Netflix Studios Fort Monmouth studio would be one of the largest production facilities in the world and second to the company’s largest production hub in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which totals 300 acres. 

“The project comes at a time of pressure on big entertainment companies to rein in content spending,” Deadline Hollywood said.

After several quarters of dismal subscriber growth and falling share price, third-quarter subs and growth topped forecasts. 

Netflix shares are down 50% on the year. 

Another TV and film production studio will only mean Netflix will be cranking out even more content by the mid-point of the decade. Hopefully it’s all not ‘woke’. 

Authored by Debra Heine via AmGreatness.com,

On the first day of trial in Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake’s election challenge Wednesday, her lawyers focused on the Maricopa County election equipment failures that caused chaos on Election Day and disenfranchised voters. Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson previously dismissed eight out of the ten claims Lake made in her lawsuit. In his order allowing Lake’s case to go forward, Thompson said that she would have to prove that misconduct occurred, and that it resulted in “identifiable lost votes” affecting the outcome of the election.

Lake’s lawyers attempted to make that case with their bombshell revelation that a review of random ballots found that 48 out of 113 (42.5 percent) were “19-inch ballots produced on 20-inch paper,” causing them to be rejected.

Clay Parikh, a witness who examined the defective ballots on behalf of the Lake campaign, said someone must have changed the printer configurations.

“These are not a bump against the printer and the settings change,” he explained. “There are security configurations. I’ve reviewed the evidence, and the printers are configured via script, which by any large organization that has to do multiple systems is the standard.”

“It takes away the human error of somebody miscoding in the instructions on the printer,” Parikh said.

When asked whether it could not have happened by accident,  Parikh said “no.”

“is there anyway this could have happened by accident”…pertaining to the 19 inch ballot being casted as a 20 inch ballot.

“No sir, the system would not allow that”

The system takes away human error.

So it was intentional? pic.twitter.com/z2Xlmb82P1

— Slayed Wolf (@TheBerthaR) December 21, 2022

“This one-inch discrepancy caused chaos on Election day. Causing the mass rejection of these votes as they were attempted to be read through the tabulators,” Kari Lake’s campaign wrote on Twitter, Wednesday.

🚨

48 of 113 ballots reviewed during our examination were 19-inch ballots produced on 20-inch paper.

This one-inch discrepancy cause chaos on Election day. Causing the mass rejection of these votes as they were attempted to be read through the tabulators.

— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) December 21, 2022

In another tweet, Kari Lake’s War Room called the discrepancy “deliberate sabotage.”

“The machines should have been programmed for 19.” By Maricopa County’s own testimony, there is no such thing as an 20″ ballot,” Lake’s campaign team wrote. “Yet somehow machines in 61% of their polling centers still printed a 19″ inch ballot on a 20″ paper. Deliberate sabotage targeted at Republican turnout.”

The machines should have been programmed for 19″

By Maricopa County’s own testimony, there is no such thing as an 20″ ballot

Yet somehow machines in 61% of their polling centers still printed a 19″ inch ballot on a 20″ paper

Deliberate sabotage targeted at Republican turnout https://t.co/wIZBX32Coe

— Kari Lake War Room (@KariLakeWarRoom) December 22, 2022

Wednesday night, Lake herself suggested that the election was “sabotaged” with “mutant ballots.”

“They printed Mutant Ballots on Election day–using a 19″ image on a 20″ ballot paper,” she tweeted. “That’s why the tabulators rejected the ballots and that’s why chaos ensued as Lake supporters flooded Voting Center to cast ballots. Clowns & Crooks run our elections. #LakeTrial #Sabotage.”

They printed Mutant Ballots on Election day–using a 19″ image on a 20″ ballot paper. That’s why the tabulators rejected the ballots and that’s why chaos ensued as Lake supporters flooded Voting Center to cast ballots.
Clowns & Crooks run our elections. #LakeTrial #Sabotage https://t.co/LrSvh6gDQq

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) December 22, 2022

Roving attorney Mark Sonnenklar, who took the stand as a witness for Lake, disagreed with Maricopa County’s assessment that problems in 60 percent of election day voting centers were “a small matter.”

“It was really pandemonium out there everywhere!” Sonnenklar testified.

“It was really pandemonium out there everywhere!” – Mark Sonnenklar, RNC attorney testifies at @KariLake trial against Maricopa County elections. @RealAmVoice pic.twitter.com/XpfqyT3USC

— Ben Bergquam – Real America’s Voice (RAV-TV) News (@BenBergquam) December 21, 2022

When asked whether he had “personal knowledge” that the printing errors could have changed the outcome of the election, Sonnenklar replied, “had there not been tabulator issues at 132 vote centers, this election would have resulted—would have ended up with Kari Lake winning.”

Powerful testimony by RNC attorney, Mark Sonnenklar, “had there not been tabulator issues at 132 vote centers this election would have resulted, would have ended up, with @KariLake winning.”@RealAmVoice pic.twitter.com/JYJ1zaBy9p

— Ben Bergquam – Real America’s Voice (RAV-TV) News (@BenBergquam) December 21, 2022

Elections investigator Heather Honey testified that Maricopa County and its contractor Runbeck Election Services failed to follow the “legal requirements for chain of custody.”

Honey pointed to statements given to her by various individuals, including a Runbeck employee who alleged that county election workers didn’t include a key chain of custody document when delivering ballots from drop boxes on election night.

“She expressed her concern over the fact that the procedure that had been well established during the election had not been used for the large number of election day dropbox ballots that were received,” Honey said.

The investigator spoke with another woman who was an election observer at the Maricopa County Tabulation Election Center (MCTEC) on election night when the ballots came in from the dropboxes.

“Her concern,” Honey explained, “was that specifically the seals were being removed from the transport containers, and the ballots inside were not counted. That was a requirement, as she understood it, and the fact that they were just taking those ballots out of the transport containers without counting them was her primary concern.”

Honey went on to testify: “They weren’t following the legal requirements for chain of custody. There were seals on the containers when they transported them, but the specific issues were that they were just cutting them open, taking the ballots out, putting them in trays without regard to how many; there was no documentation.”

She said the county’s chain of custody problems made it impossible to determine how many votes were improperly counted in the system.

🚨 Chain of custody expert on BOTH Runbeck and Maricopa County: “They weren’t following the legal requirements for chain of custody” pic.twitter.com/0xtjcF7EVj

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) December 21, 2022

KARI LAKE TRIAL: Heather Honey, Investigator and Supply Chain Expert with 30+ years experience sends hack defense lawyer packing after she answers his loaded legal question in what appears to be an attempt to intimidate her pic.twitter.com/Ra5oiOExX9

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) December 21, 2022

Canadian lawyer Viva Frei gave Lake high marks for what she was able to achieve in court Wednesday. “Anybody who says today’s hearing is not an abject disaster for @katiehobbs is simply not watching the trial,” Frei tweeted. “Kari Lake is doing better than anyone could have possibly imagined, even with the limited scope of her claims before the court.”

Update (0953ET): Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says the chamber has finally reached a deal to move the omnibus forward.

“It’s taken a while but it is worth it,” said Schumer, who says that while timing is unknown, he hopes to get a line of amendments through the voting process quickly. “We will vote on all of the amendments in order and then vote on final passage.”

WE HAVE A DEAL. Senate has a time agreement to get to the Omnibus. There is a line of amendments and Schumer is hoping to get through the votes quickly. Final timing still not 100%.

— Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDNews) December 22, 2022

Developing…

*  *  *

A Trump-era border policy that allows immigration officials to turn quickly expel migrants without processing during a public health crisis is currently holding up passage of the omnibus spending package.

The effort, led by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), would keep Title 42 in place – and would cut funding for the office of Department of Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas unless the Biden administration reinstates the border control policy.

“We have a difference of opinion on immigration policy. We’re not going to solve that in this budge,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), chair of the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, who took aim at Lee’s immigration efforts. “And to let that disagreement take down aid to Ukraine to keep people alive during a cold winter, especially tonight, is pretty unthinkable.”

Lee, meanwhile, told Fox News on Wednesday night “I insisted that we have at least one amendment, up-or-down vote, on whether to preserve Title 42. Because Title 42 is the one thing standing between us and utter chaos. We already have mostly chaos. This would bring us to utter chaos if it expires, which it’s about to.”

The effort to maintain Title 42 has scuttled hopes that lawmakers could vote on the omnibus overnight, however on Wednesday evening, Senate Minority Whip John Thune (D-SD) said he thought they might be able to move forward on Thursday morning.

“There’s been some progress made. … I wouldn’t say breakthrough yet,” he said.

The Biden administration has sought to end the practice since the spring, arguing that the pandemic health emergency it was based on has subsided (despite extending the emergency last month). A group of GOP-led states has sued the administration in federal court to block him from ending the policy.

Title 42 was ruled “arbitrary and capricious” by a district court judge, and ordered the Biden administration to end it on Wednesday, but Supreme Court Justice John Roberts halted that deadline on Monday after the court was asked to intervene. On Tuesday, the Biden administration asked the court to end the program, but, asked for an extension until at least Dec. 27 to allow immigration officials time to prepare for a wave of illegal immigrants at the southern border.

While border agents are already encountering thousands of immigrants every day, the number is expected to rapidly spike when the program ends. Notably, the Biden administration has already minimized the use of Title 42 – instead processing immigrants under Title 8, which allows officials to screen for asylum claims, the Washington Examiner notes. Title 8 also allows border officials to refer migrants for criminal prosecution for repeat illegal entries.

US officials have expelled around 2.5 million migrants under Title 42, nearly two million of which have been carried out by the Biden administration.

A Democratic Senate aide told Punchbowl News that Lee’s insistence on Title 42 is a “poison pill”. If Lee’s amendment passes, Democrats say the omnibus bill would be “dead on arrival” in the house, which votes after the Senate. Democrats are reportedly circulating a competing amendment on Title 42 aimed at attracting centrists, and dissuading them from voting on Lee’s amendment.

“We have a difference of opinion on immigration policy. We’re not going to solve that in this budget,” said Sen. Murphy. “And to let that disagreement take down aid to Ukraine to keep people alive during a cold winter, especially tonight, is pretty unthinkable.”

Talk about a guilt trip…

According to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the chamber will work until 2am on Thursday. “It is my expectation that we will be able to lock in an agreement on the omnibus later this morning. We are very close, but we’re not there yet,” he said, asking members to stay near the chambers to “minimize any delays.”

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The gag reflex kicks in at some point and we walk away because it is no longer worth the price.

Everyone has a line in the sand when it comes to inflated prices they refuse to pay. For one Walmart shopper I observed, it was a carton of eggs for close to $10. She announced her line in the sand verbally, with great force and sincerity.

What’s your line in the sand, the point at which you simply refuse to pay the asking price? Is it the $25 burger? Or is it the $50 for two burritos and two beverages?

Each person’s line in the sand reflects their income, wealth, budget, social status and value system–what’s important to them. For some higher income folks, it might be the ridiculous “resort fee” that’s tacked onto the already overpriced resort room, hotel tax, excise tax, parking fees and the extra-special charge for Internet service.

For others, it might be the outrageous estimate for repairing a system failure in a nearly-new vehicle that is (surprise!) no longer covered by the manufacturer’s warranty. Hundreds of dollars for what?

How about $25 for a few ounces of specialty coffee beans?

Or is it $38 a pound for chocolate-covered nuts or some other confection?

Is it being stripmined to buy a hot dog and beer at a sporting event, or the “service charge” to buy a grossly overpriced ticket to a concert?

Or is it having to take out a second mortgage to cover the entrance fees to an amusement park?

Maybe it’s the shockingly high cost of what used to be dirt-cheap–a camping permit in a state or national park. (When camping becomes an expensive outing, the Revolutionary Clock is getting close to midnight.)

Could it be the absurdly inflated cost of cable TV service, or the total cost of all those subscriptions for marginal content/entertainment spew?

Or perhaps you finally had enough of paying over $5 for a box of cereal that’s now so narrow and tall (to mask the shrinking contents) that the box doesn’t even stand up on its own? (You can make your own much healthier granola for a fraction of the cost of packaged mostly-air cereals.)

Or maybe it’s paying extra to get a seat reservation after you’ve already bought the airline ticket. (Interesting, isn’t it, that buying an airline ticket doesn’t necessarily mean you have a seat reservation–that’s extra.)

Perhaps it’s the rental car fee that not that long ago was $25 a day that’s now $100 a day.

How about $2,400 a month for an ugly little flat in a new cookie-cutter apartment complex?

The gag reflex kicks in at some point and we walk away because it is no longer worth the price. Since price is set on the margins of supply and demand, all these lines in the sand will eventually become consequential.

*  *  *

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.

A better than expected GDP print was just the kind of good news that stock market bulls didn’t want to hear this morning as Appaloosa’s David Tepper told CNBC told the world he is “leaning short” because central banks around the world are tightening and traders should “not ignore what the central bankers are saying.”

“I would probably say I’m leaning short on the equity markets right now because the upside/downside doesn’t make sense to me when I have so many Central banks telling me what they are going to do, what they want to do, what they expect to do,”

“I’m gonna lean short. I’ll be short bonds,” says David Tepper. “I’m an optimist but I would lean short on the equity markets because so many Central banks are telling me what they’re going to do.” pic.twitter.com/SWU1cTrGcl

— Squawk Box (@SquawkCNBC) December 22, 2022

His message is clear – rates will remain higher for longer as global central banks fight inflation that proves stubborn (wages and labor supply) and the market is not pricing that in at all…

“The market is not buying the Fed’s increasingly hawkish position that they are going to raise rates to a higher-than-expected level and keep them there,” said Lindsey Piegza, chief economist at Stifel Nicolaus & Co, according to Bloomberg.

The Appaloosa founder pointed out the hypocrisy of traders ‘fight the fed’ now after a decade of following them sheep-like: “I believed the Fed before and I believe the Fed now.”

“We are going to have a lot more tightenings.”

“Sometimes they tell you what they are going to do and you have to believe them,” Tepper added.

Tepper went on to say that the “upside/downside doesn’t make sense to me.”

“Don’t ignore what these guys (Central bankers) are saying,” Tepper said.

“I don’t think they will let a deep recession happen in some sense. It doesn’t necessarily bare well for earnings and the outlook.”

“It’s going to be just difficult for things to go up right now because of these banks and because what they are saying,” Tepper added.

Yields spiked on the ‘good’ GDP print…

All of which sent stocks tumbling…

Lots of people are passing around the following chart of the exploding put/call ratio suggesting everyone’s hedge so have no fear…

But, as SpotGamma warns, many regard this as a signal that traders are bracing for worlds end, but we can say with upmost confidence that this is not fear-based demand (which likely does not come as a surprise to SpotGamma readers). This put activity is being driven by an “operational” trade.

Finally, back to Tepper: as a reminder, in 2020 he appeared on CNBC and exclaimed that QE would pump markets…

“I love riding a horse that’s running,” Tepper told CNBC’s Joe Kernen in an exclusive email.

“We have been long and continue that way.”

…he was right then… and now that tide is going the other way, and he is riding that wave back out.

Let’s hope he is not ‘that’ right!

After the US economy plum

bed a technical recession in the first half on the back of a trade and inventory drag in Q1 and Q2 respectively, which pushed GDP negative in H1 but which was never recognized by the NBER, moments ago the BEA reported its final estimate of Q3 GDP which came in even hotter than previously expected, rising at a 3.240% rate, above the 2.930% estimated one month ago and well above the 2.57% initial estimate reported in October, mostly on the back of another upward revision in personal consumption.

The update from the “second” estimate reflected upward revisions to consumer spending, which rose 2.3% in Q3 up from 1.7% in the previous estimate and up from 2.0% in Q2, as well as upward revisions to business investment, and state and local government that were partly offset by downward revisions to inventory investment and exports.

Here is the breakdown:

• Personal consumption contributed 1.54% to the 3.240% GDP bottom line, up from 1.18% in the 2nd estimate and up from 0.97% in the 1st Q3 GDP estimate
• Fixed investment subtracted 0.62% in Q3, a smaller reduction than the -0.74% in the second estimate
• The change in private inventories however took off a bigger chunk, subtracting -1.19% from the final Q3 GDP, up from -0.97% previously.
• Net trade added 2.86% to the bottom-line GDP print (1.65% to exports, 1.19% imports), slightly below the 2.93% in the second estimate.
• Finally, government consumption added 0.65% to the bottom line print, up from 0.53% seen in last month’s revision.

Looking at the bigger picture, the third-quarter increase in real GDP reflected increases in exports, consumer spending, business investment, and government spending that were partly offset by decreases in housing investment and inventory investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

• The increase in exports reflected both goods (led by industrial supplies and materials, “other” goods, and nonautomotive capital goods) and services (led by “other” business services and travel
• The increase in consumer spending reflected an increase in services (led by health care and “other” services) that was partly offset by a decrease in goods (led by motor vehicles and parts as well as food and beverages).  
• The increase in business investment reflected increases in equipment and intellectual property products that were partly offset by a decrease in structures.   
• The increase in government spending reflected increases in state and local as well as federal (both defense and nondefense spending).  
• The decrease in housing investment was led by new single-family housing construction and brokers’ commissions.  
• The decrease in private inventory investment was led by retail trade (mainly clothing and accessory stores, other general merchandise stores, and “other” retailers). 
• The decrease in imports reflected a decrease in goods (led by consumer goods) and services (led by transport)

Strong GDP also meant higher inflation, and the GDP price index was revised up from 4.3% to 4.4% in Q3 (also higher than the 4.3% estimate), if below the 9.0% prior quarter. Core PCE Q/Q rose 4.7% in 3Q, also higher than the 4.6% in the previous estimate and 4.6% consensus estimate for the final print.

Today’s release includes estimates of GDP by industry, or value added—a measure of an industry’s contribution to GDP. Private services-producing industries increased 4.9 percent, government increased 0.6 percent, and private goods-producing industries decreased 1.3 percent. Overall, 16 of 22 industry groups contributed to the third-quarter increase in real GDP.

• The increase in private services-producing industries primarily reflected increases in information (led by data processing, internet publishing, and other information services); professional, scientific, and technical services; and real estate and rental and leasing (led by real estate). Partly offsetting these increases were decreases in utilities as well as finance and insurance (led by Federal Reserve banks, credit intermediation, and related activities).  
• The increase in government reflected an increase in state and local government that was partly offset by a decrease in federal government.  
• The decrease in private goods-producing industries primarily reflected a decrease in construction that was partly offset by an increase in mining