• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,240
Likes
38,464
Oil plunges to its worst loss in 2 weeks



Alex Nussbaum and Alex Longley

33 mins ago


Oil slid to its worst loss in two weeks as mounting fears about the global economy undercut the latest plan from OPEC and its allies to stabilize markets.




Futures dropped by as much as 4.3% in New York, the steepest intraday decline since June 12. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney warned of the dangers of rising protectionism around the globe, citing a “widespread slowdown” that may require a major policy response. That added to worries following weak manufacturing reports from the U.S., China and Europe.

The anxieties blotted out optimism despite Tuesday’s agreement by major oil exporters to extend production cuts for nine more months. Divisions remained over Saudi Arabia’s push to target even deeper reductions, with Russia expressing doubts at the end of a summit in Vienna.

In another sign of demand worries the backwardation for Brent, where the front month is valued more than future months, was halved between Monday and Tuesday for the near term prices.

“There are concerns that demand might slow to where it overpowers supply," Bart Melek, head of commodity strategy at Toronto’s TD Securities, said in an interview. The “gloomy" data, especially from China, “is very much part and parcel of what we’re seeing."

West Texas Intermediate crude for August delivery slipped $2.14 to $56.94 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange as of 11:51 a.m., obliterating a Monday gain that followed announcement of the OPEC+ extension.

Brent for September settlement declined $2.12 to $62.94 a barrel on the ICE Futures Europe Exchange. The global benchmark crude was at a $5.92 premium to WTI for the same month.

At the Vienna meeting, Saudi Arabia said it would keep its output below 10 million barrels a day, even lower than required under the so-called OPEC+ deal. Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said he was “enthusiastic" about the outlook for oil demand.

Yet Russia, the other de facto leader of the group, questioned a Saudi push to use the average of 2010 to 2014 global oil inventories to set its upcoming production targets. That move, a change to current policy, would require deeper cuts but achieve the higher prices the Saudis need to balance their budget.

Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak also said the group was ready to respond to any significant supply disruptions.

The OPEC pact leaves the door open for U.S. shale producers to grab more market share, as the group will have to cut deeper to achieve inventory targets, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The decision creates a clearer downside risk to the bank’s forecast for Brent to average $60 a barrel next year, even though it could result in some shorter-term price spikes.

The structure of the Brent crude market suggests futures investors may be losing faith that the OPEC+ extension will be enough to stave off an oversupply. The premium of front-month futures over the next month reached as little as 20 cents on Tuesday, compared with 43 cents early on Monday. A shrinking premium, or backwardation, indicates a weakening near-term market.

A gauge of U.S. factory activity fell for a third month in June. The Institute for Supply Management index dropped to 51.7, the weakest level since October 2016. That came after the Caixin China PMI Manufacturing measure dipped below 50 for the first time in four months.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...s-worst-loss-in-2-weeks/ar-AADId8c?li=BBnbfcN
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,240
Likes
38,464
was wondering about something the other day,
if the dollar highs over longer periods have been lower and lower,
with it being a index and weighted against others, along with the continued break down of the currencies in the basket,
one would think it would in fact show off lower highs
I went and looked it up, and sure as heck, there it is,

lower highs,
which would be somewhat interesting if we are at or very near this cycle high for the dollar,
and if there is still some market reflection of USD vs gold and silver

then it is fair to ask, if we are near the highs in the dollar, can the metals continue to move up from here all else equal?

the longer chart currently shows the dollar testing recent highs. Whereas if it fails and goes down, you can see there has been no double top prior in the market marking the end of a upswing. That would become like a cement cap over it.

currently it is very close to the activity of 97 or so when it continued on to make new highs,

just something to watch for as if that double top holds, then metals may get quite a little run going



usd.jpg
 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
5,252
Likes
6,672
Deutsche Bank to cut 18,000 jobs in 7.4 billion euro overhaul

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-deutsche-bank-strategy-idUSKCN1U20J2

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) plans to cut 18,000 jobs in a sweeping, 7.4 billion euro overhaul designed to turn around Germany’s struggling flagship lender.

The plan represents a major retreat from trading by Deutsche Bank, which for years had tried to compete as a major force on Wall Street.

The bank will scrap its global equities business and scale back its investment bank. It expects a 2.8 billion euro ($3.1 billion) net loss in the second quarter as a result of restructuring charges.

Beyond the expected cutbacks to equities, Deutsche said it would also axe some of its fixed income operations, an area traditionally regarded as one of the bank’s strengths.

It will create a new unit to wind-down unwanted assets, with a value of 74 billion euros of risk-weighted assets.

Chief Executive Officer Christian Sewing flagged an extensive restructuring in May when he promised shareholders “tough cutbacks” to the investment bank. The pledge came after Deutsche failed to agree a merger with rival Commerzbank (CBKG.DE).

The overhaul, one of several over the past few years, signals that Deutsche is coming to terms with its failure to keep pace with Wall Street’s big hitters such as JP Morgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and Goldman Sachs (GS.N).

Last week, the head of Deutsche’s investment bank Garth Ritchie agreed to step down, marking a sign of the division’s waning influence.

Sewing called the package the “most fundamental transformation” of the bank in decades. “This is a restart,” he said.

Media reports had suggested that Deutsche Bank could cut as many as 20,000 jobs — more than one in five of its 91,500 employees.

In the event, the bank said it would reduce headcount to 74,000 employees by 2022.

The bank did not disclose a geographic breakdown of the job cuts. The equities business is focused largely in New York and London.

A person with direct knowledge of the matter said job cuts would be distributed around the world, including in Germany.

The bank’s supervisory board met on Sunday to agree the proposed changes, one of the biggest announcements of job cuts at a major investment bank since 2011 when HSBC said it would axe 30,000 jobs.

Stephan Szukalski, head of the DBV union, told Reuters that the measures were in the right direction.

“This could be a real new beginning for Deutsche Bank,” said Szukalski, who also sits on the bank’s supervisory board.
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,240
Likes
38,464
Potus mad at fed, says they should cut,

when asked why, he states they have a lot of debt to pay back, and to keep the economy going
then he says others are manipulating their currency against us.

My response would be, then stop spending far over revenue and cut the .gov like you said you would,
as for manipulation, there is always manipulation, and always will be, including by our own ptb.

With the current economy, there is zero reason to raise rates IMO.
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,240
Likes
38,464
with gold chart, you can see the double tap on about 1440,

and now support is at 1385, and if that breaks, there is some room to run to the down,

someone was stating mid 1300's and they were right, in that there is a lot of congestion there that may lend support

2.png
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,562
Likes
26,026
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
36,444
Likes
50,881

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
5,252
Likes
6,672
Congress courageously sticks US taxpayers with a $6 trillion liability

July 15, 2019
Santiago, Chile

There seems to be an unwritten rule with lawmakers that, every time they create a terrible piece of legislation, they give it the most noble-sounding name.

The USA PATRIOT Act from 2001 was a great example. It sounds great. Who wouldn’t love a law named for Patriots?

And yet that was easily among the most freedom-killing laws ever passed in US history, giving the federal government nearly unlimited authority to wage war and spy on its own people.

There are so many other examples-- the USA FREEDOM Act from 2015 (which renewed many of the worst provisions of the PATRIOT Act).

Or the HIRE Act from 2010, which created some of the most heinous tax rules of the last fifty years.

The names of these laws all sounded wonderful. But their effects were absolutely terrible.

The new SECURE Act will likely be no different.

If you haven’t heard of SECURE, it’s a new piece of legislation aimed at ‘fixing’ the US retirement system.

SECURE stands for “Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement”, which is pretty clever when you think about it.

People want to associate their retirement with a word like ‘secure’. So even without knowing anything about the law, most people will probably have good feelings about it based solely on the name.

But if you actually read the legislation, SECURE contains a number of predictably terrible consequences.

For starters, SECURE is basically a gigantic tax increase. And it’s a tax increase that will particularly affect your children when you pass away.

Under current law, you could leave your IRA to your children in a fairly tax efficient way. That’s actually one of the nice things about an IRA.

If your kids inherit your IRA, they’re required to pay out a small portion of the funds each year… and those distributions would be taxable income.

But the current rules only require tiny distributions; your kids are allowed to stretch out the annual payouts over the course of their lives, resulting in very minor taxation.

The new rules completely eliminate this benefit.

Under the SECURE Act, your kids would have ten years to pay out (and be taxed on) the entire value of your retirement account.

This means that the annual payouts would be MUCH larger… thus bumping your children up to a higher tax bracket… meaning that they’ll end up paying much higher taxes on your retirement savings.

This is tantamount to a huge estate tax increase. And it’s one that primarily affects the middle class.

For wealthy people, retirement accounts typically only comprise a small percentage of their assets. So this rule change won’t have much of an impact.

But for the middle class, retirement accounts are often one of the largest sources of their estates. And this legislation will be a significant hit for them.

The US House of Representatives already passed the SECURE Act. And just in case you’re about to start hating on your least favorite political party, you should know that it was passed with almost unanimous support from both parties.

(Though I have my doubts whether most members of Congress even read the legislation...)

It’s currently in the Senate and seems likely to pass, so this is a reality to prepare for.

In related news, Congress also made some movement on the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act.

Sadly this one doesn’t have a catchy acronym. But in essence the legislation is their comical attempt to address the multi-trillion dollar problem of unfunded pension plans in the Land of the Free.

We’ve talked about this before a number of times-- the vast majority of state, local, and even corporate pension plans in the United States (and worldwide for that matter) simply don’t have enough money to keep their promises.

Moody’s Investor Service estimated last year that the total pension funding gap in the US is $4.4 trillion. A few months ago the American Legislative Exchange Council estimated it at nearly $6 trillion.

Bottom line, it’s a big number.

Pension plans in the United States are currently guaranteed by a quasi-government agency called the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation.

The PBGC is sort of like an FDIC for pension funds… so that if a pension plan goes bust, the PBGC will step in with a bailout.

Problem is, the PBGC itself is nearly insolvent and will run out of money in 2025. And its balance sheet is trivial compared to the multi-trillion dollar pension problem.

So Congress came up with a solution: go into DEBT!

According to the new legislation, whenever a pension plan runs out of funds, Congress wants them to borrow money in order to keep making payments to beneficiaries.

This raises an obvious question: who would be insane enough to loan money to an insolvent pension fund?

Well, you’ll be pleased to know that your esteemed members of Congress have courageously signed you up for the task, putting the American taxpayer on the hook for this potential $6 trillion liability.

Clearly this plan is the work of genius.

If nothing else, these two laws point to an obvious conclusion: it’s more important than ever to get your house in order when it comes to retirement planning.

Pension funds aren’t going to be able to keep their promises. Even Social Security, according to its own annual report, will run out of money in 15 years.

And even when you responsibly set aside your own money for retirement, lawmakers will suddenly change the rules and impose a major tax increase on the middle class.

Just imagine the things they’ll do if the Bolsheviks come to power next year…

To your freedom,



Simon Black,
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,240
Likes
38,464
Housing starts in the US dropped 0.9 percent from a month earlier to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,269 thousand units in May 2019, compared to market expectations of 1,239 thousand and following an upwardly revised 6.8 percent advance in April. Construction of single-family housing units led the decline. Housing Starts in the United States averaged 1430.39 Thousand units from 1959 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 2494 Thousand units in January of 1972 and a record low of 478 Thousand units in April of 2009.





https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-starts
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,562
Likes
26,026
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Silva trying to be a bad ass & grow some legs ...
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,562
Likes
26,026
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
The United States does not have a gun problem. The firearm homicide rate in the US seems very high for a developed nation, but that’s until you look under the hood. The firearm homicide rate for white Americans is 1.7 per 100,000, which is identical to the Czech Republic and lower than countries like Canada, France, and Austria, which, to be fair, have their own issues with “diversity.”

The firearm homicide rate for Hispanics in the United States is 6.4 per 100,000, or nearly four times that of white Americans. The firearm homicide rate for blacks in the US is 19.8 per 100,000, or eleven-and-a-half times that of whites.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,562
Likes
26,026
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Economics 102, Raconteur Report - Alcohol was legalized when Prohibition was repealed in 1933. So tell the class in what year moonshining stopped in the U.S. That would be never. It's never stopped. Why will "Legalize and tax" work with drugs, when it hasn't worked for alcohol once in 86 years? Tobacco has never been illegal. Why are people smuggling untaxed cigarettes in 24/7/365? Shouldn't "Legalization and taxation" have stopped all that? If not, why not? How do you go after that criminal conduct, plus do it for drugs, without continuing the exact same War On Drugs you say you want to end, because it's stupid and wasteful? It will never work because it can never work, and never has.
 

ErrosionOfAccord

#1 Global Warmer
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,017
Likes
4,785
Location
Coal Country
^^^

Because you still a lie-sense to produce those things and because some states set their taxes too high. Competition and such.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,562
Likes
26,026
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Electric vehicles, Eric Peters Autos - The car industry is gearing up to build cars which two-third of the market is not financially capable of buying. Why are they doing it? Because it is the only way to “achieve compliance.” Perhaps EVs will be Obamaphoned. In addition to mandating them, the government will give people vouchers for them – in addition to the existing subsidies. Realistically it’s the only way these specialty cars can ever become mass market cars. But perhaps that has never been the object of this exercise. Perhaps it has been to make all cars specialty cars. In order to reduce the number of cars. In order to to limit their possession to special people.

Charles Smith at Of Two Minds notes:​
The tech "solution" to 500 million internal combustion engine vehicles is to toss those 500 million vehicles in the landfill and then go mine the immense amounts of metals, minerals and hydrocarbons needed to built 500 million all-electric vehicles.​
Then, in a generation, repeat the process, as "more efficient" vehicles are developed.​
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,240
Likes
38,464
US growth slows as trade war weighs on businesses



Katia Dmitrieva

7 hrs ago


U.S. economic growth slowed in the second quarter by less than forecast as consumer spending topped estimates, though weaker business investment and exports underscored the risks spurring the Federal Reserve toward an interest-rate cut next week.

Gross domestic product expanded at a 2.1% annualized rate, according to Commerce Department data Friday that topped forecasts for 1.8%. That follows an unrevised 3.1% advance in first quarter and updated data showing growth last year was slower than previously reported.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...ar-weighs-on-businesses/ar-AAETTAo?li=BBnbfcN
 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
5,252
Likes
6,672
Equifax breach settlement sparks criticism

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/454207-equifax-breach-settlement-sparks-criticism

Lawmakers and industry officials are criticizing the settlement between regulators and credit agency Equifax, claiming the potentially $700 million penalty is not enough for the 2017 data breach that exposed the personal information of around 147 million Americans.

Critics also are turning their ire toward Congress, arguing the penalty could have been steeper if the U.S. had a comprehensive privacy law in place.

“[The settlement] shows that we need a comprehensive data privacy and security law to ensure companies are designing their systems to protect consumer privacy from the start, minimizing the personal information they keep, and are held appropriately accountable if they fail,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) said in a statement on Monday.

The enormous Equifax breach, which left more than half the adults in the U.S. vulnerable to identity theft and fraud, compromised data including Social Security numbers, birth dates, driver’s license numbers, credit card numbers, addresses and some passport data.

The settlement would require Equifax to pay $575 million and possibly $700 million, over the breach. Of that, $300 million will go to a fund providing impacted consumers with credit monitoring services. Equifax also stands to add $125 million if the initial amount doesn’t prove adequate to meet demand.

Additionally, Equifax will pay $175 million to 48 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, along with $100 million to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in civil penalties.

When the full amount is divided out, Equifax will pay around $4 for every consumer impacted by the breach.

“While this settlement may help compensate people affected by the breach, it doesn’t adequately address the broader problem of lax data security,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, said in a statement. “Congress must act to ensure that a breach of this magnitude never happens again.”

Equifax has also agreed to provide all U.S. customers with six free credit reports each year for seven years beginning in January, and the company is required to implement a “comprehensive information security program” to protect customers.

Equifax says it is investing more than $1 billion in technological and cybersecurity measures to prevent another breach.

“To date, we have not identified instances of the stolen data being used for identity theft purposes or being sold on the dark web,” Equifax CEO Mark Begor told reporters on a call Monday. “But we remain committed to doing the right thing for impacted consumers in safeguarding their data.”

While Equifax may not have identified incidences of the data being used for malicious purposes, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh (D) said at a press conference Monday that hackers often keep data for years. “I don’t think we can say ... that all the harm has been realized,” he added.

The settlement came two years after Equifax discovered the breach. The investigation dragged on in part because it was not immediately clear how the government could hold Equifax accountable, an issue largely due to the lack of federal privacy legislation.

“If we had the comprehensive privacy statute … the authorities would be clear, we’d have a clear way to proceed and then we wouldn’t have an extensive negotiation to try to figure out what sort of remedies the agencies could impose,” Harold Feld, senior vice president of consumer group Public Knowledge, told The Hill.

Justin Brookman, director of consumer privacy and technology policy for Consumer Reports, told The Hill he believes the two-year timeline underscores the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) need for more resources. The FTC previously told Congress it only has 40 full-time employees dedicated to overseeing internet privacy and data security, a number that pales in comparison to the 500 employees for the United Kingdom’s privacy watchdog.

During a press conference Monday, FTC officials said they need greater civil penalty authority to respond to incidents such as the Equifax breach, with FTC Chairman Joseph Simons urging Congress to pass data privacy legislation that would give them authority to bring penalties against companies for their first offense.

“I think we could create a lot more deterrence if we got civil penalty authority, and that is what we are asking for,” Simons said.

Following the initial breach in 2017, Congress stepped in to investigate the incident, with multiple hearings from various committees. Multiple congressional reports concluded that Equifax ignored vulnerabilities in its system that led to the hack and failed to take adequate action in its aftermath.

Other lawmakers from both sides of the aisle also criticized the settlement and the lack of a federal data privacy law.

Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) said in a statement, “While I’m happy to see that customers who have been harmed as a result of Equifax’s shoddy cybersecurity practices will see some compensation, we need structural reforms and increased oversight of credit reporting agencies in order to make sure that this never happens again.”

Warner and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), another 2020 contender, introduced a bill last year that would hold companies like Equifax accountable for data breaches in the future.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) called the settlement “good news” but said the consequences of the breach will reverberate for years.

“Years from now, there will be families who can’t get home loans, families stuck with crummy credit scores, and families battling fraudulent charges because their data was mishandled by Equifax,” Sasse said in a statement.

Security experts concluded the Equifax data was likely stolen by a nation-state for spying purposes, since it has not surfaced on the dark web and there is little evidence it has been used to impersonate victims.

The breach amounted to the largest of its kind in U.S. history, leading to an equally record-shattering settlement on Monday, which some saw as an important precedent.

Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s top Republican, called the settlement a “step forward.”

“We knew there was no silver bullet, because restoring trust takes time,” he added.

Brookman told The Hill he believes the settlement would be “an effective deterrent for future behavior.”

And Frosh said the settlement now “sets a standard for all credit reporting agencies.”

A spokesperson for TransUnion, one of the three major credit agencies, told The Hill in a statement that it is “acutely aware that consumers count on us to safeguard their information, as do our data furnishers and business customers. Information security is a top priority at all levels of our global organization.”

On Capitol Hill, though, despite calls for legislation, work on a federal data privacy bill has largely stalled.

“We really encourage them to consider and keep going,” Simons said Monday. “It’s important for consumers, it’s important for the country.”
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,562
Likes
26,026
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
I'd say EV's are going to be very disruptive & destablizing for gas stations, convienience stores, auto dealerships, auto repair shops, auto parts stores, manufacturers & suppliers, etc., etc., etc.. Self driving cars will obsolete most traffic citations & crimes which will disrupt the income streams (traffic fines) to local & state agencies along with a sharp decline in traffic court & lawyers fees, etc.. There is many more mentionables once you get to thinking about it....
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,562
Likes
26,026
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
We are all basically well bathed cavemen... every day when you wake up you fall into one of three tribes, "Can I eat it?", "Can it eat me?" or 'Can i mate with it?" Which are you???
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,562
Likes
26,026
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,240
Likes
38,464
from BB's link:

Another hidden-but-real cost of buying a new car is the property tax applied to new cars in many states. These taxes are based on the retail value of the car – and new cars have the highest value and are thus subject to the highest tax. These taxes can be as high as the cost of insurance – as much as $1,000 annually or even more, depending on the state.

----------

do not have the value adjusted registration cost here, but certainly can appreciate the insidious nature of this one for those that do
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
29,240
Likes
38,464
gold silver and oil all taking hits this am,

as the Fed drops a 1/4, but leaves the future uncertain,
market doing what it does, flipped out expecting more and more decreases going forward

which to me is just plain wrong, rates should be going up, not down

allows .gov to keep on spending with no repercussions if rates continue to trend down
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
36,444
Likes
50,881
as loud as the thunder outside,

stocks getting crushed,
10 yr treas have plummeted in yield, busting thru the 2.0% level with authority and now in the 1.76 range

chart shows 1.86, but that was before the carnage today


View attachment 138005
IRAs and 401Ks are taking a beating but the bump in metals is cushioning the blow (for me anyway)