bostonangler

I have only read about this and am no expert. But I have read it could cost something $8 in fees to buy a $4 cup of coffee.... Again, I haven't experienced any of this, but have read it. Have you tried to use crypto in a shopping experience? B/A

I agree Pitcher, I am holding cash to see where these swings end... today has been crazy action both up and down. B/A

Did you see Carter Page's interview on FOX last night, or GMA this morning??? He is in a world of trouble. His answers aren't working. And why are our president's lawyers telling him not to meet with Mueller if he just has to answer a few questions honestly? Of course if we didn't have lawyers, we would need lawyers. JMHO B/A

Right now crypto is like a MLM scheme. The ones who got in early make the cash. There are no regulations, no control on getting your cash out, no standards on charges to use the currency, it is open to robbery by hackers and will not be accepted until the real value can be demonstrated. Right now the value is only based on speculation, which is why we see can wild swings based on emotion. Currencies must have something backing it up... I'm no expert this is JMHO. B/A

With the passage of the new U.S. tax law, the nation’s tech giants can now more freely dip into their stockpiles of overseas cash. They don’t seem to be in any hurry. The five largest U.S. technology companies by market value hold nearly $500 billion combined in cash abroad. In their first earnings calls since the tax overhaul, three—Microsoft Corp., Alphabet Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.—suggested greater access to the cash didn’t change their spending plans. “When we have seen an opportunity to invest, we have not really waited for tax reform to do that,” Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood said on a call with analysts. Alphabet finance chief Ruth Porat reported “no change in our approach to capital allocation.” Amazon’s CFO, Brian Olsavsky, said the company already spends a great deal on its workforce. That contrasts with Apple Inc.’s announcement last month it would make a $38 billion one-time tax payment on its offshore cash holdings, bring most of the money home, and boost spending in the U.S., creating more than 20,000 jobs. In his State of the Union address last Tuesday, President Donald Trump hailed Apple’s plans as evidence of the tax law’s success. For Facebook Inc., the fifth company, the impact of the tax law on spending never came up on its call. “Investors are a little disappointed that you didn’t get clarity and transparency from these management teams on what they are going to do” with overseas cash, said Daniel Ives, head of technology research for GBH Insights. The tax change benefited the bottom line for many American corporations by reducing the statutory corporate rate to 21% from 35%. The impact already has spurred businesses to go on acquisition sprees, launch share buybacks, cement plans to build new U.S. plants and dole out bonuses to workers in industries such as telecommunications and airlines. Tech firms, which hold more overseas cash than any other industry, lobbied for the law in part because it promised them a one-time discounted rate of as much as 15.5% on those holdings. Most don’t need to use that cash because they have been able to borrow low-cost capital—a practice known as synthetic repatriation—to return cash to shareholders. Over the past five years, tech companies in the S&P 500 index tripled their amount of long-term debt to $531 billion, a faster pace of growth than any other industry over that period. Many of the companies said on their calls they are still working through the complexities of the tax code. Some could announce changes to their spending plans in the coming weeks. Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft declined to comment beyond their calls. In an emailed statement, Facebook CFO Dave Wehner said the tax law gives the company “added flexibility about where to hire and build.” Facebook already planned to double the size of its U.S. workforce over the next three years, a spokeswoman for the company said. An Apple spokesman said the company didn’t have anything to add beyond its prior comments. It isn’t clear how much of Apple’s investment was triggered by tax considerations and how much Apple would have done anyway. Finance chief Luca Maestri said in an interview Apple’s goal is to target a “net cash neutral” position over time, compared with the large gap between its current holdings of $285 billion in cash and $122 billion in debt. That implies Apple could spend as much as $163 billion across dividends, share repurchases and acquisitions in the coming years, analysts said. The company said on its call it plans to disclose more details when it next reports earnings. Even after Apple garnered presidential praise for its moves, Microsoft, whose international cash pile is second only to Apple’s among U.S. corporations, chose to play down the impact of the tax law. On a Jan. 31 call with analysts, Ms. Hood said Microsoft made acquisitions “when they made sense” and “didn’t wait when we thought about capital return” to shareholders. Alphabet announced plans to repurchase $8.6 billion in shares—“a modest increase” to previous programs, Ms. Porat said on the call. None of the tech giants want to see rivals snap up companies they could have. Better access to overseas money could increase the tech giants’ acquisition activity as well as prices for potential targets, said Stifel Nicolaus & Co. analyst Brad Reback. Other tech companies were spare with details on their calls. The tax-law impact on spending didn’t come up on Qualcomm Inc.’s call. PayPal Holdings Inc. CFO John Rainey said while the company wants to return cash to shareholders, “we don’t feel pressured to go out and do that immediately.” Intel Corp. CFO Robert Swan said “tax reforms provide further incentive to continue investments” in U.S. research and development, but didn’t elaborate. Martin Schroeter, vice president at International Business Machines Corp., said the company is “absolutely delighted” about the tax law—then cautioned it wouldn’t result in any immediate changes to spending. IBM, PayPal and Intel declined to comment further. A spokeswoman for Qualcomm noted the company in its annual report said it planned to use overseas cash to pay for a portion of its acquisition of NXP Semiconductors NV. Corporate welfare.... Ain't it grand? B/A

Is bitcoin a buy yet? Bitcoin USD 6,687.60 B/A

1 USD 1.00000 1 IQD 1197.07

Sorry Yota I don't understand your comment. This thread is about the markets being over bought and the obvious correction. The markets have soared since 2009 without real economic reason other than wild west style buying. The original post was before yesterday's 1175 point drop. This isn't about politics it is about buying and selling. Profit taking is what investors do. Believing any upward trend will never end is what dreamers do. If you buy a stock and it goes up 30 or 40 percent or even crazy like 100 percent you take your profit. There are several stocks I bought that went up over 100%. I took out my initial investment kept my free shares and will reinvest in new stocks at these lower prices... JMHO B/A

Now that's Rock N Roll... Thanks B/A

By Peter Kenny, chief market strategist for Global Markets Advisory Group and owner of KennysCommentary.com Today’s market rout is a continuation of Friday’s meltdown in the US equity markets, which capped off the worst weekly performance by all three major equity market indices in over a year. It’s worth looking at exactly what happened. On Friday alone the S&P 500 (^GSPC, SPY) lost 59.85 points or 2.12%. The Dow Industrials (^DJI, DIA) (-665.75 pts/2.54%) and Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC, QQQ) (144.94pts/-1.96%) traded lower in lockstep. Adding significance to the trade, volume expanded dramatically for the week and in particular on Friday. On Friday NYSE volume surged 8.89%. Nasdaq volume jumped 12.65%. The negative price action coupled with the massive uptick in volume underscores my sense that we have reached an inflection point of sorts. Additionally, markets closed on their intraday lows — rarely a good sign. The primary driver of the selloff was a result of dramatically rising interest rates. On Friday the closely watched US 10-yr yield rose 2.92% to close at 2.85%. Not only is that the highest yield for the 10-yr. over the past 12 months, it is it’s highest yield since January 6, 2014. That lurch higher in rates has altered the landscape for investors in a potentially meaningful way. Including last week’s selloff, the S&P still has a relatively elevated P/E of 22.47 and a 52-week gain of 22.62%. It could be argued that as a result of stretched valuations alone that equity markets have been due for a pullback and ultimately a degree of valuation compression. I have made that argument here in the note, but that is not the whole story. That valuation-centric premise has been buttressed by a dramatic shift higher in T-note yields—a move long anticipated but delayed by Federal Reserve monetary policy. On Friday, the dramatic turn lower in equity prices coupled with the equally dramatic rise interest rates was captured by the long-dormant Volatility Index. On the day the VIX sharply rose 28.52% to close the session at 17.31 – the highest close since October 31, 2016. We have finally reached an inflection point in markets. The long-awaited confluence of rising interest rates, fueled by improving inflation metrics found in employment and other economic data, has fueled active hedging on the part of portfolio managers. Traders are expecting the recent turn higher in rates to materialize as a trend. By historical standards, interest rates are still relatively low, and if forecasts for increased economic activity, continued gains in employment, expanding GDP and improving corporate results are any indication, they could potentially rise meaningfully higher in coming quarters. In the first FOMC meeting of the year last week, the Fed left rates unchanged, as expected, but did lay the groundwork for further tightening in 2018. That guidance on Wednesday in conjunction with the Atlanta Fed’s call for a Q1 GDP reading of 5.4% on Thursday fueled a shift in investor expectations that lulled even the most hesitant bond bulls to reverse course—putting an exclamation point on the thesis that the 30-year bull market in US Treasuries has come to an end. Adding addition pressure and uncertainty to the investing landscape is the prospect of another Federal government shutdown in the near term as I wrote here last Monday, January 29. Last week’s turbulence in US equity and credit markets did to a degree also spill over and into energy markets. US WTI crude prices moderated in the week. From Friday, January 26 through last Friday, February 2, WTI slipped 1%. Though I do expect continued expansion of US shale oil production to impact energy prices in the form of a headwind, consumption will remain strong. Weakness in the US dollar should act as a counterbalance to that theme (see Sam Stovall’s mention of the weakness in the US dollar).

Business VISA and Mastercard make it harder to buy Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies Sometime in the last week Bitcoin investors started noticing additional fees on their bank statements. It turns out that VISA and Mastercard both decided (how convenient!) to reclassify the way Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency purchases are processed on their networks. Incidents like this pose several challenges for the cryptocurrency industry short-term, but also show just how scared the incumbents really are. Currently, if you want to buy bitcoin, ethereum, or any other alt-coin instantly, the only option is to use your debit or credit card. Transferring funds from your bank has lower fees, but takes several days. Coinbase has long accepted debit and credit cards for instant buys, however, passing the standard 4% credit card transaction fee on to the buyer. Now, it seems VISA and Mastercard have quietly reclassified the way Coinbase credit card purchases are processed on their networks. Coinbase transactions (and presumably all other exchanges as well) are now being labeled as a “cash advance” rather than a “purchase.” Fees will vary by institution, but what this means is that using a credit card will result in an additional 5% fee tacked on by your credit card merchant, in addition to the 4% credit card transaction fee already passed on by Coinbase. Even worse is that cash advances do not fall under the standard interest-free grace period that consumers expect for other credit card purchases. The moment the Coinbase purchase goes through, the transaction accrues and compounds daily. If that isn’t bad enough, the interest rate is also higher for cash advances — an astonishing 25.99% in one case. Lastly, but equally as important for some consumers, these purchases will no longer qualify for earning credit card points. For example, a $5,000 instant bitcoin purchase made on Coinbase using a VISA or Mastercard credit card will now result in roughly $500 in fees + interest too. For most people losing 10% of your investment in fees means that the practice of using a credit card to buy cryptocurrency is effectively over. It will become more difficult for investors to purchase Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency on their terms. Transferring funds via ACH takes three to five business days. In a world where cryptocurrency prices can swing wildly in either direction, a week feels like a nail-biting eternity. In an email to all customers last night Coinbase confirmed the change claiming "the MCC code for digital currency purchases was changed by a number of the number of the major credit card networks” and will now allow banks and card issuers to charge “additional cash advance fees”. When asked for comment a spokesperson for Mastercard had this to say “Over the past few weeks, we have clarified to acquirers – or the merchant’s bank – the right transaction or merchant category code to use for these type of transactions (cryptocurrency purchases). This provides a consistent view of such purchases for both merchants and issuers.” If anything, this change makes things more complicated in the short term. Authorities are already divided on what Bitcoin “is”: the IRS has already said Bitcoin is not “currency” and treats it as taxable property, however credit card companies are now telling us that buying Bitcoin is the same thing as pulling cash out of an ATM. Both things can’t be true. By reclassifying Coinbase (and presumably all other exchanges as well), VISA and Mastercard are doing their best to make it harder, slower, and more expensive for people to invest in cryptocurrency. Credit card companies believe it’s in their best interest to turn away millions in additional revenue in exchange for slowing the rush of investment into Bitcoin. In many ways, that’s true. The rise of Bitcoin and future cryptocurrency is tied to the eventual fall of financial middlemen like VISA and Mastercard. Maybe they just woke up to it. This article originally appeared on TechCrunch.

I was wrong thinking it would go down before the 25,000 mark. I felt it was overbought due to the jubilance of the election. I guess we got to the dance a little early, but the correction appears to be in full swing. B/A

A former leader in the American Nazi Party is about to be the only Republican on the ticket for a congressional race in Illinois. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Arthur Jones, a Holocaust denier who has repeatedly tried ― and failed ― to attain office, is the only candidate seeking the GOP nod for the seat in the heavily Democratic 3rd Congressional District. Images on Jones’ campaign website showed him speaking at KKK and neo-Nazi events, giving the Nazi salute and shredding the flag of Israel. He called the Confederate flag the symbol of “white pride,” “white resistance” and “white counterrevolution.” Jones also told the Sun-Times that the Holocaust was “an international extortion racket.” Party leaders have disowned Jones. “The Illinois Republican Party and our country have no place for Nazis like Arthur Jones,” Tim Schneider, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, told the Sun-Times. “We strongly oppose his racist views and his candidacy for any public office, including the 3rd Congressional District.” Jones mocked the party’s attempts to stop him. “Well, it’s absolutely the best opportunity in my entire political career,” he told the Chicago Tribune. “Every time I’ve run it’s been against a Republican who follows this politically correct nonsense. This time they screwed up.” The primary is March 20. Jones is the second candidate that the state GOP has tried to distance itself from in recent days. State Rep. Jeanne Ives, who is running in the primary for governor, was blasted by the party for a campaign ad that mocked transgender people and feminists, among others. Schneider called on her to “pull down the ad and immediately apologize.” Clarification: Language in this story and headline has been amended to clarify that the Republican Party has not endorsed Jones’ bi Surely no one will vote for this guy. B/A

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mick Mulvaney, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has pulled back from a full-scale probe of how Equifax Inc failed to protect the personal data of millions of consumers, according to people familiar with the matter. Equifax (EFX.N) said in September that hackers stole personal data it had collected on some 143 million Americans. Richard Cordray, then the CFPB director, authorized an investigation that month, said former officials familiar with the probe. But Cordray resigned in November and was replaced by Mulvaney, President Donald Trump's budget chief. The CFPB effort against Equifax has sputtered since then, said several government and industry sources, raising questions about how Mulvaney will police a data-warehousing industry that has enormous sway over how much consumers pay to borrow money. The CFPB has the tools to examine a data breach like Equifax, said John Czwartacki, a spokesman, but the agency is not permitted to acknowledge an open investigation. "The bureau has the desire, expertise, and know-how in-house to vigorously pursue hypothetical matters such as these," he said. Three sources say, though, Mulvaney, the new CFPB chief, has not ordered subpoenas against Equifax or sought sworn testimony from executives, routine steps when launching a full-scale probe. Meanwhile the CFPB has shelved plans for on-the-ground tests of how Equifax protects data, an idea backed by Cordray. The CFPB also recently rebuffed bank regulators at the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency when they offered to help with on-site exams of credit bureaus, said two sources familiar with the matter. Equifax has said it is under investigation by every state attorney general and faces more than 240 class action lawsuits. The Federal Trade Commission is examining the breach and the company may face financial penalties. The last time the FTC penalized a major credit bureau was in 2012, a $393,000 settlement with Equifax. In contrast, the CFPB fined credit bureaus more than $25 million just last year for over-marketing its monitoring services, which generated monthly fees. The FTC confirmed in September it was investigating Equifax but a spokesman declined further comment. Credit bureaus like Equifax, TransUnion and Experian collect and store personal information on scores of millions of consumers. Banks and other lenders rely on the information to track how consumers spend money and manage debt, then use it to decide what interest rate to charge for loans. The Equifax breach exposed vulnerabilities in how the companies keep data safe. It also highlighted how credit bureaus exist in a regulatory gray zone where they are partly regulated by several agencies. Under Cordray, the CFPB and FTC agreed to work together on the Equifax inquiry, sources said. But while the agencies have similar powers to investigate, only the FTC has issued a subpoena. And while Cordray had asked bank regulators to join in fresh cyber security exams of the bureaus, last month the CFPB told the regulators that no on-site exams were planned, so their help was not needed, said three officials, who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The banking regulators declined to comment, and the credit bureaus declined to comment on their dealings with regulators. But TransUnion said the CFPB has no authority to examine the company over cyber security concerns. "We believe that it is clear that the CFPB was not given legal authority to supervise any financial institutions with respect to cybersecurity," the company said in a statement. The CFPB has come under sustained attack from Republicans during the seven years of its existence. Mulvaney put a hold on much agency work when he took over in November, and said it would last at least 30 days to give him a chance to understand the job. So much for us voters and protection from fraud... B/A

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Virgin Money (VM.L) has banned purchases of cryptocurrencies on its credit cards, a spokesman said on Monday, after similar moves by Lloyds Banking Group (LLOY.L) and several U.S. investment banks. "Following a review of our policies, I can confirm customers will no longer be able to use their Virgin Money credit card to purchase cryptocurrencies," the spokesman said. "This only applies to our credit cards and not our debit card."

https://finance.yahoo.com/cryptocurrencies

South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy said the recently released, controversial GOP memo alleging FBI abuses of its surveillance authority does not have "any impact on the Russia probe," and even without the Steele dossier, there would be a Russia investigation. "There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," days after he announced his decision not to seek re-election. President Donald Trump authorized the release of the memo from the House Intelligence Committee on Friday, and has since claimed it "totally vindicates" him in the ongoing investigation around allegations of possible coordination between his associates and Russia to influence the 2016 election. Gowdy, however, said he believes the memo does not affect the Russia investigation and has no connection to key storylines about the matter. "To the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower," Gowdy said. "The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice." Gowdy was one of several lawmakers to say over the weekend that the memo did not vindicate the President. Senate Minority Whip **** Durbin said on CNN's "State of the Union" that it is the duty of Congress to focus on the Russia investigation and not seek to absolve Trump. The Illinois Democrat also said the GOP memo spearheaded by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes would be "discredited" if a competing House Democratic memo becomes public. "The information, the facts, tell a totally different story," Durbin said. In a separate CNN interview on the same program, Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio signaled agreement with Gowdy that the memo is a "separate issue" from vindicating Trump in the Russia probe. "It's more looking within the agencies, something we have oversight over," said Wenstrup, who, like Gowdy, is a member of the House Intelligence Committee and supported the release of the memo. Republican Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, also a member of the committee, said on ABC's "This Week" that he does not agree that the memo vindicates Trump and downplayed the claims about the "explosive" nature of the memo from his colleagues. "I'm not shocked that elected officials are using hyperbole and exaggerations," Hurd said. The memo alleges the FBI, in seeking a warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, relied on a dossier of allegations about Trump and Russia compiled by former British intelligence official Christopher Steele, whose work for the firm Fusion GPS was part of an opposition research project against Trump. In comments Friday hinting there are more memos to come, Nunes said he had delegated the task of reviewing the underlying intelligence that became the basis for the GOP memo to Gowdy and two investigators, and that those were the people who briefed the rest of the members of the intelligence panel. Rep. Schiff: Steele dossier's political motivation disclosed in FISA application In the interview, Gowdy said the Steele dossier was not "the exclusive information" the FISA court used for the Page warrant, but contended the court would not have approved the warrant without the dossier. "It would not have been (approved)," Gowdy said. Gowdy also reaffirmed his support for former FBI Director Robert Mueller's leadership of the special counsel probe, saying he supports Mueller "100 percent," and that he would not "prejudge" Mueller's investigation, despite having seen "no evidence of collusion." B/A

What a mess we have... Personally I don't believe any of the clowns are patriots. I think they all have an agenda for the betterment of themselves, not America. JMHO B/A

I didn't have you in mind... Your comments are usually very astute. There are some who will attack if you say the sky is blue... They would argue not always... LOL B/A

It's hard to be funny here sometimes... It seems everyone want to attack... Wait until the Anunnaki arrive.. That get humans back on the same side... LOL B/A

I'm sorry I thought that was him on the Access Hollywood segment... Dang that Deep State is everywhere...

I believe this says official statement.... The director of the FBI, longtime Republican Christopher Wray, does not. According to Bloomberg, Wray believes that said memo is full of inaccuracies, and paints a false narrative of the Bureau’s activities. And on Wednesday, the FBI released an official statement saying that it “has grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

I think the world is getting tired of waiting... If they want the world to come in and spend money, they better get off their "I only work 17 minutes a day" crap and get busy. JMHO B/A

He was only a candidate at the time. And why would anyone pay out for no reason? There has to be something behind the curtain. Maybe not an affair maybe he just grabbed her coochy. He admits he like to do that... B/A