The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

The latest punch-line that people are trying to sling at Trump is that he "went after" a beauty pageant contestant (in his Miss Universe pageant) that got fat.  Hillary, predictably, attempted to pounce on this claiming that Trump's barbs were "misogynistic".

Clinton, ever the idiot, turned around and set up a press conference Tuesday that was conducted almost entirely in Spanish for her to continue attacking Trump.

But.... as has become a repeating pattern, Trump was either lucky or crazy as a fox.  You see, nobody from Hillary's campaign bothered to vet this clown-car brigade of a woman.

Leaving aside the fact that the woman in question voluntarily entered said pageant, knew in advance that physical beauty and a thin figure were part of the expected package to be presented, and then decided to eat herself bigger anyway, it turns out there are many more reasons for Trump to unload on this nutcase -- and Hillary, once again, winds up siding with alleged criminals and thugs.

You see, she was accused of both aiding attempted murder and threatening to kill a judge!

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - A Venezuela judge said Thursday a former Miss Universe threatened to kill him after he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder.

It gets better.  She's apparently a porn star.

Former Miss Universe winner Alicia Machado, who has been campaigning against Republican nominee Donald Trump for the Hillary Clinton campaign, has appeared in pornographic videos.

Snippets of an adult film starring Machado are available on multiple free porn websites. Machado also appeared topless in Mexican Playboy in 2006 and 2012. Hillary Clinton invoked the 1996 Miss Universe winner in an attack on Trump during Monday’s debate.

Said "film" apparently ended her engagement (gee, big shock there -- NOT!)


There is also the question of who is the father of her baby -- which Daily Mail says might in fact be a rather notorious Mexican drug lord!

If that's not enough we can turn to her claim that Trump "caused" her problems with bulimia and "eating disorders" by "fat-shaming" her.  Unfortunately in her appearance on The Kelly File it was revealed that she was quoted in 1992 in the NY Times talking about having a history of same -- that is, a long time before Trump made any sort of comment at all.

Oops again!

And, there's a video circulating of Trump actually praising her for attempting to lose weight, along with several reports from the time in question that he protected her from being fired.  Now wait a second... that's backwards from the Clinton narrative, isn't it?

Never mind that it appears she all-but admitted to being the getaway driver in said attempted murder -- on air!

Oops yet again!

And finally, it appears she was granted not only a visa but citizenship.  May I ask how someone who facially appears to have had a quite-material history with some pretty bad people and may have been driving a getaway car when their boyfriend tried to kill someone passed vetting and was given citizenship in the United States? I thought we had a process for that sort of thing? 

Now about all those "good Syrians"......

If all this is not enough it's facially apparent that the media had this all in the can a week or more before the debate and they didn't vet this woman either!  Cosmopolitan set up a photo sequence with her wrapped in an American flag and the Clinton folks had a campaign ad all ready to go.  There's no way all that happened in minutes to hours after the debate which means all of these organizations -- both Clinton's and the media's -- had this woman "in the back pocket" yet failed to vet anything before running with it.

Once again, Trump wins -- and begs the question -- is he really dumb in going after people like this or is he baiting Hillary, just as he has other candidates, and they are so damn stupid that they walk straight into Trump's traps?

Speaking of which, when it comes to choosing a President would you prefer to have a President who is capable of setting such traps for other world leaders who would try to screw you and the United States or do you want the President who repeatedly walks into said traps set by other world leaders and has them snap shut on their legs, screwing you and everyone else here in America?

I know which is the better option - and so do you.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Ok, folks, I've had enough of Ted Cruz and a handful of others trying to fundraise on the back of the Internet handover issue.

First, this is not a surprise nor something Obama cooked up in the dead of night.  The expiration of the existing arrangement has been known for literal years and the timing of same has been known for the same amount of time.  If the US Congress wanted to intervene it has had years to do so and has intentionally not done so.  So to Ted Cruz and others (Jim DeMint anyone?) who is now claiming "emergency", go perform an anatomically-impossible act; if you were more-focused on policy and less on your own horse**** you would have dealt with this months or even years ago.

Second, on to the technical side: There are two rough components to Internet "governance."  The first is handled through domain name registration.  Originally this was all handled under government contract by a government-dished out monopoly.  During that time domains were $50/year plus whatever the ISP that registered them for you and ran your DNS charged, and it often took days (instead of seconds now) to get a domain registered.  These were COM/NET/ORG/MIL/GOV/EDU and the country code domains; in the US that was .US.  This changed through a quite-contentious (and, IMHO, a rather cronyism and lie-laced) process into what we have now with many TLDs.  I will note that the so-called cognoscenti of the time tried to claim that expanding the TLD list on a material basis was not going to work for technical reasons.  Those people, who happened to include some of the self-claimed "brightest minds" in the Internet space who even today are lauded as "the inventors" and "bright minds" were lying -- not mistaken, lying.  I proved this (after much experimentation so I knew I was right) back in the 1990s with a handful of other ISPs when we set up our own private root and started opening up TLDs on a non-collision basis -- it was called eDNS.  The project collapsed when one of the participants did a handful of things that were quite-arguably illegal and definitely (from my point of view) anti-social -- but in terms of the technical side of things it was a complete -- 100% -- success.

In short there is utterly no technical reason to limit top-level domains with any rational number of suffixes (that is, the right-most part of the name before the first dot proceeding left.)  "Rational" has an upper limit somewhere, but it's in the thousands if not tens of thousands.

Note that running an actual root nameserver is a quite-low overhead thing.  The reason is that the top-level zone names change infrequently, so the "time to live" field is set long on them.  This means they're queried infrequently; a new host coming up on the Internet that provides name resolution for users must ask at least one of those root servers on a "time to live" basis for the nameserver for each top-level domain it wishes to resolve (so it knows where to send the query.)  But once you have the nameserver list for .COM you have it, no matter how many .COM domains you then resolve -- until the time-to-live comes up.  Because this data is infrequently changed data and the request is only for the place to ask for the next level down the bandwidth and CPU requirements are extremely modest, even with a very large TLD list.

The bigger and more-silent issue in terms of public attention is the allocation of IP addresses.  These are the actual numbers that denote the address of a site.  Legacy addresses are called IpV4, which are in the form x.x.x.x, with each of the "x"s being between 0 - 255 (8 bits.)  All zeros and all ones are reserved (for local network broadcast) and there are some other specials as well (127.x.x.x being a notable one.)  This used to be strictly delineated by the prefix (the first digit) into classes but by the mid 1990s a specification called CIDR made that more-or-less obsolete.  There were, and probably still are, quite nasty practices, all political and arguably in many cases anti-competitive, that revolve around allocations of addresses.  Part of the problem stems from the fact that a handful of extremely large firms got ridiculously large allocations (16 million addresses, for example) that they'd never need uniquely-visible from the outside yet they considered them an "asset" (think places like IBM and AT&T) and with only 4 billion possible addresses there was a very real issue with running out -- especially when some people were only using a fraction of a percent of what they had been allocated!

This was "solved" years ago with the introduction of IpV6 (or IPng), which contains eight octets instead of four.  This allows what amounts to an effectively-inexhaustible resource since you could have (for example) 4 billion internet providers (in the left 4 octets) each of which with 4 billion end addresses (in the right 4.)  A customer who moved from one to another would not have to change any of the right side addresses at all because he could change the prefix instead.  In practice it doesn't work quite this way, but that's the essence of it.

IPng also can, with proper management, make the Internet routing table (much) simpler and smaller.  Right now there is a huge problem with route table bloat and it has been a problem since the early 1990s!  In fact in the early days of the Internet it literally forced obsolescence of $100,000+ routers at a large number of ISPs, including mine, because their architecture did not support adding any more RAM and the table got big enough to run them out of room, causing them to crash.  The nature of fragmented address assignment in IPv4 makes for a serious problem because a given ISP might have dozens of address assignments each of which requires a route table entry; under IPv6, reasonably managed, this drops to one.  And oh by the way, one of the arguments then by big telcos and similar firms was "well, if you're serious then replacing anywhere from one to a number of $100,000 devices is not a big deal."  Yes, this was what they said because, you know, limiting competition to only those who had a lot of capital through collusive acts is a perfectly legitimate practice (yes, that's sarcasm, and if you need to understand why go read 15 USC Chapter 1.)

So why isn't "everyone" on IPng?  Mostly because there is a lot of equipment and software out there that cannot handle IPng at al.  There are entire ISPs that even today can't handle it network-wide including some of the large consumer providers such as Cox.  While there are potential technical solutions to this in the form of tunnels the political implications between ISPs of ramming that down people's throats has not gained traction.

Ok, enough backstory.

Now to the practical side of things.

It is important to understand that so long as you do not create collisions in the namespace (e.g. DNS) you harm nobody by setting up your own domain service.  This means that if, for example, China wishes to "censor" .****china as a top-level domain it can do so, but anyone else does not have to adhere to that and so long as nobody "collides" by defining different ".****china" TLDs in their configuration nothing will break.

In addition it important to note that even under the current, pre-handover paradigm a nation-state has always been able to mandate such censorship and in fact any private entity has been able to enforce same for their users as well!  In other words there has never been anything preventing China from (for example) declaring as a matter of law that any ISP inside their nation must use a 'root' server set inside China that omits the declarations for ".****china".  An ISP that does not want ".xxx" or ".sex" available can run its own root, enforce that for its clients by refusing to pass port 53 traffic outside of its network for internal clients and omitting it from its own private root.  Note that whether those root servers are "official" or not (as declared by ICANN) is immaterial; again, so long as there is no "collision" it has exactly zero impact on the functioning of the Internet, except for "black holing" those "forbidden" spaces.

This is not new; it has been this way literally forever since the dawn of DNS when the Internet transitioned in its earliest days from an /etc/hosts file to DNS.

The other half, that of allocating IP address space, appears to be more serious but again it really isn't.  Why?  Because the wisest use of the prefix length is to segregate traffic anyway. It's arguable, in fact, that geographic segregation might be the most-efficient (e.g. by country) although that is not necessarily true anymore with so many trans-national firms.  Nonetheless the handing out of high-level, that is, large prefixes is not really impacted here and yet it is the only function of ICANN in this regard.  It is the regional or national registries beyond that top level that manage address space internal to a given region or nation.

In Europe for IPv4 this has been done by RIPE.  In Asia, APNIC, and so on.  This hasn't changed and won't.  What changes is who (in persons, not organization name) hands off blocks to RIPE, APNIC, etc.  While there is a very real risk in the IPv4 space of interference due to scarcity such is not realistically a factor for IPng simply due to its size.

What does this all mean in terms of the alleged "handover" and thus what is the risk of "censorship" and similar, beyond what can and does already happen?

Damn little.

With that said I happen to support blocking this move, simply because I'm not convinced that anyone has done the homework to prevent this from turning into yet another multinational boondoggle.  UN anyone?  UN "peacekeepers" raping and pillaging those they are claiming to help anyone?  Yeah, that's a problem, but it's a different class of problem than "oh my God, the Internet will die and be censored if some bad person does X."

Uh, no it won't -- at least not any more than it already has.  But in my opinion corruption has already been an issue when it comes to DNS and IP addresses, and that was with a monopoly contract as we have now, albeit in an earlier form -- 20+ years ago!

To potentially enlarge that corruption is bad.  To lessen it would be good, but thus far nobody has managed to convince me that this transition would lessen it -- reality is that "as designed" we wind up keeping it at the present level.  For this reason I'm opposed, but note that the current screamfest has exactly nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with imaginary bogeymen that do not exist.

Finally, unlike most of the so-called "pundits" and all of the politicians I actually have plenty of relevant experience in this area and know what I'm talking about.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

C'mon folks.

First, it's illegal for the German government to bail out Deutsche Bank.  That's one of the (few) changes made in the EU post-2008, and it has gone into effect.

However, they can be bailed in.

Now let's talk about what that means, and why in fact it's worthless in a situation like this.

A bail-in would destroy the stockholder equity (first), then bondholder equity which is converted to stock.  That sounds ok but there's a problem with it.

It works roughly like this: There are multiple "tranches" of bonds with various seniority associated with them.  This is done so the institution pays less to borrow on the "higher" (or "Senior") tranches, because the lower ones are wiped out first before the Senior bonds take any loss.

The issue that arises is that all these institutions "engineer" their tranching through various machinations (including default swaps and similar) so that most of their debt issue is "Senior" or "Super-Senior."  They do this to reduce their borrowing costs but the question becomes whether that "protection" is actually effective, and the only way it is effective is if the mathematical models used to derive that alleged risk are accurate.

This is exactly what was done with the various securitized mortgages from "subprime" lenders, incidentally -- and we know how accurate those models were, right?

It works if the losses are modest because the lower tranches are literally wiped out and the more-senior ones are protected.  The problem comes if you can't satisfy the financial requirements with those subordinate debt tranches because your modeled risk profile turns out to be dog squeeze -- then the senior tranches get hit.

If these tranches are invaded you will get an immediate run on prime brokerage and other "depository" style accounts because the buyers of those "senior" debt tranches bought them with the full expectation that they were not 50%, not 80%, not 90% but 100% safe and as soon as that belief is invalidated the brown smelly stuff will hit the airmoving device at very high speed.

Indeed a mere belief that such an invasion will happen is probably enough to set off the exodus because once you get into the senior tranches the risk rises above zero that depositors will get hit.  And finally, and most-troublesome, unlike with a traditional operating company any such exodus from a bank itself further erodes the bank's capital base and thus is additive to the pressure and the senior tranche loss risk!

Finally, remember that utterly nobody who lied about the solvency of their institutions went to prison after 2008.  Nor did any central bank personnel who lied about "subprime being contained."  For this reason you cannot believe any such statement from anyone without strict proof, and given the (intentional) opacity of risk in these institutions strict proof is impossible to come by.

So yes, it is not as simple -- or as "safe" -- as people think it is.

This situation is definitely unstable, and if anyone thinks "balance sheets" are ok I will remind you that I was not in 2008 and still cannot possibly analyze any of the European banks on any sort of consolidated basis when derivative exposure and other means of hiding contingent liabilities are included, and those liabilities must be included in the event confidence in the underlying institution -- or group of institutions -- is lost.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Gee, so listening to the hearing today I am thunderstruck about how a million or two million ripped-off consumers is such a big deal, eh?

Well, indeed it is.

Several critters today have made the facial case that the conduct involved here meets the definition of Racketeering, and it certainly appears to me that it does.

But there seems to be this idea that conduct like this is novel, or that people are being "compensated" or "taken care of" if they were screwed.


May I ask who is taking care of all the people who live in Jefferson County Alabama?

You do remember that, right, and my multiple articles on it spanning years, yes?  A county where, due to deficiencies in its sewer system, officials bribed various entities including those associated with a major US bank in a swap deal that ultimately screwed the rate-payers to the tune of permanently tripling their water and sewer bills.

Some officials actually went to jail -- that is, they were convicted of crimes -- not just accused, as is the case here with Wells.

But guess what?  Bank management never was indicted or tried.  Worse, to a large degree the other side of those swaps kept the money and the rate-payers, that is, all the people who live there, are still screwed to the tune of tripled water bills and will remain screwed forever.

"Taken care of" eh?  You mean, serviced -- without lube, and up the back door, right?

Wells is not isolated; it is in fact endemic among large banks.  Virtually all of them participated in suborning or committing perjury with bogus foreclosure documents as just one of dozens of examples.  If you want a particularly outrageous example of outrageously illegal conduct Wachovia was caught (and admitted) committing mass money laundering for Mexican drug gangs to the tune of more than $370 billionA dispassionate analysis of the cases brought against large institutions finds that virtually all have either pled guilty, "not admitted or denied guilt" and paid fines on at least three separate occasions where the underlying conduct is a felony and thus all should be subject to the same "three strikes" law you would be if you committed three felonies of any sort.  Yet not one of these institutions has been shut down and not one executive has been indicted say much less imprisoned -- and this is no accident, it is intentional, willful misconduct by our government up and down the line from "regulators" to prosecutors on both sides of the aisle including but not limited to the FBI, SEC, FDIC, (now) CFPB, OCC, (what was) OTS and more.

So tell me this -- given all the so-called "outrage" in Congress, the fact that (as noted) Wells, along with all the other big banks, have been serially fined and investigated over and over again for various unsavory and unlawful practices, that such has resulted in real, material, permanent and in many cases ongoing financial harm yet exactly zero of these large executives have been indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned may I ask why you, dear reader, are willing to abide any law, produce any taxable income and give any sort of respect, deference or support to any branch of government or law enforcement?

PS: Yes, these same banks and "investment managers" are the ones you should trust when you buy Spamazon stock at 230x earnings.  What could possibly go wrong with that, and if it did and the "adviser", "analyst" and/or "media folks" on CNBS were proved to have known it was all horsecrap they'd certainly be punished and go to jail for screwing you out of your retirement - right? smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-09-28 11:41 by Karl Denninger
in International , 285 references

The Senate has voted overwhelmingly to override President Obama's veto of the state-accountability terrorism bill (which will permit holding nations accountable, in court, for terrorist incidents they help fund or support.)

It now heads to The House where it will almost-certainly also pass overwhelmingly, and become law.

Saudi Arabia has issued a number of threats related to this legislation.

May Saudi Arabia take it up the cornhole; it's not like their government officials and connected persons don't have assets over here that can be seized to satisfy judgments, say much less the simple way to do so: Seize their "book form" Treasuries and transfer them to the winners in the sure-to-be-filed court cases.

It's about damn time.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Rule Of Law

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
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.


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 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, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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.