Month: May 2016

Whether it was funded by Soros, the CIA, the Rothschilds or even Putin is unclear, but moments ago the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists – the group responsible for preparing and organizing the Panama Papers leak – published a searchable database laying out 214,000 offshore entities created in 21 jurisdictions, from Nevada to Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands.

According to the ICIJ, "the data, part of the Panama Papers investigation, is the largest ever release of information about offshore companies and the people behind them. This includes, when available, the names of the real owners of those opaque structures."

The database also displays information about more than 100,000 additional offshore entities ICIJ had already disclosed in its 2013 Offshore Leaks investigation.  ICIJ is publishing the information in the public interest.

 

The new data that ICIJ is now making public represents a fraction of the Panama Papers, a trove of more than 11.5 million leaked files from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, one of the world’s top creators of hard-to-trace companies, trusts and foundations.

 

ICIJ is not publishing the totality of the leak, and it is not disclosing raw documents or personal information en masse. The database contains a great deal of information about company owners, proxies and intermediaries in secrecy jurisdictions, but it doesn’t disclose bank accounts, email exchanges and financial transactions contained in the documents.

 

* * *

 

On Friday, the anonymous leaker of the Panama Papers, known only as “John Doe,” spoke publicly for the first time in a written statement and called out for concrete steps to combat tax havens. “In the European Union, every member state’s corporate register should be freely accessible, with detailed data plainly available on ultimate beneficial owners,” the source wrote. Doe added that the US “can clearly no longer trust its fifty states to make sound decisions about their own corporate data.”

According to the ICIJ, the interactive application reveals more than 360,000 names of people and companies behind secret offshore structures. For those who wish to search the database, it is accessible after the jump (the only problem is that the server is so deluged with traffic it will likely 404 for the next several hours).

Finally, the ICIJ was quick to give the following disclaimer: "While the interactive application opens up a world that has never been shown in this much detail, not every owner of a company that appears in the Panama Papers shows up in the public database." Why?

This is because ownership information is often buried in emails, power-of-attorney letters and internal notes of Mossack Fonseca employees and cannot easily be extracted in a systematic manner. In addition, Mossack Fonseca often failed to collect the necessary information about the ultimate owners of companies, relying instead on banks and other intermediaries to keep track of that essential data.

Readers can search the full database below:

Even as a curious name not mentioned so far emerges:

Those who would rather play with the source data instead, can find it on the following 35.7MB torrent file.

via http://ift.tt/24H3APY Tyler Durden

Former Goldmanite, and current Minneapolis Fed president and paradoxical “crusader” against TBTF banks and bank bailouts (such as the one he was instrumental in drafting during the financial crisis) Neil Kashkari, spoke moments ago at the Economic Club of Minnesota, where he delivered a speech titled “The Role and Limitations of Monetary Policy.” Among the otherwise irrelevant things he said the following:

• KASHKARI: WE’RE HERE TO SERVE MAIN STREET

Which is ironic for numerous reasons, among them being what SF Fed president John Wiliams said last week during the Milken Conference when asked what the biggest systemic financial risk is. To be sure, if it was all about “main street”, the Fed’s biggest worry would be deteriorating wages, a collapse in employment, the elimination of pensions, or the collapse of interest on savings. No; instead Williams said the biggest systemic financial risk currently is the possibility that “broad sets of assets are going to see big movements downward” as interest rates rise. “That’s an area that I think is a potential risk.“

Ah yes, because to Main Street – whom he “serves” – the biggest risk is a big drop in assets prices.

As for Kashkari’s laughable joke, here are some of our favorite charts showing just how well the Fed has “served” not just Main Street, but the tens of millions of incrasingly older US retirees whose only source of income is, or rather used to be, fixed income and savings.

So, as Mike Krieger concluded so eloquently…

The next question one should ask is, how has Wall Street helped the U.S. in order to deserve such incredible financial success? Well they mass produced fraudulent products, destroyed the global economy and then demanded a massive taxpayer bailout for starters. A year after the banker bailouts, Wall Street bonuses were at record highs, while Americans were still being kicked out of their homes. That’s about as close a link you’re going to find between Wall Street and Main Street.

 

The reason we bring this up today is not to increase the public’s rage against the bloated financial sector and the obvious harm it does to society, but to highlight an example of how the status quo invents and propagates a myth in order to deceive the public. The good news is that they always keep recycling the same myths, so once we understand their game plan, the potency of their lies diminishes. Let’s make sure they can’t use the Wall Street/Main Street one ever again.

They just did, because if you repeat a lie long enough…

via http://ift.tt/1rLO6fc Tyler Durden

It often comes as a surprise to those unfamiliar with the Bank of Japan’s M.O., that unlike other developed central banks (except the SNB, of course, while even the PBOC recently admitted it now buys stocks directly to prop up the Chinese stock market via the Buttonwood SPV), the BoJ has no qualms about admitting it actively purchases equities, either in the form of single name stocks or, more actively in recent years, ETFs. Or, as the case may now be, selling them. 

In a two year period starting in 2002, and then again in the 2009-2010 post-crisis interval, the Bank of Japan, purchased stocks from commercial banks in doubtful financial health to “reduce their exposure to the stock market.”  The BOJ ended this policy in April 2010 but held on to the stocks for fear of precipitating a broader sell-off. It then moved on to an even more aggressive monetary policy when prime minister Abe launched the latest Japanese QE in 2012, as part of which the Japanese central bank would purchase not only unprecedented amounts of government bonds but also ETFs and REITs, and potentially other risk assets.

However, in a stark reminder, that what central banks buy they eventually have to sell, Japan’s Nikkei writes that the Bank of Japan has begun selling equities it bought from commercial banks in the previous decade to ease anxiety over the financial sector.

But before some interpret the move as a risk to Japan’s stock “market” as the biggest equity backstopper now becomes a seller, concurrent with the BOJ’s liquidations Kuroda will offset these divestments with extra purchases of exchange-traded funds, in effect netting out selling with even more stock buying.

According to the Nikkei, the book value of these BOJ-owned shares fell 16.2 billion yen ($149 million) last month, based on data from account balances published every 10 days. Over the next 10 years, the Bank of Japan plans to divest the entire lot, which had a book value of slightly more than ¥1.3 trillion at the end of April, roughly $12 billion in dollar terms.

The chunk sold last month appears to have had a market value of around ¥30 billion yen, the Nikkei reports.

And just so the selling of equities by a central bank is not perceived as an implicit form of tightening, to neutralize the impact of this selling on the stock market, the BOJ has increased its annual domestic-stock ETF purchases by ¥300 billion. The additional buying, spread out in increments of ¥1.2 billion per trading day, totaled ¥22.8 billion in April. 

From May onward, the central bank will expand ETF buying to funds “targeting companies that invest enthusiastically in their operations and employees.” As opposed to grudgingly? 

The bank’s mainstay ETF tracks the JPX-Nikkei Index 400, which is designed partly to promote the efficient use of capital. That probably does not explain why Goldman expects that Japanese companies will buy back a record 7.5 trillion yen ($64 billion) of shares over the next 12 months.

Putting the gross selling (and new buying) in context, the BOJ will continue to buy 3 trillion yen of ETFs a year as part of its monetary easing policy. The question is what will happen if and when the BOJ has to start divesting of all the trillions in equity and JGB holdings with which it has filled its balance sheet. That, of course, is a rhetorical question, for one simple reason: it will never happen.

via http://ift.tt/278cbNS Tyler Durden

Seemingly unfazed by the recent European Commission proposal to punish countries which refuse to comply with “fair” refugee allocation quotas with fines as high as €250,000 per asylum seeker, the head of Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party and former PM Jaroslaw Kaczynski said that no refugees will be accepted in Poland “as they pose a threat to security” adding that Poland will oppose any law forcing EU members to pay €250,000 per refused refugee.

“After recent events connected with acts of terror [Poland] will not accept refugees because there is no mechanism that would ensure security,” Law and Justice (PiS) chair Kaczynski said on Saturday, as quoted by Radio Poland. Needless to say, Poland is also vocally opposed to the abovementioned proposal, announced last week, which would force EU member states to pay €250,000 per refused refugee. The common complaint voiced not only by Poland, but all Eastern European nations who would suffer the most from Europe’s aggressive refugee reallocation proposal is that the goal of the EC is to redistribute the weight of the refugee crisis from countries such as Greece by introducing automatic asylum quotas for each EU member state.

Protesters hold flags as they gathers during anti-immigrant rally in Warsaw

“Such a decision would abolish the sovereignty of EU member states – of course, the weaker ones. We don’t agree to that, we have to oppose that, because we are and we will be in charge in our own country,” Kaczynski said adding that “this is the position of the prime minister and the whole of PiS… From the beginning we felt that this issue should be resolved, assisting refugees outside the EU.”

Others agreed. The Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said last week that the quota system is “a bad system…it makes no sense.”

Poland has been very vocal in its opposition to accepting migrants. According to the European Commission proposal, Poland, which has an existing quota of 6,500, would have to pay over €1 billion ($1.1 billion) if it were to refuse to accept any refugees, according to Financial Times. Kaczynski also addressed the recent anti-government protest Warsaw, stressing that the demonstrators tried “to impose on us the forced acceptance of immigrants.”

Hungary and Slovakia have also lashed out at the European Commission’s quota system. “Regarding the fines proposed by the European Commission, it is blackmailing,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said last week. Szijjarto called the quota system a “dead-end street” and asked the Commission not to follow through with it.

The Slovak Interior Minister Robert Kalinak also opined saying that the timing of the Commission’s proposal was difficult, given efforts to reach consensus on closing migrant routes and reaching a deal on refugees with Turkey. “In the middle of these very sensitive talks, a proposal is put on the table that sets us back nine months and does not reflect reality in some aspects,” he said.

What is surprising is the curious carrot-stick approach that has emerged in Europe: carrot when interacting with Turkey, by paying the country’s increasingly despotic leader Erdogan billions to keep as many refugees within Turkey’s borders, and stick when dealing with EU member states, threatening punishment if they refuse to offload some of the refugee burden borne by countries like Germany. The irony, of course, is that it was the insistence of Merkel in 2015 to open Europe up to millions of Syrian refugees in hopes this may end up boosting domestic economic growth, only to see a huge popular revulsion to the influx of immigrants which as we reported earlier today cost the Austrian Chancellor his job and has led to Germany’s AfD anti-Muslim party soaring to third place in the political polls.

As RT adds, solving the migration problem is a top priority for the EU, as it continues to face the worst refugee crisis since World War II. According to a February report compiled by the International Organization for Migration, more than 100,000 people have arrived in Greece, and 7,507 in Italy, since the beginning of the year. It is troubling that as part of the solution, Brussels is facing not only a collapse of the Schengen customs union, but even greater alienation between core European nations and the more recent, and far poorer, Eastern European entrants who rightfully see themselves as secondary actors in an increasingly unequal and crumbling “union” in which just a handful of top power countries call the shots.

via http://ift.tt/1XhpKWT Tyler Durden

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Imagine being told by some politico that if you're truly a fan of the Golden State Warriors, you must vote for him to "prove your loyalty" as a Warriors fan.

Multiculturalism is often an excuse for identity politics: the (politically useful) notion that every member of an ethnic or religious group "should" support policies A,B & C and vote for candidates X, Y and Z based solely on their membership in an identity that is a useful tool for political exploitation.

Multiculturalism is not about identity politics–it's about being recognized as an individual with your own character, experience, values and views. Yes, we draw upon our genetic heritage, our experience of race, gender and faith, and a thousand other confluences of life in America and the world beyond.

But no individual can be reduced down to race, gender and faith–which is the entire purpose of identity politics. Identity politics is a specific form of propaganda that exploits our sense of membership in various groups into support for specific policies and politicos.

The implicit threat of identity politics is that if you fail to support the (propagandized) policy / politico, then you've betrayed your group and identity.

This force-feeding of political choices as "proof of identity" is a powerful tool of propaganda. If you're a true American, for example, you'll support the latest war of choice. Refusing to support the "official" position transforms you into an enemy that must be mocked, ridiculed, harassed and marginalized with slurs and put-downs.

Dissent and thinking for oneself means you're un-American, unpatriotic, or other identity-based slams: an Oreo, Banana or Coconut (black / yellow / brown on the outside, white on the inside), not a "real" Christian (i.e. you don't accept my political interpretation of faith), a "real" Muslim, a "real" environmentalist, etc. etc.

Identity politics are powerful tools for demagoguery and bias, and the way to eliminate these threats is to eliminate identity politics altogether. The way to eliminate demagoguery and bias is to think for yourself and reject all propaganda aimed at boxing you into an identity-based position.

The next president of the U.S. will be the elected leader of 323,341,000 individuals, not a bunch of identity-based (and politically potent) stereotypical mythologies. I don't know about you, but I don't know any mythological immigrants, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans, etc.–I only know individuals.

The Dark Side of Politics–identity politics–is powerful indeed, and an irresistible draw for politicos and interest groups bent on preserving or extending their own private power and wealth.

Don't give in to the Dark Side–think for yourself and make political, social and economic decisions as an individual. The only way we'll rid the American polity of its cancer–the privileged few benefit at the expense of the many–is to vote against everyone singing the siren song of identity politics for their own benefit.

Imagine being told by some politico that if you're truly a fan of the Golden State Warriors, you must vote for him to "prove your loyalty" as a Warriors fan. This is absurd, but it's identity politics in a nutshell.

via http://ift.tt/1T1czEh Tyler Durden

Chanos 1 – 0 Musk…

via http://ift.tt/1T1cCjt Tyler Durden

The London property bubble shows renewed signs that it is beginning to burst. Property sellers in the UK have reduced their asking prices and London property prices have fallen by 7.8 per cent on average and as much as 30% in some areas according to City AM today.

City AM – Data via Zoopla

“People trying to sell their homes are increasingly having to mark down their original asking price – and the amount they are dropping it by is going up.

Last month we heard that sellers in some London boroughs were having to drop prices by as much as 29 per cent, but new research suggests the issue is even more wide-spread – and the amounts are getting bigger.

On average, sellers are now reducing their asking price by more than £25,000 – a jump of £4,000 of 17 per cent since the start of the year, according to Zoopla.

Almost a third (29 per cent) of properties currently listed for sale on the portal have had their price reduced at least once since originally being listed – an increase of 0.43 per cent since start of 2016.

London certainly has its fair share of price cut-backs – as with the previous study, Kensington & Chelsea came out top, but this time around there is an even higher proportion of homes being marked down (33.3 per cent compared with 29 per cent). Homes in this borough were reduced on average by £137,421.

London as a whole had an average reduction percentage of 7.8 per cent – above the overall national average of 6.86 per cent.”

The full article can be on City AM here.

Sharp falls in London and UK home prices will severely impact the heavily indebted and vulnerable UK economy.

Gold and Silver Prices and News
Gold slips as dollar holds firm after U.S. jobs data (Reuters)
Belarus Central bank deputy wants to build up gold and fx reserves (Reuters)
Japan Stocks Rise First Time in Seven Sessions After U.S. Jobs (Bloomberg)
Gold jumps after U.S. payrolls data misses forecasts (Reuters)
Gold Jumps as Jobs Deal ‘Devastating Blow’ to Fed Rates Outlook (Bloomberg)

Jim Grant Asks When World Will Realize “That Central Bankers Have Lost Their Marbles” (Zero Hedge)
Historic Dow Jones-Silver Ratio Points To $300 Silver (SRS Rocco Report)
Death of the Gold Market (Mylchreest via GATA)
Gold—and the COT Report: Words Fail Me (Goldseek)
Why Gold Is Hot Again (Bloomberg)
Read More Here

Gold Prices (LBMA)
09 May: USD 1,277.75, EUR 1,121.54 and GBP 884.68 per ounce
06 May: USD 1,280.25, EUR 1,121.06 and GBP 883.04 per ounce
05 May: USD 1,275.75, EUR 1,114.95 and GBP 879.23 per ounce
04 May: USD 1,280.30, EUR 1,114.18 and GBP 883.59 per ounce
03 May: USD 1,296.50, EUR 1,118.15 and GBP 881.32 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)
09 May: USD 17.33, EUR 15.21 and GBP 11.99 per ounce
06 May: USD 17.31, EUR 15.15 and GBP 11.93 per ounce
05 May: USD 17.38, EUR 15.21 and GBP 12.01 per ounce
04 May: USD 17.18, EUR 14.96 and GBP 11.86 per ounce
03 May: USD 17.49, EUR 15.10 and GBP 11.92 per ounce

Read Our Most Popular Guides in Recent Months

via http://ift.tt/1UNbaFP GoldCore