Anonymous ID: f8fc10 April 16, 2019, 7:26 a.m. No.6198429   🗄️.is đź”—kun

U.S. manufacturing output flat as auto production falls

keep in mind who put's a spin on these number's-the FRB

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. manufacturing output was unchanged in March after two straight monthly declines, leading to the largest quarterly decrease in production since 2017.

The Federal Reserve said on Tuesday manufacturing production last month was restrained by weak motor vehicle and wood products output. Data for February was revised up to show output at factories falling 0.3 percent instead of declining 0.4 percent as previously reported.

 

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast manufacturing output edging up 0.1 percent in March.

 

Production at factories dropped at a 1.1 percent annualized rate in the first quarter. That was the first quarterly drop since the third quarter of 2017 and followed a 1.7 percent pace of increase in the October-December period.

 

Motor vehicles and parts production dropped 2.5 percent last month after increasing 2.3 percent in February.

An inventory overhang in the automobile sector is weighing on production, contributing to factory employment declining in March for the first time since July 2017.

(go look at your local new car dealer for evidence of this)

 

Excluding motor vehicles and parts, manufacturing output rose 0.2 percent in March, lifted by increases in the production of primary metals, and computer and electronic products, after falling 0.5 percent in February.

 

The outlook for the manufacturing sector, which accounts for about 12 percent of the economy, is cloudy.

 

A survey from the New York Fed on Monday showed a measure of future business activity in New York state dropped to a more than three-year low in April, with companies downbeat about new orders and shipments.

 

Manufacturing is slowing as stimulus to capital spending from last year’s $1.5 trillion tax cut package diminishes. Activity is also being hobbled by a trade war between the United States and China as well as by last year’s surge in the dollar and softening global economic growth, which are hurting exports.

 

The softness in manufacturing is in tandem with a moderation in the broader economy. Gross domestic product growth forecasts for the first quarter are between a 1.6 percent and 2.3 percent annualized rate. The economy grew at a moderate 2.2 percent rate in the fourth quarter after expanding at a brisk 3.4 percent pace in the July-September period.

 

The flat manufacturing output in March, together with a 0.8 percent drop in mining, lead to a 0.1 percent dip in industrial production. Industrial output edged up 0.1 percent in February. It fell at a 0.3 percent rate in the first quarter after rising at a 4.0 percent pace in the fourth quarter.

 

Mining production was unchanged in February. Oil and gas well drilling rebounded 0.3 percent in March after tumbling 1.3 percent in February. Utilities output gained 0.2 percent in March after surging 3.7 percent the prior month.

https://in.reuters.com/article/usa-economy-idINKCN1RS1D2

Anonymous ID: f8fc10 April 16, 2019, 8:07 a.m. No.6198799   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>8808

HFT(High Frequency Trading) Doesn't Harm Investors and Other Absurdities

 

(see the drop in Gold prices this morning as a perfect example of HFT at work)

 

From the 1990's through the end of 2006, electronic trading increased transparency which attracted liquidity, leading to narrower spreads and greater market stability. The graphic in this recent New York Times article shows the steady reduction in trading costs up until about 2006. Since that time, trading costs have not changed significantly on the execution side but on the analysis side (not factored into the New York Times article), both the number of quotes and the cost of receiving and processing them has exploded.1 Spreads have also become considerably less stable.

The benefits, but not the higher costs, are claimed by High Frequency Trading (HFT) proponents, who paint HFT critics as Luddites. This is often accompanied by hysterical charges of wanting to take the industry back to specialists and floor trading, and comparisons to buggy whip manufacturers. Nothing can be further from the truth.

 

The choice is not between HFT and floor trading, the choice is between HFT and transparent electronic trading.

 

Transparency means having more (accurate) information to make informed decisions. For example, you can determine the stability of a stock quote by comparing the price quoted with the trade price received. Transparency also means having more choices and knowing the consequences of those choices: such as the choosing which exchange to send your stock order and then knowing how the order was executed. As far as the investor is concerned, market transparency has a long way to go. Consider:

 

Amazon gives you more information about a $20 order than your broker gives you about a $20,000 stock trade.

 

The Beginning of Turmoil

Starting around 2007, two developments began which would slowly erode transparency, market stability and confidence in the market. It was also the beginning of an explosion in stock quotes (but not stock trades) and an era of micro-crashes, mini-crashes, flash crashes, IPO opening day disasters and algos running unchecked that could destroy a major Wall Street firm in 30 minutes.

 

Those two developments were:

 

1)The passage of Reg NMS which fragmented liquidity and set up latency arbitrage opportunities by spreading liquidity from a few exchanges to over a dozen.

2) Computers reached speeds where the largest source of trading latency was the speed of light, leading to exchanges building new trading facilities that offered co-location, a prominent characteristic of HFT.

 

To be sure, there is considerable debate about when HFT began, and this arises because HFT means different things to different people. Most HFT proponents latch on to this confusion and try to claim benefits from transparent electronic trading as benefits from HFT. But one thing most people agree on, is that HFT is a subset of electronic trading.

 

Up until late 2006, NYSE rule 1005 prohibited entering multiple orders from the same account for the same stock faster than 30 seconds apart. It's hard to imagine HFT existing if they have to wait a whopping 30 million microseconds: nearly 100,000 times longer than the "HFT profitability killing" 350 microsecond speed bump on the new IEX exchange.

The term High Frequency Trading first shows up on Google Trends near the beginning of 2008, with wide-spread use starting July 2009. One common feature of HFT is co-location, which is the practice of running your trading computer in the same room as the exchange computers. Co-location became more wide-spread after the adoption of Reg NMS which provided fair and equal access of exchange market data to any market participant. Reg NMS was adopted in early 2007.

(the NYSE collects MASSIVE fee's for allowing this)

Up until about 2006, the primary source of latency, or delay in processing market trading data came from the speed of computers and networks. Wall Street has always bought the fastest computers available, being among the first industries to adopt the latest technology. Faster computers meant faster processing which meant less delay occurred between receiving market data and trading on it.

 

After about 2006, computers and networks reached speeds where the distance between the trading computer and exchange computer started to matter. This is because light, and thus information, has a distinct maximum speed of approximately 186 miles (300km) per millisecond (ms).

you can access the rest of this here

http://www.nanex.net/aqck2/3532.html

 

This gentleman has been at the forefront of exposing this practice that permeates the trading arena. I encourage you to look at his site and thumb through the many articles available. he is also the only person to receive a cash award from the SEC for whistle-blowing activity.

Anonymous ID: f8fc10 April 16, 2019, 8:22 a.m. No.6198923   🗄️.is đź”—kun

>>6198774

India: Congress party pledges universal basic income for the poor

 

India’s main opposition leader, Rahul Gandhi, says he will mount a “final assault on poverty” if elected in May, by giving a guaranteed income to 250 million of the country’s poorest citizens.

 

The plan announced by the Congress party president on Monday is loosely modelled on a universal basic income (UBI) – an idea that has gained momentum in various countries recently – and would be the world’s largest variation on the scheme.

Gandhi is fighting a difficult election campaign against incumbent Narendra Modi, whose popularity is thought to have received a boost from recent military clashes with Pakistan. Voting commences on 11 April and continues for the next six weeks.

 

Under his plan, every family would be guaranteed an income of 12,000 rupees (ÂŁ130) a month, paid into their bank accounts. The scheme would be known as Nyay, Hindi for justice.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/25/india-congress-party-universal-basic-income-rahul-gandhi