|
|
|
|
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
Greece Played Germany Like a Violin; Horrified Syriza Demands 'Icelandic' Default Posted: 16 Jun 2015 01:48 PM PDT A time-based analysis of eurozone taxpayer liabilities shows the Greek game-masters played German creditors like a violin. What got me thinking about this in detail was a recent statement by Financial Times writer Wolfgang Münchau that France and Germany stand to forfeit €160 billion if Greece defaults. On January 22, I had French exposure at €55 billion and German exposure at €73 billion, a total of €128 billion. See Revised Greek Default Scenario: Liabilities Shifted to German and French Taxpayers; Bluff of the Day Revisited The difference between our numbers is almost all due to a huge jump in Target2 imbalances. Let's take a look. Partial Table of Liabilities January 22
The above table derived from Exposure of European Countries to Greece by Dr. Eric Dor, IESEG School of management. The total does not add up because I included only France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Partial Table of Liabilities March 4
On March 4, the taxpayer liability of France and Germany increased to approximately €145 billion. The liability of the "big four" jumped from €209 billion to €239 billion. Target2 Now Yesterday, reader Lars from Norway pinged me with these thoughts. Hello MishMath at €118 Billion At the best case scenario (not counting additional cash under the mattress by Greek citizens), Target2 is a minimum of €118 billion. Assuming the other numbers don't change much (the first two columns shouldn't change at all) the math looks something like this.
I took the IESEG numbers and plugged in €118 billion as a total Target2 liability, split as shown. Germany and France total liability by this calculation is about €167 billion, a number very close to Wolfgang Münchau's calculation of €160 billion, and up from approximately €128 billion at the end of January. The "big four" liability is now about €273 billion. Can someone, anyone tell me where Italy can or will come up with €63 billion or Spain with €43 billion? Loaded Gun Question Previously I asked "Who has the loaded gun and who doesn't?" "If Greece is smart, it will not implement capital controls until the ECB shuts down the ELA, forcing the issue. Greece will then have the ECB and Germany to blame for the resultant controls." Traditional analysis failed miserably. Nearly all, if not all of mainstream media, thought the creditors had the upper hand. Quoting Bob Dylan I said "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose" (See "Air of Unreality"; "Do You Feel Lucky, Punk?"; Who Has the Gun?) Germany Still Trapped The only way Germany can stop Target2 from rising further is to shut off the ELA. The moment it does so, the ECB or Germany gets the blame. In situations like these, the sooner you take the punishment the better. But here we are, with increased capital flight every day. Germans can and will point the finger for this one at Angela Merkel, yet another victory for Greece. Horrified Syriza Demands 'Icelandic' Default Today we learn the EU is calling an emergency meeting. Good luck with that. There's nothing they can do at this point. Didn't they say just yesterday the ball in in Greece's court? Today we also learned the Syriza Left Demands 'Icelandic' Default as Defiance Stiffens. The radical wing of Greece's Syriza party is to table plans over coming days for an Icelandic-style default and a nationalisation of the Greek banking system, deeming it pointless to continue talks with Europe's creditor powers.Central Bank Arrogance Recall the statement: "There is No Plan B"? Let's go back much further. Does anyone even recall the start of this nonsense? Of course, it goes back to the creation of the eurozone in the first place. A monetary union without a fiscal union is inevitably going to break apart. And the eurozone never should have admitted Greece in the first place. But I am referring to statements by prior ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet regarding no haircuts and no defaults. Here is a small snip from my July 7, 2011 article Trichet Says "No" to Selective Default. The ECB has proved a major stumbling block in agreeing a second rescue plan for Greece as it has threatened to refuse restructured Greek bonds as collateral in its lending operations in the event of a default or a "restricted default," which ratings agencies are threatening to impose.I responded "Trichet can shout 'no default' from the mountain tops but it is not his call to make." Trichet Ballistic Over Term "Soft Restructuring" On May 19, 2011 I noted Trichet Goes Ballistic, Walks Out of Meeting Over the Term "Soft Restructuring" Prior to that Trichet said numerous times there would be "no haircuts" on Greek debt. Here we are, two major bailouts accompanied with haircuts later. Along the way, eurozone nannycrats and the ECB turned a minor problem into a €330 billion problem. The arrogance of central bankers who believe they can control markets with talk is stunning. Neither the ECB nor the eurozone nannycrats is in control of this situation. They don't have a loaded gun, and are not in any position to make demands. I am curious how much longer it will take them to figure this out. I will accept as evidence they finally understand reality the moment the ECB shuts off the ELA. At least they are working on "Plan B". Turnabout Irony Note the irony of it all. Germany wanted to issue a "Take it or leave it proposal to Greece". Instead we see Greece issuing a "Restructure or we leave proposal to Germany". It's likely this was Syriza's plan all along. If so, they managed to play Germany like a finely tuned violin, allowing Greek citizens to pull out cash out of banks every day for six months. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Mike "Mish" Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction. Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted: 16 Jun 2015 10:32 AM PDT Housing starts underperformed the Bloomberg Econoday Economists' Consensus Estimate enough for the Atlanta Fed GDPNow Forecast to give back the 0.1% it gained yesterday, yet the report is still considered "solid". Atlanta Fed Forecast Revised Lower I do not know what economists in general will do, but I do know that contrary to Bloomberg's prediction, the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow Forecast ticked down following today's report. Latest forecast — June 16, 2015Evolution of GDPNow Comparing both April and May to the abysmal March is as lame as it would be to label the decline today as overwhelming. If this is weather-related as economists insisted, then this is a weather-related snap-back as well. Which is it? Before anyone gets really excited by housing numbers, here is a bit of historical perspective. Housing Starts Historical Perspective At this level of starts, the economy was in recession a perfect seven times out of seven previously. And on a population adjusted basis, this number of starts is actually pathetic. Nonetheless, housing will still add to GDP as conditions are generally improving. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Mike "Mish" Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction. Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific. |
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., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States |
Damn Cool Pics |
Is This Cat Actually An Alien? Posted: 16 Jun 2015 03:21 PM PDT Matilda is a two year old cat that often gets called an alien due to her large glassy eyes. She already has well over 18,000 followers on Instagram and people even draw far art of her riding in spaceships. via instagram |
Unethical Life Hacks You Can Use To Cheat At Life Posted: 16 Jun 2015 03:14 PM PDT |
How To Visit Every Filming Location From Game Of Thrones [Infographic] Posted: 15 Jun 2015 08:36 PM PDT Fans of the popular Game of Thrones television series can now visit the places in which every episode of the show was filmed at. Created by Moroccan travel company Lawrence of Morocco, the infographic labeled the different seasons in color codes, while showing the actual name of the location and country where the filming took place. For instance, Glens of Antrim in Northern Ireland was Dothraki Sea in the show, and Daenerys and Drogo's wedding was shot at the Azure Window of Malta. Click on Image to Enlarge. |
You are subscribed to email updates from Damn Cool Pictures To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States |
Posted by Cyrus-Shepard
For years now, we've heard the drumbeat from Google that marketers should stop focusing on building links. While it's accepted wisdom that you should avoid manipulative link building to rank higher in search results, the popular narrative would have us believe that external links aren't important in Google's ranking algorithms at all, and that link building can be safely ignored.Is there any truth to this?
To find out, we mined new information from our upcoming biannual ranking correlation study, conducted by Moz's scientist, Dr. Matthew Peters.
https://moz.com/learn/seo/external-link
Moz's study examined the top 50 Google search results for approximately 15,000 keywords. This allowed us to examine not only what factors correlate with higher search rankings, but also how frequently those characteristics are seen.
At this point I must insert the usual caveat that correlation is not causation. Simply because a feature is strongly related to high rankings, this doesn't prove or disprove that Google actually uses it in its algorithm. That said, it sure is a hint!
When we look at what the study found about links, we find a strong relationship.
The correlation between higher rankings and the number of linking websites (root domains) sits at .30. This number seems small, but it's actually one of the highest correlations the study found. (Smaller correlations are also not surprising—with over 200 ranking signals, Google specifically designed their algorithm so that one factor doesn't dominate the others.)
Even more telling is the number of websites we found in the top results that had external backlinks, or rather, the lack thereof.
Out of the top results, a full 99.2% of all websites had at least one external link. (The remaining .8% is well within the margin of error expected between Mozscape and Google's own link index.) The study found almost no websites ranking for competitive search phrases that didn't have at least a single external link pointing at them, and most had significantly more links.
In other words, if you're looking for a site that ranks well with no external links, be prepared to look for a very long time.
That said, the study did find numerous examples where individual pages ranked just fine without specific external links, as long as the website itself had external links pointing at it. For example, consider when The New York Times publishes a new page. Because it's new, it has no external links yet. But because The New York Times' website itself has tons of external links, it's possible for the new page to rank.
In all, 77.8% of individual pages in the top results had at least one external link from another site, which means 22.2% of individual pages ranked with no external links.
There are a number of conclusions you can reasonably draw from these numbers.
If you want to rank for anything that's even remotely competitive, the chances of finding a website ranking without external links is very rare indeed.
As long as your website itself is linked externally, it appears more than possible to rank individual pages on your site, even if those pages themselves don't have external links. That said, there's a strong relationship between links to a page, and that pages performance in search—so it's much better if the page actually does have external links.
To put this in layman's terms, if a lot of people link to your website homepage, it's possible for other pages to rank as well, but it's even better if those pages also have external links pointing at them.
Although not examined in this study, it's likely most of the pages without external links at least had internal links pointing at them. While not as strong as an external link, internal links remain a decent way to pass authority, relevancy and popularity signals to pages on the same site.
It seems obvious, but the study confirmed the long-standing correlation between higher rankings and the number of external links found from unique websites.
Indeed, out of all the data points the ranking correlation study looked at, the number of unique websites linking to a page was one of the highest correlated relationships we found.
Despite the fact that we found almost no websites ranking without external links, it is still possible?
Absolutely, but there's a catch.
The 15,000 keyword phrases used in this study were, for the most part, competitive. This means that lots of other people and websites are trying to rank for the same term. Think of phrases like "Galaxy s6" and "New York car insurance."
Non-competitive phrases, by their nature, are much easier to rank for. So if you want your website to rank without obtaining any backlinks, you might succeed by targeting more obscure phrases like "Oregon beekeeper ballet emporium" or "Batman flux platypus." These phrases have much lower competition, and by default, much lower traffic (and in many cases, none.)
There are other edge cases where it's possible to rank without links, such as when the user is searching for your website specifically, or when you offer something very unique that can't be found anywhere else. Even in these cases, it helps tremendously to actually have links pointing at you.
There's good reason people believe link building is dead, as readers of this blog know well. For readers less familiar with this concept, or those newer to SEO...
A link isn't always a link.
In the past 10 years, after people spammed the heck out of link building to gain higher rankings, Google began cracking down in a serious way starting in 2012. First with its Penguin algorithm, then by de-indexing several link networks, and then by cracking down on guest blogging.
Today, even slight deviations from Google's guidelines on manipulative links can land webmasters in penalty jail.
The web is filled with links. Billions of them. Many are built by robots, some are paid for by advertisers, some are good old fashioned editorial links. The challenge for Google is to separate the good from the bad in its ranking algorithm.
When Google finds a link pointing at your website, it can choose to do one of 3 things:
In fact, most people would be surprised to learn how many links don't actually help you to rank, or can actually hurt. To play within Google's good graces, it's best to understand Google's guidelines on manipulative link building, and knowing what types of links to avoid.
The safest link building is simply link earning, and to get your content in front of the right people.
But trying to rank in Google without any links at all?
Fuhgeddaboudit.
Photo Credit: Geographically Accurate Paris Metro Map by Nojhan under Creative Common License
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
Posted by Royh
This post was originally in YouMoz, and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author's views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of Moz, Inc.
The sitelinks search box (schema.org/SearchAction) is one of the most popular markups out there. According to SimilarTech, there are now more than 650,000 sites that have implemented this markup, making it one of the most popular of all schema markup types.
That said, we don't really know the reason why Google sometimes shows the search box for branded queries for sites that have implemented the markup, and sometimes doesn't. While we don't know what Google's criteria are behind the search box algorithm, we have the data to definitely see that there's a correlation between the traffic of the websites and the appearance of the markup.
source: "Sitelinks Search Box" on Google's developers site
Using a SimilarTech "Websites using SearchAction Schema Entity" report, we compiled a list of websites implementing the above schema. We chose over 300 websites to sample, with varying traffic volumes. Then we researched each site and checked if Google was displaying a sitelinks search box when searching for the URL.
If we found a search box wasn't displayed, we looked at the website in question to see if there were technical issues (based on Google's setup instructions). Finally, we analyzed the results and produced the most common scenarios that would prevent Google from showing the sitelinks search box for a website.
This list is ordered by frequency, from the most common to least common reasons that the Google sitelinks searchbox isn't being displayed:
As you can see in the chart, amongst the sites with SearchAction schema markup, there's a definite correlation between website traffic and the likelihood that the searchbox will appear in Google search results. There were just a few sites (2.5%) with 100K monthly desktop visits where the searchbox was displayed. By contrast, nearly three-quarters of the sites with 50M monthly desktop visits had the sitelinks searchbox.
All the websites we tested implemented the schema SearchAction markup.
Here's what it means:
The biggest difference between the custom search box and the "site:" search box: Searches inside the custom search box will redirect you to the website results page in the website itself, while the searches in the site:searchbox will lead you to a second search within Google.
This is fairly obvious, but it needs to be reiterated: The searchbox can only appear if the markup is implemented. There are two available schema formats you can use to implement the markup.
1. Using JSON-LD:
2. Using Microdata:
The Google recommendation is to implement the JSON-LD format, so if you prefer to do that, you can find the instructions here.
This occurs when the "URL" attribute's value doesn't match the canonical URL of the domain's homepage, or there are problems with the canonical tags of the main domain.
The most common problems are differences between the URL value in the markup to the domain himself.
Here are some examples:
This can be tested by using Google's structured data testing tool and checking for problems with the URL value.
"target": "https://query.example.com/search?q={search_term_string}"
The value of the "query-input" name attribute doesn't match the string that's inside the curly braces in the "target" property. You need to make sure that the value of the "name" will match, otherwise it won't work.
"query-input": "required name=search_term_string"
Use this tag and, you guessed it, Google won't show the searchbox. But unless you're actively trying to disable the searchbox markup, this is likely one of the least common scenarios.
Now that we've covered all the reasons the sitelinks searchbox may not appear, here's what it means in a nutshell:
First, there's a very strong correlation to site traffic. This is perhaps the main factor that determines whether or not Google will show the search box, even if all technical issues are addressed and schema is implemented correctly. Again, out of the websites we sampled that have more than 50M monthly desktop visits, 74% of them have sitelinks searchbox for their websites. When we checked the websites that have just 25-100K monthly visits, however, only 1.4% had the searchbox working for their site.
Secondly, as you can see from the various reasons listed above, there are a slew of technical kinks that may result in Google not displaying the searchbox. Some of these have to do with improperly implemented schema. If you suspect a technical issue is to blame, be sure to go through all of the tech-related scenarios listed above to ensure the bug is found. Then you can use our troubleshooting tips to fix the problem.
As you can see, there are several factors that affect the searchbox appearance in Google's search results. But if you play your cards right and do your due diligence, getting those valuable searchboxes to appear is easier than you think.Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
You are subscribed to the Moz Blog newsletter sent from 1100 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 United States To stop receiving those e-mails, you can unsubscribe now. | Newsletter powered by FeedPress |