Month: February 2016

Another Real Estate Market Bites the Dust – Hong Kong Prices Plunge, Transactions Hit 25-Year Low

by

Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 11.39.41 AM

A stunning reversal across various global real estate hubs which have served as focal points for both international investors and criminal oligarchs, has made itself clear over the past several months. I’ve highlighted plunging sales and prices in high-end London, a multi-month slowdown in Manhattan’s luxury market, as well as a burst bubble in mansion prices in various articles over the last several months. We now have another region to add to the list: Hong Kong.

Bloomberg reports:

In a city that saw demand propel property prices to a record last year, the estimate that transactions reached a 25 year-low in Hong Kong shows how quickly sentiment has turned.

Home prices have slumped almost 10 percent since September and monthly sales in January fell to the lowest since at least 1991, according to Centaline Property Agency Ltd. Amid a spike in flexible mortgage rates this month and anemic demand for new developments, the low transactions volume for January is the latest evidence that prices have further to fall.

Talk about a reversal.

Developers are showing caution too, which could further weaken the outlook for the property market. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, two out of three government attempts to sell residential land sites through tenders since November failed after bids failed to match the minimum price.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Bought & Paid For – 1/3 of All SuperPAC Donations Have Come from Wall Street

by

Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 10.43.50 AM

So far, super PACs have received more than one-third of their donations from financial-services executives, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

In the 2012 election, donations from the financial-services sector made up roughly 20% of the $845 million raised by super PACs, or political-action committees, and other independent campaign groups. In the 2004 election, Wall Street and other financial groups were responsible for just $2.4 million of the money collected by political-action committees.

The early fundraising data provides the most recent evidence that Wall Street is the single biggest driver behind the surge in spending by super PACs and other outside groups on U.S. elections.

– From the Wall Street Journal article: Wall Street’s Donor Role Expands as Money Flows Into 2016 Election 

If Wall Street knows anything, it’s how to hedge its bets. This is precisely why powerful financiers make sure they bankroll as many politicians as possible.

Indeed, when it comes to the 2016 Presidential race, the only two candidates who are not being funded by Wall Street are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. This explains much of the horror exhibited by the establishment when it comes to the success of these two individuals.

While the influence of Wall Street money in politics is nothing new, what is notable about the current race is the monetary investment by these financiers is substantially higher than as recently as 2012. It appears many financial oligarchs see a pressing need to boost their spending this time around in order to protect themselves against the justified angst of the American public.

A very interesting article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal highlighted some the spending in detail. Here are some of the numbers as relates to those candidates still in the running:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

by

The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.