iBankCoin
Home / Commentary (page 8)

Commentary

State of the Union: We Want Your Money

“The Internal Revenue Service is considering taxing the perks that many companies, especially those in the technology sector, are providing for employees.

That includes free shuttle service to and from work, meals, yoga and gym classes, Fox News Channel reports. Some tech companies go all out on the meals, with fancy cafeterias and top chefs.

Companies view the perks as necessary to attract and retain workers. They also say providing workers with food saves the employees’ time, allowing them to be more productive.

But the IRS is assessing whether the perks should be classified as fringe benefits, which would subject them to tax, according to Fox.

It reports that if the IRS does make the perks taxable, companies will compensate by increasing workers’ pay….”

 

Full article

Comments »

Yale’s Robert Shiller Sees ‘Signs of Softening’ in Housing

“The housing market is slowing down after torrid gains through much of last year, says Nobel laureate economist Robert Shiller of Yale University.

Indeed, the S&P/Case-Shiller home price index for 20 cities (named after him) rose 13.2 percent in the year through January, That’s the smallest gain since August, and it’s down from 13.4 percent in the year through December.

Meanwhile, investors such as Blackstone have been curtailing their purchases of houses. Originally these investors were likely attracted by the upward momentum in the housing market since spring 2012 — momentum that was much stronger than in the stock market, Shiller tells CNBC…..”

Full article

Comments »

Higher Prison Populations Does Not Necessarily Lead to Less Crime or Safer Neighborhoods, Go Figure

“The predatory corporate prison enterprise aims to privatize profits and socialize losses. This combination has led to a situation where correctional facilities have only one incentive: ensure that new bodies arrive as fast as possible, and keep them in a state of indentured servitude for as long as possible.

As you’ll see in the infographic below, the bodies are indeed arriving quickly to fill the coffers of those who are reaping massive profit from caging as much of the public as they can get away with. Thirty-seven states have signed onto this system which promotes a dangerous mutually beneficial relationship between government and corporations. A closer look reveals that it is definitely not beneficial for ordinary citizens and the communities which house these prisons.

America already holds 25% of the world’s prison population, with the number of these prisoners held in private prisons rising 20-fold in the last decade. As the economy declines, there are new opportunities presented by reintroducing debtors prisons, formally abolished in the early 1800s.

Perhaps more troubling is the heightened criminalization of children for behavior which previously was considered merely a nuisance, not something worthy of handcuffs and the big house. The trend is clearly toward making nearly every activity a potential prison-worthy crime….”

 

Full infograph and article

Comments »

Got Milk? Appraisal Buyouts On the Rise

“When Dole Food Co. sold itself last year to its founder for $1.2 billion, many market watchers saw just another in a string of buyouts.

A few investors saw an opportunity to squeeze the buyers for potentially millions of dollars more, using an arcane—but increasingly popular—legal process known as appraisal.

Merion Capital LP bought 7.5 million shares of the fruit company in the days before Dole’s October stockholder meeting. It rejected the $13.50-a-share deal price and, alongside three other hedge funds, is seeking more in court through appraisal.

Dole’s buyout highlights the rise of “appraisal arbitrage,” in which hedge funds buy shares of companies on the brink of a buyout and ask a judge to award them a higher price. These lawsuits have risen sharply as a growing group of investors looks to extract more money from corporate takeovers.

Some have won big, but risks lurk in the strategy’s popularity, industry participants say. As more investors chase appraisals, they risk toppling the very deals on which they are trying to profit. That is because appraisal-seekers must abstain or vote “no” on a deal. Dole’s buyout passed with just 50.9% of the vote after the four hedge funds, holding 17 million shares, positioned themselves for an appraisal claim. The litigation is pending.

“People are waking up to the idea that there is a lot of money to be made,” said Kevin Abrams, a lawyer who has worked on both sides of these cases. “But it’s not for the faint of heart. There are risks at every step.”

Above, a picker for Dole Foods, which was the subject of an appraisal. Bloomberg News

In an appraisal case, dissenting stockholders ask a judge to determine the fair value of their shares after a deal closes. The judge weighs expert valuations and decides on a number, which is binding on the company and shareholders.

Appraisal claims were brought on 17% of takeovers of Delaware companies in 2013, the most since at least 2004, according to a coming study from Brooklyn Law School and Case Western Reserve University. Based on deal prices, those claims were valued at $1.5 billion, an eightfold increase from 2012.

So far this year, at least 20 appraisal claims have been filed in Delaware court, compared with 28 in all of 2013, according to a Wall Street Journal review of court filings.

About 81% of Delaware appraisals that went to trial since 1993 have yielded higher prices, according to law firm Fish & Richardson PC, which has represented shareholders in appraisals. In an extreme case, a judge in 2004 awarded dissenting stockholders of Coleman Co. $32.35 a share, five years after the company was sold for $5.83 a share.

Shareholders also get backdated interest on their claims, whether they win or not; the current rate is about 5.75% annually.

The risk of a big payout prompts many companies to settle with the shareholders seeking appraisal. “Having to come back and pay 10 million shares three times the deal price isn’t a very attractive option, especially for a company that’s taken on debt in the deal,” said Carl Sanchez of law firm Paul Hastings LLP.

Settlement amounts vary and are confidential, but lawyers and investors say double-digit per-share price bumps are common.

 

Verition Fund Management LLC has averaged about 30% annualized returns …..”

Full article

Comments »

Earnings Jitters Expected To Create Market Volatility

“Like thunderstorms cooling an overheated landscape, more selling could rumble through the stock market in the coming week.

Earnings, Fed speak and some important data, like March retail sales Monday and industrial production Wednesday, will be key in what could be a very volatile, holiday-shortened week. About 50 S&P 500 companies are expected to report—including Bank of AmericaGoogleIntelCoca-Colaand Johnson & Johnson.

Also closely watched will be a speech by Fed Chair Janet Yellen at the Economics Club of New York Wednesday afternoon. Markets are closed on Good Friday, and trading is expected to be thin because of the Passover and Easter holidays.

Traders are also watching developments in Ukraine, where gunfights broke out Sunday as police battled pro-Russian militants for control of a local police station.The US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said Sunday morning that the US could increase sanctions….”

Full video article

Comments »

Syrian Leader Backed by U.S. Says He Will Fight Alongside al Qaida

“The rebel leader touted as the West’s last hope to stem the tide of extreme jihadist groups in Syria has said he will not fight against al-Qa’ida, and openly admits to battling alongside them.

Speaking from a safe house on the outskirts of the Turkish town of Antakya, Jamal Maarouf, the leader of the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF) told The Independent that the fight against al-Qa’ida was “not our problem” and admitted his fighters conduct joint operations with Jabhat al-Nusra – the official al-Qa’ida branch in Syria.

The admission could have significant implications for Western involvement in the Syrian conflict. While the US and UK have been vocal in their support for rebels fighting to remove President Bashar al-Assad, they have been reluctant to follow through with material support – such as heavy weaponry – over fears it would fall into the hands of extremist groups who might target the West.

Maarouf and his brigades are viewed as relative moderates in a loosely affiliated rebel army that is increasingly dominated by radical groups, and the SRF and similar groups are presented as the West’s best bet to fight both the Assad regime and extremists. His willingness to work with rebel groups the West deems unpalatable is a symptom of a war in which allegiances frequently change and all actors within it have been forced to compromise in order to survive.

Western support for Maarouf and other moderate rebel groups reached a high point earlier this year, when the SRF was the recipient of significant aid from the US and its allies in order to fight the ultra-extremist and one-time al-Qa’ida affiliate Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis).

With help from the Salafi Islamic Front and Aleppo-based Islamist Army of the Mujahedin, the SRF has forced Isis to retreat to its stronghold in the Aleppo provincial city of Raqqa, to Jarabulus on the Turkish border and to the Iraqi border.

But while Maarouf and his men were happy to fight Isis, a group of predominantly foreigners, he said he would not go after Jabhat al-Nusra. “It’s clear that I’m not fighting against al-Qa’ida. This is a problem outside of Syria’s border, so it’s not our problem. I don’t have a problem with anyone who fights against the regime inside Syria,” he said…..”

Full article

Comments »

Is the Interwebs Under Threat by the U.N. ?

“Following the Obama administration’s deeply controversial decision to cede U.S. control over key elements of the Internet’s architecture, experts and former officials are warning that the United Nations and its largely autocratic member regimes are already plotting to tax and censor the World Wide Web. According to analysts, the UN would almost certainly start small — perhaps levying tiny “fees” on certain Web-based activities, or regulating content that virtually everybody would find objectionable — before quickly expanding the global Internet regime to raise vast sums of taxpayer cash while censoring free speech. The battle, however, is likely to be fierce.

Among the most troubling scenarios envisioned by multiple experts is the very real possibility that, by imposing taxes on Web use, the UN would finally be able to free itself from the last remaining constraint on its growth and power — the fact that it currently depends on member governments for funding. Indeed, at least one university professor is even sounding the alarm about the new “robber barons” at the UN, salivating over the prospect of imposing planetary taxes via control of the Internet. However, Prof. Karl Borden, who teaches financial economics at the University of Nebraska, warned in a Wall Street Journal column that the threat posed by UN taxers would be even more severe and hard to fight.

The original “robber barons,” he explained, were 13th century extortionists along the Rhine River who forced passing ships to pay tribute in exchange for passage. If the UN gets its way on global Internet taxes, though, the damage would be far worse than the havoc caused by powerful German thieves of centuries past. “Should the U.N. end up in charge, it would have a chokehold on the global economy and a vast stream of revenue that would make it even more unaccountable than it already is,” Borden explained, adding that global Internet taxes would start modestly before ballooning out of control, much like the U.S. income tax.

“Power follows the money, and bureaucratic appetites are voracious,” he continued. “Who will there be to stop the process, after all? Where is the elected legislative body that will answer to the world’s population that finally pays these ‘fees’?… With constitutional government it becomes at least possible for citizens to say ‘No—No more!’ No such checks are in place for a global bureaucracy that will have the power to reach into every pocket on earth.” With the Internet set to become the essential infrastructure for participating in the global economy, Borden said, controlling the “rivers” of the future will permit the financing of a perpetually expanding international bureaucracy.

The implications are frightening — especially because getting rid of the global extortion would be extraordinarily tough once it got going. “The robber barons of the 13th century were finally stopped only when the Rhine League, consisting of merchants and aristocrats, banded together to tear down their castles and hang them,” Borden concluded. “The robber barons of the 21st century may be much more difficult to deal with.”

Indeed, as The New American and countless critics have been warning for decades, if and when the UN gets the power to impose its own taxes, it would be able to fund its own “peace” army, police, tax collectors, regulators, bureaucrats, and global tyranny without any remaining constraints. While the outfit, often blasted as the “dictators’ club,” has floated proposals to tax everything from billionaires and financial transactions to “carbon emissions” and air travel, the prospect of a global Internet tax could be even more appealing.

Former U.S. officials have also issued similar warnings in recent weeks about the potential for Internet mischief if the UN were to ever be allowed near the levers of online power. “This is the Obama equivalent of Carter’s decision to give away the Panama Canal — only with possibly much worse consequences,” former Bush administration State Department senior advisor Christian Whiton told the Daily Caller last month after the administration announced the end of its constitutionally dubious ties to the California-based organization that manages crucial components of the Internet’s architecture.

“While the Obama administration says it is merely removing federal oversight of a non-profit, we should assume ICANN would end up as part of the United Nations,” Whiton continued. “If the U.N. gains control [of] what amounts to the directory and traffic signals of the Internet, it can impose whatever taxes it likes. It likely would start with a tax on registering domains and expand from there…. What little control there is over the U.N. would be gone.” Also alarming, Whiton noted that under “invariably incompetent U.N. control,” a hostile foreign power might even be able to disable America’s Internet access — with potentially devastating consequences.

Of course, as The New American has documented extensively, the UN and numerous “member” dictators around the world —from Communists and Socialists to Islamists — have been scheming for years to take over and regulate the Internet. Multiple ploys have been attempted, with globalists and autocrats particularly pushing an effort to have the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) seize control over the Web at a series of globalist conferences. One proposal even called for the creation of an Internet “kill switch.” Another would have created a global surveillance regime to monitor everyone’s online activities. Taxes, too, have been high on the agenda for the would-be planetary Internet regulators.

All of those schemes failed at the time, partly due to resistance from the West, but the threat never dissipated. In March, though, with global outrage boiling over lawless and unconstitutional NSA spying, the Obama administration’s Department of Commerce made a stunning, quiet announcement. Building on plans first developed under former President Bush, the U.S. government revealed that it would be relinquishing all remaining control over the so-called “root” or “keys” of the Internet next year to a non-profit multinational organization known as Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN….”

Full article 

Comments »

Bye Bye Miss American Pie

“As we have discussed numerous times, nothing lasts forever – especially reserve currencies – no matter how much one hopes that the status-quo remains so, in the end the exuberant previlege is extorted just one too many times. Headline after headlines shows nations declaring ‘interest’ or direct discussions in diversifying away from the US dollar… and as SCMP reports, Standard Chartered notes that at least 40 central banks have invested in the Yuan and several more are preparing to do so. The trend is occurring across both emerging markets and developed nation central banks diversifiying into ‘other currencies’ and “a great number of central banks are in the process of adding yuan to their portfolios.” Perhaps most ominously, for king dollar, is the former-IMF manager’s warning that “The Yuan may become a de facto reserve currency before it is fully convertible.”

The infamous chart that shows nothing lasts forever…

Nothing lasts forever… (especially in light of China’s recent comments)

 

As The South China Morning Post reports, Jukka Pihlman, Standard Chartered’s Singapore-based global head of central banks and sovereign wealth funds (who formerly worked at the International Monetary Fund advising central banks on asset-management issues), notes that:

At least 40 central banks have invested in the yuan and several others are preparing to do so, putting the mainland currency on the path to reserve status even before full convertibility

The US dollar remains in charge (for now)…but

The US dollar is still the world’s most widely held reserve currency, accounting for nearly 33 per cent of global foreign exchange holdings at the end of last year, according to IMF data. That ratio has been declining since 2000, when 55 per cent of the world’s reserves were denominated in US dollars.

 

The IMF does not disclose the percentage of reserves held in yuan, but the emerging market countries’ share of reserves in “other currencies” has increased by almost 400 per cent since 2003, while that of developed nations grew 200 per cent, according to IMF data.

As SCMP goes on to note, the rising popularity of the yuan among central bankers is probably mainly due to Beijing’s extremely favourable treatment of them as it has sought to encourage investment in the yuan.

For example, central banks…..”

Full article 

[youtube://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNYkwsV6UD0 450 300]

 

Comments »

Is Venezuela the Next Ukraine ?

“In a recent interview in Havana, a former CIA collaborator, Cuban Raúl Capote, revealed the strategy of the CIA in Venezuelan universities to create the kind of destabilizing opposition student movement the country is currently facing. He also discusses media manipulation, and alleges that one of the U.S. diplomats that President Maduro expelled from Venezuela last September was in fact a CIA agent. The following translation and notes were made by Sabina C. Becker. Original interview in Spanish here.

Raúl Capote is a Cuban. But not just any Cuban. In his youth, he was caught up by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). They offered him an infinite amount of money to conspire in Cuba. But then something unexpected for the US happened. Capote, in reality, was working for Cuban national security. From then on, he served as a double agent. Learn his story, by way of an exclusive interview with the Chávez Vive magazine, which he gave in Havana:

Q. What was the process by which you were caught up?

It started with a process of many years, several years of preparation and capture. I was leader of a Cuban student movement which, at that time, gave rise to an organization, the Saiz Brothers Cultural Association, a group of young creators, painters, writers, artists. I worked in a city in southern-central Cuba, Cienfuegos, which had characteristics of great interest to the enemy, because it was a city in which an important industrial pole was being built at the time. They were building an electrical centre, the only one in Cuba, and there were a lot of young people working on it. For that reason, it was also a city that had a lot of young engineers graduated in the Soviet Union. We’re talking of the last years of the 1980s, when there was that process called Perestroika. And many Cuban engineers, who arrived in Cuba at that time, graduated from there, were considered people who had arrived with that idea of Perestroika. For that reason, it was an interesting territory, where there were a lot of young people. And the fact that I was a youth leader of a cultural organization, which dealt with an important sector of the engineers who were interested in the arts, became of interest to the North Americans, and they began to frequent the meetings we attended. They never identified themselves as enemies, or as officials of the CIA.

Q. Were there many of them, or just always the same person?

Several… They never presented themselves as officials of the CIA, or as people who had come to cause trouble, or anything.

Q. And who do you suppose they were?

They presented themselves as people coming to help us and our project, and who had the ability to finance it – that they had the chance to make it a reality. The proposal, as such, sounded interesting because, okay, a project in the literary world requires that you know a publisher, that you have editorial relations. It’s a very complex market. And they came in the name of publishers. What happened is that, during the process of contact with us, what they really wanted became quite evident. Because once they had made the contact, once they had begun frequenting our meetings, once they began to promise financing, then came the conditions for being financed.

Q. What conditions did they demand?

They told us: We have the ability to put the markets at your disposal, to put you on the markets of books or sculpture or movies or whatever, but we need the truth, because what we’re selling in the market, is the image of Cuba. The image of Cuba has to be a realistic one, of difficulties, of what’s going on in the country. They wanted to smear the reality of Cuba. What they were asking is that you criticize the revolution, based on anti-Cuba propaganda lines, which they provided.

Q. How big was these people’s budget? They came with an infinite amount of money, because the source of the money, obviously, we found out over time from whence it came. For example, there was USAID, which was the big provider, the overall contractor of this budget, which channeled the money via NGOs, many of them invented just for Cuba. They were NGOs that didn’t exist, created solely for this type of job in Cuba, and we’re talking thousands and thousands of dollars. They weren’t working on small budgets. To give you an example, at one time, they offered me ten thousand dollars, just to include elements of anti-Cuba propaganda, in the novel I was writing.

Q. What year are we talking about?

Around 1988-89.

Q. How many people could have been contacted by these people, or captured?

In reality, their success didn’t last long, because in Cuba there was a culture of total confrontation with this type of thing, and the people knew very well that there was something behind that story of them wanting to “help” us. It was nothing new in the history of the land, and for that reason, it was very hard for them to get to where we were. In a determined moment, around 1992, we held a meeting, all the members of the organization, and we decided to expel them. They weren’t allowed to attend any more of our meetings. Those people, who were already coming in with concrete proposals, and also preconditioned economic aid they were giving us. What happened is that at the moment we did that, and rejected them, we expelled them from the association headquarters, then they started to particularize. They began to visit with me, in particular, and other comrades as well, young people. With some they succeeded, or should I say, they succeeded in getting some of them out of the country as well.

Q. What kind of profile were they looking for, more or less, if any kind of profile could be specified?

They wanted, above all at that time, to present Cuba as a land in chaos. That socialism in Cuba had not managed to satisfy the needs of the population, and that Cuba was a country that socialism had landed in absolute poverty, and which, as a model, no one liked. That was the key to what they were pursuing, above all, at that time. Q. How long were you an agent of the CIA?

We were in this initial story until 1994. Because in 1994, I went to Havana, I came back to the capital and here, in the capital, I began to work for the Union of Cultural Workers, a union which represented the cultural workers of the capital, and I became more interesting yet to them, because I went on to direct — from being a leader of a youth organization with 4,000 members, to directing a union with 40,000 members, just in the city of Havana. And then, it gets much more interesting. Contacts followed. In that period there appeared a woman professor from a new university who came with the mission of kick-starting the production of my literary work, to become my representative, to organize events.

Q. Can you give her name?

No, because they used pseudonyms. They never used real names. And that type of work, promoting me as a writer, was what they were very interested in, because they wanted to convert me into a personality in that world. Promoting me now, and compromising me with them in an indirect manner. And then, in 2004, there arrived in Havana a person well known in Venezuela, Kelly Keiderling. Kelly came to Havana to work as Chief of the Office of Press and Culture. They set up a meeting. they arranged a cocktail party, and at that party I met with 12 North American functionaries, North Americans and Europeans. They weren’t only North Americans. All of them people with experience, some also inside the Soviet Union, others who had participated in training and preparation of the people in Yugoslavia, in the Color Revolutions, and they were very interested in meeting me. Kelly became very close to me. She began to prepare me. She began to instruct me. I began to receive, from her, a very solid training: The creation of alternative groups, independent groups, the organization and training of youth leaders, who did not participate in the works of our cultural institutions. And that was in 2004-5. Kelly practically vanished from the scene in 2005-6. And when I started to work, she put me in direct contact with officials of the CIA. Supposedly, I was already committed to them, I was ready for the next mission, and they put me in touch with Renee Greenwald, an official of the CIA, who worked with me directly, and with a man named Mark Waterhein, who was, at the time, the head of Project Cuba, of the Pan-American Foundation for Development.

This man, Mark, as well as directing Project Cuba, had a direct link to Cuba, in terms of financing the anti-revolutionary project, as well as being involved in working against Venezuela. That is, he was a man who, along with much of his team of functionaries of that famous project, also worked against Venezuela at that time. They were closely connected. At times it took a lot of work to tell who was working with Cuba, and who was not, because many times they interlocked. For example, there were Venezuelans who came to work with me, who worked in Washington, who were subordinates of the Pan-American Foundation and the CIA, and they came to Cuba to train me as well, and to bring provisions. From there arose the idea of creating a foundation, a project called Genesis.

Genesis is maybe the template, as an idea, of many of the things going on in the world today, because Genesis is a project aimed at the university youth of Cuba. They were doing something similar in Venezuela. Why? The idea was to convert universities — which have always been revolutionary, which have produced revolutionaries, out of those from which many of the revolutionaries of both countries came — and convert them into factories for reactionaries. So, how do you do that? By making leaders. What have they begun to do in Venezuela? They sent students to Yugoslavia, financed by the International Republican Institute (IRI), which was financed by USAID and by the Albert Einstein Institute, and sent them, in groups of ten, with their professors.

Q. Do you have the names of the Venezuelans?

No, we’re talking of hundreds being sent. I spoke with the professor, and watched one group and followed the other. Because they were working long-term. The same plan was also in place against Cuba. Genesis promoted, with in the university, a plan of training scholarships for Cuban student leaders and professors. The plan was very similar. Also, in 2003, they prepared here, in Havana, a course in the US Interests Section, which was called “Deposing a leader, deposing a dictator”, which was based on the experience of OTPOR in removing Slobodan Milosevic from power. And that was the idea, inside the Cuban university, to work long-term, because these projects always take a long time in order to reap a result. For that reason, they also started early in Venezuela. I believe as well — I don’t have proof, but I believe that in Venezuela it began before the Chávez government, because the plan of converting Latin American universities, which were always sources of revolutionary processes, into reactionary universities, is older than the Venezuelan [Bolivarian] process, to reverse the situation and create a new right-wing.

Q. Did the CIA only work in Caracas?

No, throughout Venezuela. Right now, Genesis has a scholarship plan to create leaders in Cuba. They provide scholarships to students to big North American universities, to train them as leaders, with all expenses paid. They pay their costs, they provide complete scholarships. We’re talking 2004-5 here. It was very obvious. Then, those leaders return to university at some time. They’re students. They go to end their careers. Those leaders, when they end their student careers, go on to various jobs, different possibilities, as engineers, as degree-holders in different sectors of Cuban society, but there are others who go on constantly preparing leaders within the university. One of the most important missions of the university leaders was to occupy the leadership of the principal youth organizations of the university. In the case of Cuba, we’re talking about the Union of Communist Youth, and the University Student Federation. That is, it was not to create parallel groups at that time, but to become the leaders of the organizations already existing in Cuba. Also, to form a group of leaders in the strategies of the “soft” coup. That is, training people for the opportune moment to start the famous “color revolutions” or “non-violent wars”, which, as you well know, have nothing to do with non-violence.

Q. What were they looking for in a professor, in order to capture them?

Professors are very easy. Identify university professors discontented with the institution, frustrated people, because they considered that the institution did not guarantee them anything, or didn’t recognize their merits. If they were older, even better. They didn’t specify. Look for older persons, so you can pick them. If you send a scholarship plan, or you send it and, first crack, they receive an invitation to participate in a great international congress of a certain science, they will be eternally grateful to you, because you were the one who discovered their talent, which has never been recognized by the university. Then that man you sent to study abroad, if you’re from his university, and participating in a big event, and publish his works, and constructing him a curriculum. When that person returns to Cuba, he goes back with a tremendous curriculum, because he has participated in a scientific event of the first order, has passed courses from big universities, and his curriculum reaches to the roof, then the influence he could have in the university will be greater, because he could be recognized as a leading figure in his specialty, even though in practice the man could be an ignoramus.

Q. And how effective were these types of captures, that type of missions they came to accomplish here?

In the case of Cuba, they didn’t have much of a result. First, because there was a most important reason, because I was the one directing the project, and I, in reality, was not an agent of the CIA, I was an agent of Cuban security, and so, the whole project passed through my hands, and they thought I was the one who would execute it. And the plan always passed through the work I was able to do, and what we did was slow it down as much as possible, knowing right away what was being planned. But just think, the goal of their plan, they were calculating for the moment in which the historic figures of the Revolution would disappear. They were figuring on a five- or ten-year term, in which Fidel would disappear from the political scene, and Raúl, and the historic leaders of the land. That was the moment they were waiting for, and when that happened, I was to leave university, with all the support of the international press and that of the NGOs, USAID, and all the people working around the CIA’s money, and that there would arise an organization which would present itself before the light of the public, as an alternative to what the Revolution was doing. That is what was to have happened with the Genesis Foundation for Freedom.

Q. What is that Foundation?

The Genesis Foundation for Freedom was to have a discourse, apparently revolutionary, but the idea was to confuse the people. The idea is that they would say they were revolutionaries, that what they wanted was to make changes in the government, but, when it comes to practice, when you get to the essence of the project, when you ask yourself “What is the project?” the discourse was, and the project was, exactly the same as those of the traditional right-wing. Because the changes they promoted, were the same that the right-wing, for a long time, has been promoting in the country. In practice, they almost had their big opportunity, according to their criteria, in 2006, when the news came out on TV that Fidel, for health reasons, was stepping down from his governmental responsibilities, and they have always said that the Cuban Revolution would die when Fidel died. Because the Revolution was Fidel, and on the day Fidel was no longer there, either by dying or leaving government, the next day the Revolution would fall. And they calculated that there would be internal confrontations, that there would be discontent with this or that. Calculations that I don’t know where they got them from, but they believed it. And in that moment, they believed that the time had come to act.

Q. We’re talking about 2006. What was the plan? They called me automatically. We met, the CIA station chief and I, here in Havana. Diplomatic functionaries also showed up, and one of them said to me, we’re going to organize a provocation. We’re going to organize a popular uprising in a central neighborhood in Havana. There will be a person going there to rise up for democracy, and we’re going to execute a group of provocations, in different locations, in such a way that Cuban security forces will be forced to act against these people, and later we’ll start a big press campaign and start explaining how all of this will function. The interesting part of that, what really caught my attention, was this: How was it possible that a functionary of the US Interests Section could have the power to call upon the principal media, and that those people would obey with such servility? It was really attention-getting. The idea was — and I even told them this — what you’re telling me is just crazy. This man you mentioned to me, called Alci Ferrer — the guy they picked, a young agent, a doctor — they picked him to be the ringleader of the uprising. I told them, that guy won’t budge anyone. No one is going to rise up in the centre of Havana. The date they picked was none other than Fidel’s birthday, and they told me that day! And I said, Look, buddy, if that man, on that day, decides to go make proclamations, or to start some kind of uprising in the middle of Havana, the people are going to respond harshly. It’s even possible that they might kill him. Why, how could you put him in a humble working-class neighborhood to start those things, the locals…And he told me, flat out, the best thing that could happen for us is if they kill that man, it would be perfect, and they explained to me what would happen. All he had to do was provoke. They would go into the street, and there would be a clash there. If that happened, the press would do the rest, and they told me, we’re going to start a huge media campaign to demonstrate that there is chaos in Cuba, that Cuba is ungovernable; that in Cuba, Raúl is unable to hold the reins of government; that the civilian population is being killed; that students are being repressed in the street, and the people in the street, that the police are committing crimes. What a resemblance to Venezuela! It’s not a coincidence. It’s like that.

Q. So, what was supposed to happen in those circumstances?

Once all the opinion matrices were created, and all the media matrices had constructed that image, the whole world was supposed to have the image of Cuba as a great disaster, and that they’re killing the people, that they are killing them all. Then, my organization was to complete the final task.

Q. What was the final task?…..” 

Full interview

Comments »

Dennis Gartman Sells Equities to Sit Out the Recent Pullback

“In a reversal of his more bullish take on U.S. equities in recent weeks, Dennis Gartman said Monday that he’s getting out of equities and sticking with cash and gold to ride out the recent pullback, which he called a “long-awaited and much-needed correction.”

On CNBC’s “Fast Money” on Monday, the editor of the Gartman Letter said simply, “I got scared.”

Gartman said that Friday’s action made it seem as though a switch was flipped in the minds of investors. “The whole world switched at that period of time,” he said.

That same switch evidently dimmed Gartman’s view of stocks as well; he pared down his exposure to equities from an average of 100 percent, to close to zero.

“In a bull market there are only three positions you can have: Really long, pleasantly long and neutral. It’s time to be neutral. It’s still a bull market. You don’t need to be short, but you don’t need to be long at this point. I think cash is the right place to be,” he said….”

Full article

Comments »

$GS Posts a List of the Most Undervalued Stocks

“David Kostin, Goldman Sachs‘ chief U.S. equity strategist, says the S&P 500 will climb just 3% this year.

However, within the market he sees no shortage of stocks and sectors expected to outperform.

In his new U.S. Monthly Chartbook, Kostin provides a list of stocks with the most upside potential today.

According to Goldman’s analysts, the 40 stocks on this list offer 21% to 41% upside relative to their recent prices.

The current list has a mix of energy, tech, and retail firms….”

Full list of companies 

Comments »

Paulsen of Wells Capital Management: History Does Not Usually Repeat, We May See a 1987 Crash Again

“Jim Paulsen of Wells Capital Management, who apparently sees the future in numbers, said in a client note that on May 27, the current bull market will be 1,311 trading days old, USA Today reported.

That is an important date because it was 1,311 trading days after the start of the 1982 bull market that the S&P 500 endured its biggest one-day point crash in history, on Oct. 19, 1987.

“Normally these kinds of things are just market oddities. But investors are taking this one seriously since there are such strong similarities with the 1982 bull market and the one the market is currently in,” USA Today said.

In fact, stock market charts that begin with the 2009 start of the current bull market, when overlaid with the corresponding charts that began in 1982 and ended with the 1987 crash, look eerily similar.

Paulsen noted the current bull market has staged a 175 percent rally from the low — which is also where the 1982 bull market was at this point in its run.

However, he is not out to scare his clients, and concludes a 10 percent correction is probably the more likely scenario ahead.

“Don’t worry much, however, about another major style 1987 collapse. History doesn’t usually fully repeat,” Paulsen wrote in his note to clients.

In a less colorful piece, USA Today noted the price-earnings ratios of the top 10 biggest stocks in the S&P 500 today are nowhere close to the peaks that the 10 most highly valued stocks hit in 2000, another recent market blow-off year when the dot-com stocks imploded….”

Full article 

Comments »

According to Cramer These Stocks are Too Cheap

“The most treacherous part of the year is about to begin, says Jim Cramer, “Earnings season.”

It’s a time when headlines can move stocks higher or lower only to have those gains or losses canceled out hours later when companies hold their conference calls.

And it’s also a time when Cramer looks for those knee-jerk reactions from Wall Street to generate sudden discounts. If you identify a solid company, with a strong balance sheet, reliable management and other bullish fundamentals, Cramer suggests buying shares on any unexpected pullback.

However, if you don’t want to wait for earnings season to generate an opportunity in which you can buy the stock of a good company at a discount, Cramer thinks there are at least two companies that are currently cheaper than they should be.

Adam Jeffery | CNBC

PVH

“Consider PVH,” said Cramer…..”

Full article 

Comments »

Economist Sees the S&P Fallling 30% After Reaching 1900

“The S&P 500 is just 9 points off a trigger point that will see it tumble 30 percent, veteran trader and economist Steen Jakobsen told CNBC on Thursday.

The index, which tracks the U.S.’s 500 biggest companies, touched a new high on Wednesday, and closed at 1,890.90 points, up 2.3 percent on the year. It has grown steadily since mid-2011, when it touched a low of 1,011.52.

Jakobsen, the chief economist and chief investment officer at Saxo Bank, warned the index was just points away from the key 1,900 level, which could herald a 30 percent correction. This would see the S&P tumble to 1,330.

 

Getty Images

The S&P plummeted nearly 50 percent between May and November 2008 in the wake of the financial crisis, falling to a session low of 741.02 in November. However, it has enjoyed a long bull run since then.

The economist said that the index was overdue for a correction.

“Equities are the only asset class that have not been impacted by this crisis — we had commodities and then we had fixed income. So for the crisis to play out fully, we need to go into equities. That will happen on lack of earnings, the lack of growth coming into the sector,” Jakobsen told CNBC.

He said that typically equity markets corrected 10 percent once a year, and corrected 25-30 percent every five years.

“So statistically we are overdue (for a fall-off),” he said…..”

Full video article 

Comments »

$C Updates the Global Economy Outlook for the Next Four Years

“An economic slowdown in China, elevated geo-political tensions between Russia and Ukraine, and the Fed’s tapering of its stimulative asset purchase program are some of the biggest events in markets.

But there are so many more market stories we need to be watching.

In it’s latest 52-page Global Economic Outlook and Strategy report, Citi’s Willem Buiter and his team give us a sense of where the world’s major economies are headed.

The economists expect the global economy to expand 3.1% this year and 3.4% in 2015.

Citi’s Michael Saunders writes that they continue to cut their emerging market growth forecasts, though “this month’s revision largely reflects a large cut to our Russia GDP forecast, reflecting heightened uncertainty and the CBR’s recent rate hike.”

In China, Saunders expects policymakers to react to slower growth by “renewed credit easing.”

Among developed economies, Citi expects higher growth from the euro area, UK, and Sweden raising their forecasts, but cut Japan’s growth forecast. In the U.S., Citi expects the recent winter weakness to be reversed and thinks rate hikes won’t come till mid-2015.

We highlight a few of their viewpoints for each of the world’s most important economies including GDP forecasts through 2018….”

Full update 

Comments »

On the Matter of Climate Change: What is the Inconvenient Truth ?

In the ongoing debate of climate change we must sift through all the data and theories to come to a reasonable conclusion. Granted this is posted by an oil and gas investment bulletin and i have yet to check on the money bank rolling this bulletin; but  there is something to be said for the science presented in the article. At any rate, thank you to Neil for forwarding this news worthy report.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“Three months ago, it snowed in Cairo, Egypt for the first time in 112 years.

2013 was the largest one-year temperature drop ever recorded in the United States.

The extent of the Antarctic sea ice is at record highs.

Global Cooling--snow in Cairo

It’s the Real Inconvenient Truth—right now the world is getting colder.  And it’s likely to get even colder for the next 20 years—before a new, stronger cycle of sunspots begins, as they have for eons.  They are statistically very, VERY accurate.

But there’s more, and it’s A Sad Truth: there is ample evidence that suggests private scientists and public servants have been manipulating the basic raw data that most everyone relies on to calculate climate change.  (This story has great timing as the IPCC–International Panel on Climate Change–just released Part 5 of their most recent major assessment on climate science (even they can’t bring themselves to call it Global Warming anymore).)

There are some investment trends that come out of this new Truth, and some of it is as simple as get long snowmobile makers and get short lawn mowers.  One trend is that Global Cooling should bring more seasonality in oil and gas prices, making energy ETF and commodity traders happy.

All of this is part of a new ground-breaking study completed by Unit Economics, an investment think-tank from Boston.  They are a non-partisan group with no axe to grind on this issue; like me, they are here to make money for their clients.  Show us a trend and we’ll figure out how to profit from it.

In Part I, you’ll understand the big swings in temperature the earth has experienced in the last million years, and the last thousand years, and the last 50 years.  In Part II I’ll explain how sunspot activity directly correlates to ALL these temperature changes.  And I’ll give you a hot, near-term investment trend to capitalize on this cool idea.

And in Part III, I’ll show you how some original research by Unit Economics has uncovered some disturbing data about the integrity of Global Warming science.  And really, all they’re doing is adding to an already big pile.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Satellites first started measuring earth’s temperature in 1979. Over the next 20 years, temperatures did rise, by roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9°F). In the 15 years since, that trend has reversed–rendering the total temperature increase since 1979 a mere 0.35°C (0.6°F), well within the range of statistical noise.

The real culprit for climate change is simply—the sun, through a complicated but predictable set of cycles.

Those cycles predicted today’s cooling trend – and they predict it will continue for another two decades and may well lead to the coldest period on earth in the last 1,200 years.

The Earth, the Sun, and the Temperature

The earth’s cycle around the sun stretches and contracts, creating 100,000-year temperature cycles. Our planet also slowly tilts one way and then the other, resulting in 41,000-year temperature cycles.

We know this because scientists have several methods to estimate historic weather, an effort that has produced this general result:

global cooling--temp swings over 1000s of years

A few things jump out.

1.    The 100,000-year temperature cycles are very apparent – and the current one is peaking.
2.    The timeframe of this chart covers ice ages and tropical periods, which means it takes only a small change in global temperatures – only two to four degrees – to separate a very warm world from a very cold one.
3.    Through the cycles of the last 800,000 years, the average global temperature is creeping upwards.
4.    The magnitude of each cycle seems to be increasing.

Now, this chart should be taken with a grain of salt because the methods we use to conjure these numbers are not perfect.  But at least the chart lets us put recent climate changes into historic context – a context that deserves a closer look.

The key takeaway is that the earth has been through some very warm periods and some pretty cold ones. Take the years between 800 and 1200 AD, for example.  During these 400 years it was so warm that vineyards spread across central England and bountiful harvests almost doubled Europe’s population.

Then it all changed. By the mid-1300s England’s vineyards were gone and sea ice expanded so much that polar bears crossed to Greenland. This short cold snap was truncated in about 1400, when warmer weather returned for 150 years.  Get the idea? Up, then down, then up, then down.  And then came the Little Ice Age.

Lasting from 1550 right until 1850, the Little Ice Age froze Austria’s vineyards, forcing parched Austrians to switch from wine to beer. Winter fairs were held on the frozen Thames River for 20 years (you’ve all seen the paintings) and Hudson Bay was littered with ice chunks in mid-summer.

This period of time was so cold it earned the moniker The Dalton Minimum—a reference to the very low number of sunspots then.  In the year 1816, storms dumped snow across New England and Quebec in June, lake ice lasted until August in Pennsylvania, and failed crops led to food riots in Britain and France.

So when you get asked, is the world warmer over the last 200 years, since the Industrial Revolution started? Yes, but it has squat to do with industry.  That just happens to co-incide with the smallest sunspot activity in “modern” times.

Eventually the world started to warm again. From 1890 to 1934 central Europe barely saw any snow. Another warm spell from 1942 to 1953 had scientists predicting the death of Europe’s glaciers, a forecast invalidated when the world once again cooled.

Here’s some interesting data as we get closer to the present day:

1.    Temps continued to fall from 1953 until the mid-1970s – despite rising CO2 levels.  This was during the single most industrializing time on earth—and temperatures fell while CO2 levels rose.

2.    Another point: if CO2 emissions cause global warming the layer of the atmosphere 5 to 10 km (3-6 miles) above the earth where CO2 interacts with sunlight should be warming more quickly than the earth’s surface. In fact, temperatures at these levels have been unchanged since accurate balloon measurements became available 50 years ago.

3. ……”

Full article

Comments »