USA Today: Is A 1987-Type Market Crash 37 Days Away? Matt Krantz USA Today April 2, 2014 Investors marveling at the striking similarities of the bull market today to the one that ended in 1987 are hoping history doesn’t repeat itself. If it does, the market could be in some serious trouble in 37 trading days. In 37 trading days, the ongoing bull market would be 1,311 trading days old, says Jim Paulsen of Wells Capital Management. That is a scary date because it was on the 1,311 trading day after the start of the 1982 bull market that the Standard & Poor’s 500 suffered its biggest one-day crash in history on Oct. 19, 1987. That crash snuffed out what had been a powerful market rally starting in 1982. Normally these kinds of things are just market oddities. But investors are taking this one seriously since there are such strong similarities with the 1982 bull market and the one the market is currently in. For instance, the current bull run has marked a 175% rally from the low, which is where the 1982 bull was at this point in its run, Paulsen says.
Investors won’t have to wait long to know if the 1987 market is a pattern. The current bull run hit its 1,274th trading day on March 31, 2014. The 1,274th trading day of the 1982 bull market was Aug. 25, 1987, which turned out to be a notable top, Paulsen says. 1987 had its own unique issues not present today. Prime rates were at 21% and the oil cartel had a grip on the economy, Paulsen says. That’s not to say a crash is inevitable. Paulsen says that a 10% correction would be more likely than a full blown crash. And stocks might even rise first. And the market is famous for not following any patterns at all. “Don’t worry much, however, about another major style 1987 collapse. History doesn’t usually fully repeat,” Paulsen wrote in his note to clients.
FBI Probing High-Speed Trading On Wall Street Connor Simpson The Wire April 1, 2014
The FBI has disclosed a year-long investigation into the questionable practices of high-frequency trading less than 24 hours after the rest of the world discovered how suspect the practice can be.
The Wall Street Journal reports the Federal Bureau of Investigation opened an investigation into high frequency trading on Wall Street about a year ago. "Trading ahead of other investors based on information about orders that other investors can't see could violate insider-trading laws," an FBI spokesperson explained to the Journal. The FBI joins investigations into high-frequency trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General's office. CBS News and various others have confirmed the existence of the FBI's investigation. In a report on 60 Minutes last night, based on an excerpt from his latest book published in The New York Times Magazine on Monday, author Michael Lewis explained a not-so-frequently discussed Wall Street practice of electronically trading shares at a rapid pace to take advantage of the daily ebbs and flows of the market, commonly known as high-frequency trading. The practice is the focus of Lewis' latest book, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt. In theory, traders react to moves made by others in the market, buying and selling stock accordingly as prices go up and down. But some, like the Royal Bank of Canada, accuse high-frequency traders of using advanced computer algorithms and ultra-high speed data network to manipulate stock prices through the millisecond advantages they have over humans, and even other computer networks. The practice even allows for a technique called "front-selling," where traders place an order to purchase a stock, and HFT computers using their speed advantage to start buying the same stock before the original order is even processed. The legality of this practice was questionable well before the FBI investigation. But the FBI hopes to crack down on exactly this kind of behavior. Per the Journal: The FBI says it has dedicated a large number of agents to the investigation. They are looking at proprietary-trading outfits as well as fast-trading operations at brokers who buy and sell orders on behalf of clients, such as mutual funds and pension plans. FBI officials are looking into whether some brokers trade on information about clients orders before executing on behalf of the client and whether brokers use information about after-hours trading to beat the market when it opens the next morning. "There are many people in government who are very focused on this and who are concerned about it and who think it breaks the law," an FBI spokesman said.
Michael Lewis Explains How The Stock Market Is Rigged Infowars.com April 2, 2014
Dick Durbin said the banksters own the place‌ and they also own Congress. Stock Market Is Rigged, Explains Michael Lewis On '60 Minutes' VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVgSF8CzSy4 Republican House: Empty Threats About IRS Crimes VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07bWXtoQo1c
Billions In Hidden Subsidies Going To Too Big To Fail Banks Stephen Letts ABC News.net.au April 2, 2014
As the first round of submissions to the Federal Government's Financial Systems Inquiry closed this week there was a timely reminder that the fundamental cause of the global financial crisis is still deeply embedded in the banking system. The world's wealthiest and most powerful banks still operate behind the shield of being "too-big-tofail" (TBTF), an issue that former US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke fingered as a major factor in the meltdown and the ensuing economic calamity that still haunts markets and economies worldwide. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Fed have just published studies showing that, not only did the TBTF policy encourage a coterie of banks to place bigger and riskier bets, it is the taxpayer who largely underwrites the whole operation. A team of economists in the Fed's New York office were first out of the blocks last week with a study of more than 200 banks in 45 countries which found "an increase in government support leads to a higher ratio of impaired loans" - that is loans in default or close to default. The study was based on 2009 data, so it did not include the impact of any recent reforms. However it did analyse so-called behavioural issues, such as whether banks that ratings agencies classify as likely to receive government support, increase their risk taking. On the question of behaviour and the interaction of ratings agencies, the Fed study is fairly blunt. "The results show ... that a greater likelihood of government support leads to a rise in bank risk taking," the report concluded.
The IMF study, published this week, found something similar, but managed to put some numbers on the cost to taxpayers. The big banks in the US were subsidised by up to $US70 billion in 2012. In Europe it was up to $US300 billion and in the UK and Japan up to $US110 billion. Globally, the IMF says the TBTF subsidies are provided in a variety forms, from loan guarantees to direct cash injections. That insurance policy allows the big banks to borrow at far lower rates than their less protected smaller rivals. As the IMF notes, "those lower funding costs represent an implicit public subsidy to large banks."
Banks bigger and costlier Rather than reining in TBTF banks, the GFC has only made them bigger and costlier to support. The collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 was central to how the TBTF gang have become even stronger. The IMF says ensuring turmoil after the collapse meant that Governments were forced "to intervene massively to maintain confidence in the banking sector, and prevent the collapse of the whole financial system". That concerted action left little doubt that a big bank would never again be allowed to fail. Emboldened by this happy news, creditors had little need to check on the behaviour of the banks and the banks could go on jacking up their leverage and risk. At the same time banks grew bigger, they shrank in number as wave of consolidation driven by governments and central banks was unleashed. The IMF says that, as a result, subsidies to the big banks have risen significantly around the world.
Another by-product of the consolidation has been the heightened risk. As the IMF notes, a big bank in distress could easily destabilise a nation's entire financial system as "its activities may not be easily replaced by other institutions and because it is likely to be highly interconnected with other banks."
Big Four estimated to reap billions Unfortunately Australia's big banks did not make the cut for the IMF study, and little work has been done on just what it costs the taxpayer here. In December, the banks' regulator, APRA, said that while no Australian bank was currently on the global too-big-to-fail list (also known as the Global Systematically Important Banks, or G-SIBs for short), the Big Four should now be included. Given that CBA, Westpac, NAB and ANZ have assets that when added together are equivalent to one and half times Australia's GDP, it is a reasonable call to say they are systematically important. A private research outfit, Morgij Analytics, recently dug a bit deeper and commissioned a paper looking at the hidden costs of the implicit government guarantees in the Australian financial system. It came up with a rather jaw dropping figure of $11.1 billion as the aggregate tax payer funded subsidy in Australia. That includes a funding advantage of $2.5 billion for the TBTF implicit government guarantee and $4.5 billion for underpricing the fee associated with the Committed Liquidity Facility. It is difficult to assess just how exact the costs are, but the research does highlight widely held belief that the big banks enjoy government largesse well beyond that afforded to their smaller competitors. It is an argument hotly disputed by the Big Four. The CBA in its submission to the Financial System Inquiry argues that there is "not an implicit guarantee for the major banks", rather there is "general support for the whole banking system". The smaller regional players are not so sure and say the Federal Government should declare whether it would allow some lenders to perish in the event of another financial crisis. That is not to say that completely removing government support is a likely, or even appropriate, outcome. However, the IMF argues increasing banks' capital requirements and recouping taxpayers' costs through a financial stability tax are the reforms policy makers should be pursuing. They are exactly the sort of policies the big Australian banks will be arguing strenuously against in the inquiry. The issue of banks being too-big-to-fail and the moral hazard that entails did not quite make the FSI's terms of reference despite the unhealthy appetite for risky lending it seems to inspire, and the central role it played in the GFC. Maybe it is one for the next banking inquiry which, at the current rate, should be due around 2030.
INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND