Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Sunday, January 12, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 125)
Markets

Markets concept depicting the American flag draped over the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) at Wall Street. (Photo: AdobeStock)
Markets concept depicting the American flag draped over the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) at Wall Street. (Photo: AdobeStock)

With an eight-week winning streak on the line, U.S. stocks posted solid gains Friday as Major Market Averages settled higher by +0.6% to +1%. This more than offset Thursdays decline enabling stocks to extend their winning streak to 9 weeks, as most averages closed above significant benchmarks.

Positive market internals Friday also overruled data from the Thursday selloff. On Friday, advancing issues led decliners by better than 2 to 1, after trailing declining issues by less than 3 to 2 on Thursday.

There were also over 160 new 52 week highs Friday, the highest count so far in 2019. Positive market breadth was also reinforced by 9 0f 11 S&P 500 (^SPX) sectors finishing the session with gains on the day.

The Raw Data:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) at 26,031 gained +0.7% on Friday and +0.6% for the week, while closing above the 26,000 benchmark for the first time since early November. This places the blue chip average right in the crosshairs of significant resistance.

On November 7 and 8, the DJIA posted consecutive closes just below 26,200. Resistance toward that level and higher should be significant on any further rallies.

The S&P 500 (^SPX) at 2792.63, rallied +0.6% Friday, and gained +0.7% on the week, but did not have that final afterburner to get through the 2800 level.

While the tech and health care sectors led market performance Friday, financials and oils, trailed. Oil should be watched closely.

After a steady move higher over the last 2 months, some profit taking in the sector may be warranted. We noticed that the gains in the oil sector on Friday were not enough to wipe out losses from the prior day. Stay tuned.

The NASDAQ Composite (^IXIC) at 7527.57 gained +0.9% Friday, and posted a gain on the week of +0.7%. The NASDAQ also closed above the 7500 market for the first time since early November 2018.

The NASDAQ may be challenged to hold that breakout above 7500, as the FANG and Social Media names are far from being free and clear of their privacy and full disclosure issues.

The NASDAQ IS +13.5% YTD.

Late last week, LYFT and Pinterest made initial filings to put their IPOs on track for sometime this year. Growth investors in the space will no doubt be keenly following their valuation expectations.

The Russell 2000 (^RUT) at 1590.06 gained +0.9% Friday and led the market averages with a +1.3% gain on the week. This was the highest close for the Russell since mid October 2018. Since the Russell took the biggest hit in Q4 last year, it makes sense that it has the best gain YTD of the major averages at +17.5%

The strength of the Russell 2000 YTD should really be getting more attention. Increased banter of late on a significantly slowing economy later this year and 2020, is totally inconsistent with the over performance of small cap stocks.

We learned many years ago in Investing 101 that small caps and emerging growth stocks significantly underperform in an economic contraction and/or recession.

Clearly if the economy begins to deliver Hard Data indicative of a meaningful contraction, we’d expect, and likely see small cap stocks retreat. So far it’s been speculation and extrapolation at best and fear mongering at worst. Stay tuned.

The Early Line

Early trading in Stock index futures are pointing toward a follow through rally to start the week. Global markets traded higher across Asia, most significantly the Shanghai Composite, which rallied +5% on optimism over the U.S. – China trade talks.

This optimism was fueled by the Chinese delegation extending their stay in D.C. through the weekend, and the announcement from the White House that President Donald J. Trump was delaying additional tariffs beyond the March 1 deadline.

Stay Tuned.

With an eight-week winning streak on the

Video

On this episode of Liberty Never Sleeps, Tom discusses the ultimate narcissism behind supporters of big government. They’re always telling people what to do and how to behave mostly because it’s all about them.

*Trump Wants 6G
*Kraft Trafficking?
*Don’t Eat Hamburgers
*Rifles in Schools
*Oscars 2019 is a Disaster

Bumper Music:

Heart And Soul- T’Pau
Heartland- U2
All I want Is You- U2
I Love the Night Life- Alicia Bridges
Second Hand News- Fleetwood Mac
Gypsy- Fleetwood Mac

Closing Music on podcast provided by The Dead Cat Bounce*

To help our show out, please support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/LibertyNeverSleeps

The money pledged thru Patreon.com will go toward show costs such as advertising, server time, and broadcasting equipment. If we can get
enough listeners, we will expand the show to two hours and hire additional staff.

All bumper music and sound clips are not owned by the show, are commentary, and of educational purposes, or de minimus effect, and not for monetary gain.

No copyright is claimed in any use of such materials and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. If you believe material has been used in an unauthorized manner, please contact the poster.

$bp("Brid_51098642", {"id":"2077","width":"1200","height":"630","video":"384671"});

Policy

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., left, and Senator Bernie Sanders, D-I-Vt., right, graphic concept.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., left, and Senator Bernie Sanders, D-I-Vt., right, graphic concept.

I don’t always fully agree with Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Institute, but I’m an avid reader of his work because he writes intelligently on issues that I care about.

I especially like it when we’re on the same side. A good example is his recent column about billionaires in the New York Times. He starts by observing that politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are demonizing the super-rich.

Socialists have long held that large stores of private wealth are tantamount to violence against those in need. …Thanks at least in part to Bernie Sanders and the sizzling rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,… Enthusiasm for radical leveling is whistling out of the hard-left fringe… Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s policy adviser, Dan Riffle, contends that “every billionaire is a policy failure”… He’d like to see the 2020 Democratic primary contenders answer a question: Can it be morally appropriate for anyone to be a billionaire?

Will answers Mr. Riffle’s question by noting that the world’s most successful nations operate on the principles of classical liberalism.

…the existence of virtuous three-comma fortunes is a sign not of failure but of supreme policy success. …The empirical record is quite clear about the general form of national political economy that produces the happiest, healthiest, wealthiest, freest and longest lives. There’s no pithy name for it, so we’ll have to settle for “liberal-democratic welfare-state capitalism.” There’s a “social democratic” version, which is what you get in countries like Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. And there’s a “neoliberal” (usually English-speaking) version, which is what you get in countries like Canada, New Zealand and the United States. …in comparative terms, they’re all insanely great. The typical citizen of these countries is as well-off as human beings have ever been. …guess what? There are billionaires in all of them. Egalitarian Sweden, an object of ardent progressive adoration, has more billionaires per capita than the United States.

Spot on.

Nations with a lot of economic freedom produce both billionaires and a high quality of life for ordinary people.

And, yes, that does include some Northern European welfare states, though, if I wrote the column, I would have noted that those nations became rich before welfare states were adopted.

But let’s not digress. Here’s the accompanying chart for Will’s column, which compares how nations score on the U.N.’s Human Development Index (based on lifespans, education, and income) and how many billionaires they have as a share of their populations.

I can’t resist pointing out that Hong Kong and Singapore both score highly, so the “welfare-state” part of “liberal-democratic welfare-state capitalism” certainly isn’t necessary to get on this list.

Indeed, the same is true of the other countries on the list if you look at the history of their economic development.

But I’m digressing again. Let’s get back to the column.

Will issues a very relevant challenge to the class-warfare crowd.

So what’s the problem? Preventing billion-dollar hoards guards against the bad consequences of … having the best sort of polity that has ever existed? …Inspect any credible international ranking of countries by democratic quality, equal treatment under the law or level of personal freedom. You’ll find the same passel of billionaire-tolerant states again and again. If there are billionaires in all the places where people flourish best, why think getting rid of them will make things go better?

And he makes a final point about how honestly earned wealth, i.e., not using government coercion produces big benefits for the rest of us.

…there’s a big moral difference between positive-sum wealth production and zero-sum wealth extraction — a difference that corresponds to a rough-and-ready distinction between the deserving and undeserving rich. The distinction is sound because there’s a proven a way to make a moral killing: improve a huge number of other people’s lives while capturing a tiny slice of the surplus value. …According to William Nordhaus, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, innovators capture about 2 percent of the economic value they create. The rest of it accrues to consumers. Whatever that is, it’s not a raw deal. The accumulation of these innovations over time is the mechanism that drives compounding economic growth, which accounts for a vast improvement over the past 100 years in the typical American standard of living. Some people may have made an ungodly sum in the course of helping make this humanitarian miracle happen, but that’s O.K.

It’s not just O.K., it’s great news.

This is what has produced the unparalleled prosperity of western nations.

Though I fear some of our friends on the left won’t be convinced. At least not the ones who are fixated on inequality.

Some of them very openly admit they are willing to hurt lower-income and middle-class people so long as rich people suffer even more. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has even produced studies–yes, more than one–justifying this harsh ideological view.


Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez demonize the

Policy

Data on Lynchings Strongly Indicate Politicians Hype Fear for Political Gain

Actor Jussie Smollett, left, arrested for staging staging a hate crime, and Michael McDonald, right, the victim of a real hate crime in an undated photograph. (Photos: Chicago Police Department/Undated)
Actor Jussie Smollett, left, arrested for staging staging a hate crime, and Michael Donald, right, the victim of a real hate crime in an undated photograph. (Photos: Chicago Police Department/Undated)

Actor and “Empire” star Jussie Smollett has been charged with a Class 4 felony after he allegedly staged a hate crime, specifically a beating and attempted lynching. While it is the lowest felony classification, it carries a potential sentence of one to three years in prison.

Two top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates used the apparent hate crime hoax to push anti-lynching legislation known as the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act.

Senators Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., have no sponsored legislation to speak of, or to tout on the campaign trail. They rushed to Twitter and to judgement hoping to advance the bill in the U.S. Congress.

“This was an attempted modern day lynching,” Senator Harris tweeted with specificity. “No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.”

The very next day, Senator Harris tweeted that passing “a federal anti-lynching law must be a priority for this new Congress.”

It’s certainly true lynchings are “a dark and despicable part of our nation’s history.” But before Jussie Smollett brought lynchings back into the national discussion, was there really a need to make anti-lynching legislation “a priority”?

Let’s look at the empirical evidence.

The last clear-cut case of lynching in the United States was in 1981, nearly 4 decades ago. The lynching of Michael Donald in Mobile, Alabama, was the last traditionally defined case.

Michael Donald, a young African-American man, was beaten and murdered by several members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). They hung his body from a tree, the very perceived definition of a lynching.

Did the Justice System Work for Michael Donald?

The Justice for Victims of Lynching Act suggests the justice system doesn’t work for lynching victims. It also suggests lynching must be classified as a federal crime in order to achieve justice.

But did the justice system work for Michael Donald?

Local police officers initially claimed the murder was a drug deal gone wrong. In truth, the local police chief suspected the Ku Klux Klan from the jump, though the investigation was largely taken away from the state.

Beulah Mae Donald, the victim’s mother, contacted Rev. Jesse Jackson. Protests to pressure the police were organized and the investigation was handed off to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Thomas Figures, the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Mobile, asked the Justice Department (DOJ) to authorize a second investigation and DOJ sent Special Agent James Brodman. Michael Figures–a state senator, civil rights activist, and brother to Assistant U.S. Attorney Figures–came in to represent Beulah Mae Donald.

In 1983, Agent Brodman arrested two suspects–the ringleader named Henry Hays and James Knowles–and the latter soon flipped on his fellow Klan members.

Henry Francis Hays was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to death. He was incarcerated and sat on Death Row in the Holman Correctional Facility in Escambia County, Alabama. In 1997, he was executed in the electric chair.

He was the first to be executed in Alabama for a white-on-black crime since 1913, and the only KKK member to be executed during the 20th century for the murder of an African American.

There are two ways to interpret those statistics. The first focuses only on the indisputable fact that it is a sad statistic, given the number of lynchings in the 1900s. But it is also evidence of true progress.

No One Escaped Justice

James Llewellyn “Tiger” Knowles was spared the chair, but U.S. District Court Judge W. Brevard Hand sentenced to him to life in prison. As a result of his cooperation and good behavior, he was released on parole in 2010.

On May 18, 1989, Benjamin Franklin Cox, Jr., then a 28-year-old truck driver from Mobile, was convicted in state court for being an accomplice. Mobile County Circuit Court Judge Michael Zoghby sentenced him to life in prison.

Bennie Hays (elder) was indicted for inciting the murder, and the motive was revealed as an attempt to reverse perceptions of a weakened Klan. His case ended when he collapsed from poor health in court. Judge Zoghby declared a mistrial, and the 77-year-old died of a heart attack before he could be retried.

In 1987, a jury ordered the United Klans of America (UKA) to pay Beulah Mae Donald damages in the amount $7 million, which bankrupted the organization. No amount of money could bring back her son, but his legacy includes setting a precedent for civil legal action against hate groups.

Lynchings Pre-Michael Donald

In 1974, Marian Pyszko was lynched in Wayne, Michigan. The 54-year-old was just “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” The victim, who was the only victim of a lynching in the 1970s, also happened to be white.

The Polish-Jew was killed by young black men who were just looking for a white victim to lynch.

During the 1950s to 1960s, the height of the battle for civil rights in the U.S., we found four lynchings on the record. However, it must be conceded it is at least somewhat likely that more went unreported or undocumented.

In 1954, Isadore Banks was lynched in Marion, Arkansas, for the crime of being prosperous. Emmett Til, perhaps the most well-known case, came a year later in LeFlore, Mississippi.

Year
NameRaceCityCounty/ParishStateReason
1954Isadore BanksBlackCrittendenMarionArkansasBeing prosperous
1955Emmett TilBlackMoneyLeFloreMississippiFlirting with white women
1959Mack Charles ParkerBlackPearl RiverPearl RiverMississippiKidnapping, raping a white woman
1965James ReebWhiteSelmaDallasAlabamaHelping blacks

It must be noted that the accusations of kidnap and rape surrounding Mack Charles Parker, were disputed. But we will never know the truth.

James Reeb, lynched in Selma, Alabama, in 1965, was also white. His crime was being a Northerner who helped blacks, and “ate at a nigger restaurant.”

All of the aforementioned lynching cases above are horrific crimes. It also should not go unsaid that Senator Tim Scott, R-S.C., is a co-sponsor of the anti-lynching legislation known as the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act.

But Jussie Smollett isn’t Michael Donald, and he damn sure isn’t Emmett Til. America in the modern-era is no longer the same “dark and despicable” nation politicians want us to believe it to be.

Democrats like Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker remind voters of our nation’s sinful past because they have nothing else to run on.

The data, the empirical evidence, doesn’t lie. Politicians do.

The Jussie Smollett case was used to

Markets

New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Building in the Lower Manhattan Financial District, New York City. (Photo: Tomasz Zajda/AdobeStock/PPD)
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Building in the Lower Manhattan Financial District, New York City. (Photo: Tomasz Zajda/AdobeStock/PPD)

Stocks settled moderately lower on Thursday, though well off their worst levels of the day as investors used late afternoon weakness as an opportunity to continue investing idle cash.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) at 25,850 -103; S&P 500 at 2774.88 – 9.82; and NASDAQ Composite (^IXIC) at 7459.71 – 29.36 all posted declines of just less than -0.5%, with the NASDAQ breaking an 8 session winning streak.

Market internals remain steady with declining issues leading advancers by slightly less than 3 to 2 and Down Volume running ahead of Up Volume by 2 to 1.

There was some well deserved profit taking in Oils, Industrials, and Materials; as well as a few news driven high profile decliners, Alphabet (GOOG), 1096.88, – $17 from ad cancellations at YouTube, Nike Inc. (NKE), $84.00 – $0.84, from “the Shoe” incident, and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) $135.11 -$1.24, on a lawsuit over their baby powder line.

Economic data delivered both positives and negatives.

Weekly jobless claims beat consensus of 225,000, declining to 216,000 from a shutdown induced bump of 239,000 the prior week.

December Durable goods gave us a headline number of +1.2, smoothed to +0.1 without the volatile transportation component. Given this was a December number it cancels out some of the gloom and doom mantra on the manufacturing economy that we we bombarded with toward the end of the year.

The Philly FED manufacturing survey registered -4.1, well below consensus of +12 – +14. Definitely a disappointment, with the caveat that the regional FED surveys have a history of volatile swings.

Existing Home Sales for January came in at 4.94 Million, below consensus of 5.05 million, and the lowest monthly reading since 2015. Keep in mind this registers sales that closed in January, which means they likely went to contract in November or December.

Since then mortgage rates have followed bond yields lower, and earlier in the week there was a rare uptick in the NAHB Housing Market Index.

All in all, todays decline was anything but a rout, and the last hour indicator remains positive. We’ll take a look at near term support level for the market averages on any further weakness.

New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Building in

Polls

President Donald J. Trump delivers his second State of the Union address on Tuesday, February 5, 2019.
President Donald J. Trump delivers his second State of the Union address on Tuesday, February 5, 2019.

Since before Donald Trump was elected to shortly after his very brief moment above 45% approval, the leftist media meme has been, “Trump is the most unpopular candidate/president.”

That this was preposterous was beside the point.

For example, as of this writing, in the grossly distorted 538.com “adjusted” polling average of recent presidents on day 762 of their presidencies, Trump is at 42% juxtaposed to Reagan at 35.3% and Carter at 41.5%.

Worth noting, they take five points off his support in polling conducted by Rasmussen Reports, and there were not nearly as many polls being conducted for those comparisons.

On the more realistic but still distorted Real Clear Politics (RCP) average, Trump has not been at 45% since the end of February 2017.

RCP includes polls conducted among “all voters,” including registered and likely voters. After his inauguration on January 27 2017, he rose from 44.2% to his so far all time high of 46.0% on February 4 2017.

Since Inauguration Day, President Trump has ranged from a low of 37.2% on December 13, 2017 to 42.5% on December 22, 2019. I choose the latter date as the start of what appears to be a breakthrough from the aggregate of around 44%, which ran from May to October 2018.

Prior, Trump was in a slow decline, a steady drop of about 2% from October to the government shutdown on December 22. There was a slight plateau before his approval dropped sharply to 41% during the height of the media hysteria, and rose marginally to 41.5% when the shutdown ended with a lag effect at 40.8% on February 6t.

Then a remarkable thing, or confluence of things, happened.

President Trump delivered a well-received non-partisan State of the Union Address on February 5, during which members of the Democratic Party displayed a sometimes ludicrous, blatantly rude visual to the tens of millions watching at hime.

It can be surmised the visual of a president, clearly self-confident and settled in his role not of the madman that much of Big Media and the “resistance” had painted him to be, had a positive effect on the public.

This visual allied with a sense of relief that the shutdown was over, that there was the prospect of bipartisan dealings to give both Republican and Democrats some measure of policy satisfaction. It impacted the public’s attitude to the president.

As of this writing, the RCP average pegs President Trump’s approval at 44.3%, his highest since October 27, 2018. That represents a gain of 3.5%, which in context is remarkable in such a short period.

From “Blackface” to sexual assault in Virginia, to the seemingly endless role out of potential Democratic challengers with varying degrees of success and failure, President Trump’s approval may have been further assisted by the Democratic Party’s appalling last few weeks.

Kamala Harris and Cory Booker raced to tweet about “lynching” legislation in the wake of the Jussie Smollett debacle, while Elizabeth Warren struggles to escape her endless “Native American” controversies.

Then, there was the spectacle of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and City Mayor Bill de Blasio attacking progressive darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for the Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) disaster.

AOC cost New York City an estimated 25,000 jobs.

Political historians correctly recognize a normal “bump” in presidential approval ratings after a State of the Union. Typically, it is followed by a prompt return to the pre-address norm.

This has not yet happened with President Trump’s approval. He is sitting about 2% higher than before his shutdown decline commenced.

If an aggregation of current polling composed exclusively of reputable Registered/All Voters polls, President Trump has been running between 44.5% to 45.5%. In 2016, Mr. Trump’s approval on Election Day was 37.5%, and his actual election result was 45.93%.

If he has genuinely broken through the traditional post-State of the Union decline to the norm and the mid-forties becomes his new base of approval until the next ascendant period, then President Trump is well-placed for reelection in 2020 and time is very much on his side.

Since Donald Trump delivered his second State

Policy

3D illustration of Civil Asset Forfeiture title on legal document. (Photo: AdobeStock/Hafakot/PPD)
3D illustration of Civil Asset Forfeiture title on legal document. (Photo: AdobeStock/Hafakot/PPD)

It’s not easy being a libertarian. Thanks to senseless and harmful government policies, you run the risk of being perpetually outraged.

Well, we have some good news about that final example.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has chipped away at the odious practice of civil asset forfeiture.

Professor Ilya Somin, from George Mason University’s Law School, explains the legal issues.

The decision is potentially a major victory for property rights and civil liberties. The key questions before the Court are whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is “incorporated” against state governments and, if so, whether at least some state civil asset forfeitures violate the Clause. The justices answered both questions with a unanimous and emphatic “yes.” As a result, the ruling could help curb abusive asset forfeitures, which enable law enforcement agencies to seize property that they suspect might have been used in a crime – including in many cases where the owner has never been convicted of anything, or even charged. Abusive forfeitures are a a widespread problem that often victimizes innocent people and particularly harms the poor. …the Court…previously ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates nearly all of the rest of the Bill of Rights against the states, including the Excessive Bail and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clauses of the very same amendment. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s majority opinion offers a good explanation of why incorporation of the Clause is easily justified under the Court’s precedents.

This morning, the Wall Street Journal opined favorably on the ruling.

Police and prosecutors around America have long used asset forfeiture as a cash cow, but a unanimous Supreme Court ruling Wednesday should make them think twice. The Bill of Rights keeps paying dividends even after 228 years. …Justices left and right agree. In her opinion for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the safeguard on excessive fines, quoting earlier cases, is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” …the Court’s ruling in Timbs v. Indiana puts states and cities on notice. Some police departments have set annual targets for asset seizures, and a limiting legal principle has been nowhere to be found. During oral argument, Indiana’s solicitor general said that if a driver in a Ferrari was going five miles over the speed limit, that could be grounds for police to take the car. …defendants trying to protect their property against unjust state seizure will now have the Constitution firmly on their side.

While this decision is good news, let’s not get too excited.

What we really need is for the Supreme Court to rule that the entire practice of civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional.

Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, there’s no finding of illegal behavior in cases of civil asset forfeiture. Indeed, in many cases, the government steals the property of people who aren’t even charged with a crime!

That’s why it is so outrageous and immoral.

Here’s a short video on the topic from the Institute for Justice (which, incidentally, deserves credit for the victory at the Supreme Court).

In a rare 9 to 0 unanimous

Economy

NAR Chief Economist Predicts Existing Home Sales Are Likely at Cyclical Low, Will Rebound

A under contract sign on a home previously for sale in Vienna, Va. (Photo: Reuters)
A under contract sign on a home previously for sale in Vienna, Va. (Photo: Reuters)

Existing home sales fell slightly for the third straight month in January, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). Of the four major U.S. regions, only the Northeast saw an increase last month.

Total existing-home sales–completed transactions that include single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops–fell 1.2% from December to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.94 million. Sales are now down 8.5% from a year ago (5.40 million in January 2018).

The forecasts ranged from a low of 4,900,000 million to 5,100,000 million, with a consensus looking for 5,040,000 million.

“Existing home sales in January were weak compared to historical norms; however, they are likely to have reached a cyclical low,” Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist said. “Moderating home prices combined with gains in household income will boost housing affordability, bringing more buyers to the market in the coming months.”

The median existing-home price for all housing types in January was $247,500, a gain of 2.8% from January 2018 ($240,800). The month of January marks price increases for the 83rd straight month of year-over-year gains.

Mr. Yun noted that median home price growth is the slowest since February 2012.

“Lower mortgage rates from December 2018 had little impact on January sales, however, the lower rates will inevitably lead to more home sales.”

Total housing inventory at the end of the month rose to 1.59 million, up from 1.53 million existing homes available for sale in December. That represents an increase from 1.52 million a year ago.

Unsold inventory is at a 3.9-month supply at the current sales pace, up from 3.7 months in December and from 3.4 months in January 2018.

Properties remained on the market for an average of 49 days in January, up from 46 days in December and 42 days a year ago. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of homes sold in January were on the market for less than a month.

Existing home sales fell slightly for the

Video

On this episode of Liberty Never Sleeps, Tom explains the best way to expose a cockroach is to shine a light on it.

*Smollett is Now a Hate Hoax
*Mueller Folding Because of McCabe
*YouTube a Pedo Haven
*ISIS Bride Wants Back In
*Oscars This Weekend

Bumper Music:

Virtual Insanity- Jamiroquai
La Isla Bonita- Madonna
Rain- Madonna
I’m a Beleiver- Monkees
Forever in Blue Jeans- Neil Diamond

Closing Music on podcast provided by The Dead Cat Bounce*

To help our show out, please support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/LibertyNeverSleeps

The money pledged thru Patreon.com will go toward show costs such as advertising, server time, and broadcasting equipment. If we can get
enough listeners, we will expand the show to two hours and hire additional staff.

All bumper music and sound clips are not owned by the show, are commentary, and of educational purposes, or de minimus effect, and not for monetary gain.

No copyright is claimed in any use of such materials and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. If you believe material has been used in an unauthorized manner, please contact the poster.

On this episode of Liberty Never Sleeps,

Economy

A Boeing 737 MAX plane is seen during a media tour of the Boeing 737 MAX at the Boeing plant in Renton, Washington December 7, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)
A Boeing 737 MAX plane is seen during a media tour of the Boeing 737 MAX at the Boeing plant in Renton, Washington December 7, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

Durable goods orders in the U.S. increased $3.0 billion or 1.2% to $254.4 billion in December, beating the consensus forecast.

Forecasts ranged from a low of 0.0% to a high of 3.5%, with a consensus 1.0%. Durables goods orders have been up for two consecutive months, and now followed a 1.0% gain in November.

Excluding transportation, new orders rose 0.1%. Excluding defense, new orders increased 1.8%. Transportation equipment, up 4 of the last 5 months, fueled the increase, $2.8 billion or 3.3% to $90.2 billion.

Shipments of manufactured durable goods, which have been up 4 of the last 5 months, rose $2.1 billion or 0.8% to $259.7 billion. That follows a 1.0% increase in November.

Transportation equipment, which is also up 4 of the last 5 months, led the increase, at $1.4 billion or 1.5% to $91.4 billion.

Unfilled orders for manufactured durable goods has been down for 3 consecutive months, and it fell $1.1 billion or 0.1% to $1,180.1 billion. This follows a 0.2% drop in November. Transportation equipment, which has also been down for three consecutive months, fueled the decline, $1.2 billion or 0.1% to $811.1 billion.

Inventories of manufactured durable goods have been up 23 of the last 24 months, and December increased $0.9 billion or 0.2% to $414.7 billion. That follows a 0.4% increase in November.

Primary metals, up 25 of the last 26 months, led the gain at $0.4 billion or 1.1% to $36.6 billion.

Non-defense new orders for capital goods in December rose $2.8 billion or 3.7% to $77.8 billion. Shipments gained $0.4 billion or 0.5% to $80.0 billion. Unfilled orders declined $2.2 billion or 0.3% to $708.1 billion. Inventories increased $0.5 billion or 0.3% to $181.5 billion.

Defense new orders for capital goods in December decreased $1.0 billion or 7.0% to $13.3 billion. Shipments increased $0.5 billion or 4.1% to $12.5 billion. Unfilled orders increased $0.8 billion or 0.5% to $157.1 billion. Inventories decreased $0.2 billion or 1.0% to $22.7 billion.

Durable goods orders in the U.S. increased

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe