Russia Plans $50 Billion Investment In Iran’s Oil, Gas Industry

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via Oilprice.com,

Russia is getting ready to invest US$50 billion in Iran’s oil and gas industry as the two countries continue to seek closer ties, just as the United States is looking to cut as much Iranian crude oil exports from the market as possible.

“Russia is ready to invest $50bn in Iran’s oil and gas sectors,” according to Ali Akbar Velayati, Senior Adviser for International Affairs of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, as carried by the Financial Times.

Velayati was on a visit to Moscow that included a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Military and technical co-operation with Russia is of major importance to Iran,” FT quoted Velayati as saying.

“The discussion focused on Russian-Iranian cooperation issues as well as the situation in the region, including developments in Syria. The parties reaffirmed their commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Deal (JCPOA),” the Kremlin said in a brief statement on the meeting on Thursday.

According to the Iranian official, a Russian oil company has signed an agreement with Iran worth US$4 billion, and that deal “will be implemented soon.”

Russian energy giants Rosneft and Gazprom have also started talks with the oil ministry of Iran to potentially sign deals worth up to US$10 billion, the Iranian adviser said, while a Russian government official confirmed to FT Russia’s US$50-billion investment plans.

Earlier this year, a local Iranian company, Dana Energy, in a consortium led by Russia’s Zarubezhneft, signed an agreement with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) to redevelop the Aban and West Paydar oilfields, with total capex estimated at around US$740 million.

Separately, Russia’s Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Friday that Russia was studying all legal implications for a possible deal with Iran under which Moscow would provide goods to Tehran in exchange for oil. Such a deal is still possible, Novak said.

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2uCHO4X Tyler Durden

World’s Largest Shipping Company Collapses As Trade War Reality Strikes

While US equity markets (well a few mega-cap tech stocks anyway), the world’s largest shipping company is seeing its stock eviscerated as investor anxiety over trade wars finds an outlet that makes rational sense.

A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S may struggle to make a profit this year after the U.S. and China descended into a trade war that is already showing stress in sentiment surveys…

As Bloomberg reports, Maersk, which is based in Copenhagen, has already lost almost a third of its market value this year as investors gird for more bad news… and it is losing value in line with the collapse in the US Treasury yield curve.

Trade protectionism means less demand, and history suggests the shipping industry will struggle to make the necessary supply cuts. What’s more, Maersk is now more exposed to shipping as the former conglomerate divests its energy business.

Per Hansen, an investment economist at Nordnet in Copenhagen, says Maersk is currently “in the eye of the hurricane” when it comes to the damage that will be inflicted by a trade war.

The company said earlier in the week it will need to temporarily scale back its service between Asia and North Europe as a result.

“It’s highly likely that Maersk’s valuations could sink to its trough valuations in the coming months as investors avoid shipping stocks until more excess capacity is being removed,” said Corrine Png, chief executive officer and founder of Crucial Perspective, a Singapore-based research provider focusing on transport.

So just keep buying Amazon and Netflix.. and keep buying bonds…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2L1CxPi Tyler Durden

Bill Maher: Trump Is The Most “Aggressively Stupid” President In US History

Bill Maher, the host of HBO’s Real Time, has released a new standup special – and, as one might expect, it features more than a few jokes at President Trump’s expense. While the US has had presidents in the past who were “stupid”, the country has never had a leader who is as “aggressively stupid” as Trump, Maher joked.

“We’ve had dumbass presidents, but we’ve never had one like this that is so aggressively stupid,” Maher said. Trump “takes pride that you cannot get information into his head.”

Maher joked that the president “takes pride that you cannot get information into his head.”

“He will insist like, that the stealth bomber is literally invisible. Or there’s such a thing as clean coal. Or that global warming is a hoax because it snows in the winter,” Maher said. “It’s like saying the sun isn’t real because last night it got dark,” he said.

Watch the clip below:

Maher was criticized last month when he said on his HBO show that he’s “hoping” for an economic disaster (exposing just how desperate some of Trump’s political opponents are for a victory) so that the ensuing recession would help blunt President Trump’s popularity (which has climbed since his inauguration) and result in him being voted out of office in 2020. Of course, Maher says nothing about Trump’s many accomplishments since taking office (negotiating a possible peace deal with North Korea and boosting economic growth). Recently, even the New York Times admitted that Trump “got from NATO everything Obama ever asked for.” Which begs the question: If Trump is an idiot, what does that make Obama?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2L9Koto Tyler Durden

Junk Bond Crash Imminent? HY ETF Shorts Hit All Time High

It has been a tough year for junk bond funds, if not for junk bond spreads, which as we noted recently have shown impressive resilience and have solidly outperformed IG since the start of the year (largely thank to a scarcity in HY supply, and a deluge of IG bond issuance to fund a new M&A cycle as Goldman discussed last week).

Meanwhile, as junk has refused to sell off, junk bond funds have been far less lucky, and the constant stream of outflows that began before the start of 2018, hit a record 34 weeks of outflows at the start of July (it did however reverse last week, with a modest $0.5 inflow) prompting many to ask where is the high yield bid coming from?

To be sure, much of the negativity surrounding HY funds is the result of growing “late cycle” fears for credit (as discussed most recently last week), which according to Morgan Stanley will peak in just two months (and in December for stocks)…

… coupled with concerns about Trump’s global trade war.

Meanwhile, in a surprising development, even as junk bond spreads have failed to widen alongside their IG peers, investors are growing convinced it is only a matter of time before the junk bond market.

But first, a quick trip down memory lane: investors will recall that immediately before and after the market VIXplosion on February 5 when countless vol ETFs imploded as a result of massive short gamma exposure on the VIX, one of the side effects was a surge in high yield ETF short interest. This is what JPMorgan wrote at the time:

Both HYG and JNK short interest are at their highs for the period we track data from, suggesting that institutional  investor participation via shorting ETFs has contributed to the sell-off in recent weeks. This is similar to the rise in the short interest ratio on the largest investment grade corporate bond ETF, LQD, which has moved higher during the same period this year, albeit from very low levels.

Fast forward 6 months to today, when according to the latest JPMorgan Flows and Liquidity data, the short interest in Global HY ETFs as a % of outstanding shares, is on the verge of hitting 25%, and is by far the highest on record.

How should one read this peculiar divergence in the data: on one hand, the record HY shorts point to the risk of a sharp blow out in credit spreads in the coming weeks should risk-off sentiment return, if traders start selling ahead of the ECB’s QE end at the end of the year, if trade war escalates further and hits the high beta credit space, or alternatively, if oil and energy names – all heavily represented in the junk bond sector – tumble as a result of a drop in oil.

Alternatively, should a negative catalyst not emerge, the risk for the shorts is of a historic squeeze, and one which collapses spreads to record tights.

Needless to say, the first outcome is more concerning from a broader, market perspective. And while a move wider in spreads would not be catastrophic, it could still lead to a broad liquidation panic at the synthetic credit level, at which point the main risk becomes the underlying threat latent within all ETF products, first voiced by Howard Marks in March 2015: “what would happen, for example, if a large number of holders decided to sell a high yield bond ETF all at once?” This is how Marks answered his own question:

in theory, the ETF can always be sold. Buyers may be scarce, but there should be some price at which one will materialize. Of course, the price that buyer will pay might represent a discount from the NAV of the underlying bonds. In that case, a bank should be willing to buy the creation units at that discount from NAV and short the underlying bonds at the prices used to calculate the NAV, earning an arbitrage profit and causing the gap to close. But then we’re back to wondering about whether there will be a buyer for the bonds the bank wants to short, and at what price. Thus we can’t get away from depending on the liquidity of the underlying high yield bonds. The ETF can’t be more liquid than the underlying, and we know the underlying can become highly illiquid.”

Of course, there is the very real possibility that “someone knows something”, and is putting on a massive short bet, even as the broader market refuses to budge. In any event, based on the record accumulation of junk bond ETF shorts, we may soon find out if Marks’ “worst case” scenario plays out as envisioned, and what exactly happens when everyone tries to sell a synthetic product that is far more liquid than its underlying constituents, especially during a market panic., or alternatively, a historic short squeeze.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2miOrpe Tyler Durden

Morgan Stanley : Our Conviction Has Grown Stronger That “Easy Is Over”.

From Morgan Stanley’s Matthew Hornbach, Global head of interest rates.

In our Global Strategy Mid-Year Outlook: The End of Easy, published in mid-May, my research colleagues and I suggested that multiple tailwinds from the last nine years were abating. While the outlook for macro economies remained promising, the outlook for risky assets was less so. A structural tightening in monetary policies, led by the total size of global central bank balance sheets peaking in mid-2018, stood at the heart of our concerns.

Now that we have entered the second half of the year, it makes sense to reassess this view. In short, our conviction has only grown stronger that easy is over. Monetary conditions continue to tighten across the globe, led by those in the US. What’s more, financial conditions are tightening as well. The Fed’s balance sheet normalization process not only continues, but accelerates this quarter and next. The caps that limit the amount the Fed’s balance sheet can shrink by increase from US$30bn in 2Q18 to US$40bn this quarter. Then, in the final quarter of the year, the caps increase to US$50bn where they max out.

As the caps go up, so too does US Treasury issuance. As the Treasury supply related to balance sheet normalization hits the market, it soaks up the cash that may have otherwise gone into riskier assets. It’s the once positive portfolio balance channel effect from the Quantitative Easing (QE) era – which supported risky assets all throughout that period – in reverse. QE has become QT (Quantitative Tightening) in the US. At the same time, the positive portfolio balance channel effect from the European Central Bank (ECB) is set to diminish further. On the ECB’s own guidance, QE will be done by year-end.

Sounds complicated? It may get more so next year.

Earlier this week, several of my colleagues and I came out with a view that the Fed’s balance sheet may not shrink as much as most people expect. We believe that the Fed will halt the normalization of its balance sheet by September 2019 and start growing it again in 2020 to ensure that the effective fed funds rate remains within the range the Fed targets.

We expect the Fed’s System Open Market Account (SOMA) portfolio to be just above US$3.8 trillion at the end of 2020. In contrast, primary dealers and market participants polled by the New York Fed place a 68% and 60% probability, respectively that the SOMA portfolio will be smaller than US$3.5 trillion at the end of 2020.

Importantly for markets, we expect the Fed to begin guiding investors toward the end of balance sheet normalization in the minutes of its December 2018 meeting. While December may seem ages away, the topic is sure to be increasingly on the minds of FOMC participants into year-end. This raises the risk that guidance may come earlier than we expect.

To be sure, we do not believe that a technical adjustment to the size of the balance sheet will alter FOMC participants’ views on appropriate rate policy. Balance sheet normalization will continue into next year even if the Fed ends the process earlier than it anticipated originally.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2NkLnEH Tyler Durden

Former CIA Officer: Clinton “Involved In Biggest Treason In History”

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp says what Hillary Clinton did with her charity and Uranium One while she was Secretary of State was a crime for the history books. 

Shipp explains, “Hillary Clinton used this to launder money in foreign banks so it wasn’t subject to U.S. laws, congressional subpoenas or FOIA demands for the evidence.  This was done to launder this money globally into the Clinton Foundation so the U.S. government could not examine it at all.” 

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller was the head of the FBI while the Uranium One deal was being done by Clinton and the Russians.  One fifth of U.S. uranium production was bought by the Russians in a deal Clinton pushed and approved.  The Clinton Foundation received more than $140 million from some of the same Russian players who were involved with Uranium One.  Why didn’t Mueller stop the deal?  Shipp says,

Mueller is either a complete moron, which he is not, or he overlooked the biggest counterterrorism cases in U.S. history.  It involved Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One and, of course, the destruction of all the emails and evidence and her secret server, and on and on and on it goes, and he (Mueller) ignored it all.” 

How did she get away with obvious crime?  Shipp says,

The most bizarre thing is the people who protected her from clear felonious activity and violations of the Espionage Act.  James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, was protecting her and leaking things to the media and lying.  You had John Brennan, Director of the CIA, protecting her by starting a false investigation (on Trump) and stirring things up with this (false/unverified) dossier.  You had James Comey, Director of the FBI, protecting her…

Then, you’ve got Peter Strzok protecting her, and now it appears the United Kingdom GCHQ was using NSA information to target Donald Trump and protect Hillary Clinton.  You have to ask yourself what kind of power or connections does this woman have to get all of these members of the Deep State, Shadow Government to risk their own criminal penalties to protect her and try to get her elected?  That is the Shadow Government.  That is the Deep State.  That is what is so chilling about this whole thing…

This is deep.  This is dark.  This is as dark as it gets, and this is the biggest espionage case involving government officials in the history of this country.” 

Shipp also points out that, this time, it will not be business as usual for the “Deep State and Shadow Government.”  They are going to be brought to justice because Shipp says, “indictments are coming because of Donald Trump coming into the White House from the outside.  Trump cannot be bribed.”    

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with former CIA Officer Kevin Shipp ofForTheLoveofFreedom.net. 

(To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here) 

There is free information on Kevin Shipp’s website ForTheLoveofFreedom.net.  You can also order his book there on the homepage, and help him get his message out by sending him a donation.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2umYkqy Tyler Durden

Hedge Fund CIO: “Americans Voted For Real Change And It’s Coming”

Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

The planet’s most powerful military threatened to reconsider NATO unless Europeans meet their spending commitments. Europe’s leaders repeated unfulfilled pledges to do just that, returning to their parliaments to find the funds. Earth’s biggest consumer threatened to impose 10% tariffs on another $200bln of imports from the planet’s largest producer. Beijing vowed to retaliate. Its deeply indebted economy, overleveraged to ever-rising global trade, now faces the opposite. Lady Liberty warned the West of immigration’s profound threat to cultural identity, domestic security, harmony. Americans voted for real change. And it’s coming.

Battle Lines:

Peter Navarro, White House Trade Director, published a 36-page paper last month titled: How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World. If you subscribe to the view that the current trade conflict with China will pass with some modest concessions, it’s a must read. Navarro also made a 30min speech on the topic, which emphasizes just how deep the conflict runs. America’s trade deficit is an issue, but far from the primary conflict.

“It’s very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia, where you’re supposed to be guarding against Russia, and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia,” said Trump. “You’ve given up all of your strength. I think it’s very bad for Germany. It’s very bad for the German people. And I don’t think it’s very good for NATO, if you want to know the truth.” And the message was intended for Europe, but also Americans, who pay China billions and billions of dollars a year. $375bln to be exact.

Peter Navarro details 6 Chinese strategies of economic aggression and 50 state-directed acts, policies and practices that Beijing uses to achieve their goal of global economic dominance. “This also has military implications. It is what we’re up against when we’re trying to build an international trading order based on free, fair, balanced, and reciprocal trade,” he said. “If you have a negotiation and take 25 of these 50 issues off the table,” warned Navarro in the video, drawing clear battle lines, and in no mood to negotiate, “you still have 25 of them left.”

Onshore:

Chinese drivers purchased roughly 28mm vehicles in 2017, 26.8mm of which were produced in China. Only 1.2mm were imported due to the 25% tariffs Beijing applied to inbound vehicles. 15mm of the 28mm were domestic Chinese brands. The remaining 13mm were foreign brands, but 11.8mm of those were produced onshore in China. The intellectual property and business-process transfer accompanying onshore production is staggering, ongoing. By contrast, US drivers purchased roughly 17mm vehicles in 2017, of which just 4mm were produced here.

 

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2uExklI Tyler Durden

US Deep State Hits Putin-Trump Summit With Preemptive Strike As Russiagate Fizzles Out

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

In order to save face over an investigation that has failed to produce a smoking gun regarding charges of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, the US elite have opted to indict Russian intelligence officials for election meddling. Yet the evidence, once again, is missing in action.

Amid harsh criticism at home for its failure to provide proof of Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election, at the very same time that Trump is preparing to meet with Vladimir Putin for a summit in Helsinki, the US Deep State has resorted to playing spoiler with the most overplayed hand in modern political history: the ‘Blame Russia’ card.

On Friday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced indictments against 12 members of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff, also known as GRU, for “conspiring to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

According to the 29-page indictment, the defendants devised fictional online personas to compromise computers affiliated with the Democratic National Committee, as well as Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The purported ‘hack’ led to the release of tens of thousands of stolen emails by WikiLeaks. These communications revealed what amounts to criminal behavior on the part of the DNC, including overt bias against Democratic presidential nominee Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton, as well as evidence that Clinton was fed the questions to public debates against Donald Trump. Those very serious findings have been sidelined amid the storm known as Russiagate.

The Russian Foreign Ministry vehemently rejected the accusations, saying it was a coordinated effort by “influential political forces in the US that are opposed to the normalization of relations between our countries and have spread open slander for the past two years.”

“The goal of this ‘information attack’ is obviously to spoil the atmosphere prior to the Russian-American summit,” the ministry said, referring to the forthcoming meeting between Putin and Trump. 

Indeed, the accusations leveled against the Russians ring hollow for several credible reasons.

First, the claims do not flush with WikiLeaks’ account as to how it came to possess the information. WikiLeaks founder and editor, Julian Assange, who has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for over four years for fear of being extradited to the US, has denied that any state player was responsible for the “leak.”

“We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party,” Assange told Sean Hannity of Fox News. “Normally, we say nothing at all.”

“We have … a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out,” Assange added.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is now an affiliate of WikiLeaks, revealed that he knows the identity of the source.

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.”

For those who prefer to see evidence before they jump the gun and wrongly accuse someone – in this case a nuclear-armed power – they share the approach of Devin Nunes, chair of the House intelligence committee, who said:

“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence – even now. There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

Second, according to an independent analysis carried out by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), the DNS servers were compromised not through a ‘hack’ from some outside party, but rather through a ‘leak,’ that is, an ‘inside job.’

“After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device,” the group, who counts among its members William Binney, a former NSA analyst turned whistleblower, wrote in a letter it sent to President Trump.

“Key among the findings … is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the US”

The group says the mainstream media refuses to report on its findings.

Third, the FBI never had possession of the original DNC server to conduct its own forensics work, but relied instead upon a copy of texts provided by CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity company hired by the DNC – the target of the investigation – to conduct its internal investigation for the DNC. In other words, the possibility that the evidence was tampered with is certainly not beyond the realm of reality.

“We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which – again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute,” then-FBI director James Comey told a House Intel session in January 2017.

Consider this: The FBI was happy to proceed with its investigation of Russia-Trump collusion without ever gaining access to the primary evidence, which were the DNC servers, allowing a clearly biased third party to distribute the goodies as it saw fit. Now compare that breathtaking disregard for professional standards with regards to the Clinton email investigation to the way the FBI manhandled Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s personal attorney. On the suspicion that Cohen had made a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to hush up an alleged decades-old dalliance with Trump, FBI agents raided Cohen’s law office in midtown Manhattan in an effort to seize evidence. Now why in the world was similar force of action not taken against Hillary Clinton and the DNC, especially considering the significance of the case? Clearly there appears to be no small degree of political bias here.

Finally, the FBI itself is now under investigation for possible bias in the course of Russiagate investigation from at least two of its members Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of the FBI and Lisa Page, a lawyer at the FBI who was also Strzok’s mistress. The lovers somehow managed to exchange some 50,000 text messages throughout the 2016 presidential election and first year of Trump in power, many of them containing fiercely anti-Trump sentiments.

Strzok was involved in the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server (no charges were brought against her, despite clearly breaking the law with regards to her handling of government communications), as well as the investigation into possible connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia (ongoing).

This is the sort of political climate that the Trump administration has been forced to deal with for almost two years – a non-stop full court rush from the Democrats.

And now, when there is a chance for the smallest breakthrough in US-Russia relations, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, rolls out charges against 12 Russian military officials, thereby severely polluting the atmosphere for the Putin-Trump summit.

Clearly, something has got to give one way or the other. The fate of relations between the world’s two premier nuclear powers can no longer be held hostage to poor-sport Democrats who simply do not know how to lose an election with grace.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2uqZp0d Tyler Durden

In Twitter Meltdown, Elon Musk Calls Thai Cave Diver A Pedophile

What does a billionaire Silicon Valley liberal whose giant “Thai cave rescue” diversion from auto production woes goes sideways after authorities tell him to back off?

Handle rejection poorly and question the rescue chief’s credibility, of course… 

And what does said billionaire do when the Thai rescue chief tells him to “stick his submarine where it hurts” before being outed as a top donor to a GOP PAC?

Engage in a weird Twitter exchange with the Sierra Club about climate change to show the world you’re an environmentalist, then call the Thai rescue chief a pedophile!!! 

After Musk’s boy-rescuing submarine was rejected by Thai authorities and his idea called a “PR stunt” by rescue chief Vern Unsworth, the Tesla CEO began melting down over Twitter – saying Unsworth had been “inaccurately described as rescue chief.” 

Unsworth, an explorer and expert cave diver who lives in Thailand’s Chiang Rai province, said that Musk was “asked to leave” the cave “very quickly” – and that the Tesla CEO had “no conception of what the caves would be like. 

Musk hit back – tweeting “Never saw this British expat guy who lives in Thailand (sus) at any point when we were in the caves … Only people in sight were the Thai navy/army guys, who were great. Thai navy seals escorted us in — total opposite of wanting us to leave.”

I challenge this dude to show final rescue video,” he continued. “Huge credit to pump & generator team. Unsung heroes here.”

It was then that Musk accused the man heralded worldwide as a hero – a pedo.

After Musk’s shocking pedo claim, he doubled down – betting a Twitter user a “signed dollar it’s true.” 

Maybe Thai officials had a bad feeling about his boy-rescuing submarine after Musk promised to send two tourists to the moon in 2018, only to delay the grandiose plan due to “technical challenges“? Maybe they saw pictures of Musk’s makeshift tent city assembly line and didn’t want to risk Elon rescuing a fraction of the boys he promised despite reassuring investors Thai officials it would be no problem? Perhaps they wanted to avoid a mid-cave battery fire? 

Either way, Musk then responded to a nine day old tweet from Texas Observer journalist Christopher Hooks by calling him a jackass

Musk’s latest gaffe comes on the heels of a Bloomberg interview in which he acknowledged the need to tone down his Twitter spats, saying “I have made the mistaken assumption – and I will attempt to be better at this – of thinking that because Somebody is on Twitter and is attacking me that it is open season,” adding “This is my mistake. I will correct it.” 

Meanwhile, Musk’s pedo comment is not going over well…

 It’s true…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2uBcPWW Tyler Durden