Yes, that has been the case since before WW1. In gambling the house wins and I got an interesting surprised served up by the BBC. It was the article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-65610851) where we see ‘Cryptocurrency: Treat investing as gambling, MPs say’ OK, that was a little unexpected, but when you think of it not the weirdest step to make. We see this with “The risks posed by crypto were “typical of those that exist in traditional financial services and it’s financial services regulation – rather than gambling regulation – that has the track record in mitigating them”, a Treasury official told BBC News.” I can get behind that. Lets not forget that crypto has no gold backing like currency, so not only is it a gamble, but in many cases it is a long shot at best. There is however a consideration we need to have and it is seen with “Gambling helpline charity GamCare told the BBC that, in the past two years, it had heard from more than 300 people who said they were struggling with investing in cryptocurrency and other forms of online financial markets.” It is seen with ‘struggling with investing’. I personally wonder that if you are struggling with an investment, then why invest in it to begin with, but that might be me.
The plot thickens when you see “He said he had lost about £150,000 investing in crypto, including money he had borrowed, and that checking his phone to see how the market had moved had become an obsession. “There was no break at all, I was just I was on my phone constantly watching it and just couldn’t sleep,” he recalled.” So one person borrows to invest? I would not do that to buy stock in reliable options like Tesla or IBM, as such I will never ever do it in something fleeting as digital dollars. That is an orgasm more fleeting than trying to get one from a hooker with aids. I do not now, not ever trust digital currency. I accept that there are moments that this is the one payment option, but it will only exists until I get to the nearest bank to convert it to something more reliable. As such there is a rather nasty breach here. I would never invest in it and I do get that some do. And to be honest if I had the money in 2010 I might have bought 5-10 Bitcoins and that would have set me right, but I do not trust any digital currency and I still see all these ads come past with the statement ‘How rich would you be now if you had bought even one bitcoin in 2010?’ Yet that ship sailed and when you consider the grifters and BS artists trying to get you on digital trades, the idea to treat it as gambling makes a lot of sense to me and with gambling comes a lot more oversight.
In the end, I have no idea where this will go, but the idea that all these new ‘students of digital currency’, the idea that they are soon to be privy to gambling oversight does seem appealing to me. And I do get it, it might be me, I might be too old for this new currency.
Yup, that happens apparently. Or so we can believe. You see, the story I saw at the BBC hours ago seemingly pried loose a few issues. The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65556437) gives us ‘UK men offered £10K to pose as dads in visa scam, BBC investigation finds’ Here we re given “Scammers are using Facebook to tout for business and claim to have helped thousands of women in this way. Facebook says such content is banned by its rules.” Which got me two feathers rustled. Lets be clear this could be happening and it likely is. So where does the BBC get the word ‘thousands’? The article gives us “Thai, who didn’t advertise on Facebook, said he would concoct a convincing backstory in order to successfully dupe the authorities.” We are also given “Another agent, calling herself Thi Kim, claimed she had helped thousands of pregnant migrant women. She said she could provide a British man and it would cost “ten thousand for the dad”, with her fee being £300.” You see, this is an income track with a short lifespan, and she taking £300 whilst paying the man £10,000 rings untrue. £2,300 and £8,000 would sound more believable. The entire setting is one that comes across particularly nasty. So when we get to “However, last year 4,860 family visas were granted to “other dependents” – a category which includes those applying to stay in the UK as parents of British children. Deliberately giving false details on a birth certificate is a criminal offence.” It is at this point I wonder what the game of Patrick Clahane, Divya Talwar & Khue B Luu is about. Is it about what we shallowly read, or is one of their friends anti-immigration? You tell me, because this story could go either way. How were the thousands ‘found’ and the fact that scammers are using Facebook is nothing new, but in this case how many are on Facebook? Then we combine the ‘thousands’ again but now we look at where these women come from. Thousands and there is no top-line listing? The names are Thai and asian sounding, but how many are from South America or Russia? And the last quote was “The BBC could not estimate the scale of the fraud, as the Home Office was unable to provide data on the number of cases it had investigated.” Well, the numbers we do get gives us over 41% (thousands divided by 4860) and that is merely the top, there is too much inaccuracies. So are the BBC again biting at the steak of emotional baggage? I wonder what is actually true here and it is not the first time that the BBC is reporting in a questionable way.
So what will be the next stage, vacations to dubious locations are offered free of charge so that you can impregnate (read: have sex) with a dozen women, all for free? If the article has any truth in it then it would be the part where we see “how desperate these women are”, mainly because for a lot of non-europeans the UK still represents a slice of golden future. That was never in question. The question becomes the BBC and what they consider making news. As I see it “has not responded to the BBC’s request for comment” is a mere approach to give validity to something that is not and I have a few questions on the article that lacks a whole range of validity. So how about Tim Davie? Will you improve the story quality and the numbers on this or are you destined to be the next Uber driver? They are taking resume’s at present.
Enjoy your non impregnating (or non impregnated) day today.
That happens, things are discarded, things get thrown away. Yet how do we react when it is a child? That was the thought that came over me when I saw the news on CBC (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-rosedale-memorial-girl-dumpster-1.6835095) giving us ‘Rosedale community members hold memorial service for little girl found dead in Toronto dumpster’ Now some will gasp in horror, some will react overly emotionally, yet is that fair? I am seemingly unwavering in my lack of emotions. I have no idea who the child is and the people over there in Canada are reacting, some more emotional then others. Yet from a basic point of view there is the stage of why should we care? Don’t get me wrong, if you care fine, nothing against it. I have no children, never had them so the first emotional block is not there. Then there is the realisation of all the paperwork that hits a person when a relative, sibling or child dies. At times I wonder why people care more about the ‘after’ care than the actual care. The fact that at present no one has a clue who this child was proves my point. CBC gives us “Investigators don’t believe the girl was ever reported missing to police in Canada.” This is not on the investigators, but consider that this child has been gone for well over a year and no one noticed any missing child in their direct vicinity. This is an issue. Was the child illegally there? That is a possibility. I do think that if she was not illegally there, then there is an optional security issue. The child’s existence could be used to get a fake person into Canada. Then we get Michelle Miller-Guillot, a member of the Rosedale Presbyterian Church stating “Every child deserves a name, every child deserves to leave this earth with dignity, with some honour” this is a fair believe to have and it is fine to have it, but at times I wonder if that is true in Christianity, why do we see the mention of Canadian Indian residential school gravesites nearly everywhere? What dignity and honour was bestowed on them? We see quotes like “between 3,200 and 6,000 students died while attending the Canadian Indian residential school system. The exact number remains unknown due to incomplete records.” So no records? The Anishinabe of Wauzhushk Onigum Nation, comes from one of several searches underway at former Indigenous schools across Canada and in that setting (source: NY Times) gives us that this has happened for a century, so where is the honour and dignity there?
So was this all about a child in a dumpster, or is it about something more? But thee is one thing that bothers me, the original inhabitants of the America’s (US and Canada) have throughout history discarded their native inhabitants in many ways, as did the UK convicts (Australians) to the aboriginals. History (and christians) were not kind on original inhabitants of land and one child in a dumpster will not bring that out, but it needs to come out. Over 30 Native American tribes are now extinct. Just out of curiosity, how many people got the history lesson in Primary or High School regarding the California genocide? I reckon that this number is pretty low, I can tell you that internationally it never showed up in our curriculums as far as I am aware of. I only learned about the aboriginal slaughter through a movie called ‘Quigley Down Under’ (1990) a gem with Tom Selleck and the late Alan Rickman. What we did in the past matters and it is becoming more and more important to realise that when we look at places like the middle east. We are hard pressed to get some flaky Human rights report like “Access Now and Global Partners Digital are proud to launch a new report, Evading accountability through internet shutdowns: Trends in Africa and the Middle East”, yet the reality is that Christians were great at that for centuries going all the way back to Tomás de Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of the Tribunal of the Holy Office (1483-1498) as such we have plenty of dirty laundry in our baskets, not to mention of the well over a thousand of clergy that had a go at the minors in their churches. So why are we up in arms about this child? Is it because it happens under the eyes of the law and administrations? It did not do the thousands of First Nationals attending the Canadian Indian residential school system any good, did it?
Just some food for thought as you leave Monday behind, ready to entertain Tuesday your attention.
Yes, the banking issues remain and they are seemingly getting worse. This is seen in the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65467019) where we are given ‘Credit Suisse: Asia investors sue Switzerland over bank collapse’, which reads funny, but that is the effect of lawsuits. Yet that article and the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65370751) named ‘£55bn withdrawn from Credit Suisse before rescue’ gave me reason to pause. This was not some setting of chance. Can you grasp how much £55,000,000,000 is? That is not some account, some people. That is the works of a few titans and someone gave THEM the heads up. So when we are given “The Swiss banking giant said 61.2bn Swiss francs left the bank in the first three months of the year” there I an issue, this is not merely a bank run. Then this many multimillionaires are running for the hills, someone set the watchtower on fire and stated, run for your life. Yes, it is highly speculative, but 55 billion pounds? That is serious cash in any economy. So when we consider the first article and we see “Already a Credit Suisse client for several years, he bought around $500,000 worth of bonds in January despite the bank having been hit by a series of scandals and compliance problems over the past few years” as well as “The type of bonds he bought from Credit Suisse are known as AT1 bonds, or contingent convertibles. They normally carry high yields for investors but are considered among the riskiest bonds that banks issue”, so in January this person decided to take a high risk setting, and in that time, or at least over the next 6 weeks when a staggering amount of billions pulled out, that person sat still? I know there is a sucker born every minute, but this comes across as the emperor of all suckers. Then we get the mother of all issues “Central to their claim is who was given priority when the bank failed. The terms of the bonds, seen by the BBC, show that bondholders are, if possible, supposed to be compensated first, after which come shareholders. But in practice, shareholders were allowed to exchange their Credit Suisse shares for UBS shares, albeit at a vastly reduced value.” There we see two parts. The first is ‘if possible’ which is a dangerous subjective term, the second is the stage of when they were alerted? How reachable were they?
Then the second article gives on tiny sliver. It is “Credit Suisse had been loss-making and had faced a string of problems in recent years, including money laundering charges.” As such, at what moment in delusional time is buying bonds in a loss making company a good idea? That is beside all the legal issues (including money laundering). In which situation (when it is not a government) are you investing in bonds in something that is losing money? Those in March (if they had done their homework) would have seen dozens of billions of pounds leaving that ‘sinking’ vessel. Only those with a peculiar sense of delusion are setting their up their portfolio in such a place. And when we see the end of the article giving us “The deal, when it was announced, valued Credit Suisse at $3.15bn (£2.6bn), whereas on the Friday before the settlement was reached it had been valued at about $8bn.” A place that is a mere 32% of its value in a week and 55 billion went the way of water whilst the bank went the way of the dodo. When a bank is a mere 8 billion and 55 billion left its shores? Even if half leaves the shores, I would be running like Forest Gump and no chocolates would be required. So I ask you are these investors that banked on governments saving their coin (and hide)? Is that what governments do now, all whilst they fail to hold banks to account?
That is the question I had before and again now when I read the AL Monitor article (at https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/04/saudi-arabia-seizes-127-million-captagon-pills-pomegranate-bust). There we see ‘Saudi Arabia seizes 12.7 million Captagon pills in pomegranate bust’. Now any nation will have drug problems, it is almost a fact of life. Some will give in and try it. But consider that the population of Saudi Arabia is almost 36 million. As such this shipment represents the ability to get a third of the nation high. And it leaves me with questions. Did these people want to get caught? Consider the simple setting. When you are dopey the dealer, you might be able to sell 100-200 pills at best. Perhaps in some areas of Aramco, near the monotone drilling (a pure speculation from me) perhaps 400 pills. To get that much pills implies a distribution system with 31,750 dealers. I know too little about Saudi Arabia to make that call, but if we adhere to statistics then the idea that Saudi Arabia has more than 500 dealers is almost preposterous and when consider the numbers something does not add up. So are these drug smugglers looking to get arrested? I reckon that it might be decently easy to hide 1000 pills in a pomegranate shipment, perhaps even 2000-3000, but twelve million? So I had questions and this is not the first time I see an article pass by like that, I had questions then too, but to be honest, this is a niche market I absolutely do not care about. So we see that two Egyptians, one Syrian and one Yemeni national were arrested. Four people from different nations (more questions) and as such they ‘thought’ to strike it rich? As such we get more “The highly addictive substance travels through Jordan to reach Gulf states, where it has been a drug of choice among disenfranchised youth, particularly in Saudi Arabia.” This gives us more, you see some numbers give us that this group contains 4.79 Million people, yet drug users tend to be male, so it is merely 50% of that and they ship enough to cover 100% of that group many times over? This makes zero sense, yet the idea that someone is TRYING to create a drug problem in Saudi Arabia, that partially makes sense (but the shipment is at least 1000% too big), yet that is also speculation from me. Moreover when you consider the setting, optionally smuggling via Yemen instead of Jordan makes more sense to me. There are a whole range of questions that shape in my head, but they are all related to the first premise, what is the actual plan here, because this is not an approach that any drug dealer would go for. To keep 3-5 years of evidence somewhere in their place of ‘trust’? The article also gives us “In March, Saudi Arabia seized 4.6 million amphetamine pills hidden in a shipment of ceramic toilets, sinks and washbasins and arrested a Jordanian national.” I seemingly more discrete amount, but still way above the normal amount. I wonder if they are also investigating in Saudi Arabia what the plan was of these four dopes, because this is not about a simple drug heist, this much amphetamines implies a very different stage and I can only speculate (which I will not do) on what that plan is, but consider the cost of these pills, the cost to create and what kind of incomes these 4 people had. When you add the elements up you come to the same conclusion as I did. This was about something else. Perhaps the drugs were a diversion? When you go back to some sources, one gave me “One Chinese website even advertises a “captagon tablet press” for $2,500 that can spew out tens of thousands of pills an hour. For a few dollars” this comes with the added question of the cost of the chemicals and the added source gives me “A Captagon pill costs just a few cents to produce in Syria or Lebanon” then consider that the maker would charge perhaps $0.50 per pill, that implies that the shipment represented a little more than $6,000,000. So where did these four dopey’s get that much money? And that is on the premise I hold, should the cost be $1 per pill (seems more likely) especially when the implied street value in Saudi Arabia is $20, the cost marker shifts buy a lot, so is one of these 4 wealthy? I personally doubt it.
Yet when you consider these elements the entire shipment of over 12 million pills makes less and less sense. This was not a simple drug shipment, or a simple smuggling operation. This is about something more and I wonder what I would find if I start data mining that evidence. From smuggling routes to financial data and that is before we consider that Saudi Arabia starts asking questions from the Syrian or Lebanese governments, they both would be in serious hot waters if they were in any way aiding drug smuggle into Saudi Arabia and still the largest question remains open: “Why that much drugs?” I end with a lot more questions than I had before the article and I reckon some Saudi’s might have the very same questions.
That is the thought I woke up from (about 34.6 minutes ago). Most of us know the Age of reason, which is often phrased as ‘an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 17th to 19th centuries’ Is often linked to ‘The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology’ a work by Thomas Paine. In this book he made deism appealing and accessible to the masses and it started something. Yet what followed wasn’t as nice as e think it was. We merely think of the age of industrialisation, but in 1993 I was captured by Kazuo Ishiguro’s Remains of the day, the movie (I never read the book). There Christopher Reeve tells us as Jack Lewis “Europe has become the arena of Realpolitik, the politics of reality. If you like, real politics. What you need is not gentlemen politicians, but real ones” it struck me how much the UK and the world seemingly had relied on Nepotism. As such the field of ‘granting an advantage, privilege, or position to relatives or close friends in an occupation or field’ changed into a new form of nepotism ‘granting an advantage, privilege, or position to a fellow alumni’s in an occupation or field’ it might certainly be better, but there is a danger there too. The people from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania will obviously disagree with me, but there is a correlation with certain schools and it is all ‘equalised’ with terms like ‘they think like we do’ approach. Yet all this goes further. As the 19th century passed, we saw the age of Politics evolve into the age of Wall Street. I think the clearest point was the Ghouta chemical attack in 2013 when we saw that on, or around June 13th 2013, the United States government publicly announced it had concluded that the Assad government had used limited amounts of chemical weapons on multiple occasions against rebel forces, killing 100 to 150 people. US officials stated that sarin was the agent used. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes did not say whether this showed that Syria had crossed the “red line” established by President Obama in August 2012, which was interesting because when I went to primary school we heard that ANY use of chemical agents was a red line. The line was replaced to a new setting, as I personally saw it Syria had no economic value to Wall Street, this happened again when different lines were crossed in Yemen with Houthi terrorists, that nation had no value to Wall Street other than the revenue of war machines and as I personally saw it Wall Street was industrious in indirectly stopping actions. This was however not possible in the Ukraine and now there were two issues. The first is that Ukraine was too close to the EU and the power of the Euro (a currency Wall Street Neds to remain high, or on par with the dollar) as such a new setting evolved.
The age of politics is over, we see Yemen, now Ukraine and the Sudan and in the latter two the Wagner group is overly active. So what will the next age be called? The age of war, the age of mercenaries? Your guess is as good as mine but there are too many pieces and events that show that the age of politics is over, what follows it is unknown. Perhaps the age of Islam? What we can see is that the Middle East is the only real economic power remaining. Unlike the US, it does not have a $30,000,000,000,000 debt, if anything it is making billions with Aramco, a grocery store valued at $2,000,000,000,000 making it almost on par with Apple. In the age of money talks and bullshit walks, the US has become the silent mute we now all point to, especially as it is driven by media that openly lies about election results. The media is so clear about what is true is not the same as what is truth, but in all this the simple setting is that the age of Wall Street is over, the USA is no longer a superpower. That age is gone and we are unsure what follows, there is every chance that this new age has China firmly at the helm with Saudi Arabia and OPEC at its side. Where does Russia fall? Well their open lies on all media and the fact that the second largest military force is unable to deal with the 21st largest army (Ukraine) implies that they are soon imploding all over the place and the inhumane and apparently acceptable claims by the Wagner group, I do not think that Russia will be tolerated much longer, not by the old power players or by the ones replacing them. We now hear “Evgeny Prigozhin stated that Russian mercenaries will no longer take Ukrainian defenders captive, instead opting to “kill all on the battlefield,”” a setting which was set in the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War in article 13. If we see the Geneva convention as one of the great achievements in politics we now see that the inaction by all others imply that the age of politics is over, it is dead, and it’s rotting cadaver remains in the street. Another piece of evidence that the age of politics is over, because if that was not the case EVERY newspaper and their websites would be all over this screaming outrage, but that is not the case, most of them are talking about Tucker Carlson. That is how bad it has become.
In the first we need to put a pin in the end of yesterdays mentions. The presentation I saw yesterday l saw literally blew me away. It involved Snowflake and Coalesce. It makes the show for the new Bentley look feeble. What a show and what an approach. Players like Aramco need to taker a look, because the future of data mobility was shown to me and they can check it out in June in the SumIT in June in Las Vegas. They would be able to show people like Brent oil how far they are behind the curve.
But today it is about something else. It is about the Dominion (not the Star Trek one), they went after Fox and Fox was eager to settle, the spinners of lies and misdirection got their First Amendment handed to them in a few ways, which beckons the thought ‘Should Fox be allowed to exist as a news organisation?’ But about that more at a later date.
First up is the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/19/the-legal-problems-still-overshadowing-fox-news-after-its-dominion-settlement) who gives us ‘The legal problems still overshadowing Fox News after its Dominion settlement’ there we see “Fox agreed to pay voting equipment company Dominion US$787.5m, ending a dispute over whether the network and its parent company knowingly broadcast false and outlandish allegations that Dominion was involved in a plot to steal the 2020 election” in this I personally believe that they settled because of the roll call to the court. These people would paint themselves in a corner to such an extent that it would cost more then viewers. Several of them would pretty much end their TV careers, not even E! Entertainment would hire them as a joke. Yes, it is a personal view, but I think I am hitting the nail on the head in one. In the second degree the fact that Rupert Murdoch would be in the dock as well. So what will the Wall Street Journal do? What will the Times, or several of its other papers? Spin the story and lose a bulk of readers, or just keep silent? It is anyones guess and the setting is far from over, the settlement which was only $787,500,000.00 is small fries against the claim that Smartmatic launched and it has been given a green light. Their claim comes in at $2,700,000,000 which is decently higher and even if Fox settles that one, it will be a much higher settlement. Smartmatic has no free ride, it must prove malice and even as Fox wants to hide behind ‘reporting’ and relying on the freedom of the press. But with the Dominion settlement the stage of lies has been proven and there the shoe becomes tight. You see, when you report on lies is that freedom of the press? And there is a catch the Smartmatic people must prove the addition ‘knowingly’ and that is a much harder case. There are the bulk of the views which include that Tucker guy who will still enter the dock for testimonies. I wonder how many of them will rely on ‘I don’t recall that’, still if the attorneys taped the events, they might have a decent case (in case Fox accidentally loses all their recordings) in addition there is one reflection from the side of Fox as well. It is Bill O’Reilly, who (at https://www.billoreilly.com/b/Special-Message:-Fox-News-Settlement/883858753726419363.html) gives us “Going forward, Fox News faces a similar lawsuit from the Smartmatic Company and perhaps thousands of lawsuits from Fox shareholders. What a disaster. This is what happens when money becomes more important than honest information. Since I left FNC, the template changed from “Fair and Balanced” to “tell the audience what it wants to hear.” And millions of Trump voters, to this day, want to believe the 2020 election was rigged. That opinion can certainly be presented if you provide a counter opinion – equal time.
However, once the facts begin to overwhelm any point of view, a news agency has an obligation to say that. On BillOReilly.com, I examined all the fraud charges and concluded that no federal court would accept the cheating allegations. Therefore, the election was not going to be refuted by our legal system.” This shows that Bill O’Reilly might not have been everyones taste, but he was a real voice and he might have lost a thousand premium members but he remains a winner until the very last, what a class act and as I see it Fox lost the one Republican beacon it actually had, all for weak minded people catering to the voice of ‘THEIR’ people. The loss will be unmeasurable for Fox in the end. I reckon that is what happens when you become friends with a former president, the man who has no real funds, lots of debt, lots of losses and is proven to be nothing more than a paper tiger at best.
Last there is the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65320001) and with ‘Fox News lawsuit: Can it afford the $787.5m Dominion settlement?’ And with that article they do not offer a lot more, but they do give us “It still has outstanding cases against Fox’s smaller rivals Newsmax and OAN plus several of former President Donald Trump’s associates.” As I see it, these small players have their own legal sharks and they smell blood in the water. Should Fox settle Smartmatic, or lose in the trials these small sharks will come and take huge chunks out of the Fox cadaver. No matter how you slice it, it will leave a gap for any contender of Fox to step forward because for 1-2 years it will have to contemplate how to go forward and how to invest funds going forward and that leaves their number one customer the Republican Party. Any contender could snatch that client away from Fox, which leaves Fox in a bind. Because the Democrats will not do business with them and as the Republican Party goes, so do their advertisers. A future happily bestowed on them by some loser paper tiger and they ‘associates’ of that paper tiger are going after the paper tiger as well, they have too much to lose now. For some TV presenters it will mean the end of their careers no one will hire them after this law setting, they are scared for their own stations and media. Now these people will be set into a new setting. They will allegedly be working for the United Nations as they are soon to be UNemployed?
There are a number of issues with banks, the latest one is the one I left alone initially. It was the Credit Suisse – UBS issue.
The initial issue are the holes, like a Swiss cheese, it has holes. In the cheese it is accepted as it is part of the process. But with banks? How many holes can we allow for? Now, the ice is thin here. I am not an economist and I am no banking person, So what do I know? Well, I know infrastructures going back to my Intelligence days, I have seen companies getting gobbled up and in some cases for all the wrong reasons, you see those parts were on paper pleasing, but the reality of it was that reality bites and that is when you feel like a Japanese guy gobbling up a live fish. That is seemingly OK, until the fish eaten is a piranha and it starts eating you from the inside out.
So lets get back to the first article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65177258) where we see ‘Credit Suisse investors angrily confront bank as chairman says sorry’. There we see Ulrich Korner in some stage of apathy. He reminded me of a Dutch political comic in one of their newspapers (a long time ago) where we see “When we get to item 4, it would be best if at least one of the board members start crying”. It felt like a farce, a joke for the stockholders who are about to lose a lot more than they bargained for. The text the BBC gives us is “The loss-making bank had already been struggling for a number of years after a series of scandals, compliance problems and bad financial bets. Mr Lehmann told investors at the Annual General Meeting that management had a plan to turn things around but had been “thwarted” by fears prompted by the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in the US.” I personally feel like this is misdirection. I personally believe that the US bond issues are stretched on several fronts and as I wrote in previous articles, how did Credit Suisse stock up on the Basel III front? What was the safety gap? It is my personally belief that there was close to none (or at least a lot too little), and now Credit Suisse will be removed and their banks will hoist the UBS logo soon enough, especially with the scandals and bad bets that were made.
Yet that same day, the Irish times (at https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/2023/04/05/ubs-chair-says-credit-suisse-integration-will-take-up-to-four-years/) shows us ‘UBS chair says Credit Suisse integration will take up to four years’ that is for banking in these volatile times a massive risk to take and it is not taken lightly, as such I believe that people like Janet Yellen would have been on the phone with a few people. When the American bonds go, the US economy will go and I reckon they will take the Japanese and EU economy into the abyss with them. It is a personal view and I have nothing to prove it with, but the weak response from the media implies that these sources got told to play it cool or face consequences. It is a speculation, but when we take the view I had in the past on Shareholders and stake holders, I belief that I am decently correct and it is a personal view after all.
The Irish Times also gives us “Even with downside protection in the form of government support, there’s a “huge amount of risk in integrating these businesses,” Mr Kelleher, who is from Cork, said in prepared remarks for the bank’s annual general meeting on Wednesday.” The setting is that UBS is getting the bank for three billion Swiss francs. One source tells us “How much a company is worth is typically represented by its market capitalisation, or the current stock price multiplied by the number of shares outstanding. Credit Suisse Group net worth as of April 06, 2023 is $2.76B.” When we see other sources we get “Total assets CHF 531 billion and Total equity CHF 45 billion” this was last year and they have a little over 50,000 staff. I reckon that the bosses there are working on their resume and I would suggest the word ‘scandal’ is written correctly, because involvement in sandal does not go over well in the financial sector. And when you see these numbers, it is all sold for 3 billion? And we see no serious questions from any media.
So what is left of the assets? What are the bond numbers and total value per nation of bonds acquired. There is no insight of that. Just like the meltdown of 2008 no one is to blame and the US is fixing the carper so that it can hide more dirty laundry. So how long until the people realise that their economy is largely based on an empty egg shell?
The Irish Times also gives us “Shareholders will receive one UBS share for every 22.48 Credit Suisse shares held” this implies a mere 4.44% of value return for the shareholders, yes their value goes up butt this level of saturation is an issue and I reckon that more banks will follow at some point. Banks will become bad investment for the tax write off and the shareholders will lose out. Don’t get me wrong, I have no real sympathy for them, this is the outcome of shares and stocks. Sometimes you lose. But we need to look back to 2012. In the Netherlands we saw ‘SNS Reaal mulls bad bank for property operations’ (source: Reuters), it was their too big to fail operation and the people were not happy, it was a setting of real estate that was just beyond believe and now we get a similar setting but now it is not real estate, it is banks that are the bad investments and how many of them are holding bonds? The fact that the media never properly investigated this implies that I am a lot closer to the truth than even I am happy about.
And the last part is giving us ““I understand that not all stakeholders of UBS and Credit Suisse are pleased with this approach,” Mr Kelleher said. “However, all parties, and in particular the Swiss authorities, considered this solution the best of all available options.” – Bloomberg” yes that sounds good, but I have a list (and that is just the Credit Suisse naughty list).
US tax fraud conspiracy, 2014, 2023 Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, 2015 Mozambique secret loans scandal, 2017 US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violation, 2018 Climate controversy, 2018 Espionage scandal, 2019 (debatable issue) Greensill Capital, 2021 Archegos Capital, 2021 Forex manipulations conviction, 2021 Drug money laundering scandal, 2022 Suisse secrets leak, 2022 (debatable issue, I still believe it was an NSA activity) Russian oligarch loans documents destruction after invasion of Ukraine, 2022 Social media rumours, 2022 (debatable)
So 10 issues and 3 debatable issues, but the debatable issues do leave a mess at the front door of Credit Suisse. In all this Credit Suisse is walking around without clean hands, and the hands must always be clean. So does that warrant a CHF 550 billion downgrade? I honestly d not know and there is debate on some of these sources. I get that there will be differences in sources, but this much? This does not make sense, but it makes a lot more sense when we consider where the priority of Janet Yellen is and it is not the bank, it is the USA. Taking her away from the issues and letting it all be phrased by Bloomberg is not acceptable, not in the least. As Baby Herman states “This all smells like yesterday’s diapers”
As I personally see it, this bank issue has holes like we see in Swiss Cheese.
Yes, this sounds strong and it was part of a script. The series threw that phrase out for weeks as the OC was gaining traction. It drove Misha Barton to success and that is pretty much all I know about the series. We take some facts to the bank, we count on it, we depend on it. But then I got to thinking. OC also stands for Organised Crime and at present can you tell the difference whether it is Organised Crime or a bank? That is not a joke, it is a serious question. Al Jazeera gives us (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/29/french-prosecutors-raid-five-banks-in-massive-tax-fraud-case) ‘French prosecutors raid five banks in massive tax fraud case’. There we are given “banks, including Societe Generale, BNP Paribas and HSBC, faced a compensation request of more than $1bn” we also get “an earlier report in Le Monde newspaper, said Tuesday’s searches had also targeted Exane, which is part of BNP Paribas, and Natixis, the investment bank arm of French banking group BPCE” in the late 80’s someone told me “To be a thief, you need to be good and agile, if you lack these skills you could always become a banker” well we have been seeing that a lot since 2008 onwards. And now we see “it was impossible to put an exact figure on the scale of the fraud but said the banks together faced an overall compensation request of more than $1bn, including fines and late interest payments” this had been going on (as far as they could tell) since 2014. So what is the difference between Organised Crime and bankers? Is it a mere case of legislation? So after we are given the sleep creating news (by the media) regarding United States of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and Credit Suisse. We see more cases regarding Fraud? So when will someone wake up and realise that banks are either properly regulated or they are allowed to collapse and the shareholders lose their funds. So when we see advertisement from HSBC how climate change ignores borders, can the next advertisement please state “Climate change, not unlike our alleged involvement in fraud is happily ignoring all border issues”
Perhaps it is more on point than the so called ‘awareness’ vibes they are spreading now. And when I look at half a dozen advertisements from HSBC I can apply the same strokes to the text and the advertisement becomes a lot different, it becomes a clear path of opportunity seeking. Now, I cannot tell how involved HSBC is, but the raids seem to imply issues. You see the banking system has been skating on the edge of legality for so long (for the need of profit) and when we think back to the billboard days when we got all the anti-Brexit announcements, I saw that there was no mention of Bank fraud, as such, is this hypocrisy or is it like adultery. Everyone expects you to lie about that? Think about that for a second. It is the ‘expects you to lie’ part. In 2018 UNSW gave us ‘Heavy penalties are on the table for banks caught lying and taking fees for no service’, I would add to that that anyone lying is barred from banking services forever. There needs to come a time when these issues need to be dealt with. And the fact that a raid on five banks was done, implies (not proven) that there is a massively large problem out there. So why do we allow these bankers to continue?
It is a serious question. Uber is short on people, there is seemingly a shortage in supermarkets, let the disgraced bankers fill those holes. Just a thought.
Meanwhile German Deutsche Welle gave us (at https://www.dw.com/en/paris-banks-raided-in-100-billion-tax-fraud-probe/a-65151312) ‘Paris banks raided in €100 billion tax fraud probe’. This seems to be the larger stage (and several media had nothing on this). So when we consider “the investigations are linked to legally dubious “cum cum” practices in which banks create overly complex legal structures as a way to allow wealthy clients to skip out on tax liabilities for dividends. Authorities say Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, BNP Paribas subsidiary Exane, Natixis and the British banking behemoth HSBC are suspected of aggravated tax fraud laundering. Moreover, BNP and Exane are suspected of aggravated tax fraud” can you honestly answer whether there is a difference between Organised Crime and Bankers. We could argue that most bankers have some form of Filofax and are therefor Very Organised Crime. Yet that is seemingly the largest difference at present. Yet this text also gives us another side and that is important. It is seen with “complex legal structures as a way to allow wealthy clients to skip out on tax liabilities for dividends”. That raises the question whether the law was ACTUALLY broken. The Al Jazeera article and two others did not clearly give me this, so there are issues which reflect back on the old premise I made 25 years ago “The tax systems are in dire need of a complete overhaul” This view was mainly on the US and EU, but the setting still applies. And when we see terms like tax fraud and tax fraud laundering and the stage is ‘suspected’ the question becomes “Were laws broken?” You see if that is not the case, these bankers were merely clever sneaky bastards (aka: administrators) and there is no law stopping them (just like there is no laws on Karen’s and idiots). They are all allowed to stay, visit our surroundings and do their business and they are allowed to be as creative they can be within the law and the law is the issue. We might think they are hiding behind the setting of ‘overly complex legal structures’, but that isn’t illegal and we need to recognise that. We need to recognise that the laws and specifically tax laws have been blatantly ignored by all who should have ben overhauling them. That is the heart of the matter and that is under debate as I personally see it. Yet for over 3 decades politicians avoided that subject and now that governments are all running out of funds they are desperate to keep the nose away from their necks and that time is runing out faster and faster. That is merely how I see it.
It started with something I wrote on February 3rd 2023 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/02/03/as-the-tide-turns/) when I wrote ‘As the tide turns’. There was some grumbling when I presented “some governments will start to draw out papers where Russians without permanent residency or citizenship will not be allowed to own anything” it was a natural progression, as such I felt decently certain that this would happen. Plenty did not agree and that is fair, but with Oligarchs all over the field, trying to secure what they can in places like Dubai, the future was decently fluidic.
Now less than a day ago, I see a Tweet from Lithuania that Russians cannot get a VISA, they cannot get citizenship and they cannot own property and I think Lithuania is only the start. This will go further and now we get to see another side. This could be a larger tooth in a set of juridical teeth that is about to do something about Russian organised crime in many nations and they all it all to Vladimir Putin. Not only did his actions undid a century of goodwill for Russia, it in the same trend it undid the degrees of freedom of Russian oligarchs and now Russian organised crime will get a massive slap to whatever they owned and Lithuania seemingly started that stage. A stage that I saw coming because it is what I regarded as logical continuation. As such London who reacted the slowest of all now needs to give full steam or they need to answer questions like ‘Why did you do so little?’
Did I see the future? Well, that is up for grabs, I presumed that certain steps are a natural continuation and this was one, to be honest, I had no timeline in sight, one usually does not have that with near natural time lines. But I expected it to be in the works and for a country like Lithuania to take that step has also larger implications. Russians have an interest in Lithuania, it is their smuggle route Vilnius – Kaunas – Klapeida that is now also under fire and that closes the routes to places all over Europe, they will now need to rely on other routes and there is not that much options via Poland, they already despised Russians long before the Ukrainian issues started, as such there will have to design new routes but where? I have no idea, that is not my forte or my data driven direction.
No matter how I see it, larger changes are coming all over Europe and when the US does the same jump pro Russian political forces in the US will run for cover and they will be running everywhere that is petty much a given.
So speculate or presume all you care and all you desire, but you got the news here first and yes, I do accept that Twitter is no verifiable source, but similar news is coming from the Baltic News Network and it seems that 16 hours ago Estonia started a similar direction, as such Russian routes and Russian opportunities are drying up and when you consider the US, these two nations have done a lot more in a month than the US has done in over a year. That part becomes visible when you investigate what corporations are still active in Russia, the answer should scare you.
