The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

When are you folks in the black community going to do something about this ******* in the Oval Orifice that keeps using your orifices as playthings for his policies?

The Obama administration is moving to ease access to student loans for parents with damaged credit, a policy reversal that could saddle poor families with piles of debt but also boost college enrollment.

Under a plan likely to take effect next year, the Education Department would check the past two years of a borrower's credit, instead of the current standard of five, for blemishes such as delinquencies or debts in collection. Also, any delinquent debts below $2,085 would be overlooked; currently, delinquencies of any amount are grounds for rejected applications.

These are what are known as "Plus" loans.

They carry a higher interest rate than Stafford loans and they have another terrifying feature -- they're not taken out by the students, but by the parents.

Stafford caps loans at $57,000, roughly.  That's far too much, but at least there's a cap.  There is no cap on PLUS loans.

Virtually all of the young adults out there with $100,000+ in college debt have these destructive lending scams loaded upon them.  It can't be otherwise, due to the Stafford limits, for the most part.  For one of those people who finds themselves unable to get a job in their chosen field, or for whom the salaries in that field (e.g. social work, journalism, etc) are simply insufficient to pay the debts off their parents can be impoverished.

Since Reagan, then Clinton and then Bush all destroyed (incrementally) the ability of borrowers for student loans to discharge them in bankruptcy this leads to an intractable problem.

The real issue is that college shouldn't cost more than a few thousand dollars a year. There is utterly no reason for it to cost more than $20,000 or so for the entire four year course of study, which on an inflation-adjusted basis would mean that you could work full-time in the summer and part-time during the year (e.g. weekends) and put yourself through with no assistance from anyone else.  

That, by the way, was entirely possible right up until the mid 1980s when the loan scam system took off.

The fix is to force downward the cost of college, and the means to do that is to withdraw the "easy loan" game and start prosecuting under the RICO laws along with the Sherman and Clayton acts any and all educational institutions that try to use their credentialing system as a means of forcing you to go through their schools.

Education is a good thing -- but not if it comes at the expense of living in a refrigerator box.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

You know, it's never the original event -- it's always the cover up.  Obstruction of justice, evidence tampering, destruction of official records, you know, all those things that get you.  And it looks like it might "get" Hitlery this time.

A former State Department official has told lawmakers that Hillary Clinton allies privately removed politically damaging documents before turning over files to the supposedly independent board investigating the Benghazi terror attack.

That's probably a crime.

And since her chief of staff was allegedly overseeing this, guess who fries for it?  Not just them -- Hillary too.

Of course the State Department is denying it.  I'd deny it too, considering that at best it's career-ending and at worst it might get you some time in Club Fed.

According to The Daily Signal report, Maxwell walked in on the weekend session on a Sunday afternoon after hearing about it. He reportedly claims he saw stacks of documents when he arrived as well as an office director who worked for him -- but who hadn't told him about the assignment. 

Maxwell reportedly claimed she told him they were instructed to go through the stacks and pull out items that could put anybody in the NEA "front office" or seventh floor -- where the secretary's office is -- in a "bad light." 

Maxwell said he "didn't feel good about it" and left a short time later. 

Hoh hoh hoh hoh hoh.....

Bill Still has picked up on it too.

This is gonna get interesting....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

From the CFTC, effective allegedly today:

Rule 575. Disruptive Practices Prohibited
All orders must be entered for the purpose of executing bona fide transactions. Additionally, all non-actionable messages must be entered in good faith for legitimate purposes.
A. No person shall enter or cause to be entered an order with the intent, at the time of order entry, to cancel the order before execution or to modify the order to avoid execution;
B. No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or non-actionable message or messages with intent to mislead other market participants;
C. No Person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or non-actionable message or messages with intent to overload, delay, or disrupt the systems of the Exchange or other market participants; and
D. No person shall enter or cause to be entered an actionable or non-actionable message with intent to disrupt, or with reckless disregard for the adverse impact on, the orderly conduct of trading or the fair execution of transactions.

To the extent applicable, the provisions of this Rule apply to open outcry trading as well as electronic trading activity. Further, the provisions of this Rule apply to all market states, including the pre-opening period, the closing period and all trading sessions.

So let me see if I get this right.

Several years after I posted a Youtube video over a holiday in which I showed clearly (by video evidence) orders being entered that were simply intended to be canceled, years after this started, all of which is in direct violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC §78i(a), we now have a "rule"

Let me remind you what that law says:

(a) Transactions relating to purchase or sale of security
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of any facility of any national securities exchange, or for any member of a national securities exchange—
(1) For the purpose of creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading in any security other than a government security, or a false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for any such security,
(A) to effect any transaction in such security which involves no change in the beneficial ownership thereof, or
(B) to enter an order or orders for the purchase of such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the sale of any such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties, or
(C) to enter any order or orders for the sale of any such security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same time, and at substantially the same price, for the purchase of such security, has been or will be entered by or for the same or different parties.
(2) To effect, alone or with 1 or more other persons, a series of transactions in any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, or in connection with any security-based swap or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security creating actual or apparent active trading in such security, or raising or depressing the price of such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by others.

In other words all of this activity is already illegal.

And has been for about 80 years.

(Oh, by the way, why is there an exemption for manipulation of the market for a government security?)

Yet we need a rule to stop what has been able to generate (under that same law) actual legal sanction (not just a "rule") since the Securities and Exchange Act went into effect.

Are you ready to admit that the entire ****ing market is nothing other than a scam, given that nobody will enforce black-letter anti-fraud provisions that have been on the books for 80 ****ing years?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2014-09-15 07:10 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 186 references
 

No, really?

We only respond if there's video.

That's one lesson that can be drawn from the belated reaction to football player Ray Rice knocking out his fiancee in an elevator. Rice was arrested back in February, and in July was suspended for two games. But once video of the actual punch surfaced this week, he was banned indefinitely.

Time and again, we are informed of outrages — Rice's domestic violence; beheadings and******by the fanatics calling themselves the Islamic State; Donald Sterling's racism; abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib — but only grow outraged and force action when video or audio or images emerge.

How many injustices get short shrift because nobody's recorder was rolling?

Yeah, like in Ferguson?

So here's the thing -- why is it that in Miami the cops don't want cameras?

I'll tell you why: Because cameras exonerate the good guys and nail the bad ones, whether the bad guys are perps or cops, and it is more important for the union to protect the bad cops than the good citizens.

Yeah.

If you want to know why so many of our police departments are in fact little more than bands of armed thugs, there it is.

Are there potential issues with cameras on cops?  Sure.  One of them is privacy and the ability to indefinitely go back and look for activity you can then use later on.  But there's a simple solution to that: Video that is not tagged as evidence in an arrest at the time, or is not requested as a part of a complaint within 90 days is destroyed under penalty of criminal sanction for anyone in the department or elsewhere in the government who misuses it.

So basically video is there for one purpose and one purpose only: To document what really happened during an official action, and if there are no charges laid at the time and no complaint is raised about conduct within a reasonable time then the video is destroyed.

Tampering with video that is part of an actual arrest or is documentary of a complaint becomes a criminal offense individually prosecuted against the department members involved, as is archiving or otherwise using "stale" video later on to cook up charges that were not laid at the time.

Problem solved on the privacy aspects of things, I suspect.

So let's catch the bad guys, whether they're wearing magical blue costumes or black hoods, and help provide the evidence to exonerate the good guys.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

From the you gotta be ****ing kidding me file...

In her first year as principal of the all-girls Fontbonne Hall Academy, Mary Ann Spicijaric was leading a grand experiment that couldn't be discussed outside the halls of her Catholic high school in Brooklyn. The 38 teachers, along with school administrators and attendees, were under strict rules to keep quiet about the new Web-based software they were testing that helped educators manage assignments, grade papers and communicate with students.

As Spicijaric enters her second school year at Fontbonne, the secret is out and it has a name: Google Classroom.

Right.

So now we're gonna give every kid from kindergarten on a Google login ID, and that's going to track everything they do in school.  Oh, and I'm sure it won't be just in school either.  Google will own all of that data, your child will not, it will form a part of their indelible record in the hands of commercial interests that have no responsibility to guard that information or remove it on request.

In fact, Google appears not to be charging for this, which means they're getting value from somewhere -- and you can bet it's not as simple as CNBull**** wants you believe, which is simply the proposition that everyone so-exposed will then "use" Google later in life.

Like Hell.

That data, from school performance to where else that kid goes online has value.  Lots of it, and there is utterly nothing to prevent Google from using it.

They will.

You're flat-balls nuts to allow this to happen.

The simple test is this: Will Google still offer it for "free" if, as a condition of being able to do so, all of the data generated by your kid's use is irrevocably assigned to them and delivered upon their 18th birthday, with the originals being destroyed, and should Google violate that premise they will be held account for felony privacy invasion and a statutory penalty of $100,000 per kid that is so-violated.

The answer to that question, if someone dares ask it, will be "No."

And there you have it.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.