Showing posts with label Foreign Interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Interest. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

There’s always a market in crisis… you just have to look!

Via The Daily Bell


“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Rahm Emanuel, an American politician, was talking about politics when he said this. But he may as well have said it about investing in troubled financial markets.


If you’re looking to invest when the odds are in your favour then look for a crisis. When asset prices collapse it creates life-changing opportunities to buy (the right) assets on the (very) cheap.


But if you’re a victim of home market bias – and you’re over-invested in your “home” market – you might have to wait a long while for a nice ripe crisis. And even once it comes, chances are that you’ll be too caught up in it yourself, unless you were smart or lucky enough to sell early.


You might have cash to buy cheap assets… but you might have already been holding them on the way down.


Investing in markets or companies in crisis, then, requires leaving what you know, and running towards the fire. (That’s part of what I’ll be doing in our new investment research service… lifetime subscribers will have the opportunity to join me on investment research trips to off-the-radar – and big-upside – destinations around the globe. Find out more here.)


What follows are three of my favourite examples of markets in crisis that were fortune-making for savvy investors. The exciting thing is that the “before” part of each of these situations exists today – in some market or sector or company… it’s just a matter of finding it – before it becomes the “after” of the examples below.


Profiting from Spain’s “Return to Europe”


Today, it’s strange to think of Spain as a fascist dictatorship. However, from the 1930s through the 1970s, its markets and economy were largely isolated from the rest of the world. Europe effectively ended at the Pyrenees, the mountain range separating Spain and Portugal from France.


When Spain’s longtime dictator, Francisco Franco, died in November 1975, the country’s future was up in the air. For several years, civil war and chaos looked like a real possibility. (I lived in Spain at the time… and though as a pre-adolescent I didn’t realise it, the country was at a true crossroads.)


But Spain slowly evolved into a democracy. It adopted a new constitution in 1978, and the government put down a coup attempt in 1981.


The 1982 elections solidified Spain’s transition to democracy and its eventual position in the western military alliance, NATO.


In 1986, Spain joined the European Economic Community – now the European Union. (People rang in the new year, marking the official entry into the EEC, with the cry, “We’re Europeans!”) At the time, new EEC members received massive infrastructure investments in order to help lift their standard of living to be on par with the rest of the union. These funds fuelled a two-decade economic boom in Spain that only ended with the 2008-2009 global economic crisis.


Investors who saw the opportunity for enormous positive change in Spain in the 1970s could have made returns of 4,300 percent in subsequent years.



Profiting from the end of a 26-year civil war


In 1983, Sri Lanka, a small island nation south of India, entered a prolonged civil war. The conflict between the Sinhalese ethnic majority and the Tamil ethnic minority lasted 26 years. (It was one of history’s more brutal conflicts… the Tamil Tigers reportedly invented the suicide vest – and pioneered suicide bombing as a war tactic.)


The long war stunted the country’s economic growth and created political uncertainty. Suicide bombings and other terror tactics by the Tamils posed an ongoing threat to the rest of the island. This fueled a steady migration out of Sri Lanka and strongly deterred foreign investment.


Meanwhile, excessive government spending fostered high inflation and constant budget deficits (when governments spend more money than they take in). As a result, Sri Lanka’s stock market suffered low turnover and minimal foreign interest. Sentiment toward the country was overwhelmingly negative. In fact, to much of the rest of the world, Sri Lanka’s civil war is what they know of the country… I’ve often been asked, “Oh, are they still at war?” after I mention that I lived there for a few years.


———-Recommended Link———–


3,700% Returns… In the Footsteps of a Dead Man
Most people think it’s corrupt, violent, and bleak… like the backdrop of a James Bond movie. Yet places like this have generated some of the most profitable moneymaking opportunities in the world—like 1,000%… 5,000%… or more.Would you have the guts to invest?
FIND OUT HERE.


————————————————


In 2002, Sri Lanka’s economy began to slowly improve, and the country made some progress toward political harmony. The turnaround was strong enough to trigger a sharp rally in the Sri Lankan market. In November 2005, the election of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, coupled with a strong public mandate to end the civil war, further fueled the rally.


Then the global economic crisis hit, along with the final and most ferocious chapter in Sri Lanka’s civil war, and in early 2009 the country’s stock market fell sharply.


The Sri Lankan stock market didn’t re-rate until the Tamils were definitively defeated in May 2009. The northern and eastern regions of the country – previously off-limits to investment and economic development because of the war – were gradually re-integrated into the economy, bolstering growth.


Investors who bought Sri Lankan stocks amidst negative sentiment could have made gains of 2,000 percent – though with plenty of volatility along the way.



Sugar prices rocket 45 times higher


The sugar industry experienced multiple price shocks throughout the 20th century. That’s not unusual for commodities, which tend to go through cyclical “boom and bust” periods.


Sugar boomed from 1962 to 1964, after the U.S. suspended imports of sugar from the Caribbean island of Cuba. (Socialist Fidel Castro led the Cuban Revolution that ousted President Fulgencio Batista in 1959, and the U.S. imposed a multi-decade economic blockade on the country, as part of its failed effort to undercut Castro.)


In 1964, the price of sugar started to fall. By 1966, the price had collapsed to close to a penny per pound. Finally, sugar was so cheap that demand started to rise. Then, in 1969, the U.S Food and Drug Administration banned cyclamate, a common sugar substitute, after researchers discovered it was carcinogenic. This pushed demand for sugar even higher.


Over the next four years, consumption outpaced supply, and inventories dwindled. This triggered a dramatic increase in sugar prices. Sugar hit a high of $0.64 per pound in October 1974.


Investors who got in at the 1966 low could have made just upwards of 5,000 percent through late 1974.



These types of markets…


Today, many markets are close to all-time highs. But there are plenty of assets that are in crisis… or – maybe even worse – are unloved and ignored, and as a result are trading at crisis-like levels. I’ll be looking for those types of markets, and companies, in our new service, International Capitalist, and the life-changing price gains that can go with them… find out more here.


Good investing,



Kim Iskyan
Publisher, Stansberry Churchouse Research


This was written by Stansberry Churchouse Research, an independent investment research company based in Singapore and Hong Kong that delivers investment insight on Asia and around the world. Click here to sign up to receive the Asia Wealth Investment Daily in your inbox every day, for free.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Ukrainian Lawmakers Disclose $45 Million In Bitcoin Holdings

As Ukraine"s crackdown on corruption continues, three lawmakers from Ukraine’s ruling party revealed this week that they own a combined $45 million in bitcoin, according to a report by RIA Novosti, a Russian foreign news service.


Their holdings came to light during mandatory financial disclosures by members of the Ukrainian parliament, part of an IMF-approved strategy to tamp down corruption in Ukraine. The country"s democratic institutions, which were never very robust to begin with, have been further destabilized by the civil war that"s seen pro-Russian separatists seize control of two regions in eastern Ukraine. Lawmakers must now disclose their assets and wealth in an online database.


Dmitry Golubov possesses the most bitcoin, with 8,752 BTC, an amount worth roughly $36 million at current prices, according to CoinDesk. Alexander Urbansky possesses 2,494 BTC, or $10.3 million, while Dmitry Belotserkovets owns 398 BTC, or $1.6 million.



Ukraine’s central bank plans to develop a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies after discussing the legal implications of the virtual tokens at a meeting next month.  





“The disclosures come as Ukraine inches toward regulating the cryptocurrency.



As reported previously, the National Bank of Ukraine – the country"s central bank – revealed last week that the legal implications of cryptocurrencies will be discussed at the next meeting of the Financial Stability Board of Ukraine. That hearing, scheduled for the end of August, will bring together the nation"s financial authorities.



It"s unclear at this time exactly what steps the government will ultimately take. Local sources reported last week that a large cache of bitcoin mining machines were confiscated after authorities discovered them at a state-owned facility.”



Ukrainians have been exposed to the vast differences between the fortunes amassed by the country’s politicians and the more modest holdings of those they represent since an anti-corruption reform requiring senior Ukrainian officials to declare their wealth online was implemented late last year.


Some lawmakers have declared millions of dollars in cash. Others said they owned fleets of luxury cars, expensive Swiss watches, diamond jewelry and large tracts of land. These revelations have no doubt undermined public confidence in the country’s government, particularly the ruling party led by President Petro Poroshenko, whose family amassed a fortune in the confectionary business. By comparison, the average salary in Ukraine is just over $200 per month.


Poroshenko - a prominent fixture of the Panama Papers - retains control of a top TV channel and has failed to follow through on his promise to sell off his Roshen chocolate empire due to a lack of foreign interest and a dearth of rich-enough investors in Ukraine itself.


While the online declaration system has been intended to represent a show of good faith that officials are willing to open their finances up to public scrutiny, to be held accountable, and to move away from a culture that tacitly allowed bureaucrats to amass wealth through cronyism and graft, the public reaction has been one of shocked dismay at the extravagant lifestyles conjured up by many of the disclosures.


"We did not expect that this would be such a widespread phenomenon among state officials. I can"t imagine there is a European politician who invests money in a wine collection where one bottle costs over $10,000," said Vitaliy Shabunin, the head of the non-governmental Anti-Corruption Action Center.


Ukraine"s economy is on track to shrink by about 12 percent this year and only return to marginal growth should the eastern campaign end in 2016. Unrest in the country began back in 2014 when former President Viktor Yanukovich, who was perceived to be too close with Russian President Vladimir Putin, was forced to abdicate.
 

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Here's The Story Behind Trump's Podesta-Russia Tweet

President Trump took to Twitter this morning to remind Americans that the "It was Russia" stone-throwers on the left may have been living in Russia-funded glass-houses after all...



The story behind this Podesta-Russia link is explained in full gore by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog; dot connectors, Twitter diagram creators and newly minted Russia-conspiracy sleuths from sea to shining sea take note.



Since anything connected to Russia is now considered treasonous, I’ve got a great story for you to sniff out.


It relates to John Podesta, but somehow I doubt you’ll be interested in this one…


The Daily Caller reports:





John Podesta, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 national campaign chairman, may have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.



Joule Unlimited Technologies — financed in part by a Russian firm —  originally awarded Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined that board along with its Dutch-based entities: Joule Global Holdings, BV and the Stichting Joule Global Foundation.



When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President Obama’s special counsellor, the company officially issued him 75,000 common shares of stock.



The Schedule B section of the federal government’s form 278 which — requires financial disclosures for government officials — required Podesta to “report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your spouse, or dependent children…of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000.”



The same year Podesta joined Joule, the company agreed to accept 1-Billion-Rubles — or $35 million — from Rusnano, a state-run and financed Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.



Anatoly Chubais, the company CEO and two other top Russian banking executives worked together with Podesta on the Joule boards. The board met six times a year.



Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director said because of the Kremlin backing, it was essential Podesta disclose the financial benefits he received from the company.



“I think in this case where you’re talking about foreign interests and foreign involvement, the collateral interest with these disclosure forms is put in the forefront of full disclosure of any foreign interest that you may have,” he told TheDCNF in an interview.



The existence of the 75,000 shares of Joule stock was first revealed by the Government Accountability Institute report issued last year.



But Podesta didn’t pocket all the shares. Correspondence from Podesta to Joule instructed the firm to transfer only 33,693 shares to Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only on December 20, 2013, about ten days before he entered the White House.



Leonidio is registered in Delaware as a limited liability corporation. Podesta listed the address of his daughter, Megan Rouse, in the incorporation papers. His mother and father also appear to be co-owners of Leonidio.




TheDCNF made multiple inquiries to OGE and received no reply. TheDCNF inquiries to Mr. Podesta were not returned.




That"s not the end of the story though, as John Podesta"s brother, Tony, confirmed Russia"s largest bank had hired the Podesta Group to lobby for an end to sanctions...





Russia"s largest bank, Sberbank, has confirmed that it hired the consultancy of Tony Podesta, the elder brother of John Podesta who chaired Hillary Clinton"s presidential campaign, for lobbying its interests in the United States and proactively seeking the removal of various Obama-era sanctions, the press service of the Russian institution told TASS on Thursday.



"The New York office of Sberbank CIB indeed hired Podesta Group. Engagement of external consultants is part of standard business practices for us," Sberbank said.





Previously, The Daily Caller reported that Tony Podesta was proactively lobbying for cancellation of a range of anti-Russian sanctions against the banking sector. In particular, he represented interests of Sberbank and was paid $170,000 for his efforts over a six-month period last year to seek to end one of the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against that country.  Podesta, founder and chairman of the Podesta Group, is listed as a key lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying . His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.



...



Regular readers will recall that the Sberbank-Podesta relationship goes back many years. Sberbank was the lead financial institution in the Russian deal to purchase Uranium One, owned by one of Bill Clinton’s closest friends, Frank Giustra. Giustra and Bill Clinton lead the Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership, an integral part of the Clinton Foundation.



Consider if any or all of the above had taken place among any of the Trump administration - what would have occurred? How villified would the offender have been? As Mike Krieger concludes, personally, I doubt any of the above is a huge deal, and I certainly don’t think Podesta is working for Vladimir Putin under the table. However, just imagine the hysteria if the above narrative could’ve been connected to anyone in Trump’s orbit. It would’ve been plastered on the front page of The Washington Post and The New York Times with headlines like, “More Financial Ties Emerge Between Those in Trump’s Orbit and Putin.”


Naturally, you won’t see this story hyped because it doesn’t fit the corporate media narrative, and the narrative is all they care about.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Russia Conspiracy Theorists May Want To Take A Look At John Podesta

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,



Dot connectors, Twitter diagram creators and newly minted Russia-conspiracy sleuths from sea to shining sea take note.



Since anything connected to Russia is now considered treasonous, I’ve got a great story for you to sniff out.


It relates to John Podesta, but somehow I doubt you’ll be interested in this one…


The Daily Caller reports:





John Podesta, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 national campaign chairman, may have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group.



Joule Unlimited Technologies — financed in part by a Russian firm —  originally awarded Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined that board along with its Dutch-based entities: Joule Global Holdings, BV and the Stichting Joule Global Foundation.



When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President Obama’s special counsellor, the company officially issued him 75,000 common shares of stock.



The Schedule B section of the federal government’s form 278 which — requires financial disclosures for government officials — required Podesta to “report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your spouse, or dependent children…of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000.”



The same year Podesta joined Joule, the company agreed to accept 1-Billion-Rubles — or $35 million — from Rusnano, a state-run and financed Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.



Anatoly Chubais, the company CEO and two other top Russian banking executives worked together with Podesta on the Joule boards. The board met six times a year.



Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director said because of the Kremlin backing, it was essential Podesta disclose the financial benefits he received from the company.



“I think in this case where you’re talking about foreign interests and foreign involvement, the collateral interest with these disclosure forms is put in the forefront of full disclosure of any foreign interest that you may have,” he told TheDCNF in an interview.



The existence of the 75,000 shares of Joule stock was first revealed by the Government Accountability Institute report issued last year.



But Podesta didn’t pocket all the shares. Correspondence from Podesta to Joule instructed the firm to transfer only 33,693 shares to Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only on December 20, 2013, about ten days before he entered the White House.



Leonidio is registered in Delaware as a limited liability corporation. Podesta listed the address of his daughter, Megan Rouse, in the incorporation papers. His mother and father also appear to be co-owners of Leonidio.




TheDCNF made multiple inquiries to OGE and received no reply. TheDCNF inquiries to Mr. Podesta were not returned.




Personally, I doubt any of the above is a huge deal, and I certainly don’t think Podesta is working for Vladimir Putin under the table. However, just imagine the hysteria if the above narrative could’ve been connected to anyone in Trump’s orbit. It would’ve been plastered on the front page of The Washington Post and The New York Times with headlines like, “More Financial Ties Emerge Between Those in Trump’s Orbit and Putin.”


Naturally, you won’t see this story hyped because it doesn’t fit the corporate media narrative, and the narrative is all they care about.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

OECD Warns There Is A "Disconnect" Between Markets And The Global Economy

In a report released this morning by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development titled "Will risks derail the modest recovery? Financial vulnerabilities and policy risks" the OECD warns the global economy may not be strong enough to withstand risks from increased trade barriers, overblown stock markets or potential currency volatility, and adds that the "disconnect between financial markets and fundamentals, potential market volatility, financial vulnerabilities and policy uncertainties could derail the modest recovery."


The OECD projects global GDP growth to pick up modestly to 3½ per cent in 2018, from just under 3% in 2016, boosted by fiscal initiatives in the major economies, a forecast which is broadly unchanged since November 2016 and notes that while confidence has improved, "consumption, investment, trade and productivity are far from strong, with growth slow by past norms and higher inequality."



Furthermore, the OECD notes that the pace of growth will remain well short of its average in the two decades before the financial crisis because of weak investment and productivity gains.


“We have acceleration but I’m concerned about this really soft foundation to the recovery,” OECD Chief Economist Catherine Mann said in a Bloomberg interview. “We still have this slow, sluggish productivity growth and persistent inequality. Put those together and it’s hard to see the robust consumption and investment profile you need to really get things going.”


Taking a cue from the IMF and central banks, the OECD launched a veiled attack at Trump"s proposed protectionist policies, and while the president was not named, the OECD highlighted concerns related to Trump administration policies, including his threats to impose tariffs on nations he deems to have an unfair advantage.


“We think the dynamic response to increased protectionism could be really quick, so we have a pretty significant downward bias on what it could mean for growth,” Mann said. “What we mean by that is the way businesses will respond by raising prices and cutting trade flows.”



Trump aside, however, key recurring core theme in the report is the OECD"s warning that there is a notable “disconnect” between equity valuations and the outlook for the real economy, with the market performance partly linked to anticipation of a Trump stimulus package, to wit: 





The positive assessment reflected in market valuations appears disconnected from real economy prospects. The interest-rate cycle turned in mid-2016 and rising divergence in interest rates between major economies heightens risks of exchange rate volatility. Vulnerabilities remain in some advanced economies from rapid house price increases. Risks to emerging market economies are high, including from higher corporate debt, rising non-performing loans and vulnerability to external shocks.



As Bloomberg notes, the OECD also highlighted potential exchange rate volatility from the shift in the interest-rate cycle. The U.S. Federal Reserve is forecast to increase interest rates next week in what may be the start of a series of hikes this year. In contrast, the European Central Bank is pressing on with its planned stimulus program through 2017. “Although risks may not materialize immediately, they remain a real possibility and a set of large shocks, possibly interacting with each other, would disrupt the recovery,” the OECD said.





Disconnects, volatility, financial vulnerabilities and policy uncertainty could derail the projected modest pick-up in growth. While immediate indicators of financial market stress have generally moderated compared with a year ago, underlying tensions have continued to rise. Although risks may not materialise immediately, they remain a real possibility and a set of large shocks, possibly interacting with each other, would disrupt the recovery.




Another warning: rising rates which could lead to "wider financial instability."





The recent interest rate rises have been associated with sizeable exchange rate movements, with the US dollar appreciating rapidly against the euro and yen, and a number of emerging market currencies have faced market pressures. Financial market expectations imply that a large divergence in short-term interest rates between the major advanced economies will open up in the coming years. This raises the risk of financial market tensions and volatility, notably in exchange rates, which could lead to wider financial instability.




The OECD also slams the world"s overrliance on monetary policy, which has not only led to exceptionally low rates, but also rising debt levels, and elevated asset prices.  In short central banks have created asset bubbles.





Significant financial vulnerabilities arise from the overreliance on monetary policy in recent years, which has led to an extended period of exceptionally low interest rates, rising debt levels in some countries, elevated asset prices and a search for yield. In advanced economies, some countries have experienced rapid house price increases in recent years, including Australia, Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom. As past experience has shown, a rapid rise of house prices can be a precursor of an economic downturn. House price-to-rent ratios are at record highs in several countries and above long-term averages in many others. Although there has been a slower accumulation of household debt in recent years, mortgage-debt-to-income ratios remain high in many countries




Another major concern to the OECD are emerging markets, which are a source of "significant global financial vulnerabilities stem from emerging market economies, although the sources of potential vulnerability differ across economies." Of note here: China.





The rapid growth of private sector credit and the relatively high level of indebtedness by historic norms is a key risk in some countries, notably China, fuelled by favourable financial conditions amid low global interest rates. These high debt burdens, particularly of non-financial companies, leave economies more exposed to a rapid rise in interest rates or unfavourable demand developments. At the same time, a turning of the credit cycle is leading to a rise in non-performing loans, particularly for India and Russia, potentially exposing a misallocation of capital during the upswing and creating pressures on the banking system. In China, the high share of non-performing and “special-mention” loans reflects to a large extent borrowing by state-owned enterprises.




The OECD continues:





Many emerging market economies are also vulnerable to external shocks and currency mismatches. Sharp movements in foreign interest rates, rapid depreciations of the domestic currency, and or rising risk premia can induce financial stresses in countries with high levels of overseas borrowing or those with a mismatch between foreign currency denominated debts and export revenues. While exposure should take into account the position at the firm level and natural hedges and other factors, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia and Turkey have aggregate US dollar liabilities in excess of their estimated annual US dollar export revenues. While a number of factors make emerging market economies as a whole more resilient than during past episodes of rising interest rates in advanced economies, such as higher foreign exchange reserves and changes in the structure of foreign borrowing, exposures to global volatility are nevertheless high in many countries




A favorite topic of ours: the record low VIX which makes no sense in light of nre record high policy uncertainty. As the OECD wrties, uncertainties in many countries about future policy actions and the direction of politics are high. News-based measures indicate global policy uncertainty increased significantly in 2016, rising particularly sharply in some countries. Many countries have new governments, face elections this year, or rely on coalition or minority governments. More generally, falling trust in national governments and lower confidence by voters in the political systems of many countries can make it more difficult for governments to pursue and sustain the policy agenda required to achieve strong and inclusive growth. Rising inequality and growing concern about the fairness of society may also help to undermine trust and confidence in governments. These tensions lead to less predictable outcomes, including on progress in implementing policy reforms.


“Falling trust in national governments and lower confidence by voters in the political systems of many countries can make it more difficult for governments to pursue and sustain the policy agenda required to achieve strong and inclusive growth,” the OECD said.



There are many more warnings in the full report, but we are confident the market will do what it does best - ignore them - until the selling avalanche begins at which point the question will be "why did nobody warn us?"