Tag Archives: Moody

September 5, 2025 · 06:14

The alternative way

I was contemplating the issues of Data privacy and particular the issues around US customs and their intrusion on your data issues. I had a few issues with that and as America is now the least reliable side of the matter I decided on a few techniques that might allow evasion of this. This morning I decided to look a few things up and I paused at Wired (at https://www.wired.com/2017/02/guide-getting-past-customs-digital-privacy-intact/) and I got to ‘How to Enter the US With Your Digital Privacy Intact’ where my suspicions were greeted with the ideas that had not been thought of. You see I am a great fan of ‘non-repudiation’ and that gave me the idea. What if you had the greatest of data insights? What if part of this locking and unlocking the data is for example your library card? This gave me two settings. The first is the magnetic strip, you see, you never think of this and it is what YOU make of it. The first setting is that a bank card has three tracks on a magnetic strip and they are for the most employed by banks when they need it (like ATM), but that setting could be altered for YOUR needs. The second part is what the card looks like. We can use these two elements to take a new page out of a book. 

So this leaves us the corporate way and the personal way. 

As a first, we get to copy the details you need (like a contact list, app list and personal lists). The second part becomes copying hat you need to a corporate server, encrypted data that is merely there, like a backup. So how is that dat secure? Well we get to the next stage, we take one or two cards you have on you. One with a magnetic strip, one as a card (could be business card, could be staff access card, or even your library card). You will keep it on you at all time. And third a personal access number (up to 12 digits) This gives you the setting of non-repudiation.

Now we travel to a ‘no one cares where’ place in America and you pass through customs, without phones or laptops. Just a regular joey. And in the American office you go to the security office and download the essentials. Now this merely makes sense for the people who needs this. So it is not for everyone in the first stage.

You pass the credits to a scanner and there is your data, your essential data that is. Kept safe from peeking eyes, and there is a growing concern that this is becoming more and more essential. We seemingly are ‘held’ to the dangers of YOUR data, but I reckon that America is now gaining an essential need of Digital IP that they can ‘embrace’ for their broke settings soon enough. Only for you to lose the fact that your IP was hijacked and no one knows who or where. But that is the setting that I am seeing now. They need IP to survive the next year and why should they be allowed your data? At present we see nearly everyone giving us “Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually.” But I am not so sure. We get the ‘victims’ that Nokia and other brands, all whilst Huawei is far beyond what players like Nokia and others can produce. Is there IP theft? Yes, I know there is but from fashion brands like Gucci (it might be IP brands) but the markets are making a killing on $15000 Gucci bags, now for sale in the markets at $179 dollars. As I see it, the new settings allows for America to steal what they need to avoid having to not pay their interest bills. Now this is allegedly, I have no evidence. But the setting as I see it is quite real, as such I devised a way to avoid becoming a victim. The best option is to avoid America all together. Possible for me, but not for everyone and should I get that decently paying technical support job, then I will end up working for a US firm (hopefully avoiding the US altogether) but I am not holding my breath on that. 

As such I came up with this, a first in this task. There are two settings. The first is the data and the second is the hardware. The data I describes and I am a firm believer in non-repudiation. The hardware is different. You se, the movies have this nice clean crisp solution, but we are barely there. There was Ultraviolet (2006) where we see a foam phone printed and folded. We are already at that stage where we can do that. The printed foam cover is possible, there is still the setting of the battery, but that could be overcome. We merely set the LCD print board to include the display, you won’t have a camera setting, but that wouldn’t be needed. We get the setting that the devices go back to their original platform. So you have (if needed) a camera, a battery, and whatever more you need. The printed phone will interact with it all if needed. And wouldn’t it be nice if Huawei gives you all that? American stupidity forces China to give us the next need to innovate. That is irony the size of the Titanic (in action). 

You get one republican idiot forcing the world to turn to its life long enemy (President Nixon doesn’t agree with this statement), but that is for tomorrow. There is of course the real setting. Do we still need America? They are so in denial about what is real that the current tourism news is given to you by YouTube (optionally TikTok too). 

As such my mind went wandering into the data safety setting and as the article is giving you, others have preceded me. But for now, corporations will need to adapt that same policy before they lose the data they have and personal data is currency, one that America shouldn’t possess. As such I wonder at what point these firms will avoid America altogether, setting offices up in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. And now that it seems that India is turning to Russia and China for their oil, they are likely the first to change venue towards their BRICS partners. The EU and the Commonwealth are next. As such Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom will result into making these jumps, to what extent is impossible to predict. I reckon that it depends on how they are depending of America as such. It will be a fluctuating field. But what is true is that more and more people are seeing the hardships that American corporations faces. GM has shed nearly 20,000 staff from 2018 onwards. ‘Tesla to cut 14,000 jobs as Elon Musk aims to make carmaker ‘lean and hungry’’ and that is merely in the last year. In the last 2 months we were told that Microsoft is shedding 9000 jobs. That’s over 40,000 people in merely three corporations and when we seek harder answers. Only Yesterday did Fortune give us ‘Ray Dalio says ‘most people are silent’ because they’re afraid to talk about what’s really happening with the U.S. economy’, I saw this setting months ago and the media is avoiding the issues as they are allegedly being held hostage by advertisement revenues. We aren’t given the real deals and I am not sure where the real deal stands. According to the media the setting is ‘US economy has likely stalled, with 50% risk of recession in 2 years, says Barclays’ in the meantime we are also given ‘US Economy: Jobless Claims Rise, Trade Gap Widens’ and ‘Stagflation & Recession Risks Loom Large Over US Economy’ with sources like UBS (allegedly relying on hard data), UBS gives us a 93% recession risk. If this is true, how does the Barclay setting make sense? I get it, talking about issues in two years time doesn’t mean that the risk is low in the next few months (it could be 100% by November). UBS gave three red flags, so there are all indicators. And the setting of Stagflation becomes the ‘norm’ Which gives us that growth is slowing, but the prices are rising. I am merely voicing what others are saying as I am not an economist. I reckon this is the second bullet that Canada is seemingly dodging as they elected Mark Carney (formerly Marky Mark of the British Bank). I’ll take his word over President Trump’s claims any day of the week. Moody’s speaker Mark Zandi gives us “we aren’t in a recession, but on the precipice of this recession”, OK, I am willing to go along with that, but merely as it seems sincere and I have no economic degree (Mark Zandi apparently has a stack of them). The problem is that these two sources highlight a rather large issue and the media is skating around them, they are avoiding the issue to get their alleged hands on advertisement revenue. It becomes an issue to see the real data and that is where you want to pass your IP through the borders? Not in my lifetime. I am likely to get a nice bonus if I just hand my IP to China, which sounds a lot more promising than trusting that America will do right by me. According to Zandi a third of America is already in recession or close to it and when we add the Tourism numbers I am seeing a grim picture, one that makes me plan my next vacation (whenever I can afford that one) on Yas Island in Abu Dhabi, UAE and not in America (ever). The Bank of America is blaming this on Tariffs (what a surprise). As such you might wander what one thing has to do with the other. The principle we are currently seeing at the America borders is the identification of HVT’s (High Value Targets), the second setting is IP. America needs trillions and one way to get these is by hijacking IP (making America the sole distributor of YOUR IP) Is that rally the way to go? Why don’t we ask the EU, Commonwealth and China on that issue? I think this is the one case where these three sides will speak (agree) in unison and I saw the setting coming over a decade ago and it is all over my blog. So why wasn’t the media this informative? I will let you decide.

But believe me that your IP and your personal DATA require protection and in a non-repudiating way. As such my mind went tinkering to what is possible and securing and keeping your data online was a first stop. I call it alternative way and that has a way of becoming the only or main way soon enough. 

Have a great day, I’m now a mere 90 minutes from breakfast.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, movies, Politics, Science, Tourism

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 25, 2025 · 00:15

When the setting fits

That is at times the thoughts we have. Now, let me be clear. This is pure speculation. It is speculation because I am not in politics (not even the shady kind) and as such it cannot be presumption. There is no best educated guess, there is merely a best guess and the setting fits several thoughts I have had in the past. It all seemingly fits. It doesn’t make it more true or more reliable. 

That is something you need to keep in mind from the start and this was all set in motion through Reuters, who gave me in the first instance (at https://www.reuters.com/business/apple-pay-25-tariff-if-phones-not-made-us-trump-says-2025-05-23/) with ‘Trump threatens new tariffs on European Union and Apple, reigniting trade fears’ and here we see “U.S. President Donald Trump threatened on Friday to ratchet up his trade war again, pushing for a 50% tariff on European Union goods starting June 1 and warning Apple he may slap a 25% levy on all imported iPhones bought by U.S. consumers. The twin threats, delivered via social media, roiled global markets after weeks of de-escalation had provided some reprieve in the tariff battle. Major U.S. stock indexes and European shares fell and the dollar weakened, while the price of gold, a safe-haven for investors, rose. U.S. Treasury yields fell on fears about tariffs’ effect on economic growth.” A few thoughts came to mind. In the first “The twin threats, delivered via social media”, as such why not in an official setting? Why via social media? Is it because the threats might get rolled back? Is it because of non-repudiation? Then we get the Apple setting, why in America? Why is this so essential? (I will get back to this later on). And a few other thoughts are to mind. Then the article ends with “The president’s attack on Apple is his latest attempt to pressure a specific company to move production to the United States, following automakers, pharmaceutical companies and chipmakers. The United States, however, does not mass-produce smartphones – even as U.S. consumers buy more than 60 million phones annually – and moving production would likely increase the cost of iPhones by hundreds of dollars” keep this latest quote on the forefront of your mind for now.

Then Reuters gives us (at https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-justice-department-reaches-deal-with-boeing-allow-planemaker-avoid-2025-05-23/) ‘US Justice Department reaches deal with Boeing to allow planemaker to avoid prosecution’ the two are actually more connected than you would think. Even as we are given “The agreement allows Boeing to avoid being branded a convicted felon and was harshly criticized by many families who lost relatives in the crashes and had pressed prosecutors to take the U.S. planemaker to trial. A lawyer for family members and two U.S. senators had urged the Justice Department not to abandon its prosecution, but the government quickly rejected the requests.”

Then last we get yet again from Reuters (at https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-seeks-fast-track-new-nuclear-licenses-overhaul-regulatory-agency-2025-05-23/) ‘Trump seeks to fast-track new nuclear licenses, overhaul regulatory agency’ with the subtext “U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the nation’s independent nuclear regulatory commission to cut down on regulations and fast-track new licenses for reactors and power plants, seeking to shrink a multi-year process down to 18 months.” All this sets a premise of revenue. Boeing, the reactors and last (which I gave first) was the tariffs. America is desperate for revenue and I reckon the setting of the Microsoft linked firm going bust after being evaluated for a billion dollars didn’t help his need. He needs all revenue to come from America and all made there. It isn’t merely America First, it is the speculated setting that America is about to default on its loans. Well that Is how I see it and I might be wrong. The entire setting with the added setting of Greenland and Canada is that he cannot claim that America has plenty of resources making it a lot more wealthy, for that he needed Greenland and Canada. No, now he needs to move it all to America and that is where the problem starts. Because America wasn’t ready for that move, but that is as the America administration sees it, the problem on (and for) Apple. As I see it, this is a speculated final move before the American President has to admit that payment deals need to be made and they want to push it back as far as they can as the number one fear is that others will massively dump their US Bonds and that would instantly call for the near complete dismemberment of the United States of Bankruptcy. 

Could I be wrong?
Yes, I can be wrong. But this image seems to fit the partial shorts we have been able to see. The second option is that President Trump has completely lost it, but I do not think so. Too many settings don’t fit that view of him. Yet the knee-jerk reactions to keep on being seen as an “able to make payments nation” seems to fit the bill more. I reckon that the news last week regarding that Builder.AI is now commencing insolvency proceedings was perhaps the drip that broke the camels back as the expression goes. It is before Saudi Arabia and others would be pumping money into the United States, so there is that to come as well. As they say money must flow and the actions done (especially regarding Boeing) is all about revenue, not about the family of victims. Then we loop back to January when President Trump announced ‘Trump announces a $500 billion AI infrastructure investment in the US’ here I speculate that this was all about some Microsoft setting, at least in part and now that Builder.AI has become insolvent and it was backed by Microsoft gives rise to the 500 billion being set on shaky grounds. It’s like looking at the Chrysler building seemingly coming closer to view until you realise that it was build on a quicksand. And they figure this out after the building was complete and now the top of that building is making the rest sink into the marsh. As I see it (which is presumption in this case), is as AI doesn’t exist, that they had made clever moves with DML (Deeper Machine Learning) and LLM (Large Language Models) and that requires programmers and some extended programming, but the deeper you set your teeth into the pie, the harder it is to open your mouth without coughing up the pie. And the bad decisions made with Builder.AI (I do not know what they did wrong, but that is what some media gives us, you can read that in yesterdays story).

When this goes wrong with 1 billion, what do you think that 500 billion gets you? There are only so many programmers who are adept in this form of programming and that is before all the data is validated, which if it fails makes for a totally new timeline and that is the crux of this setting. 

But feel free to ignore these settings and see what happens. That I what I think is happening. Microsoft fell short and others might not be in the market for such a failure and when the 500 billion stays away foreclosure of the land of the forsaken and the home of the arrogant falls flat. 

Here in all this I might be wrong, I admit that upfront. The question that comes to mind. What is it? Why do we get such a knee-jerk operation from left to right and from beginning to end. Now we get the news that is 15 hours old. ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) gives us ‘Reserve Bank on high alert for economic fallout as Donald Trump continues to spook investors’ If I am correct than this act is merely for the ones that holds these bonds will keep on holding on to them. And the second setting is “The bond market is now regularly questioning the value and stability of US government debt.” As I see it, the nightmare scenario for President Trump. He cannot pay anything over 10% of 36 trillion. When that happens America defaults on its loans. The nightmare that Wall Street fears. As we are given “In the lead-up to the passage of the bill through the US House of Representatives, the US Treasury Department tried to secure $16 billion of funding through the sale of 20-year bonds. It found the auction harder than usual to execute due to a lack of demand from investors.” And as I see it, making the other funds ‘more’ dodgy will work for the American administration and as such are the actions that I am seeing. Not because they are great actions. It is bullying not to go somewhere else and I admit that this is merely speculation. 

I leave it up to you do decide if I am right or if I have a case for my train of thought. But this is what I see, merely because I have been looking in this direction all along. And Moody’s downgrade, US debt had become riskier for the lender. That is a simple conclusion you can all consider to get behind. But if that is the case, the outstanding bonds are a bad bet because these bonds do not get reassessed, that is the bad bet they went into and the next step we get is when Moody’s set the credit from AA1 to AA2. But what happens after? I don’t think that the holders of these bonds will wait that long. They will sell wit a loss as not to see there bonds become ‘Junk’ material and those people will lose a hell of a lot of money. Consider Japan as it is with the debts they have also have around $1.13 trillion in US bonds and China holds $784 billion. If China dumps their US bonds, Japan will be force to do the same as not to lose too much money, but the  investors were already shy of the last auction and that was only for $16,000,000,000. Now we see that there is a risk that China sets 50 times that amount up for auction as such Japan is seeing the pressure to act before it is too late as it has almost twice the amount of China and the first of these two might get some money back. The one that flinches losses it nearly all. 

How would you see such a risk? And that with the Reuters articles made me speculatively realise that America is in a lot oof hot water at present, but my view is speculative. I have no hard data to back my thoughts, be aware of that. By the way, there is a second reason for the reactors, but I’ll let you work that one out for yourselves.

Have a somewhat great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 17, 2025 · 10:09

Death is nigh

Yup, a bit gloomy and perhaps a little too doom speaking, but the news is there and I for one saw this coming a mile away. I mentioned this in the article ‘Utter insanity’ on October 4th 2020 (https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/10/04/utter-insanity/, aka World Animal Day), I mentioned in there the few articles where I also made mention of the US debt, one as early as 2020. So why now?

Well, Reuters (at https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/moodys-downgrades-us-aa1-rating-2025-05-16/) gives us that the credit rating of America has been downgraded. It went from AAA to AA1, this might not be a big thing, but it is, especially in current conditions. You see, Moody also gives us “Moody’s cites rising debt and interest costs” and with that one line the die is cast. Even if it is merely a rise of 0.1%, the implied setting of $36 trillion ($36,000,000,000,000) gives us an additional interest of $36,000,000,000 or $36 billion and the Americans cannot keep their budget as is. So how much larger will this debt become? You can all say that Saudi Arabia is now investing, the AI is coming. But the investment over years will not even pay for the interest increase and at present the top 10 least risky investments hold 10 countries and none of them is America. Makes you think doesn’t it? Then there is the second stage, the stage where some players might think that holding US Bonds might be a tat too risky for them and banker being the cowards that they are learned from the 2008 credit crises and they will be bailing at the first opportunity, especially as the UAE is a much safer and seemingly more rewarding venture at present. 

So is death really nigh?
That is a fair question and I am hesitant to answer either way because the reliability of the press is nowhere to be found (perhaps in a dozen places). So they cannot give us the goods and I saw this going as far back as 2011, as such we cannot see any press reasonably credible, especially when they quote market wannabe’s. And this is not on President Trump, although his actions did speed up the process. The World Travel & Tourism Council gave us “THE U.S. IS projected to lose $12.5 billion in international travel spending this year, falling to under $169 billion from $181 billion in 2024”then there are the losses in defense projects, the losses from allies regarding Canada and Greenland and that showed me that America is desperate, and it seems now that the hammer falls down on people realising that I have been right for over a decade, but bury your heads in the sand. All these presented ‘wins’ are a cloth covering the larger losses. The AFR gave us yesterday ‘China slams Trump’s new chip ban, reigniting trade tensions’ with “The US Commerce Department issued guidance this week that Huawei’s Ascend AI semiconductors are subject to export controls anywhere in the world on the basis that they were developed using American technology.” What a way to piss off your allies. We see this when we critically look at the statement “For Washington, restricting Beijing’s access to cutting-edge processors is a way to blunt China’s rise in artificial intelligence and military applications.” In the first, Huawei is using its own chips, making it doubtful that it is ‘cutting edge’ and in the second, you just tried to ‘beg’ Saudi Arabia for more money, do you think that they as well as the UAE will take that warning? Huawei already has a decent grip on that region with cutting edge development and Oracle is about to go there too. So is this the best way for the American administration to hedge their bets? Now that their credit rating dropped, I reckon the floodgates are no longer sealed, whatever they let through will cost America close to billions and there are people holding trillions in American debt, as such they are likely to get out while the going is good.

So what if I am wrong?
It is doubtful, but it is a fair question. Look at all the economy that America lost in this year and add the losses of next year too, because as I see it, tourism and all the connected spendings are close to gone until at least 2027. Then in 2029-2031 Saudi Arabia has its 2030 setting with all the new resorts (which was always going to happen) and as such you see, the strangling interest of 36 trillion on American and their dream settings. The fact that Tourism at present is “This significant shortfall represents a 22.5% decline compared to the previous peak” as such their current setting is a lot less than 2019 before COVID, it is that bad and we might not care for the income of Disney, or Warner Brothers but this also impacts all the places around them as people cannot afford it all in these places. These places will share in those losses, as such I reckon that Florida will have a few massively bad years (compared to the present). Do your own researching and never accept anyones word as gospel (not even from me), know that data, know your area and see where the losses can be seen. 

I reckon that Oracle is doing fine and will be doing fine for some time to come, but they too have shed employees in 2024 and 2025. 

As I see it, when the masses get the insight of how bad America is doing, that coffin will basically bury itself. So have a great day and don’t let the recession hit you in the head, it is an expected two weeks away at present and there is the setting we all received there hours ago ‘Why France, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Finland, UK, Netherland, Belgium Issuing Travel Advisories to US, Making a Big Dent in American Tourism Revenue, The One Detail That Changes Everything’ as such the bulk of the EU is turning away from America on tourism, as you can see, I remained optimistic, it seems the news is pushing ahead of the settings we now see and when they catch on regarding bonds and America quality of life going down too, the panic will hit wall street and several other markets

So enjoy this Saturday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science, Tourism

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 8, 2018 · 12:46

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

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 12, 2014 · 11:44

Is it all Greek to you?

Let’s take a look at the issues!

First there is Bloomberg who on April 11th headlined ‘Greek Bond Sale Tops $4 Billion in Return to Markets’ (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/greece-readies-bond-sale-as-athens-car-bomb-reminds-of-upheaval.html), a nation with 11 million have notched up their debt by hundreds of billions, no options at present to repay it and again they are allowed to push new bonds into the market.

My first issue: I want to see a list of names of people that allowed for this. There will be no excuse, no non-clarity; they are to be presented by a panel of economists explaining the rationale for this and it should be presented live! (I wonder how long it will be until we hear ‘carefully phrased denials on lack of clarity‘ in regards to who drove this).

I already gave my view on May 18th on my article ‘Are we getting played?‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/05/18/are-we-getting-played/), where I stated: “The investor relies on information like credit ratings (from places like S&P and Moody for example) to make an assessment on how realistic the investment is. The fact that almost a month later the quote ‘Greek lenders are likely to face large losses over the next two years’ is seen, gives rise to the question whether any upgrade to the credit rating was valid“.

It seems clear to me that Greece is unable to manage its economy, its debts and its options to repay the debts. Can we please have a vote whether Greek economic affairs should as per January 1st 2015 be managed by either Germany or Turkey (Turkey is not that great an idea, that’s just me being mean)? It seems clear to me, for a long time now, that pouring money into a hole, whilst people keep digging themselves deeper will not result in any resolution. There has been clear evidence of gross negligence for over a decade; as such other measures will be required.

The Bloomberg article states: “Greece today took one more decisive step toward exiting the crisis,” Samaras said. “International markets are now expressing in the most undoubted way possible their confidence in the Greek economy”, I state that this is not the case, Greece is nothing more than an upgraded vulture option, todays information clearly sees this, let’s just be clear, this is just a little over 6 months AFTER that so called vote of confidence.

The second part we see with “The government and European Union predict that the Greek economy will expand 0.6 percent in 2014 after six consecutive years of contraction that has cost about a quarter of the nation’s economic output and sent the unemployment rate surging” I believe we are being intentionally misinformed here. If we look at http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp-growth-annual, we see that this year Greece’s GDP annual growth rate is growing by 1.9%, a growth of 1.5% in a year, whilst this nation is in such disarray, such debts and such levels of unemployment, there is, what I see to be an intentional attempt to misinform people. The standards used are no longer applicable. With a little over 1 out of 4 without a job, this nation is a mess; numbers are withheld, or misrepresented, not unlike the entire Goldman Sachs issue in 2010. If you doubt my word against that of those economic ‘boffins’, then look at today’s news.

 

We see ‘Grexit fears send Greek bonds and shares sliding‘, which the Guardian stated 10 hours ago. The quote “The Greek stock market is plunging to new depths, after the prime minister issued dire warnings of chaos ahead if his party were ejected from power“, as well as “Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras on Thursday accused opposition SYRIZA of bringing back Grexit fears and sending a message to the markets not to lend to the country by declaring its sovereign debt unsustainable“. By the way, in my view, the debt was never sustainable. When we consider 300 billion, over 11 million, we see that every Greek needs to bring 27,300 to the table, one out of four has no job, so that costs extra, as well as bring the cost per working Greek now to a little over 33,000. If the average Greek brings home a little less than 10,000, you can see that they come up short by a lot. By the way at 5%, the interest to be brought in would be 20% of a Greek income, whilst at present Greece cannot even properly budget its nations. So, as we look at these numbers, can anyone explain how Greece considers its debt to be sustainable?

Those who allowed Greece to fall in this deep hole should be made public and named, and we are talking Greek names here. Someone signed up for unrealistic debts, misrepresented presentations and the Greek government presented it. The Greek people have a right to know who were behind this titanic blunder. The fact that Austerity measures are not kept and the system is not cleaned up only helps to make a case that Greece should not be allowed to continue to be part of the EEC, because at present they are not in a small measure, the risk, which they could now enable the Euro to collapse completely.

If we consider the reasoning of a quickened election by PM Samaras and the message “Athens exchange has now tumbled by 7%, meaning it has shed 20% of its value since Samaras decided to accelerate the presidential election to next week“, we should wonder why this change is now being made. There are conjectures in play too (partially by me at this point). When we consider another (non proven source, at http://www.zerohedge.com/category/tags/greece), we see ‘Greece Suffers Biggest 3-Day Crash In 27 Years‘, here we see the quote “Did we just get a glimpse of the ugly reality hiding behind the veil of status-quo-maintaining central-bank-sponsored manipulation?“, I have written similar thoughts, but mine were not founded on economic knowledge, just on the data I looked at. One response there was “Central bankers have lied to a false prosperity and zero interest rates as if there is no risk remaining“, which is in line of what I have noticed with economies all over the EEC, I call it ‘managed bad news‘, which seems more apt, but when we see a 20% crater in what is laughingly called ‘Greek valued bonds’, my euphemism of carefully cautious labelling can be thrown out of the front door and perhaps it should be called ‘intentional manipulation for the profit of a few‘. Proving that part takes a little more time, yet those behind the curtain will not be held to account in any way, shape or form and legislating these events seems to be a large ‘No No!’ as well.

So where to look?

Well, if we look at the news CNBC gave us on November 19th, we see “Yields this week have not reached the 9 percent level hit in mid-October when negative sentiment surrounding Greece spread to global markets. However, rising debt yields do highlight that the country’s economic woes are far from over, with a crucial deadline in early December looming large on the horizon” (at http://www.cnbc.com/id/102198319), we also see the following quote “The country managed to exit recession this year and post a positive gross domestic product (GDP) figure last week, but political wrangling has continued nonetheless“, so ‘manage to post a positive…‘, positive by what standards, as well as the part ‘managed’, managed how? Through manufacturing or through manufacturing the books (aka cooking them) with possible assistance from Goldman Sachs or a like-minded institution? The lack of clarity as well as the lack of clear numbers give pause to consider how bad an idea it was to let them back onto the bond market last April.

The final part we get from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2014/dec/11/russia-central-bank-interest-rate-hike-ecb-loans-live#block-54899bc7e4b09dc257b7f1fe), where we see “The 10-year Greek bond is now yielding over 9%, up from 8.7% last night. And the three year bond is now yielding more than 10%, as nervous investors demand a bigger premium for holding debt that matures sooner“, so from a mere 5% to almost 11%, doubling the dividends, is ‘sponsored manipulation‘ THAT far-fetched? I want to see names of those behind the curtains, they are no Wizard of Oz, they are what used to be called the ‘Gnomes of Zurich‘, yet in this day and age, they are virtual, and none of them reside in Zurich, that’s just too old school.

In the end where it their (and our) money, in the form of dividend going to?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 1, 2014 · 12:12

Talking the Walk

Yes, today is an interesting day, in a time when we all have a notion of democracy; we must all wonder how much of a democracy is left. You see the freedom of choice and the choice in options means that the freedom given is also an inherent acceptance of accountability? If we make a small sidestep at this point, then I would like to take a step towards the Media Ethics as stated at mediaethicsmagazine.com.

There in the fall of 2008, T.L. Glasser and J.S. Ettema wrote an interesting article called ‘A Philosophy of Accountability for Journalism’, it is a good article to read and well worth reading (at http://www.mediaethicsmagazine.com/index.php/browse-back-issues/135-fall-2008/3639324-a-philosophy-of-accountability-for-journalism).

The initial line, as in any good academic article is right at the beginning, when we read “The problem of ethics in journalism, we want to argue, is not the inability of journalists to know right from wrong but their inability to talk articulately and reflectively about it“. I from the my viewpoint, for the point of view that many has seen as we see the ‘junk’ articles from Murdoch publications hit us is that the point given reads to many of us (roughly 99.32443% of them non-journalists) see the second phrased as “their inability to avoid accountability by speculate on the words of seemingly non-existent sources they will never reveal“.
What we get is gossip, branded as journalism, a speculative piece where no accountability will ever be required. This is for a lot of people at the heart of the need that the Leveson report would address, which is why Journalists in many nations, especially in the UK as a trade that had lost its integrity to many.
This is however not about the article, yet, I am mentioning it as the article is an excellent piece of work and the article actually is to some extent shows the moral compass within all of us. There is however one more quote that I will not go into now, but it has bearing on what comes next “which reminds us that discourse ethics does not involve a marketplace process which aggregates individual interests but a deliberative process which brings into existence common or shared interests“.

This is about today, the first day of a new day of default for Argentina (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/argentina-government-defiant-debt-default-axel-kicillof). We seem to have been all about the banks and their evil practices. I know, because I have been one of them. The question becomes, what happens when you accept doing business with a loan shark? I wrote about it in my blog ‘Changing the rules of Democracy‘ on July 27th.

When the IMF wanted to restructure debts in 2003, USA as stated stopped the IMF; I want to know the EXACT reasons why. Perhaps they are valid, perhaps not! I also reflected on the fact that someone went to the Vulture funds and signed a deal. What was that deal exactly and who signed it. You see, Argentina is not blameless here; at some point, there is a knock on the door and at that point, the bailiff will want his coin, which is pretty much what was settled in court.

The Guardian article raises a point through the following quote “Economists at the Washington-based Centre for Economic and Policy Research called on the US Congress to intervene, warning in a letter that Griesa’s decision to uphold the holdout investors claim could cause ‘unnecessary economic damage to the international financial system, as well as to US economic interests’“.

You see, in all fairness, is that acceptable? If a system is brought and evolves devoid of accountability, how can we ever get a better world? I have pressed for accountability on many sides. On the side of Journalism as I embrace the full Leveson report, on the side of the banks as their soulless acts have diminished the value of millions of account holders, yet here in this case, are they not on the morally higher ground? No matter how despicable Vulture funds might be regarded as, these people offered a deal on conditions of risk because no bank wanted them, or in the case of Argentina, as the USA seemingly prevented the IMF offering a deal.
Now, when the deal is due, the client requesting the deal is not willing to make payment. So, as the facts are shown, I have to be (alas) n the side of the vulture fund, who offered the deal. If not, then I myself must abandon the premise of accountability, which is pretty much not an option.
If we accept the implications of communicative rationality in the sphere of moral insight and normative validity as the setting for discourse ethics, then I would like to change it (mold it) into the following statement: “If we accept the implications of agreed contract terms of rationality in the sphere of moral choices and normative acceptance of a loan” then we are getting to the part why I added the Journalism article on accountability for journalism.
This I now link to the quote I mentioned from the Guardian article. This is the cost of doing business! Sometimes you win, sometimes you do not, but to go out in response to change the game, because there is a cost, then we have a new problem. Do not misunderstand me, if there is some kind of a bail-out deal, then that is fine, but it would be understandable if it comes at a cost, more important, it might have been avoided all together if the 2003 IMF deal had gone through, so why was the 2003 deal stopped?

I understand and I do not disagree that the Argentine government is stopping it all and taking the ‘default’ path, yet, that too will come at a cost. Accountability should prevail here too. Is it for the better or for the worst? That is a discussion that is speculated upon, but for now it is one that comes without a clear answer. So, I cannot, without clearly more evidence to agree with cabinet chief minister Jorge Capitanich here. You see, who signed for this all in 2003? It is the inherent consequence of governing. The bill is pushed forward, it is a dangerous game that the US is currently excelling at and so if you wonder on why I care about another deal for 1.5 billion dollars, it is mainly because this paves the way for America when it defaults on their 18,000 billion loans, then what?

When we see people hide behind statements like ‘too big to fail‘, you should also consider the fallout when things go wrong. Consider what once happened to the Dutch SNS bank and is now happening to the Argentinian economy, both impacts were felt in large ways and they are not even anywhere near the scale of the debt the US and Japan have. And as we mentioned Japan, is that not the fear many brokers have? If we see the text from Moody’s (at https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Japanese-RMBS-and-ABS-default-rate-declined-in-April–PR_302652).

Someone or something seems to be pushing Japan along, holding them on the safe side for now. Yet, this economic high-wire act is nowhere near done and it is a long walk to go for now. When we read “For CMBS deals, Moody’s outlook for the next 6-12 months is negative, as it will be difficult to refinance defaulted loans with high loan-to-value ratios“, so as refinance is now getting harder and harder, consider the US bonds. Part of the US debt is also the ‘Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding’ (at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm), this is set for 2014 (up to October) to be almost $355 billion dollars. This is just the interest. At Bloomberg we see “The government will reduce net sales by $250 billion from the $1.2 trillion of bills, notes and bonds issued in fiscal 2012 ended Sept. 30“, this is clearly incomplete, as there is not mention of WHEN these bonds mature, but the overall sell of bonds will hit the US at some point. If we consider the CNS headline “$2,472,542,000,000: Record Taxation Through August; Deficit Still $755B“, so taxes are coming in, they are not enough as the deficit is around 30%, now consider that the due interest is going to be 15%-20% (because two months are currently not known) of all collected taxation. When the bonds are due, how much larger will the debt become?
I have mentioned it many times, but now as we see the reaction of fear as Argentina defaults, we cannot continue without seeing the threat and fear of Japan from defaulting, which will clearly push the US over the edge of that abyss too.

Here is where the issue becomes the dangers we fear. We seem to always mention that those who talk the talk should be walking the walk too. This has not been done by large by many, so now we talk the walk but no one is really accountable, making for a massively dangerous situation. If you even consider thinking that there is no danger here, try calling a Syrian hospital by telephone and ask them how they are doing. It might open your eyes really quick.

If we are to walk the walk then Argentina will default and we have a new situation, yet the unnamed danger is that ‘some’ deal will find its way, which is great for the Argentinian people, yet it also impacts the cost of doing business for all the other players. Have you consider the costs that this will bring everyone else?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 11, 2013 · 13:23

Start making sense

I have been tossing and turning for most of the night. Something has been bothering me all day, and as it seems most of the night. You see, the Dutch NOS reported on Saturday 9th of March an interesting footnote in their newscast. They suddenly had this short part on the news on how this is possible. (Source: NOS http://nos.nl/artikel/482586-record-op-record-voor-dow-jones.html)

This is interesting, as I asked pretty much the same questions in an earlier blog called “It hurts every time, but we love it”, which I published on Feb 6th, so slightly more than a month earlier. The Dow index is currently at 14,397 (which was a 2007 record). The issue is that we had the crash of 2008; one in six in the US lost their house. So, the economy is not in a good place. There was also the mention in their radio cast (English and Dutch). They seemed to focus on two parts. First was the fact that Economic recovery is gotten through revenue recovery without staffing (so 5 do the work of 10, and they are happy to have a job). Second is that the Dow is based on only 30 companies. Yet, when we look at the number I wonder what game is being played as I look at a 2 year index graph. This graph is Stellar. My issue is twofold. One I am NOT an economist, but a data miner. Second is that the given ‘excuse’ feels wrong. Especially given that the news had this production line backdrop of cars, and none of the 30 seems to be in the car industry. So why not present this with a pharmaceutical backdrop?

So let us take a look at some of these Dow Jones Index companies.

1. Bank of America. A bank, and after 2008, we could wonder in what state it is in. This quote comes from Forbes and was written by Halah Touryalai, one of the Forbes Writers “No bank knows that better than Bank of America which has agreed to pay a jaw-dropping $42 billion, settling credit and mortgage-related legal battles in just the last three years“.

OK, if we take that into consideration, then seems a little weird that their stock graph has the same shape as that of the DOW. (As one of the 30, it would make sense that the graphs are shaped similar, however, such confidence after such a legal fee settlement bill?)

2. JP Morgan Chase. Another Bank! It had two more dips then BofA, yet overall it is in an upwards movement as well. It was also mentioned in the same Forbes article as before on settlement fees, but those fees were a lot lower. The Bank of America had to chew on 66% of the total settlement fees by itself, so for the other 5 big banks, the damage was relatively small in that regard. However, In April and May 2012 they had lost more than six billion dollars on derivative trades that had gone bad. There was a report of 9 billion in total, which also involved Bruno Iksil for part of the mentioned amount, he is also known as ‘the London Whale’. The numbers and the names vary when we look at UK and US papers, but overall they pretty much tell the same story. It is interesting that JP seemed to bounce back within 6 months to stock values higher than before the June 4th 2012 dip. Last on my list is Boeing. It is a giant, but we have all heard of the 787 issues and it’s now named ‘Nightmare liner’. The issue is all about batteries, yet the news from January as reported by Reuters : The new production forecast raised some eyebrows. Russell Solomon at Moody’s Investors Service was forecasting 100 787 deliveries and said Boeing’s forecast of more than 60 was “significantly weaker than we had expected.” Interesting that what analysts expect and what the vibe says Boeing will be delivering is off by almost 40%. Suddenly NOT meeting expectations has almost no impact? 40% less on a firm the size of Boeing should have a very visible effect (imho).

Now the DJI is about 27 other companies and there are only two banks in it. It is also a fact that these banks work with securities and values in the hundreds of billions, so are my concerns just a storm in a teacup?

It is a valid question, and I also ask myself this question. Let us take a look at the two following thoughts.

1. US debt. It is set at 16.6 TRILLION dollars. The total US debt is a lot higher. That one is $59.1 TRILLION.
Can anyone even imagine those numbers? Now consider that someone has that kind of money. To be honest is that really true? Is there a group of nations with that level of wealth? the only nation capable of owning that much is one with an abundance of oil, so basically the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is the only one that wealthy. Either the US is labelled UAE-west, or my thoughts are not that correct in this instance. So perhaps I am wrong (I will be the first one to admit that).
We know that most value trades are now done digital. It is the only way for the market to move such amounts of wealth. However, who checks this?

I have seen my share of digital forms of miscommunication by loads of people in several fields. Often they seem connected to the corporate headquarters of Bloated, Botched, Bungled and Baboon. An always newly formed enterprise, coming to a local public stock market near you. Consider that this is done on the electronic super highway. Now consider that Hackers come at a dozen a dime and greed is eternal, these last two are given facts. Also realise that ANY system can be gotten at. DARPA and the NSA proved that more than once.

The valid question loudly remains: “Who truly checks the validity of trade and the numbers they are traded at?”

2. LIBOR scandal. I wrote about it, the news has talked about it in abundance. Last week in an article by Mark Scott in the NY Times on March 5th the following was stated “The review published by the Financial Services Authority, the country’s regulator, said there had not been a major failure of oversight by local authorities, but it added that officials had become too focused on containing the financial crisis to analyse information connected with the potential rate-rigging”

This is a fair enough statement (it did seem shallow in relation to the handed fines), and them be hefty fines, so why are these two events related? Well, in my mind there are two parts of the LIBOR that were in play. From my point of view there are two variables that might be played with. The first one we know. It is the interest rate; the second one is the bigger issue. You see, those percentages are linked to a total sum of $350 trillion in UK registered derivatives. That is 20 times the US national debt. If people play with one, there is every reason to suspect that they might have played with the other. So again, who controls those totals that are being traded in? If derivatives include hedge funds, swaps and forward rate agreements then we should be worried. Consider as well that the US Bank for International Settlements holds almost twice the value the UK seems to be registering.

So, we are now confronted with just in excess of 1000 TRILLION dollars. How can this even be monitored? Now let us add one more part. The US LIBOR rate is set by 18 banks. The two banks in the DJI are members. Are we all on the same page now? The third bank (Citi) is to be given a fine in regards to percentage ‘tweaking’. According to Reuters, later this year, a new set of settlements will be ‘delivered’. In their publication of March 8th by Kirstin Ridley and Philipp Halstrick it states that: “Deutsche, Citi and JPM are the banks named in regulatory circles as those candidates near the next settlements,” said the second source. So now we have both a DJI member and libor member in this illustrious ‘donation’ scheme. What else is at play?

What if the total value is not correct? What if they did not just play with the percentages, but the total package of the trade able amount? Let’s just take a fictive 5%. Mainly because I feel not so comfortable with the value they say they have and in part because I cannot even comprehend that much, as we get above the $200 trillion range. So, if 5% is taken off the total amount of over $1000 Trillion, would mean that we might all be devaluated by a total of 50 trillion dollars. That comes down to $8400 for every citizen on the planet. Did we sign up for that invoice?

It might be just be me (and I can happily live with that notion), but can bankers and financial corporations be allowed to continue on this track? We have seen clear evidence that those places cannot be trusted with even a small speckle of such amounts. Even though they NEVER broke any laws initially, LIBOR shows that some are very willing to do that. With the US on the edge of bankruptcy (or on the wrong side of a fiscal abyss), with the financial industry in such disarray, what can be done?

So when this all falls over (not if it falls over), what will we be left with?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,