SP 500 and NDX Futures Daily Charts - Sturm und Drang

"...it is the most alarming example of cheap demagoguery you are likely to have seen."

George Monbiot, on Rick Santelli

I watched CNBC today, which is unusual. 

When Adam Johnson left Bloomberg the quality declined markedly, wavering between screechy and vacuous, with lots of gossipy and giggly segways.  A few notable exceptions like Julie Hyman, Tom Keene, and Eric Schatzker, but not as many since Adam Johnson left.

CNBC is not much better, again with a few notable exceptions like Bill Griffeth and Kelly Evans.  It was pretty much the 'same old' as it was when I stopped watching it a few years ago. 

 

But Rick Santelli was quite the sight.

His eyes became very open and wild as he pressed his face to the camera, his nostrils were flaring, and you could see the spit flying out of his mouth.  Network for the one percent.  Maybe time for a teeth cleaning.

 

I have seen him good naturedly gooning it up with his pit trading cronies several times before, who seem to be a dying breed by the way,  and it was something you could just take in stride.  

 

But this was something different, chewing-the-scenery-wise.   Is there an inverse relationship between bombast and ratings?

 

It is 'financial television' after all.  Infomercials interspersed with country club crudité infotainment. But today he had the persona of a park bench lunatic, and it was decidedly unattractive, if not disturbing.  

 

And it was clearly an act. 

Is he supposed to be the bad guy or the good guy?  Or just the extreme guy, like George 'The Animal' Steele?   Is this some new twist in broadcast journalism?   Are they getting their production values from professional wrestling these days?  

 

Who is doing their casting, Vince McMahon?  And their directing, Ed Wood?  Are they just following the fashions of the day?  Are we all Bobby Heenan now?   

 

Do we even know what genuine human life is all about, anymore?  Do we even care?  Living life in stereotypes and spin is simpler and more pliantly digestible.   Is life imitating art, in caricature?

 

The saddest part is that this is becoming a tone for not just finance but 'the real news,' led by Fox and CNBC's sister, MSNBC.  And the very serious Sunday morning shows are going off-the-hook as well, as they grapple with a credibility gap that prevents the political and media elite from acknowledging the decline in the average person's reality.

 

Speaking of unattractive and disturbing,  the SP futures managed to rally solidly up to the top of  the big resistance around 2065 for the fifth time since mid January.

 

The big tickle is going to be Greece this week, with maybe a nod from the Ukraine.  If we get a surprise settlement on Greece by some miracle tomorrow, the markets will do a moonshot. 

 

It is hard to tell.  Most of the local (US) commentary is either hopelessly slanted or incredibly naïve.  It is sad when very good financial commentators decide to be political analysts too.  Or when financial commenters decide to embark on flights of fantasy.  I have enough actual experience to know what I do not know, and that is quite a bit.  At least I'll admit it.  But speculating about what is happening or what might happen is fun when you are unconstrained by facts.

 

One has to tune out the sturm und drang with which the players are filling the airwaves as they prepare to get serious.  This is the oh yeah, yeah! portion of the prototypical schoolyard encounter.

 

So let's keep an eye on the geopoliticals, because I do not think the stock markets will unleash the rally monkeys until they are more sure that something disruptive is not coming.    Even if the talks completely break down and Greek says they will exit, I suspect we *might* see a relief rally after an initial plunge.  Remember the mistaken optimism prior to the crushing reality of Lehman Brothers?

 

Have a pleasant evening.

 

 

 

Michael Greenberger: Setting the Stage For the Next Wall Street Crisis

Michael Greenberger has long been one of my favorite commenters on regulation, and in particular on futures price manipulation.

Within the context of the uphill battle against the status quo, Gary Gensler and Bart Chilton may have looked 'good' as regulators, but all in all they looked better only by comparison with some very horrible alternatives.  Chilton, as you may recall, did not waste much time going through the revolving door to put on the feedbag from the HFT crowd.

I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again.  Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing.

Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand, cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis.  And it was a job well done.

No matter what she says, no matter what promises she may make, no matter what identity branding they may choose to spin for her, I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign.  

Further, the only major difference between the parties now is that the Republicans have sold out wholesale to the moneyed interests, whereas the Dems have been doing it one despicable betrayal at a time.  They merely wear different masks.  Money conquers all with this venal brood of vipers.

Financial reform comes with political campaign money reform.  The two are inseparable.

US Seeks Felony Pleas From JPM, Barclays, RBS, and Citi For Criminally Rigging Currency Markets

Too bad a felony conviction will not remove the privilege of voting from criminal organizations, since despite their 'personhood' and many rights as granted by the Bill of Rights, as bizarrely distorted by the Supreme Court, corporations do not yet have the right to vote.  Not even the Banks.

But they will still possess the right to use huge quantities of publicly subsidized funds to maintain large stables of servile politicians on retainer, which is a much more direct and efficient way of obtaining your political and regulatory will than by merely casting a vote, in the conventional human manner.

 

Will they be banned from any markets?  Will they be subjected to more intense regulation?   I don't know.

 

But they will carry a 'symbolic stigma.'   This is quite the burden for our pampered princes. The horror!

 

I wonder why Eric Holder is unafraid now to pursue actual criminal charges this time, as opposed to the scores of other cases where banks, such as HSBC for example, have brazenly flouted the law, again and again and again, with deferred prosecution and wristslap fines?

 

Why now?  What has changed?  What line could they have possibly crossed, after so many other brazen and repeated offenses?  What does the government see coming that they need to do this?  No more bailouts for felons?

 

And what happens when they do it again?  And again. 

 

Do they get to keep the Presidential cuff links?

Dealbook

U.S. Is Seeking Felony Pleas by Big Banks in Foreign Currency Inquiry

By Ben Protess and Jessica Silver-Greenberg

February 9, 2015

The Justice Department is pushing some of the biggest banks on Wall Street — including, for the first time in decades, American institutions — to plead guilty to criminal charges that they manipulated the prices of foreign currencies.

In the final stages of a long-running investigation into corruption in the world’s largest financial market, federal prosecutors have recently informed Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Citigroup that they must enter guilty pleas to settle the cases, according to lawyers briefed on the matter.

The pleas would be likely to carry a symbolic stigma, if limited actual fallout, in handing felony convictions to some of the world’s biggest banks...

Read the entire article here.