ALIVE AND WELL

How much and what does it take to fully compensate one for taking on a specific risk?

Answering that is like getting a bunch of guys together to watch a Miss Universe pageant and getting everyone to agree which ladies are a 10. It ain't going to happen.

A similar situation exists today with the so-called new way of deciding which four teams should make up the playoff group to decide the national champion in college football. 

What was supposed to be objective is, if any thing, about as subjective as it gets. Strength of schedule, nonsense about how many top 25 ranked teams did a team play are just two examples.

Top 25 ranked teams is like a sliding scale of insulin, it changes over time. Was the team played on the road or was it played at home and margin of victory are some more?  

What's wrong with these so-called improved ways of selecting is the same thing wrong with those guys watching that beauty pageant--everyone has an opinion and everyone has a bias.

The pyrite of this system is the canard that a group of selectors--irrespective of their backgrounds or credentials-- just because they form a committee or commission suddenly grow a set of angelic wings and discard their humanness. It ain't going to happen.

And it's that same humanness that drives much of the market everyday. Like the market, big time college football is about big bucks. Like it or otherwise, wherever one finds big bucks one will also find big elements of humanness.

And that brings us back to how much is enough compensation for taking on a specific risk. Only you can decide. And for us we see some risk in the stock market with all the corporate buybacks providing much of the upside fuel for a market that is about as close to being overfed as overfed gets.

Perhaps nowhere is that more of a concern than in the credit market where corporate add backs roil the credit waters more than many investors may be aware. We will spare you the internals. Just know that optimistic projections, like those football polls and all those talking head commentaries every year, are one thing and reality another.

Rising credit costs usually accompany rising interest rates. And it's a known fact that in the corporate accounting world the term meretricious despite all the so-called regulations is alive and well.

We once knew a buccaneer with all the proper credentials and accoutrements who masqueraded as a surgeon.

HAD THEIR TURN AND FAILED

We recently wrote about California's Mendocino County voters who passed a referendum this month declaring self-determination.

In that post we mentioned Catalonia, a small section in northern Spain that wants its freedom from Madrid or the central government.

The Economist in its recent issue wrote:

SECESSION is a nasty business. A century and a half ago, America fought a civil war to prevent it. So it is not surprising that Spain, which has bad memories of its own civil war, should oppose independence for Catalonia. Spain’s refusal to allow a referendum on the issue is, however, matched by Catalonia’s determination to hold one—hence the vote the regional government held on November 9th, in which 80% of those who participated voted for independence (see article). The government in Madrid called the vote illegal, and a failure because turnout was only 37%; the Catalan one said that it demonstrated the case for Catalonia’s independence.

Neither is right. The case for holding a referendum is strong, but if there is one, Catalonia should vote to stay part of Spain.

Like another MSM news organization, Bloomberg which opposes the move in Mendocino County, these shills for the status quo never saw a secession they agreed with or liked,

Under a banner of Better Together, the Economist continues:

Catalan nationalists have drawn strength from the Scottish referendum earlier this year, but Catalonia is not Scotland. In relation to the rest of Spain, it is twice as big, with around 16% of the country’s population. It is also much richer, contributing almost a fifth of GDP and, unlike Scotland, transferring substantial sums to the rest of the country. Moreover, Spain has other restless regions: were Catalonia to go, so might the Basque Country and Galicia. Catalan independence would thus pose a serious risk to Spain’s very existence.

What the author or his editors or both don't seem to understand, or more likely don't want to understand, for Catalonians who are apparently fed up with their bigger Spanish centralized brothers, it's not their concern whether Spain's very existence is at risk.

In fact, at a much deeper level for those who are willing to take off their blinders, that's what Catalonians are rebelling for--their very existence and the right to preserve it.

Centralized governments when they get too big and too centralized threaten peoples' lives, their very ways and cultures of existence. It's a universal fact.

Contributing nearly 20% to GDP of a distant, feckless centralized government is reason enough for secession, but surely there are many others. The only constant in life is change. And if that applies to peoples' lives it certainly ought to apply to incompetent governments and countries.

The big concern here is once again money. Those who oppose Catalan independence are most concerned about an independent Catalan stiffing EU creditors in Brussels.

The people of Catalonia should decide their fate, not Madrid bureaucrats and politicians who like in many other regions on this planet have had their turn and failed

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21632478-madrid-government-should-let-catalans-have-voteand-then-defeat-separatists?

JOLTS AND JOBS, JOBS AND JOLTS

So goes the quit rate, so goes interest rates?

At least that what's some are saying. The quit rate--at a six year high--jumped to 2 percent in September with the number of job quits, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at 2.8 million.

That could turn out to be a jolt from the JOLTS department for the Federal Reserve. 

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen reportedly pays close attention to the JOLTS report. The reasoning being if one feels good enough to quit one's job it must be because he also believes jobs are now more plentiful and easier to get.
                                                      
Does this mean that the old two percent target rate for inflation is as passe as pegged pants or is this just another twist in the six year ongoing monetary circus we've all been watching and wondering about?

If your into jolts from the BLS department of JOLTS report, here you go:

This news release presents statistics from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects and compiles JOLTS data monthly from a sample of nonfarm establishments. A more detailed discussion of JOLTS concepts and methodology is available online at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch18.pdf.

Meanwhile, if you want to view an interesting chart about the matter from Business Insider click on the link below.

By the way, try saying three times as fast as you can: Jolts and jobs, jobs and jolts.You might like it.

http://e.businessinsider.com/public/3338502

AN AMERICAN FIRST

Since our politics page today seems to have its own idea about self-determination we'll post this here.

The recent national election results were really much more remarkable from an historical point than most, especially the Democrats, would like to admit. This is fact, not an intended political or partisan jab.

These are the numbers from the election in the U.S. They are truly historic; to find a parallel in terms of partisan shift from the Democrats to the Republicans, you have to go back to the Wilson Administration elections of 1918 and Davis' crushing defeat in 1920 and Hoover's coronation as Coolidge's successor in 1928. Even Truman's successive losses in mid-term elections was not a comparable defeat because the Democrats remained solidly in the majority in state legislatures and governorships. Measured by all elective offices throughout the country, this is the first time in American history that Republicans have been the majority party for more than a single election.

This is not our research but from one of the many sites we visit daily. See link below.


Republicans now hold 31 (possibly 32) of the 50 governorships and 29 (possibly 30) of the state legislatures, a total that matches the Republicans' all-time greatest success in 1928. In the count of all state legislative bodies (99 total, thanks to Nebraska's unicameral legislature) the Republicans control 69; that is 5 more than their greatest previous success of 64 in 1920.
 
The President's record is truly extraordinary as the leader of an American political party. Since his election in 2008 the Democrats have lost 14 Senate seats (60 to 46), 72 House seats (257 to 185), and 10 governorships (28 to 18).

http://www.dailyspeculations.com/wordpress/?p=9792