iftttwall

Consumers in the UK have been on a credit binge since the Bank of England cut its benchmark interest rate to an all-time low as investors braced for the widely anticipated economic shock of Brexit – a shock that, unsurprisingly, has yet to arrive, despite warnings from the academic establishment that a "leave" vote would trigger an imminent economic catastrophe. And now, with total credit growth rising at 10% a year, the BOE is warning that the increase in unsecured lending is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

While the central bank is less concerned with mortgage debt than credit-card debt and other types of consumer credit, some at the bank are beginning to worry that the growing demand for long-term mortgages will shackle borrowers with a lifetime of debt, according to the Telegraph.

“British families are signing up for a lifetime of debt with almost one in seven borrowers now taking out mortgages of 35 years or more, official figures show.

 

Rapid house price growth has ­encouraged borrowers to sign longer mortgage deals as a way of reducing monthly payments and easing affordability pressures.

 

Bank of England data shows 15.75pc of all new mortgages taken out in the first quarter of 2017 were for terms of 35 years or more. While this is slightly down from the record high of 16.36pc at the end of 2016, it has climbed from just 2.7pc when records began in 2005.”

The steady rise has triggered alarm bells at the BOE, prompting regulators to warn that the trend risks storing up “problem[s] for the future” if lenders ignore the growing share of households prepared to borrow into retirement. Indeed, bank figures show one in five mortgages today are between 30 and 35 years, up from below 8% in 2005, as the traditional 25-year mortgage becomes less popular.

There’s also the unaffordability question. That borrowers are opting for longer mortgage terms means they’re finding rent and mortgages are growing increasingly unaffordable, a worrying sign as credit expands.

David Hollingworth, a director at mortgage broker London & Country, said the trend showed that an increasing share of borrowers were “struggling with affordability pressures, and deciding that lengthening the term will offer leeway” as house price growth continues to outpace pay rises.

Sam Woods, the chief executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority, has said policymakers are watching developments closely.

“If lenders become too narrowly preoccupied with the profile of the loan in the first five years” and not look at the entire profile of the loan when assessing affordability “this could store up a problem for the future,” he said in a speech.

While interest rates are expected to stay low, the pound’s 15% drop against the dollar since the last year is driving up the price of consumer goods, adding to the pressure on borrowers. Prices of consumer staples are growing at an annualized rate of 3%, far more than interest rates on savings accounts.

 

via http://ift.tt/2vtbMXI Tyler Durden

Authored by Don Quijones via WolfStreet.com,

But the IMF has suggestions on how to win the War on Cash…

In January 2017 the European Commission announced it was exploring the option of imposing upper limits on cash payments, with a view to implementing cross-regional measures as soon as 2018. To give the proposal a veneer of respectability and accountability the Commission launched a public consultation on the issue. Now, the answers are in, but they are not what the Commission was expecting.

A staggering 95% of the respondents said they were opposed to a cash ceiling at EU level. Even more emphatic was the answer to the following question:

“How would the introduction of restrictions on payments in cash at EU level benefit you, or your business or your organisation (multiple replies are possible)?”

In the curious absence of an explicit “not at all” option, 99.18% chose to respond with “no answer.” In other words, less than 1% of the more than 30,000 people consulted could think of a single benefit of the EU unleashing cross-regional cash limits.

Granted, 37% of respondents were from Germany and 19% from Austria (56% in total), two countries that have a die-hard love for physical lucre. Even among millennials in Germany, two-thirds say they prefer paying in cash to electronic means, a much higher level than in almost any other advanced economy with the exception of Japan. Another 35% of the survey respondents were from France, a country that is not quite so enamored with cash and whose government has already imposed a maximum cash limit of €1,000.

By its very nature the survey almost certainly attracted a disproportionate number of arch-defenders of physical cash. As such, the responses it elicited are unlikely to be a perfect representation of how all Europeans would feel about the EU’s plans to introduce maximum cash limits. Nonetheless, the sheer strength of opposition should (but probably won’t) give the apparatchiks in Brussels pause for thought.

Respondents cited a number of objections to EU-wide cash restrictions, chief among them the convenience of using cash and the limited impact the measure would probably have on achieving its “stated” objectives of curbing terrorism, tax evasion, and money laundering. Of course, there are many other reasons to worry about living in a cashless (or “less cash”) society that were not offered as an option in the survey, including the vastly increased power it would give to political and monetary authorities as well as the near-impossibility of ever escaping from the clutches of the banking system or central banks’ monetary experiments.

The biggest cited concern for respondents was the threat the cash restrictions would pose to privacy and personal anonymity. A total of 87% of respondents viewed paying with cash as an essential personal freedom. The European Commission would beg to differ. In the small print accompanying the draft legislation it launched in January, it pointed out that privacy and anonymity do not constitute “fundamental” human rights.

Be that as it may, many Europeans still clearly have a soft spot for physical money. If the EU authorities push too hard, too fast in their war on cash, they could provoke a popular backlash. In Germany, trust in Europe’s financial institutions is already at a historic low, with only one in three Germans saying they have confidence in the ECB. The longer QE lasts, the more the number shrinks.

Bundesbank president Jens Weidmann has already warned that it would be “disastrous” if people started to believe cash would be abolished — an oblique reference to the risk of negative interest rates and the escalating war on cash triggering a run on cash. The IMF has also waded into the debate with a working paper full of sage advice for governments keen on “de-cashing” – as the IMF calls this procedure – their economies against the will of their citizenry (emphasis added):

The private-sector-led de-cashing seems preferable to the public-sector-led decashing. The former seems almost entirely benign (e.g., more use of mobile phones to pay for coffee), but still needs policy adaptation. The latter seems more questionable, and people may have valid objections to it. De-cashing of either kind leaves both individuals and states more vulnerable to disruptions, ranging from power outages to hacks to cyberwarfare. In any case, the tempting attempts to impose de-cashing by a decree should be avoided, given the popular personal attachment to cash.

 

A targeted outreach program is needed to alleviate suspicions related to de-cashing; in particular, that by de-cashing the authorities are trying to control all aspects of peoples’ lives, including their use of money, or push personal savings into banks.

It basically involves making it easier and cheaper for people to use electronic payment methods while subtly turning the screw on those who would prefer to continue using cash (for perfectly valid reasons, as the IMF itself admits), presumably by making it more difficult and expensive to do so. In many places it’s already happening.

But a surprisingly large number of people still appear to have a strong sense of attachment to physical money, particularly in Europe’s most important economy, Germany. And if the survey is any indication, they have little interest in changing those habits.

via http://ift.tt/2uzwTv2 Tyler Durden

Stockholm Syndrome is defined as “…a condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors as a survival strategy during captivity.” While observers would expect kidnapping victims to fear and loathe the gang who imprison and threaten them, the reality is that some don’t.

There is a loose analogy between being held hostage and being an investor in a regime of irredeemable paper currency and zero interest rates. In both cases, the victim has little hope of escape and must seek to somehow survive under malevolent conditions.

Key behaviors in Stockholm Syndrome are positive feelings for their captors, a refusal to work with law enforcement afterwards, and even a belief in the terrorist’s humanity.

Key behaviors of investors today show eerie parallels: a desire to bid on dollars with their assets, a refusal to support the gold standard, and even a belief that the dollar is money. This last always shows when someone—even a gold bug—says gold is going up, or gold is the best performing currency, or gold has good returns.

These words up, performance, and returns indicate that the victim accepts the dollar as money, the dollar as the measure of value, the dollar as the unit of account. The victim seeks to view gold in terms of his captor’s paradigm. Much the way the kidnapping victim seeks to understand his capture and even geopolitics in terms of his captor’s world view.

Many victims are so thoroughly in thrall, that they scoff at the very idea of earning interest from a productive enterprise. They seek only the latest bubble, wherein they can make a profit: more dollars. Or, if not more dollars, at least more purchasing power. For years, they sought to do this in the gold and especially silver markets. Some gold bugs go even farther, and opposed a gold standard. Perhaps they don’t want sound money, they want gold to go up which means something external that gold can go up against.

We watched bemused, as a speaker at the Metal Writers Conference in Vancouver on May 29 told a standing-room-only crowd that bitcoin would hit $1 million (it went up after that, but is now down about 15% from that day). A 436X return would be nice, but of course the profits can only come from later speculators. There is an ugly little word for schemes in which profits come from those who buy in later. It is named for a gentleman who came from Italy, promoting his scheme in Boston.

We blame the game, not the player. It is important to emphasize this—don’t blame the players, blame the game—and we probably don’t do it enough. The fault lies not with those who bet on gold or bitcoin or anything else, nor even with those who regard betting as investing. The fault lies with the Fed and the other central banks who have the hubris to think they can centrally plan their way to prosperity. And the gun to force it on us, whether we agree or not. And the madness to cause the interest rate to fall for 36 years and counting (the Fed is not going to push the interest up much farther in this cycle, if they even dare one more hike). When freedom seems so remote as to be hopeless, it may be natural (we leave this to psychologists to say) to find a way to compromise, to get along to go along.

As to us, we will go on working towards that day of freedom, a big part of which is helping people see the monetary system for what it is: the current implementation of the fifth plank proposed by Karl Marx. Another part is to pay interest on gold…

---

Last week, we said:

“Peak hype, peak desperation, all selling in the streets with little buying… we are not technicians and do not focus on sentiment… but this description sounds like the definition of capitulation.

…

Also, we would add something important. Even if this is a capitulation low, that does not necessarily a mean a moonshot to $5,000 or even $2,000. We don’t expect that, and won’t expect it without evidence of a much more serious shift in the fundamentals. We would expect a normal trading bounce within the range and perhaps a few bucks over $1,300.”

This week, the prices of the metals bounced somewhat, within the trading range. Gold closed last week at $1212, and this week at $1229. In silver, last week’s close was $15.56, and this’s week was $15.96.

Will the bounce continue? Have the fundamentals firmed up?

We will show graphs of the true measure of the fundamentals. But first charts of their prices and the gold-silver ratio.

Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio. The ratio moved down this week.

In this graph, we show both bid and offer prices for the gold-silver ratio. If you were to sell gold on the bid and buy silver at the ask, that is the lower bid price. Conversely, if you sold silver on the bid and bought gold at the offer, that is the higher offer price.

For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and cobasis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and cobasis in red.

Here is the gold graph.

The dollar fell a bit this week (the mirror image of the rising price of gold). Now it is the dollar hostages who use gold as their preferred hostage-bargaining chip to feel a bit better. One ounce of this commodity now fetches 17 more of the kidnapper’s paper scrip than it did a week ago.

As the dollar fell, the cobasis fell (especially in farther-out contracts). The August cobasis is still above zero (i.e. temporary backwardation).

Our calculated gold fundamental price is not much changed, still above the market price by a goodly margin (chart here).

Now let’s look at silver.

As the dollar has dropped (i.e. silver trades for more gang-scrip than last week), the cobasis has come down. But it’s still higher than gold’s cobasis, and this is the September contract, a month further from expiry than the August gold contract.

Our calculated silver fundamental is rising again, also a healthy margin above the market price.

We thought it would be worth addressing the question: “is there a shortage in silver?” Let’s do it with a device that’s famously worth 1,000 words. This picture shows the term structure of the silver futures market.

What we see is what Sherlock Holmes observed that people heard in the night in the story Silver Blaze. There are no interesting features. Other than the temporary backwardation in the September contract, we see a rising basis and falling cobasis as we look out to December 2018. The rising basis looks a lot like the yield curve in the dollar, though slightly lower (6-month LIBOR is 1.5%).

If a real shortage developed in silver, the above curve would look quite different. And we would be publishing pictures of it.

 

Monetary Metals will be exhibiting at FreedomFest in Las Vegas in July. If you are an investor and would like a meeting there, please click here. Keith will be speaking, on the topic of what will the coming gold standard look like.

 

© 2017 Monetary Metals

via http://ift.tt/2tw73mM Monetary Metals

Trust in government serves as a vital driving force for a country's economic development, increases the effectiveness of governmental decisions, as well as leading to greater compliance with regulations and the tax system. As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, the level of confidence in a country's government is generally determined by whether people think their government is reliable, if it can protect its citizens from risk and whether or not it is capable of effectively delivering public services.

The latest edition of the OECD's Government at a Glance report has found that confidence in government varies widely between countries.

You will find more statistics at Statista

Unsurprisingly, Greece has the lowest level of confidence in its government, unsurprising given the economic pain it has suffered since the onset of the financial crisis. In recent years, Greece has had to deal with multiple elections, bank shutdowns, defaulting, the introduction of capital controls and being on the frontline of the European migration crisis. That has all led to 13 percent of the Greek public having confidence in their government. South Korea also has a low level of confidence at 24 percent, most likely due to President Park Geun-hye's impeachment scandal.

In the United States, the White House is struggling to shake off allegations of Russian collusion and only 30 percent of the public have confidence in the government. The United Kingdom is also enduring turbulent times amid its Brexit negotiations and 41 percent of the public have faith in their government.

At the other end of the spectrum, 58 percent of people in Russia and Turkey trust their governments while India (the nation that just surprised the entire nation by making its banknotes illegal) has the highest confidence levels at 73 percent. Greatest Fools?

via http://ift.tt/2tweoTt Tyler Durden

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The meeting between Trump and Putin at the G20 in Hamburg injects new hope into the complicated relationship between the United States and Russia. Only time can confirm whether there is any basis for this hope.

The most eagerly anticipated meeting of the year, that between Putin and Trump, lasted far more than the scheduled 20 minutes, extending past two hours. This is not too much of a surprise given the points of friction that needed to be discussed, the many outstanding issues in international relations, and the fact that this was the first official meeting between the two world leaders. The results achieved exceeded initial ambitions, and the personal chemistry between Putin and Trump seems to have been sufficient to reach an important agreement in Syria as well as to conduct discussions surrounding cyber security. Trump even asked Putin about the alleged Russian hacking in the US presidential election as a way of appeasing detractors back home. The statements of both presidents following their meeting underlined their positive intentions. Putin called Trump a very different person from the one portrayed in the media, mentioning that he was reflective and very attentive to details. Trump, for his part, praised the meeting with Putin, stating the importance of dialogue between nuclear-armed superpowers.

The most important agreement concerned a ceasefire in southern Syria along the border with Israel and Jordan. This is a very active area of fighting, and so the ceasefire obviates the possibility of dangerous confrontations between the United States and Russia, as well as between Syria and Israel, which could escalate out of control as seen when the US Air Force shot down a Syrian Su-22 jet as well an Iranian drone. Israel, from its position in the occupied Golan Heights, has repeatedly struck the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), in a desperate effort to halt its gains against al Qaeda and Daesh terrorists.

In their first meeting, within less than two hours, Putin and Trump came to an agreement on potentially the most volatile situation in the region, saving hundreds of civilian lives in the process. The agreement on Syria now has to run the gauntlet of the deep state and all the other interests arrayed against Trump. Just four days following a similar agreement reached in 2016 between Obama and Putin, everything was upended by the US Air Force bombing and killing nearly a hundred soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army in Deir ez-Zor, shredding the ceasefire agreement that had just been reached.

Trump is dealing with the same occult forces that sabotaged Obama’s ceasefire agreement. It is impossible to know how much strategic support the US deep state has for the ceasefire decision. Ever since the SAA reached the Iraqi border north of al-Tanf, the space available for the US and her allies to maneuver has been dramatically diminished. With al-Tanf isolated, Washington's ceasefire does not change or shift the already heavily altered balance of power in that area of Syria. For all these reasons, the ceasefire does not appear to be a concession by either party but merely a commonsense move to lessen the possibility of a direct confrontation between super-powers.

The military apparatus seems to be focused on the situation in northern Syria, with Raqqa and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) being the central pivot for the US to reach Deir ez-Zor and its associated oilfields. The US State Department, as well as the US military wing involved in Syria, hope to balkanize Syria, dismembering it in different regions and putting Raqqa under the control of a puppet authority in Damascus. However, such American hopes of imposing a Brennan-style governorate as in Iraq is forlorn, as Damascus is the only authority recognized on Syrian territory, and once Raqqa is filled with returning Syrian citizens, such American plans will fall apart. Moreover, the Baghdad authorities have already made clear on two occasions how reluctant they are to support Americans in their military operations. In the case of Mosul, they reiterated that the US deployment and involvement be minimal, while the Iraqi authorities have already announced that they want to place under their full control their border with Syria, in effect hobbling Washington’s plan to leave chaos and instability along the borders of the two countries. The US deep state finds in chaos the ideal way to channel conflict and foment instability. One of the most important objectives of the Syrian and Iraqi armies is therefore to isolate the borders and control the flow of human traffic from one country to the other, nixing in the process what has hitherto been a strategic advantage for Daesh and other terrorist organizations, where they have been free to cross borders with weapons and whatever else they please.

Trump and all the actors involved in this negotiation are finally able to make an agreement between Moscow and Washington stand. Unlike with previous agreements, the US in Syria is now in a worse situation than it was 12 months ago, having failed to achieve many of its strategic objectives. Cooperation with Turkey in northern Syria was wrecked following the liberation of Aleppo and the clear US support for the Kurds (SDF). Similarly, areas of deconfliction in Syria agreed to in Astana (between Iran, Russia and Turkey) have stopped the gains of terrorists in many active areas of the conflict, leading to zero chances of occupying more towns. Such efforts have been important bargaining chips during the various peace negotiations.

The crux of this strategy seems to be a focus on the only possible solution that meets the interests of the deep state’s military wing, related to the original plan to dismantle Syria once the removal of Assad failed. From a certain point of view, it may make sense to focus on the situation in the north of the country in Raqqa, the only area where the US still has some influence. This may be the contorted vision drawn up by contending factions of American deep state. Certainly from the point of view of Moscow, the strategy in Syria is a mix of diplomatic solutions, seeking to reach multiple ceasefire agreements with major players like Turkey and the United States, but never setting aside the war effort carried out by Russia, Iran and Syria.

The agreement between Putin and Trump will firstly benefit Syrian civilians as well as widening the opportunity for the SAA to liberate more towns and villages from the grip of terrorism. It is a long-awaited agreement and solution that is now met by the predominant wing of the US deep state. In the event of a failure of the agreement, Trump will be obligated to point out to the world the subversion of the Washington establishment and its deep state, which works to frustrate his agenda and replace it with its own terrible policies.

Moscow's confidence in deriving concrete benefits from this deal increases hour by hour, thanks to the truce continuing to hold. From the Russian point of view, any military sabotage would once again lay American intentions bare, regardless of Trump's subsequent moves. However, one thing that is certain is that in the case of sabotage, Trump will be faced with having to make a definitive choice.

• Either he will surrender to the deep state, returning the situation back to a state of hyper-conflict with a nuclear superpower; or
• he will confront and overcome the deep state, thereby enabling him to implement his electoral promises.

via http://ift.tt/2thCPbP Tyler Durden

Authored by Joseph Jankowski via PlanetFreeWill.com,

The debate over the role robots will play in the future of warfare is one that is taking place right now as the development of automated lethal technology is truly beginning to take shape. Predator drone style combat machines are just the tip of the iceberg for what is to come down the line of lethal weaponry and some are worried that when robots are calling the shots, things could get a little out of hand.

Recently there has been some debate at the U.N. about “killer robots,” with prominent scientists, researchers, and Human rights organizations all warning that this type of technology – lethal tech. that divorces the need for human control – could cause a slew of unintended consequence to the detriment of humanity.

A study conducted the University of British Columbia shows that this type of terminator-like weaponry isn’t sitting well with the general public, as an overwhelming majority of people, regardless of country or culture, want a complete ban placed upon any further development of these autonomous systems of war.

Despite the warnings of risk and concern, this is not stopping arms manufacturers from taking warfare into the twilight zone and bringing the futuristic battlefield scenario where A.I. robots and human are fighting with each other, side by side, closer to everyday reality.

Kalashnikov, the maker of the iconic AK-47, is one of those manufacturers bringing lethal automation and robotics into the present-day as it is currently building a range of products based on neural networks,’ including a fully automated combat module’ that can identify and shoot at its targets.

Defense One is reporting:

The maker of the famous AK-47 rifle is building “a range of products based on neural networks,” including a “fully automated combat module” that can identify and shoot at its targets. That’s what Kalashnikov spokeswoman Sofiya Ivanova told TASS, a Russian government information agency last week. It’s the latest illustration of how the U.S. and Russia differ as they develop artificial intelligence and robotics for warfare.

 

The Kalashnikov “combat module” will consist of a gun connected to a console that constantly crunches image data “to identify targets and make decisions,” Ivanova told TASS. A Kalashnikov photo that ran with the TASS piece showed a turret-mounted weapon that appeared to fire rounds of 25mm or so.

Defense One points out that in 2012 then-Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter signed a directive forbidding the U.S. to allow any robot or machine to take lethal action without the supervision of a human operator.

Then in 2015, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said fully automated killing machines were un-American.

“I will make a hypothesis: that authoritarian regimes who believe people are weaknesses,” Work said, “that they cannot be trusted, they will naturally gravitate toward totally automated solutions. Why do I know that? Because that is exactly the way the Soviets conceived of their reconnaissance strike complex. It was going to be completely automated. We believe that the advantage we have as we start this competition is our people.”

According to Sergey Denisentsev, a visiting fellow at the Center For Strategic International Studies, Russian weapons makers see robotics and the artificial intelligence driving them as key to future sales to war makers.

“There is a need to look for new market niches such as electronic warfare systems, small submarines, and robots, but that will require strong promotional effort because a new technology sometimes finds it hard to find a buyer and to convince the buyer that he really needs it, ” Denisentsev said earlier this year.

With my previous reporting dealing with robotics and war, I always point out the incredible advances made by Softbank owned Boston Dynamics in the field of A.I., using it as an example of what future warfare could (or most likely will) look like it. And to be honest, it really is nightmarish.

The bottom line is war is a racket. Killing for political reasons is always disastrous. So the fact that governments are on the verge of possessing this terminator technology should send chills down everyone’s spine.

H/T Nicholas West of ActivistPost.com

via http://ift.tt/2vsjYaL Tyler Durden

New York City real estate, particularly the luxury market, is a popular refugee for world’s corrupt, self-dealing public servants and the crooked businessmen who bribe them. China cracked down on wealthy citizens seeking to stash their wealth in international real estate by adding several deterrents to its capital controls earlier this year (Among them, Chinese investors moving money out of the country must now sign a pledge saying it won’t be used to buy real estate, or investment securities). Shortly after, the New York real-estate – literally half a world away – was rattled by a crush of stalled deals.  

So, it’s unsurprising that the mystery behind the largest residential foreclosure auction in NYC history would have this kind of sordid backstory. Last month, we met Kola Aluko, a Nigerian oil magnate and the purported owner of One57’s Apartment 79, a $50 million apartment that will be sold next week in what appears to be the largest foreclosure auction in New York City history.

And now the US government has added a new twist: In a lawsuit filed Friday in Houston by the Justice Department’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, the Feds are seeking to recover $144 million in assets, including proceeds from a luxury condominium on Manhattan’s Billionaires’ Row in New York, which prosecutors claim were spoils from bribes paid for Nigerian oil contracts, according to Bloomberg.

The targets of the suit were none other than Aluko and another Nigerian businessman, Olajide Omokore. However, judging by the government’s price tag, Aluko’s assets – including the One57 condo and Aluko’s $80 million yacht, 213-feet (65 meters) luxury yacht the Galactica Star – appear to be the focus of the suit. In the past, Aluko would frequently rent out his yacht to his friends. In 2015, Jay-Z and Beyonce rented it for the bargain-basement price of $900,000 per week to sail around the Mediterrainean.

The Justice Department alleges that two Nigerian businessmen made corrupt payments to a Nigerian official who oversaw the country’s state-owned oil company in exchange for contracts, according to Bloomberg. The official used her influence to direct contracts to two of their shell companies — Atlantic Energy Drilling Concepts Nigeria Ltd. and Atlantic Energy Brass Development Ltd. — through a subsidiary of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp, according to the complaint. The companies failed to abide by the terms the contracts, yet were permitted to sell more than $1.5 billion worth of Nigerian crude oil, the U.S. alleges. They then laundered the money through the US.

"Corrupt foreign officials and business executives should make no mistake: if illicit funds are within the reach of the United States, we will seek to forfeit them and to return them to the victims from whom they were stolen," Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco said in a statement.

The Justice Department’s recovery lawsuit comes just days before Aluko’s penthouse at One57, one of Manhattan’s most expensive buildings, is scheduled to be sold at a foreclosure auction forced by his mortgage lender, the Luxembourg-based Banque Havilland SA, which said in court filings earlier this year that he failed to pay back the full loan amount in September.

As we’ve previously noted, Aluko took out an 'unusually large' ($35.3 million) mortgage with an even more unusual term: one-year.

Aluko’s condo is a full-floor, 6,240-square-foot (580-square-meter) penthouse that was the eighth-priciest sold in the building located at 157 W. 57th Street, just across the street from Carnegie Hall, according to real estate data firm PropertyShark.

Now of course one lawsuit doesn’t necessarily prove that a market is infested with criminality, but the opaque nature of real-estate transactions, and the ease with which buyers and sellers can conceal their true identities behind LLCs, make buying real estate in a market like NYC an attractive option for any would-be money launderer.

And while one foreclosure certainly doesn’t signal that the market is collapsing, there are other more worrying trends in NYC luxury real estate. As we’ve previously noted, buildings like One57 are struggling with unsustainable vacancy rates. To wit: Nearly 40% of apartments in one comparable building remained on the market years after it had opened.

As Bloomberg points out, One57, along with a cluster of ultra-high end luxury buildings around Central Park collectively known as “Billionaire’s Row,” has become a symbol of New York’s luxury-development boom — and eventual slowdown. The tower, which broke ground in 2009, drew investors willing to pay large sums for lavish residences they rarely lived in, inspiring other developers to build similar offerings, creating an effective “Billionaires' Row” along West 57th Street. One57 still holds the record for the most-expensive residential sale in New York in December 2014 at $100.5 million.

The bribes were paid between 2011 and 2015 to Diezani Alison-Madueke, then Nigeria’s minister for petroleum resources, according to the complaint. The defendants are accused of spending millions to fund a lavish lifestyle for Alison-Madueke. They acquired real estate in London that was used by the minister and her family, and bought her more than $1 million of furniture and artwork from several stores in Houston, Texas, the complaint said.

We wonder: In what tony neigborhood is her apartment?
 

via http://ift.tt/2u0k3TB Tyler Durden

Authored by Paul Roderick Gregory via Forbes.com,

According to an insider account, the Clinton team, put together the Russia Gate narrative within 24 hours of her defeat. The Clinton account explained that Russian hacking and election meddling caused her unexpected loss. Her opponent, Donald Trump, was a puppet of Putin. Trump, they said, “encourages espionage against our people.” The scurrilous Trump dossier, prepared by a London opposition research firm, Orbis, and paid for by unidentified Democrat donors, formed a key part of the Clinton narrative: Trump’s sexual and business escapades in Russia had made him a hostage of the Kremlin, ready to do its bidding. That was Hillary's way to say that Trump is really not President of the United States—a siren call adopted by the Democratic party and media.

Hillary and the Orbis Dossier

The most under-covered story of Russia Gate is the interconnection between the Clinton campaign, an unregistered foreign agent of Russia headquartered in DC (Fusion GPS), and the Christopher Steele Orbis dossier. This connection has raised the question of whether Kremlin prepared the dossier as part of a disinformation campaign to sow chaos in the US political system. If ordered and paid for by Hillary Clinton associates, Russia Gate is turned on its head as collusion between Clinton operatives (not Trump’s) and Russian intelligence. Russia Gate becomes Hillary Gate.

Neither the New York Times, Washington Post, nor CNN has covered this explosive story. Two op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal  (Holman Jenkins and David Satter). The possible Russian-intelligence origins of the Steele dossier have been raised only in conservative publications, such as in The Federalist and National Review.

The Fusion story has been known since Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a heavily-footnoted letter to the Justice Department on March 31, 2017 demanding for his Judiciary Committee all relevant documents on Fusion GPS, the company that managed the Steele dossier against then-candidate Donald Trump. Grassley writes to justify his demand for documents that: “The issue is of particular concern to the Committee given that when Fusion GPS reportedly was acting as an unregistered agent of Russian interests, it appears to have been simultaneously overseeing the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier of allegations of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” (Emphasis added.)

Former FBI director, James Comey, refused to answer questions about Fusion and the Steele dossier in his May 3 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey responded to Lindsey Graham’s questions about Fusion GPS’s involvement “in preparing a dossier against Donald Trump that would be interfering in our election by the Russians?” with “I don’t want to say.” Perhaps he will be called on to answer in a forum where he cannot refuse to answer.

The role of Fusion GPS and one of its key associates, a former Soviet intelligence officer, must raise the question as to whether the Steele dossier, which was orchestrated by a suspected unregistered agent of Russia, was a plant by Russian intelligence to harm Donald Trump?

David Satter, one of our top experts on Russia and himself expelled by the Kremlin, writes:

Perhaps most important, Russian intelligence also acted to sabotage Mr. Trump. The ‘Trump dossier, full of unverified sexual and political allegations, was published in January by BuzzFeed, despite having all the hallmarks of Russian spy agency ‘creativity.’ The dossier was prepared by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer. It employed standard Russian techniques of disinformation and manipulation.

Much of the credibility of the Orbis dossier hinges on Steele’s reputation as a former M15 intelligence agent. Satter writes, however, that “after the publication of the Trump dossier, Mr. Steele went into hiding, supposedly in fear for his life. On March 15, however, Michael Morell, the former acting CIA director, told NBC that Mr. Steele had paid the Russian intelligence sources who provided the information and never met with them directly. In other words, his sources were not only working for pay. Furthermore, Mr. Steele had no way to judge the veracity of their claims.”

If Steele disappeared for fear of his life, we must suspect that he feared murder by Russian agents. The only secret he might have had to warrant such a drastic Russian action would be knowledge that Russian intelligence prepared the dossier.

According to a Vanity Fair article, Fusion GPS was first funded by an anti-Trump Republican donor, but, after Trump’s nomination, Fusion and Steele were paid by Democratic donors whose identity remains secret. Writes Satter: “Perhaps the time has come to expand the investigation into Russia’s meddling to include Mrs. Clinton’s campaign as well.”

As someone who has read every word of the Steele Trump dossier and has studied the Soviet Union/Russia for almost a half century, I can say that the Steele dossier consists of raw intelligence from informants identified by capital letters, who claim (improbably) to have access to the highest levels of the Kremlin. The dossier was not, as the press reports, written by Steele. No matter how experienced (or gullible) Steele might be, there is no way for him to know whether his sources are clandestine Russian intelligence agents.

In Stalin's day, some of the most valued KGB (NKVD) agents were called "novelists," for their ability to conjure up fictional plots and improbable tales to use against their enemies. Some of Steele's sources claim detailed knowledge of the deepest Kremlin secrets, such as Putin's personal control of Clinton emails or negotiations with Putin's head of the national oil company. If they truly had such knowledge, why would they "sell" it to Steele? The most likely explanation is that the Steele dossier is the work of Russian intelligence "novelists" charged by the Kremlin with defaming Trump and adding chaos to the American political system.

Mueller’s Difficult Task

While leaks from within the investigation focus on possible obstruction of justice, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s writ – to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election – requires him to consider “matters” that Dems would prefer be left alone.

Special Counsel Mueller has been given a broad charge and no deadline — a formula for trouble. He is supposed to “investigate Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election.” Given the many accounts of Russian contacts of Trump campaign officials and hangers-on, Mueller must follow these leads, which apparently have lead nowhere over a nine month investigation as reported even by Trump unfriendly sources like CNN. Mueller, therefore, should not require much time to rule out coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia state actors. Mueller must be careful to avoid detours into loosely related issue by scalp-hunting investigators. Mueller also must shut down leaks from within his office, if he wishes his reports to be credible to the American people.

Mueller must also conduct an investigation which is perceived as fair to both sides. On the Clinton/Democratic side, there are a number of unanswered questions related to Russian electoral intervention. Among them is the question of whether the “wiped clean” Clinton e-mails are in Russian hands (as asserted by the Steele dossier), whether  the tarmac meeting of Bill Clinton and the Attorney General quashed the investigation of Hillary’s e-mails, and whether the  Clintons and Russian uranium interests engaged in quid pro quo and “pay to play” operations. 

The most important unanswered question is whether the Clinton campaign funded the Orbis Trump smear campaign and did they understand the campaign could be conducted by Russian intelligence?

Mueller must question Steele himself on his sources and some of the sources themselves, investigate whether they could be Russian intelligence agents, and determine the role of Clinton donors and campaign officials in the funding of the anti-Trump dossier.

The Fusion-Steele matter is explosive because it suggests that Russia’s most damaging intervention in the 2016 campaign may have been its creation of the Steele Dossier, remarkably paid for by the Clinton campaign! If so, the Clinton campaign (not Trump) was the prime sponsor of Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election.

via http://ift.tt/2utIPh7 Tyler Durden

Following more dismal data from the US, hope for global growth remains in China and they did not disappoint. Despite slumping macro data, a major slowdown in real estate, and the nation's deleveraging efforts in the last three months, GDP beat, Retail Sales beat, Industrial Production surged, and even fixed asset investment was above expectations. The Yuan hasn't moved.

For the last three months, Chinese data has been disappointing, along with US, as the collapsing credit impulse leaks into reality…

But exports and consumer spending have been pillars for the economy over the second quarter, offsetting the curb on leverage, and tonight's data shows that none of that matters.. because the deleveraging economy beat across the board

• China GDP BEAT 6.9% (exp +6.8%, prior +6.9%)
• China Retail Sales BEAT 11.0% (exp +10.6%, prior +10.7%)
• China Fixed Asset Investment BEAT 8.6% (exp +8.5%, prior +8.6%)
• China Industrial Production BEAT 7.6% (exp +6.5%, prior +6.5%)

As the charts below show, more of the same well-managed data to show that all is well enough that hope remains…Strong growth again reflects an economy awash in credit, foretold in the latest new yuan loans (1.54 trillion yuan) and aggregate social financing (1.78 trillion yuan).

Enda Curran, Bloomberg's Chief Asia Economics Correspondent, notes that at first glance there's not a lot for the bears in these numbers given they appear strong across the board. The backdrop though continues to be one of cheap credit and mounting risks. That's an issue policy makers say they are aware of but for now, it seems like growth above all else is key.

Iris Pang, greater China economist at ING Bank in Hong Kong:

"Higher than expected GDP growth comes from strong industrial production. That said, the gap between FAI growth and industrial production growth tells the story that it is consumption and export driven growth."

We wonder how long before the lagged response to the credit impulse collapse hits GDP... (NOTE the weaker and weaker reactions in GDP to credit impulse surges)

 

The reaction in Yuan is underwhelming for now… (after its biggest weekly gain since March)

 

China's stock market ripped back higher (after an early plunge) ahead of China's data dump, and held those gains as the data hit (we wonder if someone got wind of the data a little early?).

As a reminder, Japan is closed for a holiday so we are not getting the usual juice from BoJ shenanigans on any move.

via http://ift.tt/2tZS5Yh Tyler Durden