Yesterday, I published my #Festivus waste report, which highlighted $54 billion in truly outlandish waste in government.

A thread on an interesting report by Goldman Sachs' Peter Oppenheimer, the bank's chief global equity strategist. He points out that Goldman's "Bear Market Risk Indicator" is looking ominous.

There are three factors that suggest that the recent stability could evaporate and that equities are "about to enter a sustained bear market", Oppenheimer says.

First is the fact that growth, inflation and interest rate outlook is unfriendly for equities.

Second is that greater volatility, such as multiple corrections and new peaks (which we've seen in 2018) tend to presage a full bear market.

Here is Goldman's data showing how falls and bounces tend to come ahead of "the dramatic final fall".

1/10

This is a really tough problem to resolve, especially if the massive increase in inflows from the trade and financial accounts are sustained, as I expect they will be well into 2021.

Clearly the PBoC would like to see the RMB gradually...

2/10

strengthen. This would keep financial markets stable and promote rebalancing, but the RMB has already strengthened a lot, and this puts unwanted pressure on exporters and “international circulation”.

Although PBoC reserves have been flat, other state-controlled Chinese...

3/10

banks have bought large amounts of dollars, but this is expensive. If these banks have half a trillion dollars of exposure, for example, they are losing at least $15-17 billion annually on negative carry, plus another $20-30 billion just this year from the rise of the RMB.

4/10

Beijing seems also to be trying other measures to slow the rise. The regulators are relaxing capital controls on outflows. In mid October the PBoC cut to zero the reserve requirement ratio for banks doing FX forward trading. This requirement was created in 2018 to reduce...

5/10

downward pressure on the RMB. In late October it suspended the counter-cyclical factor in RMB fixing, which was introduced in 2017 also to reduce downward currency pressure. But in both cases while the RMB dropped a few pips on the news, it quickly resumed its upward climb.

Why do we track institutional footprints? 🐘 (Thread)

Large institutions like mutual funds, hedge funds, banks, insurance companies, trusts, etc. amount for over 75% of all volume. These institutions move the market, not you and I.

It makes sense that if these guys are moving the markets, we would ideally want to buy the same stocks they are buying, but before they buy them? Right?

So, let’s get a clear understanding of how and why this is so important and what this might look like behind the scenes.

For starters, let’s discuss what we mean by a large institution. In this case, we are referring to the many funds, pensions, trusts, etc. that are responsible for managing tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars.

Hence, they easily attract and can afford to retain the planet’s top talent, not to mention, their research budgets are enormous.

They have access to information and resources that the retail crowd simply does not, and if they did, it would likely be extremely unaffordable.

Until 2050 we'll likely see "a #supercycle in investments in 'clean' energy infrastructure, 'clean' transportation & everything that's required for the '#green' transition."

There's so much bullshit in here, I'll unpack some of it in a

2/x

1st (cf. @MGSchmelzer): there is no reason to assume that a massive productivity- & hence production-boom will lead to reduced emissions, because it will increase production&growth, & it is those two variables that global greenhouse emissions track most closely. #Degrowth.

3/x

Every time capitalism has made massive productivity gains (e.g. w/ the #steamengine; the taylorist #assemblyline; computers), that has led to a *radicalisation* of capitalism as a mass production system (as opposed to earlier versions, where luxury goods were for elites),...

4/x

So there's no reason believe that a new round of capitalist accumulation (#accumulationbydispossession / #primitiveaccumulation) - in this case: some kind of "#greencapitalism - will in any way positively impact emissions rates, but every reason to believe the opposite...

5/x

I would like to look into this, as it speaks to an often-overlooked issue: the relationship between different phases of capitalist development, such as imperialism, fordism, & post-fordism, connected to energy regimes (coal-based, oil-based, renewables-based capitalism)?

@Lol_0fficial @HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead Oh my goodness. Economic interests -absolutely- tie into this. You need to think about 1) that there are different factions involved & 2) people see economic interest more broadly than just govt spending. On the first point, evangelicals have been part of the Republican base B1/X

@HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead since the party became identical with movement conservatism, but movement conservatism only became significant as an ideology because of coalition building. Movement conservatism brought together the hawks, laissez faire economics, and cultural conservatives. B2/X

@HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead Evangelicals have always been the best organized element of the cultural conservative faction. Trump's coalition is a new one and it includes cultural conservatives, but that is the only element that is unchanged - and really even it is somewhat different.
B3/X

@HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead A minor difference is accepting Obergefell (which has made it possible for openly gay people to be highly visible members of the new coalition), but the main difference is that social conservatives no longer make a priority of the politician as an individual
B4/X

@HoodieMorr @shoe0nhead as opposed to focusing on politicians merely as conduits through which government is affected. The foreign policy contingent changed completely. The hawks are just gone from Trump's coalition. Instead there's a deep skepticism of interventionism, but without the desire B5/x