Mission Innovation 

Accelerating the Clean Energy Revolution.

 

Joint Launch Statement

 

November 30, 2015, in Paris, France, issued on behalf of the Governments of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States of America:

Accelerating widespread clean energy innovation is an indispensable part of an effective, long-term global response to our shared climate challenge; necessary to provide affordable and reliable energy for everyone and to promote economic growth; and critical for energy security. While important progress has been made in cost reduction and deployment of clean energy technologies, the pace of innovation and the scale of transformation and dissemination remains significantly short of what is needed.

For these reasons, participating countries have come together to launch Mission Innovation to reinvigorate and accelerate public and private global clean energy innovation with the objective to make clean energy widely affordable.  Additional countries will be encouraged to join in the future.

Double Governmental Investment in Clean Energy Innovation. Each participating country will seek to double its governmental and/or state-directed clean energy research and development investment over five years. New investments would be focused on transformational clean energy technology innovations that can be scalable to varying economic and energy market conditions that exist in participating countries and in the broader world. Research and development projects would be designed and managed to attract private investors willing to advance commercialization. While each participating country’s clean energy innovation portfolio is unique and reflects national priorities, all participating countries share the common goal to accelerate the pace of the clean energy revolution now underway in an appropriate way.  This endeavor should help facilitate affordable access to critical technologies.

Private Sector and Business Leadership. Business needs to play a vital role in the commercialization and cost-effectiveness of clean energy breakthroughs, and participating countries commit to work closely with the private sector as it increases its investment in the earlier-stage clean energy companies that emerge from government research and development programs. Participating countries especially commend the contribution being made by a group of investors through the Breakthrough Energy Coalition. These investors from 10 countries and representing leadership from many key economic sectors are prepared to drive innovation from the laboratory to the market through the investment of patient capital at unprecedented levels into early-stage technology development into participating countries. This commitment, as stated in the Coalition’s principles, will be focused on investment opportunities sourced from the countries participating in Mission Innovation.  Participating countries also look forward to working with additional private sector partners who are willing to share our common goal of increasing investment for clean energy innovation.

Implementation.  Participating countries will implement Mission Innovation in a transparent, effective, and efficient manner.  Strong linkages with our investor partners and other key stakeholders are essential.  Working with existing international institutions, participating countries will cooperate and collaborate to help governments, private investors, and technology innovators to make available data, technology expertise, and analysis in order to promote commercialization and dissemination of clean energy technologies so they reach global market penetration.  Participating countries will build and improve technology innovation roadmaps and other tools to help in our innovation efforts, to understand where research and development is already happening, and to identify gaps and opportunities for new kinds of innovation.  Participating countries may also pursue joint research efforts through public-private partnerships as well as joint research among participating countries.  We will also seek to enhance global clean energy innovation capacity, including through ongoing bilateral engagement with participating countries.  The first implementation meeting for Mission Innovation will be held in early 2016.

Information Sharing.  Each participating country commits to provide, on an annual basis, transparent, easily-accessible information on its respective clean energy research and development efforts to promote transparency, engage stakeholders broadly, spur identification of collaborative opportunities, and provide the private sector more actionable information to improve its ability to make investment decisions.

Friday, August 15, 2014 - Don't Worry

Financial Review with Sinclair Noe

DOW – 50 = 16, 662
SPX – 0.12 = 1955
NAS + 11 = 4464
10 YR YLD - .06 = 2.35%
OIL + 1.49 = 97.07
GOLD – 8.40 = 1305.50
SILV - .31 = 19.65

For the week, the Dow rose 0.7%, the S&P 500 gained 1.2% and the Nasdaq climbed 2.2%.

The Federal Reserve said factory production jumped 1.0% last month after rising 0.3% in June. That was the largest gain since February and reflected increases across all major categories. Auto production surged 10.1%, the biggest rise since July 2009. There were also solid gains in the production of machinery and computers and electronic goods; yesterday we talked about the importance of capex and business spending; maybe we’re seeing signs of that.

Or not. In a separate report, the New York Fed said its "Empire State" general business conditions index fell to 14.69 this month from 25.60 in July.

A preliminary August reading on the University of Michigan/Thomson Reuters consumer-sentiment index fell to the lowest level in 9 months, 79.2 down from a final July level of 81.8.

Producer prices, or prices at the wholesale level increased 0.1% in July, with 0.5% growth for transportation and warehousing prices; goods prices were unchanged; food prices rose 0.4%; energy prices dropped 0.6%. Overall producer prices rose 1.7% over the 12 months that ended in July, down from June’s annual-growth rate of 1.9%.

But the economic news carried little weight today, as attention once again focused on geopolitics. That might not be totally accurate; Wall Street looks at geopolitical hotspots but it can’t hold their focus. A new survey of institutional money managers around the world by Bank of America Merrill Lynch has found a sudden surge in worry and fear, and a rise in the number buying “protection” against a crash; which means derivatives such as put options or credit default swaps.

Money managers are worried about the markets and the Fed raising interest rates and geopolitical events and the baggage retrieval system at Heathrow, and so, over the past month they have raised their cash positions from 4.5% to 5.1%. Which doesn’t sound very defensive; in fact, it sounds like money managers are still excessively bullish on stocks.

Yesterday Russian President Putin talked about how he wanted to avoid confrontation in Ukraine. Last night a Russian armored column crossed the border into Ukraine; they started firing artillery at Ukrainian forces, which exchanged shellfire. Ukrainian President Petro said a "significant" part of the Russian column had been destroyed. Russia's government denied its forces had crossed into Ukraine. NATO said there had been a Russian incursion into Ukraine but would not go so far as to call it an invasion.

After Ukraine reported the invasion, Russia's ruble weakened against both the dollar and the euro. Russian shares were also dragged lower. International markets moved lower. European Union governments warned they are ready to expand sanctions against Russia if the conflict in Ukraine intensifies.  US markets initially moved lower. The yield on the ten year treasury dropped 6 basis points to 2.35%; Treasuries are usually considered a safe haven. The yield on German bunds, or 10 year bonds, dropped under 1%. The escalating clash is now haunting the European economy, already on the brink of fresh recession, with a string of southern states in debt-deflation.

All of a sudden, the euro crisis is back, though in truth it never really went away. The latest economic figures from the eurozone make bleak reading. Across the eurozone, which is struggling to get banks lending to businesses, economic growth is expected to be 1.1% this year. All three of the euro area’s biggest economies — Germany, France and Italy — are failing. Germany’s output actually fell in the second quarter. Italy is suffering through a triple dip recession. The French economy has stagnated. Analysts expect it to grow by less than one per cent this year. Italy has dropped back into recession, or maybe it never got out of recession. The closest thing approximating good news was that Spain's dead-cat bounce recovery continued with 0.6% growth. But it still has 24.5% unemployment. The eurozone economy is still far smaller than six years ago, by about 1.9%; unemployment is in double figures and debt burdens in some areas are high.

In June, the ECB cut its key interest rates and introduced a new program of cheap loans to banks that are intended to be passed on to businesses. Some economists say the European Central Bank should go further and engage in large-scale purchases of public and private debt to reduce borrowing costs and add to the money supply. ECB President Mario Draghi is under fire to do more to resuscitate growth. He, in turn, argues that “monetary policy can only achieve so much, with government reform required to do the heavy lifting,” and he is probably right, but there doesn’t seem to be much appetite for reform. Monetary stimulus is simply not remotely an adequate substitute for government spending. Even the austerian IMF has been forced to acknowledge that fact.

The Ukraine crisis has drawn the EU into an economic confrontation with Russia, which is not only the principal supplier of energy to many eurozone countries but is also a significant trading partner and export market for European goods. This is hardly designed to improve the economic outlook, and the eurozone remains too weak to withstand external shocks. And Eurozone weakness was already in place before the most recent economic sanctions against Russia; the unfortunate reality is that nobody really knows how Russian sanctions will play out. There will be costs associated with sanctions; many of them unexpected.

Next week, the Federal Reserve will hold its annual Jackson Hole retreat. Janet Yellen will speak on labor markets. The labor market has improved but still looks weak. Various Fed officials have various theories on the labor markets, but not much in the way of solutions, and so, not surprisingly, they have different views on Fed policy.

Jeremy Stein left the Fed Board of Governors earlier in the year to return to a teaching gig at Harvard. Last week Stein said whatever the Fed does, we can expect less financial stability. Stein says that the process of exiting QE and raising interest rates has “no real precedent”. Yellen devoted an entire speech to the subject of financial stability last month at the IMF, where she said the Fed had devoted “substantially increased resources” to monitoring stability and acknowledged that the Fed’s low-interest rate policy had spurred “households and businesses to take on the risk of potentially productive investments.” But, she went on, “Such risk-taking can go too far, thereby contributing to fragility in the financial system.”

Yesterday, St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard said he believes financial markets are probably mistaken if they’re counting on Fed interest rate increases to occur more slowly than policy makers forecast. Bullard says the Fed will raise the interest rate target in the first quarter of 2015. Bullard said: “We’re way ahead of where we expected to be” in terms of the Fed’s employment mandate, and “If that strength continues in the second half of the year here, then the conversation on a little more hawkish direction of monetary policy will heat up.”

Today, Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota offered a contrasting view, saying: “The FOMC is still a long way from meeting its targeted goal of price stability” because of excess slack in the job market, and “progress in the decline of the unemployment rate masks continued weakness in labor markets,” which would keep the inflation rate below the Fed’s 2% target until 2018. Kocherlakota pointed to the participation rate among people between the ages of 25 to 54, the prime working years; another especially significant” measure of slack is the “historically high” percentage of workers who would like full-time jobs but can only find part-time work. The U-6 unemployment rate, a broad measure of unemployment that includes people working part time because they can’t find full-time jobs rose to 12.2% in July after declining one percentage point over the first six months of the year.

One of the biggest changes in the US labor market over the past two decades has been the increasing number of people working over the age of 55. From the end of World War II until the early 1990s, a smaller and smaller share remained in the labor force but since the 1990s that trend reversed. In 1993, only 29% of people that age were in the labor force. The vast majority were retired. But participation has been rising and by 2012 more than 41% of people in that age group were still in the labor force, the highest since the early 1960s. Clearly, something has changed about people’s attitudes toward retirement. A survey from the Federal Reserve last week provided some clues. Around 21% of people said their plan for retirement is simply “to work as long as possible” and the number of people giving this response increases by age.

In addition to the Fed’s get-together in Jackson Hole, next week’s economic calendar includes minutes from the Fed’s July 30^th FOMC meeting; on Thursday we’ll get a report on July existing home sales from the National Association of Realtors; Tuesday brings an update on July housing starts. Housing starts tumbled 9.3% in June. The Labor Department will release the consumer price index report on Tuesday; the CPI measures inflation at the retail level; it’s been running near 2%, more or less.

Tuesday, June 03, 2014 - Always Look on the Bright Side

Financial Review with Sinclair Noe

DOW – 21 = 16,722
SPX – 0.73 = 1924
NAS – 3 = 4234
10 YR YLD + .06 = 2.59%
OIL + .37 = 102.84
GOLD + 1.40 = 1245.90
SILV + .05 = 18.91

Automakers reported strong sales of new cars in May, the strongest annual sales rate since before the 2008 financial crisis. Industry sales rose 11.3%. Chrysler and GM had their best month of May in 7 years. A record number of recalls at GM since the first of the year did not crimp demand for the automaker's new vehicles. Average transaction price for a new vehicle in May was $32,307, according to research firm Kelley Blue Book, which said average new-car prices were up $653 from a year ago, but down slightly from April.

The city council of Seattle Washington has voted to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, the highest level of any major US city. Wages would begin to rise next year, ultimately reaching $15 from Washington state's minimum of $9.32 over three to seven years, depending on the business. Under the plan, firms with more than 500 employees nationally will be given at least three years to phase in the increase, those who provide health insurance subsidies would get four years and smaller businesses would be given seven years. US minimum wage is $7.25, although 38 states have set higher levels. The states of California, Connecticut and Maryland have recently passed laws increasing their respective wages to $10 or more in coming years.

Yesterday we heard the EPA proposal to cut power plant carbon emissions by 30% over the next 15 years. Even before the announcement we heard concerns about how that might affect jobs, most of it conjecture. In 2010 when the country was debating a clean energy bill aimed at cutting carbon emissions by 17%, the Congressional Budget Office predicted how destructive the law would be for American jobs. The CBO report concluded it wouldn’t be destructive at all, rather it would probably add more jobs than it killed.

The report found that overall, unemployment would probably increase in the short term. Workers may lose jobs by the thousands across industries that include coal mining, oil and gas extraction and transportation, the report said. And, it added, people who found new jobs by relocating or by learning new skills would probably be earning lower wages than before.

But the CBO report also said that, as polluting industries like coal mining shrink, industries with fewer carbon emissions would expand by as many as a half-million new jobs by 2025. States that are heavily coal-dependent will have to shift to some degree away from coal and to other, new resources; but the electricity has to come from somewhere, so there will be new facilities built to produce it.

In general, the debate about how environmental regulation will affect the economy is so polarized that studies end up with contradictory conclusions. In a 2012 review of more than two dozen such studies, a team of researchers at a New York University think tank found that studies commissioned by big energy companies usually found that regulations increase unemployment, while those by environmental groups found the opposite.

You’ve probably heard about the controversy surrounding the book Capital in the 21^st Century by Thomas Pikkety. A reporter from the Financial Times says some of Pikkety’s statistics are flawed. Pikkety responded by saying his research is solid. Now we have a new source to support Pikkety. According to a new report by stock market strategists at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, the rich are going to keep getting richer all over the world, pretty much just as French economist Thomas Piketty describes in his bestselling book.

And according to the folks at Merrill Lynch, this represents an opportunity for Merrill Lynch. They write: "We are aware of the controversy over Piketty’s math (see the FT Money Supply blog), but are generally comfortable with the thrust of his analysis, having read his 577-pager, looked at his (problematic) spreadsheets, and cross-checked his data with alternative, credible sources. His questionable assumptions do not detract from the power of his thesis."

Merrill pointed out that it has been predicting the rise of "plutonomies -- economies where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few" -- for the past decade. While this might sound like a nightmare world for some of us, it is also a chance to make a bunch of money, for those mostly rich people with the means to invest in companies that most profit from the wealthy elite. This includes luxury goods makers, money managers and private banks.

Always look on the bright side.

For the past two years, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi has been saying “whatever it takes”, giving the impression the ECB was ready to take on a stimulus program, jawboning the markets with the hint of bold monetary action, right around the corner. Today, a report showed Eurozone inflation at just 0.5% in May. A separate report showed the Eurozone jobless rate at 11.7% in April, ticking down from 11.8% in March, but still more than 25% in Spain and Greece. For 2 years Draghi said “whatever it takes” and for 2 years he has done nothing. On Thursday, the ECB meets to determine monetary policy and Draghi is expected to do something, and it better be something worth the wait.

It is widely anticipated the ECB will cut its target on loans from one-quarter percent to 0.1%, maybe down to a flat zero; and they are expected to eliminate paying banks on their deposits, cutting that into negative territory, essentially charging the banks to park cash at the central bank. And if that’s all the ECB does, it will probably be considered a huge disappointment; cutting rates won’t change borrowing conditions materially for most companies and it won’t be enough to lift the Eurozone out of the deflationary cycle.

It’s time for another edition of banks behaving badly. This is really an ongoing saga but sometimes we turn our gaze away and focus on other important issues; you might think that means the banksters haven’t been misbehaving, but the truth is their transgressions are never-ending.

Last month, Credit Suisse agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges of helping tax cheats avoid paying US taxes. Credit Suisse was fined $2.6 billion, which is a hefty fine but the bank basically got off with punishment fitting a civil suit. Still, it sent a message.

The Treasury Department announced that more than 77,000 foreign banks from 70 countries have agreed to share information about US account holders as part of a crackdown on offshore tax evasion. Participating countries include all the world's financial giants, as well as many places where Americans have traditionally hid assets, including Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas. Under the law, foreign banks that do not agree to share information with the IRS face steep penalties when doing business in the US. The law requires American banks to withhold 30% of certain payments to foreign banks that don't participate in the program. And if the US banks fail to withhold the tax, they would be liable for it themselves.

Next on the list is BNP Paribas; the Justice Department is looking into claims the French bank broke trade sanctions against Sudan, Iran, and Cuba between 2002 and 2009; essentially, international money laundering. BNP Paribas is facing possible criminal charges and possible penalties of $10 billion. In December 2012, HSBC faced similar charges that it breached US sanctions and laws against money laundering; HSBC agreed to pay $1.9 billion in civil penalties.

 Now, US authorities are seeking criminal charges and a stiffer fine, the equivalent of a year’s profit for the French bank. The precise amount of the fines and the conditions attached to them is still a matter of speculation and probably negotiation. The crimes of BNP are probably no more egregious than the wrongdoing of HSBC, but for a long time BNP refused to admit wrongdoing. If you’ve ever watched a cop show on TV, you know how that works; cooperate and the punishment will be more lenient.

President Obama is traveling to France on Thursday to commemorate the 70^th anniversary of D-Day, the landing at Normandy. And while the visit is supposed to be a celebration of the liberation of France by its allies, relations between France and the US are a bit rocky. Many in France are concerned that America lets its own banks off rather lightly and cracks down on foreign banks instead to appease voters’ hatred of the banksters. American rules sometimes differ from European rules, and criminalize behavior that might be legal in the banks’ home country. And two more French banks, Societe Generale and Credit Agricole, are also thought to be in the crosshairs of American authorities for allegedly breaking sanctions and money laundering.

The French are getting nervous. The French foreign minister says the fine against BNP would be unfair and it would hit BNP Paribas' funds and result in fewer loans for French businesses. They claim the US is using its position as the leading global financial market to bully their banks. So on Thursday, Presidents Obama and Hollande will get together for D-Day festivities and dinner and conversation. The banking fines will be a major topic, but there are other acrimonious subjects; France seems determined to continue military hardware sales to Russia, which might not violate the recently imposed sanctions but certainly violates the spirit of the sanctions.

The US has embarked on a new way of fighting, and it involves sanctions and economic weapons; it is certainly preferable to the battles waged 70 years ago in Europe, but it won’t work if the banksters put their greed ahead of other priorities. The French politicians might whine about the hardships, but they need to get their banks in order, and for that matter so does the US.

Friday, May 30, 2014 - Record Highs, Bonds, Coal Mines

Financial Review with Sinclair Noe

DOW + 18 = 16,717
SPX + 3 = 1923 (another record)
NAS – 5 = 4242 (not a record)
10 YR YLD + .01 = 2.45%
OIL - .71 =  102.87
GOLD – 4.60 = 1252.30
SILV - .23 = 18.91

For the week, the Dow rose 0.7%, the S&P 500 gained 1.2% and the Nasdaq added 1.4%. For the month of May, the Dow gained 0.8%, the S&P 500 rose 2.1% and the Nasdaq climbed 3.1%. Meanwhile, if you are looking for action, the bond market is the place; the yield on the 10 year note has dropped from 2.65% to 2.45% this month.

Nearly everyone is looking for an explanation as to why longer-term interest rates continue to fall in the face of reduced Fed support and what is being hyped as better economic data. This wasn’t supposed to happen. The Federal Reserve has been propping up Treasury bond prices, and suppressing yields, for the past several years by buying large quantities of bonds each month in an effort to increase investment and consumption, and force investors into riskier assets. To some extent, the Fed’s QE purchases have worked; ultra-low interest rates have supported housing price increases and have led to skyrocketing stock prices.  Household net worth has increased by $25 trillion from the financial-crisis lows in the first quarter of 2009.  However, these gains in net worth have overwhelmingly accrued to the well-to-do while low- to moderate-income folks continue to suffer from poor employment opportunities, stagnant incomes, inadequate retirement savings, and rising costs for everything from food and energy to health care and education.  In other words, the economy hasn’t really improved but the Fed may have created financial asset bubbles.

Last December the Fed began winding down its large scale asset purchases by tapering, or incrementally reducing the amount of purchases over a scheduled period of a year or so. Back in December the Fed was buying $85 billion a month in mortgage backed securities and treasuries; they have now cut that to just $45 billion a month, and by the end of the year they anticipate they will end the large scale asset purchases. This means that demand for treasuries and MBS has, or should have dropped significantly. If there is less demand and the supply stays the same, then prices should fall and bond yields should be moving higher. The exact opposite has been happening; long term bond prices have increased and bond yields have been falling; and the timing of this increase in prices and drop in yields coincides with the start of the Fed taper.

Is there something wrong with the supply/demand equation? Is there invisible demand out there? Well, treasuries are considered a safe haven investment, and if we saw volatility in the stock market, we might expect a move to the safe haven of treasuries. Right now the CBOE Volatility Index known as the VIX, is down. As the 10-year yield touches the 2.4% level, its lowest in nearly a year, the VIX is hovering around 11.5, near its lowest levels since before the financial crisis.

The VIX measures volatility in the US market, so maybe we need to broaden out horizons. Europe is experiencing low-flation, and in some Euro countries the low-flation has turned to deflation; as a consequence, the rates in Europe are very low: German 10 year bonds yield 1.36%, France yields 1.75%, Spain 10 year notes yield 2.86%. In a global market there is something wrong with pricing. Why is the US bond yield higher than the French bond yield? That does not compute.

Of course, one explanation is that foreign investors are looking for a place to park money and if you can get a better yield on US treasuries compared to French bonds, it just makes sense that you wouldn’t buy the French bonds; add in the idea that buying US treasuries serves as an effective hedge against home currency depreciation and treasuries should be attracting money that might be held in emerging market economies.

In general, if economic growth is expected to accelerate, interest rates should rise as well.  The reason for this is fairly straightforward.  Increased demand for goods and services should lead to price increases.  Inflation is one component of "nominal" interest rates.  The other component is called the "real" rate of interest, and it is determined by the demand for money.  As economic growth accelerates, the demand for money should increase as people become more confident in making spending and investment decisions.  Therefore, higher inflation expectations and higher demand for money should lead to higher interest rates in a strengthening economy; but they haven't. Perhaps the weak economy of the Eurozone is holding back rates in the US, or maybe the US economy isn’t as strong as we imagine.

Another consideration has us going back to the supply-demand equation; if supply dries up faster than demand dries up, then that would push prices higher. Remember that the federal deficit has been trimmed to the lowest levels in about 13 years and that means the government isn’t issuing as much new debt. And the housing market has slowed and that means there should be less in the way of mortgage backed securities.

That was certainly the case for the first quarter; the US economy shrank. And there are no real signs of inflation in the US, or at least we didn’t see inflation for quite some time. That may be changing; the April CPI and PPI showed a minor pop in prices; the low interest rate environment has boosted financial asset prices, so stocks and housing prices have moved higher; food prices are also higher but they tend to be overlooked as a weather related aberration, although I doubt that is temporary; the labor market is still weak and despite the unemployment rate dropping to 6.3% there is tremendous slack and little participation and there doesn’t seem to be any wage inflation. The Fed might claim the economy is getting stronger and the Fed might not consider deflation to be a problem, but the bond market seems to be saying the recovery is sick. At least for the Main Street economy.

Further proof today showing American shoppers dialed it back in April. Household purchases fell 0.1%, the first decrease in a year, and following a 1% gain in March; that was the bounce back from the pent up demand of the frozen winter. After adjusting the figure to account for inflation, the news was worse; spending dropped by the most since September 2009 as income growth cooled. Incomes advanced just 0.3% in April, and without pay gains, consumers lack confidence. Consumer sentiment dropped from 84.1 in April to 81.9 in May. What we’re seeing is the failure of trickledown. The stock market may be strong, the well-off may be better off, but it doesn’t trickle down. The economy is never going to recovery without broad based demand, and that will only happen when the labor market gets strong, until then, the Fed is pushing on a string with QE and the Zero Interest Rate Policy.

There are many possible reasons behind the move in bonds, but a big part still has to do with the economy, even with all the subplots of the international markets and the inflation-deflation debate, we get back to the idea that the economy is weak, and the recovery is uneven. The first quarter GDP contraction was certainly weather related but that doesn’t mean the economy will bounce like a quarter on a trampoline. Second quarter GDP should be positive but probably not sizzling hot. I don’t buy that story, and apparently the bond market isn’t buying it either.

Next week’s economic calendar includes the ISM surveys of business activity in the manufacturing and services sector. What will be important to the outlook is what the surveys say about employment, export prospects and inventories. On Wednesday the Fed will release its Beige Book of regional economic reports. The next Fed FOMC meeting is June 17-18. Next Friday is the monthly jobs report; the unemployment rate, the headline number is at 6.3%, but that’s based on a participation rate at 62.8%. If the participation rate moves higher, look for the unemployment rate to jump.

Another big event next week, President Obama on Monday will unveil a plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants and promote cap-and-trade, undertaking the most significant action on climate change in American history. The proposed regulations could cut carbon pollution by as much as 25% from about 1,600 power plants in operation today. Power plants are the country's single biggest source of carbon pollution; responsible for up to 40% of the country's emissions.

The rules, which were drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and are under review by the White House, are expected to put America on course to meet its international climate goal, and put US diplomats in a better position to leverage climate commitments from big polluters such as China and India. The plan is certain to result in political backlash with critics making doomsday claims about the costs of cutting carbon. Coal mining companies, power plant operators and others are already lining up for legal challenges to the executive action, claiming the approach oversteps the EPA’s authority.

Are We Witnessing The End Days Of Supply Side Economics?

Buried beneath the rubble of Greece's insolvency and the chronic fiasco that is devouring the weakest members of the European Union, a larger question that ultimately will be spoken aloud and debated is this: are we at the end of Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and supply-side economics?

Since 1980, commercial markets have been operating more and more under a laissez-faire governmental thesis to unleash the maximum potential of capital in the marketplace. The co-pilots of relaxed rules and supervision and a secular expansion of debt have guided us into the abyss twice in the last five years. Supply-side economics' principles of wealth redistribution, mainly upward to capitalists, and the temporary or illusionary rise in personal net worth for the average man, may have run its course.

At the beginning of the Thatcherism and Reaganomics era, unshackled commerce benefited from, and some will argue it was the cause of, a secular drop in interest rates, a secular fall in inflation, and the early days of the greatest secular bull stock market ever recorded. Two generations of accumulated middle-class wealth in the richest economy and best educated mass society on the planet was its accelerant.

Any economic theory converted into policy must be able to translate itself from intellectual discussion to practical application with acceptable results. And, the results must prove acceptable and visible to most parties involved with the outcomes for this new zeitgeist to continue with broad societal support.

Embracing a new economic theory, after it gains a foothold in the public consciousness, only occurs when a sustained undesired economic result from the previously employed thesis metastasize into a full crisis for the political class.

The working class - junior partners in the economy were given an invitation to join the gentry class and their senior partners in the early1980's if they would abandon the vulgar thoughts and filthy habits of Marx and Engels, while whistling The International.

Through discounted stock commissions, mutual funds, annuity products, limited partnerships, Keogh plans, 401K and IRA accounts, and other investment opportunities of the noblesse oblige, these new pledges of wealth, privilege and profligate lifestyles seeing their household net worth rise only reinforced in their minds the powers of supply-side economics.

Going forward, supply-side economics was accompanied by continuing deregulation, federal tax cuts and federal deficit spending, a new mantra of "maximizing shareholders' value", creative accounting, and open global borders with reduced or eliminated import tariffs, and technological and financial products innovation.

Below is a summary of the stock market's performance over those years, taken from Wikipedia:

1967-1982: Bear market. Traders deal with a stagnant economy in an inflationary monetary environment. The Dow enters two long downturns in 1970 and 1974; during the latter, it falls nearly 45% to the bottom of a 20-year range.

1982-2000: Bull market. The Dow experiences its most spectacular rise in history. From a meager 777 on August 12, 1982, the index grows more than 1,500% to close at 11,722.98 by January 14, 2000, without any major reversals except for a brief but severe downturn in 1987, which includes the largest daily percentage loss in Dow history.

2000-present: Bear market. The index meanders and then plunges to a closing low of 7,286.27 on October 9, 2002. A cyclical bull peak at 14,198, reached exactly five years later, does not surpass the inflation-adjusted 2000 high. A renewed bear is recognized in summer 2008 and multiple volatility records are set that autumn. Another acute phase in early 2009 brings the index to new 12½ year lows south of 6,469, for a total loss of 54% in less than 18 months. In the following three years, the Dow remains volatile, but manages a near-doubling to 45-month intraday highs just under 12,925 on February 9, 2012.

We now recognize there are too much outstanding private, corporate, and government debt obligations to ever be serviced, or repaid. Vast quantities of underlining assets belonging to this debt are mispriced, dubious in quality, or is virtually non-existent. Over one trillion dollars in compelled recreational debt is tied up in student loans by Generation Y - the Millennials.

The current time value of money is grotesquely warped, in the hope of extending the charade of affluence which us crumbling, and is having a deleterious effect on real savings and unbridled speculation. The notional value of outstanding derivative contracts is incomprehensible when compared to total global wealth. Algorithm trading has perverted daily market activity.

Unlike 2008, when markets froze up or collapsed due to price discovery, un-coerced supply and demand curve changes, and unsound, opaquely-structured investments, laced with greed and fear, what we are witnessing today is basic multiple organ failure of a financial system that is beyond repair and is slowly shutting down.

There are no long term solutions to our existing problems that our current political and economic systems are willing to accept and employ. Therefore, supply-side economics has reached an impasse. For some, the future existence of supply-side economics is an uncomfortable question; equally uncomfortable questions are what will replace it and how soon?

As investors, not speculators, until the world determines its own future, preservation of capital must become an individual's top priority. Casual investing in these roiling times is reckless and tempting fate.

There are only two fundamental choices anyone can make when investing: exchanging principal for fractional ownership, thereby, risking total loss of principal for fractional unlimited appreciation, or, lend principal for a specific period of time, a specific interest rate adjusted for risk, and an expectation of timely payments and the return of principal.

Every investment in the world is a derivative of one of these two fundamental investment tenets.

Today, short-term interest rates are near zero; long-term rates are below 3%. Monetary policies around the world are set for generating inflation to lift asset prices and to jumpstart floundering economies. Entities, globally, that have not already reduced their outstanding debt, are either overleveraged or in the process of deleveraging.

Compulsive-shopping baby boomers are saving more and spending less as retirement and the aging process claims thousands of boomers daily, around the world. Political unrest, inspired by deteriorating economic conditions is only exacerbating a bleak looking future for career and employment opportunities seekers. On every continent, youth unemployment is on the upswing as automation renders their workforce participation less and less necessary.

These headwinds are enormously complex and forceful. Some are irreversible. Until that next new transformative thing appears, 20th century supply-side economics' diminishing returns will be harshly judged in this more challenging 21st century environment.

Ultimately, it will adapt, or, like economic systems that preceded it and became obsolete after failing to adjust, it too shall disappear in the rearview mirror of time.

JP Morgan’s $2 Billion Misfortune

J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM) on Thursday, after the market close, announced a $2 billion hedging loss against a $100 billion derivative portfolio, by the company’s Chief Investment Office (CIO). On Friday the market punished J.P. Morgan by dropping the price of the stock 9%, closing slightly above $36 dollar a share.

Jamie Dimon, chief executive, J.P. Morgan Chase, said on the Thursday conference call that the bank's hedging strategy was "flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored," He called the mistake "egregious, self-inflicted," and stated: "We will admit it, we will fix it and move on".

I saw this movie trailer once before in 2007. The 2008 financial crash was a full-length horror film.

I pray that this isn't the beginning of another financial crisis but this is exactly how it started in January 2007 with mortgage companies and small banks losing money and closing followed by the first big Wall Street failure, Bear Stearns, in March of 2008. Is it possible that the bankruptcy of MF Global last October 31, 2011, the seventh largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, is this financial crisis cycle’s Bear Stearns – if a full blown crisis does occur?

A $2 billion dollar trading loss will not put J.P. Morgan out of business. They generate that much revenue in a month. Unfortunately, other financial institutions may not have the capital and expertise to weather another financial crisis. JP Morgan put this strategy on and most likely other firms. Time will tell who they are and if they will survive. However, if this is the first inning of another crisis, before it's over, the industry’s grim reaper may come knocking on J.P. Morgan's door. This possibility is real and is frightening.

The western financial world is struggling with debt and political prices are being extracted at the voting booth for this economic and regulatory mismanagement. Look at the French and Greek elections. The citizens in both counties rejected draconian austerity measures demanded by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on behalf of the western banking system in exchange for additional European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) assistance. Voters in Germany’s northernmost state ousted a governing center-right government made up of the same parties as Chancellor Angela Merkel's federal coalition, too.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was ousted by voters and replaced with France's president-elect, François Hollande. Mr. Hollande campaigned on raising taxes on the rich and protecting workers’ and citizens benefits.

Greek voters elected neo-fascists in parliament for the first time while the hard left finished in second place. The Syriza Party, a coalition of radical left and green groups took 16.6% of the vote. The far-right party known as the Golden Dawn elected 10 members. This was feared but unexpected.

Back to JP Morgan, the 2700 plus page Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in 2010, was designed to reform deregulation of the financial industry, preventing reckless, overleveraged, and proprietary trading by banks.

It is a flawed piece of legislation that was passed and signed into law before it was completely written. The Volcker Rule, named after former Federal Reserve board Chairman Paul Volcker, is but one item out of many in the Act still being debated by congress and the banking industry and their lobbyists.

Congress is scheduling hearings on the opaque losses and industry regulators are also looking into the trading activity of the CIO.

Jamie Dimon also stated losses could grow beyond $2 billion.