Sunday, October 14, 2018

Oil's $133 Billion Black Market

Oil is still the world’s leading energy source, with growing demand, a fluctuating pricing system, and much of its production in volatile regions. The oil market’s value is larger than the world’s valuable raw metal markets combined, with an annual production valued at US$1.7 trillion. A flourishing black market is no surprise, with about US$133 billion worth of fuels stolen or adulterated every year. These practices fund dangerous non-state actors such as the Islamic State, Mexican drug cartels, Italian Mafia, Eastern European criminal groups, Libyan militias, Nigerian rebels and more – and are a major global security concern.
The top five countries accused of oil trafficking – Nigeria, Mexico, Iraq, Russia, and Indonesia – are also producersIt is estimated that Nigeria alone loses US$1.5 billion a month due to pipeline tapping, illegal production and other sophisticated schemes. In Southeast Asia, about 3 percent of the fuel consumed is sourced from the black market, estimated to be worth up to US$10 billion a year. In Mexico, drug cartels launder drug revenues through the oil trade
Other countries are not immune. Turkey is not an oil producer yet serves as a major transit route for hydrocarbons flowing to Europe from OPEC countries like Iraq and Iran. As an energy hub, Turkey is strategically situated for the illegal trade and lost an estimated US$5 billion in tax revenue in 2017. An uptick in smuggling oil and other refined products began 2014, when ISIS took control of major Syrian and Iraqi oil fields.
As with most commodities, the volume of oil smuggling is primarily linked to fluctuating prices. With climbing oil prices, illicit trade is expected to increase. The European Union is a prime example on how price disparities of fuel within its own member state countries tend to incentivize illegal trade producing counterintuitive routes. Lower oil prices in Eastern Europe have created maritime smuggling routes to the United Kingdom and Ireland. Ireland estimates it loses up to $200 million annually with fuel fraud, while up to 20 percent of fuel sold in regular gas stations in Greece is illegal.
The legal complexities and ambiguities of the global oil and gas trade often create an opening for illegal activity.
In some cases, subnational actors openly export oil despite official prohibition by central governments. The Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq maintains it is their region’s constitutional right to export oil independently, in defiance of the central government. With Baghdad withholding the region’s 17 percent of budget share, the regional government sought economic independence through hydrocarbons and found a degree of international sympathy, given its role in combatting ISIS and hosting 1.9 million refugees and internally displaced people. The unrefined product was sent via pipeline through Turkey’s Ceyhan port, loaded by various Greek shipping companies on tankers, then stored in Malta or Israel until buyers were found. Shifting routes of Kurdish oil tankers can be observed on sites like tankertrackers.com.
Authorities who benefit from the trade often stymie efforts to combat illegal trafficking, as seen in countries like Iraq or North Korea, with terrible consequences for citizens. Conflict and illicit trading near the Niger River Delta reduced overall foreign direct investment in recent decades.
With 90 percent of the world’s goods, 30 percent of which are total hydrocarbons, traded by sea, much of the illegal fuel trade is conducted on water. Two thirds of global daily oil exports are transported by sea, reports the UN Conference on Trade and Development, and a staggering 64 percent of international waters are areas beyond any national jurisdiction. Non-state actors offshore West Africa, Bangladesh or Indonesia take advantage of loopholes created by international law and the law of the sea. Transfer of illegal fuel is often done ship to ship on neutral waters – with one ship commercially legal, recognized as carrying legitimate imports at the final port of destination. Thus, illegal crude from countries such as Libya or Syria finds its way to EU markets. Recently Russian ships have been found involved in smuggling oil products to North Korea through ship to ship transfers.
Armed theft and piracy also occur. Hijackings off the coast of Somalia resumed in 2017, the first since 2012, after the international community reduced enforcement. Beyond jurisdictional issues, many governments are overwhelmed by other maritime security threats and cannot prioritize the illegal trade. In fact, fuel traders have reported that the problem is so pervasive that many companies calculate in advance for losses up to 0.4 percent of any ordered cargo volumes.
The industry runs on high risk tolerance.
Transparency International estimates that over the next 20 years, around 90 percent of oil and gas production will come from developing countries. The relatively low average salaries of state employees relative to the private sector in developing countries encourage the temptation to look for other income sources.
Consider Mozambique, where immense offshore natural gas reserves have been discovered. Emerging from decades of civil war, the country has a diverse wasta system – an Arabic term for bribing and asking for favours – along with strong political allegiances and state structures that struggle to withstand internal and external pressures. Estimates suggest that 54 percent of all cargo movements in the capital city, Maputo, involve bribes, and Mozambique risks following the path of Nigeria, a country in need of socioeconomic development despite vast oil and gas reserves under development since 1958. The country is reported to have already lost around US$400 billion since its independence in 1960 due to theft or mismanagement in its oil sector.
The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development suggests that the impacts of the illegal oil trade go underestimated, and the affected countries suffer from the deteriorating rule of law, loss of biodiversity, pollution, degradation of critical farmland, increasing health problems and armed conflicts. Other opportunity costs include increased financial risk premiums for investors with billions of dollars lost annually due to illegal bunkering, pipeline tapping, ship-to-ship transfers, armed theft, adulteration of fuel and bribery. Illicit trade allows authoritarian states to maintain revenue flows for years despite international sanctions designed to weaken their rule. In the 11th year of UN oil sanctions, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein had managed to become one of the world’s richest men, with an estimated US$3 billion in wealth
Some governments condone the illicit trade. An intertwining of regime structures and corruption – often supported by governments and corporations – is a major stumbling block for the international community’s attempts to contain illegal trading. So far, governmental and industry efforts to halt the practice have been ineffective – and it could be that the illegal oil trade offers enough benefits to consumers, producers and government officials to disincentivize investigation. Some officials suggest that condoning trade in illicit oil and petroleum products helps keep regional and local security intact.
The first global conference on fuel theft, held in Geneva in April, may be a watershed moment. The conference aimed at encouraging discourse among stakeholders within the hydrocarbons industry on how to tackle the scale of this global crime and was based on the work of Ian Ralby, I.R. Consilium and the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, which produced Downstream Oil Theft: Global Modalities, Trends, and Remedies, the most extensive examination of illicit downstream hydrocarbons activity published to date.
Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist
Similar challenges confront the rapidly growing liquefied natural gas market. Strong international cooperation is required, or detrimental effects for global security, the environment and economic prosperity will continue. Unless monitored and addressed by robust policy and regulation, the illegal oil activities will remain a key funding source for terrorism, organized crime, authoritarian states and violent non-state actors.

Saturday, October 13, 2018

Meet The Finance Professor Exposing Rigged Markets One Academic Paper At A Time

Finance professor John Griffin, along with his doctoral student companion, Amin Shams, were the two academics that drew market-moving conclusions about bitcoin last year, while the digital currency was trading around $20,000. After sifting through 2 terabytes of trading data, they alleged that bitcoin was being manipulated by someone using the cryptocurrency Tether to purchase it. Tether remains a relatively little-known crypto, which is pegged to one US dollar. Part of its appeal is that it can "stand in" for dollars when necessary, according to Bloomberg.
Griffin and Shams authored a paper in June, with the results of their findings ultimately catalyzing many digital assets to move lower, despite the fact that the CEO of Tether publicly denied that its currency was used to prop up bitcoin.
Griffin works at the University of Texas at Austin, and has become quite an unpopular figure on Wall Street for similar work he has done in the past on ratings companies, the VIX and investment banks. In most of his findings, he claims that these well-known financial instruments and players are, in one way or another, rigged. And the professor seems to enjoy exposing precisely that: rigged, manipulated markets and shady players.
"I not only want to understand the world, but make it better," he told Bloomberg.
Griffin's work has become popular reading within the DOJ and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, according to Bloomberg. These regulators – many of them low on resources, time and staff - welcome any additional help they can get (the SEC’s budget has forced it into a hiring freeze and the CFTC budget was cut by Congress in March of this year).
John Reed Stark, a former attorney in the SEC’s enforcement division, stated: “It’s incredibly helpful to have an expert of Griffin’s caliber."
After spending the beginning of his tenure as a professor tackling little-known and inconsequential parts of the market, he started to feel the need to take on bigger tasks. In fact, he claims that part of the Bible spoke to him, when he read a passage that motivated him. It stated “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”
His targets – like the VIX index, owned by CBOE Global Markets - say that he misreads data. In response to work that he did on the VIX, CBOE stated his “...academic paper’s analysis and conclusions are based upon a fundamental misunderstanding about how VIX derivatives are traded and settled.”
In 2017, Griffin's work revealed that one or more market participants had been trading S&P 500 options in a way to artificially boost or depress the VIX, which would then have an impact on VIX futures. They argued that the volume of S&P 500 options would spike suspiciously at times, but only in the contracts that were used to help price the VIX. He claimed these trades simply didn’t make sense unless somebody was trying to manipulate the VIX.
And he’s not buying the explanation given to him by the CBOE: “There is no doubt we understand how the market works,” he said.
As a result, the CBOE has been sued many times over for this supposed manipulation. Meanwhile, riffin says he’s not going to work with any individual plaintiffs, but he does not rule out the possibility that he may work as a consultant in the future – if he can get paid.
Every time he publishes a new paper, he gets more attention. His paper on the alleged bitcoin manipulation has been downloaded more than 20,000 times and was cited by the SEC when the regulator rejected a bitcoin ETF that would have made it easier for retail investors to trade the crypto.
And as he continues to expose one fraud after another, Griffin - unlike Goldman - is truly doing God's work. 

Monday, September 24, 2018

Why the EU Is Furious With Malta

From Bloomberg:

Good Friday claims a sacred spot on the Maltese calendar, and this year the holiday was casting its reliable spell. In the late afternoon, hundreds of people streamed from Baroque cathedrals outside the capital city of Valletta, forming slow parades through steep and narrow streets. Men in biblical robes lugged crosses, children clutched bright flowers, and small brass bands marched behind with raised trumpets and inflated cheeks. A breeze wrinkled the Mediterranean, and the sun slipped to a flattering angle, encasing all that charm in amber.

At the same time, the nation’s top-rated prime-time television show was wrapping up a special daytime broadcast: an annual telethon to raise money for children receiving cancer treatments abroad. In the bottom-left corner of the screen, a digital counter tallied the donations. When the number finally hit €1.26 million ($1.46 million), the studio audience began to stir, eager to applaud the fundraising record.

That’s when Prime Minister Joseph Muscat called into the telethon’s phone bank. He, too, seemed in a celebratory mood. The day before, the country had announced that it had registered a €182 million surplus for 2017, its second straight year in the black after decades of deficits. Patched through to the telethon’s host, Muscat pledged €5 million to the cancer charity on behalf of the government, nearly quadrupling the previous telethon record in an instant. The audience erupted. Some of the operators on the dais behind the stage removed their headsets and laid them on the table, as if to declare victory.

But these days in Malta, feel-good stories never seem to last. When Muscat hinted that the donated money would come from a fund fed by Malta’s Individual Investor Programme—a government initiative that sells Maltese passports to foreigners for €650,000 (less for additional family members), plus a €150,000 investment in government bonds—Good Friday took a turn.


Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and his wife, Michelle.PHOTOGRAPHER: DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/WPA POOL/GETTY IMAGES
An opposition Parliament member wrote on Facebook that, as a cancer survivor, he was disgusted by the possibility that the patients’ care was being financed by money from “criminals and the corrupt.” Another suggested Malta was trying to clean its dirty money by funneling it through a good cause. “It’s [like] thinking that prostitution is OK once part of the proceeds are donated by the pimp to charity,” Jason Azzopardi, a Parliament member, complained on Facebook.

The story of how Malta got to this point—where a holiday donation to a children’s charity can spark outrage and lament—starts brightly enough. A tiny country carves a small but lucrative niche in the global economy. Money flows in, thousands of jobs are created, and the government intensifies the strategy, opening the country to more partners and funding sources. Then comes the twist: Allegations of money laundering, political skulduggery, smuggling, organized crime, and even a murder.

Multiple investigations—by local magistrates, American prosecutors, and European politicians and banking regulators—have been rattling Malta’s financial and political networks for more than a year. Some of the most powerful countries in the world have suggested that a nation of about 450,000 people might pose a serious threat to global efforts to track money laundering, enforce economic sanctions, and maintain fair transnational standards.

A 15-month inquiry into one of the most contentious of the allegations—one suggesting that Muscat’s wife was directly involved in setting up a shell company for money laundering—wrapped up in late July without uncovering evidence that would justify criminal charges. “One hundred threads of suspicion don’t stitch together a single strand of proof,” the investigating magistrate concluded.

The story isn’t over yet, because some of those threads still dangle, and critics of the government both inside and outside Malta remain convinced that they tie into other scandals, other crimes. The government continues to try to nurse its battered reputation back to health, and how it all turns out will likely depend on how the Maltese ultimately answer the question lingering over their country: To supercharge its financial-services sector, did the smallest country in the European Union sell its soul?

Taking a sunset dip in Sliema Harbor, near Manoel Island.
Taking a sunset dip in Sliema Harbor, near Manoel Island.PHOTOGRAPHER: NADIA SHIRA COHEN FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK
South of Sicily, east of Tunisia, and north of Libya, Malta’s three tiny islands have been eyed as well-placed steppingstones by the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Normans, French, and British. All coveted Malta as a staging ground, which makes its history a swashbuckling saga of raids, sieges, bombings, and rotating occupations. When the last British military base finally left in 1979, it took with it the country’s main economic engine. Malta turned to tourism, doing its best to sell ancient ruins, fortress walls, sloping medieval streets, and sheer limestone cliffs. The country eventually discovered, as most sunbaked islands do, that while it’s possible to get by on atmospherics, it’s hard to do much more.

In the early 1990s, Malta’s two major political parties argued over whether to take a shot at EU membership—generally speaking, the Labour Party didn’t like the idea and the Nationalist Party did. By the mid-’90s, with the Nationalists in power, the country began to prepare its application to join the bloc.

To convince the rest of Europe that it could be a trusted partner, Malta began instituting a series of financial and regulatory reforms. In the process, the country was reinventing itself as a new sort of steppingstone: a transit hub not for ships or soldiers but for money, in an environment of regulatory legitimacy, transparency, and stability. Malta discovered that the residue from centuries of turmoil (an ingrained adaptability, strong links to disparate cultures, the English language) was an asset, as was the country’s size, which allowed it to nimbly sidestep bureaucratic delays and cater to rapidly evolving industries that valued good computer connections more than natural resources. The traditional downsides of island economies—the high costs of transporting supplies in and out, for one—didn’t apply to the financial-services industry.

By the time the country’s membership in the EU was formally approved in 2004, Malta had staked out its place within Europe’s economy, and the nation’s attractive tax schemes—effective rates as low as 5 percent for foreign-owned companies, vs. an average of 22 percent for other European countries—helped attract investment funds, banks, and financial-services firms from all over the world. The steady influx of new business helped the local economy avoid a significant downturn during the 2008 financial crisis. Shortly after Muscat and his Labour Party took office in 2013, effectively ending 25 years of Nationalist electoral dominance, the country instituted the controversial passport-selling scheme, which was denounced by EU officials who feared it could create a back door for shady individuals or dirty money to gain access to Europe’s financial markets. But Muscat energetically pushed the plan, traveling abroad to sell it to prospective citizens, and it quickly took off. In 2014, Malta began a three-year run as the fastest-growing economy in Europe, and Muscat and his allies described the passport program as a complete success. By the beginning of this year, the government had collected about €600 million through it.

Muscat’s opponents in the Nationalist Party, as well as some members of the Maltese press, weren’t sold. In 2016 investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia dug into the documents released in the Panama Papers leak and discovered that two of Muscat’s closest aides had established companies in Panama. She accused them of using those businesses to launder money from kickbacks she said they’d received for helping to arrange the sales of passports to Russian nationals. They denied it; a separate magisterial inquiry regarding those allegations is under way.

Later, Caruana Galizia reported that Muscat’s wife, Michelle, had established her own Panamanian shell company through the same middleman who’d set up those for Muscat’s aides—the accusation that the magistrate this summer said he’d found no proof to support. Caruana Galizia also accused Pilatus Bank, a Maltese institution founded in 2014, of handling much of the money in those alleged transactions, as well as those involving the shell companies set up by the prime minister’s aides.

Additionally, the journalist alleged that the first lady had received at least $1 million from Azerbaijan’s ruling family. Last year an international consortium of investigative journalists accused members of Azerbaijan’s ruling elite of operating a $3 billion scheme to launder money, pay off European politicians, and buy luxury goods; the reports cited “ample evidence” tying the ruling family to the schemes. Azeri President Ilham Aliyev last year labeled the accusations “totally groundless, biased and provocative.”

Caruana Galizia’s blog became the most-read news source in Malta. And even though she criticized both parties, it was a clearinghouse for critics of Muscat’s government. On any given day she might have accused a Maltese official of visiting a prostitute; or exposed an alleged local oil smuggling ring that helped Libya evade sanctions; or traced personal connections between government officials and suspected criminals; or slammed Muscat for trying to pitch Malta as a cryptocurrency capital, which she suggested would attract more corruption; or detailed alleged links between the country’s growing online gaming sector and the Italian Mafia. The list of her enemies was large and growing, and by last fall she faced 47 lawsuits—42 civil, 5 criminal—about 70 percent of them from government officials, according to her sister, Corinne Vella.

Prime Minister Muscat was one of those suing her, and he labeled her accusations as “the biggest lie in Malta’s political history.” Many in Malta seemed to believe him; in June 2017, as the allegations swirled, Muscat called for a snap election, and he was reelected with 55 percent of the popular vote.

Last October, as she drove away from her house, Caruana Galizia was killed by a car bomb. Police later arrested three men, low-level criminals, for planting and detonating the device. But no one in Malta considers the crime solved. Whoever ordered the killing remains unidentified. Some speculate that criminals involved with the Libyan smuggling ring might have targeted her, or that the Sicilian Mafia put out the hit. Many others blame the government.

Muscat and his administration loudly condemned the murder, calling it a tragedy and energetically denying any link to it. But the killing marked a turning point for Malta. The notion that corruption might have overtaken Malta’s economy now spread far beyond the confines of an opposition party, and the eyes of the world turned toward the tiny country. It has been struggling to clear its name ever since.

Protesters call for action following the killing of Caruana Galizia last October.
A recent protest over the killing of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, murdered last October.PHOTOGRAPHER: NADIA SHIRA COHEN FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK
Everyone knows everyone in Malta. It’s an exaggeration, of course, but among the nation’s financial elite, the people who run the banks and institutions and sit on the governing boards, the notion is all but taken for granted. “There are, unofficially, some 10,000 people who work in Malta’s financial industry, and the guys in charge—there are maybe 50 or 70 of us—we know each other fairly well,” says Joseph Portelli, chairman of the Malta Stock Exchange.

In describing the financial community as small and closely knit, Portelli is defending it. He grew up in New York with his Maltese parents, and 15 years ago moved to Malta to manage his own fund, which specializes in emerging-market investments. He entered a financial-services industry that was fiercely protective of its reputation and keenly sensitive to insinuations of corruption. Now, as allegations of wrongdoing swirl, that defensive sensitivity is more acute than ever. Portelli has adopted it as naturally as any lifelong resident.

“We’re getting this blemish that we’re money launderers,” he says, “and that’s the worst irony.” There have been a few small problems, he concedes, with a handful of small banks. “You know what they all have in common?” he asks. “Not one of the principals was Maltese, they were all foreigners.” The locals, he suggests, police one another.

It’s a variation on an argument that’s been around since Plato and Aristotle. Small states tend to be less susceptible to corruption for two reasons: It’s more difficult to hide indiscretions, and higher levels of social cohesion discourage dishonesty. In the early 2000s several academic studies used data to support this theory, and some analysts suggested that globalization might be of particular benefit to small countries—freer trade and the increased mobility of labor and capital would reduce the costs of being small, they argued, while the advantages associated with less corruption could be retained.

An alternative theory is that small states will be susceptible to cronyism—all those close connections might enable, rather than discourage, financial subterfuge. More recent studies, including research conducted by the World Bank, have found that the data used in the earlier reports were incomplete, and the suggestion that smaller countries are statistically less corrupt than large ones remains unproven.

By the beginning of this year, the government had collected about €600 million through the passport program

For critics of Muscat, one powerful symbol of cronyism is Ali Sadr Hasheminejad, head of Pilatus Bank, the institution allegedly in the middle of the suspicious transactions involving the Panamanian shell companies linked to government officials. Sadr is an Iranian national, but when establishing and registering the bank in Malta he used a passport he’d purchased from St. Kitts. While Sadr was enmeshed in controversy in Malta, a parallel investigation into him and his bank culminated in his arrest by U.S. authorities, who charged him this spring with setting up a network of shell companies and bank accounts to hide money being funneled from Venezuela to Iran—transactions that allegedly violated economic sanctions against Iran. Prosecutors also alleged that Sadr established Pilatus Bank using illegal funds. Sadr pleaded not guilty and has been released on bail in the U.S.; his lawyer didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Malta’s government attempted to distance itself from Sadr, but the same sort of intimate connections found throughout the financial sector have undermined those efforts. Local news outlets reported that among the 250 guests at Sadr’s 2015 wedding in Italy were Muscat, his wife, and one of the aides accused of moving money from kickbacks related to the passport program through Pilatus Bank.

The July magistrate’s report stated that some of the evidence used by Caruana Galizia and others to implicate Michelle Muscat—including Pilatus Bank documents suggesting she was the owner of the shell company at the center of the scandal—bore falsified signatures. Muscat and the lawyers for Pilatus Bank immediately presented the findings as a “certification” that the whole story had been a lie cooked up by Caruana Galizia and foreign critics, and they denounced it in terms familiar to anyone conversant with the new vocabulary of political grievance: It was “fake news,” part of a “witch hunt.” They also drove home the point that the magistrate’s report identified serious improprieties on the part of their critics.

But the family of Caruana Galizia pointed out that the identity of the owner of the Panamanian shell company is still a secret. Furthermore, the European Banking Authority just weeks before had cited “serious and systematic shortcomings” in how Maltese regulators monitored Pilatus Bank before and after Sadr’s ties to Iran were exposed. A confidential 2016 regulatory report that was leaked last year confirmed that the bank’s profitability depended on politically involved clients from Azerbaijan. And the U.S. allegations that Sadr founded Pilatus Bank with criminal proceeds remain unaffected by that magisterial report.

The result of all this is a contagion of suspicion. Many of the allegations of money laundering and other financial crimes have proved difficult to either verify or dismiss outright, but collectively they make it increasingly hard to swallow the idea that corruption is strictly a foreign import here. The country’s only independent think tank, the Today Public Policy Institute, ceased operations in April. Its stated reason for closure was bluntly condemnatory: “a sense of defeatism over the government running roughshod over standards of professionalism, transparency, and accountability.”

Muscat and those in his government generally have responded to such criticisms by going on the offensive: Instead of putting the brakes on controversial policies, they’ve stomped on the gas. Muscat this year pushed for an expansion of the passport sales program, arguing that such investments and the economic activity they spur could help Malta become one of the wealthiest countries in Europe within his lifetime. Last year alone, private wealth in Malta jumped by more than 20 percent, thanks in part to its newly minted citizens.

“Globalization is like a treadmill—you can’t say you are tired, because the second you stop, you will fall off,” Muscat said during a press conference earlier this year. “Once in the race, we must not simply be there to take part, but we are there to win.” Previously he’d outlined the types of policies that would power Malta’s sprint toward success: “some sensible, others risky, yet others which might sound, and be, outright insane.”

In April, just as several Asian countries were cracking down on cryptocurrencies, Muscat announced that Malta would become the first country in Europe to create a regulatory and legislative framework specifically designed to attract virtual currencies. Shortly thereafter, Binance Holdings, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, announced it was moving its headquarters from Hong Kong to Malta. Within weeks, Morgan Stanley analysts were reporting that a majority of the world’s crypto trading volume was moving through companies based in Malta.

There are people who insist that the government’s continued success in attracting investment and generating revenue is itself an answer to the disputed allegations of money laundering, kickbacks, and other financial crimes. “Luckily, this comes at a time when it washes off,” says Edward Scicluna, the country’s finance minister. “The false and fake parts are washing off, because Malta is being so successful that it’s very hard to accept them and to correlate them with a successful country. Normally corruption is rife in backward countries where there are no investments. So you find it very difficult to reconcile these two.”

A yacht moored in Sliema.
Yachts have largely displaced fishing boats in the harbor in Sliema.PHOTOGRAPHER: NADIA SHIRA COHEN FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK
In Sliema, one of the most affluent towns in Malta, open-air restaurants line the harbor road. A few decades ago, diners here would look out upon dozens of Maltese fishing boats bobbing in the water, their prows upturned and their wooden hulls painted in rainbow stripes. Now the harbor is crowded with hundreds of fiberglass yachts—large, modern, colorlessly impressive.

The view helps explain why many Maltese are ambivalent about their country’s progress: They know that economic opportunities are more plentiful than they used to be, but they fear progress might be smoothing away the country’s distinctive edges. The skyline is dotted with cranes rising above the cathedral domes, and those cranes always seem to be hovering over the same sort of building: tall, rectilinear, and cut in clean angles. Malta is the most densely populated country in the EU, and the economic boom of recent years has intensified the pace of construction. Locals often complain of the dust from all of the building sites; when it rains, the drops sometimes hit windshields as small, powdery explosions—tiny puffs of brown smoke.

Competing real estate agencies line Sliema’s coast road, stretching for several blocks. Constantly changing listings for apartments and houses paper their windows. “There’s big demand, and the prices keep getting higher,” says Carl Peralta, director and founder of 77 Great Estates, one of the agencies.

Driving that demand is a new genus of Maltese resident that, Peralta insists, can easily be spotted in the cafes and restaurants of Sliema. Many are from northern Europe, and almost all are young—20s, maybe early 30s. They carry backpacks, they don’t drive cars, and they’re rarely spotted anywhere before 10 a.m. They work for the hundreds of internet gaming companies that have flocked to Malta in recent years. The companies offer the range of gambling services, from online poker and games of chance to sports betting.

In the early 2000s, only two online gaming companies could be found in Malta; now there are up to 300, and the sector accounts for an estimated 12 percent of the economy, according to the Malta Gaming Authority. Both the governing party and the opposition agree that the growth was a result of commendable foresight: In 2004, Malta became the first country in Europe to regulate online gaming, helping to legitimize an industry that previously stood on the fringes of respectability and legality.

“Laugh all you like, prime minister. But we will insist that you don’t get off scot-free”

The new arrivals who’ve bought citizenship through the passport program maintain a much lower profile than the gaming-industry workers. You can’t pick them out of a crowd on the street, and it’s difficult to even identify them in government documents. When Malta last released its annual list of new passport holders, it was maddeningly difficult to decipher; purchasers were listed in order of their first names, without a country of origin, and mixed among thousands of others who obtained their citizenship though birth or naturalization.

The Maltese press has discovered that the list of new citizens includes Russian oligarchs and even a woman who was suspended from the Vietnamese parliament for having dual citizenship, which is illegal in Vietnam. Roberta Metsola, who represents Malta in the European Parliament, suggests that many of the passport purchasers want nothing to do with Malta; they simply want the financial and travel access that an EU passport provides. “We’ve had cases of people arriving on a private jet, meeting a real estate agent, taking out a basement flat somewhere here for a year, never even seeing it, and leaving in the afternoon,” Metsola says.

Peralta, the real estate agent, says that rings true to him. Those who are buying passports, he says, know the minimum they must spend on housing—either €350,000 for a purchase or rental payments of at least €16,000 a year for five years. Meeting those minimum requirements, Peralta says, is often the only feature they’re specifically looking for in a property. “I know there are checklists they have that say they need to open the water taps once a month, or send a cleaner once a month,” he says. “But no one is living there.”


The town of Sliema is a popular destination for expats and new citizens.PHOTOGRAPHER: NADIA SHIRA COHEN FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK
Jonathan Ferris speeds through Valletta’s darkened streets, jumps off his motorcycle, and walks briskly into the lobby of the Phoenicia Malta Hotel, where he finds a table in the noisy lounge. His features are lean, and he moves with a restless energy. His eyes scan the room, and he raises his voice just loud enough to be heard above the lounge singer, who is halfway through a slow and torchy version of Fleetwood Mac’s Songbird.

“I was the top man,” Ferris says, “the top investigator of financial crimes in the country. Type my name in the internet. All bloody hell comes up.”

The European Parliament is concerned enough about Malta to have sent an investigative delegation to the country multiple times this year. The committee’s report, issued recently, described an atmosphere of fear had settled over the country—and a sense that criminals could operate with impunity. Ferris believes his life during the past year perfectly represents the intersection of both phenomena.

He says that in 2017 his bosses at Malta’s Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit, the national agency tasked with policing money laundering, asked him to step aside from the investigation of the allegations involving Muscat’s wife and aides. He had told them he didn’t trust one of the known sources that had fed Caruana Galizia information regarding Michelle Muscat’s alleged ownership of the shell company—a source Ferris had investigated before and who, incidentally, was later discredited by the magisterial inquiry. Ferris’s bosses told him they believed his history with that source compromised his objectivity. That angered him, and he told his bosses that within 72 hours he could determine the true owner of the company that Michelle Muscat was allegedly involved in. He explained to them how he would consult tax returns, political party documents, and bank records. The next day, he says, he was fired and stripped of access to investigative documents and records. His firing further fueled suspicions against Muscat and his wife.

Ferris
Investigator Jonathan Ferris.PHOTOGRAPHER: NADIA SHIRA COHEN FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK
After Caruana Galizia was killed, Ferris says, he began to fear for his own life. He takes his bloodhound out for walks in the early morning, and several months ago he began to notice cars following him with the headlights off. “I decided, from now on, I’m always going to carry my gun around,” he recalls. Police officers now monitor his house for eight hours each night. “What good does it do? I don’t know, because for the rest of the 16 hours out of 24, I and my family are all alone.”

After Caruana Galizia’s murder a similar anxiety spread quickly among those seen as unfriendly to the government. Some of Malta’s neighbors pointed to that generalized unease as emblematic of the current state of the country. The European Parliament report described “systemized and serious deficiencies” in the rule of law in Malta, which had eroded the population’s general sense of security. Additionally, a police investigation in Italy has alleged that the Sicilian Mafia infiltrated companies in the online-gaming sector, using them to launder illicit funds.

When Muscat sat in front of European Parliament members during a plenary hearing to discuss the rule of law in Malta last June, he dismissed the allegations publicized by Caruana Galizia as politically motivated, setting a tone for his denials that he’s used ever since. His relaxed attitude—and particularly his periodic smiles—during the questioning rankled some of the politicians.

“You can laugh all you like, prime minister,” said Werner Langen, a German member. “But we will insist that you don’t get off scot-free.”

A vigil held to remember Caruana Galizia at the Great Siege Monument, nine months after she was killed.
A memorial for Caruana Galizia at the Great Siege Monument.PHOTOGRAPHER: NADIA SHIRA COHEN FOR BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK
This past year was supposed to be Malta’s chance to showcase its economic gains to the outside world, to take a victory lap after years of growth. It assumed the presidency of the EU in 2017—a first for the country—and this year Valletta was named the EU’s Capital of Culture, another rotating title that was cast as a big deal for such a small country. Earlier this year Muscat went so far as to claim that national pride in Malta had hit an all-time high.

The country’s tourism authority kicked into high gear to take advantage of the promised attention. All sorts of cultural galas and grand openings were organized, and the National Museum of Archeology, a grand 16th century building in the middle of Valletta, became a nucleus for the celebrations.

One afternoon in April, tourists filed through the museum’s entrance and wound their way past exhibits that guided them along the country’s circuitous story. On the second floor, dozens of people entered the majestic Gran Salon, which centuries ago served as a banquet hall for the knights of the Order of St. John. Enormous tapestries, ancient and colorful, hung from the walls, and a small crowd gathered in front of a podium for a special event that had been organized just the day before. Scicluna, the minister of finance, stepped to the microphone.

“I’m very proud, and very pleased, to be the person to launch this national Anti-Money Laundering and Combatting of the Financing of Terrorism strategy and plan,” Scicluna said.

Despite the introduction, he didn’t appear to be particularly pleased to be delivering a speech denouncing money laundering, drawing more attention to a problem that he clearly sees as a threat to Malta’s reputation and livelihood. The reputational damage resulting from continued scrutiny from various quarters—the European Parliament, the European Banking Authority, Italian police, the U.S. Department of Justice—could trigger a backlash against the tiny country that might pose a real threat to its economic foundations.

As the investigation into Mafia involvement in Malta’s online-gaming sector continues, European lawmakers have several times proposed restrictions on cross-border betting, a change that would classify the services provided by many Maltese companies as illegal. Ana Gomes, a Portuguese parliamentarian who leads the EU commission investigating rule of law in Malta, has said the country’s low corporate tax rate is “anti-European” and saps billions in revenue from other member states. In March, the European Parliament voted to pursue a “tax harmonization” scheme that would create one common corporate tax rate applied throughout the EU. A U.K.-based nonprofit advocacy group, Tax Justice Network, issued a report estimating that such a policy would cut Malta’s tax base by more than half.

In the midst of these pressures, Scicluna stood at the podium and delivered a string of statements that should seem so self-evident that they’d never have to be uttered. “I’d like to say that Malta—and this is an important statement to make—is deeply committed to preventing, detecting, and prosecuting money laundering and terrorist financing activities. Financial crime threatens the safety of our society, the integrity of our financial system, and the stability of our economy.”

That economy, Scicluna hastened to add, was healthy and strong, and this year the International Monetary Fund’s executive board singled out the country’s “sound policies” as the root of its success.

When he wrapped up his remarks, the crowd in the Gran Salon filed out of the museum, where they joined the current of pedestrians flowing along Republic Street toward the Great Siege Monument, which sits in front of the main courts building in one of the city’s central squares.

Since last fall, people have been placing candles, flowers, and signs at the base of the monument as a makeshift memorial to Caruana Galizia. At least eight times since then, someone has swept away the items in the dark of night; each time, the flowers and candles and signs are quickly restored. Recently, a local governing council lobbied to ban the temporary memorial for good, arguing that it was time for the country to move on.

On this day, dozens of tourists stopped in front of the monument and faced the plaques that explained the historical significance of the statues. But none of them pointed their cameras up at the statues. Every one of them focused on the marble base and the makeshift memorial, and on the sign that read, “No Justice.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-09-11/why-the-eu-is-furious-with-malta?srnd=cryptocurrencies 

Get Crypto Currency Information at www.totalcryptos.com 

Sunday, September 16, 2018

EXPOSED: How the Weather is big business for the military

Global Intel Hub - Zero Hedge Exclusive (9/15/2018) -- Weather modification isn't anything new, in fact we authored a piece last year on the topic when Irma came, but it seems that with Florence we need a reminder to put this in perspective.  As is the theme in our book seriesSplitting Bits, our doctrine is that everything you know is wrong - the world is not as it seems (and not as on TV.) 
As Hurricane Florence bears down on the southeastern United States, nearly 759,000 homes are in the storm’s path, and a worst-case rebuilding scenario could cost more than $170 billion, according to an estimate from real estate data provider CoreLogic.
CoreLogic calculated the reconstruction cost value, which is the total expense of completely rebuilding a property in case of 100% destruction, for 12 metro areas in the Carolinas and Virginia. The table below shows those estimates for a Category 4 storm, which is Florence’s current designation. Additional estimates based on other categorizations is available on CoreLogic’s web site.
That's ok, but where does the $170 Billion really go?  Home builders, re-modelers, laborers, real-estate, computers, rebuilding, insurance.. some people will take their insurance check and go spend it.  Here's the breakdown from Bloomberg, but note the word 'boost' appears only 4 times; car rental companies, transportation companies (truckers), Lowes and Home Depot (supplies), and generators; 
Equity investors are closely tracking Hurricane Florence as the worst storm to hit North Carolina in decades could also have a menacing effect on the insurance, retail, agriculture and restaurant industries. More than 1 million people are evacuating their homes as the Category 4 storm is expected to make landfall over the weekend. Analysts say the event could also be a boon for companies that specialize in roof repairs or disaster-related services, as well as transportation providers.
But that's just on the surface.  When we dig deeper, the disaster economy is booming.  Don't forget, after Hurricane Katrina, the state of Louisiana received $115 Billion in Federal funding:
According to National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Harvey is second only to Hurricane Katrina as the costliest hurricane to hit the United States at $125 billion. Katrina cost about $161 billion.  By the time December 2017 had rolled around, the United States government had sent about $11 billion in federal disaster aid to Texas, and the state was asking for $61 billion more in federal assistance.  After Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana had received almost $115 billion in federal aid.  Multiple organizations and companies have raised money and provided aid for the people of Houston. The companies and aid listed below have provided a combined amount of at least $26.82 billion of the $125 billion that Harvey caused.
$115 Billion is a lot of money!  So where does it all get spent?  Even if it goes into the pockets of greasy and sleazy politicians, the point is that it is getting distributed.  The case for the Hurricane economy is a proof for the US Military's whacked out economic theory invented by someone like Robert Macnamara "$1 into the Miliary = $2 in economic output"  but if war is such a good business, we have to ask why they don't have a staged demolition of an entire city, like Los Angeles (maybe just Century City, LA is too big).  They will warn everyone to get out, no one will be hurt, unlike 911.. (MUST READ- BLACK 911)
There is no evidence needed to understand what's going on here - the disaster economy is booming and weather wars are in full swing.  It's a $170 Billion + event that is started by a group inside the military that controls the weather.  They do it all, they can create hurricanes, intensify them, reduce them, they can control storms like one would with a video game.  If you don't know about this or don't believe it, have a small education on the topic by watching the video below:
FULL EDUCATION ON THE HISTORY OF WEATHER MODIFICATION

They have the technology for a long time.  They have the motive, and well - is it really all that bad?  A good storm clears out nature and resets everything.  It's good for business.  Why not?  That's their thinking, we are not condoning weather modification.  But if you believe that it doesn't exist, you live in fantasy land, where fairy tales come true and everyone lives happily ever after.
There is a huge political side benefit, that they can blame 'global warming' on Trump for example, when in fact it may be deep state Democrats installed by Obama who are pushing the buttons on these storms.  

Monday, September 3, 2018

Bitcoin made investing cool again

 Total News - Atlanta, GA 9/3//2018 - Bitcoin is cool.  You can see people's faces light up when you talk about it.  It's like Gold.  Humans are fascinated by Gold for a number of psychological reasons which are well more powerful than its scarcity.  Other elements, such as Rhodium, Platinum, Iridium, and many others - are far more rare than Gold.  Gold is just something magic, that resembles happiness, wealth, and shines brightly.  There may be an ancient connection here we haven't yet stumbled upon.  
For 15 years, FX and other alternative asset classes have proven they have what it takes to outperform the stock market.  FX algorithmic strategies for example, are in a class of their own.  But few understand and those who don't aren't willing to spend the few minutes required to get it.  But Bitcoin has changed all that.  Tell someone you are an FX quantitative fund manager and they might look at you like you have a disease.  Tell you are trading Bitcoin and they will get excited.  Go figure!
Bitcoin made investing cool again, especially with millennials.  Although there are probably hundreds to thousands of better investments - Bitcoin is just cool.  This is the viral effect that shot BTCUSD to 20,000 - not because of its robust design, or anything else.  It's just cool.  And you can quantify cool - that's not the problem.  The problem is identifying the next 'trend' before it becomes a trend.
And what's interesting is that Bitcoin is a digital 'crypto' currency but so is the US Dollar, the key difference is that Bitcoin is not issued by any centralized authority.  But many have been trading electronic digital dollars for a long time.  So EUR/USD is not so different mechanically than BTC/USD - except the allure.  FX is complicated - Bitcoin is not.  You just buy and HOLD.  They've combined FX with penny stocks!  It's electronic day trading on steroids, with an IV drip Red Bull.  It's unregulated, it's decentralized - and we don't even know the names of the owners of the exchanges!  But it's cool.
You can get cool points probably in high school by talking about it (this is a theory we didn't ask any high schoolers).  But we remember the 90's when it was that way about stocks.  Got a stock tip?  What's hot?  ATHY?  OSTK?  Bitcoin is that plus more - because of social media and the internet which is worldwide.
So we're not saying that it's good or bad - maybe it is good because more people will be interested in investing.  Maybe it's bad because it has shown them the wrong example of what an investment should look like.  What is interesting though you can do arbitrage in Crypto.  There's really no minimum so you can invest $1.  So go ahead - have your crack at it!  
Hopefully, as more sane and reasonable approaches to Crypto markets become more prevalent - such as Total Cryptos BIT FIX - we will see an institutionalization of the Crypto markets.  -jg

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

The "National Emergency Loophole": How Trump Could Intervene In The Market To Crush The Dollar

Following a series of attacks on the Federal Reserve's rate hike policy and complaints about the strong dollar, some Wall Street observers are saying the possibility that Trump himself will launch a sustained campaign to weaken the dollar as a way to reduce the U.S. trade deficit can no longer be dismissed.
While a strong-dollar policy has been a cornerstone for successive U.S. administrations, Trump - like with many other things - has shown a penchant for upending the currency status quo. Since taking office in 2017, he has routinely talked about wanting a weaker dollar to support U.S. manufacturing. Additionally, Trump's administration has been lukewarm toward America’s traditional strong-dollar stance.
As Bloomberg notes in a Wednesday article, in recent months Trump has further stepped up the rhetoric as the dollar has bounced off its lows. In an interview published by Reuters this week, Trump once again accused China and the European Union of manipulating their currencies. Last Friday, he also complained to wealthy Republican donors that he was “not thrilled” with the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate increases under Chairman Jerome Powell, which have boosted the dollar.
As a result, after a flurry of tweets in which Trump complained that the dollar is blunting America’s “competitive edge,” Wall Street has started to pay attention: in a report this month, JPM's chief US economist, Michael Feroli, wrote in a report this month that he can’t rule out the possibility the administration will intervene in the currency markets to weaken the greenback. Both Deutsche Bank and OppenheimerFunds echoed the view, saying dollar intervention was no longer far-fetched.
Zach Pandl, co-head of global FX strategy at Goldman Sachs, recently said that "we haven’t had a deliberate effort to weaken the U.S. dollar perhaps since the Plaza Accord in 1985, so it is very unusual and against established practice over the last several decades. A deliberate policy to pursue a weaker currency could cause foreign investors to shy away from U.S. assets -- including Treasury bonds -- raising interest costs for domestic borrowers."
In a note from Nomura's Richard Koo, the strategist asks "how President Trump might respond if uncertainty did worsen, raising the likelihood of a slowdown in the US economy" and answers that "one possibility is that the administration would shift from tariffs, which require a separate staff to handle exemption requests for each product category, to the use of exchange rates, which would allow simultaneous adjustments to prices for all imported products."
Here is why Koo is confident that it is only a matter of time before Trump directly intervenes in the FX market:
A protectionist policy that must be individually tailored to each product category requires large numbers of administrative staff, and a period must be established during which companies can apply for exemptions. Exchange rate-based adjustments, on the other hand, entail no such costs.
In that sense, the more problematic administrative delays become and the more industry opposition mounts, the greater the likelihood that President Trump will replace tariffs with exchange rates as his main tool for addressing US trade imbalances.
The loudest warning to date that Trump could rock the currency world has come from Charles Dallara, the former U.S. Treasury official who was one of the architects of the Plaza Accord, the 1985 agreement between the U.S. and four other countries to jointly depreciate the dollar. "The trade debate will increasingly include the currency issues," he told Bloomberg "It’s inevitable."
As Bloomberg adds, a shift to a more protectionist and interventionist policy, à la 1985, would not only reverberate across the $5.1 trillion-a-day currency market and undermine the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, but could also weaken demand for U.S. assets.
But can Trump really intervene unilaterally in the currency market, and what tools does the president have at his disposal if he wanted to go beyond mere talk?
The most direct choice for Trump would be to order the U.S. Treasury (via the New York Fed) to sell dollars and buy currencies like the yen and euro using its Exchange Stabilization Fund, according to Viraj Patel, an FX strategist at ING. But because the fund only holds $22 billion of dollar assets, the impact would likely be minimal. Any direct intervention that is larger and more ambitious in scope would also require congressional approval, he said quoted by Bloomberg.
Then there is the nuclear option: according to Patel there is one loophole Trump could exploit to get around the fund’s constraints and bypass Congress altogether: by declaring FX intervention a “national emergency.” He could then force the Fed to use its own account to sell dollars.
Such a move would be a long shot by any stretch of the imagination, but with Trump invoking national security to impose tariffs, Patel says he can’t “completely rule out” the possibility.
Such a move would certainly roil the market and potentially lead to a USD crash, not only due to Trump's intervention but due to the sudden collapse in faith in the global reserve currency; the result would be a flood of Treasury sales from global custodians around the globe who currently hold over $6 trillion in US Treasuries. To be sure, Trump’s persistent jawboning of the dollar may already be having an adverse effect on foreign demand for U.S. assets. While overall demand at auction has been up and down this year, foreign holdings of Treasuries have slumped to an almost 15-year low of 40%, forcing domestic investors to become the marginal buyer of US Treasurys. China, the largest overseas creditor, has pulled back this year. Japan, the second biggest, has reduced its share to the lowest level since at least 2000.
A less extreme, and more plausible, option would be for the Trump administration to include currency clauses in any new trade deals, like it did with the updated U.S.-South Korea trade agreement in March, although enforcement would be complicated and the implementation lengthy.
There is also the suggestion of a global accord on currencies, broached in the past by White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, however the chances of a multilateral agreement on the dollar are remote. Plus, there’s always the threat of retaliation by other nations if the U.S. goes it alone.
While it remains unclear what Trump will do, keep a close eye on China, where the yuan has tumbled nearly 10% since April, when the trade war with Beijing started in earnest.  The magnitude of the decline, the fastest since the 1994 devaluation, boosted speculation the People’s Bank of China is deliberately weakening the yuan to offset the tariff impact.
Even though China has denied it is "weaponizing the Yuan", many are skeptical, and Trump is among them: which is why the president has criticized the country for taking advantage of the U.S. by keeping its exchange rate artificially low. (However, Trump has not gone so far as to officially brand China a currency manipulator in the twice-yearly review of international foreign-exchange policies published by the Treasury).
Trump's single focus on the Yuan may explain why Beijing has pulled all stops to prevent the currency from sliding below the 'redline' of 7.00 vs the dollar (alternatively it is preparing to devalue further if and when Trump launches the next $250BN in tariffs he has warned he would). Stephen Jen of Eurizon SLJ Capital has warned that Trump may be quick to retaliate in the FX markets if it suspects that China is "playing games with its currency," which may have disastrous effects on demand for U.S. assets.
"If you’re an international portfolio manager with 30 percent of your exposure to the U.S., and you know the currency will be guided meaningfully lower as a policy tool, why would you be investing here?” he said. "The Trump administration needs to be very, very careful with its dollar policy." This was most vividly on exhibit during the Fed's QE phase when Guido Mantega, then Brazil's finance minister, siad the Fed was throwing "money from a helicopter" and "melting" the dollar.
Ironically, it is the stronger dollar that is crippling emerging markets now.
Whether or not Trump intervenes, however, Dallara is bracing for more turbulent times:
"I’ve lived through a lot of market gyrations in my career,” he said. “And I have an uneasy feeling that I can’t validate by data that tensions are going to, at some point, emerge into volatile market dynamics. This is a risk."