Monday, June 23, 2014 - Calm Before the Storm

Calm Before the Storm
by Sinclair Noe

DOW – 9 = 16,937
SPX – 0.26 = 1962
NAS + 0.64 = 4368
10 YR YLD un = 2.62%
OIL  - .13 = 106.04
GOLD + 3.60 = 1319.30
SILV + .02 = 21.00

The economic data today from the National Association of Realtors shows existing home sales picked up in May. Total sales rose 4.9% to 4.89 million units from an upwardly revised 4.66 million in April. While that marks a month to month increase, sales are down from the 5.15 million level of May one year ago.  Total housing inventory increased 2.2% in May. Unsold inventory is 6% higher than a year ago.

Meanwhile, Markit's US Flash manufacturing PMI report for June, increased to 57.5 from 56.4 in May.

The stock market has drifted slightly higher over the past couple of months. Yes we hit record highs last week, but the movement has been very slow, volume has been light, and volatility is almost non-existent. Volume is down about 50% since 2008. The VIX, or volatility index, sometimes known as the fear index, is down below 12, which means that the only people in the options market are all maxxed out on Ambien, or Valium. The S&P 500 hasn’t had a daily move of 1% in more than 2 months. Russia invades Ukraine – wake me when it’s over. Radical militants threaten to tear apart Iraq – we’ve seen this story before. The US economy is weak right now but growth is right around the corner – rinse, lather, repeat. The US plays Portugal in the World Cup and it’s a tie, of course.

The Federal Reserve looked at monetary policy and cranked up the old Xerox to publish their statement. Maybe this is the result of all that Federal Reserve fiddling; maybe they have created the boring stock market, which lulls everyone into a false sense of complacency. Of course, that’s not how markets work, no matter how much central bank finesse is applied. Markets are risky, always have been, always will be. I think it’s safe to say this is the calm before the storm, because there is always a storm in the markets.

There was some merger activity today. General Electric struck a deal to acquire France-based Alstom's power business for $16.9 billion after a lengthy pursuit. There was another utility deal, Wisconsin Energy announced a deal to acquire Integrys Energy for $9.1 billion. Oracle also announced a deal to acquire MICROS Systems for $4.6 billion.

The price of oil has been one of the few markets to show movement, which is not good news for drivers. Rising oil prices translate to rising gasoline prices, but there is lag of several weeks. Given the recent jump in oil prices, gasoline prices are poised to increase in coming weeks. Higher prices at the pump serve as a tax on consumers, whose purchasing power is still questionable. It’s estimated that an increase of $10 a barrel subtracts 0.4% from real GDP growth. Of course, for that to apply, the price increase has to stick.

The Supreme Court is in session and today they ruled on limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate facilities that emit carbon dioxide. The decision would reduce the number of carbon-emitting facilities the EPA can regulate, but it is a limited ruling, and even Justice Scalia said: "It bears mention that EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case."

Meanwhile a statement from the EPA claims victory, "The Supreme Court’s decision is a win for our efforts to reduce carbon pollution because it allows EPA, states and other permitting authorities to continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest pollution sources." Industry groups, such as the American Petroleum Institute, also claimed victory. The group said in a statement that the decision was a "stark reminder that the EPA's power is not unlimited."

The decision won't have a huge impact on US climate policy, as the decision only modestly changed the number of large facilities subject to certain permitting requirements. It also won't affect the Obama administration’s proposal to reduce emissions from power plants, which is a separate program.

When the EPA classifies something (like carbon dioxide) as a harmful pollutant, it triggers a number of legal requirements under the Clean Air Act. One of them, known as a "prevention of significant deterioration" (PSD) rule, requires factories, power plants, and other large facilities to get the EPA's approval before they make changes that would lead to higher pollution. These facilities also must use the "best available control technology" to reduce the effects of pollution they emit. Another provision requires any facility that is a "major source" of pollution to get a permit from the EPA.

Under the Clean Air Act, facilities become subject to these regulations if they emit more than 250 tons (or in some cases as little as 100 tons) of pollution per year. Traditional pollutants such as sulfur dioxide or lead can be harmful even if they are only emitted in trace amounts, so a relatively low threshold makes sense. Only large factories and power plants emit that much of these conventional pollutants.

But carbon dioxide is different. Factories produce vastly more carbon dioxide than other pollutants regulated by the EPA. Under existing rules, about 15,000 facilities are required to get permits under the Clean Air Act based on their emissions of non-carbon pollutants. If the EPA had used the same 250-ton threshold for carbon dioxide emissions, 6.1 million facilities would suddenly have needed permits. The agency estimated it would cost $21 billion per year just to process all that paperwork.

So the agency effectively re-wrote the law, exempting facilities that emitted less than 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide from getting a permit. Several states and business groups challenged this decision, arguing that the EPA had no authority to unilaterally re-write the law.

Almost everyone agrees that a literal reading of the Clean Air Act would lead to madness. The EPA has warned that "decade-long delays in issuing permits would become common, causing construction projects to grind to a halt nationwide." The Supreme Court didn't want that to happen.

But a majority of the court, led by Justice Scalia, also didn't like the EPA's approach. The court said that if Congress set a threshold of 250 tons, the EPA can't just unilaterally change it to 100,000 tons. Instead, the court's majority held that the term "air pollutant" can have different meanings in different parts of the Clean Air Act. While the "Act-wide definition" of air pollutant includes carbon dioxide, Scalia wrote, "EPA has routinely given it a narrower, context-appropriate meaning" in certain parts of the Clean Air Act. Scalia used the same trick to avoid subjecting millions of facilities to burdensome permitting requirements. He held that the definition of "air pollutant" didn't include carbon dioxide in sections of the Clean Air Act where including it would lead to a vast expansion in regulation.

The court's four liberals, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, preferred a different approach. Rather than selectively interpreting "any air pollutant" to exclude carbon dioxide, Breyer would instead have interpreted another phrase in the same section of the law, "any source" to exclude power plants that produce only modest amounts of carbon dioxide.

Two of the court's conservatives, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate opinion arguing that the Supreme Court had been wrong to push the EPA into regulating carbon dioxide in the first place in 2007.

While the EPA can't impose regulations on new power plants based on their carbon dioxide emissions, the court ruled that the courts can regulate the carbon dioxide emissions of facilities that are already subject to regulations based on their emissions of conventional pollutants. So the EPA will still do what the EPA does; it’s estimated that 83% of greenhouse gas emissions that could potentially be regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the law would still be covered as a result of the ruling, compared with the 86% of emissions that the EPA says it wants to regulate.

What today’s ruling really shows is that Congress has been out of touch and dysfunctional in dealing with pollution and climate change; rather than deal with issues, they stick their heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away, but it doesn’t; it simply shifts to another part of government that may or may not manage to resolve the problem, but in either case, is not held accountable to the voters; and then finally, if the problem persists, it goes to the courts. It’s a bad way to make and enforce laws.

A couple of other cases today: in Loughrin v. US; the court declined to reduce the scope of a federal criminal law against bank fraud, ruling that prosecutors do not need to prove that defendants intended to defraud a bank. The decision came in an appeal brought by Kevin Loughrin, who was convicted of six counts of bank fraud for stealing checks that he then altered so he could buy merchandise at Target stores.

Loughrin told police he meant to buy the items using the checks, then return the items for cash refunds. He was charged with using altered checks totaling $1,184.  Loughrin appealed his conviction. He argued that the bank fraud statute required prosecutors to prove that he intended to defraud the banks on which the checks were drawn. He said his intent was only to deceive Target. In other words, this was run of the mill fraud, and the use of a check was incidental. Loughrin did not appeal his related convictions for identity theft and possession of stolen mail. Between 2006 and 2010, the government sought to prosecute nearly 3,000 cases using the statute. Meanwhile, no major bankers have gone to jail for the crimes associated with the financial crisis; I’m just saying.

One more decision today: New Jersey wanted to institute legalized gambling on football, passing a law that the NFL and other sports leagues quickly fought in court.  The NFL won (as it often seems to do in court) at the federal appellate level, forcing New Jersey to take the case to the Supreme Court. The Supremes declined to review the case, so if you are in New Jersey, or any other state except Nevada, you’ll have to continue to call your bookie, or you can play fantasy football in a league set up through the NFL’s website.

Monday, June 02, 2014 - Clean Power Plan

Clean Power Plan

by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 26 = 16,743
SPX + 1 = 1924
NAS – 5 = 4237
10 YR YLD + .07 = 2.53%
OIL - .31 = 102.40
GOLD – 7.80 = 1244.50
SILV - .05 = 18.86

The ISM got it wrong this morning. The Institute for Supply Management reported its May manufacturing index came in at a weaker than expected 53.2, but there was a software problem that didn’t properly reflect season adjustments; the ISM issued a revision; the May index was 56.0; but for some reason, that wasn’t correct, so they issued another revision. The May manufacturing index was 55.4; that’s the number and they’re sticking with it. Embarrassing? Yes.

Meanwhile, stocks and bonds were all over the board. Stocks fell into negative territory early on, but bounced back as revisions were issued. Bonds are hyper sensitive to economic growth, and the yield on the 10 year note moved higher and stayed higher, despite the initial numbers and the revisions. And if you look past the revisions, and you should, because it appears to be nothing more than an honest mistake, caught quick and corrected; the bottom line is a pretty strong number for manufacturing, more or less in line with the idea of a second quarter bounce in the economy.  

The bigger story this week will be the jobs report on Friday. It is widely expected the economy added about 200,000 to 215,000 jobs in May, which would be down from a very strong report of 288,000 net new jobs in April. The unemployment rate is expected to tick up from 6.3% to 6.4% as more people enter the labor force.

We also expect some big economic news out of Europe this week, and we’re likely to see a small announcement instead. You will recall that European Central Bank President Mario Draghi announced back in the summer of 2012 that he would do “whatever it takes” to save the euro. And then he spent the following two years doing nothing. This week he’s expected to actually do something, specifically he’s expected to unveil a package of measures to fight deflation. Analysts expect the ECB to cut both its main interest rate and reduce its deposit rate to below zero, meaning the central bank would charge lenders to hold money with it overnight. Although any reduction will be modest, a negative deposit rate has never been introduced by a major central bank; and the thinking goes, this will force the banks to start lending.

It doesn’t take much to see the flawed logic. Many countries in the Euro periphery are still struggling with Great Depression level unemployment. As long as unemployment remains as high as this, it’s nearly impossible for countries to generate the internal demand necessary for durable growth. The biggest obstacle to a bold move would seem to be Germany, which is enjoying a pretty strong economy, but even there, the inflation rate has dipped down to 0.6%. The ECB seems to think a little fine tuning will right the ship and then a rising tide will lift all boats. Doubtful. 

As expected, the EPA today issued the "Clean Power Plan" proposal, calling it "a commonsense plan to cut carbon pollution… Climate and weather disasters in 2012 cost the American economy more than $100 billion," the agency says in a document accompanying the proposal.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said: "We don't have to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. Our action will sharpen America's competitive edge, spur innovation and create jobs."

The regulations would force power plants to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30% by 2030. The rules would set guidelines that states could choose how to follow. Under the plan, each state would have its own goal within the overall national pollution reduction effort. That’s an attempt to be politically and practically flexible in implementation. The EPA would set targets for each state for carbon emissions reductions. Then state governments would come up with their own plans for hitting these targets. The proposed regulation in essence gives them four different approaches they could try. They could renovate existing coal-fired plants with newer, more clean-burning technology; they could switch coal plants to natural gas, which produces much less carbon; they could try to persuade residents to be more efficient in their use of electricity; or they could band together with other states in a cap-and-trade network for emission reductions.

In a cap-and-trade network, companies would buy and sell permits allowing them to produce a certain amount of carbon emissions. Clean producers would be the sellers, while dirtier producers would be the buyers.

Almost a third of America's carbon emissions comes from electricity generation. EPA officials concede some of the dirtiest power plants now operating, such as older coal-fired plants, will end up shuttered as the nation shifts its reliance from traditional fossil fuel sources to cleaner alternatives. Coal supplied 37% of US electricity in 2012, compared to 30% from natural gas, 19% from nuclear power plants, 7% from hydropower sources such as dams and 5% from renewable sources such as wind and solar. By 2030, just over 30% of US electricity will come from coal and about the same amount from natural gas, with wind, solar and other alternative sources providing about 9%.

According to the EPA, the proposed new rules would reduce carbon pollution by the same amount as removing two-thirds of all cars and trucks form American roads. It put the cost as high as $8.8 billion a year, but noted health gains such as fewer premature deaths and respiratory diseases along with other benefits would be worth tens of billions of dollars to the US economy. Recent analysis quantifies the benefits in health, air quality and clean water at $63 billion a year. Since 1970, every dollar invested in compliance with Clean Air Act standards has yielded $4 to $8 in economic benefits.

Will this move actually clean up global pollution? Not really. No matter what the US does, global emissions will keep skyrocketing in the near future. This is because most of the rise in emissions is being driven by China. China’s carbon pollution has soared in the last 15 years, and is now about double the US level. The rest of the increase has come from oil-producing countries and from other, more slowly developing Asian nations; but China overshadows all of the other sources.

American per capita emissions, of course, are still more than twice as large as China’s. And the simple fact is that we won’t get far trying to tell China they have to cut emissions if we aren’t willing to cut our own emissions. Of course, if we unilaterally cut our emissions, that doesn’t mean China will be willing to follow our lead. Self-restraint might do nothing more than push down the price of high carbon energy sources, allowing China to burn more for less. What this move really does is position the US as a leader in cleaner energy technology, and even if we can’t export natural gas to China or many other parts of the globe, we could export cleaner energy technology and expertise.

One way to do this is to tax carbon intensive imports; something not included in today’s proposal. The US is still China’s most important export market, so a US carbon-import tax will provide a huge incentive for Chinese companies to reduce emissions.

Another specific not included in today’s proposal would be to implement a carbon tax or equivalent here in the US. This won't cut worldwide emissions enough to make a dent in global warming, but the funds could be used to spur research and development into things like gas, solar, wind and energy efficiency. We should think of carbon taxes mainly as incentives for the private sector to discover all the carbon-cutting technologies, and fund the research that will make green energy cheaper than coal.

Fortunately, renewable energy is up to the challenge of replacing those dirty fuels. In just the last three years, solar panels have gotten 60% cheaper and the price of wind energy has fallen more than 40%. Far from being expensive, clean energy is already beating both coal and natural gas on price in many parts of the country.

Coal and oil are low tech fuels whose time has passed, just as surely as the days of using whale oil to light our lamps, but the transition won’t be easy. The apprehension in coal country to leave this current path is understandable. We would all feel it if we were in their shoes. Outsiders can't ignore the plight of the families and the affected communities. And there will be massive political opposition, especially from the politicians backed by coal and big oil, which is most of the politicians. And most of these new regulations won’t go into effect until 2015, and there will be legal challenges, but the future is changing.

ISM, manufacturing index, jobs report, ECB, Mario Draghi, Gina McCarthy, EPA, Clean power Plan, record high close, Sinclair Noe, 

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

Record Highs, Bonds, Coal Mines
by 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.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - Currently Trending Here

Currently Trending Here
by Sinclair Noe

DOW + 69 = 16,675
SPX + 11 = 1911
NAS + 51 = 4237
10 YR YLD - .02 = 2.52%
OIL - .24 – 104.11
GOLD – 29.20 = 1264.30
SILV - .40 = 19.14

The S&P 500 Index closed at another record high. The Dow Industrial Average is just a little below the May 13 record of 16,715. The Russell 2000 index of small and mid-caps confirmed the uptrend. The Russell had been lagging and there was a concern that small caps might drag the blue chips lower. While the Russell is still down about 2% year to date, on Friday it moved above its 200 day moving average.

Any time the market is trending, it makes sense to look for divergences, or any indicator that might signal a change in trend, but the most important thing to watch is still the trend itself; in other words the market scorecard is measured in price. And right now the trend is up.

Let’s start with some economic news. The S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices continued to show gains in prices for existing home sales; the 10-city composite was up 0.8% and the 20-city composite was up 0.9% month over month; and respective year over year gains of 12.6% and 12.4%. Nineteen of the 20 cities showed positive returns in March; New York was the only city to decline. As of March 2014, average home prices across the United States are back to their mid-2004 levels. Measured from the 2006 peaks, home prices are down 19%.

Mortgage rates started rising in May 2013 as the market speculated about when the Federal Reserve would start pulling back on its large scale asset purchase program, at the same time inventories of new and existing homes dropped, pushing prices higher and affordability was pushed down. One positive for home sales is that mortgage rates have recently dropped with the average 30 year fixed at 4.14% and the average 15 year fixed mortgage at 3.25% the lowest levels since last October.

The Conference Board said its consumer-confidence index rose to 83 in May from a downwardly revised 81.7 in April. The survey shows 20% of respondents expect their incomes will improve in the next 6 months; that doesn’t sound like much but it’s the highest reading since 2007. Other key elements of the survey: A net 18.2% said jobs were hard to get vs. being plentiful, compared with 19.8% in April and 26.5% in May 2013. Those who plan to buy a home within six months fell to 4.9% in May, the lowest since July 2012; that compares with a percentage of 5.6% in April. Those who plan to buy major appliances within six months fell to 45.1%, the lowest since September 2011.

Durable goods orders increased 0.8% in April. Durable goods are products designed to last 3 years or longer; so this is a broad category that includes everything from toasters to cars to nuclear submarines. In April, the Navy inked a $17.6 billion contract for 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines; and while that will be money that will circulate through the economy over several years, it skewed the report. Non-defense capital goods orders fell 1.2%. Business are placing fewer orders while working through a stockpile of goods amassed in the second half of 2013. Last month, durable goods inventories rose 0.1% after increasing 0.2% in March.

The Memorial Day holiday signals the unofficial start of summer and the summer driving season, and that usually equates to higher gasoline prices at the pump. Usually, but not always. According to the Energy Information Administration, prices at the pump are going to fall from today’s levels. This forecast is based on increased crude-oil production and declining global demand.  Rising oil production has boosted US crude-oil inventories to some 398 million barrels. That’s the highest level since way back in 1931. Demand is down, in large part because of better fuel efficiency forced by government MPG mandates. Demand has been declining since 2007. In many areas, gas prices are the lowest since 2011. Each penny decline in gasoline puts $1 billion back into people’s pockets.

Speaking in Portugal today, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi warned that prices in the countries in the euro zone's stressed periphery were falling too sharply, due to the combination of belt-tightening and a high exchange rate. He also cited evidence of a debt trap in stressed countries: the cost of finance for many companies has risen since the crisis, while falling prices mean they can't generate the profits to service their debts. Draghi said that the share of viable small businesses that can't get a loan is only around 1% in Germany or Austria, but around 25% in Spain and 33% in Portugal; Draghi called this imbalance a “credit gap” and blames it for up to a third of the economic slack in the crisis economies and acting as a brake on economic recovery. And so Draghi says the ECB will take action June 5th to ward off deflation and support economic recovery; what precisely will be done is still a matter of speculation.

It is widely anticipated the ECB will cut interest rates combined with an attempt to boost credit to small and medium sized businesses by providing long-term funding to banks provided they deploy that capital to expand business credit. The main lending rate will likely be cut from 0.25% to 0.1% or so. Meanwhile, the deposit rate paid to banks on overnight deposits will likely be cut from zero to a negative 0.1% or so, in effect charging the banks for funds they leave with the central bank.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a report on the data brokerage industry. The nine data brokers examined in the FTC report were Acxiom, CoreLogic, Datalogix, eBureau, ID Analytics, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf and Recorded Future. Data brokers analyze data collected about consumers to make automated assumptions about them. Consumers are placed in data-driven social and demographic groups for marketing purposes. The commission says that the same data that identifies a motorcycle enthusiast could both get him a discount on a biking magazine and make it easier to charge him more for car insurance. Another way to look at this is that the consumer is not the customer, rather the consumer is the product.

And yes, the data brokers know whether you drive a motorcycle, or smoke cigarettes, or if you are overweight, and how many bathrooms you have in your home, and if you travel or just like to read magazines about travel; that’s all in addition to the basics like name, address, social security number, age, and the bluntly termed “ability to afford products”.

According to the FTC, the firms have done a great job of finding data to crunch. One firm has information on 1.4 billion consumer transactions; another one adds 3 billion new records to its databases each month. While the report doesn’t address credit scores, the framework of the debate is much the same. What really worries the FTC is the impossibly opaque way the data is collected and managed. The data brokers gather their data from other data brokers rather than directly from an original source.

This is where the commission thinks the government should get involved. It suggests a law that would mandate the creation of a centralized portal where data brokers explain themselves, disclose their sources, and give people the opportunity to opt out; or for more sensitive data, require consumers to opt in before data could be sold. The commission hints it might call for some version of the idea that people have a right to have some things be forgotten, but they don’t actually recommend that data brokers cull their data, even when that data may be very old and inaccurate. And there is talk, but nothing concrete, about giving consumers access to their own data, and the ability to call for some of that data to be corrected or deleted.

President Obama today outlined a plan to withdraw all but 9,800 American troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year and withdraw the rest by the end of 2016. Under his plan, 9,800 US troops would remain behind into next year. By the end of 2015, that number would be reduced by roughly half. By the end of 2016, the U.S. presence would be cut to a normal embassy presence. The United States now has about 32,000 troops in Afghanistan.

At some point in the next week, President Obama is expected to announce Environmental Protection Agency mandated cuts intended to reduce carbon pollution by regulating carbon dioxide emissions from about 600 existing coal fired power plants. Obama could not get Congress to take action to address climate change during his first term, so he changed his tack and is using his executive authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to issue the EPA regulation.

As currently drafted, the rule would cut greenhouse-gas emissions from the utility sector by 25%, the individuals said, but the baseline for that reduction has not been finalized. The EPA plan resembles proposals made by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which would allow states and companies to employ a variety of measures, including new renewable-energy and energy efficiency projects “outside the fence,” or away from the power plant site, to meet their carbon- reduction target.

Usually when the EPA regulates pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the agency sets an emission limit for each facility. By contrast, under a “mass-based system,” which the EPA is poised to adopt, states would have to meet an overall target for greenhouse-gas emissions and ensure that power plants either make those reductions at their facilities or finance efforts to achieve them in other ways, such as conservation or “green” generation or possibly through some variation of the cap and trade system.