Tag Archives: Rotterdam

February 23, 2017 · 11:11

Is it merely a need to know?

It is more than just an opinion piece, when we saw the week begin with a piece from George Clooney (yes, that one) and John Prendergast, both responsible for the start of the NGO ‘Not On Our Watch‘, the people might took notice (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/20/dirty-money-africa-atrocities-uk-banks), the title ‘British banks are go-betweens in global conflict. This can be stopped‘ was even more alluring, but then we see the quote “It is time to act against the kind of corruption that enables governments and armed groups especially in east and central Africa – the deadliest interlinked zone of conflict in the world – to prosecute wars and carry out mass atrocities“, everyone decided to take another nap. Actually, I cannot blame them. It sounds so intense and essential, but if there is one part the population at large does not care about, than it is another corruption article from a place the bulk of the people never cared about it in the first place. Now, this is the plain reality that the people seem to have. Can I blame them? Is it a valid point of view?

This becomes part of the centre that we lose when we see that implied levels of corruption are impeding our quality of life in Europe. I discussed part of it in ‘When a Newspaper gets it wrong‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2017/02/16/when-a-newspaper-gets-it-wrong/). The article linked here implies a lot, especially when you realise that we are faced with British Champagne stories in an age where any member of the EU mentioning it should not even be allowed to be a member of the EU parliament. Then we get “The National Crime Agency judges that billions of pounds of suspected proceeds of corruption are laundered through the UK each year“, which might be true, might not be true, but most important, when we realise that there is also the quote “the international community has failed to fully deploy the anti-money laundering measures“, I would like to see a comparison on a national level, you see, comparing the UK numbers (where possible) with the numbers of Europe’s largest Transit harbour on the planet (read: Rotterdam) and as such the container laundering schemes where it goes on for more iterations of laundering as the bitcoin is used. So how can we see how much is laundered per nation? Is the UK the big player here? How does the UK compare to the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, France, Spain, Italy and Poland? Can we see those numbers please? You see, as we read “These kinds of financial-pressure measures can help save lives“, the bulk of the readers seem to ignore, or remain ignorant on how the pharmaceutical industry funnels billions, all perfectly legal and as such taxation is avoided. Yes, it makes perfect sense to focus on millions and not address the billions missed. Oh, and perhaps can we see the expected, or predicted time table from the quote “Our team is gathering the evidence needed“, now, let’s be honest, that such a given is next to impossible, but a few changes fought for at present might restore the essential need of legal overhauls, a side that does not seem to make the press that often and more important, the more Clooney stories we get, the less gets overhauled or clearly illuminated that an overhaul is essential. Now the quote we see at the end “a real difference can be made in ending wars in Africa and the mass atrocities that accompany them if we target those that are benefiting financially from the mayhem and suffering“, we can only agree with the principle need. I will not oppose that as such. Yet, it has only been a month since the article at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/26/nigerian-oil-pollution-shell-uk-corporations  and as such, when we hear ‘Nigerian oil pollution claims against Shell cannot be heard in UK, court rules‘ and the issues of pollution against the Royal Dutch Shell, we need to take a moment to consider whether the futility that team Clooney and Prendergast (Team CP) is bringing to the media. The given subtitle ‘Campaigners hoped case would pave way for lawsuits to be brought against corporations for actions abroad‘ is another part in that the issues cannot be properly examined. This we see in “Shell has denied liability and argued last November that the challenge involves “fundamentally Nigerian issues” that should be heard in a Nigerian court“, now it is important to know that I did not study the court notes. So, if we can accept that the court did do a proper hearing and accepted the relevant issues, than no matter what Team CP brings us, the simple truth is that the dangers of any Nigerian court would properly stop the issues correctly seemingly would become almost pointless (if we accept the corruption part that team CP claims. In addition, when we read the accusation ‘A man collecting polluted water at an illegal oil refinery site‘ gives us even more, especially when we concentrate on the word ‘illegal‘, so is Royal Dutch Shell connected to the illegal refinery site? What evidence is there? So now we get the case that team CP is concentrating on a few numbskulls with the limited possibility to stop millions, whilst the players they need to go for is walking away with billions. In that regard their actions are implied to be ‘doomed to fail’ and that is in the most likely positive version, a more negative version is that massive amounts of times are wasted and nothing gets to be achieved. It is in addition likely that the Royal Dutch Shell would assist team CP with other meaningless cases whilst the Royal Dutch Shell remains out of reach. So how is that for justice?

This we see confirmed in the quote “Joe Westby, campaigner on business and human rights at Amnesty International, said: “This ruling could mean that the communities will never receive meaningful compensation, and that the oil spills will be not be properly cleaned up”“, which supports the view I am having and I got to the conclusion as fast as I was reading the article, only to see that other experts agree with me. The final quote “The company says the Bille and Ogale communities’ problems with oil spills are due to sabotage, theft from pipelines, and illegal refining“, which if proven shows the innocence of Shell to some degree, and it shows to the larger degree that team CP have very little chance of success to the degree they need it as change in Nigerian environmental legislation would be essential to force initial change. Apart from that view, there is still the illegal refining, that takes equipment, which beckons the question how much has the Nigerian government confiscated? How many people got prosecuted in all this? There is no clear answer of success and there likely will not ever be one as illegal refiners are in the same category as illegal poachers, as the need or ivory continues, the number of elephants will decrease in Africa until the animal is extinct, then what?

Unless the Nigerian government starts hunting down these transgressors with success and extreme prejudice, they end up not having any level of success. Greed is the ultimate equaliser, the need of the one outweigh the ability of many. A reality that has continued on a near global scale since the early 1900’s. Change is too slow and without harsh levels of success, the opinion piece on and from team CP is not going anywhere but into the circular storage and archiving solution (read: trashcan).

In this Shell has no consideration to assist, the government has no place to start and as the wrong parties are more and more likely blamed we get a situation that until the proper papers are filed, the people involved have no option left to move in any direction, which works great for the facilitators of these events. Someone is making a bundle and as these parties cannot be correctly and accurately identified, the actions against them remain empty, unresolved and hollow.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

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

December 14, 2016 · 00:21

How misinformed are the French?

This is what today’s article in Reuters brings to mind. The article (at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-frexit-idUSKBN1420HF) gives the following information: “But unlike Britain, France has a written constitution, which states that “the Republic is part of the European Union”. So a “Frexit” would require a constitutional change which experts say is difficult, but not impossible“.

You see, we are being bombarded by the media regarding the European Union, yet what about the European Economic Community, which was later renamed into the European Community?

More important, the fact that we see this: “France has a written constitution, which states that ‘the Republic is part of the European Union’“, this might not be in question, yet when a system is intentionally made complicated, is that a valid system? (We see that happening right now in the UK), in addition, when we consider the utter lack of accountability that the EC has shown in the last two years alone, gives rise to the imbalance and the unjust path the EC has been on. There is also the part where we see that Mario Draghi and his ECB are now feeling more and more the loud voices of political opposition. Which is likely the reason why we see (at http://www.europeanceo.com/finance/ecb-opts-for-longer-but-leaner-quantitative-easing/), that the title now reads ‘ECB opts for longer but leaner quantitative easing‘, yet the fact that this might lower the quantitative easing by €20 billion a month, yet the extension until December 2017 now implies that the French and the United Kingdom end up getting a massive part of an additional €830 billion in debt, that is almost a trillion more. Bloomberg had already given its view that the expected results were never met, more important, some critical voices give rise to a failing QE program as the debt increases, yet no economy was actually kick-started, there was a lack of results. By the way, when we add the €700bn of QE reported in April 2016, the debt goes well over the additional trillion, giving multiple headaches to France, the UK and Germany. In addition, it will with certainty drive the Frexit group stronger. Even as we saw in the Reuters article “A poll published by Ifop in July found that 67 percent of French voters who expressed a view would vote to stay in the EU. Only 33 percent were against“, which is the opposite from what was seen in February 2016, we need to realise that the upcoming message that France will inherit their share of a 1.3 trillion Euro additional debt through quantitative easing, that will fuel a possible drive of those 67% Fremainers into the Frexiteers Garrison that Marine Le Pen desires at the drop of a hat (any hat). The fact that a failed plan that keeps on getting prolonged reduces Mario Draghi to a one trick pony, or a one trick Wall Street Mule as some economists rumoured regard him to be after the October 8th IMFC meeting. This might have been in regards to the statement “until the Governing Council sees a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation towards levels below, but close to, 2% over the medium term“. By the way, that paper reads like it requires the United Kingdom not to succeed its exiting path, which might just have been my interpretation of it. In addition, the quote mentioned earlier is also stated in regarding the TLTRO-II actions. So, lets realise that I am no economist, yet in the lighter side of all of it, consider that a bank owes amount x. Now we add the TLTRO-II and suddenly the banks debt becomes x+(x*0.3), so we get a 30% increase in debt, this would be a consideration when it wasn’t part of the quantitative easing already happening. In addition, we get “if a bank sufficiently improves its lending to the real economy, instead of having to pay interest, it can receive interest by ‘paying’ a negative rate. This rate can be as low as the deposit facility rate, currently at -0.4%“, so how much fraud (read: apologies I meant accidentally misreported numbers) will we face now? ‘Lending to the real economy‘ is like finding a virgin with nymphomania and 12 service of years in a brothel (read: Really?). In addition to this, the banks get extra money. So When we go to any bank stating we want to add to the economy, so we all borrow 50 million, because we add to the economy we receive $200K a year. Which we spend on food, bills and other things, so we get money and spend that on a real economy (butcher, baker and pastry maker) whilst getting money for spending it. How weird is that? Of course what they see as ‘real’ economy and my view of that are widely apart I reckon.

Yet in all this, we see another game being played, one that I speculatively ‘accused’ the ECB to play almost a year ago. The fact that they are raising the debt to such an extent that it becomes impossible to leave the EC, the UK is getting dangerously close to that point (France might have surpassed that point already, mainly because their economy has been flat for a lot longer). And in all this we see news cast after newscast on how things are slow, too hard and impossible. This almost makes me wish for the age of Alexander the great, where he dealt with the Gordian knot. In today’s version we are almost at the point where the UK only needs to cut off the heads of Jean-Claude Juncker and Mario Draghi and that problem is solved too. #SubtletyRulezOK

In addition, the document seems to set up hidden traps, traps that if adjusted will hurt many in the long run. The quote “prioritising public investment and reducing the tax burden on labour“, so this is not a reduction on taxation for the workers, it is a reduction on taxation on the cost of labour, meaning that corporation taxation will go down even more, yet the ignored definitions that governments face are the results of those reduced forms of taxation, because that money goes to the boardrooms and if the feelings of reduced enthusiasm for Apple, Google and Amazon were low earlier, wait till you see the feelings in several nations when the American policies are stronger enforced towards the US and where the golden rules for the auditors become that corporate contribution (revenue minus cost) will shift and the money trails push all that contribution towards the US. This is a reality I saw in the late 90’s with American companies. As well as a push that senior positions were to be held (for the majority) by Americans. Now, a company must do what it think it needs to do, yet with lower corporate taxation, unbalanced taxation where the bulk of revenue is not taxed and tax laws are still lacking in efficiency as well as holding corporations accountable for certain tax values, we will see a growing imbalance of cost of living and what I would call the implosion of governing budgets because the money isn’t coming in from several sides as all sides are etched to the needs and desires of corporations. And people are still debating that Brexit is a bad deal and that a one market world is a good thing. Now take the 30 largest corporations add what they paid in taxation and add what their revenues were. After which you go to the tax office and demand a similar deal. How hard will these tax employees laugh in your face?

You still think a one market deal is anything but an engine to enable the non-taxability of global corporations?

It gets to be an even stronger issue when we consider the Guardian article (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/29/new-cars-imported-from-eu-may-cost-10-more-if-uk-leaves-single-market), which is two weeks old. You see, why would we care? Why get a foreign car? In Australia, the makers didn’t like the deal they had, they wanted more and more tax breaks making the car industry pretty much the first one with legalised slave labour. Why would we want to support this? Why would the UK support this? Consider the UK with 68 million people, now if only 50% had a car, than that would still be a massive amount of consumer goods. If the UK stops importing cars, those in charge behind the screens will then suddenly look for a solution whether a car could be made in the UK. They currently have 4 cars made in the UK, but those are high end cars and too expensive for those usually needing one. This is how VW started its empire, in 1932 it started the people’s car project. A car for every person, Volkswagen, which pretty much translates the German brand. The Australians are not in such a good spot in that regard, but it is still a 20 million citizen market, with plenty of 4 wheel needs. Those car exploiters forgot about the consequence when a market on a national level states, we no longer need you. That is why the single market is so important to them (mostly those in the boardrooms). And as Toyota reported a drop of 40% compared to last year, the consequence of nations no longer needing their brand must be a massive nightmare for those getting a bonus based on sales results. In that regard they will feel the pinch and they will feel it a lot harder than ever before. They are however feeling good because ‘Toyota’s earnings performance is improving, mainly because the yen is now weakening‘, which sounds nice on an Abacus, but the massive debt that the Japanese people face ($9 trillion at present), how long until the Japanese stop to consider how much interest that actually is; considering that Japan only has 123 million people. At 0.1% interest, if it even could be that low, implies an interest of 9 billion a year, this sets the interest to $73K per person per year. So how is that going for the Japanese budget, especially when you consider that the average man in the land of the rising sun makes up to $20K a year? So how is that formula working and how much worse is Mario Draghi making it for Europe? You see, it is my personal speculation in this that the US and Japan are pushing parties in equilibrium, when the debts equalise there will be no way back for Europe. Europe will be at the mercy of the incompetence of America and Japan. At that point, as a member of UKIP would state it: ‘I don’t want some bloody yank telling us how to keep our debt, I don’t want any debt‘, but at that point it will be too late and we will be left without options on a global scale. Did any of us sign up for that? In addition, do the French realise that my speculation is not that far off?

This is a path that I have stated before and in earlier blogs I have clearly stated that we are in for a bumpy ride, I actually expect a new crash late 2017, early 2018 at the latest, so when we see that this article by Pension and Investments (at http://www.pionline.com/article/20161213/ONLINE/161219969/natixis-survey-investors-turning-to-active-management-amid-expected-2017-volatility) gives us the title ‘Natixis survey: Investors turning to active management amid expected 2017 volatility‘, by the way, that is a group of people where the lowest income would be close to 30-50 times my income, so these people have serious cash to play with. So the quote “As a result, asset owners plan to reset their portfolios, relying on active management and alternative assets as they seek to manage risk and boost returns” seems a little bit of an issue when we realise that Mario Draghi and his quote “as part of our expanded asset purchase programme (APP)” gives a whole new light in all this. It almost amounts to a speculated shift in ownership of assets, where governments are buying assets via the ECB (intentional or not) and in addition, these portfolios get to reset themselves and get rid of what would soon be new bad debt. Whilst the Guardian reported in November 2015 that the European banks were sitting on €1 trillion of bad debts and the quote “The increase in lending has been accompanied by a very gradual improvement of asset quality, although levels of non-performing exposures in EU banks remain a concern and a potential impediment to lending growth and profitability” now reflects on Mario Draghi as he basically has been adding more than €1 trillion more (making it a total of €2.3 trillion) by the time we get to December 2017. When the upcoming volatility shit hits the fan, all our financial futures will go straight into the sewer.

So, when the French realise that, do you really thing that there will be any non-illegals left in that country considering to remain in the European Community?

More important, when some of these factors start hitting the UK, its population could end up demanding a sledgehammer hard Brexit almost overnight. Yet, again, that is pure speculation from my side. In the meantime, I should apply for a job at Natixis, facilitate for people who will actually end up having some money left from January 2018 onwards. I have to eat too and I would love some French grub, even if I have to Join Legion Etrangere for that part (do not worry readers, I no longer meet their standards).

So as you now wonder how informed the French are, I need to wonder in equal measure if they are the only ones not getting the full picture (read: awareness), the fact the Dutch move out of the EEC is now getting a lot more realistic, even more realistic than I ever thought it would be, gives additional light to the title and topic in this blog. Yet so far there is a decent indication that Frexit will drive the decision of plenty and Frexit will come to a referendum before the Dutch get that chance, meaning that the French vote will clearly influence the Dutch one, yet to what extent cannot be said or stated. In addition, the Rhine and the Rotterdam harbours would not get the economic punch as hard because of German needs, meaning that these ties will remain strong for the need of both, but that is no guarantee that the Dutch will not feel the initial hardship of change, to what extent cannot be stated with any degree of reliability.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

September 29, 2016 · 11:37

How about them budgets?

Today it starts with the Wall Street Journal (at http://www.wsj.com/articles/italy-cuts-growth-forecast-for-2016-and-2017-1475014871), where we just got the news that Italy is downgrading the forecasts, from “1.2% for this year and 1.4% in 2017″ to “0.8% this year and 1% in 2017“, an offset of 0.4%. So, even as we consider how small this is, on a number 2.22 trillion, this still affects 8 billion dollar. Now, I would agree that the numbers are small, but when analysts are talking in millions, getting it wrong by 8000 million, the error is a little larger than should be allowed for. Italy is not the only one in this predicament, and the fact that this prediction is only reported approaching the final quarter of the initial reporting year, should give clear indication that something should have been known at least a quarter ago.

Italy is not the only one, France is reported on by Reuters that the deficit target will not be met. In this case, France has one part in favour of them, with the refugee issues going through their nations, certain places and departments have been unable to meet any budget, which under the unpredictability of that escalation makes perfect sense. We can overanalyse it, but without the proper raw data, it remains a speculation and not a very accurate one.

Germany has an entirely new issue to deal with, it is now dealing with a surplus and a growing one. Another prediction I got right, but not by the amount I thought it would. Germany exceeded expectations by growing the surplus past a quarter of a trillion dollars. So apart from the surveillance investments, Germany can look forward to (as doomsayers would state), to an interestingly larger EU donation voucher (read: invoice), one that is (according to Reuters) about 4.5 billion higher. The funny people did mention that post Brexit this was the consequence and as such, that response is funny, because it is only angering the German population, where a growing group is calling for a German referendum. Now, there is no official one planned, but that might not be for very long at present. With Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) on the rise, which according to Euro news is at an all-time high of 16%, this makes them a contender, with Chancellor Merkel now in a tough spot as the hard work Germany did achieve is now to some extent syphoned to the EU and Brexit will add to their worries. Now that Brexit is not showing to be the financial disaster so many experts claimed it to be, the threshold for leaving the EU is being lowered by a fair bit. AfD party leader, Frauke Petry stated: “And I think this is why many citizens don’t believe in the established parties and politicians anymore, because they simply don’t feel being taken seriously by the politicians firstly, and secondly because they feel basically betrayed by these politicians because they do not tell the truth”, which is an issue that many people have with the ‘status quo approach that those on the gravy train of EU incomes have been voicing‘, adding to the unrest in several nations. The issue now being pushed by France and Germany is an EU army solution, which seems odd in the light of NATO and it is detrimental on national policies all over Europe, giving another iteration of commissions and conceptual time wasting, as well as resources, especially financial ones.

Yet several news cycles are giving the implied worry (a worry from my side) that the Netherlands hasn’t learned its lesson yet and it is now playing a dangerous game. The initial consequences of Brexit are not realised and there are still worries that are undealt with. With a big smile Dutch Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem stated last week in the national budget day which has forever been the 3rd Tuesday of September that the message is ‘focus on investing in opportunities‘, yet he also admitted that ‘many people have still not benefited from the economic recovery‘. I personally believe that ‘recovery’ is too optimistic. You see, for too long, the EU deficit had been too high, the debt is close to out of control and the Dutch have, due to serious budget restraints gotten the upper hand over the debt to some extent. What is interesting is the way we see it in the NL Times (at http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/09/26/netherlands-0-5-pct-budget-surplus-2nd-quarter-2016/). The quote at the very end “Statistics Netherlands expects that the budget deficit will mount to 1.1 percent this year and 0.7 percent next year“, gives us clearly that there is no budget surplus, the deficit is finally being turned over, meaning that the deficit is still 0.7% in a years’ time. That means that the debts are for now still going up! I am willing to make the hazardous statement “Mark my words, by April 2017 there will be a bad news cycle that the deficit will alas not make it, due to <insert meaningless reason here> and is expected to be 1.6% in 2016, whilst the forecast for 2017 predicts the deficit to decline sharper to 0.9%“. I’ll keep an eye on this, because I want to know how it all goes. One of the reasons here is that whilst certain scaremongers, set to undo Brexit are still playing their games and placing the pawns in the field. The reality is that unless the Netherlands sets out a much stronger partnership with the UK, the UK fishers who saw the benefit of quickly unloading in places like Stellendam and Breskens so that they can do one additional load, that list will drop to zero (the number was never really high). But that is only one part of several issues that we see. The Dutch Harbour of Rotterdam, could also feel the pinch to some degree. The degree cannot be predicted, but it will happen, meaning that the blind billion to expect will lower by an indecent amount of millions. It is important to realise that the impact will not be large, but two or three of these impacts, like containers via Belgium and a few more of these changes and the impact will change the numbers. So the Netherlands is not out of the woods and we see ‘investment’ statements. Not to mention the German need to make a few changes, which means that containers to a larger extent will not go through Rotterdam, but straight to the end location via Hamburg. This is not a given, not a certainty, but a risk! All these issues are not considered and there is still for well over a year a deficit to content with. The NRC (at https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/09/21/kabinet-geef-geen-cadeautjes-maar-investeer-4373438-a1522535) gave us last week “Daarnaast zondigt het kabinet door het totale uitgavenplafond te verhogen met 2,2 miljard euro; de Zalmnorm wordt rücksichtslos terzijde geschoven“, which paraphrased gives us “The sinful deed of this government, through the raising of the maximum budget by 2.2 billion, the budgeting norm is blindly pushed aside“, meaning that as elections come close, the government is trying to give a fake ‘all is well’ view that will be discarded soon thereafter when the numbers show that nothing was achieved and Dutch spending will again go beyond acceptable levels.

In all these factions, the reasoning of Brexit holds firm and this whilst Mario Draghi (at http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-37473075), starts his political ‘career’ in the trend, of ‘I am looking for a new position, preferably before the reality hits you all‘, by stating “the initial impact of the Brexit vote on the Eurozone has been “contained”“, which is utterly untrue. The impact is not contained, the results are not known because spin doctors are still trying to turn this around via any political means available. In addition “resilience after the vote was thanks in part to “adequate preparation” by both the ECB and the Bank of England“, which we know was not entirely true because someone decided to leak the required need for investigation by the Bank of England in the first place, which meant that the armour of EVERY party went up, so there was a large level of speculated bad news in there, the news clearly showed how disastrous it would be and it failed to happen. In addition, we see “Draghi ‘doesn’t have answer’ on future of Euro clearing in London“, which is interesting when we see “the issue of the UK’s departure from the EU and its implications for the executing – or “clearing” – of euro-denominated transactions in the City of London“. Why would that change? Why would people want to make those changes, because pre of post brexit, there was no impact for the US Dollar, so why is that suddenly an issue? The fact that the ECB took that path and that the result was that it was successfully challenged at the European Court of Justice by the UK government last year, makes me wonder why Neena Gill (Labour MEP for West Midlands) opened her mouth in the first place (regarding THAT questions that is). The fact that Jill Seymour of UKIP got a much larger support in her district gives me the idea that she has other problems to deal with, playing ‘ban-she’ (pun intended) to a question that the UK does not want to raise again for now, whilst staying silent over Draghi’s Trillion Plus Euro stimulus and now the rephrased additional overspending via the what is referred to as the ‘Juncker Expansion wallet’ is one that should have been on her lips. As I see it, she would have been better off staying at home (or in her office) and send someone else to actually grill Mario Draghi. In addition, when French Liberal MEP Sylvie Goulard asked the question, it seems clear to me, that she was setting up the essential discussion to try and move some of the City of London’s expertise towards Paris, which is a proud nationalistic tactic to have and as she is French, I would applaud her attempt with the response: ‘well played milady, but at present not the best idea!‘, as I see it, Neena Gill didn’t have to add to this! The question is not completely unsound, yet the path of Euro based Derivatives is a key market and London does not really want to move it for obvious reasons, yet the size of it has everyone on the edge. The issue has happened before, yet the considered impact will be beyond believe, the stakeholders could lose quick access to Trillions when the clusters get upset and the Euro Clearing moves to Paris (or even Germany). The plain issue is that the shift could very well happen when Frexit is in full gear, what happens after that? Another move? If you want to learn more, look at the Bloomberg interview (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-21/global-banks-said-to-plan-for-loss-of-euro-clearing-after-brexit), which gives a decent picture, even if economy is not your field.

All issues linked to budgets and each of them having a larger impact on the EU as a whole. Now, I understand that Brexit makes France and Germany trying to take the Euro Clearing market, yet, as the growing voice of Frexit bolsters, moving the Euro seems to be a really bad move, even for stakeholders who hope to gain a short term advantage. Even if we see that the Netherlands is a lot less likely to follow this path at present, France is close to doing it and the number of people wanting this in France is still growing. I personally see that budgets have been at the core of this from the very beginning (starting with the Greek one that is),

For Greece this is not a nice time and it will stay as gloom as death for a long time to come. The new austerity measures will cut hard, especially with the retired population of Greece. There is something utterly unacceptable regarding the transfer of the assets, including major organizations such as the country’s power corporation and the water boards of Athens and Thessaloniki. My view goes back to ‘Cooking the books?‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/01/22/cooking-the-books/) as well as ‘Feeding hungry wolves‘(at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/07/28/feeding-hungry-wolves/). My issue is that Greece had to be held accountable, but a fire sale leaving Greece with nothing was never an option in my book. Partially, when team Tsipras-Varoufakis won the elections they had an idea and no other path but their pride, this was where they ended. The initial idea to open the bond markets again was even worse. Now we see a Greece that has Greeks, yet is no longer Greece, as I see it, for the first time in history, the bulk of a nation is owned by banks and creditors, a situation that has never happened before to this extent (as far as I can tell), even as there is an option, it will still remain ugly for Greece for a long time. However, if the change would be accepted Greece would have a first step in actually resolving things. Resolving up to a degree, because I do not expect that this can be solved within the next two generations (if that happens, it will be a miracle). In that regard the energy and utilities would remain completely Greek and a first step into an actual future would be made. Yet, this is not about Greece!

The issue seen that debts are mounting up and we get to see these academic speeches on how good it was. For me, I still remember the 2015 article in the economist (at http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-5), where we saw “some worry that the flood of cash has encouraged reckless financial behaviour and directed a fire hose of money to emerging economies that cannot manage the cash. Others fear that when central banks sell the assets they have accumulated, interest rates will soar, choking off the recovery“, so no matter how you twist it, it is additional debt, the people get to pay in the end, and as the evidence has shown the last 10 years, proper budgeting is not the aim, the ability or the inclination of these EU governments, making the people anxiously running towards the nearest European Exit Compound.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

December 1, 2014 · 11:33

I have seen this before

It was not a pretty picture this morning. The Australian deficit is about to be blown clearly out of the waters surrounding it. Yes, there was nothing wrong with the initial assessment that Australian would no longer be in the red before 2016. The plan was bold, it was feasible and after the Australian Labor party had blown its spending in the hundreds of billions, from a 57 billion debt, Australian Labor blew the national debt and grew it in excess of 250 billion, in addition, the forward spending spree by Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard would give the Liberals a 600 billion headache, and it is a firm headache, which is about to get a lot worse.

Whether we see it as politics, treason or just incompetence, the Labour government seems to have played an intentional game of silencing certain contracts. It is my view that there is not possible, that after only 3 weeks into the liberal government that the car industry decided to just walk away. This was planned all along and they played nice with the Labor party for the view of whatever benefit game was played. So the Liberals ended up with massive invoices and bills that Labor should never have spent, but this is not about that, this is about a second game that has been in commencement. It has been played for a little longer that the Liberals have been at the helm, but in that instance, I will state that neither party is to blame. This is not political; this is political management of another nature.

For the second game I need to take a little detour to the 80’s. When I grew up in the Netherlands, more specifically Rotterdam, I was all about harbours, ships and engineering. My work with IT systems in the harbours gave me an interesting edge. I had access, I was busy all day programming new container solutions in Clipper and I dealt with cargo of several natures. One of the things I used to see on a daily basis was an enormous mountain of iron ore. It was meant for Germany, yet at times that mountain would not shrink; it would grow and grow and grow. In those days it made no sense to me, little did I know!

Now we get back to today, the current administration is about to bleed out no less than 20 billion for the simple reason that revenue of iron has gone down 40%, not that less is produced, no, iron is worth a lot less now. So, to get even, Australia needs to ship 250%, which is not an option. So why sell it at all? Now we get to an interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald (at http://www.smh.com.au/business/price-drop-signals-the-end-of-the-iron-ore-age-20140912-10fxr7.html), we see here that the initial rise and fall was all in the previous government, there is also a clear view that not only is this rise temporary, the overall trend shows that the previous government had a lucky break (and still overspend by close to half a trillion), yet the current government is not innocent either as their view on iron revenue should have been downgraded by at least 20%, which would have lessened the impact. Neither is to blame, but also, neither is innocent here. So as we see the solution, we need to worry what will come next?

This is where it gets to be dodgy; it is sheer speculation in my side. I think that someone is playing chipmunk here. I think that a mountain is created using all manners of non-taxation and then they will sell it all off at a massive profit when iron price suddenly makes an upturn. Between March 2010 and April 2010, the price went from 139.77 to 172.47. Even though such a jump is not conceivable, the fact is that if housing improved only a little, iron prices will grow again and it is a global market, so as one person needs more, iron will do better again. so buying and storing when prices are down, transferring to a foreign account and then selling as prices bounce back, will yield massive profits for those non-taxable entities. Is it true? No, it is speculation (from my side), yet we have seen similar acts before, so it is not inconceivable, in addition, the Australian government is bleeding deficits fast, and they are amounting to serious amounts within the next three months.

This part is all on the Liberal side, it is not their fault, but they will need to amend their budgets and forecasts accordingly. And it is not just Australia, the UK has similar issues, yet not to the same extent, but the pressure is there too. The UK will take a 30 billion dive, which is a sizeable amount. This all beckons, why were predictions not made a little less enthusiastically? You don’t skin the bastard until it is dead (and very healthy for the poacher seeking crocs). This again shows the need to take a better look at how certain items are anticipated and budgeted. If you doubt that part, then ask George Osborne and Joe Hockey on how many complications those billions bring and it is not the only worry, because there is a second downside. Whoever has these current mountains of ore, they do have a firm grip on driving prices high soon enough, then what will we do?

So, when did I see this before? Well, that is the fun part; I saw it happen around 1989, when the prices went up a little (16%) form $12 to $14. Yes a mere $2. It becomes an interesting view when we look at the data form the last 30 years. The entire mountain of increase and decrease started pretty much in December 2003, when the price was $13.82. From there it would shoot up to almost $178 (2011), now if it is going back to its foundation price. Why was this not better investigated? How come that a commodity is driven up by 1369%? The final part we see in the Economist (at http://www.economist.com/node/21564559). The quote “In the longer term, overall iron-ore demand will grow as China’s march to urbanisation goes on. Demand in the rich world may be drooping, but Wood Mackenzie, a consultancy, says steel consumption will not peak in China until 2026“. Is that a given? When we consider the site macro business with the article ‘Chinese Iron production is booming‘ (at http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/08/chinese-iron-ore-production-is-booming/), we see the question I had in my mind.  “The one question that nobody in the iron ore sector (or Australia more generally for that matter) dare ask is what if Chinese iron ore production does not close as Australian miners ramp up output. The reason nobody asks it is that the outcome will be calamitous“.

It comes down to, why should China import? They have cheap labour and resources, and they have iron (at http://www.srk.com.au/en/newsletter/focus-iron-ore/iron-mineral-deposits-and-projects-peoples-republic-china), so why import when they can become a supplier themselves. It is not inconceivable that Australian iron moguls like BHP, Fortesque, Rio Tinto and Hancock will see a decline in numbers. There is no way to tell whether it will return to pre 90’s prices, but if China gets their own iron and their demand for it goes down by 70% or more, the hard news hitting us now will be nothing compared to the bash we get when an industry of 250,000 miners will shed part of their people. We thought the car industry was a nightmare, well; consider that under current conditions if 40% less minerals are needed, we might see the shedding of 100,000 people, a level of bad news Australia has never faced before.

Even though Australia mines a lot more than just Iron, the metal impact could be harshly felt in 2015, if the situation does not improve.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

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

November 24, 2014 · 11:20

The reality for poor London

It is not a new concept, people who are getting drowned through greed, yet as the Guardian in a video shows us: (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2014/nov/21/new-era-residents-fight-us-owners-westbrook-london-estate-video), the dangers where greed will not turn people homeless. In addition, the people behind it, Westbrook partners are hiding behind walls and the law. Here is the first part I object to. The law is a shield of protection for victims, not a cloak of unaccountability for the greed driven. However, part of the article that is not shown is the fact that the UK government might have fumbled the ball in a massive way here. I reckon that David Cameron has to attack these issues immediately, because if left untouched, the move from all parties INTO UKIP might be one we have never ever seen before in the history of politics.

So what is actually the case?

Westbrook Partners has been buying real estate on a massive scale; London, New York and Tokyo have been met with a spending spree on acquiring real estate. Buildings have changed ownership, but this change has a difference. This is done for investors of American workers Pension funds (to name but one). They bought property as mentioned in Hackney (inner east London), the residents were told that the rents will now go to market value, this is stated to mean that rents will triple almost overnight, how is that even close to acceptable, moreover, how many will be left to afford such a rent? Consider a rent of 2,500 pounds a month, this comes down to $4,500, I have had decently good paid jobs in IT, but I cannot afford those levels of rent, not in the best of days. Hackney council is currently expecting Westbrook to issue eviction notices. This is worse than just a bad nightmare; dozens of homes will be uprooted for what? Replacement by high rise new building, offering a massive boost to Westbrook Partners, which by the way is a US firm with offices in the UK.

It is not just the immorality of it all, consider that investment firms are now focussing on lower yield options, lower yield locations. Is this because the American wells have dried up? Now, I know that for the most, these things are not an option (or were not an option) in Amsterdam. When Amsterdam saw the 70’s boom in London, they made sure that these dangerous times could not happen there, but it is not a given for all buildings in Amsterdam (outside of the inner city). Consider other places where governments have been lacks with affordable housing. With this I mean Melbourne, Sydney AND Brisbane in Australia, Rotterdam, Delft and Leiden in the Netherlands, Several places in Germany and a few other places. When Westbrook and companies like them start changing the game to this extent, what will happen to the population at large? San Francisco had some events in this direction as Google expanded its views, but this is only the tip of the iceberg, now it is not just housing for a large company, now it is about returns for investors, how long until that part collapses leaving people not just in a state of destitution, but homeless as well?

When we see the article, we see the American Workers Pension Funds, with an image of fire fighters, did these fire fighters know that they are not just saving people, but for their retirement, they are making them homeless too? So is there an issue? Well, Yes!

The issue is at present that what is being done in not illegal, but highly immoral. To force a population out of an area, because of income is like stating that the poor are not allowed in London in any way, how is that not discrimination?

More interesting is how Westbrook was unreachable by the Guardian, their website views like a two page joke giving no information at all. When has an investment firm hiding behind wall of unreachability ever been a good thing? Goldman Sachs has been bad news on a global scale, yet they at least remained reachable. This new era of Westbrook is something entirely different. To see just how dangerous this rent rise is, take a look at the image on this link http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/19/new-era-estate-scandal-london-families-international-speculators, even more interesting is how the New Era estates included a minority share by Conservative MP Richard Benyon, who is pulling out this month, when confronted with these levels of changes. We might think of blaming it all on London’s Westbrook Principle Mark Donnor, but is that fair? Consider that this mess is the continuation of a mess which I witnessed for well over 22 years! Prices in London have always been outrageous and now that the wells are drying up, rental spaces are one of the few low return yielding options. Both political parties should have harshly intervened long before 1995, but they decided not to, now we see a new iteration which could break the London infrastructure. If you wonder why, then let me explain.

London needs workers, they always needed them and most of them live a long way from London, yet now we see a new group, those on a ‘higher’ lower income like Nurses and some tradies who lived in places like Hackney, as they are evicted, they will move further away and they will try to seek work in a place that is not London, as London faces a rental crash, it will also face a workers crash as people are less willing to live 2-3 hours away from work, we see the need to find other avenues to contain their work-life balance, that means working somewhere else. You might think that this is exaggeration in regards to 92 households in Hackney, but do you think it ends here?

If we consider the quote “The letter said they had secured an agreement not to increase rents again until 2016. However, it added: “Since this week’s departure of the Benyon Estate we understand the council have now been informed that Westbrook no longer plan to honour that plan, and have been told that their plan is to refurbish the current estate in its entirety and then rent all the properties without secure tenancies at market rent levels, with no affordable housing”“, we get another view, we get the view of several investment firms seeing what could be acquired in London for refurbishment and upgrades to market value housing. Consider areas like Paddington and Kilburn, what happens when they get refurbished into market value? In addition, when we see “Councils are acquiring properties in Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Sussex and further afield to cope with an expected surge in numbers of vulnerable families presenting as homeless as a result of welfare cuts from next April” (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/04/london-boroughs-housing-families-outside-capital), is this perhaps just the beginning? What happens when the situation goes from 92 households, to 992 households? What will happen to the smaller businesses as these places are all upgraded? The London economy is an interaction of classes and groups, when the city changes the dynamic that has worked for decades, we see a change in culture and options for all workers involved, moreover, what can we expect to see when these locations start to lose the reliability it has had for so long towards an entire iteration of workers and traders. Once that is changed, other elements will become in play as well, then what will happen?

In my view, David Cameron will need to make large strides in changing a current approach, to allow for long term sustainability. If not, we will see entire areas no longer in a state of survivability. These events that Westbrook has started will also make a change to the policies that London Lord-Mayor Boris Johnson is trying to introduce. No matter how strong the need for a living wage is, as Westbrook is pushing for market values, we will see a living wage that needs to go from £8.55 to £18.55, which is something that is not just unrealistic, it will be totally unmaintainable. The fallout will be long term.

In the end the UK government did this by not acting and others might be in the same predicament soon enough. I will be honest and state right here that no one anticipated the fact that rent would ever become the preferred return on investment for investment companies, which is an entirely different conversation I will have with my readers at a later stage. A change none saw coming, but now that it is here, it will prove to be additional hardship on the Conservative party, whilst giving even more options to UKIP.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

March 21, 2014 · 07:27

Growing the deficit?

I stumbled upon a small piece in the Guardian by Dean Baker (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/08/us-deficit-obama-grow) this morning. He wrote it in 2013, yet in light of several events this story still holds some visible issues, even though I completely disagree with it. It was however a nice piece to read. Dean Baker is the co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, which means that he has degrees in economy and I do not. So, why do I disagree?

This view comes through the following quotes. “First, the United States has large deficits because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy“. That in itself does not sound incorrect, yet when we look at the definition of ‘deficit’, we should accept this simple one: “The amount by which expenses exceed income or costs outstrip revenues“. So how is this housing bubble a US deficit problem? Houses are built through real-estate people, developers and such. So, there is a little truth in there. As these people made a huge loss, they would not be paying any taxation, which means the US is not getting money through taxation, which means that they get less money for their budget. So, in that regard we are all fine. The linked 2008 economic downfall was due to several idiots (or geniuses depending on your viewpoint) in Wall Street and Financial districts who were playing with all kinds of mortgage based hedge funds and in that way ‘lost’ about 8 trillion dollars, which comes down to devaluating 32 million houses from newly built to the instant value of $0. This comes down to the housing value of 27% of the US households became null and void with the instant snap of the fingers.

So, yes, we can agree that this impacts the deficit as taxation goes down, however should we consider that part of these events is because the US treasury failed completely? Consider that there was a recognised housing bubble at the time that Henry Paulson (who was at that time the big boss of the US treasury). The deficit grew to such an extent because the elements were not properly monitored. So in this view the quote “First, the United States has large deficits because the collapse of the housing bubble sank the economy” should be “The United States diminished its income as the US Treasury did not act preventive, proactive and in a timely fashion in regards to the housing bubble“.

The second quote we see by Dean Baker is “Second, if we had smaller deficits the main result would be slower growth and higher unemployment“. Well, that is one bubble we can pinch through. If taxable amounts increase deficit goes down, if expenditure goes down, then so does the deficit. Neither forces us into the view that this will result in higher unemployment rates, neither prove that there will be a slower growth.

This all depends on the application of the tools available. Yes, taxing extensively is a massive downturn, but is that the approach that should be taken? Am I against taxing the ultra-rich? That depends on the way taken. I do not think it is fair to just tax the rich, yet removing some of the tax shelters would be a very acceptable approach. Consider the following quote by the NY Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html)

“In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent“. This is less than people making $36,251 – $87,850, they pay 25%. So, there is a massive imbalance here, which leads to the approach that a smaller deficit could be gotten by properly addressing a flawed tax system.

This is where we get to the news of January, (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/bill-de-blasio-new-york-mayor-inaugurated), where a quote is given that reads like an incorrect act. “But the most controversial element is to extract an extra $530m (£323m) in taxes from those earning more than $500,000 a year to pay for universal pre-kindergarten education and after-school programmes“, so New York wants to get a little more cash. I have mixed feelings, yet I do understand this move when the top 1% of the people in New York makes up for 39% of all income. Those objecting to this better understand that the tax increase amounts to an annual rise of $973 for those making a million a year, which is less than the price of a coffee a day. My issue is the fact that tax deductions allow for millionaires and billionaires to pay 4% less than those on an average income, which adds up to massive amounts of dollars. Dealing with these factors will not slow growth, it will not lead to a higher employment rate, it will however allow for a smaller deficit as the US grows its collected income from tax donations.

The third quote by Dean Baker was “Third, large projected long-term deficits are the result of a broken health care system, not reckless government ‘entitlement’ programs“. In my view it is both. I have a hard time speaking out against certain entitlements. Not because they exist, or should exist. The reason is that the 2008 crash left a massive population in an unfair position. A large group of people lost their house and homestead and these people had to be protected in some extended form. The fact that those who caused it walked away with amounts in that year would be beyond what the victims would earn in an entire lifetime is just obscene. Consider that in 2008, the year of the crash, Merrill Lynch handed out over 3 billion in bonuses (at http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/28/wall-street-bonuses-business-wall-street_0128_bonuses.html) and it happened just before they merged with the Bank of America. When we look at this all, we see entitlements, who largely impacted the US government due to what should be seen as high stakes poker games played by the commercial sector, which was loosely ignored by the US treasury. When we see the broken health care system, it seems that there is an issue there. We see the massive amounts of issues on all kinds of newscasts where we see that Obamacare will cost the people. Their premiums will double and in some cases triple. Now, on the side of the people there is outrage. I get that, but look at it from the other side. Does this mean that for decades, the people got medical care, whilst not getting properly charged for it? It is nice and easy to lash out at President Obama on this, but is this his fault? The actual costs, the investigations and as such the in-activities would play into the hand of President Obama. I might just casually ask whether the US treasury should have looked at this. Was this an area that had been ignored for way too long?

So in the end, Dean Baker makes one point that holds ground to some extent.

So why was I looking into this article 405 days (actually 4926 hours and 17 minutes) later? This is all due to an article that the NY Times published (at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/business/us-current-account-deficit-is-smallest-in-14-years.html). Let’s not get fooled here. This article is about trade deficit, not the US deficit or the US debt. The quote “Big gains in exports and overseas investment income narrowed the United States’ current-account deficit in the fourth quarter to the lowest level in 14 years“. So for one quarter they were only short a little north of 80 billion. It reads like when you have debt, flaunt it!

The valid question that you the reader might have is how the articles and the issues are linked. Well, they are not, but the issues of data behind them are. We are offered information by those who should give us clarity and information, yet, we have been ‘bamboozled’ for some time with an overly deep view in information, so the overview is gone for nearly all readers. When you want something to pass unseen, you just make sure that you give the people everything. It is something some researchers do. When the initial results lead to that one question, you just give them all 1247 result tables; there is a high chance that the certain question ends up not getting asked.

The last point to leave you with is the small issue that is playing thanks to some Ukrainian disagreements. How will these numbers impact when the acts of the EEC and the US will result in Russia closing the gas tap to Western Europe. As the Dutch NOS reported earlier this week, the Rotterdam Harbours are ready to switch and get their energy through the provision of liquid gas from the USA, the trade deficit will get smaller even still, yet the 20% hike the consumers in Europe face is something the people will only read about after the fact.

The US has a long way to go, with a national debt of well over 17,500 billion and a total debt of around 61,350 billion, being short by 80 billion seems like a pinch not worth mentioning, yet consider that the US is forecasting an total income of 3 trillion (before expenses), in 2013 the deficit ended up being $680 billion, which makes it unlikely that 2014 is a turning point for now, which means that the total deficit will grow for at least one more year. Then and only if severe cuts are found, it will still take up 70 years for the national debt to be gone, there is no way to predict how long the total debt of 61 trillion will take. So when you read all the upbeat articles on how there are three issues with the deficit remember, it will take 3 Generations (3G) to get rid of the national debt, the USA, now a 3G nation, how happy can anyone in the free world be for the foreseeable future?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

June 5, 2013 · 15:29

Multi billion Euro train ride

Most of us have taken a train before. Most of us on normal trains and possibly also on a special train here and there as a tourist. Yet, in Europe, many rely on the use of fast trains. One of the most famous one is the Thalys from Amsterdam to Paris and the Eurostar from London to Paris. It takes a few hours, yet the combination of comfort and locations make this option more interesting then grabbing the plane.

As a business solution, the Thalys has a few setbacks (it seems to be around the pricing mostly) and as such an alternative fast train was needed between Amsterdam and Brussels. As this track, for business reasons requires a few extra stops the Thalys was not regarded as a solution (they use the same tracks). The Dutch and Belgium delegation looked for an alternative and the Italian Fyra from AnselmoBreda was chosen.

So why the cost?

The entire track could not be used, so additional tracks were required. This little caper costed the taxpayers 7 billion and was delivered one year early. Many would ask why this is an issue. Well, on an annual 3% interest, a 7 billion track one year early will gain an additional 210 million euro in interest cost. Yes, questions should be asked! Now follow this up with the trains not working, well over 50% cancelled and additional flaws and security issues has delayed this option and is now out of commission as these weak spots are added and added. A parliamentary commission is now arranged to look at these flaws.

Choices?

The Dutch have a record of achievement in trains, and even though they have been running intercity trains for decades, none of them were designed for the 250Km speeds (neither is Fyra as now seems the case). Why this need for speed? Let us not forget that the distance between Amsterdam and Brussels is only 175Km. With the additional stops made, other options could be implemented; some of them would actually work and not require billions in additional tracks.

For example there is the Swedish X-2000 train (now called the SJ 2000). The train can get up to 276Km/Hr, yet is implemented to go no faster than 210Km/hr. The reason for this is that the Swedish signal system was not designed for trains with higher speeds. An issue that is not in play with the Dutch High Speed lines. Another option was the French Thalys already in use for Amsterdam – Paris. Was it such a leap to order a few more for the Amsterdam – Brussels track? There are additional thoughts. Several nations have had their share of successes. Germany (a nation the Dutch want to do business with) has its options and so does the UK, Denmark, Sweden, China and Japan (more options exist). So why choose the Italian solution? There is the Finnish Allegro, which was built by the French. So we see several operating solutions that have proven themselves. Again the question of choice remains, why Italy?

Well, in honesty, AnsalmoBreda does have a track record. There is the Bombardier Zefiro and a few other options with speed options of 250 and 300Km/hr. So it was not a far-fetched solution at first. So why is it such a failure? That is the question that will haunt Dutch Parliament for months to come. It will also have consequences for both AnselmoBreda and Italy itself too. If a solution is not found, in addition to the upcoming bankruptcy of AnselmoBreda, we will see additional consequences for Italy as a branch of implemented technology will have no option to survive in regards service and maintenance in addition to the costs of hundreds of millions in trains. Trains, in such a condition, that the fyra has been regarded by both Belgium and Dutch experts as utterly non saveable.

Is that true?

The blame game has started in full today and as such fingers are pointed at one another. The Italians mentioned too much speeding in regards to snowy conditions. This is interesting as the Thalys seems to have no real issues with that. In addition the Swedish trains seem to roll along with rails covered in snow almost 40% of the time. The Belgium and Dutch report are damning to a degree not often seen. If accepted as true then it will be years to repair, redesign and implement changes to the current train. Why not exchange these trains for the Bombardier Zefiro?

I am not judging AnselmoBreda as such. I am however wondering how all this ‘poohaa’ can be condoned to offer a train service that is only up to 17 minutes faster. Let us reiterate that! They spend billions to get somewhere up to 17 minutes faster. Time most will waste on coffee, chats and so on. That would be an optimised time; not taking into account the stops and so on, in the end 15 minutes might be saved. Any business that seems to be in that kind of savings should move towards video conferencing is my idea!

I know, there will be loads of issues that cannot be resolved through video, and I will grant that, but the issue of losing up to 17 minutes is a joke! Especially considering the time people waste EVERY DAY! If we compare this to current Dutch materials, the time difference does become 22 minutes. That is current rolling, proven and active materials. This is a solution that would not have required the high speed track solution (and one that has proven to be quite comfortable). From that we can come to the question “Who has been buttering the bread of these deciding politicians?”

Consider that 7 Billion could have done heaps for Dutch housing, Business and employment rates. I would wonder what other spending were this overly enthusiastic. It seems that some took the Dutch taxpayer for a ride (and then some).

From what I see at present a choice of investment was made which was debatable to begin with and not all blame will/should fall with AnselmoBreda.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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