Tag Archives: Inc

The G30 court

There is an issue, an issue that we are all missing, more for the reason that after January 17th the media is steering clear of this with all the might and options they had. I reckon that they will spin this in a setting that it is ‘uninteresting‘, but when was it ever uninteresting to look at a group of 30 that has the alleged advantage of getting their fingers into a pool that has 0% risk worth billions?

The more important part is that there was one mention, or at least only one that was found, on July 7th 2017 and November 3rd 2017, both come from Reuters, the media has become that much of a bean flicking, pole pulling grape flocked bunch of pussies as I personally see it. Yet, the fact is that even as the impact is speculated, the setting given is that a group of 30 had an optional exclusive insight in the 3 trillion dollar ECB spending. Consider that each of these 30 got a 1% portfolio, where 75% of it was set at 0% whilst the remaining 25% might have op to 3% risk, in this setting the underwritten $31 billion for each member would set a speculated sanctified security of a multiple factors of $31 billion each. An elite group of 30 all having the top of the financial services cream at zero risk with the optional massive returns none of us ever had insight to. Now I can see that a mere 0.01% of that 1% would set me up for life, and that is merely the one source, the ‘in-crowd’, now would that be the incestuous insider towards untapped ‘considerations of investment‘ and they would all be bringing their own portfolios and economic insight on how to maximise that? Adding the man (read: Mario Draghi) spending Europe’s $3.1 trillion would happily be allowed into their midst, it is merely the setting that this rigs the game towards 30 participants whilst giving a weighted disadvantage to all other bankers is still an issue not covered by anyone.

So as we saw last November ‘ECB says not its call to publish content of Draghi’s meetings with financiers‘ (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecb-banks-ethics/ecb-says-not-its-call-to-publish-content-of-draghis-meetings-with-financiers-idUSKBN1D327U) whilst we also see “At issue is Draghi’s membership of the so-called Group of 30, where policymakers meet bankers, fund managers and academics behind closed doors to discuss economic issues. He sits alongside former and current central bankers, such as Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and the Bank of Japan’s Haruhiko Kuroda, as well as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman

Yet even as we see “Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly had asked whether the ECB would “consider proactively informing the public of the content of these meetings” in response to “a complaint by activist group Corporate Europe Observatory, which said in January it was concerned about proximity at the G30 of ECB officials and bankers they are meant to supervise“, I cannot help but wonder what both Emily O’Reilly and Corporate Europe Observatory left unmentioned. It was also mentioned by the Dutch Volkskrant where the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) member Olivier Hoedeman added comment.

I tried to find more, so even as we have found Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, Haruhiko Kuroda and Paul Krugman as confirmed names (from the media), I initially believed that Groupe Credit Agricole (most likely Dominique Lefebvre) would be a member, I am also speculating that Peter Smith (as director of N M Rothschild & Sons) might have been a member of that group. There are a few other players, but it becomes increasingly less certain even from a speculated point of view. What does matter is that this is not merely some ‘secretive’ babble group. Even as we see last July “In a letter to Draghi that was published on Friday, European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly said the meetings of the Group of Thirty, where central bankers, economists and financiers talk behind closed doors, are “not transparent” and questioned the ECB president’s membership of the club” as well as “Draghi has until September to reply to the letter in writing“, in that, the media and so called journalism stayed clear of this for the largest extent and the ECB did respond in October 2017 in the attached part. In my view, it all sounds nice but a select group of 30 with a pool of a number in excess of 6 trillion, where 30 people get first dibs on a risk bonus that goes beyond the comprehension of many and the media buries it on page 62 is a much larger issue, especially when the response on page 9 gives us “Moreover, Article 130 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union safeguards the independence of the ECB and of the members of its decision-making bodies” whilst we all know that a mere fraction of $6 trillion has been a case for shifted morals and readjusted (read: weighted morals) in many regards, there are countless hours on C-SPAN that saw those liquid morals and settings in regards to the 2008 events, so the idea of ’30’ members ending up with golden parachute the size of Australia is not that much of a leap, speculated or not. So when we look back to the 2008 events and we see in January 2017, nine years later “The credit rating agency Moody’s has agreed to pay nearly $864m to settle with US federal and state authorities over its ratings of risky mortgage securities in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, the department of justice said on Friday“, whilst the damage from the 2008 crash was set to top $22 trillion, we should ask the US Justice department on where the remaining 21.991 trillion is and who was supposed to pay for that. So in all this the fact that the media is steering clear from the G30 and asking, or actually not asking anything past the Reuters articles seen should give alarm bells on many sides, not merely the media.

The EU Parliament magazine (at https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/mario-draghi-under-fire-g30-membership), also gives us “CEO’s monetary and financial policy researcher Kenneth Haar said, “The Ombudsman’s decision is timely and very positive. Draghi’s involvement with the G30 was ill-advised from the start. Since 2016, when the ECB’s mandate for banking supervision was extended, the close ties between the president and the bankers’ group has become absolutely unacceptable“, or is that gave, because it is past tense and so far the media has remained silent since January 17. It seems to me (extremely speculative) that these 30 members are either connected or involved with the shareholders, stakeholders or advertisers in the media, because the media seems to be at all times protective of these three groups, whilst merely informing on those three groups in a filtered way, or to the smallest degree unless it was already out there in the field. The fact that this group has such a global hold is an issue and I might have been a lot less speculated on this, but the lack of transparency as well as the fact that we see “Tyga Gives Kim Kardashian A Hilarious Spelling Lesson On Social Media” and other Kim Kardashian on a daily basis, whilst the media remains silent on the speculated distributors of no risk trillions is a weird setting, especially when those sources have their fingers in thousands of billions. So when we see the BBC with: ‘Is it time we all unfollowed Kim Kardashian?‘, we might wonder whether it is yea or nea, yet there is a speculated 99.9999% likelihood that the G30 members will not make the cut towards monitored inclusion on following, I am certain that the first one that acts on that is has a boss who is likely (again speculated) to get a quick phone call from a shareholder, stakeholder or large advertiser to wonder if they have any grasp on their staff members and whether they want to manage or become managed.

Do you think that this is a stretch?

From my personal point of view I would give to you Sony (2012) issues, in regards to the change to the Terms of Service. The media ignored it, even as it would impact a group of 30 million consumers. Most of those players merely just trivialised it via ‘there is a memo‘ on it. The rest did even less; some even ignored it all together. With Microsoft (2017/2018) we see even more (at https://www.computerworld.com/article/3257225/microsoft-windows/intel-releases-more-meltdownspectre-firmware-fixes-microsoft-feints-an-sp3-patch.html)

You’d have to be incredibly trusting — of both Microsoft and Intel — to manually install any Surface firmware patch at this point. Particularly when you realize that not one single Meltdown or Spectre-related exploit is in the wild. Not one“, the amount of visibility (apart from marketed Microsoft Central views) is close to null, a system with no more than 17 million users is marketed and advertised to the gills, so the media seems to steer clear, merely two examples in a field that is loaded with examples.

Back to the group

So as I gave the speculated view earlier on the ‘whom’, we can see the full list (at http://group30.org/members), these members are according to the website:

  • Jacob A. Frenkel, Chairman, JPMorgan Chase International
  • Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister, Singapore
  • Guillermo Ortiz, Chairman, BTG Pactual Latin America ex-Brazil
  • Paul A. Volcker, Former Chairman, Federal Reserve System
  • Jean-Claude Trichet, Former President, European Central Bank
  • Leszek Balcerowicz, Former Governor, National Bank of Poland
  • Ben Bernanke, Former Chairman, Federal Reserve System
  • Mark Carney, Governor, Bank of England
  • Agustín Carstens, Former Governor, Banco de México
  • Jaime Caruana, Former Governor, Banco de Espana
  • Domingo Cavallo, Former Minister of Economy, Argentina
  • Mario Draghi, President, European Central Bank
  • William C. Dudley, President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
  • Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., President and CEO, TIAA
  • Arminio Fraga, Founding Partner, Gavea Investimentos
  • Timothy Geithner, President, Warburg Pincus
  • Gerd Häusler, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Bayerische Landesbank
  • Philipp Hildebrand, Vice Chairman, BlackRock
  • Gail Kelly, Global Board of Advisors, US Council on Foreign Relations
  • Mervyn King, Member, House of Lords
  • Paul Krugman, Distinguished Professor, Graduate Center, CUNY
  • Christian Noyer, Honorary Governor, Banque de France
  • Raghuram G. Rajan, Distinguished Service Professor of Finance
  • Maria Ramos, Chief Executive Officer, Barclays Africa Group
  • Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics, Harvard University
  • Masaaki Shirakawa, Former Governor, Bank of Japan
  • Lawrence Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard University
  • Tidjane Thiam, CEO, Credit Suisse
  • Adair Turner, Former Chairman, Financial Services Authority
  • Kevin Warsh, Lecturer, Stanford University Graduate School of Business
  • Axel A. Weber, Former President, Deutsche Bundesbank
  • Ernesto Zedillo, Former President of Mexico
  • Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor, People’s Bank of China

They also have senior members, which is interesting as they are younger than at least one of the current members, as well as the fact that most of the members in the current, senior and emeritus group have multiple titles.

  • Stanley Fischer, Former Governor of the Bank of Israel
  • Haruhiko Kuroda, Governor, Bank of Japan
  • Janet Yellen, Former Chair, Federal Reserve System

And the Emeritus members:

  • Abdlatif Al-Hamad, Former Minister of Finance and Planning, Kuwait
  • Geoffrey L. Bell, President, Geoffrey Bell and Associates
  • Gerald Corrigan, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
  • Guillermo de la Dehesa, Chairman, Aviva Grupo Corporativo
  • Jacques de Larosière, Former Director, IMF
  • Richard A. Debs, Former President, Morgan Stanley International
  • Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics, Harvard University
  • Gerhard Fels, Former Member, UN Committee for Development Planning
  • Toyoo Gyohten, Former Chairman, Bank of Tokyo
  • John Heimann, Senior Advisor, Financial Stability Institute
  • Sylvia Ostry, Former Ambassador for Trade Negotiations, Canada
  • William R. Rhodes, President and CEO, William R. Rhodes Global Advisors
  • Ernest Stern, Former Managing Director; The World Bank
  • David Walker, Former Chairman, Barclays
  • Marina v N. Whitman, Professor; University of Michigan
  • Yutaka Yamaguchi, Former Deputy Governor, Bank of Japan

So this group of 30 is slightly larger and in the group each of these members would have the power and economic impact to tell any member of the Fortune500 what to do, or better stated and more important ‘what not to do!‘ It is in that instance that we see the first impact. A game that now looks as I personally see it rigged in several ways; so even as I was allegedly wrong about Dominique Lefebvre or a direct peer, we see Christian Noyer. So in my view, in a 2015 French article on the issue of “Who will succeed Christian Noyer as head of the Banque de France?“, we see “Mario Draghi, the president of the ECB, seems to have had the idea to see his right arm go. Benoît Coeuré would be an important ally for the Italian in the Council of the Governor“, yet in the light of the G30, it seems to me that such a discussion would have been set into a pre-emptive conclusion of who would needed to have been made king in that castle. When we see that in light of a previous article, namely ‘The Global Economic Switch‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/03/06/the-global-economic-switch/), were well over 500 billion is to be invested and grown, in addition to the fact that the SAMA has oversight to well over 2 trillion dollars, how come that they do not have a seat at the table? In the same way that the Rothschild’s are not there, but they might be ‘represented‘ through Bernanke or Frenkel, whilst it is not impossible that Mario Draghi might be giving them the low-down to some degree, yet the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with that much money on the ladle of expansion, that they are not part of it. In a world where that group is about (according to their own website) “The Group of Thirty, established in 1978, is a private, non-profit, international body composed of very senior representatives of the private and public sectors and academia. It aims to deepen understanding of international economic and financial issues, and to explore the international repercussions of decisions taken in the public and private sectors“, where the foundation of Saudi Arabia has been the power of OPEC and the power to instil the push to be a global player in many fields, in that sight in represented value that the repercussions of decisions are set at, to see the Bank of Israel yet not some link to SAMA (Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority) makes equally less sense in the line of thinking that the ‘about‘ section gives us, which makes me wonder what these members are about. they might be all about that, yet what else they are about, or what else they have a useful value in gives rise to my train of thought on where this train with less than 55 occupants is heading off to, and more so, in light of the power that these ‘30’ members have, the fact that the G30 is not the cover talk of many newspapers, especially the Financial Times is beyond me, because anyone coming to you with ‘No News’ or outdated news, or even worse that there is no real issue in play is clearly told what not to write.

It seems to me that not only is there more in play, the personal speculated view that I have in light of learning more and more about the G30 merely confirms my suspicions, as well as the insight that I am getting (a speculated one) where the media is steering clear from all this is a much larger issue. To what and in which direction is one I am not willing to go into, because I know that the ice is wafer thin at this point and skating on water is a realistic ‘no no’, yet the feeling that these members are getting a first view and optionally the option to dip their cups on plenty into a grape juice barrel of risk-less profit is one that I feel is very much in play. This G30 group is networking on an entirely new level, one that I have never seen before. This is not some kingmaker into presidency; this is a long term group where the optional billions will keep on flowing for decades to come. And this all in a setting of non-transparency, because this goes way beyond the 3 publications in 2016 and of course all those papers published before that. In the 2016 publication ‘Shadow Banking and Capital Markets: risks and opportunities‘, (at http://group30.org/images/uploads/publications/ShadowBankingCapitalMarkets_G30.pdf), we see in the conclusion on page 49: “Moreover, growing leverage across the global Economy can create important risks to macroeconomic stability even if the financial system itself is more resilient. And two developments are particularly concerning: the growth of emerging market foreign currency debt and the rapid growth of Chinese leverage accompanied by a proliferation of shadow banking activities are ominously reminiscent of precrisis developments in the advanced economies“, which is in view of the experts would be nothing new, yet resources available and the 36 exhibits and the recommendations would have been available to the G30 group much earlier than anyone else. In that light, we need to wonder not merely on the setting, in Exhibit 36 we see mortgage losses and the fact that there is the US, Canada and Europe, so in that light the fact that the fourth one is the Netherlands, is that not odd? In light of several settings, France, Germany, Italy and the UK, any of these four would have made perfect sense, so why the Netherlands? Exhibit 33 might have been a reason for this, yet in equal measure the absence of Scandinavia and Italy in this setting now adds to the questions. I think it is not merely choice and presentation, the absence of those players give rise to questions, perhaps even speculated questions and as there are none to be given, it makes me wonder what else is missing, what other data was filtered because in the light of data and presentation there is one golden rule I have always kept in the back of my mind.

The Analyst shows you which investment needs to be made, the presentation makes you look forward to the invoice.

So what invoice is the G30 group making you look forward to and where did it need to go? Two questions with optionally very different results, and in that setting, whilst you know the impact the European economy has had over the last 15 years, whilst we also know that Mario Draghi has been spending $3 trillion, in that setting the G30 does not make the news?

Who is getting fooled by all this and who is getting fooled by making sure that you do not get to notice this?

It is a much larger playing field that is from whatever point of view you have a field of inclusion, or a field of exclusion, yet in all this there are questions that are not asked at all, questions that even I am not asking because I decided to go into technology, engineering and law whilst giving a pass on the Economic subjects. Yet the Financial Media is not asking them either and that is an issue, especially in light of that ‘secretive‘ group set to a stage of networking inclusion, or is it networking through filtered exclusion?

I’ll let you decide on that.



Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

On this Friday 13th

There have been a few events going on, with all the hustle and bustle from America we are moving towards a possible point that this nation will be officially renamed, when that happens other domino stones will be pushed into a different direction. Yet there is still time, so we can ignore it for now. What was interesting for me, was a Facebook mail that has all the elements of becoming a flame, a wave of emotions, intentionally set in that way. Yet the part that was actually interesting were the facts that it had. Those facts were indeed interesting to look into, yet not by themselves. At this very moment I am digging to confirm certain numbers and see if they hold up.


Income 2013 Income 2014 Change

Aetna, Mark Bertolini

$30.7M $15M -50%
Centene, Michael Neidorf $14.5M $28.1M 93%
Cigna, David Cordani $13.5M $27.2M 101%
Humana, Bruce Broussard $8.8M $13.1M 48%
United Health, Stephen Hemsley $12.1M $66.1M 546%
Wellpoint Joseph Swedish $17M $8.1M -47%

These are health insurances and their CEO’s. This group of 6 have in their hands the health options of the bulk of Americans. Now, before we act in outrage, which we might still do, we see that two of them lost half their income, which in the worst situation, that person (Joseph Swedish) makes in 2 days the same I make in a year. In opposition, there is Stephen Hemsley, who makes in a day, the same I would make in 6 years. Now, we can make this about the imbalance, yet that is not what this is about.

Let’s not forget that these are manages health carers. In September 2016 we saw CNN report “A recent report by Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits forecasts that the average family health care plan will cost $18,142, up 3.4% from 2015. That’s faster than wage growth in America“, and “Premiums on the Obamacare exchanges are expected to rise by double-digits this year“. Now, we need to tread carefully here, health care systems require more work and they need to look to what happens in the future, not just what happens now, So when we see Aetna report in 2016 a total revenue of 60 billion, yet an operating earnings of 2.7 billion, we see that there is a margin, yet not an overly exaggerated one. This is part of a system for 23.5 million members. In this on page 7 we see that the revenue is comprised of commercial and governmental premiums totalling 51.5 billion. Yet it goes further, when we see the growth that Aetna has had, the merger deal with Humana, which is interesting as it is set as a 37 billion merger, yet when we see the quarter of quarter growth of 3 years at least, does it make sense to see this as a mere 37 billion dollar merger when the operating revenue has been in excess of 58 billion for well over 3 years? In addition, Aetna reported an operating gain against costs of over 30%, so when we see the CNBC quote on November 10th 2016: “The Affordable Care Act was built on a flawed model that required getting as many people as possible into the insurance system, Bertolini said. And he said he thinks the Republican Party will make good on its promise to repeal it“, we wonder with their operating profits, a managed health care system no less, what are we not seeing? As stated, compared to the revenue, the profits are not outlandish, yet the entire Obamacare issue seems to give another view, one that clashes with the view that we see at Aetna. Now consider another quote, one we see on December 13th 2016, in bizjournals.com. Here we see: “As one of its arguments against the acquisition, the U.S. Justice Department says the deal would drive up prices on health insurance exchanges in 17 counties where Aetna (NYSE: AET) and Louisville-based Humana (NYSE: HUM) now compete“, you see where there is competition, prices are pushed down, so how come I suddenly see an increase in health insurance exchanges? The final part is one that strikes a sting on the violin of chaos too. Consider the quote: “Bertolini also testified that Molina Healthcare Inc., which has agreed to buy Medicare assets from Aetna and Humana for $117 million if the merger is approved“, now let’s be honest that $117 million is nothing to sneer at, yet what are these Medicare assets exactly? Where is the write-off? You see, two companies with a total revenue exceeding $100 billion annually over the last 3 years, in that light $117 million is close to no blip on the radar (0.11%). So why was it mentioned, why put Molina Healthcare Inc. in the picture? Well, like the other two players, they have had quarter on quarter growth for 3 years too, more important, even as their revenue is not as impressive of the two others, we see that annual on quarter, 2015 brought close to 50% growth, whilst 2016 is expected to surpass the 30% mark, those are operating revenue growths nearly unheard of in this day and age. And this is not the adult media sales, this is healthcare, so as we expect that there will always be growth, we need to see where the interests are of these players. Let’s not forget that the picture is changing. Humana Inc. is a for-profit American health insurance company, they clearly state this, so what will become of Aetna when that merger goes through? How will the picture change and how will that impact the members? They are both Managed health care, yet Aetna is not outspoken ‘for profit’, the numbers do bear this out to some degree. Yet in all this is not about the members or patients. This is about the shareholders and both have plenty, the question becomes what direction will Aetna take? Will we see a board of directors that find themselves in agreement with the senate under Emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero, when in 19 AD they proclaimed: ‘Puer Pauper‘ (fuck the poor), which by the way coincided with the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, life is full of irony at times. The reason to make mention of this is because Israel has a health care system not unlike the Netherlands. A compulsory plan where all Israeli citizens are entitled to basic health care as a fundamental right. There a person can sign up with one of four official health insurance organizations which are run as not-for-profit organizations, this is where we see the massive difference. ‘run-for-profit‘ comes at a price and that price is the additional dividends that the members must pay the shareholders. It is not that simple, but you get the idea. In all this the fact that this approach made Israel 4th in terms of efficiency and Israel was ranked 6th healthiest country in the world by Bloomberg rankings. These are numbers any government could be proud of. Neither the US nor the UK make that top 10, according to the article in Bloomberg, the UK doesn’t even make the Top20. So as we realise a few numbers and this all leads to a lot of questions, we can agree that there is nothing against ‘for-profit’, yet who remains in the US with the option to afford this? Perhaps that is why the link to Molina Healthcare Inc., just a small token proclaiming to remain ‘for the people‘, whilst relying on tax deductions and write offs to remain ‘for the shareholders‘. However, let’s face it, these two (Mark Bertolini and Bruce Broussard) are almost the lowest ones on the Health Care CEO list of incomes, still making per day about what I make per year. Yet even as their incomes drew the attention, it is the coverage, the operating profits and the for-profit sides in some of these Managed Health Care groups, whilst we see places like fortune.com inform its upcoming ‘victims’ that the costs will go up: “costs are expected to grow 6.5% through next year. While costs have finally reached a point of equilibrium after years of double-digit growth” as well as “36% of employers are even considering a defined contribution strategy where they would provide a set sum of money to each employee to pay for health care, and if a health care plan exceeds that sum, the employee is on the hook for the remainder of the cost“, so whatever increased quality of life the Americans did not get, there is information that well over 10% of the employers have adopted this strategy. Such plans, especially with the for-profit health care managers will see a shift in costs, from employer to employee. Fortune.com gives as reason: “There’s two primary factors that affect health care costs: how much is being consumed and the price for services and drugs. As it turns out, prices aren’t what’s primarily adding to the rising trend. It comes down to more people consuming more care“. I personally believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle lane. Both the needs of an aging population and the pharmaceutical patents driving up prices as pharmaceutical patents are chomping down on maximised profit per pill. In this Forbes reported two days ago that the pharmaceuticals are not happy. Here we see the quote “Much of Medicare is now run by private sector insurers like Humana or Aetna, who already bid on drugs to get lower prices (this is known as Medicare Advantage)“, Yet President elect Donald Trump stated: “I worry today that the pharmaceutical industry has a very false sense of relief or security because of a Trump administration and a Republican Congress. I think we should recognize that the drug pricing issue is a populist issue. Americans are rightfully angry. The fault is not, surely, on the pharmaceutical industry’s shoulders, but we bear that because we make the drugs. We innovate the drugs, and as a result of that, whether we like it or not, or we want to try to explain it or not, we have to deal with it.” As stated more than once in the past, I do believe in capitalism, yet at what point does capitalism become plain greed? When we look at the top 20 pharmaceuticals, they are hiding behind a 2% growth, yet these 20 companies which include Novartis, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson were making 547 billion in 2014, whilst we see that 13 of them are turning a profit with one of them 127%, these are only the 2014 numbers, the profits have been steadily increasing, at the expense of those requiring medication, at the expense of a health care system that can afford less and less. In all this we see that places like Pfizer kept a gross profit of well above 38 billion and they weren’t even the best scoring one. Yet, the connection go on a lot further. You see, with Pfizer we see James C. Smith who is also on the public board of Thomson Reuters, Suzanne Nora Johnson is also on the board of American International Group, Inc. (insurances). James M. Kilts serves on the board of MetLife Inc. as well as Nielsen Holdings N.V. The list goes on. A group of board members already on a massive income, adding the incomes from other boards where they serve with incomes most people dare not dream of. What is more interesting is how we see an almost illuminati sized cloud of interaction with media, insurances and other interactions. All essential and profitable for Pfizer. When we look at Novartis that list of directors takes an even more interesting turn. Ann Fudge who also serves on the board of the US Council on Foreign Relations, with additional functions at Unilever as well as the Northrop Grumman Corporation. Pierre Landolt, Ph.D. who is also the chairman of the Swiss private bank Landolt & Cie SA, a Financial Institution in Brazil and a few other enterprises. Andreas von Planta, Ph.D, linked to HSBC, Moller Finance, and the regulation board of the Swiss stock exchange and finally Srikant Datar, Ph.D., who goes beyond mere Novartis, with additional board placement with ICF International Inc., Stryker Corp. and T-Mobile US. The pharmaceutical boards read like a weave of corporate interaction with links all over the Fortune 500. A conspiracy theorists wet dream.

For us it is not about who they are connected to, but how such links could be used to maximise profits. The idea that the Pharmaceutical industry has its representation, and on the other side we see an optional Novartis with its board member Ann Fudge who also serves on the board of the US Council on Foreign Relations, how is that for hedging your bets on both sides of the profit sandwich?

On this Friday 13th we see news in the Guardian mention of the NHS winter crisis, we have been seeing from all directions the Obamacare and how Obamacare Premiums are expected to Increase by ‘Double Digits‘ in 2017, one can only hope that the first digit is a ‘1’. With pharmaceuticals and insurances both on the maximisation of profit, the people in several places are pushed in a corner with no place to go see about any options.

Only the superstitious will think that the health care news will be better tomorrow, it is Friday 13th after all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics, Science