Recap: We were saved by the false breakouts yesterday, helping to keep our losses minimal as the markets drifted along without any sort of conviction. First was our long from 1.2411 at 10:12 UTC - that candle closed at 1.2405 getting us out of the long with a small 6 pip loss. Then our short was triggered on the support break at 1.2341 - that entry candle closed at 1.2362, kicking us out of our trade with a 21 pip loss. Total EU for the day: -27 pips. Remember, a key part of any swing trading strategy is to keep our losses small and let our profits run and false breakouts are just one of the tools we use to do so with our system.
Forex: USD/CAD back to 1.0400 - FXStreet.com
McFeatters, Money has the votes in November - Abington Mariner
President Barack Obama holds a fundraiser hosted by George Clooney and rakes in $15 million for his re-election campaign. Mitt Romney goes to Vegas with his new friend, Donald Trump, he of the gravity-defying hair and gargantuan ego, and raises $2 million in a couple of hours.
Obama has well over $300 million in his war chest but super political action committees supporting him are not doing so well. Romney has raised about $56 million but super PACs wanting to elect him are getting huge amounts of money, worrying the White House. Some wealthy donors are giving millions of dollars — each — to elect Romney.
It used to be illegal for the super rich to finance campaigns, but since the Supreme Court’s famed 2010 Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling that money is equivalent to free speech, rich people can give to their hearts’ content through super PACs. And super PACs are not even required to disclose their donors.
Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife kept Newt Gingrich on the campaign trail for months with reported donations of $16.5 million to Winning Our Future, the Gingrich super PAC.
It is now a given that the presidential contests and congressional elections this year will total $3 billion.
ABBA was right: “Money. Money. Money. ... It’s a rich man’s world.”
Which raises the question: What do all the millionaires and billionaires get in return for their fat checks?
Trump, the entertainer, gets a second huge round of publicity, which makes people watch “Celebrity Apprentice,” which makes him even richer. And he gets access to Romney, who has a 50-50 chance of becoming president.
Adelson becomes a player. Even though Newt was his man, watch for the Adelsons to drop a few million into a super PAC backing Romney. The prize? Access to a pro-business president.
Believe it. A president who has dined with someone who has given big bucks to get him elected will take a telephone call from him/her or invite that person to a state dinner or listen carefully when a regulatory matter involving that person is brought to his attention. And it continues, especially if the president wants to be re-elected.
There are many who think the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision on super PACs is one of the most anti-democratic decisions in our history. Defenders of the decision say it is pro-democracy because it defends everyone’s right to put their money where their mouths are.
At any rate, there is no doubt that it is a pro-big-wealth decision because it gives more power to people with money. Those who live paycheck to paycheck may contribute a few dollars to a political campaign, but those who sit on millions of dollars are able to contribute vastly more. And that means clout.
What each of us does have is a vote. But that, too, is under assault. Efforts are under way in such swing states as Florida to make voting harder. Even though there is no evidence that voter fraud is widespread, more than 17 states are instituting tough new restrictions on voting.
They will go into effect this November in such ways as requiring seniors to get new photo identification. Some states no longer will accept student IDs. Some states are curtailing early voting and/or absentee ballots. Volunteers at election sites are being threatened with serious penalties if they make a mistake, encouraging them to err on the side of denying voters access to ballots.
Taken in tandem, these two new developments — unlimited money and voter restrictions — could be enough in a photo-finish election to decide the results. And yet we hear little consternation from those most affected: voters.
Perhaps it is because it’s summer and it’s tiresome to think of election politics. But come November, it may be too late. Shout, people! Shout!
Scripps Howard columnist Ann McFeatters has covered the White House and national politics since 1986. Email amcfeatters@nationalpress.com.
Money challenge to tribes' sentencing authority - Devils Lake Daily Journal
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) — American Indian tribes authorized to triple the amount of time tribal members can spend in jail say they're challenged by a lack of funding.
The increase in tribal courts' sentencing authority from one year to three years for a single crime came two years ago under the federal Tribal Law and Order Act. But a U.S. Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday showed that none of the 109 tribes who responded to a survey about the sentencing increase were taking advantage of it.
Nearly all of those tribes said they need more money and technical help from the federal government to provide public defenders, establish or update criminal codes, and have sufficiently trained judges as the law requires.
The report shows 36 of the tribes surveyed are working toward the new authority. Another 34 tribes were unsure whether they would go in that direction, while 31 said they had no plans to do so, the report said. The enhanced sentencing isn't mandatory for tribes.
Troy Eid, chairman of the Indian Law and Order Commission born out of the Tribal Law and Order Act, said tribes across the country are exploring the authority but it will take time to get all the elements in place if that's the path they choose.
"My impression is that within the next year, you'll start to see some tribes actually implementing the system," he said. "Tribes are being super careful. No tribe wants to get this issue wrong; it has to be legally correct."
The GAO cautioned the report isn't representative of all tribes. Congressional investigators identified 171 of the 566 federally recognized tribes that received federal funding for tribal courts to include in the survey, but not all of them responded.
Tribal leaders have said a year in jail for any crime under tribal law, including homicide, hasn't served as much of a deterrent on reservations. Members of the Navajo Nation Council have been debating whether the enhanced sentencing provision would help send a message that tribal officials are serious about combatting crime.
"The bad guys are saying they could get away with anything on the rez, which now pretty much is true," said Edmund Yazzie, chairman of the Navajo Nation Council's Law and Order Committee, and a former sheriff's deputy. "But now the committee is trying to take another look at it."
Seventy of the tribes surveyed said they had at least half the requirements in place to hand down lengthier sentences, but some are choosing not to because of associated costs, like probation. One unnamed tribe said it has had an effective criminal and civil justice system for 40 years without the requirement of a law-trained judge, and that hiring one from outside the community would be unreasonable.
The Hopi Tribe in Arizona set aside funds from its own budget to hire law-trained judges and a prosecutor last year to meet the requirements of the tribal law and order act, said tribal Chairman Le Roy Shingoitewa. The tribal council is expected to vote on an updated criminal code next month that Shingoitewa says could help ensure that victims get justice.
"Now we have some teeth in enforcing our laws. Previous to this, all we did is slap the hands of perpetrators," he said.
Tribes receive funding, training and other assistance through the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Department of Justice, but it's not always enough.
The BIA said it has provided more than 60 recording devices to tribes to help them meet another requirement that they maintain a record of criminal proceedings. The agency said it has plans to give 15 more to tribes that request them and also has asked for $1 million more in funding for tribal courts in its 2013 budget justification.
The GAO recommended that the federal government clarify to tribes the funding sources available to help them pursue the enhanced sentencing.
Mato Standing High, attorney general of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, said the tribe is fortunate in that it has the financial resources to meet many of the requirements under the Tribal Law and Order Act. The only thing missing is an updated tribal code that would reflect a new class of crimes, like rape, arson or homicide, with lengthier sentences, he said.
The tribe hasn't decided officially whether to move forward with the enhanced sentencing authority, he said, but is considering how to classify crimes after comparing them to state and federal crimes and penalties.
"Tribes really need to see it as an opportunity to exercise sovereignty and have more local control," Standing High said. "That's the goal of it, and I understand also that it takes a lot of resources that a lot of tribes don't have."
Forex Flash: Today's strategy for EUR/USD – Commerzbank, Danske Bank and UBS - FXStreet.com
FOREX-Euro near 2-year low on Spain woes, Japan warns on yen - Reuters UK
* Euro near 2-year low vs dollar on Spanish bank concerns
* Yen off highs, market becoming wary of intervention
* Japan threatens action vs yen rise (Recasts, adds quote, changes dateline PVS SINGAPORE)
By Anirban Nag
LONDON, June 1 (Reuters) - The euro was near a two-year low against the dollar on Friday and stayed close to its lowest in more than a decade versus the yen on growing uncertainty about how Spain will recapitalise its ailing banking sector and fix its public finances.
Japan said the yen's strength was being driven by speculators and stepped up warnings that it could intervene to curb the currency's rise, saying it would act decisively if excessive market moves continued.
The euro fell to as low as $1.2324 on trading platform EBS at one point, its weakest since July 2010. It last fetched $1.2345, down 0.1 percent on the day, with a drop towards $1.20 likely as bears remain firmly in control.
The drop in the common currency came as Spaniards sent money abroad in droves, worried about the health of the banking system. Bank of Spain data showed a net 66.2 billion euros ($82.0 billion) was sent abroad in March, the most since records began in 1990.
"It is looking very bearish for the euro with the latest capital flows data showing a significant amount leaving Spanish banks, all of which indicate they will probably need official help," said Peter Kinsella, currency strategist at Commerzbank.
Any help from the European rescue fund for Spain would mean an additional tax burden on Germany, Europe's paymaster, and could hurt the safe-haven status of German bunds, he added.
"It is not a situation where there is much help for the euro and chances are it is headed towards $1.20."
With German two-year yields near zero, traders said a lot of safe-haven flows have, so far, stayed within the single currency area. But if that were to change, the euro's decline against the dollar and the yen could accelerate considerably.
The euro's selloff has gained steam this week as Spain's borrowing costs surged on worries it may need to issue more debt to recapitalise its banks, adding stress to markets already frayed by anxiety that Greece may exit the euro zone.
The rising borrowing costs risk pushing Spain towards an international bailout. The yield spread between Spanish 10-year government bonds and German Bunds have risen to euro-era highs this week, and the euro has fallen almost in lock step with that move.
"We're looking for $1.18 by the end of Q3, and at this rate, it could happen before that," said Callum Henderson, global head of FX research for Standard Chartered Bank in Singapore.
"During this risk-off environment, the U.S. dollar is the only place to be," he added.
YEN INTERVENTION JITTERS
Apart from the dollar, the safe-haven yen has also been in demand. The euro was steady against the yen at 96.90 yen , not far from an 11-1/2-year low of 96.48 yen struck the previous day.
On Thursday, the euro got a brief lift after The Wall Street Journal said the International Monetary Fund was discussing a contingency plan for a rescue loan to bail out Spain's third largest bank. The report, however, was specifically refuted by IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde.
The euro may not get much respite even if Spain gets an international bailout, said Standard Chartered's Henderson.
"If Spain had to be bailed out, the market would instantly focus its attention on Italy. Current European Union and IMF resources cannot fund bailouts of both Spain and Italy," he said.
So the risk of contagion will support the safe-haven yen. The Japanese currency's broad surge this week, including its rise to a 3-1/2-month high versus the dollar, are making market players wary about the potential for Japanese yen-selling intervention, traders say.
Japanese Finance Minister Jun Azumi said Japan would act if excessive yen strength continued while the country's top currency diplomat signalled Japan was willing to act alone as it was becoming clear that yen rises were being driven by speculators.
The dollar edged up 0.1 percent to 78.46 yen but remained close to Thursday's low of 78.21 yen, the dollar's lowest level against the yen since mid-February.
A fall in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to a record low this week has cut the yield advantage of Treasuries over Japanese government bonds, and has helped drag the dollar lower against the yen.
Traders say the dollar could come under renewed pressure against the yen if U.S. jobs data due on Friday comes in weak. The data is expected to show U.S. employers created 150,000 jobs in May. (Additional reporting by Masayuki Kitano in Singapore; Editing by Susan Fenton)
Money in politics is a public choice problem, not an electoral one - Examiner
Over at Reason, Ed Krayewski, offers up some great thoughts on money in politics in the midst of reporting on Gov. Buddy Roemer (R-LA) suspending his "quixotic" presidential campaign. Roemer, a Republican turned Americans Elect candidate, ran on a platform of capping donations at $100 and not accepting any PAC money - hence the relevancy:
"Politicians don’t need money to corrupt them, they can do that fine all by themselves; members of Congress can spend their entire careers enriching themselves on the taxpayer dime and not run afoul of a single law. No corporation forced former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson to hide cash in a freezer and no corporation held a gun to any member of Congress that used their ever broadening powers to legislate and regulate commercial affairs to personally enrich themselves.
For all the talk of getting money out of politics, corporations often seem to be the diversionary scapegoat while the politicians try to get at the money. The idea that free of the influence of money politicians will suddenly lose their appetite for power, control and self-aggrandizement is delusional. It has no basis in human history, in psychology or, frankly, in common sense. Money in politics, as I noted after President Obama announced his “evolution” on gay marriage, is a good thing. Politicians are interested in self-preservation, not because corporations made it so, but because it’s in the nature of a politician. The influence of money in politics, be it corporate money, small donors, big donors or advocacy groups, serves to diversify the voices that reach government and provides a necessary check and balance to any politician’s tendency to self-enrichment.
Money is no resource to shun on the quest for the White House; there’s no reason money can’t lubricate a free market in politics the way it makes the everyday exchange of goods and services so smooth and efficient, when government’s not getting in the way."
Rather than imposing limits on campaign contributions, we need to remove the perverted incentives that invite an influx of money to Washington and distort free markets.
A good place to start is by scrapping the entire federal tax code – where individuals, groups, and corporations are constantly looking to curry favor and gain preferential treatment.
Next up are all the frivolous regulations that perpetuate the corporatist (crony-capitalist) machine. Regulators themselves often lack a sophisticated level of familiarity regarding the industries they’re supposed to be regulating. Lobbyists end up flocking to Washington each time a new regulatory board is created, salivating like Pavlov’s dog over the opportunity to write the regulations for their own industry rather than those actually tasked to regulate. Through regulatory capture and cartelization of industry, large incumbent corporations are able to suppress competition in their particular market.
This type of behavior is textbook rent seeking. Public choice explains how the phenomenon occurs:
"In modeling the behavior of individuals as driven by the goal of utility maximization … economists do not deny that people care about their families, friends, and community. But public choice, like the economic model of rational behavior on which it rests, assumes that people are guided chiefly by their own self-interests and, more important, that the motivations of people in the political process are no different from those of people in the steak, housing, or car market. They are the same human beings, after all. As such, voters “vote their pocketbooks,” supporting candidates and ballot propositions they think will make them personally better off; bureaucrats strive to advance their own careers; and politicians seek election or reelection to office. Public choice, in other words, simply transfers the rational actor model of economic theory to the realm of politics."
Moreover, the idea that regulation is necessary to protect people is muted by the fact that basic protections for producers, consumers, and non-actors alike already exist in common law principles: fraud, collusion, nuisance, unconscionable bargain, duress, and undue influence. Rather than focusing time and energy on the futile exercise of trying to limit money from electoral politics, we should focus on eliminating policies create conditions in which free markets get taken hostage.
---
Enjoy this article? Receive email alerts when new articles are available. Just click the “Subscribe” button above.
Money saving website sells for £87m - Belfast Telegraph
Friday, 1 June 2012
MoneySavingExpert.com, which was set up by Mr Lewis in 2003 and now sends a weekly email to around five million subscribers, is to be bought by price comparison website MoneySupermarket.
Mr Lewis, who is well known as a television pundit on money matters, will receive 60 million upfront in a mixture of cash and shares and a further 27 million conditional on meeting targets over the next three years.
He plans to donate 10 million to charity from the deal, including 1 million to Citizens Advice, while he will retain full control over the website.
According to Google Analytics, the MoneySavingExpert website attracted 39 million unique visitors and around 277 million page impressions in the year to October 31. It generated revenues of 15.7 million over the same period.
Mr Lewis said the deal, which needs the approval of MoneySupermarket shareholders, ensured the website would be around for many years to come.
He added: "MoneySavingExpert.com has become part of people's daily lives, far bigger than the man who founded it, and now is the right time for it to stand on its own two feet."
Mr Lewis said he chose Moneysupermarket because it is not owned by any product providers and had signed up to an editorial code which ensures the website's content will be free from commercial pressures.
He will stay as editor-in-chief for the next three years, with the help of Moneysupermarket's resources and the website's existing 42-strong staff.
"After that, the door is open for me to carry on, and I hope to do so, though perhaps with fewer hours than now, so I can spend more time on my media work and other projects I'm passionate about. These include getting financial education on the curriculum," Mr Lewis said.
Liverpool Manager Brendan Rodgers: Enough Money to Spend - ibtimes.co.uk
Like us on Facebook
Liverpool captain Steven Gerrard has, meanwhile, confirmed Werner's claim Rodgers was always first choice and confirmed also he had spoken to the new boss ahead of the appointment.
"I'm excited, I'm really looking forward to working with Brendan. We shared a phone call last night and I'm really looking forward to meeting him in person and getting started. What I can go on record and say is that Brendan was the first choice. I was in the loop all the way through the last few weeks with the Liverpool board and owners - and Brendan Rodgers was the first choice," ESPN quoted Gerrard as saying.
"When he was in the running for the job, I was speaking to the Chelsea boys and some of the players who had worked with him as well. They all spoke highly of him, said he was a good coach and a good guy: very honest and supports his players very well. That's all you ask for as a player," the England captain added.
Rodgers received praise from football pundits and fans across the globe last term for effectively deploying his positive, Barcelona-inspired tiki-taka style of play at Swansea's first season in the English top-flight and managing to finish 11th in the table.
To report problems or to leave feedback about this article, e-mail:
To contact the editor, e-mail:
No comments:
Post a Comment