Update Regarding NYSE Levels Chart From Yesterday

Yesterday, the NYSE index showed significant weakness, and normally would have faded below the cyan level marked below. This being a FED day, we mentioned that if the cyan (10,300ish) level was recaptured the primary degree (Yellow) level would likely be a magnet. We are currently sitting at that retest today which should be a much bigger challenge and potential reaction for the index. Additionally, the 20day and 100-day moving averages are right at this level. Either way, the picture remains the same. In fact, the action of large caps today is even more suspect because their visibility and earnings are deeply impacted by the strength in the dollar - which is not something the FED can not easily compensate for with QE or rates.

NYSE Levels

The Only Variables We Control: Risk Management Concepts

slide 1

























S&P500 Expert Lounge Update – August 25, 2015

Our last formal update forebode the breaking of the long term bullish channel on the S&P 500 cash index around the 2020 level and looked ahead to what could be the next levels of support. 2000 did not provide any support & subsequently 1980 did not either.  For the S&P 500 futures market, the open on Sunday August 23rd was yet another gap down & immediate breach of 1960 ES, which was a major support shelf.  This action pointed to a possible extreme scenario which subsequently played out in the overnight session. It is important to remember that when hyper trends end in either direction, like the one which ended with the breach of the long term weekly SPX chart (attached), an equal or greater acceleration in the opposite direction is highly probable.

Monday August 24th cash open was one for the record books as the DOW opened down over 1,100 points & the S&P 500 futures index was 'lock limit' down prior to open.  As you'll see, the market found it's first level of long time support & then proceeded to put in a wild ride of intraday volatility which is shown in the additional SPX chart & contains near term potential inflection points if the market is to resume an immediate downtrend.  The first obvious level is the downtrend channel.

Please adjust trading approach to factor in the volatility expansion when taking position sizes or your trading will also experience 'risk expansion'.  Stay patient & disciplined.

As always, please continue to monitor the Market Structure Projections via our blog at  and stay nimble in this market environment.  Good Luck to your trading

These are key MA levels: 2077 (200sma) - 2095 (100sma) -  2086  (50sma) -  2052 (10sma)

These are key support and resistance levels: 1867 - 2040

Bulls Find First Level of Long Term Support

Bulls Find First Level of Long Term Support


Near Term Symmetry for Probable Inflections

Near Term Symmetry for Probable Inflections

IMAGINARY NUMBERS – Part 2: The Shattering Mirror of a Centrally Planned Monster

If you can think like a teacher who cheats, and look again at the sea of data - patterns come to light. Patterns, which are subtle, buried under mountains and mountains of data. When looked at through varied lengths, suddenly it's just as clear as day. And when you know what to look for - You can't help but say [when] it has to be cheating.What he's really good at is: "PRETEND[ING]". He's a cheater a criminal, a thief, a cheat - all these things because really he's not far from it. I mean if you really think about what an economist is - the line between an economist and criminal is terribly thin.

Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner (23 minutes into documentary Freakonomics)

As the Steven & Stephan said above, when data is looked at via varied lengths and modalities - suddenly things can become as clear as day. This article is not seeking to endorse Austrian economics or debase Keynesian economics - rather it is focused on the data. We are probability and data analysts/statisticians. This article seeks to go into some considerable depth regarding the examination of the statistics and data whose subject was begun in the previous article: IMAGINARY NUMBERS. Hopefully, this presentation also derives implications that can be clear as day.

These days, the line between monetary planning and criminality appears to be very thin indeed. Malinvestment, asset manipulation, unimaginable leverage, theft, distortion & falsification, goal-seek & curve-fit data, false pretenses, special interests and every form of systematic, media & political manipulation - central planners/bankers have metamorphized the benevolence of their supposed task into an art form of criminality on a scale that even the largest criminal syndicates in history would and could not conceive or dream of executing in their wildest fantasies. If this paragraph sounds like a stretch, let alone a mouthful, please consider the accompanying charts and content before making your interpretation.

Shattering Mirror -  unmasking the FED Monster

Shattering Mirror - unmasking the FED Monster


Previously, on examination of the machinations of GDP (and by reference CPI and PPI) it is clear that the greatest area of innovation and growth in the US economy (and others too) is in the areas of "productive" economic contributions that do not require official transactions, can not be proven (and, therefore, can not be easily disproven) and employ new and fantastical techniques of conjuring. MAGIC.

We have touched on the subject of the astounding growth rates of imputations and hedonic adjustments but have not put them into broad perspective. This article seeks to add detail and perspective for the earlier observations. In light of broad data that can lead to some objective conclusions, we, therefore, examine many dimensions of data in detail: government/FED data, reporting, statistics and analysis.

The Federal Reserve System provides a database called FRED that is available from the St. Louis Federal Reserve. This database presents a whole host of variables with which one can see a vast amount of data - much of it useless and inaccurate. If the huge amount of effort that has been put into these data stores were accurate and useful, it follows that the FED would have at least been aware of any one of the issues leading into 2007 and 2008.

In 2005, 2006 and certainly by 2007, at least ONE of these should have been identified:

  • An Approaching Recession
  • A General Bubble
  • Asset Valuation Extremes
  • Statistical Aberrations
  • Housing Bubble
  • Credit Risks
  • Derivatives Risks
  • Earnings Risks

However, as is most often the case when one seeks to engineer data to bias a specific scenario, it becomes quite impossible to look at and for that which one is struggling so very hard to avoid. As it stands, most all Central Planners, especially the FED, missed every single one of the above issues.


Since the 1960's debt and leverage have expanded by orders of magnitude over earnings as reflected in the charts below. Tremendous leverage seems to be primarily shifting money from one account into another, with inevitable risk, depreciation and spread eating away at it. This is providing negative real economic impact, which can also be seen in the charts below. This negative impact can be interpreted directly from a look at the unimaginably large leverage increases resulting in a roughly net zero impact (or worse) in real economic terms. Globally, central planners have attempted to leverage as much as possible. More than imaginable. The thinking apparently is that ultimately this persistence would at some point break the resistance of people to accept finally the virtuous cycle they imagine. In most cases, central planners have more and more often resorted fiddling with data, as it is clear the FED has been doing. However, this is just another ploy to try to break the psychological resistance people have to the central planners ever near virtuous cycle. These are the basis for ever more and more credibility destroying, unsustainable and highly questionable policy.


Please click on the navigation buttons on the chart below to scroll through each chart. There are 17 charts and you can navigate via the location dots at the bottom of the chart or the left and right navigation arrow controls. We recommend that you click on the title link to view this article in detail which will then accommodate the largest chart sizes.  The method of viewing the charts below is quite effective because each fades into the next which makes it easy to track the changes from one chart to the next. If you would like to refer to a gallery, here is a dedicated page with thumbnails of all the charts.

  • Imaginary Numbers - US Population Growth

  • Imaginary Numbers - US Population Growth vs S&P500 Price Appreciation

  • Imaginary Numbers - US Population Growth vs S&P500 Earnings

  • Imaginary Numbers - US Population Growth vs S&P500 Earnings (Float Shrink Version)

  • Imaginary Numbers - S&P500 Earnings vs GDP & Earnings Per Share

  • Imaginary Numbers - S&P500 Earnings vs GDP

  • Imaginary Numbers - S&P500 Earnings vs Price Appreciation

  • Imaginary Numbers - S&P500 Earnings vs Price Appreciation

  • Imaginary Numbers - US Government Debt in Perspective

  • Imaginary Numbers - Welcome to Money Amplification

  • Imaginary Numbers - Overall Leverage In Perspective

  • Imaginary Numbers - Amplification

  • Imaginary Numbers - Overall Leverage In Perspective

  • Imaginary Numbers - Can GDP be Believed

  • Imaginary Numbers - High Wire Act

  • Imaginary Numbers - No Other Conclusion


Since Alan Greenspan attempted to stabilize the markets out of the 1987 crash and the deep recession into the early 90's via any means necessary, derivatives and productivity became absolutely wonderful sound bytes in the 1990's to project a "NEW" era of order, stability, prosperity, growth etc. Nothing could have been further from the truth. It only takes a brief look through our charts to see that the productivity hyperbole was nearly a complete fabrication. Sure, new technology enables more efficient process and operation, however, the banking system and the tremendous debt and interest obligations of the "NEW" era quickly absorbed and re-purposed productive capital and energy into the wasteful and tangential elements that rewarded fools and penalized producers. Ultimately, producers figure out the trick to getting their slice and realize that they are better off trading and playing the game than doing something productive.

Fed Monster Hooved & Clawed

Derivatives, risks have increased for many reasons. Primarily stresses on real liquidity and real collateral. However, also because the markets have receded. Much derivative risk can not be quantified because it is NOT exchange traded performance bonded. With the FED's roughshod through the house of mark-to-maturity, mark-to-excuse-du-jour accounting - these risks are covered up behind the back room trap door. The one thing that is certain, like the Greece debt debacle is now twice the size it was just 4 years ago when every financial TV journalist indoctrinated the world with how irresponsible the Greeks were and how they would never be granted any credit with the large Central Banks if they defaulted...the Derivatives problems will likely be MUCH bigger next time. Why? Similar to Greece, AIG, Bear, Lehman the Central Banks rewarded imbeciles and have sought every technique known to man to avoid deleveraging...even if it means having to make up numbers to loan Greece 340,000,000,000 when it's clear they had just effectively defaulted on their previous obligations. Call me stupid, but Greece is not at fault here. The bankers ramming sovereign debt issued by insolvent nations to yields of 2% and below with a "take no prisoners" approach are responsible for Greek's inability to repay. Who does Greece think it is anyway - Ukraine?

From a rational perspective, central planning revolves around the concept of data dependence and disciplined application of structure and rules. What Kind of structure and disciplined application of data is it that both grants a state in full default - Ukraine - funding, and simultaneously, a state that is in paralysis but far more manageable situation - Greece - no funding? What kind of data can possibly support these types of contradictions? Most likely none. This leaves a perfect entry for discretion and data engineering to adapt the situation to a desired outcome with no discipline whatsoever. Perhaps, discipline is evident in no other form than the ticking boxes that indicate data was used in the analysis process?  If this is any example, then are central planners acting as glorified discretionary managers regardless of data or mandate? The implications are clear, for the charts presented earlier, no self-respecting data analyst would entertain the protocols that have been undertaken. However, a discretionary process supported by constantly revised data and mechanics fits the bill very well indeed. Could this be the reason that central planner decision making is so persistently rhyming with thinking that are so highly irrational and biased?

If we look at derivatives and say that we know 50% of what is going on. OTC derivatives stand at $650 trillion dollars; this creates a variable in our 50% scenario of $325 Trillion. Considering that OTC represents only a partial representation of outstanding derivatives risk, using only this 50% of reported positions as a basis is a reasonable hypothetical. A few capital calls, accidents, counterparty failures, settlement or shadow derivatives issues later and a small problem might become unmanageable risk of 12.5% of $325 Trillion - or over $40 Trillion - easily higher. These are gargantuan numbers, and there is NO plan B.

Given that the FED has proven that they have a mathematics deficiency. Could this deficiency be a side effect of having a dopamine laced “Control-P” key? Regardless, of this debilitating condition, all the issues presently are more untenable than they were in 2007. Yet the FED is sanguine and "la sai fare" of the risk of achieving negative equity of under -2% on its own equity. So, it is continuing seeks to find ways to expand leverage at just about any cost.

The quality of life and stress levels for 98% of people are high because 98% lines up very well with the little blue sliver on our charts called “the population." The population has 98% percent risk while the 2% has 98% potential as can clearly be seen in these data presented here. How can quality of life for Greeks or Americans get better when linear extrapolators who are practically, philosophically and mathematically challenged like Mario Draghi, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, Alan Greenspan, Haruhiko Kuroda, Christine Lagarde are in charge? Debt servitude has only one result, no matter how much dopamine is added to the Control-P key.


The significance of the chart below is that it shows the dramatic distortions being spouted from the mouths of Central Bankers versus the facts in the real world. This chart demonstrates the dramatic amount of debasement and credit that has been irresponsibly pushed as the solution to growth problems, yet has produced little REAL growth over 120 years.

The FED knows this. However, they seem to accept that engineering numbers to suit their current mood or agenda without much of a quandary. Real Earnings Growth (a product the FED does not market) is following the trajectory of the US population growth over the last 145 years. Debt and modern financial weaponry employed for money amplification have grown in the real terms by many orders of magnitude more than earnings. Is it any coincidence then that it is those very products marketed by Central Bankers to the world? Clearly, it makes no sense to see S&P500 earnings and sales so out of kilter numbers reflected in GDP or CPI/PPI. There is simply no plausible defense to be offered by people whose math skills enable them to create the dichotomy between Nominal and Real performance as represented here that would convince a reasonably sensible person as to how 2 + 1 = 4 and the GDP numbers are perfect.

So, in closing, the Monster has still not got a face, but it is being revealed. The only way to avoid its wrath would be for Central Banks and governments to get back to sound practices with regard doing their jobs and maintaining sound data, analysis, and currency. This would require tough choices and a keyboard with more than simply a “Control” button and a “P” button that is so profoundly used and evident in our charts.

As our recent example, IMF will willingly lend to a country in complete and current default - Ukraine thereby prolonging its agony and impoverishing any potential its future economy may have had. At the same time, IMF/ECB wish to appear prudent with an impetuous Greece, who suffered a similar fate as Ukraine a few years ago. Ironically, IMF and ECB are marketing debt - its all they have to sell…how long will it take them to figure out some scheme to further leverage the > 98% and empower the < 2%?

Sadly these are not choices that the Central Bankers will make easily, or willingly. Many will likely require judicial consequences in their various lands to alter practices. This monster looms large…it has not shown its true face but the mirror is shattering and in every shard will be a reflection of the beast - a beast that looks rather unlike the sanguine figures of central bank leaders.

One thing is certain, appearance of this creature will be anything but pretty.

Imaginary Numbers - Not a Pretty Picture

Imaginary Numbers - Can You Afford to Believe Them?



Imaginary Numbers: Article Charts

Imaginary Numbers: Click for Article Charts


IMAGINARY NUMBERS – Part 1: the Deceptive Nature of Centrally Planned Economic Reporting

Over the last years, our efforts have been more and more focused on statistical, data and fact based modeling. During these efforts, we have witnessed truly remarkable events in the world of Central Banking and finance. We have also found troubling market evidence and data that have made it clear, that all may not be what it seems - for a long time. A very long time.

We will add some reference links to this article if anyone is interested or finds it necessary to understand further elements that will only topically discuss today. However, we will assume your familiarity and basic understanding of the methods of Central Banking and Monetary Policy. Understanding it is both simple and complex - and specifically designed to be that way.

The FED Monster


The creation of money is implemented via the creation of new credit for almost all of the quantity of money in existence. The remaining very small amount of money is created by printing or manufacture of physical cash. The dollars in your pocket for instance. With the creation of all this money, one would think that the Central Banks and the Treasury would be the major manufacturers. However, the reality is that most new money is created directly by Banks under the supposed auspices of the Central Banking system.

Whichever way one looks at the above scheme, it is clear that any scheme would be fraught with risk in which private individuals were not only enabled but encouraged, banking license in hand, to lend money into existence as fast and in as great of quantities as possible. Further rewarding said individuals with benefits such as shares and large bonuses for executing a primarily non-accretive activity, is conflicted and dangerous.

The reason for touching on this subject is that the FED, which operates as the Central Bank of the World, and its subordinate Central Banks and Institutions, primarily IMF, WBG, BIS, BOJ, BOE, ECB and SNB, have a keen awareness that charging interest on a quantity of money that is constantly growing and never available in great enough quantity to repay the interest on the credit that created it, is not plausible - even with accounting and reporting slight-of-hand. Therefore, these institutions have been constantly looking for new debt servitude candidates and for new ways to create money and amplify money without amplifying debt obligations. Better said, ways to increase the quantity money at a faster rate than the quantity of debt.

These expansionist policies went into overdrive in the late 90's heading into Y2K. I distinctly recall the outright panic that the FED tried to convey at every possible opportunity regarding the two digits 99, as in 1999, flipping to 00, as in 2000. It was overt, misleading and disturbing. Mr. Greenspan was in fact openly discussing the risk of Y2K not only on the financial system but the nuclear defense system and global war machine with obvious implications for a WWIII type scenario. Since when does that not qualify as fear mongering as an agenda?

Wall Street Banks were granted huge tax breaks and special arrangements to prepare for the coming of God -  Y2K. There were quite a lot of religious extremists at the time whose belief was that Y2K would herald the end of the world and the coming of God. They got no breaks or accommodations for their equally zealous expressions of belief. Sadly, they were far less dangerous than Mr. Greenspan who had similar compunction - masked in Fedspeak...not to mention his disciple "Blogger Ben" lurking in the wings.

While working as a consultant/developer at several of the largest US banks in derivatives, structured products, and fixed income at the time, anything and everything that could be dumped into the Y2K budget was. There were several large advantages to this. One being that large firms could reduce their reported expenses and show tremendous productivity gains at the very same time as expanding their technology R&D expenditures and investments simply by putting any expense they could find into a different box for reporting and amortization. This had huge tax implications since special considerations and incentives were also made to support Y2K via various accommodations including  tax. Earnings, productivity, and profits all the way into 2000, could, therefore, be goosed by a slush fund that essentially disappeared real expenses out of existence and magically into profits.

Wall Street, with all this free cash, FED encouragement and ever declining interest rates was looking for any way to seed its imaginary and cheap money in ever aggressive manners to the world - fueling the bubble and supported by the constant delusionary recursive productivity claims from Mr. Greenspan. I believe this was the other era when the words "virtuous cycle" were used by major central banks. The end of this scheme climaxed with offers of mortgages on stock holdings regardless of whether investments be in Yahoo or or IBM. These products required no liquidations to raise cash for down payment, no sales of securities ever to pay the mortgage off. Your mortgage could be paid off by asset appreciation of one's investment account. No Tax obligations due to asset sales. Most importantly, how much more one could spend on a home now that they can get this fantastic mortgage and keep your stock portfolio while ending up getting the house for free. A total dream! Thank goodness these mortgages did not become as popular as the subprime variety. Nonetheless, the Fed presided over these products and approved their origination. The FED, to great effect, encouraged most of the irresponsible gambling. The ultimate goal? Asset price appreciation and capitalization (money amplification) that increases at a greater quantity than debt expansion.

Money amplification was on fill tilt via many new and exotic products and derivatives. These products, as with the Y2K policy regarding the financial system were designed under the specific encouraging oversight of the FED. In many cases, at the behest of the FED. This is no small matter as the FED was already scared at the time that it was running out of ways to expand credit and money fast enough. Additionally, they were even more concerned about the creation of enough quantity of cash to service credit obligations. This is what one sees currently on full tilt in China. A crashing real estate market where debts are unserviceable and central planning looks for any way to put sufficient cash in the hands of debtors to theoretically honor their obligations.

After attempting to UN-JAPAN itself from Y2K, the FED reversed its aggressive credit expansionary agenda of the late 90's, once, without calamity, nuclear war or financial meltdown, Y2K had come and gone and they had little cover for such extensive accommodation. The results were obvious to effect. Credit fueled speculation and investing by internet technology firms, sovereigns, and large multinational firms met a tighter and tighter market and was unable to rollover obligations. How many times do we have to play this illogical game? Pressure on the markets was substantial, and a bear market ensued into October 2002. Under the cover of September 11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Greenspan, now had a popular and patriotic excuse for financial modernization unlike we have ever seen in history and began an aggressive search for stratospheric credit expansion via an unending cycle of low rates and regulatory underreach, policy drift and leverage accommodation. This obviously created a new speculation not only in the real-estate markets but much more substantially in the OTC derivatives and debt markets.


What would have been obvious to any  sensible and practical thinker would be that result of overleveraging will always end the same. Only Central Bankers appear to think that constant asset price appreciation, 2% inflation targets, debt expansion and currency debasement are components of practical policy.

The practicality of this kind of planning and care of our society, especially the most junior and senior members of it, is certainly highly questionable and irresponsible. It would be obvious to nearly any sentient human that a deleveraging of epic proportions must be in order when firms who were levered 40 to 1 were still not making enough money and so decided that levering  80 to 1, and in many cases much more, was reasonable and appropriate.

No need to discuss the chaotic deleveraging of 2007 to with respect to the fact that the obvious answer via planning and policy has been to solve that problem with the same solution 100X. So, take conditions that could not be pushed to further extreme in 2006 and 2007 without central bank directly buying the CDO's, CMO's, CDS's and debt notes of the era to MUCH more significant extreme by doing the only thing they did not do in 2006 and 2007....become the market.


Obviously, the FED, during the 2008 to 2009 period got quite used to holding highly risky securities on its books. With the creation of "mark to whatever and whenever you want accounting" it believes it is not obligated to ever show a loss. So, the risks of holding securities, no matter how insolvent or valueless is perceived by the FED as "low". This is so as long as they can maintain confidence in the currency. Recall that the FED bought all the assets from Bear Sterns that JPM did not want. These included several Hotel chains that subsequently ended up insolvent to the tune of something like $20 billion of FED held assets in addition to many other horrid debts that when examined on Maiden Lane Holding's books - miraculously show persistent profits. We are now in the thick of the reason for this article. Imaginary Numbers.

Currently, the FED sits at 1% reserves. This would be the same thing as a normal investor owning $1,000,000 with collateral of only $10,000. The bank has publically stated that it would be of little consequence to them if they were to move to -1% or -2% equity because "...they hold till maturity". To put this in perspective, as a trader with an account at Interactive Brokers, if your account were $250,000, what the FED is saying, is that as long as you wish to "hold to maturity", your account can go to -$500,000 without any consequence.

Any thinking by those who are responsible for the sanctity of our currency and debt system that shows egregious speculation and fudging of numbers of any type should be a call to alarm. Sadly, if the inanity of aforementioned FED comments were all that was to worry about with regard to imaginary numbers and deceptive policies - this would be bad enough, but possibly manageable. However, the reason for the BACKGROUND section of this article is to present that the FED and other central banks have been attempting for long periods of time to create and implement new methods of printing money that do not involve direct transmission of new interest payment obligations. These policies and interventionist approaches become increasingly risky as their reserve ratio decreases. Especially beyond negative 2%. FED tactics should inspire nothing but doubt at this point as their risk levels are much greater than they are publically admitting.

Via our analysis and data, it has become clear via our indexes and statistical analyses like the GAP index, that especially after the 1987 crash an extremely large entity began an agenda of directly seeding money into large risk and debt markets at low liquidity time periods and without regard for loss. To give this some color, let's take a look at the current margin debt markets. Currently, margin debt sits at a record of over $450 billion. How much asset appreciation and market capitalization does $450 billion margin debt buy you? Well, let's look at some more of our data. Last year roughly $650 billion of incoming cash was used to purchase all US stocks. Analysis of only the S&P500, this resulted in the creation of $2.4 Trillion of new theoretically spendable money with say only roughly $50 billion of increase of margin debt. Our calculations are for cash into ALL US stocks, therefore, the amount of total asset appreciation, when applied to all US stocks rather than specifically the S&P500 is estimated to be more like in the $4 trillion area rather than $2.4 trillion. That is quite a substantial amount of money amplification.

To the FED way of thinking this is a veritable panacea. Imagine what printing $85 billion a month can do if only $650 billion creates $2.4 trillion in new equity in only the S&P500. Just put into perspective how much new money/equity that $450 billion of margin can create. Money amplification at its finest.

2014 & 2015 Equity Cash Flow

2014 & 2015 Equity Cash Flow

Year S&P500 Market Cap S&P500 Asset Appreciation
Centrally Planned Money Amplification
Jan 2014 $17,186,722,100,000 N/A
Jan 2015  $19,557,305,460,000 $2,371,000,000,000
Current $19,754,854,000,000 $197,549,000,000

So, as we can see, it could be quite effective policy for the FED to play fast and loose with policies, numbers, and reports. The sad fact is that this has most likely been the case for a long time and as such we have not had truly free markets for a much longer time than the last few years. Our market structure algorithms have located this constant drip of capital into assets. Markets that the central banks have no authority over. However, their activity has been like a metronome ensuring that prices travel on a long-term inexorable rise and that they go mostly unnoticed. Via, which accounts these holdings are transacted, would be of significant interest. Having worked on the Fixed Income Desk at one of the largest primary dealers and analyzing, valuing transactions on lots of accounts including unmarked, secret FED accounts inspires little confidence in FED benevolence but rather does so for its unending self-serving appetite and lack of transparency.


Let's look at a some more evidence. We did a detailed study of the GDP and CPI reports and found highly disturbing discrepancies that, of course, are promptly ignored by the largest media and financial institutions. There are several discretionary and arbitrary key components to the GDP, CPI and PPI calculations that offer a rather startling basis for any statistician:

  • Seasonal Adjustments
  • Hedonic Adjustments
  • Imputed Contributions

Seasonal Adjustments revolve around ever changing accommodations for tendencies of economic contributors to vary due to cyclical oscillation. However, there is simply very few quantifiable cyclical basis' that seem to be consistently applied by the FED or reporting bureaus. Rather, seasonal adjustments seem to reflect the discretion of some bureaucrat or entity seeking to goal seek values.

Hedonic Adjustments are quality adjustments that attempt to adjust for inequality of product over time. These calculations are utterly useless and 100% discretionary arbitrary. At best Hedonic Adjusted data should be viewed as a secondary reporting index, not a primary index. We will examine this a bit more detail below as they are used to great effect.

Imputations are non-economic contributors that are deemed to reflect economic transactional contribution. These too are convenient, arbitrary and highly discretionary and are used to great effect. They are statistically deceptive and mostly entirely irrelevant.

What does this have to do with the FED? And to do with Imaginary Numbers?

First and foremost, in a supposed nonsupervisory role - the FED accepts the above data without complaint or conflict. That alone is more than interesting. Methodologies for such data should be very closely scrutinized not accepted. We are of the opinion that the FED and central banking accept these numbers because they supervise their manufacture. These are the key numbers for vast campaigns to co-opt real capital and money into alternates. In any such long-term agenda, several layers would be required to execute:

The FED:

  • MUST be allowed to supervise and administer (goal seek) most official government economic reporting.
  • MUST exercise more and more interventions and press conferences to expand manipulative tentacles in various markets with direct capital support.
  • MUST attempt to combine data in such a way as to represent a cohesive argument that seems somewhat believable.

On the practical side, it is impossible for the many economic reports that are published to be managed in a cohesive manner without tacit control and supervision. It is simply impossible for the FED to accept methodologies that would not meet its standards or agenda. Therefore, from this perspective, the FED is the only logical supervisor. The two most important numbers the FED needs to convince the world and public are real and plausible are GDP and Inflation. Both areas are reported with such lack of discipline and goal seeking that the published numbers are utterly useless.

Take the GDP calculations and reporting reflected below. This chart shows what is a nearly perfect parabola. There is simply no way to create such a perfect series of numbers in nature out of something so complex as the millions of US economic elements, businesses, and people. This is GOAL SEEK and CURVE FITTING at it highest extreme. There is simply a less than 15% believability in these numbers based on the basic understanding on how statistics works. On a simple level? Does your bank account look like this? Even if one is a member of the .001% it is highly unlikely that one's accounts look like this or even 30% like this. Normal series will show MUCH more volatility and noise even if the end points end up being the same - just like Warren Buffet's bank account surely does.

If these numbers were correct in any fashion, US corporations and citizens would be feeling rather different at this time. Just compare, the price of Oil to reported GDP...there is simply no explanation for this disconnect from official sources. Just shut up and believe the numbers, please.

GDP 2015 as reflected in FRED database

GDP 2015 as reflected in FRED database

FRED GDP Comparison

FRED GDP Comparison


Hedonic Adjustments

The term “hedonics” is derived from ancient Greek and basically means “pleasure doctrine”. Certainly apt and intriguing.

An iPhone last year cost $700 and an iPhone this year cost $700. However, in the current GDP reporting, these numbers are calculated to incorporate qualitative and subjective;y adjusted contributions to GDP. So, theoretically, if the screen, camera and memory of the iPhone improved. These improvements are estimated for dollar value and contribute to GDP in excess of the $700 transaction for the iPhone. So, i can randomly put a $500 value on the improvements to these elements. BAMM - now iPhones of the same type all contribute $1,200 to GDP.  If the addition of new tools and features such as the fingerprint sensor occur, then those are quantified and added to GDP. BAMM BAMM - now a $700 iPhone transaction is worth $1,500 to GDP.


The funny thing about goal seeking is how insidious it is. In the above process for the iPhone contribution to GDP, the adjustments that increased GDP are used to discount CPI. This artificially suppresses what is more like an annual 11% inflation rate into something like a 2 or 3% percent inflation rate. Theoretically, an iPhone sells for $700 this year and the equivalent model sold for $700 last year. Hedonics allows the adjustment of the iPhone inflation rate by the additional features and improvements purchasers are not paying for. So $700 - $300 for a better screen, camera, and memory. BAMM now the inflation rate on iPhone is -40%. throw in new features and its down to a number in the CPI of 60% lower than the previous year if we so desire.

This contradiction has obvious benefits. It misrepresents true inflation for the whole economy and average person and GDP. This makes the GDP number look better and more efficient. Additionally, it gooses GDP on top of that with the actual hedonically contributed cash values added to real transactions.

As a statistical analyst, I must say this is incompetent data collection and analysis at best.


Imputations are totally imaginary. If you have paid off your house or receive free offers in the mail, coupons from the grocery store, free bank fees or back to the iPhone, certain intellectual property was developed during the year for the iPhone (say some software innovation or R&D project) that does not result in a direct transaction, these elements can all be arbitrarily be estimated and then contributed to GDP. In the case that you own your home outright, imputed GDP contributions are the result of calculating the value of your home and what you would be paying in rent and then recording those imaginary rent payments as positive contributions to GDP.

Needless to say, the obvious nefarious capability of these elements is huge.


Since 2009 wouldn't you know it that the primary growth of GDP has occurred not in the advertised headline numbers but similar to the character of just about everything out of official sources these days, in the arbitrary values. This is not unlike the artificial liquidity available to corporations to buy stock, increasing the "E" in EPS but not increasing the "S" in gross or net sales. A mirage that it seems is only too happy to be propagated. SO, in 2009 there were roughly the same amount of Americans working as there are now, only the population has increased by 30 million since then. In 2009, GDP was reported at roughly $14.5 trillion. Currently, the reporting proposes a number of $17.5 trillion. HOWEVER, in 2009 GDP minus imputations and hedonics was $9.5 Trillion. Today when you subtract out hedonics and imputations you get $10.5 trillion. Is that not curious?

In 6 years the US GDP grew by a real $1 trillion NOT $3 trillion.

This would imply a growth rate of imputed contributions of 17.5% a year in an economy unable to deliver much more than a reliable 1.75% growth during that time. As for Hedonic contributions, they are hitting at a growth rate of 20% annually. However you cut it, this is in our opinion engineered, goal-seeked data that is meaningless with regard to the true economy, but very good for the US Debt to GDP ratio...and, therefore, credit worthiness. It is also, convenient for FED policy. The only rational explanation for the constant error and risk distribution always being pushed into the column that benefits the FED agenda is the FED. At best, this pattern can be attributed to incompetence...which on its face is even scarier than the alternative that is knowingly misrepresented and manipulated data as a part of an agenda.

GDP Analysis with Hedonics and Imputations Broken Out
GDP Year Cash GDP No
Discretionary Arbitrary Adjustments
Reported GDP

Total Guessed 
& Non-financial
Contributions to GDP
Imputed GDP Values & Non-financial transacted GDP Assumptions (In Billions) Estimated
Percentage of GDP
(in Billions)
(in Billions)
Percent of GDP
2007 $9,892 $14,441 $4,550 $2,225 15.41% $133.5 $2,325 16.10%
2008 $9,585 $14,547 $4,962 $2,358 16.21% $141.5 $2,604 17.90%
2009 $9,355 $14,564 $5,209 $2,500 17.16% $150.0 $2,709 18.60%
2010 $9,734 $15,232 $5,498 $2,650 17.40% $159.0 $2,848 18.70%
2011 $9,894 $15,819 $5,925 $2,809 17.76% $168.5 $3,116 19.70%
2012 $10,142 $16,420 $6,278 $2,977 18.13% $178.6 $3,300 20.10%
2013 $10,239 $16,891 $6,652 $3,156 18.68% $189.4 $3,496 20.70%
2014 $10,376 $17,200 $6,824 $3,345 19.45% $200.7 $3,478 20.22%


The FED promotes confidence as does its recently created outpost the ECB and the previous central bank that the FED is 100% responsible for creating and supervising - the BOJ. However, these institutions can promote their agenda so long as their reserve ratios are close to positive. When they start dropping below 3%, then the likelihood of loss of confidence becomes VERY VERY high, and this is NOT a situation the central banks can control. People will want to see the central banks fund reserves - the options at this time will be limited to them and most likely met with hyperbole: "Trust us we know what we are doing, we expect a strong resumption of strength next year" type commentary.

The other reasons that we are posting this article now is that things can happen in an unscripted order and given our article from May 24th: Drama in the Market Seas – a revealing look via the MCM Market Indexes, the primary activity driving market prices may be quickly put under severe distress.

Moreover, given the horrific and obvious manipulation of CPI, PPI and GDP - are these signs of an ethically compromised, panicked and fractured institution showing up just when we may need the opposite?


Money for Nothing (Five Stars)
Markets and governments around the world hold their breath in anticipation of the Fed Chairman's every word. Yet the average person knows very little about the most powerful - and least understood - financial institution on earth. Narrated by Liev Schreiber, Money For Nothing is the first film to take viewers inside the Fed and reveal the impact of Fed policies - past, present, and future - on our lives. Join current and former Fed officials as they debate the critics, and each other, about the decisions that helped lead the global financial system to the brink of collapse in 2008. And why we might be headed there again

Below is a link to a whole Money for Nothing documentary. However, if the link is pulled down - the movie is HIGHLY recommended worth buying from the director or other online source.

97% Owned (Five Stars)
97% owned present serious research and verifiable evidence on our economic and financial system. This is the first documentary to tackle this issue from a UK-perspective and explains the inner workings of Central Banks and the Money creation process. When money drives almost all activity on the planet, it's essential that we understand it. Yet simple questions often get overlooked, questions like; where does money come from? Who creates it? Who decides how it gets used? And what does this mean for the millions of ordinary people who suffer when the monetary, and financial system, breaks down? A film by Michael Oswald, Produced by Mike Horwath, featuring Ben Dyson of Positive Money, Josh Ryan-Collins of The New Economics Foundation, Ann Pettifor, the "HBOS Whistleblower" Paul Moore, Simon Dixon of Bank to the Future and Nick Dearden from the Jubliee Debt Campaign.

Princes of the Yen: Central Bank Truth Documentary  (Five Stars)
“Princes of the Yen: Central Banks and the Transformation of the Economy” reveals how Japanese society was transformed to suit the agenda and desire of powerful interest groups, and how citizens were kept entirely in the dark about this.

Richard Werner on banking and how banks create money (Four Stars)
Interesting Lecture by Richard Werner regarding what is WRONG with out financial system