Category Archives: Politics

July 28, 2013 · 15:56

A Church of protection

Several newscasts on several fronts, they all mention it. The church is going after the loan sharks!

I think this is a good thing. We have all seen the advertisements; the ‘cash train’ is coming. It is so easy and up to $5000 can be done at the whim of a moment. The mention, that when you come up short you can get some money. The ad seems so appealing. It is however the most dangerous debt you will ever have!

The fact that it is so lucrative is shown in the amount of spam they now fester. To illustrate, my small blog gets almost a dozen of spam messages a day, all for quick loan options. They are dangerous! Before you know it, you are in deep, and soon thereafter, you will pay perhaps just a small interest amount, but in the end you would end up paying 200% of that what you borrowed. They claim to go for short term loans only. It seems however to me that they would attract the people who might not be able to make the short term payments, and then the fee’s will come.

This is dangerous!

So, as I saw and read the statements that Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby is trying to compete them out of business, my thoughts are “Well done!” The fact that they are also backing up the RBS with some serious cash gives me the clear picture that SOMEONE is actually doing something about this mess called ‘financial institutions’. Interesting is that politicians fumbled the ball to such a lovely large extent that we now move towards the church, giving them the power others were not ready to have. The Independent posted on July 28th the header “Church-backed bid for RBS arm could herald creation of ethical bank on high street“, that is a good thing in my mind. It is a vision ALL politicians should have had on January 1st 2009 onwards. Yet, it seems that they have constituencies to protect. The question is who were they?
The people who elected them or the businesses and financial institutions that needed him/her to cast a vote the way some wanted? Are my thoughts out of bounds? If so, then consider the choices they made and the regulations that still have not come to pass. The current situation pretty much amounts to medals going to banks for murder and Journalist for invading privacy through crimes. No one wants to be accountable and no one seems to be willing to step up to the plate. Essential changes to the law are not being made. I wrote about some of this in “The law to hunt them down“. Prime Minister David Cameron seems to be making some small changes to Bing (and a few others) to give warnings when certain search terms are made. I shudder at the utter ineffectiveness of it all.
So now the Church of England will gain the visibility and the support from the people. As the people will regain safety through a church directed RBS, as the people feel safe by borrowing through them and pay a decent share of interest, we will quickly see that other banks will either follow or go under. That is a working strategy. I agree that the next 5 years could change the issues for the good. They will not overnight, but the start is here. Is this the start of a move to moral and decency?

If so, then the press is now on its last legs. Yes, they claim, they will discuss, they will negotiate, yet they will never give in, hence we have little left.
The banks are first! This is what the Guardian exposed yesterday in the article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/27/church-duty-payday-loan-firms.

Will it benefit the Church? Of course it will! However instead of investment firms where they get their 10%+, they will now go towards a business that might make them slightly less, overall, the people and the church will benefit by the bond it creates. Consider that we the consumers will always go back to those who treat us decent. We do not mind the shop, the bank or the individual to make money of us. We needed a service and we paid for that. It is the total unjust amount that some were making that had us all going. So when in 2015 the banks start complaining about how unfair the Church of England has moved into this field then remember today. Today you had no options, they were not willing to consider you ‘the small person’ unless you made them ‘enough’ money.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England, Financial institutions, Justin Welby, loan sharks, Prime Minister David Cameron, RBS, short term loans, The Independent, The law to hunt them down

July 26, 2013 · 12:28

Humanitarian Law…..the End!

We have seen a few spectacles lately that give rise to acts of a questionable nature. The Netherlands had the death of a refused refugee who after some basic checks should have passed the test of being allowed to stay with the greatest of ease. It was a black moment in Dutch affairs. Yet, this is only one case and it dwarves by a landslide when we look at the issues that Australia is facing.

In 2011 the Labour government under Julia Gillard decided that it would be a great idea to ship refugees to Malaysia, to process them there. This idea was stopped by Chief Justice Robert French right and proper. The issue is seen in ‘convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees‘ (at http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html).

Article 33(1). No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

It was stated in the Sydney Morning Herald (21st August 2011) “The court’s full bench agreed 6-1 that Immigration Minister Chris Bowen’s declaration that Malaysia was an appropriate place to send asylum seekers was wrong“. I reckon that Mr Bowen might have forgotten about the convention Australia agreed with.

Even though I was never that active in Humanitarian Law or Refugee and Immigration laws, this event opened my eyes and I learned that the refugee issue is one that had been in long standing. Even though we can see that the Labour party bungled this play, they were not the only ones playing the game. If we step back to 2001, we see that it was former Prime Minister John Howard who stated On 28 October 2001, at his 2001 election campaign policy launch “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

So this is an issue that affects the political field on both sides of the isle. I reckon if we had an Australian version of UKIP, it would be a three sided spectacle. Is there an issue? Well, in all fairness I reckon there is one. As these refugees end up, or quickly move to a large city (yes, we have 5 large cities in Australia) then the infrastructure could collapse as these refugees who have limits on work skills and language skills would not be able to get ahead (a realistic view, not a demeaning one). This does not mean that I am against refugees; I am only stating that a solution should be found, preferably an urban/rural one. Let us not forget that Australia has 21,000 Km of beachfront space. There should be an option on the creation of villages where they can become farmers and build a life. Some will consider other options, which is fair enough. I believe that such villages would enable these people to take some time as they get used to life in Australia. If we consider the option of growing food for export, then I see some future in several Wasabi farms. The Japanese will eat all the Wasabi they can get their grips on and as Sashimi gains popularity all over the world, the need for Soy sauce and Wasabi only grows. If we need to look for other ways to grow the Australian economy, then what about a solution using Dutch greenhouses? Their innovation of a solution that allows the growth of all kinds of fruits and vegetables that normally will not survive the harsh Dutch autumn and winter is almost legend. So there are several options. In other directions we see how refugees could start building a future for themselves as they work and get schooled into the Australian way of life (one does not learn Cricket overnight).

Yet these ideas are all nice do face another onslaught of ‘limitations’. This was shown yesterday in the Australian Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/abbott-png-operation-sovereign-borders. Here we see the mention of Operation Sovereign Border. Yes, this time it is the Liberal side that comes with the ‘new’ ideas. There is the mention of “a military-led response” to combat people smuggling. The policy is published at http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/Policies/OperationSovereignBorders_Policy.pdf

They do waste a little space to illustrate the plans from Labour that failed, yet I am more interested in the idea that works. You see, people smuggling will ALWAYS work. People smuggling is all about paying it forward. The refugee pays upfront, and then they might make it (however usually they never do). The issue is that these events need to be stopped at the start. How can they do that? Advertising on TV in the nations of departure? Most of those will never be seen. Leaflets get thrown out and so forth. So this is about stopping people with NO options left. So however these plans are presented by Tony Abbott, there is a chance that they will fail almost completely. I especially liked the idea to turn back boats if it is safe to do so (slight voice of sarcasm). How long until less secure ships will ‘accidently’ start to sink when the ADF gets too close? Then what? Let us not forget that the refugees have paid up front, so sinking a $5000 junk dinghy whilst $50,000 has been collected is an excellent ROI for smugglers. This is why people smuggle ALWAYS works. The idea to push these responsibilities towards the ADF is equally less desired. Yes, the ADF (Navy) will patrol the shores of Australia to keep us safe, yet they are people and as such they will not (and should not) act hostile against unarmed refugees. Yes, the Navy has a job to do, there is however the danger that comes with the mission when it becomes about blocking boats. It is not unlikely that any escalation will result in the world press slamming Australia for armed intervention against non-combatants, a story, which at that point could turn nasty quite quickly. The navy is likely to end up looking bad no matter what, and the refugees, who are already victims, would just end up in the middle, a place they were already in. How is this any kind of solution?

Mr Abbott quite correctly countered labours next idea on off shore processing using Papua New Guinea. It is indeed an Australian issue to solve. There are also issues with the same charter former PM Gillard overlooked. PNG currently has 7 reservations on issues that are stated to be a clear right to a refugee. It does not matter whether PNG will remove these reservations, as these reservations are presently in effect; PNG remains an unlikely solution until these reservations have been removed. So the issues should be solved within the Australian territory. The added message is that the PNG solution will cost! At http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/54587 we read:
“The government is yet to release the cost of the PNG plan, but using the Immigration Department’s own contracts, estimates of operating processing centres suggest the expansion of Manus Island from 600 detainees to 3000 would incur an initial cost of $600 million.”
Are we not better off spending that money on locations here in Australia? If we want to start new communities, creating a small town might even be cheaper and it will grow local economy, housing and solve part of the refugee issues. I agree that my view might be lightly unrealistically skewed, yet I cannot stop wondering how deep the experts actually investigated possible local solutions.
We should all consider that as we see ‘blown-out’ spending running into the billions.

So what to do?

First there is the claim that the report Operation Sovereign Borders Policy held. “The total cost to Australian taxpayers for managing illegal boat arrivals has increased from $85 million in 2007-08 to $3 billion in 2013-14. Between 2007-08 and 2013-14, the budget for managing illegal boat arrivals has blown-out by $10.3 billion.”

I agree that this is a massive cost. I would like to see a run-down of these costs. Not generic, but specific. I believe that we should find a solution to the issues, I am however not certain that the blockade approach will work to any degree, so why press for such levels of spending? Let’s also realise that unless the navy gets a fleet twice the current size, our seafront is just too large to patrol for boat refugees. It amounts to a solution no less expensive than a very high fence over the total stretch of Texas bordering Mexico. Thoughts that were matched by former chief of the defence force Admiral Chris Barrie who said in the Canberra Times: “I can’t see this making more than an incremental difference at best.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as ADF, Admiral Chris Barrie, Canberra Times, Chief Justice Robert French, Chris Bowen, John Howard, Julia gillard, Manus Island, Operation Sovereign Border, PNG, Tony Abbott

July 21, 2013 · 23:12

The law to hunt them down

Both Sky News and the Guardian come this Sunday with stories on how Prime Minister David Cameron is calling on web companies to block certain sexual child abuse searches.

That sounds nice in theory and I am all for hunting down these groups. Yet, that request is at least 10 years late and in all honesty, I reckon it is a massive waste of time and resources. How long until these perverts come up with ‘other’ search terms? We would even be allowing for some to get away scot free as they searched for “yummier candy” or whatever other code they would be using. The Judge would have to let these people go as they were truly looking for a place to dunk their bagels in jelly?

As stated, I am all for hunting these people down. Yet perhaps other means should be (should have been is a lot better) employed. Google had been so innovative in avoiding corporate taxation, are they not aiding the police (not just in the UK) hunting down these people? They have the hardware, the software, the expertise and more options on their shelves. In addition the PM should actually stop that gap which allows Google to only pay 0.0025% in taxation (but that is a story for another time).

No matter how quick we stop this gap of non-taxation. Google has in my view and strong belief a moral duty to train the police and other units in search and track knowledge (perhaps they are). They have no issues in teaching/aiding bosses to track their employees. Yet, hunting down criminals is not in their scope? (At http://business.time.com/2012/06/27/google-maps-now-helping-your-boss-track-your-every-move/). It was stated in the article that “the cost to workplace privacy would be serious“. Is that true? If you get paid by the hour, should you not be working? In the office, one is supposed to sit at their desk. There are always reasons why we need to go somewhere, yet we should be at our desks for a certain time. So it is easy and perfectly OK to track employees and we cannot track criminals? I get the issue that there might be some level of privacy in play for an employee (for example, his lunch break is his and his alone), but finding those hurting children are allowed protection so that they can hurt children? Such methods could aid the authorities in actually getting some protection to the children that needed it for a long time.

If we relate the options to track these child abusers to the boss tracking actions, we definitely have the technology to find these people, so what Is stopping us?

In addition, the legal side is also in play. If we consider the “Protection of Children Act 1978”

If we consider: “Section 1 (c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs [or pseudo-photographs], with a view to their being distributed or transferred digitally or shown by himself or others; or”

By adding three words we now let the issue no longer fall into the issue where the responsibility was, we now give pressure on the ISP to report this immediately. If not, they become part of the chain. Now, if we look at the defamation act, then we know there are issues, especially when we consider operators of content.

In Australia the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) states:

32 Defence of innocent dissemination
(1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that:
(a) the defendant published the matter merely in the capacity, or as an employee or agent, of a subordinate distributor, or a facilitator [or ISP] and
(b) the defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known, that the matter was defamatory, and
(c) the defendant’s lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant.

Here I added 5 words (those in bold), which could give additional levels of options to the claimants. It is nice to give certain services out for free, yet in that case, the facilitators will need to adjust their ‘terms of service’ to protect themselves and give aid in finding those using their services to further certain criminal goals. The reason to mention this is because when we look at the UK “Defamation Act 2013“, as narrated by Forbes we see the following (please read Forbes article as linked below).

The next part was in progress, when I detected this Forbes article (who had pretty much done what I was trying, at http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/05/09/uks-new-defamation-law-may-accelerate-the-death-of-anonymous-user-generated-content-internationally/)

It seems that the known issues of the ISP had been avoided here as well (an issue that had been in play for at least 8 years). There is a valid defence that an ISP cannot monitor the massive flow of content, which is indeed a valid defence in my book, yet the cooperation required by the police to do their jobs is too often too slow or at times likely even completely lacking.

When we add ISP in the Australian case, then their lack of negligence would overturn their defence in court. So when we consider 32.1.d, then they will need to get active, creative and corrective really fast.

This translates to the UK defamation act by changing “5 Operators and/or facilitators of websites and/or virtual locations“; this would change the game immediately. Of course, prosecuting an ISP is not productive in the end, yet this part will give them the ‘negligence‘ label and as such, serious headway might be made in hunting down these child abusing criminals as the ISP is now seriously motivated to aid the police and find these criminals. The change would go further than those seeking materials. It would also give way to look at providers and mapping out these people far beyond the UK national borders. So as the map, with names, locations and acts will visibly grow, we might actually get the information the police needs.

I personally believe that law changes will get us a lot further then just blocking a search term.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as child, child abuse, David Cameron, Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), Defamation Act 2013, Guardian, internet, ISP, Protection of Children Act 1978, Sky News, UK

July 19, 2013 · 15:44

The Setting of strategies

The danger of any person trying to look through the mud that we know as political strategies related to ‘what is real’ and ‘what is unlikely’. There is no ‘non-reality’!
We know that certain steps have been staged (as a good politician would). This staging is not unlike the game ‘GO’ where we place the pebbles in such a way that entices to other to place their pebbles, completing our strategies.

This I discussed in last week’s blog involving the fading pension plans. Yes, and as suspected, whilst Dutch politicians are in vacation mode, the Dutch pension funds are now filling the Dutch with dread of a possible 10%-20% loss of retirement. That is some fear in their world of quick rising prices. (www.nos.nl)

Today is not about that, even though there are possible links! Today it is about renewed issues on telephone taps and how the powerful Murdoch gets another painted target. Yet are his words so wrong? We had the phone tap probe, we have seen the Leveson report, and instead of actually acting on the Leveson report as much as possible. Parties involved seem to be having another go at Rupert ‘the Piñata’ Murdoch. A lot or the press is getting a little sour as words are hashed and rehashed into statements of whatever they could be called.

You see, is this an ACTUAL criminal investigation, you know the one with barristers, judges and both parties taking notice of the evidence act?

Or is this another inquiry that has gone on for two years, giving more visibility to Chairman Keith Vaz and a few other political head honcho’s? Do not think that I am on Mr Murdoch’s side. I will instantly stand by the views of Hugh Grant and Lord Justice Leveson in the attack on the events that surrounded phone hacking, and not just the Sun/News of the world.

There is however the valid thought that cooperation is required and should be given. However the following quote “The committee has heard from the Metropolitan Police’s assistant commissioner Cressida Dick that since May ‘voluntary co-operation (with News UK) has been significantly reduced’ and that police have had to obtain court orders regards ‘requests for new material’“.

Is that the issue? This has gone on for 2 years now. Is thus the statement by Mr Murdoch “totally incompetent” when it comes to describing the acts by the Metropolitan Police entirely wrong? If this has gone on now for 2 years, then yes, I think it is time to look at the questions being asked, and asking additional relevant questions to the investigating offices.

Not doing so could turn this entire phone hacking scandal into a fair label of ‘Witch hunt’ and as such, I would see this as the premise to attack the Leveson report. This is because the two are linked. I remain in favour of implementing the entire Leveson report. Not because I am so much in the know of things, but because I have utter faith in the wisdom of Lord Justice Leveson. Those who claim to know and judge the report as invalid, whilst not in possession of a Law doctorate are required to remain very silent on the matter, unless they show actual valid documentation! I admit that this is slightly strong wording, yet having listened to a few people blatantly attacking the Leveson report in favour of unmonitored freedom of the press, after which I asked in regards to the reports footnote 417 in regards to the accuracy of information, their….. ‘emotional repartee’ in my direction gave me what I needed to know. (They had no clue, or better stated, having never read the Leveson report).

By the way, that footnote is “Clause 1(i) of the PCC Code requires the press to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures” (page 673, Leveson report).

If we could only apply this requirement to advertisements at times! (Big Smiles).

So we must prevent that these events to ‘evolve’ into a witch hunt. I am NOT stating that this is happening, but after 2 years that image is starting to linger and that is wrong too. My issue is with the statement that was in that same Sky news article (at http://news.sky.com/story/1117618/murdoch-phone-hacking-probe-excessive)

“In his letter he set out how the company disclosed 500,000 documents after 185,000 man hours at a cost of more than £65m.” When the coffers are at minus 1 trillion and student costs are growing and growing, these costs are only excessive if the government is not able to make Mr Murdoch pay for these costs.

I personally have always been to mind that once we need to focus and stretch the actual letter of speech, we lose facts of what is the goal. Basically, in these words I am wondering whether the committee has lost the view of the Big picture. (My apologies if I am incorrect).

So where is the issue of strategy? Well, if we read the “The Leveson Report: implementation” (at http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06535), then at 6.5 (in the full PDF version) we see some additional delays in implementing the Royal charter. I quote: “Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, my briefing says that it is not appropriate for the Privy Council to consider more than one royal charter at a time on the same issue. The noble Lord may consider that the Press Standards Board of Finance has therefore been extremely clever in what it has done and may draw his conclusions from that – and that accounts for some of the delay.”

So we have more delays. Granted that they are procedural, but I wonder how many papers have reported on that delay? I reckon not many! Out of sight, out of mind is a valid strategy that has been in long standing with politicians and corporate spokes people all over the world.

So is this a strategy by Mr Murdoch to keep the focus away, or is this an investigation that is getting stretched in a very expensive way to stop your privacy from getting chartered protection? Not non-privacy by government (aka GCHQ), but by those who are making money out of side stepping commercial reasoning for ignoring privacy for the simple reasons of greed?

The issues of strategies are actually wider set then most will think. Against the Dutch pension issues, there is the view of George Osborne, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is viewed in the subtitle “A majority of directors at the Washington-based International Monetary Fund disagrees with its own advice on UK fiscal policy.” which is part of the article at http://news.sky.com/story/1117069/imf-board-disagrees-over-uk-fiscal-policy.

Even though this sounds good for the Exchequer, the issues of no tax rises in the upcoming years (or after 2015 as he states it) is not just short of wrong (at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/george-osborne-deficit-tax-rises) , I feel that this could only be kept if a play is made to the pension funds (like the Dutch are trying now), as well as the shale gas approach which is seen as ‘frackalicious’, yet, we should not forget the issues that the Dutch county ‘Groningen’ is going through as it has seen a rise in small earthquakes giving home owners massive costs to repair and additional losses in house values. These issues are to some extent denied/ignored as the investigation is going on, yet the damages that the people see in the news on a regular bases tells another story. At present corporations are now claiming for millions in damages from both the Dutch gas company (NAM) and the government. (at http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/groningen/article9972913.ece/Corporaties-claimen-miljoenen-bij-Nam) there is also the claim for compensation to be awarded for the loss of housing value, which adds up to over 10,000 houses for up to 25000 Euro. (Yet one house in the newscast has a value decrease of almost 150,000 Euro). Let us not forget that these were only test drilling, the actual drilling has not even commenced. If the exchequer is depending on these numbers then he might be in for a rough ride. In addition, even though Isla Britannia is decently larger then the Netherlands, there is enough evidence that these issues will have a serious impact on housings and the environment.

If this is all about strategy, then playing the cards close to the chest seems a debatable wisdom. Because when this all goes south, it is not about the Isle politicians are sitting on, but the issue whether there will be a nation left to serve.

Should you doubt that statement (which is fair enough), then consider on how ‘well‘ the US claims their economy is getting. The fact that Detroit is now bankrupt should be enough concern that the American way is not a solution.
We, the Commonwealth nations must stick together to stay afloat and survive, fight together to become the nations of true prosperity again.

None of these strategies are ready for that essential need!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Cressida Dick, current-events, Detroit bankrupt, GCHQ, George Osborne, Groningen, Guardian, Leveson, Lord Justice Leveson, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, NAM, NOS, politics, Press Standards Board of Finance, Rupert Murdoch, Shale gas, Sky News

July 11, 2013 · 22:24

Boosting Pensions

Would you like to lose your pension? This is more than just a simple question. If you live anywhere in Europe, then the danger to your pension is a lot more realistic and will have a larger impact then you thought there would be.

Let’s take a look at a few countries.

Netherlands.
This was already under review, however, at present there are discussions going on to get a handle on accessing pensions for all kinds of reasons. The image in part is that the Dutch government needs this treasure vault to deal with more immediate issues as well as well as the application of spending to start an economy. As reported yesterday by the NOS, the issue at present is that the government thinks it is getting access to billions a year extra. The ABP comes to the conclusion that the changes will in the end cost billions, not save them. This comes as the government is presently trying to cut almost 3 billion Euro in retirement funding. The cut back was based on the fact that businesses and employees will save-up less per year, which might save 1000 euro, which would suit the government, as this gives them a taxation windfall of 2.3 billion. In the new system it is stated that not only do people lose the 1000 euro advantage, they will have to pay more. So there would be zero advantage, even worse, considering the amount of government jobs the treasury would be down a billion, so in the end no savings at all for the poor poor coffer, only additional losses to deal with. At a time when 6 billion in cut-backs are needed, this is not the bad news they want to hear. All this has a few more hooks. Especially when we consider the questions by Hachchi (D66) in regards pension premium raises that the ABP added in January 2012. The costs were raised by 300 million euro, as documented in 2012Z01310 (source: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2012/03/06/antwoorden-inzake-de-verhoging-van-de-pensioenpremie-door-het-abp/antwoorden-inzake-de-verhoging-van-de-pensioenpremie-door-het-abp.pdf)

It is interesting that a similar issue is now appearing only one year later. There is more!

In one view we read that the ABP in 2010 was set at 105% coverage (which means that if 100% pension is paid out, 5% remains for growth). It is however interesting to read from the NRC (at: http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/12/01/abp-verhoogt-pensioenen-niet/) we read that in December 2011 the coverage was only 94%, so in one year they went down to some degree. The same can be read at http://www.pensioenbelangen.nl/label/abp/ , more interesting, the numbers state that per September 2012 is was only at 101%. So if we recall the blog I wrote a week ago “The Age of ‘no retirement left’ is coming“, it is interesting that in that case the government is stating so much wealth. As the ABP is considered to be the largest one, we should wonder whether the Dutch politicians have any clue on what they are doing. More important, is this about short sighted cutting avoidance, or is it about more. Do not worry, they are not alone, we will have some fun looking at the UK situation next.

Is there actual evidence to support my theories? Well, the sources above clearly show that the ABP is only marginally above 100%, yet they had remained below 98% for a decent amount of time, so there is a valid amount of concern. In addition, when we consider the questions as stated in

2012Z01310, then certain issues in the recovery measures of pensions were not known, yet the initial billing would have been there, so this again is a piece of evidence that reflects 11th hour budgeting. The fact that this was never completely properly addressed remains a worry and not a reflective concern considering that in part the same issues are now again in the news.

The issues are only part of the entire picture. The fact that the Dutch pension administrator PGGM, has stated that there are issues with Walmart, could have some serious repercussions. Reuters quotes that “PGGM held 2.76 million shares of Wal-Mart as of March 31” (at: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dutch-pension-group-halts-wal-211416613.html) this was only last week. Should the PGGM pull out then there would be concerns on both isles of the Atlantic river. Those shares represent well over 200 million, which means that Wal-mart might get some renewed problems down the line. Whether this would be due to PGGM is not a given, the fact that questions from a shareholder holding almost 3 million shares are not answered is certainly matter for concern. If we consider the economic downturn the Dutch have faced over the last 2 years, considering the issues the IMF reported in 2011 on Dutch pension funds. In that time, people entering their retirement saw their funds cut and a support capital of 50 billion was needed. So when we read less than 2 years later that those finds are so rich and that they should be opened for additional means, whilst a week later we read on some of the alleged dangers, it seems to me that playing politics with pensions is a very bad and not too bright idea. The 2011 article can be found at http://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/imf-team-recommends-adjustments-to-dutch-second-pillar-system.php

United Kingdom.

So, let’s take a look at Australia’s baby brother UK (as UK is only 3% of the size of Australia). The UK is in dangers no less immediate. The Guardian reported last November that issues would impact greatest on savers and pensioners. Yet, the story behind several issues is not brought here. For that we should look at what is happening now. Part of that is set here as http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/capital-markets-climate-change-pension-funds. Is that even a fair assessment? If we read the quote “The way pension funds invest will determine the future, which means that to thrive they’ll need to wake up to climate change” I will wonder whether this is wishful thinking of whichever politician or investor whispered to the author. When we looked at the Netherlands and other places, these nations are all looking at sustainability solutions. Yet at present the ROI of these options are not up to scrap, so WHY use pensions there. These are fields that have been ignored be several administrations. If it is SO lucrative, then why not invest in it yourself (me asking governments)? Yes, it will be the future, but at present too expensive, so getting articles out there for pension funds to invest in the future might read nice, but as ROI reports falter it will not hold a candle up to the coming rage. This view is shared by James Cameron, chairman of cleantech investor Climate Change Capital. I know that the next part sounds dodgy as hell, but when we consider the quote “Future pensioners are going to have to bear more of the investment risk themselves“. In that case Pension funds are much better of owning parts of Raytheon and Northrop-Grumman. It seems that governments all over the world are seemingly ready at the drop of any hat to buy missile technologies, and as such the ROI for pension funds are much better off going to those places. I agree that the statement is less appealing to read, but why should pensions now be put under more and more pressure whilst, those behind the scenes refused to budge when they should have done so. The investment risk reads like a joke considering the article published in May at http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/may/22/one-five-poverty-line-state-pension where it states that 20% of those retiring this year will fall below the poverty line. This is in my mind the consequence of a housing issue never properly dealt with for over 27 years, whilst pensions were left alone. Taking both in the balance, then pensions might cover 80%-100% of the rent for this year, and those will come up short 2014 and later. So that is in the most positive case where people do not need to eat or drink ever. This is only for those not living in London, living there would almost amount to instant suicide. At least the Dutch can claim that their retirement issue had never been THAT bad. So, as there is a collective boost to raise the value of the RBS, that former bastion might be used to actually boost and increase value and strength of British pensions as they focus on getting back on the horse of profit (or at least try to get on that horse). Pensions are being cut in other ways too. That part can be read at: http://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/expats-call-for-fairer-pension-payouts-8659717.html. Some of these pensioners (almost 10%), saw the unaffordable future they saw coming their way and as such they moved to other areas. Some saw the light in time and bought a small place on Crete, some left for alternative Mediterranean locations and some went to the warmer regions of South Africa. These people saw the light, saw the non-linear growing costs and chose a better solution. It goes even further. What is less than possible in the UK becomes very affordable in India, where a week’s pension gets you a 2 bedroom secured apartment for a month, considering that rent is the most expensive part, three weeks of pension should keep a person well fed. So why not consider this? Instead of going on an exotic vacation, live in an exotic place, and of course, the Indians are all on average Cricket nut, so not the worst place to be during Cricket season. If these people are forced back because of pension issues, would the British government have the means to suddenly appoint housing to these people? They might not get an option in this as they froze pensions. In that regard, I do hope that the Exchequer George Osborne considered the consequence of even part of those 1.2 million pensioners returning to England and his 2 billion pound winter fuel allowance. That is only one post. On the other side, there is a genuine and acceptable concern of the people who are abusing that system. There had been earlier mention of the situation where UK men marrying Thai brides is a reason for the foreign pensions increase. If we voice the scenario where a pensioner marries a woman under 25 and she then gets the allowance after he is gone, then this would indeed be an unfair use of the system. We could argue that a marriage, not validated in the UK would not be seen as a marriage (I know, the legal nightmare behind this is so not nice). However, that those who never added to the British system, not being eligible for those funds would be slightly better phrased, yet the consequences for consulates to keep track of these people would be almost disastrous. Even though this would be spread over several countries, the fact that they could be required to deal with over 700,000 additional requests a year, is not likely to become a ‘relief’ to the system. Yet I must agree that something must be done. The dangers of cutting the transferred pension, if there was a marriage, could mean that these people might have a claim on humanitarian grounds to receive full Visa and transfers into the UK, which in the end might add up to be a lot more expensive. The only solution could be legislative, yet which of the ‘evils’ to choose from is not really for now. In my mind the options grows to make the pension only transferable if the marriage was longer then a certain period (5 years) or the spouse must have been a UK resident or lived, worked and paid taxes in the UK for no less than 10 years. I am just grasping the 5 years out of thin air, yet this would limit the dangers of UK pension abuse, it would also give a clear message to the valid pensioners that THEY are protected, yet that there are limits on passing over a basic state pension. In regards to those who are valid recipients of the basic state pension and their foreign setbacks there is more information at http://pensionjustice.org/.

Germany.

We should consider the German system, even though it is thought to be strong, secure and to some extent safe. They share the dangers those in the UK currently have. As reported by The Spiegel at http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germans-fear-poverty-in-retirement-even-after-life-of-work-a-855352.html, even though their economy is in a strong state, the lost investments, the futures of retirement are almost none existing. In fact, their pensions are a lot worse of then the UK ones. A person there would end up getting a mere 32% of their income. If we consider the Dutch system where 70% does not even foot the bill, the desperation of 32% is a lot less appealing. The question becomes important when we consider the required pension buffers these pension funds need to have. The interesting addition is that a report in 2012 from the labour ministry stated that “the Labour Ministry itself, which indicates about a third of current full-time employees could end up receiving social welfare unless the pension system is changed. Those who have spent 35 years working full time but earn less than 2,500 euros a month would also end up depending on welfare.”

So this is the third country playing politics for non-visible short gain and massive shortages in the long term. This gives serious concern for the bill the Germans adopted that as of January 2013 “for a reduction in the statutory pension contribution rates”. And that helps your citizens…..how?

So this is not just a national issue, this is a European issue on several levels. Unless some strong actions are taken, a large part of Europe will enter living conditions worse than that of several 3^rd world countries, whilst comfortable living would be found for those moving to places like India and Argentina.

Go figure!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as ABP, Argentina, D66, Exchequer, George Osborne, George Osborne MP, government, Guardian, Hachchi, IMF, Independent, India, James Cameron, Nederland, Netherlands, Northrop-Grumman, Pensions, PGGM, politics, Raytheon, RBS, Retirement, ROI, Spiegel, Wal-Mart

July 8, 2013 · 19:51

Smear campaign vs Blame campaign

Another day, another NSA/GCHQ article! I must admit that the thread, not threat of privacy is getting a little too biased. I must admit that slapping the government comes over slightly cheap at this point (for the reason that too many articles out there are more and more based on speculation and less on actual facts). It is also the time I think that Mr John Naughton (the Guardian / Observer) should add a little more balance in his very valid opinions. As his profiles states “John Naughton is professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University“. So the man knows his stuff (and reading his articles makes that clear), and let me be upfront that even though his pieces are definitely opinionated at times, he has not stated anything false or in error (as far as I can tell).

What does bother me to a little extent is that in his article “To the internet giants, you’re not a customer. You’re just another user” (at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/09/internet-giants-just-another-customer) he states when relating to Gmail and Yahoo mail “You do however ‘pay’ in a different currency, namely your personal data.”

This is the issue I have as well. Especially when comparing to the article “The NSA/GCHQ metadata reassurances are breathtakingly cynical“, where he states “the metadata is what the spooks want for the simple reason that it’s machine-readable and therefore searchable” (at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/07/nsa-gchq-metadata-reassurances). This is correct, and it is preferred for automated systems, as it takes one person his/her entire career to get through 1 hour of non-spam e-mail for one area of London. So any chance of getting anything useful needs massive levels of automation. So it seems acceptable to be a marketing outlet (the consequence of a free service), yet the group trying to keep you alive gets tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered for doing their jobs.

I am at times slightly amazed that these security measures are such an issue for the UK population. Let us not forget that the UK had decades of issues as they needed to overcome the ‘difference of opinion’ the UK government had with the IRA. As such they have had plenty of reasons to be cautious, compared the limited amount of events the US went through.

I still remember the 1993 bombing of Liverpool street station. I also remember attending the ECTS (Electronic Consumer Trade Show) 5 months later and that area was still an indescribable mess. So the UK population clearly know the dangers of terrorism.

So is this truly about privacy or fear? Not the fear of being attacked, but the fear others have if someone read the messages they send/receive (and I am not even talking about the actual criminal ones that get mailed).

Consider that there is another attack (anywhere in London) and it was not stopped, because privacy laws stopped the intelligence community. Then what? How long until the press, who is all so up in arms on privacy comes with the text ‘why did the Intelligence community not do more?‘ whilst at the same time making people expectant that in Facebook, Google+, Gmail and Yahoo mail your data can be sold on, your details on parade like a debutante to all eligible data sources who would want to have a go at you. Seems a little short sighted doesn’t it?

I am all for privacy, I truly am! However, data being private does not mean that I am not willing to assist the government in keeping the nation safe. And the argument that ‘I’ was not guilty, so there was no reason, does not hold water here. Knowing who is innocent (read safe) is as important as those who raise flags. A raised XML flag does not make you guilty, 5 raised flags do not make you guilty. Especially when this is about automatic parsing of information (read Meta data). When we look at on how these service giants deal with privacy is actually less important than the fact that their international size allows these people to avoid taxes a lot better than Ebenezer Scrooge ever could. So people are up in arms on what governments know, yet these fat cat collecting corporations paying 0.1% tax in this day and age of economic hardship is an acceptable act? I wonder whether people have their priorities straight.

In that regard it is also interesting to read the Benjamin Franklin Quote “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither“. So many are often so easy to hide behind this quote, when siting issues on privacy, yet in those days of Franklin, they thought of war as a gentleman’s game. You know the time of clean Red uniforms. Stand up straight! Moobs forward! Aim! Fire!
Those people, if they ever saw the Vietnam War in their dreams, would wake up screaming.

In this same way we should regard data collecting a la von Clausewitz “Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more are false, and most are uncertain” in that light, the survivor had superior information, which means it is another form of war altogether. Our protectors must get it right all the time; a terrorist, only needs to succeed once. The quote and the premise is the issue we face today and history never properly prepared us for what we now face. I think that under these conditions I prefer the quote “War is such a dangerous business that mistakes that come from kindness are the very worst.” This one is true and also most appropriate. If Privacy is seen as a human right (which it is) and it is a driving force in humanity, then we could see the danger that our Humanity gives strength to the Terrorist (this is of course false), however, in the light of fighting terrorism it does hold a truthful foundation. This brings me to an interesting question I recently saw! “What if the right to privacy depends upon the existence of surveillance and an acknowledgement that some of it, at least, is legitimate?” This is not my question, this was voiced in a discussion paper called “Navigating the Data verse privacy, Technology, Human Rights“, which was published by the International council on Human Rights Policy and can be found at (http://www.ichrp.org/files/reports/64/132_report_en.pdf). It is well worth reading.

The question in my mind is that if we see the news as valid. Is the press on a smear campaign against the Governments? Even though I singled out John Naughton, does not mean that I call him that. His work is amongst the most interesting to read and his writing is pretty compelling, and even though I feel I cannot agree with him at times, he puts down his points clearly and precise. The reason I cannot agree is again the fact that we are expected to be marketed by those offering ‘free’ services, but must oppose those who are out to keep us safe. It seems a very topsy turvy approach from us on keeping ourselves safe.

That makes me think, this could actually be a new Gilbert and Sullivan (read with the tune of ‘A wandering minstrel’ from the Mikado)

A surfing seeker I…
A man of links and searchings
of Mails, Pics and Profiles,
and selling you on my Facebook,
my friend list is so long,
through every like and linking,
and to your e-mail sending
I mine all data for cash!
I mine all data for cash!

So are we giving up essential liberties? I feel we do not, data mining is today’s efficient way of approaching the ‘right’ population, yet this is also a danger! Not of freedom, but of choice. As these companies focus on the options that embrace the bulk of people, the outside innovation will reach us less and less likely. Is that not giving up liberties? As we become part of mass media only, the small innovator will no longer reach us? Who thought of that part of the equation? Actually, John Noughton did raise it in some way in his article “Technology is a double-edged sword” in December 2012. Even though he focusses on Evangelists and Luddites, the outcome is similar. We can look at a coin from either side, but one coin is only complete with both sides.

Consider that the police and intelligence communities are the ‘other’ side (the evangelists), then most people (the Luddites) have a point no less fair, but we must accept that if the people get their way, once things go wrong we have no right to invoke a blame campaign, for the simple reason that with the freedom of choice comes the responsibility of consequence.

A combination of views often forgotten!

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as a wandering minstrel, ECTS, GCHQ, Gilbert and Sullivan, Guardian, internet, John Naughton, Liverpool street station, Mikado, Na, Observer, Privacy, society, technology, UK Government

July 5, 2013 · 13:18

The Euro coup is coming!

Good morning, so I got your attention? Excellent!

The first question, is what kind of coup of course? What is forming at present is an international alliance of parties. The parties at current seem to be the British UKIP under leadership of Nigel Farage. From France it is Marine Le Pen from Front National, Geert Wilder from the Dutch PVV and there is every indication that Bernd Lucke from Alternative für Deutschland (AfD, meaning Alternative for Germany).

Initially this situation was a non-option, yet the change with Front National where Marine Le Pen is a lot less extreme then her father Jean-Marie Le Pen makes this now a negotiating political force where the extreme is negated for a slight diversion towards the middle ground. There is also a change in messages. Where the French FN was initial strongly anti-Semitic, their new message is all about pro-France. It seems that the daughter Marine learned that lesson of gaining through honey instead of vinegar (you know the expression). Does this make them less anti-Semitic? That is indeed one of the questions. This alliance is all about parties getting stronger in forming and speaking their local language and population. As UKIP has a strong desire of a referendum to move the UK out of the Euro zone, the German AfD is all about moving Germany out of the Euro-coin. There are similarities, yet they are not in some given unison.

That makes this alliance somewhat unique. This is all about a team promoting their personal needs, not a common need. It is a slightly rare occasion. Yet, we could see a disjointed form of agreement. They all seem to promote their forms of economic protectionism. That part is interesting, as that could be a multinational move to get these banking issues under control. It is one option for the banks to give some Euro BS story to stay non-accountable, yet it is another problem when political parties start making these venues an open target where the bank is a free for all. I reckon that financial institutions did not reckon on these complications. If we accept that FN, UKIP and AfD are all three strong in that regard, then whatever happens in the bad bank moves would have to happen before those election become fact, because the changes might make the bad bank a non-event and leaving the debts where they should be, with the banks who caused this and not with the tax payers (and that would make you and me very happy).

I left PVV out of this because they are a slightly stronger wildcard in this equation. Like UKIP they are strong voiced about moving out of the EU. That approach is not unrealistic, yet the Dutch economy is strongly dependant on the German economy as whatever is created in Germany gets shipped via Rotterdam. The German Steel regions have a powerful grip on things, and that works as they have an efficient economy track via the Netherlands. UKIP has its reservations in regards to the Dutch PVV, because of the strong anti-Islamic views the PVV holds. Nigel Farage has mentioned that he could not accept the view on forbidding the Quran. One can agree on many levels, especially as this is a form of censorship and discrimination that is not legal in both the UK and the Netherlands (the law can be so easy at times). The AfD is another matter; they are mainly Euro-critical. The danger is not unlike UKIP. They were ignored and now they are about to become the ruling party. A fact that remains unknown until September 2013. What is interesting, that at present the party is not even listed as a possible contender against the party of Merkel or her opponents. This is wrong on a few levels. The fact that all these economic heavyweights are striking out against the AfD on how dangerous this move is, is one thing. the fact that these ‘experts’ like Marcel Fratzscher who was formerly the head of International Policy Analysis at the European Central Bank or Jörg Rocholl who as a professor holds the Ernst & Young Chair in Governance and Compliance are currently speaking out against their academic peer Bernd Lucke is quite another. Yes, sounds like the banks stay right away from this one. They all seem to forget that the people vote, and these people see their money go to all these places of ‘feigned incompetence’. I am all for helping my neighbour, yet I see less issues with saving him as he starts a BBQ in his living room to stay away from the rain and then panics as his house is on fire because the children kept on knocking things over in the living room. Such a parent should go to prison, plain and simple. So when I state that the AfD could become a massive player, I am not kidding. That means that Germany could face its own referendum in 2014 to move out of the Euro. Because these governments, as I mentioned in previous blogs have been so busy with ‘managing’ bad news, they forgot all about the people receiving these adjusted levels of bad news.

Next there is the French FN (Front National). Under Jean-Marie the FN was largely ignored, they were too extreme, so not many votes would consider this party under past leadership as a serious political player. His daughter is much less extreme and Marine Le Pen seems to be more about bringing the pro-France message then any anti-whatever message. This makes her the new player to note. As she advocates a “grouped departure” from both the Euro and the Euro zone, in addition to her less extreme views make her an interesting bedfellow for Farage and Lucke. It can be debated that FN could have had a much larger slice of French politics if Marine had been in charge earlier, yet, only now, as the economy will have longer shortfalls and more issues would any future election give her additional votes.

Considering UKIP and their likely new shaped alliance! How should we see them? Are they the disruptive element in the European order, or are they the patriots fighting to keep their nations safe? If we see the Banks as the current breakers of national economies then they are doing the opposite of what needs to be achieved in the views of the banks. In all fairness of it all is that the EU is more and more a failure. Those propagating its success have not been able to correct the budget shortfalls of hundreds of billions a year. New nations are offered a place, a handshake and a new credit rating (see Latvia), then even whilst its population has a vast majority against, the Euro gets pushed in. Now even more nations are added, and several of them in not such a good economic stable position, and they all get the new Euro Platinum Credit card. In that light their views are adopted by their own voter community faster and faster, meaning that this new ‘alliance’ will ensure massive changes.

Whether these parties will bring a better future for the nations they fight for? I do not know, what I do know is that dumping billion after billion into something to get the economy ‘started’ has not worked for years, and other ideas are needed. Perhaps I could be voted in as the new Executive officer for the Royal Bank of Scotland? I cannot prove I would do any better, but I can guarantee that I would not be any worse. In that light, that 20 billion they just found? How does a bank just find 20 billion? What else did their systems not notice? http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/03/royal-bank-of-scotland-business-lending-review If you wonder how these two are related (politics/RBS) then consider that these parties are growing as the European economy stays in this bad shape. The stronger the UK economy gets, the stronger interest of all nations to relocate legally or in other ways to the UK, so as the UK now suddenly has 20 billion extra, that interest will just spike. I am still wondering how 20 billion remained unnoticed. If several nations have been playing a game of ‘bad news management’, then what will be the effect of such good news? If you do wonder what 20 billion is, then consider that this ‘found’ money covers twice the amount all tertiary education needs and didn’t they have to up the prices there?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as AfD, Bernd Lucke, economic protectionism, euro zone, FN, Front National, Geert Wilders, Guardian, Jörg Rocholl, jean marie le pen, Marcel Fratzscher, Marine Le Pen, Merkel, Nigel Farage, PVV, Quran, RBS, UKIP

July 4, 2013 · 13:35

The Snowden principle

From my point of view we are dealing with the air that is getting slightly thick and foggy at the moment. The Edward Snowden issues are escalating and not in a good way.

This view became apparent as a flight carrying the Bolivian president was forced to land at the Vienna airport. This situation becomes even more ridiculous as “Bolivian officials claimed France, Italy, Spain and Portugal had refused to let the plane cross their airspace over ‘unfounded suspicions’ Snowden was on the jet.” Source: http://news.sky.com/story/1110864/snowden-not-on-bolivian-presidents-plane.

These nations not only knowingly hindered a presidential flight. The fact that this was all about ‘a rumour’ seems to be a clear case that the intelligence community is BLUNDERING on several national levels (including those of the commonwealth). So, basically as we read this we can conclude that as the flight time from Moscow to Vienna is a little over two hours, that including take off and all, for 3 hours no one had a clue where Snowden was. Do they know where he currently is, or are they only suspecting it? Why is all this getting bungled to the extent it currently is?

I would also like to add that it was a presidential flight; it was carrying the Bolivian president Evo Morales. The fact that this had been done, how long until US Air Force One will, on suspicions be forced down in the same way (just to check)? This is a step that should never have been allowed, whether Snowden was or was not on board.

The simple truth is that this plane had no way to make the flight in one go, so it would need to refuel in more than one place. If those countries had an extradition treaty, he could have been detained at that point, as this was a diplomatic flight, this level of breach of protocol will have far fetching consequences.

If this was about getting Snowden and if I had the call, I would have ‘accidently’ (really accidently mind you!) soured the ‘milk’ at the refuel post and offered a replacement plane (with the most humble of apologies of course). The fact that they would have to relocate to another plane gives an option that Snowden left the plane and then he could be arrested as diplomatic immunity could not have extended to him. Was that so hard a scenario to concoct?

Personally I am all for getting Snowden to the US within the boundaries of the law. This act was not one and there is every chance that heads will roll on several airports in response. The acts transgressed are clearly against the diplomatic convention.

That danger can be found in the ‘Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961’, Article 22, s3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property there on and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

So in my mind I am wondering which brainless individual was responsible for that little caper. And I am actually pointing my finger at the US State Department at this point. France, Spain, Italy and Portugal made the error of barring a diplomatic flight from crossing their airspace and all at the same time? No, I do not think so. They were called, but called by whom?

In my mind, the Snowden principle is not just out of control, it is now leading us to questions we never expected to ask. The US intelligence budget has been in excess of 240 billion over the last 3 years. We have had 2 severe intrusions of data intelligence, the appearance that the NSA has a flawed HR system and now we have someone overruling diplomatic rules creating international scandals. It is likely that the last issue was driven by the US State department, yet, they should be aware of protocol, which takes us back to the intelligence community. Oh and lastly, for several hours the whereabouts of Snowden remained unknown, whilst that person was known to be in a specific building in the hours leading up to this.

Personally it seems to me that those on the hunt of the Wicked Warlock Snowden are just not thinking straight.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Tagged as Bolivia, bolivian presidents, Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, diplomatic flight, Edward Snowden, Evo Morales, extradition treaty, France, intelligence community, Italy, NSA, Portugal, president evo morales, Spain, US State Department, vienna airport

July 3, 2013 · 17:18

The Age of ‘no retirement left’ is coming

Another day and another play for one of the last foundations of wealth. As the Dutch NOS news reported, the Dutch pension funds are willing to invest in its own country. The Netherlands is currently an investment location that is receiving a very small part of that fat fund. Yet, pension funds want a level of government guarantee for these risky investments at present. That guarantee will save them for a certain amount of losses should they occur. As such the government has a level of objections. As the news reported, this plan has been a year in the making. Basically the pensions will be doing all the tasks banks are supposed to do. There is a level of risk that the pensions are not willing to carry at present. And why should they?

The reporter Jeroen van Dommelen stated “the government does not have the funds to invest, it is poor“. This is part of all the mayhem and issues on play. When the government could have stepped on the plate, they refused to do so. They pushed the bills forward. They relied on certain numbers of bettering the economy. A game played since 2006. And every time the Dutch CBS, which has government stakes and are prone to certain levels of censoring presented them. Those numbers have been downgraded quarter after quarter and as such no issues were resolved. Now this government is pretty much at the edge of viable as they received invoices from past administrations, and now, the one cauldron of cash that remains, and needs to be kept safe is being tapped on. This is not a cauldron where money renews (you know that realistic 100 coin leprechaun model), no it is like a simple soup cauldron, what is taken out, is lost forever. Starting a grab from that last cauldron that keeps an entire generation fed is not acceptable. It is too dangerous. When there were options, we were not allowed to touch it. Now that there are no options they want to touch it against our wishes and diminish it?

This is why pensions what the government to accept levels of losses, and why the buck is not passed forward, but to another person. Why should these funds be used to renovate rental properties? The rental agencies have been making a killing, or at least bosses in these places were. As examples we have the Amsterdam Rochdale scandal (Source, Dutch Parool http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/1284/Affaire-Rochdale/index.dhtml). The Rotterdam corporation PWS, where fraud was a massive tool to offset the rental market (source: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2680/Economie/article/detail/766332/2006/02/10/Baas-PWS-ontslagen-om-fraude.dhtml). The examples do not even end there. The issues of preferential treatment and other calamities have given these issues a bad taste. In this environment there are grounds for calling the risk of these investments too high, in addition, these expensive dwellings should be providing for its own invested renovations. None of that seemed to have been happening. If we would investigate the issues as the Dutch SHC is investigated in 2011, where fraud was a factor, then we see that these events led to fusions which ended several steps, including in my humble opinion the prosecution of several people. The fusion left Miss Hedy van de Berk in charge after 25 years of service to clean up a mess her predecessors left. She had to lean on ‘lessons learned’ and interesting that Councillor for the City of Rotterdam Hamit Karakus (US equivalent of Alderman), who was present at that meeting seems not to have been that vocal on certain issues. This is not an accusation towards either, yet the foundation of pushing forward seems to be a clear given, and as such investments with retirement funds should be classified as a definite risk. As such we should wonder why these funds have to chip in in the first place. When we look at the responses from Henk Knoop (VVD) as MP of economic affairs, we see that he makes a clear good case where politicians want to make it more interesting to invest in Dutch events. I personally have the view that risk factors currently remain too high and until certain guarantees are added until there is clear evidence that sound investments are proven to be sound investments, the current level of risk should be considered too high.

The fact remains that they want certain levels of guarantees from Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem. His view is that returns are founding certain levels of risk. This is a fair and realistic view. The issue that many have in this regard is that the risks are unrealistically given. That view has weight if we accept the faltering views SNS Reaal brought forward as it needed to be nationalised. Those are levels of lost investments, especially in commercial enterprises that are too unacceptable. Until those issues are resolved and dealt with, it seems that retirement funds have no business in a field with so much risk.

In addition the message by Jeroen van Dommelen at the end stating “resolving these issues would give way that on the day of princes there will also be good news” is way too thin to base the risk of retirement funds on. For the non-Dutch, the day of princes is on the third Tuesday in September when the Dutch government through a royal speech announces the new annual budget.

These dangers are not just visible in the Netherlands, yet in a place where they have been one of the most secure in Europe, the fall-back might be larger than anywhere else. In the UK, there is the case that Simon Cox of BBC4 reported on in regards to the pension liberation scheme last March. (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21844955)

The options for those before retirement could access some of this cash. The issue is not just whether people select this, it is about the dangers that the acts comprises. What people do not realise is that a person’s retirement is mostly built in the last 5 years of ones funds. At that time, the interest is so rewarding that those years are the days when a retirement almost doubles making it a good thing (read enough to survive on). To lower these amounts, means that people either work a few additional years, or fall short by a chunk of what they would need. So it is a danger one should not consider. My thoughts are not as full on extreme as those of Shaun Richards of “Mindful Money”. He is more into the question whether an economic war between the saving retirees and the youthful left with nothing (something according to those lines). I do not think it is that far, yet, the greedy and their prying eyes on those untapped resources are out there, so there are dangers. His story makes for a good read, so check it out at http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/shaun-richards/is-there-a-danger-of-an-economic-war-between-pensioners-and-the-young-in-the-uk/

If there is one note of criticism from my side on this article then it is the focal view as he looked at the groups, yet outliers from those groups and whether they moved from one group to another is slightly ignored, so a possible factor of skewing from those evading the credit crunch and those who got pushed out into destitution all together seemed to have been ignored, that group might have remained too small (however, still unillustrated).

His views should not be discarded. It seems to me that his views are partially adopted by Peter Hain of the Guardian (alternative is that they came to similar conclusions). Peter was quite adamant on the loss of cohesion as he describes it. Where I disagree is the Nick Clegg view where the better off retirees should ‘abolish’ their tax benefits. Is that fair? Those who remained cautious are now better off, whilst those who ‘partied on’ need additional support. I see no reason for those who did give out those extra few bobs to benefit now should give that up again. The social structure is all good and fine, yet those who did not keep their responsible part are now, as should be suffering a little more. A model was long term agreed upon, as today’s irresponsible spending’s should not be charged to those who got charged and worked all their lives. This is where ‘the Clegg principle’ falls short in my view. Peter’s words strike goal at the end where he writes “Cutting or means-testing pensioners allowances risks turning young against old and rich against poor while making negligible savings for the Treasury“. That is a risk we should not allow. Not because of the unfairness of this, but for the risk that the young will allow the exploiting of funds that should not be touched. In the end it is not just a negligible saving for the treasury, there is every indication that this will propel certain additional costs forward. Especially considering that these costs could have been avoided all together.

These issues also raise a few questions when we look at the Swedish system. A system protected by government and is totally untouchable by people until they retire. This quote came from the Swedish national bank this year. The question on the safety of retirements as such what return on investment has been achieved. the statement was “The major Swedish banks’ liabilities in US dollar amounted to just over SEK 1,600 billion at the end of 2012. Approximately 20 per cent of these liabilities consist of deposits, above all from large non-financial and non-bank financial companies.” So at 1.6 trillion Kronor, the outsourced risk that adds up to almost to SEK 226,000 for every Swedish citizen, all those funds in one investment? That looks like a very dangerous investment indeed, as that makes it the bulk of all the retirement investments all in one fund. When I look at my Swedish retirement savings then I have seen it go up by less than 5% annually (because I have annual costs, but I no longer live in Sweden and therefor no longer add to it). So what dangers are there for retirement investments all over Europe? France is in a peril no less dangerous, especially as President Hollande is asking the retirees to fill the French Coffers. Perhaps he will add a “s’il vous plait” (‘please’ in French) to that request at the end, but the message is rather clear. (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/france-pension-reforms-hollande_n_2810024.html)

There is a European issue with retirement incomes, and it seems that the push it forward routine, as I started with in the beginning of this blog has been a blanket policy for many nations. Should they blame former president Nicolas Sarkozy? He tried to up the age of retirement by 2 years. I do not think it is fair (mainly because dangers were not reported in time). Not unlike the Dutch system as I mentioned in previous blogs. The push-it-forward routine has been employed for too long in several nations.

These retirees all worked hard until they retired. The fact that the younger generation holds those to account and not those who refused to act is unfair. We should add the question on issues that banks had like rogue trader Jérôme Kerviel. A person who decreased French bank values by almost 5 billion Euros. Even though he was convicted and he was supposed to pay this back. How much was actually paid back? Was all this money returned? It is so tearful to somehow this poor poor man has lost it all. Did he? He never owned 5 billion, so it was not his to lose. So if we see all these international trading shortfalls in France, UK, Netherlands, Italy and a few other nations (I reported on those issues in previous blogs). Those sums are more than the combined retirement funds that are about to get endangered. I think these governments should get those coins back before they go after the somewhat defenceless retirement funds.

Still today governments are setting out costs that they cannot foot the bill for. To now address retirement funds is an unacceptable step. Consider the initial Dutch version were in their own admission plans had been in the making for one year. Look at cutbacks that have not yet been met. These events show clearly that these events should have been stopped yesterday, whilst allowing them tomorrow has every realistic view that they could leave the entire upcoming retiring generation destitute.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as BBC, CBS, Guardian, Hamit Karakus, Hedy van de Berk, Henk Knoop, Hollande, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Jeroen van Dommelen, Mindful Money, Nick Clegg, Nicolas Sarkozy, NOS, Parool, Peter Hain, President Hollande, Shaun Richards, Simon Cox, SNS Reaal, VVD

June 29, 2013 · 20:10

About that house you wanted!

It seems the Dutch are ready to take on the advice the Wijfels commission is giving. Even though not direct, it will end up that you have to pay 20% cash up front for any house or apartment you desire. And indeed, there was the subtle ‘line’ that if you do not have that kind of cash, you should address your pension funds. Interesting on how they are willing to open up pension funds to fund that.

Am I against it? There are two sides to this. On the one hand investing into your own future is perfectly sane. If only there was some level of certainty. You see, the fact that banks leave its taxpayers with their risky investments is one thing, the issue on your house is another.

How does this differ? Actually, it should not. A good house is a good house. However, consider some of the housing. How these houses are currently so much over any normal affordable income. It is nice to see a newscast in comparison with Germany; however, when we look at the quality and square meter price, then these prices are far from average. Of course, when seeking apartments in places like Munich, then yes, the prices might seem comparable. Yet, where we see average Munich prices, that is pretty an average price for living anywhere in the Netherlands. I agree that it is not fair that those factors are accountable to the banks, yet, they were at the centre of events when the prices were artificially pushed upwards.

As they sold mortgages no one cared too much about prices as the interest was tax deductable. When that 7%-9% is no longer part of tax deductibility, then we have a situation where the consumer now pays for it all. Add to that coming up with 20% (in due time) and someone slyly mentions the need to access ones retirement funds, we see another political play to get pensions into the banking equation. There is supporting evidence from all kind of sources. An interesting read was how on average house prices went down in US/UK and other places by well over 20%, whilst in the Netherlands the prices lowered less than 8%. It is unfair to just name one factor, as several economic factors had been in place in other nations too. The US crash never hit the European sides that hard, Europe might still fighting the backwash from those days, but on average Europe never had too much of the hardship the US faced. Another reason is the fact that the Netherlands is pretty much ‘full’. Whilst many nations have plenty of housing space outside of the great cities, the Netherlands has become a connection of large cities, with next to nothing to separate them.

Still this play as such to push people towards their retirement finds is slightly less than acceptable. There is however the other side that must be highlighted too. According to Ernst & Young, between 1996 and 2012, the outstanding mortgage has gone from 138 to 650 billion Euros, That means that outstanding mortgages currently have risen half a trillion Euro’s in just 15 years. Some might think that this is not a lot, yet, consider that that the Dutch population is under 17 million, which seems like the banks remain dealing with 100% of unpaid mortgages. If these numbers are correct, then it bears reason that these numbers should be looked at. Is that actually true? You see, feeling it is wrong, and knowing it is wrong (even with supporting evidence) seems nice from the writers point of view, however what about the reader?

There we get the issue that gives us the crux. When comparing apartments in the Netherlands and comparing them To Sweden and Germany, I noticed something. I lived in two of these locations, so I know what to look for. I compared the Dutch http://www.huizenzoeker.nl, Swedish http://www.bovision.se and German http://en.immostreet.com/germany. When comparing an apartment in Rotterdam and Kista (outskirts of Stockholm) we see a comparable raise of prices, yet overall we get a lot more apartment in Stockholm then in Rotterdam, for comparable prices (30%-40% more living space). This comparison takes an astute dive when we look at Germany, especially Bavaria; where all over the place we can buy 5 bedroom villa’s for a lot less than a two bedroom crinkly monkey apartment in Rotterdam. As such we get a first inkling; if we need 40K to buy a 5-bedroom villa is one thing, needing the same for a 2-bedroom apartment becomes a whole other matter. Interesting how this was not mentioned.

So why so much issues about the mortgage changes? We see a political engine too eagerly bowing to the needs of banks, bowing to a group that has visibly forsaken a population, a group that have left many billions in debts and we still bow to their ‘needs’? Now with the additional need to open up retirement finances that had remained relatively safe until now.

Yet, with the massive outstanding mortgages, what is left?
In addition, knowing that level of outstanding debts, are their demands out of proportions? That question becomes a whole lot more interesting when we consider the following from Bloomberg (source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/dutch-mortgage-bond-market-threatened-by-capital-rules-dsa-says.html).

This part throws a whole new hole in these issues. Banks are pushed to outside influences, and even though the government pretend to be fighting the good fight to protect this market, it is interesting that this part was not that visible on the news. It might be that the Wijfels report shows this, but I have not read it, so I cannot tell.

My issue is now with this part of the Bloomberg article “Dutch banks are the second-largest issuers of RMBS in Europe, relying on sales of the securities to help fill a 452 billion-euro funding gap between deposits and loans, Dutch central bank data show.” Excuse me?

Looking at some quick 2011 population numbers:
Germany 81.8 million , France 65.43 million, United Kingdom 62.74 million, Netherlands 16.69 million.

EXCUSE ME?

How (or better why) exactly are the Dutch banks the second largest in Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS)? Even if 100% of the Dutch population is now under mortgage (which is statistically impossible), those numbers are showing an enormous gap. What are we not told? Even if we consider the 25% difference in mortgage funding there are a few questions that should be asked out there. What have the banks been up to, and exactly what questions are not being asked, or better, what part are people and perhaps even politicians not getting information on? Half a trillion Euro funding gap reads like that there is a deficit of half a trillion Euro. That could never be covered by 6 billion in cut backs. Before you think that this has nothing to do with governments then think again, if that shortage is not addressed then that money will have to come from somewhere else. What are the odds that this needs to come from taxation in one way or another next? More important is the news that people saw over the last year. What buffers do banks have, and if so, how come the Bloomberg (a respectable bringer of news) information was not part of the newscast?

Is this an orchestrate play? It seems to me that a clear yes is in play, however, there are sides to this that do not make sense and they are outside of government controlled sources, sources that currently seemed to remain largely unmentioned. To me it seems that both banks and politicians might need to publicly answer some questions in regards to some of these issues and it would be nice that this is done before banks are given any more leeway or options to shift certain finance issues around.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as .DE, .SE, Banks, bloomberg, Bovision, centrale Bank Nederland, Dutch Central Bank, Ernst & Young, Germany, Huizenzoeker, Hypotheek, immostreet, Mortgage, Nederland, NL, NOS, retirement funds, Sweden, taxation, Wijfels, wijfels commission

Category Archives: Politics

Recent Posts

Archives