Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
- European Banks Dump Massive Amounts of Subordinated Debt on Investors
- Italy's President Warns of "Widespread Social Tension and Unrest" but Offers No Solutions; "Pitchfork Protest" Comments From Italy
- Fed Tapers $10 Billion with Cornucopia of Dovish Platitudes; You Talk Too Much!
- Cancer Free: I Beat Prostate Cancer; Mish the Guinea Pig
| European Banks Dump Massive Amounts of Subordinated Debt on Investors Posted: 18 Dec 2013 04:19 PM PST The Financial Times notes a Big rise in subordinated debt issuance by EU banks Banks have taken advantage of yield-chasing investors to issue $90.7bn of subordinated debt for the year to date, a 41 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2012. It is the highest such volume since the $122.4bn seen in 2008 according to Dealogic, the data provider.Junior Bonds An apt description for "subordinated debt" is "junior bonds". From Wikipedia ...
Now that we know what subordinated debt is, it's easy to understand the increase in issuance. It relates to bail-in procedures in the alleged European "banking union". Laughable Eurozone Banking "Non-Union" Consider my post on December 17, 2013: Laughable Eurozone Banking "Non-Union"; Expect Disorderly Breakup Gunnar Hökmark, the lead negotiator for the parliamentary side, said: "We now have a strong bail-in system which sends a clear message that bank shareholders and creditors will be the ones to bear the losses on rainy days, not taxpayers." Details show the alleged rainy-day fund is a pathetic €12.5bn of joint funds not available until 2020, even though 128 banks covered in the agreement have an aggregate balance sheet somewhere between €26 trillion and €27 trillion. Also consider "stress tests". Stress Tests European Central Bank President, Mario Draghi Says ECB Won't Hesitate to Fail Banks in Stress Tests. For details, please consider ECB President Mario Draghi Announces New Stress Tests; Translating "Draghize" Perhaps the possibility of genuine stress tests, however slight, has sent banks running for cover. Another possibility is banks are so poorly capitalized that some will fail even with watered down stress tests. This lead to the key question: If banks are issuing subordinated debt because they need to, why should anyone want it? Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Posted: 18 Dec 2013 01:12 PM PST President Giorgio Napolitano, Italy's figurehead president (power is in the hands of the prime minister) fears "indiscriminate and violent protest." Napolitano is a bit late in his assessment given the massive number of "pitchfork protests" already underway. Moreover, Napolitano offers no solution to the mess. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports Italy's president fears violent insurrection in 2014 but offers no remedy. Events in Italy are turning serious. President Giorgio Napolitano has warned of "widespread social tension and unrest" in 2014 as the Long Slump drags on. Pitchfork Comments From Italy In regards to the pitchfork protests I asked reader "AC" who is from Italy but now lives in France for some comments. "AC" replied ... Hello MishSolutions What Italy needs to do is easy enough to describe in six simple bullet points.
However, describing what needs to be done, and actually doing it are two different things. In the above list, only number three is being discussed in a serious way, and then only because the Constitutional Court recently ruled that seat appropriation in parliament (giving a majority in the lower house to the largest vote-receiving party) is unconstitutional. See Italy looks to replace unconstitutional election law. Curiously, a return to equal representation could mean more gridlock on economic reforms because the numerous party system in Italy practically guarantees no one will ever get a majority. In the meantime, as "AC" notes, the protest is spreading in unpredictable ways. Perhaps it fizzles, perhaps it gets organized, perhaps it merges with Beppe Grillo's 5-Star Movement, or perhaps it culminates in mass "I'm mad as hell and can't take it anymore" riots. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Fed Tapers $10 Billion with Cornucopia of Dovish Platitudes; You Talk Too Much! Posted: 18 Dec 2013 11:42 AM PST Coupled with a cornucopia of dovish statements the Fed finally decided to taper, a measly $10 billion per month, half out of mortgage purchases, half out of treasury purchases. Here are some snips from the FOMC release. Emphasis mine. The Committee recognizes that inflation persistently below its 2 percent objective could pose risks to economic performance, and it is monitoring inflation developments carefully for evidence that inflation will move back toward its objective over the medium term.You Talk too Much Clearly the Fed is trying not to upset the markets and wants the stock and bond market bubbles to build. But all the Fed can really do is talk. Will it work? The answer is "not forever". Of course bubble expansion is never in the best general interests of anyone but the banks and already wealthy. I offer this musical tribute. Link if video does not play: Frankie Ford - You Talk Too Much Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cancer Free: I Beat Prostate Cancer; Mish the Guinea Pig Posted: 18 Dec 2013 12:46 AM PST In October 2012 I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. I am now cancer free. Here is my story, a detailed one, with test results. I have been taking PSA tests every couple years since 2007. It's a routine blood test recommended for men as they get older. PSA stands for Prostate Specific Antigen. Elevated readings may indicate evidence of prostate cancer. Any reading under 3.0 is normal but some doctors may say 4.0 and others 2.5. It's not an exact science to be sure. My test in August of 2012 was elevated (6.65). Another test in October was also elevated (7.13) My regular doctor strongly recommended a biopsy. The biopsy showed I had cancer. My "Gleason Score" was 6. The surgeon that performed the biopsy (Dr. G) strongly recommended surgery. He gave me a cost of $20,000. What follows is my general understanding of methods of dealing with prostate cancers and problems that may result from treatment. Do your own due diligence and consult a doctor if you are in a similar situation. Problems With Surgery Prostate surgery can cause all sorts of complications including loss of sexual functions and urinary incontinence. I had not yet started dating following the death of my wife Joanne in May of that year. Imagine telling a date "Hi, I'm Mish. I have prostate cancer", or worse yet "I'm impotent and have urinary incontinence thanks to prostate surgery". Even if there are no complications, the very best one can hope for with prostate surgery is loss of ability to ejaculate (a 100% given), then perhaps with drugs like Viagra, Cialis, or Levitra an erection or orgasm can be achieved. My doctor recommended radiation therapy. Unfortunately, the complications are similar, and costs higher, especially for proton beam therapy. For a discussion of proton beam therapy, please see the Cancer.Org discussion Is proton beam therapy for prostate cancer worth the cost? This is my general understanding after talking with doctors and reading countless articles: With surgery, complications arise immediately, with radiation therapy, additional complications may arise years down the road. Three Options My own research showed three potential options.
I wanted other opinions, so I talked to an oncologist. Oncology is a branch of medicine that deals with cancer. The oncologist informed me that we caught the cancer "very early". He also stated "based on your conditions, there is no statistical evidence that strongly favors any one course of action. Equal results are obtained by surgery, by radiation therapy, and by waiting". Hmmm. No statistical difference between the three options? Actually, there is a difference, but for those who have an aggressive form of cancer then just let it go. Otherwise, until you find out whether it's aggressive or not, it's point blank wrong to rush to surgery. So I didn't. Yet, I also decided "wait and see" was not doing enough. So I spent at least 60 hours researching things one could try. I discovered some interesting studies and elected to try a cocktail of the most promising things, but I also wanted to keep up with regular PSA tests to monitor for aggressive forms of cancer. My own doctor was against the cocktail idea (but was willing to go along with it provided I kept up the PSA monitoring). The oncologist said "the cocktail would not do me any good but would not hurt either". I informed the oncologist that I was going to have a PSA test every month. He commented something along the lines of "Why do you want to do that? Every six months is sufficient. The tests are not that reliable." That is not an exact quote, but is best as I can remember. My thought - which I did not express - was "What kind of mathematical silliness is that? The more unreliable a test is, the more tests one should take to weed out erroneous outlier results." My next PSA reading one month later was a disaster (17.65). At that point I was pretty sure I had an aggressive form of prostate cancer but I still wanted to try my "do something" program for one more month. Mentally I prepared myself for surgery. In December, my PSA crashed, as did three subsequent scores. Here are the dates and results.
Given that my December and January results were normal, I was quite happy with my alternative program. The surgeon, "Dr. G" was not. In January, he wanted another biopsy immediately and sent me a later stating "If you intend to continue to be evaluated by our office, you need to schedule the requested biopsy without delay. If you wish to see another urologist we would be happy to forward your records, but otherwise please contact our office to schedule an appointment." That is an exact quote. It marked the end of my relationship with "Dr. G". I had two more PSA readings, in March and July, each normal, and each lower than the one before. In a recent followup conversation with the oncologist, he informed me the series of PSA tests was not conclusive. I had my own doubts as well. I was wondering if something I was taking may be artificially lowering my PSA readings. I decided to have another biopsy, but with a different surgeon. Before I get to the result, I need to mention other possible explanations for the 7.13 PSA reading: Drugs like Viagra, Cialis, or Levitra can elevate the numbers. So can sex. In case I needed surgery, I wanted to know in advance how my body would react to such medications. I was on Levitra at the time of the elevated reading. I Beat Prostate Cancer As you can surmise by the title of this post, my latest biopsy, about a week ago, came back benign. Below, I list what supplements I took and why. First let's wrap up some loose ends. Is Surgery Recommended for Gleason 6? Those in my situation may wish to read What is a Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer and also WatchWait.Com. From the above link: "Does prostate cancer need to be treated? For most men, the answer may be NO!" American Society of Clinical Oncology Chimes In The American Society of Clinical Oncology chimes in with Gleason Score 6 Adenocarcinoma: Should It Be Labeled As Cancer? Read the first paragraph below carefully. Overtreatment of low-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) is a recognized problem today, with systematic prostate gland sampling triggered by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements. The extent to which overtreatment is caused by fear of death resulting from cancer, fear of litigation from undertreatment, and misaligned incentives that reimburse more for treating rather than monitoring when appropriate is not known. Nevertheless, fear of death resulting from cancer likely plays some role, and removing the label "cancer" could reduce unnecessary treatment of low-grade disease. On the other hand, undertreatment of prostate cancer and a missed opportunity for cure in those who could benefit is a real risk of relabeling a cancer as noncancer. We have decided on an alternative modification of the Gleason scoring system and herein present the arguments for and against removing the label of cancer from Gleason 6 tumors. ....Interested parties may wish to read the rest of the article. Why the Rush and Pressure for Surgery? The answer is easy: $20,000 each. Let's put it this way: "Dr G" is very skilled at them. By the way, in my first conversation with the oncologist I stated the biopsy showed I was 10% cancerous. He said "say that again". So I repeated "Dr. G said I was 10% cancerous". The oncologist replied "That's not correct. Of the 12 samples, only one had cancer and one was questionable. The cancerous sample was 10% cancerous." Now that is a hell of a lot different than being 10% overall cancerous wouldn't you say? I had a witness for the conversation with Dr. G. First Biopsy Results - October 2012 On December 17, 2013, I finally saw the actual results of the first biopsy! Dr. G would only release them to another doctor, not to me, unless I went in to sign a release. The oncologist had already seen them, but shouldn't Dr. G have shown them to me immediately? First Biopsy Results Twelve samples were taken. Ten were benign. Here are the two non-benign samples exactly as written on the report.
Doctors Treat Patients as ATMs I now understand there was absolutely nothing in that report that remotely suggests a need for immediate surgery. I have posted on this before already. Please see Unnecessary Surgeries? You Bet! Doctors Treat Patients as ATMs; US Healthcare System Explained in Six Succinct Points My Prostate Research Here are two key articles I found in my research. Resveratrol -Powerful Protection Against Prostate Cancer Good news for men concerned about prostate cancer: resveratrol is a supplement that blocks it at every stage, from beginning to end. A polyphenol found in grapes and other plants, resveratrol was first identified as a multistage protector in 1997, and now is considered a leading agent against prostate cancer by researchers at Houston's MD Anderson Cancer Center and other institutions. Resveratrol works through more than a dozen different anticancer mechanisms and selectively targets cancer cells. This single supplement modulates hormones, has several mechanisms that stop cancer cells from multiplying, and even has the ability to destroy cancer cells.Can Resveratrol Prevent Prostate Cancer Next consider Can Resveratrol Prevent Prostate Cancer? Resveratrol is repeatedly in the headlines as a potent anti-aging nutrient and I have written about this extensively in my article, Is Resveratrol the Fountain of Youth? A new cell study shows that resveratrol1 can block the transition of cancer cells into the form that becomes aggressive prostate cancer that is more likely to kill.Mish the Guinea Pig Preventing cancer was not an option for me. I already had it. My goal was to kill it. What follows is the cocktail that it took. It is based on the above research as well as numerous other articles. The first four items in my cocktail mix list were mentioned above. I also took a few other things for other reasons. Explanations follow my list. This is not a recommendation. Consult your doctor. Mish Cocktail
#1-9 were taken with meals. #10 was on an empty stomach so as not to buffer stomach acid digestion. Blood tests showed I was deficient in B-12 and D3. My regular doctor wanted me to to take periodic shots. He claimed studies show that as people get older, pills won't be absorbed. I said, let's try the pills and see. The results are in: every blood test since then shows I have more than enough B12 and D3. That simple test saved me once-a-month shots. On his recommendation, I lowered my D3 dosage to the amount shown above. Vitamin D can be toxic in doses too high. #10 is the most controversial item on the list. If you do a bit of research on the internet you can find numerous articles on baking soda treatments for prostate cancer. "Get alkaline" is the general thesis. The way most of them describe how it works is ludicrous. Cancer is not a "fungus" as one proponent of baking soda says. Yet, just because someone describes reasons wrong, does not mean there is no merit. Still, my oncologist specifically warned "Do not try to change your pH. This is exceptionally dangerous and can kill you. Your body will maintain a pH strictly between 7.35 and 7.45. Urine pH will be determined by diet, exercise and other things in your body. There is no reason whatsoever for you to try to change it and attempting to do so can be dangerous to the point of killing you." I decided to take baking soda, but not in huge amounts. The bag of Arm & Hammer reads ...
For 6 months I took 1 teaspoon of baking soda twice daily. Since then I have been taking 1/2 teaspoon twice daily. My oncologist stated "A little bit of baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) is harmless and 1/2 to 1 tsp a day is probably having no effect on your pH. Your kidneys will simply excrete the extra bicarbonate. Baking soda injections are pure quackery and dangerous unless given by a physician for very specific health reasons - none of which you have. Taking in too much bicarbonate will overwhelm your kidneys ability to excrete it all and can kill you." Cancer Free The latest biopsy has 12 samples, all identically labeled "Benign, prostatic tissue. No malignancy Identified." Technically, I am not "cancer free". A more accurate way of stating things is "the biopsy did not detect any cancer". That is good enough for me (because it doesn't get any better). I believe the first four items on the list is what produced the results. I am not sure if baking soda did anything or not. Serious questions remain. Serious Questions
My Personal Conclusions: It's highly likely I did have cancer. Low-grade cancer in light of spiking PSA readings seems reasonable. Similarly, I believe it's highly likely I had cancer and it is now gone. Four consecutive crashing PSAa and a benign biopsy suggest just that. Once again: Nothing above constitutes a recommendation. I listed what I took, and what my results were. Consult your doctor before attempting anything similar. Reflections On Medical Research On my first visit to the oncologist, he stated "Until there is data in human beings with prostate cancer, there is no reason to believe that resveratrol has any activity whatsoever in treating or even preventing prostate cancer. Feel free to take it if you wish as it appears to be safe." I strongly suspect he would not consider me as "human data". I do, even though I clearly do not constitute as scientific study. So why aren't there more studies on these supplements given the articles I cited? The answer is big pharmaceutical companies are not interested in anything they cannot patent. They would rather find a $20,000 drug that works 5% of the time (that they can patent) rather than something cheap that works 80% of the time that they can't. In fact, the big pharmaceutical companies have attempted numerous times to regulate nutritional supplements. If it was up to them, I never would have been able to try what I did. Individual doctors vary, and I have a great urologist now, but much of the industry is about maximizing patient costs for profits (patients be damned). Even the insurance companies are short-sighted. They would have paid for prostate surgery but they would not pay for the repeated PSA tests. Fortunately the PSA tests and supplements are very cheap. Final Thoughts Had I listened to Dr. G., I would not have a prostate right now. I would be out my deductible portion of $20,000 and the insurance company would be out the rest. And on top of it all I might have run into serious complications. I have two close friends who had prostate surgery. One came out fine, the other didn't. The friend who did not come out fine has both incontinence issues and sexual performance issues. The friend who came out fine went to the best surgeon he could find. Is that the right approach? It seems reasonable if you need surgery, but what if you need an opinion on whether surgery is needed? How did these guys get skilled? Was it by doing too many needless surgeries? Similar questions apply for those considering radiation therapy. I have a great urologist now: Nejd F. Alsikafi, M.D., F.A.C.S. at UrologySpecialist. I am on a monitoring program with PSA tests every three months and biopsies every two years (more frequently if my PSA trend changes). He agrees the treatment proposed by Dr. G was not warranted. Finally, few, if any, doctors are likely to recommend the cocktail regimen I am on. They may go along with them, if you bring them up, but they won't recommend them. The doctors want clinical studies. Yet, Alsikafi readily admits it's not in the interests of big pharmaceutical companies to do them. Here's the key lesson: Even if you find a great doctor, it's still very important to be your own health care advocate. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Postări
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu