Month: October 2018

The FBI has refused to declassify 37 pages of materials related to the Uranium One deal, citing national security and the privacy issues, reports The Hill‘s John Solomon. The documents are thought to contain information regarding then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s involvement, as well as the Obama administration’s knowledge of the controversial deal. 

The existence of the documents became known after a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release of related material contained an entry entitled “Uranium One Transaction.” The publicly available portion includes benign material, such as public letters from members of Congress who demanded information on the Uranium One approval. 

Perhaps the FBI’s unexpected “release” — and I use that word loosely, since they gave up no public information of importance — in the FOIA vault was a warning flare designed to remind America there might be evidence worth looking at.

One former U.S. official, who had access to the evidence shared with CFIUS during the Uranium One deal, said this to me: “There is definitely material that would be illuminating to the issues that have been raised. Somebody should fight to make it public.”

That somebody could be President Trump, who could add these 37 pages of now-secret documents to his declassification order he is considering in the Russia case. –The Hill

William Campbell and the FBI 

In October of 2017, John Solomon and Alison Spann broke the story of former CIA and FBI undercover agent, William D Campbell – who remained unnamed until this year. Campbell was deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI – which paid him a $51,000 “thank you” award for his service.

“For several years my relationship with the CIA consisted of being debriefed after foreign travel,” Campbell noted in his testimony, which was obtained by this reporter. “Gradually, the relationship evolved into the CIA tasking me to travel to specific countries to obtain specific information. In the 1990’s I developed a working relationship with Kazakhstan and Russia in their nuclear energy industries. When I told the CIA of this development, I was turned over to FBI counterintelligence agents.” –saracarter.com 

While undercover, Campbell was forced by the Russians (with the FBI’s blessing) to launder large sums of money – which allowed the FBI to uncover a massive Russian “nuclear money laundering apparatus.” Campbell claims to have collected over 5,000 documents along with video evidence of money being stuffed into suitcases, Russians bragging about bribing the West, and millions of dollars routed to the Clinton foundation. 

The evidence was compiled as Secretary Clinton courted Russia for better relations, as her husband former President Clinton collected a $500,000 speech payday in Moscow, and as the Obama administration approved the sale of a U.S. mining company, Uranium One, to Rosatom. –The Hill

Campbell initially discovered that Moscow had compromised an Maryland-based uranium trucking firm, Transport Logistics International (TLI) in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – which bribed a Russian nuclear official in exchange for a contract transport Russian-mined U.S. uranium, including “yellowcake” uranium secured in the Uranium One deal.

He delivered bribes from TLI in $50,000 increments to Russian nuclear official Vadim Mikerin of Tenex. Under orders from the FBI in order to maintain his cover, Campbell fronted hundreds of thousands of dollars he says he was never reimbursed for. As a result of Campbell’s work, TLI co-president Mark Lambert was charged in an 11-count indictment in connection with the scheme, while Vadim Mikerin, who resides in Maryland, was prosecuted in 2015 and handed a four-year sentence.

Second, Campbell says that Russian nuclear officials revealed a scheme to route millions of dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) through lobbying firm ARPCO, which was expected to funnel a portion of its annual $3 million lobbying fee to the charity. 

“The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.“ –William Campbell

Campbell told Congressional investigators that the Uranium One deal along with billions in other uranium contracts inside the United States during the Obama administration was part of a “Russian uranium dominance strategy” involving Tenex and its American arm Tenem – both subsidiaries of state-owned Russian energy company Rosatom. 

“The emails and documents I intercepted during 2010 made clear that Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One – for both its Kazakh and American assets – was part of Russia’s geopolitical strategy to gain leverage in global energy markets,” he testified.  “I obtained documentary proof that Tenex was helping Rosatom win CFIUS approval, including an October 6, 2010 email …  asking me specifically to help overcome opposition to the Uranium One deal.” 

“Rosatom/Tenex threw a party to celebrate, which was widely attended by American nuclear industry officials. At the request of the FBI, I attended and recorded video footage of Tenam’s new offices,” he added.

Officials with APCO – the lobbying firm accused of funneling the money to the Clinton Global Initiative, told The Hill that its support for CGI and its work for Russia were not connected in any way, and involved different divisions of the firm. 

What did Obama know?

As Solomon notes, a giant question remains that may be solved by the release of the 37-pages of classified information; what did the Obama administration know about this? 

Did the FBI notify then-President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other leaders on the CFIUS board about Rosatom’s dark deeds before the Uranium One sale was approved, or did the bureau drop the ball and fail to alert policymakers?

Neither outcome is particularly comforting. Either the United States, eyes wide open, approved giving uranium assets to a corrupt Russia, or the FBI failed to give the evidence of criminality to the policymakers before such a momentous decision. –The Hill

Campbell says that his FBI handlers assured him that Obama had been briefed by then-FBI Diretor Mueller on Rosatom’s criminal activities as part of the president’s daily briefing, however “politics” was the reason that the sale was approved anyway. 

Smearing Campbell

After Solomon broke the Campbell story, Democrats viciously attacked Campbell, a cancer-stricken man showered by praise by the Obama administration at a 2016 celebration dinner in Crystal City, VA. Since his undercover work in Russia, Campbell has undergone 35 intensive radiation treatments after being diagnosed with brain cancer and leukemia. 

Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News wrote an article slamming Campbell – saying he would be a “disaster” as a witness because some of his claims could not be documented, an anonymous source told Isikoff (Isikoff’s Yahoo News article was used by the FBI to support the FISA spy warrant on Trump aide Carter Page, after Isikoff was fed information by Christopher Steele).

Meanwhile, in a move which can only be interpreted as an effort to protect the FBI, the Obama administration and the Clintons, AG Jeff Sessions and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein even tried to suggest the nuclear bribery case uncovered by Campbell is not connected to the Uranium One deal. 

Via John Solomon last November: 

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions in testimony last week and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in a letter to the Senate last month tried to suggest there was no connection between Uranium One and the nuclear bribery case. Their argument was that the criminal charges weren’t filed until 2014, while the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) approval of the Uranium One sale occurred in October 2010.” –The Hill 

This rubbed several Congressional GOP the wrong way:

“Attorney General Sessions seemed to say that the bribery, racketeering and money laundering offenses involving Tenex’s Vadim Mikerin occurred after the approval of the Uranium One deal by the Obama administration. But we know that the FBI’s confidential informant was actively compiling incriminating evidence as far back as 2009,” Rep. Ron DeSantis, (R-Fla.) told The Hill, adding “It is hard to fathom how such a transaction could have been approved without the existence of the underlying corruption being disclosed”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a similar rebuke to Rosenstein, saying the deputy attorney general’s first response to the committee “largely missed the point” of the congressional investigations. 

Between the DOJ stonewalling Campbell and the MSM smear job he was subjected to after he went public, perhaps it’s more important than ever that those 37 pages see the light of day. 

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

Authored by Derrick Broze via ConsciousResistance.com,

As the push towards 5G-powered ‘Smart’ surveillance cities begins across the United States the Federal Communications Commission has approved a new rule limiting the power of local authorities.

On Monday October 1st, Sacramento, Houston, Indianapolis and Los Angeles became the first cities to gain access to Verizon’s 5G Wireless service. The City of Sacramento has become a focus of Verizon’s nationwide expansion of 5G, or 5th Generation Cellular technology. “We were able to make Sacramento one of our first 5G cities because Mayor Darrell Steinberg and city leaders embraced innovation and developed a strategic vision for how 5G could be a platform for the larger Sacramento technology ecosystem,” said Jonathan LeCompte, Pacific Market president for Verizon.

The rollout of 5G is expected to herald the beginning of Smart Cities, where driverless cars, pollution sensors, cell phones, traffic lights, and thousands of other devices interact in what is known as “The Internet of Things”. The move towards the smart grid was hastened last week when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a rule that will limit the role of local authorities regarding the build of 5G networks, specifically the amount city officials can charge telecommunication companies (“Big Tech”).

The Hill reported on the new rule:

“All four commissioners offered support for the rule, with Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel dissenting over only part of the proposal. When the new rules take effect, local officials will have 60 to 90 days to review installation requests.

Republicans on the commission say that limiting what they see as exorbitant fees in major cities will free up capital for companies like Verizon and AT&T to invest in building out their networks in underserved rural areas. The commission estimated that the rule will save wireless providers $2 billion.”

However, there are those who are resisting the race towards the “smart” future. The mayors of Los Angeles and Philadelphia opposed the rule and accused the FCC of overriding local authority to regulate the new technology. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti sent a letter to the FCC stating that the rules would override previous agreements established by local authorities and Verizon and AT&T. In addition, before the vote a group of House Democrats wrote to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai asking him to cancel the vote.

“This is extraordinary federal overreach,” Rosenworcel said of the rule. “I do not believe the law permits Washington to run roughshod over state and local authority like this and I worry the litigation that follows will only slow our 5G future.” The Hill also notes that critics argue that the rush to a 5G future is leading to an increased “digital divide” between those who have faster internet abilities and those who do not.

Sascha Meinrath, the Palmer Chair in Telecommunications for Pennsylvania State University, believes the rule will contribute to decreased competition. “What’s preventing deployment is not permitting fees from local governments, its anti-competitive behavior from the incumbents,” he told InsideSources in an interview. “If you study telecom history, this is a cycle that happens again and again and again.”

Is 5G safe?

Other concerns of the 5G expansion include potential health risks due to the need for an increase in cellular equipment. 5G technology is reported to be 100 times faster than current speeds but the signal is short so cities must install thousands of new “small cells” on current infrastructure, as well as new equipment. Critics worry about the health impact of these cells. GovTech reports:

“Additionally, the proliferation of small cells has prompted worries over potential health risks, particularly given how close some pole-mounted antennas are to homes. The FCC last updated its radiation exposure guidelines more than two decades ago, based mostly on existing cellphone towers. Citizens in several communities have protested installations, and the agency is in the process of updating its standards.”

The Verge also reported that the “FCC excludes these small cell cites from being reviewed for environmental impacts and impacts on the historical character of an area. It also limits review on tribal lands.” Health concerns regarding the dangers of cell phones and 5G have been prompted by a May 2011 assessment in which the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified cell phones as Category 2B for “possibly carcinogenic to humans“. In addition, in August 2016, the LA Times asked, “Is 5G technology dangerous? Early data shows a slight increase of tumors in male rats exposed to cellphone radiation”.

That report shows that National Toxicology Program researchers released preliminary data in May 2016 which showed small increases in tumors in male rats exposed to cellphone radiation. The rats were exposed to nine hours of radiation daily, in 10-minutes-on, 10-minutes-off intervals, over their whole bodies for two years. The researchers found increased incidences of rare brain and heart tumors starting at about the federally allowable level of cellphone radiation for brain exposure, with greater incidences at about two and four times those levels.

Privacy, a Thing of the Past

The coming Smart Grid also threatens to wipe away the last vestiges of privacy – all in the name of convenience, novelty, and (allegedly) safety. However, the dangers are largely being ignored in favor of touting the perceived benefits. The ACLU described the surveillance dangers of 5G technology:

“Many of these technologies involve cameras that can be tasked with jobs that range from keeping track of traffic to monitoring when the corner trash can gets full. The problems start when they’re also used for tracking people and their movements. In a city blanketed with cameras — including in LED light bulbs found in streetlights — it would be very easy for the government to track which political meetings, religious institutions, doctors offices, and other sensitive locations people go to and to focus its attention even more on traditionally over-policed communities. This is why these “Smart Cities” are also referred to as “Surveillance Cities.”

The FCC and city officials must conduct further studies on the potential health effects related to the roll out of 5G. Also, the people of these cities must have a chance to comment on the health and privacy implications. Unfortunately, it seems most people are either totally in the dark about this situation or welcoming 5G because of the prospect of “living in the future now.”

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

As the return of turmoil to the Italian market has demonstrated, the decision by the current Italian government to target a deficit of 2.4% of GDP in each year through 2021 constitutes a meaningful deviation from the commitments made by the previous government to the European Commission of a projected deficit of 0.8% in 2019. The news sent BTP spreads back to the top end of their range since May, with today’s 10-year yield reaching a local high of 3.4%, surpassing the May highs.

And while some commentators see the localized turbulence in Italian markets as exaggerated – especially due to the lack of any 2nd order contagion effects – in a note this morning, Goldman’s Matteo Crimella lists three reasons to expect high volatility to persist for the time being:

First, the planned fiscal expansion, while not extreme, is sizable enough to renew investor concerns about the long-term sustainability of Italy’s public debt stock, in large part owing to the expected deterioration in the country’s primary surplus. A lower primary surplus increases the vulnerability of the economy to growth and market shocks, and worsens the outlook for the public finances, especially when the stock of public debt is already elevated and growth is unlikely to benefit much from fiscal easing owing to a low fiscal multiplier. The parliamentary budget office reports that, cumulatively over the past eight years, the government primary surplus has reduced Italy’s debt-to-GDP ratio by approximately 11.5 percentage points. Positive growth and lower interest expenditures (compared with 2011-2013) have also supported the stabilization of the Italian debt level over the past few years (Exhibit 1). With a lower expected primarily surplus, higher funding costs and soft economic activity, considerations of long-term debt sustainability pose a challenge to forward debt/GDP dynamics, and have meant investors have required a higher risk premium on Italian government bonds.

Second, the increase in government funding needs stemming from a higher public deficit comes in conjunction with the slowdown and forthcoming end of the ECB’s net asset purchases. The’s ECB quantitative easing program initiated by the ECB in March 2015 is coming to an end this year. Since its initiation, the central bank has purchased €360bn-worth of Italian government bonds and we expect it to buy another €5.5bn in the last quarter of this year. From January 2019 onwards, Goldman expects new purchases to end and reinvestments of the Italian government bond portfolio to average EUR3-3.5bn/month in 2019 (Exhibit 2).

Over the past few years, ECB buying of medium-/long-term debt has allowed the Italian Treasury to increase the average life of government debt by approximately 0.5 years and to bring it back to levels seen before the global financial crisis. Despite an increased reliance on term debt, the Italian Treasury has to roll over approximately EUR400bn in securities per year (including short-term securities). With ECB demand diminishing, the increase in supply to the private sector will likely represent an additional headwind to BTPs.

Third, heightened market volatility in recent months may have had lasting effects on BTP liquidity and market depth. In Exhibit 4, Goldman shows the average daily volumes of Italian government securities on cash secondary markets (M.T.S.) during April, May and June 2018. The volumes of BTPs exchanged in June, following the selloff of Italian bonds initiated at the end of May, have been almost one-third of those observed in April and May.

While these data refer to a few months ago, the collapse in volumes, accompanied by a meaningful increase in bid/ask spreads (Exhibit 5), point to a potentially severe deterioration of market liquidity, which in Goldman’s view has resulted in increasingly gappy price action.

In light of these three factors: rising government debt, fading ECB support, and diminished market liquidity, in the short term Goldman expects the volatility of Italian government bonds to remain elevated:

While the broader market seems to have partly moved on from Italy’s risk and international financial spillovers have been relatively muted thus far, we believe the current situation is an unstable equilibrium. After all, the new budget proposal will  likely increase the odds of negative reactions from Brussels and rating agencies, and consequently the risk of additional  volatility and curve flattening pressures.

Finally, while conceding that both the near- and medium-term outlook for BTPs remains highly uncertain, Goldman’s best guess for what happens in the near future is that spreads will trade closer to the high end of their range since May for the time being. Specifically, “a move through 300bp in spreads is possible and, if sustained, would likely require a policy change at the national or European level.” Who knows, it may even prompt the ECB to delay the December 31, 2018 end date of its QE program…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2NXSK9K Tyler Durden

It would seem the Democrats had better quickly switch the Kavanaugh narrative back to him being an immature teenage drinker quickly as The Washington Post reports that, according to sources, three witnesses whom Christine Blasey Ford alleges were at the party in her testimony have told The FBI that they do not recall the gathering.

The FBI has talked to alleged party guests Patrick J. Smyth, Mark Judge and Leland Keyser:

“[Smyth] truthfully answered every question the FBI asked him and, consistent with the information he previously provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he indicated that he has no knowledge of the small party or gathering described by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, nor does he have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh,” Smyth’s lawyer Eric B. Bruce said in a statement, according to WaPo.

Having denied the Ford and Swetnick allegations in a formal statement, Judge’s lawyer Barbara Van Gelder said in a statement Monday, according to CNN:

“Mr. Judge has been interviewed by the FBI but his interview has not been completed,”

“We request your patience as the FBI completes its investigation.”

Keyser does not remember the gathering in question but has said she believes Ford.

“Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account,” Keyser’s attorney, Howard Walsh, wrote in a Friday statement, according to CNN.

“However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

Ford had yet to be interviewed b The FBI as of Monday evening, but there are plenty more interviews to come as Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats signed a letter Monday with a list of 24 additional witnesses they want interviewed by the FBI.

Tick tock… Of course, the chance they are going to stop the delay tactics now is zero. Remember Merrick!

via RSS https://ift.tt/2yaanZ0 Tyler Durden

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Howard Marks is one of the greatest investors in history.

Marks is the founder of the credit investment firm Oaktree Capital Management. And he’s been sharing his insights with the public in his Chairman memos since 1990 (which you can read for free on his website).

Even Warren Buffett stops what he’s doing when Marks releases a new memo… Buffett says it’s “the first thing I open and read.”

Marks’ latest memo, titled The Seven Worst Words in the World, came out last week. And those seven words are – “too much money chasing too few deals.”

As you probably guessed, Marks is talking about how overheated the market is today and the end of the economic cycle.

He starts the memo by recounting the days leading up to the Gobal Financial Crisis, when Oaktree started turning cautious…

“The economy was doing quite well. Stocks weren’t particularly overpriced. And I can assure you we had no idea that sub-prime mortgages and sub-prime mortgage backed securities would go bad in huge numbers, bringing on the Global Financial Crisis…

[A]lmost every day we saw deals being done that we felt wouldn’t be doable in a market marked by appropriate levels of caution, discipline, skepticism and risk aversion. As Warren Buffett says, “the less prudence with which others conduct their affairs, the greater the prudence with which we should conduct our own affairs.” Thus the imprudent deals that were getting done in 2005-06 were enough reason for us to increase our caution.”

Sound familiar?

Today, like in the days leading up to the Global Financial Crisis we’re seeing lots of inconsistencies in the market…

Two stocks, Apple and Amazon, are responsible for nearly 30% of the S&P 500’s gain so far this year.

And investors are willing to lend US companies (which are already sitting on a record $6.3 trillion of debt) more money with less protection.

As our friend Jim Grant mentioned in our podcast, today we have boom era stock prices coupled with depression era interest rates – two things that are completely incongruent with one another.

In his memo, Marks lists a number of other things that just don’t make sense today…

– At the beginning of this year, private equity firms looked to raise $744 billion for funds, more money than at any other time in history

– Japanese conglomerate SoftBank is organizing a $100 billion fund for tech investment (and has raised $93 billion as of June)

– One of the fastest-growing areas of the credit markets are leveraged loans (lending money to already highly indebted firms), which have grown from $500 billion in 2008 to $1.1 trillion

Marks also lists a number of specific deals his team has seen, and highlights a conversation a colleague had with a banker which particularly highlights the folly in most investors’ thinking today…

A banker recently told me that for the first time since 2007, he has been in a credit review and heard the credit deputy rationalize approving a risky deal because it is a small part of a larger portfolio so they can afford for it to go wrong, and if they pass on the deal, they will lose market share to their competitors.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Things are crazy today. I’d encourage you to read Marks’ memo to see even more egregious examples.

But it’s not just Marks that is urging caution today. Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater, the world’s largest hedge fund, says we’ll see a recession by 2020. He even wrote a book called A Template for Understanding BIG DEBT CRISES, which he’s giving away for free.

Ken Griffin from Citadel says we have 18-24 months before a correction. And in a recent interview, billionaire hedge fund manager Stan Druckenmiller said “we’re kind of at that stage in the cycle where bombs are going off.”

I’m not saying the market can’t keep going up from here, because it can (and every guru I mention above agrees).

The point is, it’s time to be cautious. And it’s time to start preparing for the inevitable downturn, whenever it hits.

But you don’t have to invest in overpriced stocks or risky corporate bonds today. You have more options.

Yes, you can always sell out of everything and wait on the sidelines. That’s perfectly fine (and we’ve shared some ideas on how you can raise cash today), but you might miss out on future gains.

Smaller investors have a major advantage over Buffett and Marks today.

Even if you have $10 or $20 million to invest, you have lots of options for solid, risk-adjusted returns today.

Buffett and Marks don’t. Buffett is literally sitting on the sidelines with $112 billion because he can’t find anything to invest in. For something to move Buffett’s needle, he has to put at least a couple billion dollars to work.

To give you an example of what I’m talking about, we’re currently evaluating a deal for our Total Access members (our highest level of membership)… It’s a secured loan that will pay us 10-15% a year, with collateral worth 3-4x our investment. Plus, we actually have legal and administrative custody of the asset.

These opportunities are out there. No, they’re not as easy as buying Apple stock… you’ve got to put the work in.

But on a risk-adjusted basis, you have a lot of advantages today as a smaller, individual investor… namely access to certain opportunities the big guys don’t have. It just takes a bit of education, the willingness to think different and take action.

As Marks said, there’s too much money chasing too few deals. So we’ve got to look where the big guys aren’t.

I’ll be in touch soon with details on another idea that offers the potential for huge gains on an incredibly tax-advantaged basis. It’s one of the most exciting opportunities I’ve seen in awhile.

And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

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

Just one day after speculating on the amount of produced and delivered vehicles Tesla would be reporting for its third quarter, we have the answer. According to a press release put out by Tesla this morning, Tesla produced 80,142 vehicles, 50% more than its prior all-time high. The press release broke down the following details:

53,239 Model 3 vehicles, which was in line with our guidance and almost double the volume of Q2. During Q3, we transitioned Model 3 production from entirely rear wheel drive at the beginning of the quarter to almost entirely dual motor during the last few weeks of the quarter. This added significant complexity, but we successfully executed this transition and ultimately produced more dual motor than rear wheel drive cars in Q3. In the last week of the quarter, we produced over 5,300 Model 3 vehicles, almost all of which were dual motor, meaning that we achieved a production rate of more than 10,000 drive units per week. 

26,903 Model S and X vehicles, which was slightly higher than Q2 and in line with our full-year guidance.

Visually:

How does the Model 3 production of 53,239 compare to estimates? It was somewhat better than Wall Street consensus 50,416 but just below Bloomberg’s Model 3 tracker estimate of 53,457.

Putting these numbers in context, in the last week of the quarter, Tesla hit its long-standing target of 5,000 Model 3 cars a week according to Bloomberg. For the quarter, production of a little more than 53,000 means about 4,000 cars a week.

Recall that Tesla CEO Elon Musk had pulled out all of the stops in the last couple of weeks to hit sales and production goals. So it remains to be seen if Tesla’s outdoor assembly line is consistently hitting 5,000 of the Model 3 every week. Also it remains to be seen if the current production pace will result in a quarterly profit.

The biggest “beat” for the company was the number of deliveries, which came in well above expectations, at 83,500.

Q3 deliveries totaled 83,500 vehicles: 55,840 Model 3, 14,470 Model S, and 13,190 Model X. To put this in perspective, in just Q3, we delivered more than 80% of the vehicles that we delivered in all of 2017, and we delivered about twice as many Model 3s as we did in all previous quarters combined.

The company also noted the obvious, namely that its Model 3 sales were limited to higher ASP versions of the vehicle. It also stated that demand for the Model S and Model X “remains high”:

Our Q3 Model 3 deliveries were limited to higher-priced variants, cash/loan transactions, and North American customers only. There remain significant opportunities to grow the addressable market for Model 3 by introducing leasing, standard battery and other lower-priced variants of the car, and by starting international deliveries.

Demand for Model S and X remains high. In Q3, we were able to significantly increase Model S and X deliveries notwithstanding the headwinds we have been facing from the ongoing trade tensions between the US and China. Those trade tensions have resulted in an import tariff rate of 40% on Tesla vehicles versus 15% for other imported cars in China.

One drawback: the promising nature of China looks as though it may have dimmed a bit, as well, with the company noting that trade tensions with China “have resulted in an import tariff rate of 40% on Tesla vehicles versus 15% for other imported cars in China.”

Tesla continues to lack access to cash incentives available to locally produced electric vehicles in China that are typically around 15% of MSRP or more. Taking ocean transport costs and import tariffs into account, Tesla is now operating at a 55% to 60% cost disadvantage compared to the exact same car locally produced in China. This makes for a challenging competitive environment, given that China is by far the largest market for electric vehicles.

The solution to tariffs is local production, and Tesla said that it was “accelerating construction of our Shanghai factory, which we expect to be a capital efficient and rapid buildout”. There was no word on where the capital was going to be coming from to fund this buildout. 

Also with regard to the major question of profitability, there’s no news on that front yet. 

“Our net income and cash flow results will be announced along with the rest of our financial performance when we announce Q3 earnings,” the PR reads. “Tesla vehicle deliveries represent only one measure of the company’s financial performance and should not be relied on as an indicator of quarterly financial results”.

Overall, the numbers were generally in line with expectations, which we broke down in our list for production and deliveries yesterday:

Since there were no major surprises, the stock is unchanged on the news.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2O17Yef Tyler Durden

It has been a while since the Wall Street Journal, the paper that initially broke the story, has published a genuine bombshell related to the Stormy Daniels controversy. But it broke that streak Tuesday morning when it revealed that President Trump back in February tried to stop Daniels from sharing her story – even directing Michael Cohen, his son Eric Trump and a second outside attorney to try and formulate a plan from the Oval Office. Trump’s direct involvement in the effort to silence Daniels had not previously been reported.

Of course, Trump’s efforts were ultimately futile, as Daniels dribbled out the first lewd details of the night she spent with Trump during a celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe back in 2006. Daniels first revealed some of those details in an interview with CBS back and March. Then last month, leaked excerpts from her upcoming book went into intimate detail about the shape of the president’s penis and the trim of his pubic hair – vital information that the public was no doubt eager to learn.

According to WSJ, Trump called Cohen in February and ordered him to seek a restraining order against Daniels via a confidential arbitration proceeding. Shortly beforehand, he and Cohen had learned about Daniels’ plans for an upcoming interview.

Trump ordered Cohen to coordinate the legal response with Eric Trump and another outside lawyer who was not named in the report. Eric Trump then handed off the task of handling the restraining order to a Trump Organization attorney Jill Martin, who was based in California.

But perhaps the most important details from the report is the suggestion that Trump remained involved with the Trump Organization into this year, and that he also may have played a more direct role in the effort to silence Daniels. Even though the involvement was relatively minor, if the report is accurate, this would cut against Trump’s decision to step down from the firm when he took office (though he retains a significant financial stake, and continues to draw income). Previously, Martin had maintained that she was involved in the Daniels affair via her “individual capacity.” Before he turned state’s witness against Trump, Cohen had maintained that he had also acted in his “private capacity.”

Daniels, who was recently let out of her arbitration agreement by Cohen and Trump, had cited Trump’s outside involvement in the arbitration proceeding against her as a reason to have the arbitration case dismissed and the NDA invalidated. White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders also denied Trump’s involvement in a statement.

On March 6, Ms. Clifford sued Mr. Trump and Essential Consultants LLC, the company Mr. Cohen used to pay her, in Los Angeles County Superior Court. She asked a judge to invalidate the nondisclosure agreement, saying it was contrary to public policy and unenforceable because Mr. Trump hadn’t signed the document.

The complaint alleged that it “strains credulity to conclude that Mr. Cohen is acting on his own” to enforce the nondisclosure agreement in arbitration “without the express approval and knowledge of his client Mr. Trump.”

At a briefing at the White House the next day, press secretary Sarah Sanders was asked whether Mr. Trump approved the payment to Ms. Clifford. Mr. Trump has “made very well clear that none of these allegations are true,” Ms. Sanders said, adding that the “case has already been won in arbitration and anything beyond that I would refer you to the president’s outside counsel.”

The upshot of all this is that, if Trump helped orchestrate the effort to muzzle Daniels, then it would lend credence to claims made by a third-party watch dog group that Trump helped arrange the NDA. If true, that would be a flagrant violation of campaign finance laws. While public reports have suggested that Mueller is primarily focusing on allegations of obstruction of justice and cooperation with Russia, expect the issue of campaign finance violations to feature more prominently in future reports about Mueller’s probe.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2xUvxv8 Tyler Durden