Category Archives: Finance

March 14, 2014 · 13:14

Yesterday’s news, today’s politics

This is the initial view I had when the NOS reported on a debate in the chambers on a case that had occurred 14 years ago (at http://nos.nl/artikel/622822-teevendebat-loopt-met-sisser-af.html). In the first 7 seconds I was hit by two questions that my mind raised

Does this have any current bearings?
Why, is the person who was involved not part of the proceedings?

Let’s take a look at what happened.

In 2000 Fred Teeven, who was the District Attorney at that time made a deal with Drug criminal Cees H. a deal which ended the criminal with a nice pay check, no taxation and no prison. The tax office knew nothing of the deal and this case was given a prompt wave of visibility.

This is pretty much it. There were additional loops of misinformation on how this was all about 5-6 million, which was countered that the total amount was 2 million (750,000 of this amount was kept by the Dutch government as a settlement fee).

This all got started by the current Dutch opposition. This entire case shows the same level of nonsense that Australia is currently getting from the Labor party. All wind and no real case (Australian Labor left huge bills, no resolutions and no prospects), not unlike the Dutch opposition they are crying like little girls because they are not at the governing table. They squandered by in-fighting and now they are all on the sidelines.

Why am I having this debatable point of view?

This is always a good question. This all started for whatever reason with a case that is 14 years old. Seems like an initial way to be a whiny little politician, whoever started this). Yet, that is not the whole truth either. When we consider the source (at http://nieuwsuur.nl/onderwerp/622023-geheime-witwasdeal-teeven-en-crimineel.html) other facts come to light. Here we see “Als je naar de richtlijn kijkt waarin duidelijk staat dat er afstemming moet plaatsvinden met de Belastingdienst” this was stated by the Dutch Professor Zwemmer from the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam (translated: “If you look at the guidelines, it is clearly stated that an adjusted view is set together with the taxation services”, which might contradict the statement, yet, a guideline is not set in stone. what does the law state?

The case was when Article 20b of Dutch Criminal Law allowed for it. That legal option of making deals with criminals was scrapped in 2001, but the article was in active in 2000.

There is another side to this. When we consider the following paragraph from Nieuwsuur, we see the following: “Advocaat Jan-Hein Kuijpers bevestigt vanavond in Nieuwsuur dat de deal volgens alle afspraken is uitgevoerd. Omdat Kuijpers zelf niet van witwassen beschuldigd wilde worden, moest het geld via een justitie-rekening verlopen. Kuijpers: ‘Ik had voorgesteld en ook wel bedongen dat het geld uit het buitenland eerst naar justitie zou gaan en dan naar die vriend van mijn cliënt, waardoor het spierwit was. Sowieso, of het nou wel of geen drugsgeld was of zwart geld of grijs geld of wat dan ook.’ Uiteindelijk is er een bedrag van tussen de vijf en zes miljoen gulden daadwerkelijk via deze constructie overgemaakt, bevestigt Kuijpers“.

(Translated) “Lawyer Jan-Hein Kuipers confirmed in Nieuwsuur that the deal had been processed according to the accepted arrangement. As Kuipers wanted to avoid accusations of laundering, the money would be processed through an account of the Justice department. Kuipers: ‘I had proposed and stipulated that the funds from abroad would first go to the Justice department, after that to my client’s friend, making the funds snowy white. Whether it was drugs money or not, whether it was black money or grey or whatever’. In the end an amount between 5 and 6 million was transferred via this construction, confirms Kuipers“.

This all leaves me with a few questions. What on earth is a Lawyer doing spilling the beans to this extent on a talk show? As well as the fact that we have two sides to the amount, was it two million, or 5 to 6 million? If we accept what Nieuwsuur mentioned: “Vervolgens zal het OM het geld via een rekening van het Openbaar Ministerie ‘terstond aan H.’ overmaken. En dat alles onder de expliciete voorwaarde van ‘volstrekte geheimhouding’ waarbij ook ‘de nationale en/of internationale Belastingdiensten en/of Fiscale autoriteiten’ niets van de deal mogen weten”

(Translated) “After that the Public Ministry will transfer the money via an account of the Public Ministry ‘swiftly to H.’ all this under explicit conditions of ‘complete secrecy’, whilst keeping the national and international tax offices unaware of the deal”

So, again, why is this Lawyer Kuipers singing like a canary on a talk show? Even more questionable is how international tax offices are kept in the dark, whilst they knew that the money came from non-Dutch accounts. It seems weird that international tax evasion could be part of this deal in 2000.

We can waste time on whether these events were all known or not and whether this was all legally arranged or not. It is a 14 year old case and the facts could have been checked before the House of Representatives booked overtime which might cost the taxpayers even more. I am not debating whether it was right or wrong to proceed, but in the view I have, this was another goose chase by the opposition to bring embarrassment to Minister Opstelten (who is the current minister of justice and Security) as well as secretary Teeven of Justice and Security, who was the District Attorney in those days and would not have been politically responsible anyway (which answered the second question I initially had).

I remain on the fence, even though I still see this (to some extent) as an exercise from the prissy opposition, the questions remain valid. Yet, what was the point to take a case, which could have been easily defended in the House of Representatives to begin with. What was the end game and why is there a discrepancy between 2 and 5-6 million?

That last part is still an issue of some debate. There are additional questions that rise when we consider the Dutch article (at http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Justitie/Artikel-Justitie/Teeven-sloot-al-in-1998-deal-met-Cees-H..htm), which gives a lot more validity for the opposition to call for a debate in the Dutch version of the House of Representatives, yet the fact that this is coming to light 14 years later is also quite weird. That side is shown to some extent when we look at the last lines of the article “Dat alles is weliswaar geen sluitend bewijs dat Cees H. nog steeds in criminele zaken zit, maar bij justitie kijken ze in ieder geval met argusogen naar de handel van de beroepscrimineel. En dat plaatst de ‘gift’ van Fred Teeven uit 2000 toch in een vreemd daglicht“.
(Translated) “Al this does not lead to evidence that Cees H. is still criminally active, but the Justice department is looking with an eagles eye towards the wheeling and dealing of this professional criminal, which places the ‘gift’ from Fred Teeven in 2000 in a strange daylight”

When we look back at this, then we see a seldom seen application on the cost of doing business. The talkative lawyer (who seemed to forget the meaning of complete secrecy), the muddy view on the exact amounts of money involved (the difference between 60,000 and 20,000 bills of 100) and in rear sight the time passed before certain people started to ask questions. Consider that all but the heaviest category of crime can still be prosecuted (5th category), other crimes would have passed the prosecutable expiry date, in that light, why bring this case forward?

For political points against a District Attorney who, according to the issues, had acted within his scope of abilities? Nieuwsuur does report an issue in the way the deal was pushed through after the fact (2 months after the fact) and the signature came from Ben Swagerman, who is in the Dutch version of the House of Lords and he is the head of corporate security of the Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM). I do agree, that certain questions should be asked, yet, they should have been asked at least 6 years ago, not now. At this point there are several points that imply that this was about something else, not just about this case. So will the Dutch audience get treated to a second round of ‘sudden revelations‘ in a later episode of the program Nieuwsuur?
Time will tell, but when they do, I will take another look at this case.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as Advocaat Jan-Hein Kuijpers, Ben Swagerman, Cees H., District Attorney, Fred Teeven, Ivo Opstelten, Jan-Hein Kuipers, KLM, Nieuwsuur, VN, Vrij Nederland, VVD

March 12, 2014 · 17:18

Who runs America?

This is a question that has been in the back of my mind for some time. When we consider the economic events from 2008 onwards and how slow (almost 2 administrations) it has taken for any economic legislation to take shape for the (at present) ineffective halting of moving tax dollars off shore. Even now, several economic boffins are slowly and casually mentioning that current measures are not going far enough.

The entire issue took a new foothold as we see the Ukrainian events unfold. We see how some politicians are acting so….outspokenly against certain acts. Now, I am not speaking out against these people, I believe in the freedom of speech and as such, we need to hear all sides. The issue was shown the most visible in the UK when some stated on how economic sanctions against Russia would be taken, like getting gas from a different source.

It was at that point when I saw just how hollow their boasts were. In my view those politicians would soon be dragged to a separate room where several high powered industrials would add these politicians to the Christian choir of ‘Mare Castratum’, see this as a slightly more efficient form of gagging a politician.

Why this view?

Consider that politicians would make that rash decision and also consider the fact that in the UK (amongst most EEC nations), the energy prices are way above normal. So in a place where like the US, 1 in 7 lives below the poverty line, where these people can hardly pay their bills, get confronted with a 10%-15% raise on energy bills. What do you expect to happen?

I expect something similar to happen in the US, as I see it there are two elements in play here. The first is the claim (at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=957624)

The two quotes are “The Senate on Tuesday expressed its support for Ukraine by passing strongly worded resolutions, using tough language against Russia and urging it be suspended from the Group of 8 world powers.” and “The House of Representatives also passed a resolution to condemn what House Speaker John Boehner called ‘Russia’s hostile acts of aggression’”

I understand the second quote and I reckon that House Speaker John Boehner was quite correct to pass such a resolution. It is the first one that is an issue, I understand that governments want to stand in support of the Ukraine, there is no way that any objection to that is valid, consider however what the G8 stands for. If we accept the following ‘G8 nations comprise 50.1% of 2012 global nominal GDP‘, then without Russia, will the G8 be a valid office of existence and what to do to keep its validity? Replace it with China?

That part would make sense as in many ways, the Chinese economy would be much more interesting to America then Russia is for the mere fact that China imports almost 3 times more than Russia does (based on 2012 numbers). Yet, if this happens, then what will be the long term consequences? Consider that the Ukraine is in an even less prosperous situation then most EEC countries. Now consider the information (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/03/05/in-ukraine-crisis-russias-natural-gas-tactics-could-backfire/), basically the Ukraine was getting gas at a 36% discount. If that fell away, then what will the Ukraine do? The quote seen here “The UK National Balancing Point (NBP) futures for natural gas jumped nearly 10% to $10.28 per MMBtu, according to Bloomberg. Prices have since moderated as the political situation appears to be calming down” gives validity to my claims of the energy prices; if futures would take that must a blast, then I reckon the people could face a charge at nearly twice that percentage. There was a side in all this that I had not reckoned on. When we see the quote “The U.S. wants to become a large LNG exporter later this decade and a portion of that would be bound for Europe” we see two dangers. The first is that this is not just government, but this is definitely a ‘Big Business’ push. Yet, consider the amount of customers could be the issue as the amount needed would far outstrip what could be delivered. That part is implied in the Dutch article (at https://decorrespondent.nl/299/eerst-het-gas-dan-de-moraal/32952491-c7e501ab) called ‘Eerst het gas, dan de moraal‘, which could be loosely translated and paraphrased as: “Business before morality“, which is basically at the heart of all these events. The article states that the Russian pipeline is supplying well over 26 million households, which is well over twice the size of California (in households). There should be no illusions that Gazprom has its powerful claws firmly in the EEC.

Let’s make sure that I am not stating that the politicians are acting purely or mostly out of economic reasons. I am to a lesser extent implying that it is possible that the Natural Gas lobbyists in Washington have been speaking with politicians over a lunch or two (which is how things are done in the US and UK). That latter part was discussed in the Guardian in October 2013, as UK Labour leader Ed Miliband mentioned that these lobby groups are not getting the proper levels of scrutiny (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/07/energy-firm-lobbyists-scrutiny-ed-miliband). So it is IMHO Big Business that is the second danger element in these cases. If the politicians represent the people, yet big business has the funds, ability and know-how to override the views of the people, then what use are the people at the end of all this?

This all goes a few steps further than just the energy groups. I started all this with a mention of economic sanctions. So how does this connect? Well, it does not directly connect, yet the elements all have their political influence. Consider the needs of Apple in Russia (at http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/07/russias-megafon-deal-with-apple-inc-guarantees-sales-of-750k-iphones-over-3-years). This was less than a week ago. So we consider the value of a little over 20,000 iPhones a month for the next three years and we should expect that this sparks the sale of iPad and iPod and other Apple articles. Do you think that the members in charge of Apple are hindered by morality? They have parked billions in taxable dollars away from the collecting hands of the IRS (and other taxing governments). The commission these people get from their deals in Russia will not stop them in any way. Whether there will be some ‘illusive’ distributor in India, Japan or China will not matter, the show (read sale) will go on. The same could be said for Dell. You think that they stop selling to Russia and leave their market share to ASUS? I think not! These are just two examples of the dozens of massively large companies doing business with Russian one form or another, not just from the USA, but also from Europe. In that same regard, there is not export without import, so as we see the boasts of economic sanctions to Russia by politicians, remember that when we see that when Russians show off their latest Apple gadgets on TV, the question ‘who runs America?‘ should remain firmly on your mind. In the end you should also remember that the entire situation is a lot more complex then I make it out to be.

As we focus on ‘Business before Morality‘ then remember the bills most of you have in your drawer still awaiting payment. We are nearly all of us overdue to the smallest or a larger extent and as some are more fortunate not to be one of the seven people living below poverty, consider that most of us are in the same place where 45% of us are, most of these people are all a little below getting by, which comes down to one step from a total nightmare life.

I am not stating it is a good place or an acceptable place; it is merely a realistic place. It is in this realistic place the question gets the volume it needs to have: ‘Who runs America?‘

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Apple, Appleinsider, Asus, Dell, Ed Miliband, EEC, Energy lobby, Forbes, G8, Gazprom, iPad, iPhone, iPod, John Boehner, Russia, Sky News, UK, UK National Balancing Point, US, US Senate

March 4, 2014 · 13:09

What goes up…..

The next blog has been bumped to the next blog, mainly because Sky News was kind enough to show the snivelling cry story (me now playing the world’s smallest violin), by the ACTU secretary Dave Oliver, yes, the text in the background ‘join for a better future‘ reads nice, but the story he is giving is intentional misdirection. Holden and Toyota did not leave overnight (which was discussed in my blog on February 12th called ‘The last Australian car‘), this was planned for a long time, as such, what he now calls ‘the opposition’ was at the centre of this entire mess.

When we hear statements like ‘everything is on the table‘ then that person is already deceiving us all. So let’s take a look at some of the things stated at http://www.skynews.com.au/businessnews/article.aspx?id=955273.

“Qantas has asked the government to change the Qantas Sale Act to allow more foreign investment arguing the strings attached hampered its ability to compete on a level playing field with its rivals“, which makes me wonder how this remains an Australian icon to begin with.

“Some aviation analysts argue the best option for Qantas would be to split the company into three separate companies: domestic, international and ancillary services such as the Frequent Flyer program and freight“, which reads a lot like the ‘bad bank’ solutions we have seen all over the global financial sector, which in the end leaves the taxpayers with an unfair bill.

The Australian gave us (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pm-failing-australian-workers-on-qantas-actu/story-e6frg95x-1226844413018) the following statements.

the headline is already a first “PM failing Australian workers on Qantas: ACTU“, this is followed by “How did it get to the stage where our Prime Minister won’t even stick up for Australian jobs?” and “Australian unions will meet with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce this week to seek a commitment to minimise job losses, following the airline’s announcement last week it would slash 5000 jobs“.

So, let’s take a look at this all. From the first moment, with all due respect, This Dave Oliver comes across as a man born not too bright and he stopped evolving after birth. Why is this my personal view? You see, one should always keep an eye out for the reasoning. Without that, we have nothing but noise.

First the income side as it was reported by the Herald Sun last September 7th (at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/qantas-freezes-pay-of-chief-executive-alan-joyce-but-offers-him-1m-in-bonuses-and-shares/story-fni0dcne-1226713613053), where we see the following: “Mr Joyce’s base salary for the year to June remained unchanged at $2.109 million. But a cash bonus of $775,200 and $387,000 worth of deferred share payments bumped the total remuneration package up to $3.3 million for the year. Mr Joyce gave up his bonus the previous year when Qantas reported its first annual loss since privatisation. The airline, which last week reported a wafer-thin full-year net profit of $6 million, said a general freeze on executive management pay would apply over the coming year“.

So basically, an airline, this large, reports (according to the Herald Sun), a full year Net profit, twice the amount the CEO made in a year. So, the income of the CEO was 50% of the NET profit. This was in the era of labor and this is not inviting any clear statements of outrage or disgust? Let us not forget that the tier of high executives would have been less, but still substantial, which in my view becomes that the Net profit of Qantas was in 2013 a lot less than the income of the board of directors alone. which makes us wonder on how 7 high executives are save whilst 5000 jobs are forsaken to other areas. The positive news was 11 days before the Liberals came into office, and within three months, Qantas analysts ‘suddenly’ misplaced (or lost) a quarter of a billion dollars, how convenient. So Mr Dave Oliver, why do you not stop crying and take a long gander towards this obnoxious fact?

It is not the job of the government to provide for free slave labor (through financial incentives to big business for keeping jobs), mainly because this is Australia!

This all takes another tumble when we see the news (at http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/qantas-to-cut-1000-jobs-as-ceo-alan-joyce-takes-pay-cut/story-e6frfq80-1226775800430), where we see the following “Mr Joyce’s $3.3 million pay will be cut by at least 38 per cent this financial year because of the airline’s poor performance – which would leave him with a $2 million pay packet” this was on December 5th 2013, in less than three months they went from plus 6 million to: “Qantas said it expected to report an underlying before tax loss of $250-300 million for the first half of the 2013-14 financial year“, which gives us two points at this precise moment. The first is that in my view, the September report was feigned positivity as we were set up for the bad news blows. When you go from +6 million to minus three hundred million you better believe that we the readers and we the workers are getting played. So at this point Mr ACTU, would you like to please change your view from Australian Icon to Australian joke? When a company makes this fast a tumble, there is clear mis-management, mis-representation and mis-organisation, whilst the labor government was run by Miss-NotAllThatInformed (in those day referred to as ‘prime minister’). So whilst Dave Oliver is presenting under the veil of violins speaks out for all those poor poor workers, he should better realise and change his tune to make it sure that this was bungled by labor, for big business and 5000 workers are about to pay a hefty price for such levels of negligence.

So what about Tony Abbott?

Should a government give out a debt guarantee, whilst there is a decent amount of clear evidence that this money could be lost overnight? It is not for the Australian tax payers to lose this amount of money whilst the Qantas top will walk away with millions and with new foreign investors there is still a likely chance that many jobs will go overseas (why else would they invest in the first place). It is also the case that in that same news message (from December 5th) that former Qantas Group Chief Economist Tony Webber left the message that it was too late to help the ailing airline. Is he correct? I am not sure, but I feel certain that he would know a lot more of the Qantas finances then either the ACTU, the ATO or the other interested parties in forcing the hand of government to sign a debt guarantee. The fact that Tony Webber is now managing director of Webber Quantitative Consulting and Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Business School, gives more weight to the value of his statements then the feigned spoken outrage from some of the other players (even if he is not a UTS professor) ;-).

This situation as we ‘suddenly’ see the Qantas debacle was not grown overnight. This has been a failing business dimension for well over a year, because $300,000,000 is not lost overnight, it had to have been known for some time.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as ACTU, ATO, Dave Oliver, Herald Sun, Labor, Liberals, Qantas, Sky News, the Australian, The last Australian car, Tony Abbott, Tony Webber, University of Sydney Business School, Webber Quantitative Consulting

March 1, 2014 · 18:05

Hot air for the Ukraine

That was the first thought I had when I saw the news from several angles, when we consider the responses from Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, Viktor Yanukovych and a few others. The Americans were (as expected) all about keeping an eye on what Russia does. My first question could be ‘then what?‘.

This would be a fair question as we have seen what happens when ‘the line gets crossed‘ as President Obama mentioned. Basically nothing happened in the end. There will be rattling of sabres and after that people create some diplomatic summit in a luxury place and in the end nothing really changes. If you doubt that, then ask the Syrians. In the end President Assad needed time and time he got and plenty of it. In that regard consider last week’s NY Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/middleeast/un-orders-both-sides-in-syria-to-allow-humanitarian-aid.html), so after several weeks the peace talks ended in failure. Be honest, was there ever a decent chance of a good outcome? This was all about delaying for President Assad, and as such he seems to have won. So, what will happen to the Ukraine?

The Ukraine is not like that, I know, but in the end, does that matter? The US is too weak, it has no reserves left, in addition, there is a growing pile of evidence that big business, not the politicians or the legislative branch are in charge of what happens in America. Feel free to doubt me, but consider the largest employer Wal-Mart. Consider that the owners are multi billionaires and that their staff members need food stamps and financial support just to survive. Did you hear me? This is not about the unemployed, but the workers who still need that level of support and the taxpayer gets those bills, not the employer. This is in my mind a level of clear evidence that the politicians as well as the legislative branch of the US government have failed its citizens. So, they are going to mess with Russia, just as the military has announced massive cuts and downsize plans? Who is kidding who here?

Now on the honourable representative players in this game called John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. I am not attacking them. They are representing their government, but are they speaking their mind and heart? They likely are and they are not happy about any of the issues currently rising, but they are unlikely able to make a true impact at present. You cannot spend money from a budget that is no longer there. Basically, as this administration was idle for over three years to tackle big business, to tackle spending habits and to hunt down tax evaders, the economic trinity at large, the US is pretty much bankrupt, which means they cannot pay for the fuel to make the war engine go forward. It will run out of fuel before it can truly engage a theatre of upcoming war. It is not a good thing, but it is what it is, so at this time it pretty much sucks to be the US Secretary of Defence!

But this is not just about America, many might ‘like’ this US bashing, but that is not what this is. Consider the words of Peter Stano “Peter Stano, Spokesperson for European Neighbourhood Policy Commissioner Stefan Fule, stated the European Commission (EC)’s ‘door remains open’ for Ukraine. The EC’s policy is very open, transparent and predictable, he said. The EC’s offer is tabled, he continued further. The EC offers highly important EU neighbours the opportunity to come closer to the EU with political association and economic integration, he explained“

Consider the NY Times from January 2nd 2014 (at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/business/international/the-euro-adds-latvia-but-further-growth-is-uncertain.html) “Those include achieving a deficit of 3 percent of gross domestic product and keeping debt to 60 percent of the annual gross domestic product.” This is about its newest member Latvia. You can read two parts here; one is to lower the deficit to 3%, which might be a good achievement. Yet at http://www.kase.gov.lv/uploaded_files/2010/SSD/news_release_2014-A-0109_011.pdf we see the mention “R&I believes that real GDP will continue to grow around 4% on the back of a recovery in the European economy.“

Really, who is buttering who’s bread and where (more important, who owns the butter to begin with). This is a massive amount of iterated bad news management I am appalled that the PRESS is not more active in finding out the ‘real’ truth here. Consider a 2013 report from the EC (at http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2013/pdf/ee3_en.pdf) and consider that the numbers on page 47 is up to 2011. So, the 2012 numbers are not even there for a 2013 report. This is all about marketing, all about as they state “Overall, a broad-based look at underlying factors suggests that sufficiently strong conditions are in place for Latvia to be able to maintain a robust and sustainable convergence path in the medium term“, which makes this 55 page paper a sales pitch.

How is this connected?

That is the question isn’t it! It is not about Latvia, or the Ukraine. This is about the EEC and their approach to ‘some kind of a future‘. This is all good, but these events are about setting economic prosperity for a few EEC bigwigs. As they add members, as deficits are still not met in several nations and debts keep on rising, the taxpayers will soon face a harsh reality and it is a bigger one than they bargained for. On my side, there is also a view. Am I comparing apples to pears?
Yes, to some extent I am. The issue is that the EEC is not a vendor of apples or pears, they are dealing in fruit and we all get thrown into the same trog. Russia seems adamant that the Ukraine does not enter the same trog. It prefers its own trog to the EEC one, which might looks nicer but has the same stale grub in the end.

So when we see the sabre rattling from both sides, make sure that you all realise that this is not about the Ukrainians, their choices their future. It is for the Ukrainians, but the other parties are engaging for one reason, their economies! It is about the economic futures of others. Will this all bring prosperity to the Ukraine and its people? Not until the EEC and America end up with a much better economy, which require these governments (all of them) to get their budgets in order. Until then they are showing themselves as some sort of hedge fund dealers. You might remember how that ended up in 2004 and 2008. Now, it is no longer about de-valuated pieces of paper, now it will all be about people and whoever will be the ‘last’ nation left standing. We need to get out of that rat race and real quickly too!

That part becomes more and more visible when we see the latest from Sky News “Russia is ready to help Ukraine as it seeks to stave off economic collapse, US Secretary of State John Kerry says after talking with his Russian counterpart” (at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=954470). In addition “Ukraine owes $US13 billion in state debt payments this year – a massive sum in a country where state reserves have shrunk to less than $US18 billion” gives some level of evidence to my views. Another government had been spending money they never had to begin with. When smaller economies fall over, how long until the larger ones take a tumble (especially as they add on new in deficit grown members), because if these issues do not change that will be the clear terminal result, no matter what sales pitch a hedge fund call centre operator calls you with.

In that regard there is an interesting paper at http://www.project-bridge.eu/datoteke/Actions2012/BRIDGE-ANALYSIS%20OF%20THE%20EU-UKRAINE%20RELATIONS.pdf. Denys Kuzmin and Iryna Maksymenko wrote an interesting piece in 2012. Not sure how much I can agree with (as I was never an economic), but it reads like this is all about a possible future for the Ukraine, not about keeping the EEC alive. That side is getting less and less likely, as we see the growing influence from Nigel Farage, Marie Le-Penn, Bernd Lucke and Geert Wilders in their respective governments. Whatever will happen after that will have long term consequences for all the EEC players, even though many ignore these dangers, the dangers will not go away any day soon because that is the consequence of a weak economy, the people choose and currently they are very afraid for their personal futures. So is Ukraine better off with Russia or with the EEC? I actually have no idea, but consider that Russian Commerce is currently buying up commerce all over Europe like for example the Dutch Jeweller ‘Siebel’. The chips are not just changing hands, they are now moving out of local owner’s hands into the hands of foreign corporations. I am not talking about the big boys, they have been in some international hands for a long time, we are now talking about smaller shops where all the moms and pops go. Consider that these places are no longer held by some oil sheik (like large portions of London), or certain American multi-national groups. Now Russian companies are moving in (through legal methods) and taking control. Who would have guessed this event 10 years ago? Perhaps it is time to ignore these high boasting Wall Street analysts, it is time for actual data, not have baked forecasts to take control of budget goals and government expenditures.

For those wondering about the hot air reference in the title, this is a reference to the windy city of Chicago. The windy city was not about the fresh Canadian air, but about their politicians (filled with hot air). The escalating issue as they are shown in the Ukraine is now in my view all about politicians and spokespeople. For the last 8 years politicians sat on their hands and spokespeople did whatever they could to divert the eyes of politicians, politicians for governments, spokespeople for economic interested parties. If you doubt my words then look at Darfur, Bagdad, Nigeria and Syria, all colossal failures. The politicians failed, grabbing for some ‘sanction solution’ that has never actually worked. Now their credibility of strength is gone. Big Business has been pushing for the lowest and cheapest option for so long; it has made the rich richer, the poor with less, whilst the rich avoid taxation by the billions and after half a decade they are still not dealt with, whilst many taxation coffers are less than empty. Consider the words of Mariana Chilton, an associate professor at Drexel University’s School of Public Health: “If they wanted to address poverty and hunger in this country, then they would pay a living wage, and they would make sure that their workers had good benefits and good family leave for when families have children, etcetera” (at http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/business-solution-war-on-poverty-lyndon-johnson)

These two groups talk to all but they do not really communicate. In the end, when it all falls over they only have themselves to blame and end up blaming everyone except themselves, whilst at the same time they will leave the taxpayer with the cost of it all.

In the end, Russia can do to Ukraine (read Crimea region) whatever it likes, because the west currently has no real actionable options left.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Bagdad, Bernd Lucke, big business, Chuck Hagel, Darfur, Drexel University, EEC, European Neighbourhood Policy Commissioner Stefan Fule, Geert Wilders, John Kerry, Latvia, Marie Le-Penn, Nigel Farage, Nigeria, NY Times, Peter Stano, politicians, President Assad, President Obama, Russia, Siebel, State John Kerry, Stefan Fule, Syria, Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych

February 23, 2014 · 15:54

Is it a scam?

We are all curious by nature. Some facts we want to see, some facts we want to read about, some make us search what is behind it all. This is our natural status to question things. It is our natural way marketing has relied on for decades and it has worked in many ways for all forms of events.

One of the most successful marketing ploys I have ever seen came from the early 80’s. Somehow over the term of a few months in bus booths and on outside walls we would see the spray painted term ‘Penguin Park’. No one had any idea and we all wanted to know what it was. We all started to ask questions and it went viral without needing the internet (which was still a DARPA concept at that time). The buzz was all over the place and within 5 months we found out. A Dutch DJ named Tjarda Leegsma had an idea, he made sure there was a buzz and when his nightclub ‘Penguin Park‘ opened, there was a massive queue to get into his place. That queue would remain for many months when it started. It was the coolest place to be. The music was the hottest, the drinks were the coldest and a Rotterdam night club legend was born. A clear marketing triumph!

Now, many rely on the internet. In this case I am looking at the smoke that is forming around a site called ‘GetMoreIncome’. Here we see a known approach. It is all about implying issues like ‘what you could’, what your lifestyle could be and so on. But do they deliver? That is the entire question, isn’t it?

Unlike an organisation called AMWAY, we get other questions. When you look for AMWAY information, the issue becomes clear soon enough. The internet is riddled with examples. AMWAY is basically a perfectly legal ‘pyramid’ scheme. The people behind it were sort of brilliant. The more people you know and attract, the bigger your discount bonus (read commission becomes). They are not into some quick expensive sales part. It is the one thing we all need: Household articles. The cleaning chemicals are stated to be good, the nutrition bars do not seem to be too bad, so a multibillion dollar industry is here to stay and all can get a few coins out of it. The verdict is out there, most (over 93%) will never get rich, but they end up having lower shopping bills. Is that a bad thing? I think not.

So what about this ‘GetMoreIncome’?

That is indeed the question. When searching Google and other sources, we see many blogs, and they all seem to be some marketing hit towards and in support of this ‘GetMoreIncome’ and NONE OF THEM give you any clear information. I found two that showed a little more, but there too it was all about carefully phrased mentions. This GetMoreIncome should be regarded (as others state) as an MLM approach (not unlike AMWAY). Yet there is a difference. When we see the quote on their site, which is also all over FOXTEL, we see a problem, the quote “I have been thrilled with the results, having made over $15,000 per month for the past 6 months”, sounds nice, but at what cost? Is that including the dozens of hours of phone costs? You see, the website gives NO information at al. It requires you to register and give your details.

This all becomes interesting when we take the quote by the ACCC “No matter how a business communicates with you—whether it’s through advertising, packaging, online, logos, endorsements or a sales pitch—you have the right to receive accurate and truthful messages about the products and services you buy.”

The little problem as I see it is that you have to sign up to get any type of information. If this is all online and through TV, I say that in my mind, their website has a distinct obligation to clearly inform you online. This becomes a worry especially as there is no clear information anywhere. No mention on who is behind it, who is involved, we get absolutely nothing, just quotes and innuendo.

I also like the implied ploy (read sarcasm). When we see the quote: “I was a former CEO. I left the corporate world behind and have been able to replace my executive income working from home.” Is this the stated person who was in the news as: “a judge in the Reykjavik District Court sentenced, the former CEO of Glitnir Bank, to nine months in prison in December 2012” (at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-12/iceland-prosecutor-investigates-convicts-bankers-for-financial-crimes) Can you tell, because I cannot. That is the issue with small impersonal quotes; it makes perfect sense that this person needs a work from home income. But is it the same person? How many are on that $12,000 a month income? No one seems to know and no one seems to be looking into it.

In this age of bad economy, when all are looking for a way to make a buck and to make ends meet. There needs to be a level of protection against exploitation. That part seems to have gone missing. If you doubt me (which is always fair enough), then check your own browser. When we seek AMWAY, we see SMH, The Australian. They all had their articles on AMWAY. Some agree with the approach, some do not. Their stance does not matter. AMWAY is not ‘hiding’ in any way (they even have a Wiki page online). When we look at ‘GetMoreIncome’ we see quite the opposite. The papers are not asking any questions, they do not seem to have looked into it in any way. There is no visibility. My question becomes Why not? When someone has the budget to advertise to this extent on FOXTEL we can grasp that this might involve substantial funds. Yet no one seems to be looking into it, get precise information and whatever you find on the web is either a hidden advertisement or a ‘hidden’ promo clip on YouTube.

When a website is all about “do not call us, we’ll mail you!” there is reason for concern, the fact that those who should look into matters like these, don’t seem to be doing so is a bigger worry still.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

Tagged as ACCC, AMWAY, Australian, Business Week, FoxTel, GetMoreIncome, Glitner Bank, Penguin Park, SMH, successful marketing, Tjarda Leegsma

February 19, 2014 · 20:45

The bad and the worse

I have had several views in many directions, but two issues are rising that require us to take a critical look at us. Some will agree, some will disagree and many will not know where they stand in these two issues. The first is again about labour, both work and politics.

Of course, it does not help when Bill shorten starts to ‘rant’ on the issues that hit many. The first issue is Alcoa. It is an Aluminum smelter. The first quote is “Aluminium manufacturer Alcoa has contradicted federal government claims that the carbon tax led to the decision to shut the company’s Point Henry smelter and two rolling mills in Geelong and western Sydney” (at http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcoa-contradicts-joe-hockey-on-reasons-for-smelter-shutdown-20140218-32yir.html)

In addition we see the quote from Bill Shorten where is said “It’s clear that a global oversupply of aluminium, dramatically falling aluminum prices and a high Australian dollar made the continuation of these operations impossible” he said.

Shall we take a small step back to the 12th of February 2013 where we see the following quote (at http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/2/12/resources-and-energy/alcoa-vic-pass-carbon-tax-liability-federal-govt)

“The plan addresses a long-standing issue whereby decades-old agreements between Alcoa and the state government included guarantees of cheap power that left Victoria holding the responsibility for the carbon tax due to an inability to pass on those costs to the aluminum giant.” as well as “Under the deals, the state will pay an increased power price and pass most of that through to Alcoa.”

So, taxation is up, power costs are up and prices are down. Mr Shorten needs to take a hard look at his own party and the shortages of his own Labor government where we see that these issues were known for over a year. The fact that Labor decides to park the issue until after the election means he now needs to remain quiet. Yes, it will be an issue, but for him to nag like a little girl is what happens when his predecessors decided to ignore the issue. The liberals warned about the dangers of the carbon tax, the people were hit massively hard by the carbon tax and now hell is to pay and in my view, the Labor party better foot that bill real quick. This is however not the first instance. In Feb 2012 a similar newscast was made by the Australian. The quote “ALCOA says a carbon tax will make life harder for the company as it reviews the future of its Victorian smelter and the jobs of up to 600 workers.” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/national-affairs/tony-abbott-seeks-to-blame-threat-to-alcoa-smelter-jobs-on-carbon-tax/story-fn99tjf2-1226265695323), So Labor was aware for almost 2 years in their reign that the Carbon tax would have a definite influence.

The last line of that article by the Business spectator states “If we got all that right, it is no skin off Alcoa’s nose, is it? But it does take a significant burden off the Victorian taxpayer.” Well, see the result! It was apparently more than just skin of the nose of Alcoa and as such it becomes a different kind of burden on the taxpayers.

The final quote from the Business Spectator article was the one the article started with “Aluminium giant Alcoa and the Victorian state government have designed a complicated set of deals intended to place the liability for rising power costs onto the federal government, according to The Australian Financial Review.” So an American Company is deciding that the rising risk of higher power costs should be carried by our government? Alcoa reported (at http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/news/releases/2014_01_09_4Q_Earnings.asp) on January 2014 the following:

Revenue of $23.0 billion whilst reporting a Net loss of $2.3 billion, or $2.14 per share

Let us not forget that this was a better result than 2012, so Labor KNEW that there were several issues here. When you ‘service’ an American corporation who loses well over 2 billion whilst reporting revenue at 23 billion, there are issues plain and simple. I can agree with some that there claim made by Joe Hockey is not completely accurate (in regards to the carbon tax being the reason), but there is no doubt that at a 2.3 billion dollar loss, the carbon tax might have been the proverbial straw that broke the American Smelter Camel’s back!

We should however not just blame Bill Shorten (even if some feel that this is a more comfortable choice). The Honourable Kim Carr (seen in newscasts bearing a slightly less waxed chin then Bill Shorten) has been in both the foreground and background in more than one occasion. So it is only fair we take his actions in account as well. If we consider my blog article ‘The last Australian car‘ from February 12th we see a few more angles that gives worries to the Labor side of it all, especially in light of the quote “writer Judith Sloan brings a case that Australia has subsidised almost $1900 per vehicle produced.” I mentioned. Is it a good deal when we see these costs and support numbers go out? If we take $2,000 subsidy per car and if we consider that Toyota made 100,000 cars last year, we see the costing of $200 million a year in subsidies, which is a lot more than what the workers would cost every year. So, no matter how good it looks, $200 million is way too large a bill to just handover to a car giant. Is there an alternative? Perhaps the Dutch alternative where VDL Nedcar, who was initially in the news in 2012 with the headline “Mitsubishi Motors to sell NedCar plant for 1 euro to VDL” was the beginning of a new plant, completely refitted for 24 hours a day automated manufacturing. They are now starting to build the new MINI Hatch as per this summer. Is there an opportunity for Australia? Yes!
With an upcoming customer base of 22 million (deserted by Ford, Holden and Toyota), VDL Nedcar might see Australia as the opportunity of a lifetime.

It is however not just the car industry. Sky News is just now showing another iteration of job losses in Victoria (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/19/victoria-promised-federal-funds-as-alcoa-shutdown-adds-to-job-losses), so as Sky News and the Guardian shows us, what I would see as the hollow words of Bill shorten were he states “Spend the money this year, then you can save hundreds of jobs, you can keep excellent world-class naval construction skills in this country.”

Yes, Labor is all about SPENDING money! Let us not forget that the treasurer has been presenting the massive bill that Labor left Australia. The National debt went from 58 billion in 2007 to 257 billion in 2013, all under Labor. So perhaps the irritating quote by Labor leader Bill Shorten on “Tony Abbott and photo opportunities” should change. He should ask how his own party had been spending money they never had in the first place. When we see the $200 million in slave labour bonus (oops, I meant subsidy) for Toyota we have to wonder how long until we are all at the mercy of whoever owns these debt markers (most likely the banks). Labor does not get to nag on the cost of living whilst overspending a little over $11,000 per Australian resident. So when we hear another whinge by Bill Shorten on the deficit, consider that his party had been spending it, making it all a lot harder for many Australians in the upcoming time-span 2014-2016.

The issue of the car makers as well as Alcoa were already known issues in the Labor era and shouting now, whilst not securing these markets (which was in all honesty not a realistic option) is just plain wrong.

In addition there is one strong factor, which has been a known weakness was not dealt with in the Labor era either. It is the energy shortage, which is at the heart of several factors (especially Alcoa). If we accept the ABC transcript (at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1796094.htm), then it is only fair that we point part of this blame at the Liberals as well. The issue was known since 2006 (even though Labor got to power in 2007). From several texts, I myself come to the conclusion that something had to be started in 2005, which was not done. Labor ignored it for 2 whole terms making the issue just a lot harder and now the Liberals MUST address this issue. If you are wondering how correct or how wrong I am than just take a look at your Australian energy bill. My bills have grown, whilst remaining a stable user, by over 100% in less than 6 years. This makes it a hike of over 16% a year. In addition, the carbon tax really pushed up the prices. Focusing on cheaper energy would have made a real difference for all parties concerned. In addition, this is not a local issue, it is not a national issue, but it is almost a global issue. The same issue can be seen in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (very clearly), as well as America. So, it is nice to keep making cars and Aluminum, but if it is not financially viable, the tax payer ends up footing the bill no matter which road we take. So, the dollar, our work conditions and other factors will always remain an issue, but if energy prices are not solved, the one part that will drain any options we might have had. Consider the Business Spectator quote “Point Henry alone represents almost 7 per cent of Victoria’s annual electricity consumption“, so one plant needs THAT much? How could this issue have been ignored for almost 3 administrations? I see that there is a manufacturing issue in Australia, but if the energy prices are not dealt with, we will see a national shift from bad to worse.

Perhaps this will be the moment of innovation; perhaps we should focus on other areas. It only takes one innovator to come with that golden idea that brings income (not costs) to our states. I just hope that politicians on both sides of the aisle will listen to that person.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABC, ALCOA, Bill shorten, Business Spectator, Joe Hockey, Kim Carr, Labor, Liberal, Point Henry, SMH, Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Guardian, The last Australian car, Tony Abbott, Toyota, VDL Nedcar

February 14, 2014 · 18:11

A senseless merger?

OK, as stated in earlier blogs, I am not an economist; I do not have any degree in economy! Yet, the information that passed my eyes less than 2 hours before has me slightly baffled. I feel happy that this all is happening in the US and not anywhere in the Commonwealth, yet, the issues as presented makes me wonder when this will hit the Commonwealth borders.

The issue is that Comcast has decided to buy Time Warner Cable. (at http://news.sky.com/story/1210921/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-cable-for-45bn) This is not a huge thing, we are in a civilisation where the hyena and vulture rules, hence mergers happen a dime a dozen and many of them before most have had a chance to enjoy their first coffee. Comcast has 21 million viewers and they are acquiring Time Warner with 11 million viewers. This all seems to make sense. Now for the kicker! This deal will cost Comcast $45 billion dollars. Are we all awake now?

So, 45,000 million divided by 11 gives us a little more than $4000 per viewer. When you consider that Cable TV is set at an average of $30 a month, it could take 133 months just to break even (providing this is all borrowed at 0%, which it is never). So there might be a price hike for all 32 million users of that cable solution.

This is not a chance to become the large bully, as they were described by a consumer group, but you must admit that this is about a lot more than just ‘adding’ new customers. Oh and by the way, this is happening less than three years after Comcast bought NBC for a little less than $14 billion. (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-18/comcast-nbc-universal-deal-said-to-be-near-u-s-fcc-approval.html)

The Washington Post has an interesting mention, which was not found at Sky News “It’s worth remembering that Comcast limits how much data its customers are able to stream from the Internet, while Time Warner offers unlimited Internet plans.” (at http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/comcast-time-warner-to-merge-what-happens-to-my-service/2014/02/13/b285f81e-94b4-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html), so there are a few more kinks that the customer base might face as the merger goes through.

This all goes far beyond just Cable TV. It involves 30,000 community Wi-Fi spots (amongst several other elements); this entire picture becomes a lot more ‘interesting’ if we take the merger of Comcast and NBC in 2011. This is not just about TV; it is about digital media on an unparalleled level. The merger stipulates the 33 million cable users, yet, does that give a real view of the picture? In the first regard the 45 billion seems ludicrous, yet when we consider community Wi-Fi, broadband (or better stated digital media and networking), it becomes an entirely different picture, especially when we consider the following information from Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/02/comcast-ondemand-idUSL2N0JC1S120131202). Now we get an entirely different picture. If we consider this quote “The new technology is meant to give TV networks a way to earn ad dollars from earlier episodes. Currently, most advertisers only pay for ads watched live or within three days after a show airs. That could change if Comcast’s technology, which it developed in partnership with Nielsen, is widely adopted.” and add the following case study (at http://www.sierratechno.com/sites/default/files/Turning%20Data%20into%20Customer%20Insights%20for%20Comcast%20Cable_0.pdf) we now get another view. This is about data, plain and simple, when we consider the value of collected big data in long term planning, having a data warehouse filled with the acts of 33 million people, the 45 billion dollar deal is a steal at twice the price.

It is in my humble opinion really funny to see all these people nag, complain and cry on what the NSA is alleged to be doing, whilst at the same time, their cable provider seems to be tagging them with a ‘value’ price tag for marketing, sales and identification. So what is the cable value of a customer at Hunts point, the Bronx (ZIP: 10474)?

So it seems that Comcast is getting their value on several fields, yet I am still in the dark why Americans are so against the NSA trying to find the people endangering their citizens, whilst giving big business more than twice the powers that many bargained for. It seems that this is not a senseless merger at all, yet do both consumer groups realise the powers their cable provider (slash phone, slash internet provider) ends up with?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media

Tagged as bloomberg, Comcast, NBC, Nielsen, NSA, reuters, Sierra Techno, Sky News, Time Warner, Time Warner Cable, Washington Post

February 12, 2014 · 19:13

The last Australian car

Australian news has been all over the place. The one thing that is so expected is now on the fritz. Car makers are moving away from Australia. The events have not been out of the air, but what has been a revelation, is the amount of ‘subsidies’ the government had thrown into that direction to begin with. What can we (me, myself and my sources) tell you? First, the four big car makers in Australia were Ford, Holden, Mitsubishi and Toyota.

1. Ford
Last year, Ford announced plans to shut its two Australian plants in October 2016, blaming strong currency as well as high production costs that are hitting the manufacturer. These are all decent reasons, but I personally do not think that this was the whole picture. In addition Ford is cutting 300 jobs this June, which has some worried that Ford will leave before the 2016 announced point of departure.

2. Holden
Holden will be leaving Australia in 2017. Holden’s 2017 exit from its automotive assembly operations in Elizabeth put 13,000 jobs at risk in South Australia. (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/21/holden-exit-2017-sa-needs-330m).

3. Mitsubishi
Mitsubishi shuttered its assembly plant in 2008.

4. Toyota
The world’s largest car maker announced it would stop building cars in Australia by the end of 2017 and would operate in this country only as a sales and distribution company. One additional factor needs to be told, which will have bearing down the road. Namely “Toyota is Australia’s biggest vehicle exporter with around 70,000 of the 100,000-plus cars it builds here being sold in foreign markets” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/toyota-to-make-major-announcement/story-fn3dxiwe-1226822810074).

So, by 2017 all carmakers will have bailed out of Australia. Why is this all a big deal?
Many will go directly for the job losses. ABC stated “The Australian Council of Trade Unions has warned the decision could cost as many as 50,000 jobs and wipe $21 billion from the economy as the impact rolls through the associated components sector” (at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/toyota-to-pull-out-of-australia-sources/5250114).

Is that all the truth? No! Listening to Labour leader Bill shorten is to hear a lot of misinformation and tweaked wordings. Labour had messed up a lot of issues. In my personal view, I personally think that Bill Shorten is not telling the whole truth because his lips are moving! Let’s not forget that the Liberals are not blameless either, the entire situation has covered both sides of the political aisle. Part of the disgrace can be read in the Business insider (at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-car-industry-out-of-gas-after-billions-in-subsidies-that-were-always-going-to-lead-to-a-dead-end-2013-12) the quote “The car industry is estimated to have received a total of $12 billion in direct subsidies and protections over the past 20 years, including $1.8 billion to Holden in the 11 years to 2012.” is at the heart of this. So basically, 4 car makers have enjoyed an annual $600 million in subsidies a year. This is so off the wall it is not even funny! So our taxation goes to an industry who advertises a dozen times a day that they are so great? How can we take either the car industry, or the government in this regard serious? Let us not forget that Labour was part of this all as well. This also links back to the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). An interesting link we find is a Japanese site that had the following to say (at http://www.jama-english.jp/publications/tpp_pr_mar2013.pdf) “Japan’s auto market is completely open to other countries’ products. No restrictive customs or other regulations apply to imported vehicles.”

What about the exported vehicle side of all this? If we see it in that light, we see that the TPP is opening up borders as it should, so, that from now on Japan (Toyota and Mitsubishi) as well as USA (Ford and Holden) have a dire reason to return to their home flock. The TPP is giving options to get these brands all home build. Whatever assurances we see now on support and spare parts will soon be removed too (like in the month as they leave). Yes, there will be a few ‘exclusive’ distributors, but as the TPP comes to full power, the entire online experience will not just hold books, movies and video games. they will likely include car parts soon enough. If you doubt this all (which would be fair), then consider the following article (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/lies-damn-lies-and-car-subsidy-statistics/story-fnbkvnk7-1226824091831#), where writer Judith Sloan brings a case that Australia has subsidised almost $1900 per vehicle produced. If we take that and we add the initial quote I mentioned “Toyota is Australia’s biggest vehicle exporter with around 70,000 of the 100,000-plus cars it builds here being sold in foreign markets” leaves me with the question whether we have been sponsoring that part too.

Is this just the story? No! I think that there is more at play. Even though several sources are not making any mention of it, Ford and General Motors (Holden) are American companies and i think it is not just about removing plants, I personally think that members of the US government have had talks with all the big boys of industry. The American situation cannot continue. If America is to survive (which is slowly becoming less and less likely), they need taxable incomes. To get this done they will have to get the industry back. This will soon become an era of in-sourcing. This is not a new or a novel thought. It had been on the mind of many in 2012 and several articles had been written in 2013 that in-sourcing would grow big in USA. One of the people outspoken in that area had been Charles Fishman. Even though no one took him that seriously, the man appeared to have been right on the money. I personally think that it was the dumb spending sprees by both Japanese and American governments that forced the in-sourcing hand. This is also part of the pressure we saw in December as President Barack Obama spoke out for a quick closure of the TPP (it still think that the pharmaceutical patents are the largest part, but that I will cover at a later date).

Is it all a bad idea? No!

It is for us, but can you blame these two nations for thinking of themselves? It will however be important for us to find another solution. I already mentioned this on December 11th when I wrote about ‘The Holden circus’. If Toyota is leaving Australia too, then my thoughts on this are not just validated to some extent, they become a lot more important to follow up on. A nation of 23 million needs its own car industry. I do believe that it should not be subsidised, the designers just need to become really clever and we the people of Australia will need to support our own industry. If the Japanese and the Americans are all about nationalism (as we have seen on many occasion), then why not the Australians? If Japan and America walk away from a 23 million customer base, why should we keep any level of loyalty towards them?

We must all realise that we need to adjust our focus, we must change our way of working and thinking. We need to walk away from subsidies and sponsoring. We must move to an age where we design in a more clever way, we must bring to market in a brighter way and we must adhere to a different customer collective. The 4 brand approach to 12 models a year is just not sustainable. If these makers claim so, ten let them refund the subsidies!

When the last car is built in Australia, the eager beaver that launches their brand in Australia will start with the audience of a lifetime!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABC, Australia, Barack Obama, Bill shorten, Charles Fishman, Ford, Holden, Jama, Judith Sloan, Labour, Liberals, Mistsubishi, the Australian, The Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Guardian, The Holden circus, Toyota, TPP

January 22, 2014 · 22:56

Cooking the books?

Sky News is bringing us another update on how good the economy seems to be. The reporters are so happy and so full of joy to voice the information on strong the economy is growing. It is a worrying turn of events. So, after the IMF had voiced on how George Osborne is playing with fire, now his vision will be bringing the UK a 2.4% improvement sending the UK back on par with the pre-crash numbers (at http://news.sky.com/story/1197837/imf-upgrades-uk-growth-forecast-above-rivals). The one part I do accept is that it is growing faster than its rivals, although, I do wonder how fast the German Economy would grow. Now personally I do believe that the status of the UK has always been correct (the fact that their economy was growing). My non-economic view had been in the area of 1%-1.5%, which would have been a pretty good result considering the mess most European nations were in.

In ‘A noun of non-profit‘ on May 15th 2013 I wrote “I personally join the group “Oh ye of little faith” on that one and if they are able to get the economy up to 0.2% positive in 2014 than they would have achieved quite the small miracle.” This was my view of the Dutch economy at that time. So far I am still to be proven wrong (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/05/15/a-noun-of-non-profit/).

The second quote in this regard is “It is the latest boost to the fortunes of the Chancellor, coming barely 24 hours after the Ernst & Young ITEM Club also increased its projection for UK economic growth this year. Although the Fund’s forecast for growth this year will be shy of the 2.7% predicted by the ITEM Club, the scale of the upgrade underlines how quickly sentiment about Britain’s economy has turned in recent months.”

I believe that we are being played! Let me be clear, the UK economy is getting back, it is stronger than most others and I think that this is a good thing. It is that 2.7% that I have a problem with. The number is way too high. I am not stating that the number is impossible, but it is extremely unlikely. (Feel free not to believe this non-economist blogger on this).

Why is this the view I have?

As I quoted in my blog ‘Cretan Independance‘ (on January 10th) “a senior policymaker in Brussels said: ‘The worst of the crisis is over. So the pressure to take tough measures is off. We’ve had enough of discipline, enough of sanctions, we’re sufficiently unpopular already. The worst is over, so let’s stop now.’”

This view seems to hold up, but when we consider the total of debts, whilst we consider the other debt issues I mentioned, we should consider that we are not out of the woods. The UK numbers seem too inflated to me. Even though there is general optimism (at http://news.sky.com/story/1198691/osborne-hails-new-imf-growth-forecast-for-uk), there is also too relaxed a view on the damage we are all still facing. The quote “The IMF forecasts that the world economy will grow by 3.7% in 2014, up from 3.6% in its last forecast.” is one of the most interesting ones.

There are two sides. The one side might mean that the economy is going up, which could be good. Yet, the negative side is the side of government overspending all over the place. Add to that the fact that big business still has way too many loopholes to fly through (avoiding the taxation the governments are already spending), which means that no matter how good the economy, government overspending means that you and me will end up with the combined tax invoice. As balance is lost in these matters, the economy looking up, does not mean that life will get any better for you and me for 16-24 months and even though BusinessWeek had ‘good’ numbers to mention in their article (at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-01-22/u-dot-k-dot-unemployment-drops-to-7-dot-1-percent-in-lurch-toward-boe-threshold). If we consider this quote “Unemployment measured by International Labour Organization methods declined to 7.1 percent in the three months through November from 7.4 percent in the quarter through October, the Office for National Statistics said in London today.” we could consider this as good news, yet, until the February numbers are known, any party-hat shown is for now one too many.

Do not get me wrong, I would love to be wrong in this instance. Yet, I have seen several outlets blasting away the good news left right and centre, and 2-3 months after that some unfortunate bad news is thrown our way. Some message like ‘we had expected slightly better news, yet it seems that the numbers for the immediate future will stagnate‘. At that point, you better believe that you are watching a bad news management routine. The UK is on the right track and that is really good, but to weaken resolve anywhere in 2014 is in my view a really bad idea. I prefer to see the UK coming out on top at the end of 2014. George Osborne has shown that his vision was right; I reckon that the UK will be a lot stronger at the end of 2014. There is additional supporting news in my favour in regards to the picture we are getting painted (at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-09/investors-are-getting-hungry-for-pigs-debt-again).

It seems that the 4 biggest indebted nations are at it again. The quote “Europe’s having a bond rally and the PIGS are playing host. Portugal, Ireland, Spain—and even Greece, where Europe’s debt crisis began—are heading back to the bond markets and enjoying their lowest borrowing costs in years, as investors appear reassured that the region’s sickest economies are on the mend.” is a little colourful, but it seems to fit with the picture we are offered. First we see messages of the ‘sudden’ light at the end of the tunnel as well as the mention of easing from a senior policymaker in Brussels. I think it is all about the next wave. If these bonds fall through, who will bail others out? This is in my view the fear we should have and as such it is also the fear UKIP is playing on, which is why May 2014 could change the game for all concerned, because the Eurozone will see the shape of an entirely new nightmare, one that will haunt us all for a long time to come.

The Bloomberg article does bear a nice quote “The reduction in the risk perception, and this sort of market euphoria, is leading to a rerating of sectors and countries most penalized during the sovereign debt crisis.” This reads in two directions. The first is that it implies that perhaps the most penalized nations should not have been so and the reduction of risk perception. That is in my view the real fear. It is not just about the reduction that is implied, but the extra shifting of debts. But when payment is due, which will happen and payment needs to come from new debts, what will be left?

This is the one side no one wanted to deal with. Just move on! It just doesn’t work this way, because in the end the taxpayer gets that bill and as such we must make sure that the people realise that these games on the gambling green will cost us all. Politicians and corporations will not have to pay a dime of the debt they all happily bestow onto us, what will happen then?

The entire story becomes even more fun when we consider todays mention in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/21/imf-world-economic-recovery-outlook-weo). The second quote is “Blanchard confirmed the IMF had raised its UK growth forecast to 2.4% for this year, from a previous forecast of 1.9%. It was Blanchard, who last year warned Osborne has was playing with fire with his austerity drive, but the forecast for the UK is well ahead of Europe’s largest economy, Germany, where growth is forecast at 1.6%. France’s economy would grow by a much weaker 0.9% given ‘policy uncertainty is weighing on growth’, Blanchard said.” I stepped over the first quote on purpose. The events are not as they seem to me. The first quote was interesting “The global economic recovery will pick up pace this year but remains ‘weak and uneven’, the International Monetary Fund’s top economist has said.”

This is at the centre of my reasoning. The economy is weak, it is uneven and it will remain that way as long as nations keep their credit cards maxed out. That is at the centre of the issue. Those maxed out credit cards are great for the banks and great for the IMF, but you and me are only hurt by it as our utilities, our monthly costs will gain a rising momentum whilst our income rise remains nearly frozen.

Good for all except for us, the simple taxpayer! This is why I am so against the game that is getting played.

3 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as bloomberg, George Osborne, Guardian, IMF, Sky News, UK

January 18, 2014 · 19:17

Diary for a wimpy President

It’s Saturday and the news is hitting the Guardian. The news of NSA reforms to end government storage of call data. For those who are stupid enough to think that this is a good thing, I reckon they should think again. The article asks a few questions. Questions I had voiced for some time and the people behind the screens have been very careful to play a game where they are not just in the place to set conditions, they will determine what will be stored, where it will be stored and how it will be sold. It was the one fear that people needed to have. If you are over 40, it does not matter where on the planet you live. Ask yourself the one question. ‘What if the insurer knew your actual health status?’ How scared are you now? Be afraid! This was on the table for a long time.
Quite literally, the structural discontinue of choice.

So, how do I get from one piece of information to the other one?

Consider the article as it is today (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/obama-nsa-reforms-end-storage-americans-call-data)

The first point is “The government will no longer store the phone call information of millions of Americans. But he did not say who should maintain the information, instead giving the intelligence community 60 days to come up with options.”

The next one is “The US government had to be held to a ‘higher standard’ than private corporations that store user data or foreign governments that undertake their own surveillance.” This implies that the higher standard is a hindrance. This is the part that had to be shed. So, like the private contractors in the past as the intelligence industry ended up with invoices in access of 175%, whilst employing the services of the same people (who all went into business for themselves). We now face a similar change. So, was Edward Snowden a traitor? If the view as I see it is correct, then this implies that he did exactly what was required of him. The question is, was this what the NSA had in mind from the very beginning?

This is where the third quote comes into play “‘What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale, not only because I felt that they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens,’ Obama said.”

Yes, he did not stop them wholesale, they are about to become corporate controlled and accessible for all who have the access ticket and the money to pay for the invoice.

There is another part to this. Did anyone consider how nervous certain people in Wall Street were; if their mobile information was known? What if certain links were proven? The accountability of certain people would mean that they could actually end up in jail. Yes, the Wimpy kid in the Oval Office is making certain that certain connections will never end up there (always blame the man at the very top).

Again another notch in the thought patterns and evidence that I call ‘the plan’ that was conceived some time ago. So, where is the evidence? If there is no sustainable thought, then this is just conjecture and conspiracy theory. There is already plenty of that on the internet. So, let me take you back and go over the points.

It started last year when I first wrote ‘The Hunchback of the NSA’ on June 11th. It shows the career of Edward Snowden as it has been told by several media outlets. The first part of the evidence was clear for all to see. He claims to be disillusioned with the CIA and joins the NSA. There he gets into the data program at some stage (and no one thought it was good idea to keep their eyes on him).

On the 23rd of June I write ‘Who are the watchers?’ the one linked element here is the quote “Snowden told the Guardian, ‘They [GCHQ] are worse than the US’“. This is part of the issue. You see, whatever the USA decides, once the issues are truly revealed the cyber units of the allies will be the dangers. The ‘evidence’ seems to be all about how worse others are. The parade that the Guardian starts pays off and soon thereafter Sir Iain Robert Lobban as well as his peers at five and six end up in a public interview seat. Considering the article he wrote ‘Countering the cyber threat to business‘ (at http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Documents/directors_IoD_article.pdf), might be seen as an actual indicator that he has been ahead of the pack by miles for some time, it could just be seen by itself as a good manifesto to start keeping yourself safe.

There is one quote at the centre of all this “GCHQ is aware of theft of IP on a massive scale. The volume of attacks on industry continues to be disturbing.” I will get back to this later on, what is important are the three points the director sets out and more important, how they could also be seen.

• Have you identified your organisation’s key information assets and the impact it would have on your organisation if they were compromised or your online services were disrupted?
[Alternative: what data is bankable?]

• Have you clearly identified the key threats to your organisation’s information assets and set an appetite for the associated risks?
[Alternative: what data is accessible?]

• Are you confident that your organisation’s most important information is being properly managed and is safe from cyber threats?
[Alternative: the value management of data you think you own]

The alternative are not just views I opt for, consider that the data collection field goes into open commercial hands as it could be presented by March 31st, what are your options to purchase certain buckets of data (which will be shown down later on in this article)?

On the 1st of July I wrote ‘Classes of classification’
The two issues here are “So if we consider the digital version, and consider that most intelligence organisations use Security Enhanced Unix servers, then just accessing these documents are pretty much a nono. EVEN if he had access, there would be a log, and as such there is also a mention if that document was copied in any way. It is not impossible to get a hold of this, but with each document, his chance of getting caught grows quicker and quicker. He did not get caught.”
And
“It does not matter whether he is the IT guy. The NSA has dozens upon dozens of them, and as such, the fact that he was able to syphon off such a wide area of information (and get it out of the building) is more than just questionable.”

It comes back to getting data out of the NSA. The fact that this was done considering their security, can we even allow data in commercial hands, a place where it is all about saving cost? It is opening a field where data is no longer safe in any shape or form, more important, the multi-billion dollar of extra costs as they would be presented down the line will be far beyond out imagination.

Most of the issues as I set them out were also discussed on October 29th in ‘The Wrong questions’. There my train of thought was “What if Snowden is not the person he claims to be. I still think he is a joke at best, a patsy at worst. What if the leak is NOT a person?”

The issues at play, I got to this point before, but until now I did not consider that this all might have been about commercialisation of a multi-billion dollar industry. The reason is that it could cost America well over 20% more to get someone else to do it, so selling data would be an implied consequence to keep the cost down for the US treasury.

Now we get to the last part of the equation from my article on November 22nd called ‘Ignoring corporate dangers’

There I reported “2009 National Intelligence A Consumer’s Guide”, where at page 52 it states “The Act specifies that OIA shall be responsible for the receipt, analysis, collation, and dissemination of foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence information related to the operation and responsibilities of the Department of the Treasury.”

The article shows more and it shows the direct link between the treasury and the need for a commercial future through data. I mentioned earlier about buying a bucket of data? Well, here you have it. The issue as it is shown with links in the articles to official government documents. They all have one thing in common, when it all changes into non-government hands, their mandates would not change. However, those who will be able to get access to the data, that list will change by a lot. They only need to pay the invoice, which might end up being like buying data files from a chamber of commerce or a statistical data bureau; it will however have a lot more data.

Here we get to the question I promised to answer earlier. The issue of IP theft on a massive scale! I am not stating that someone’s server is getting emptied from the outside, but consider knowing who is where and how their situation is. There is an interesting read at http://www.mcgrathnicol.com/news/Documents/011211_Inhouse Counsel_Unearthing the Electronic Evidence.pdf. It does not just show how relative easy it often is to get IP valued information, the data collection once commercialised could give competitors information on the players are at the centre of new intellectual property.

So, now we get to that question I asked in the beginning: ‘What if the insurer knew your actual health status?’ that is no longer a question. The information could be buried in the mega amounts of data that has been collected in so many ways. When the data is no longer in government hands, they could become available. So, when your premium goes up by +20%, be sure to thank those people claiming that the government could not be trusted; they opened the door ending many of our freedoms of choice.

3 Comments

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as 2009 National Intelligence A Consumer’s Guide, Edward Snowden, GCHQ, Intelligence, NSA, Sir Iain Robert Lobban

Category Archives: Finance

Recent Posts

Archives