Ok, it’s Sunday evening at HR, and you know what that means…
“In 1915, the Supreme Court decided in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it.”
Judging by my inbox, there are at least four readers who did not appreciate my three-word explanation for why the dollar is in the doldrums.
“He can’t be fired just because the president is worried about what he might find. But he can be removed if he violates department regulations — which made Trump’s use of the word “violation” intriguing.”
Reality check courtesy of the simplest charts imaginable.
“While the new head of Trump’s personal legal team, John Dowd, has denied any discussion of the pardon power within the White House, the Post writes that both the president and his lawyers have inquired about Trump’s ability to pardon aides, family members, and himself.”
“After many years of consistently high return correlation, the Financials and Information Technology sectors have posted significantly divergent performances twice during the past nine months.”
“In his mind, reporters do not exist to press him for answers on behalf of the American people but to communicate whatever message Trump chooses to give the American public.”
“You can say no, but it is inconsequential.”
Oh, Sean Spicer, our four-Pinocchio press secretary, is this the end? We know we are not supposed to “just yell out questions,” but rather “raise our hands like big boys and girls,” but is it really, truly over?
“In our view, the bar remains high for oil prices to become the main directional driver of HY spreads but the risk has risen.”
“But, hey, we’re hitting our numbers just fine as it stands and, if you hadn’t noticed, our stock price hit a new high yesterday. Why mess up a good thing?”
“…conversely declining vol of vol relative to vol, as we are seeing now, implies lower tail risks for the given present level of volatility.”
“Taking property from citizens who have been convicted of no crime is constitutionally dubious.”