Month: April 2019

Authored by Mike Whitney via The Unz Review,

An explosive report by Reuters confirms that John Bolton sabotaged the denuclearization talks between Kim Jong un and Donald Trump in Hanoi in February. According to a March 29 exclusive by journalists Lesley Wroughton and David Brunnstrom:

“Donald Trump handed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a piece of paper” demanding that Kim surrender all of his “nuclear weapons and bomb fuel to the United States.”

Trump also added a number of unrelated demands including “fully dismantling” all “chemical and biological warfare program(s)…. and ballistic missiles, launchers, and associated facilities.”

Trump surprised Kim by demanding complete, unilateral disarmament in exchange for a flimsy promise to lift economic sanctions sometime in the future. Naturally, Kim rejected the offer.

Here’s more from the same article:

“The document appeared to represent Bolton’s long-held and hardline “Libya model” of denuclearization that North Korea has rejected repeatedly….North Koreans rejected Bolton’s repeated demands for it to follow a denuclearization model under which components of Libya’s nuclear program were shipped to the United States in 2004.

Seven years after a denuclearization agreement was reached between the United States and Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the United States took part in a NATO-led military operation against his government and he was overthrown by rebels and killed” (“Exclusive: With a piece of paper, Trump called on Kim to hand over nuclear weapons”, Reuters)

Bolton presented Kim with an offer he knew Kim would reject, the same offer that led to the destruction of Libya and the savage murder of Gaddafi. Bolton wanted the talks to fail so he could push for tougher sanctions that would pave the way for regime change. That was his goal. Kim’s nuclear weapons were never the target, they were merely the pretext for intensifying the economic strangulation, the relentless belligerence and the threats of war.

But why would Trump agree to go along with this fraud? And why has Trump deployed more troops to Syria while green-lighting Israel to annex the Golan Heights?

Is there a connection between Trump’s (recent) foreign policy reversals and the termination of the Mueller investigation? Did Trump make a deal with his deep state antagonists to get Mueller off his back?

It’s hard to say, but there was no reason for Mueller to wrap up the investigation. The probe was doing exactly what it was supposed to do: Create a 4th branch of government that was empowered to hector, harass and indict anyone it chose in order to keep the administration on the defensive, derail any effort to normalize relations with Russia, and undermine the legitimacy and moral authority of the president. Why would Mueller give up all that if it wasn’t part of some undisclosed Grand Bargain?

He wouldn’t.

On a personal level, Trump trusts Kim which is why he probably wanted to cut a deal. An article in last week’s Korea’s Hankyoreh news supports this view. Check it out:

“During the North Korea-US summit in Hanoi last month, US President Donald Trump reportedly had a positive perspective on relaxing sanctions on North Korea provided that there was a “snapback” clause that would reinstate sanctions if the North failed to implement its agreement. North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui made this statement during a briefing to foreign diplomats in Pyongyang on Mar. 15, but her full remarks hadn’t been made public until now.

According to the text of Choe’s remarks released on Mar. 25, she said, “When we made a practical proposal in the talks, President Trump adopted the flexible position that an agreement would be possible if a clause was added stating that the sanctions could be reinstated if North Korea resumed nuclear activities after the sanctions were lifted.” But Choe went on to say that, “because of their continuing hostility and mistrust, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House National Security Advisor John Bolton created obstacles to the two leaders’ efforts to have constructive negotiations, and ultimately the summit didn’t produce meaningful results.”

. … According to Choe’s statement … the two leaders appear to have explored the possibility of trading Yongbyon’s shutdown for partial sanctions relief. … Choe’s remarks imply that the ultimate reason the summit concluded without an agreement was because of resistance from Pompeo and Bolton.” (“Trump responded positively to relaxing sanctions with “snapback clause” during Hanoi summit”, Hankyoreh News)

The Hankyoreh article corroborates much of what is stated in the Reuters piece. Both articles acknowledge that the nuclear talks were scuppered by Bolton.

The media has consistently misled its readers about what actually took place at Hanoi and who should ultimately be held responsible for its failure. According to CNN:

“Kim had demanded total sanctions relief upfront in exchange for only partial denuclearization, leaving the two sides at an impasse….(Wrong) Trump cast his decision to walk away as evidence that he will not accept a bad deal, (Wrong) but the abrupt conclusion of his much-ballyhooed second summit nonetheless amounted to the most stinging setback yet in his effort to achieve North Korea’s denuclearization through direct talks with its leader…. (Wrong, it wasn’t a setback, it was deliberate.)

More than anything, the failure to produce results during the second summit called into question the personality-driven diplomacy that has been at the core of Trump’s effort to end the North Korean nuclear threat.” (Wrong, again) (“Takeaways from the Trump-Kim Hanoi summit”, CNN)

None of this is true. The meetings didn’t fail because of Trump’s “personality-driven diplomacy”. They failed because Bolton deliberately blew them up. That’s what happened. As one would expect, virtually everything CNN tries to pass off as evenhanded, thoroughly-researched journalism is nothing more than misleading gobbledygook served up by political activists. (The dismal Hanoi coverage helps to show that the Trump-collusion fiction was not a “one off”, but a critical feature of media policy which aims to shape the news according to the political agenda of elites.)

But if the Trump administration is unwilling to honestly negotiate with the North, then how can Kim possibly move forward with his plan to establish peaceful relations with his friends in the South and his allies in the region?

The only way forward for Kim is to bypass the Trump administration altogether and strengthen relations with those who will help him achieve his strategic objectives. He must show that he is a trustworthy partner who is willing to continue along the path of denuclearization regardless of the obstacles and provocations created by the United States. He must continue to seek the input of leaders in Beijing, Moscow and Seoul and prove to them that he is unwaveringly committed to ridding the peninsula of its nuclear weapons in the interests of peace and security. Kim must welcomeinternational weapons inspectors to monitor the decommissioning of his nuclear arsenal and his nuclear enrichment plants. He must increase the frequency of his visits to Seoul where his public approval ratings have skyrocketed and where his efforts for peace and reunification are applauded by nearly 80% of the people. He must “promote his own denuclearization timetable” and present his case to the UN Security Council for review. He must convince the public that he will not backtrack on his ironclad commitment to dialogue, cooperation, economic integration and peace.

According to Hankyoreh News, Kim’ Jong un’s chief of staff and protocol officer made a secret trip to Moscow last week “fueling speculation that Kim Jong-un may be about to pay a visit to Russia.” At the same time, a senior national security official (Kim Hyun-chong) from South Korea visited Russia as well.

Can you see what’s going on? What these secret meetings suggest is that regional leaders are now developing a “post-Hanoi” strategy that will take into account Kim’s eagerness to cooperate and Washington’s obstinate rejection of any policy that does not further enhance its own vicious grip on power. The Trump team is no longer in the loop. Regional bigwigs are taking matters into their own hands and moving forward.

As we pointed out in an earlier piece, Kim is neither a firebrand nor ideological. He is a contemporary man who who wants to make his own mark on the world, lead his country into the modern era, and join the coalition of nations that are fast becoming the biggest trading block in history.

Here’s how author John Delury summed it up in a recent op-ed in the New York Times:

“Mr. Kim wants to be a great economic reformer…(He wants to) shift the regime’s focus, from security to prosperity….He wants North Korea to … catch up with and integrate into the region, and it’s in everyone’s interest to help him do so…”(“Kim Jong-un Has a Dream. The U.S. Should Help Him Realize It”, New York Times)

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CPxThd Tyler Durden

Authored by Mike Whitney via The Unz Review,

An explosive report by Reuters confirms that John Bolton sabotaged the denuclearization talks between Kim Jong un and Donald Trump in Hanoi in February. According to a March 29 exclusive by journalists Lesley Wroughton and David Brunnstrom:

“Donald Trump handed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a piece of paper” demanding that Kim surrender all of his “nuclear weapons and bomb fuel to the United States.”

Trump also added a number of unrelated demands including “fully dismantling” all “chemical and biological warfare program(s)…. and ballistic missiles, launchers, and associated facilities.”

Trump surprised Kim by demanding complete, unilateral disarmament in exchange for a flimsy promise to lift economic sanctions sometime in the future. Naturally, Kim rejected the offer.

Here’s more from the same article:

“The document appeared to represent Bolton’s long-held and hardline “Libya model” of denuclearization that North Korea has rejected repeatedly….North Koreans rejected Bolton’s repeated demands for it to follow a denuclearization model under which components of Libya’s nuclear program were shipped to the United States in 2004.

Seven years after a denuclearization agreement was reached between the United States and Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the United States took part in a NATO-led military operation against his government and he was overthrown by rebels and killed” (“Exclusive: With a piece of paper, Trump called on Kim to hand over nuclear weapons”, Reuters)

Bolton presented Kim with an offer he knew Kim would reject, the same offer that led to the destruction of Libya and the savage murder of Gaddafi. Bolton wanted the talks to fail so he could push for tougher sanctions that would pave the way for regime change. That was his goal. Kim’s nuclear weapons were never the target, they were merely the pretext for intensifying the economic strangulation, the relentless belligerence and the threats of war.

But why would Trump agree to go along with this fraud? And why has Trump deployed more troops to Syria while green-lighting Israel to annex the Golan Heights?

Is there a connection between Trump’s (recent) foreign policy reversals and the termination of the Mueller investigation? Did Trump make a deal with his deep state antagonists to get Mueller off his back?

It’s hard to say, but there was no reason for Mueller to wrap up the investigation. The probe was doing exactly what it was supposed to do: Create a 4th branch of government that was empowered to hector, harass and indict anyone it chose in order to keep the administration on the defensive, derail any effort to normalize relations with Russia, and undermine the legitimacy and moral authority of the president. Why would Mueller give up all that if it wasn’t part of some undisclosed Grand Bargain?

He wouldn’t.

On a personal level, Trump trusts Kim which is why he probably wanted to cut a deal. An article in last week’s Korea’s Hankyoreh news supports this view. Check it out:

“During the North Korea-US summit in Hanoi last month, US President Donald Trump reportedly had a positive perspective on relaxing sanctions on North Korea provided that there was a “snapback” clause that would reinstate sanctions if the North failed to implement its agreement. North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui made this statement during a briefing to foreign diplomats in Pyongyang on Mar. 15, but her full remarks hadn’t been made public until now.

According to the text of Choe’s remarks released on Mar. 25, she said, “When we made a practical proposal in the talks, President Trump adopted the flexible position that an agreement would be possible if a clause was added stating that the sanctions could be reinstated if North Korea resumed nuclear activities after the sanctions were lifted.” But Choe went on to say that, “because of their continuing hostility and mistrust, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House National Security Advisor John Bolton created obstacles to the two leaders’ efforts to have constructive negotiations, and ultimately the summit didn’t produce meaningful results.”

. … According to Choe’s statement … the two leaders appear to have explored the possibility of trading Yongbyon’s shutdown for partial sanctions relief. … Choe’s remarks imply that the ultimate reason the summit concluded without an agreement was because of resistance from Pompeo and Bolton.” (“Trump responded positively to relaxing sanctions with “snapback clause” during Hanoi summit”, Hankyoreh News)

The Hankyoreh article corroborates much of what is stated in the Reuters piece. Both articles acknowledge that the nuclear talks were scuppered by Bolton.

The media has consistently misled its readers about what actually took place at Hanoi and who should ultimately be held responsible for its failure. According to CNN:

“Kim had demanded total sanctions relief upfront in exchange for only partial denuclearization, leaving the two sides at an impasse….(Wrong) Trump cast his decision to walk away as evidence that he will not accept a bad deal, (Wrong) but the abrupt conclusion of his much-ballyhooed second summit nonetheless amounted to the most stinging setback yet in his effort to achieve North Korea’s denuclearization through direct talks with its leader…. (Wrong, it wasn’t a setback, it was deliberate.)

More than anything, the failure to produce results during the second summit called into question the personality-driven diplomacy that has been at the core of Trump’s effort to end the North Korean nuclear threat.” (Wrong, again) (“Takeaways from the Trump-Kim Hanoi summit”, CNN)

None of this is true. The meetings didn’t fail because of Trump’s “personality-driven diplomacy”. They failed because Bolton deliberately blew them up. That’s what happened. As one would expect, virtually everything CNN tries to pass off as evenhanded, thoroughly-researched journalism is nothing more than misleading gobbledygook served up by political activists. (The dismal Hanoi coverage helps to show that the Trump-collusion fiction was not a “one off”, but a critical feature of media policy which aims to shape the news according to the political agenda of elites.)

But if the Trump administration is unwilling to honestly negotiate with the North, then how can Kim possibly move forward with his plan to establish peaceful relations with his friends in the South and his allies in the region?

The only way forward for Kim is to bypass the Trump administration altogether and strengthen relations with those who will help him achieve his strategic objectives. He must show that he is a trustworthy partner who is willing to continue along the path of denuclearization regardless of the obstacles and provocations created by the United States. He must continue to seek the input of leaders in Beijing, Moscow and Seoul and prove to them that he is unwaveringly committed to ridding the peninsula of its nuclear weapons in the interests of peace and security. Kim must welcomeinternational weapons inspectors to monitor the decommissioning of his nuclear arsenal and his nuclear enrichment plants. He must increase the frequency of his visits to Seoul where his public approval ratings have skyrocketed and where his efforts for peace and reunification are applauded by nearly 80% of the people. He must “promote his own denuclearization timetable” and present his case to the UN Security Council for review. He must convince the public that he will not backtrack on his ironclad commitment to dialogue, cooperation, economic integration and peace.

According to Hankyoreh News, Kim’ Jong un’s chief of staff and protocol officer made a secret trip to Moscow last week “fueling speculation that Kim Jong-un may be about to pay a visit to Russia.” At the same time, a senior national security official (Kim Hyun-chong) from South Korea visited Russia as well.

Can you see what’s going on? What these secret meetings suggest is that regional leaders are now developing a “post-Hanoi” strategy that will take into account Kim’s eagerness to cooperate and Washington’s obstinate rejection of any policy that does not further enhance its own vicious grip on power. The Trump team is no longer in the loop. Regional bigwigs are taking matters into their own hands and moving forward.

As we pointed out in an earlier piece, Kim is neither a firebrand nor ideological. He is a contemporary man who who wants to make his own mark on the world, lead his country into the modern era, and join the coalition of nations that are fast becoming the biggest trading block in history.

Here’s how author John Delury summed it up in a recent op-ed in the New York Times:

“Mr. Kim wants to be a great economic reformer…(He wants to) shift the regime’s focus, from security to prosperity….He wants North Korea to … catch up with and integrate into the region, and it’s in everyone’s interest to help him do so…”(“Kim Jong-un Has a Dream. The U.S. Should Help Him Realize It”, New York Times)

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2rZDc6c Tyler Durden

As DB’s Craig Nicol summarizes the action in capital markets in the past three months, the first quarter of 2019 “will undoubtedly go down as one of the most memorable on record given the sheer broadness of positive total returns across asset classes.”

Indeed, in a far cry from the asset collapse of 2018, in the first quarter 37 out of the 38 assets in Deutsche Bank’s sample finished with a positive total return in local currency terms, and 35 out of 38 assets were higher in dollar adjusted terms. A reminder that this comes after 2018 was the worst year on record for the number of assets down across the globe.

For local currency returns, this matched Q3 2013 in terms of broadness and you have to go back to Q3 2010 to find the last time we had all 38 assets finish in positive territory. In addition to that, Deutsche Bank also notes that its data for all 38 assets goes back to 2007 and “we’ve never seen a stronger Q1 during this time.”

Picking out some of the highlights at an asset level, this was the best quarter for WTI Oil (+32.4%) and the S&P 500 (+13.6%) since Q2 2009, US HY (+7.5%) since Q4 2011, the Shanghai Comp (+23.9%) since Q4 2014 and the STOXX 600 (+13.3%) since Q1 2015. In fact there were 11 assets end Q1 with double digit returns, the most since Q1 2012. So, as Nicol notes, “it’s the scale of returns which have also been impressive, as well as the breadth.”

Before looking at the rest of Q1, March proved to be an eventful final month of the quarter mostly for the – at least relatively speaking – large repricing across bond markets in the last week or so following the dovish Fed meeting and the ECB downgrades. Performance for fixed income assets stood out as a result however it was still an overall decent month for equities too. Indeed by the end of play 30 out of the 38 assets had a positive total return during March in local currency terms, while 27 did so in dollar adjusted terms. Across sovereign bond markets it was actually Gilts (+3.4%) which led the way. Treasuries (+2.0%) also posted a solid return while Bunds (+1.7%) did likewise after yields drifted into negative territory once more. The periphery, whilst underperforming, wasn’t to be outdone however with Italian (+1.6%), Portuguese (+1.4%) and Spanish (+1.3%) bond markets all still rewarding investors. Interestingly EM Bonds (-0.5%) lagged other bond markets as a few idiosyncratic stories hurt the broader asset class.

The move in rates unsurprisingly helped credit markets and particularly duration sensitive rating bands with the likes of USD and EUR IG Non-Fins returning +2.7% and +1.6% respectively. That compared to returns of +1.0% for USD and EUR HY. As for equities, well the big rally for rates meant that European Banks (-3.6%) propped up the bottom of the leaderboard. That compared to a +2.2% return for the broader STOXX 600 which came despite another disappointing round of flash PMIs towards month end. The S&P 500 turned in a +1.9% return but the big winner was the Shanghai Comp (+5.1%) once again. Along with Gilts, the FTSE 100 (+3.3%) also saw an outsized gain from the Sterling move while there was an interesting divergence across Europe with the FTSE MIB (+3.0%) and Greek Athex (+2.0%) seeing gains at the expense of the DAX (+0.1%) and IBEX (-0.3%). When looking in dollar adjusted terms European equity markets tend to have underperformed the US and Asia due to the weaker Euro. Finally, in EM the MSCI EM Index returned +0.8%. As for commodities, WTI Oil (+5.1%) actually topped the leaderboard while Brent was up +3.6%. In contrast however Silver tumbled -3.1%, Gold -1.6% and Copper -0.5% which is perhaps a reaction to the broader global growth slowdown fears, while the broader commodity index was up a fairly benign +0.6%.

Rounding out the rest of Q1, the one asset mentioned at the top which had a negative return was Silver (-2.4%) solely due to the drop last month. Sovereign bond markets broadly speaking are up anywhere from +1.6% (for BTPs) to +3.5% (for Gilts). Treasuries and Bunds each returned +2.1%. Credit markets returned +4.1% to +7.5% for USD and +2.8% to +5.1% for EUR with HY outperforming IG on a total return basis.

As for equities, the Shanghai Comp finished with some breathing room to the next market which was the Greek Athex (+17.6%). The NASDAQ (+16.8%) and S&P 500 posted impressive returns along with the FTSE MIB (+16.7%). European Banks, despite the struggles at the end of March, still finished Q1 with a return of +6.0%. Finally, in commodities WTI Oil actually tops all markets with Copper also up +11.6%. The broader commodity index returned +8.2%.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2FHG9k3 Tyler Durden

Following reports that several of the largest third-party sellers of Apple products in China had cut prices for the latest batch of iPhones, as well as other Apple products, it appears the consumer tech giant has finally acquiesced to slowing sales momentum in one of its largest growth markets, and decided to cut prices on its official marketplace.

CNBC reports that Apple has cut prices by as much as 6% for several of its most important products on its official Chinese online store. iPhones, iPads, laptops and AirPods have been affected by the cuts.

The company’s flagship iPhone models have been impacted:

• Cheaper iPhone XR model now costs 6199 yuan, 4.6% lower than March 29
• High-end iPhone XS and XS Max models each reduced by 500 yuan

The cuts are hardly a surprise: CEO Tim Cook said back in January that the notoriously discount-resistant Apple would lower prices for some of its products in markets that had been impacted by a strengthening dollar. The Chinese yuan has weakened against the dollar over the past year as the US-China trade war has taken its toll on the exchange-rate.

Apple shares didn’t react to initial reports of the cuts, but started moving lower Monday morning after the headline hit Bloomberg.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2uF2qtO Tyler Durden

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

Has the #MeToo movement destroyed Joe Biden’s chances of ever getting to the White House? 

In virtually all of the early polls for the race for the Democratic nomination, Biden had been leading.  And most polls have showed him with a sizable lead over Donald Trump in a hypothetical head to head contest. 

So there was a very real chance that Joe Biden could have become the next president of the United States, but many believe that his political career has now been brought to an end.  It was anticipated that President Trump and the Republicans would attack Biden relentlessly once he had secured the nomination, but what makes this recent attack so devastating for the Biden campaign is the fact that it is coming from the left.  Joe Biden has been accused of inappropriate touching by a former Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in Nevada, and the mainstream media is pushing this story really hard.  Could it be possible that someone is trying to push Biden out of the race before it has even really begun?

I would like to share with you what Lucy Flores had to say about Joe Biden in her own words.  But let me warn you that there is one expletive in this quote.  Since this is such an important national story about a man that could potentially become our next president, I decided that it was best to leave this quote unedited…

Just before the speeches, we were ushered to the side of the stage where we were lined up by order of introduction. As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?”

I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, “I didn’t wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?” He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, “tragame tierra,” it means, “earth, swallow me whole.” I couldn’t move and I couldn’t say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience.

During a subsequent interview, Flores stated that she was motivated to come forward when she saw photos and video clips of Joe Biden touching many other women inappropriately on social media…

But the #MeToo movement and Biden’s serious consideration of a presidential run changed her mind. Her friends and political allies in Nevada were talking to Biden and his associates about his potential bid this month. And the pictures and video clips of Biden hugging women, caressing their hair and holding on to their shoulders in too-familiar ways began surfacing on social media.

“When I started to see pictures of him behaving in the same way he did with me and with other women, it was very triggering,” she said. “I felt so much empathy for them. I knew what they were going through. I had been in their shoes.

It would be difficult to overstate how damaging this could potentially be to Joe Biden’s campaign.

In the era of the #MeToo movement, even a hint that a male candidate may have been sexually inappropriate with a woman is often enough to completely destroy a political career.

Of course Biden’s people are scrambling to contain the damage, and an “apology” was quickly issued…

In a statement to Fox News, Biden spokesman Bill Russo said the former vice president “was pleased to support” Flores’s 2014 campaign “and to speak on her behalf” at the rally.

“Neither then, nor in the years since, did he or the staff with him at the time have an inkling that Ms. Flores had been at any time uncomfortable, nor do they recall what she describes,” the statement said. “But Vice President Biden believes that Ms. Flores has every right to share her own recollection and reflections, and that it is a change for better in our society that she has the opportunity to do so. He respects Ms. Flores as a strong and independent voice in our politics and wishes her only the best.”

That actually doesn’t sound like much of an “apology” to me, and Biden certainly did not acknowledge that he had done anything wrong.

And some of Biden’s supporters are actually suggesting that this was a “politically-motivated” stunt by Flores.  At this point we know that Flores endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016, and we also know that she has attended events for at least 3 other 2020 candidates…

Ms. Flores had a falling out with some in Mr. Sanders’s orbit and left the Our Revolution board. She attended former Representative Beto O’Rourke’s campaign kickoff in El Paso on Saturday, but said she is not supporting any candidate at the moment, though she allowed that she “probably will down the road.”

She also said she had attended an event for Julián Castro and was part of a group that met with Kamala Harris’s campaign manager.

Could it be possible that Flores was encouraged to release this information now by another campaign?

We may never know, but many are speculating that an all-out attempt is being made to get Joe Biden out of this race.  On Twitter, Emerald Robinson suggested that “they’re going for the knockout early”…

Obama is backing Kamala. Joe Biden has been told not to run – he wants to run anyway. So they’re going for the knockout early. Will it stop Joe from running? My guess: yes it will.

We will see what happens, but it is hard to imagine too many on the left rallying to support Joe Biden once people see all the evidence that is out there.

The following are 10 videos that show Creepy Joe Biden touching women inappropriately…

#1 Compilation of Joe Biden being Creepy

#2 Sessions Swats CREEP BIDEN’S Hand Away From Granddaughter

#3 Creepy Joe Biden’s Greatest Hits

#4 Hope And Cringe

#5 CRINGE! Watch as Creepy Joe Biden Makes SICK PEDO Joke About Kindergarten Girl

#6 (Highly Disturbing) Creepy Joe Biden Caught Groping Girls On Camera

#7 Body Language׃ Joe Biden’s insistence on “power” touching

#8 Joe Biden Gets Creepy AGAIN gropes Ashton Carter’s Wife During Swearing Ceremony

#9 Joe Biden is a CREEP!

#10 CREEPY UNCLE JOE

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OAJS79 Tyler Durden

A far cry from this weekend’s optimism unleashed by the latest Chinese manufacturing survey, the US Markit manufacturing PMI for March showed another month of slowdown, with the index dropping to 52.4 vs its flash reading of 52.5, down from 53.0 in February and well below the 55.6 reported a year ago. This was the lowest print since the June 2017, the result of “softer increases in output and new orders.”

According to Markit, the moderate improvement in the health of the manufacturing sector was notably softer than the trend seen for 2018, while the first quarter average of 2019 was the lowest since the third quarter of 2017.

A key factor behind the lower headline figure was a slower rise in output. The rate of expansion eased to a marginal pace that was the weakest since June 2016 and below the series trend. Panellists stated that the slower increase in production was due to softer underlying client demand. Similarly, new business growth eased in March. At the same time, new export orders rose at only a marginal rate that was the weakest for five months, with firms noting that global trade tensions and the ongoing impact of tariffs had dampened foreign client demand.

More ominously, on the price front input price inflation softened further to the slowest since August 2017. Where a rise in costs  was reported, goods producers linked this to higher raw material prices, stemming from the ongoing impact of tariffs and greater demand for inputs. The increase was partly passed on to clients through higher output charges. The rise in factory gate prices was nevertheless the slowest since December 2017.

There was a silver lining: as in the broader economy, the rate of job creation remained solid despite broadly unchanged levels of outstanding business. Meanwhile, cost pressures eased further as the rate of input price inflation softened for the fifth successive month. Output charges also rose at a slower pace.

Commenting on the data, Markit Chief economist Chris Williamson said that “a futher deterioraton in the manufacturing PMI suggests the factory sector is acting as an increasing drag on the US economy. The March survey is consistent with production falling at a quarterly rate of 0.6% according to historical comparisons with official data.”

“… things may well get worse before they get better, as the forward-looking indicators are a cause for concern. New order growth has fallen close to the lows seen in the 2016 slowdown, often linked to disappointing exports, tariffs and signs of increasing caution among customers. The ratio of new orders to existing inventory has meanwhile fallen to its lowest since June 2017, suggesting the production trend may weaken further in April.”

And since it would be frowned upon if the US posted another disappointing manufacturing print, it was all up to the Manufacturing ISM to restore confidence that just like China the US is rebounding, which is precisely what happened when the Institute for Supply Management reported that the March ISM jumped from a one year low of 54.2 to 55.3, beating expectations of a 54.5 number, and the highest since January.

In stark contrast from the dour PMI report, the ISM notes that “comments from the panel reflect continued expanding business strength, supported by gains in new orders and employment. Demand expansion continued, with the New Orders Index returning to the high 50s, the Customers’ Inventories Index improving but remaining too low, and the Backlog of Orders Index softening to marginal expansion levels. Consumption (production and employment) continued to expand and regained its footing with a combined 6.2-percentage point gain from the previous month’s levels, recovering most of February’s loss.”

Of note, exports orders continued to expand, while prices reversed two months of contraction by returning to a robust mid-50s level. The manufacturing sector continues to expand, demonstrated by improvements in the PMI® three-month rolling average, which is consistent with overall manufacturing growth projections,” says Fiore

In short: while PMI showed continued deterioration in manufacturing sentiment, the ISM saved the “recovery narrative” with its own, and far more optimistic take on the US manufacturing sector.

The full breakdown showed a rebound in most metrics, with Prices most notably rising back into expansion, up 4.9 points to 54.3.

A few hot takes from the ISM respondents:

• “Customer orders remain strong.” (Textile Mills)
• “The electronics industry seems to be slowly coming out of crisis mode. Lead times and costs have leveled out in some commodities, and dynamic random access memory (DRAM) prices are actually coming down.” (Computer & Electronic Products)
• “Brexit continues to be a concern, despite the fact that our organization has already rolled out a plan to minimize its impact.” (Chemical Products)
• “Business remains very strong amid rumors of a slowdown, but forecasts do not indicate this. Electronics are at tight capacity from manufacturers, with no [change] in the near future.” (Transportation Equipment)
• “Strong customer orders continue.” (Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products)
• “Current weather conditions causing significant delivery delays [and] diminishing our production capabilities.” (Machinery)
• “Strong business momentum coming into January and early February has slowed to typical seasonal business conditions for our industry.” (Miscellaneous Manufacturing)

And with markets gripped by pervasive euphoria, it’s no surprise that stocks quickly ignored the Markit print and focused on the ISM’s far rosier report.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2FNnmF6 Tyler Durden

Long the subject of guesswork and speculation, Saudi Aramco, the state-controlled oil giant that’s responsible for roughly 10% of the world’s oil production, has for the first time ever opened its book to investors as it prepares to launch a $10 billion bond offering.

And the three years’ of financials confirmed what many have long suspected: Aramco’s profits beat out tech giants like Apple and publicly-traded rivals in the energy space like Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell, establishing the energy behemoth as by far the world’s most profitable company. In 2018 alone, Aramco’s profits exceeded $110 billion on $360 billion in revenue. That’s nearly double Apple’s $60 billion profit, and five times Shell’s ($23.9 billion). Thanks to the surge in oil prices last year, Aramco’s net income climbed by 50% from $75.9 billion in 2017.

Last year, the company earned more than Alphabet, Apple and Exxon combined.

The revelations come courtesy of Moody’s Investors Service and other ratings firms, which released the results as part of its credit rating analysis for the upcoming bond offering. Moody’s attributed Aramco’s profitability to its sheer size and access to some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves, per WSJ. Furthermore, the prospectus for the bond offering, which included three years’ worth of financials, showed the company’s operating profit, before interest and tax, was $212 billion.

“Aramco’s scale of production in combination with its vast hydrocarbon resources is a very strong competitive advantage,” Moody’s said.

Aramco produced, on average, 13.6 million barrels a day in 2018, three times Exxon Mobil’s 3.8 million barrels.

 

One key takeaway from the prospectus is just how dependent Aramco’s profits are on oil price swings (though that shouldn’t come as much of a surprise). It’s net profit in 2016, when oil prices were mired near their lowest levels in more than a decade, was just $13.6 billion.

Aramco has hired JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley to manage its first debt offering, with its pre-offering roadshow beginning n Monday in at least eight cities across the US, Europe and Asia, according to WSJ. Investment bank Lazard has also been hired as an independent adviser on the bond sale.

Despite the company’s immense profitability, ratings agencies were reluctant to give it one of the top two ratings because of the control of the Saudi state, which heavily taxes the company. As the Financial Times pointed out, Aramco doesn’t generate as much cash per barrel as its publicly traded rivals.

Rating agencies Moody’s and Fitch assigned the state oil company ratings of A1 and A+ respectively in line with the Saudi state, reflecting its close ties to the kingdom that has long relied on the world’s largest oil producer to fuel its public funds. But Saudi Aramco’s finances also show the state’s reliance on the company means it does not generate as much cash per barrel as non-state peers, with the tax take from the kingdom meaning it generated approximately $26 a barrel last year compared to $38 a barrel for Royal Dutch Shell and $31 a barrel for France’s Total. In 2018 Saudi Aramco generated $224bn of earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation.

Fitch noted its “high production, vast reserves, low production costs and very conservative financial profile” would give it a standalone rating of AA+, but said it would cap its rating at A+ due to the links between the company and the sovereign and the influence the state has on the company through regulating the level of production, taxation and dividend. Similarly, Moody’s said that while Saudi Aramco has many characteristics of a Aaa-rated corporate – such as minimal debt relative to cash flows, large scale of production, market leadership and access in Saudi Arabia to one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves – its final rating was restrained to A1 “because of the close interlinkages between the sovereign and the company.”

The proceeds from Aramco’s first bond offering in international markets will be used to finance its planned acquisition of Sabic, the Saudi state-held industrial chemicals giant. Incidentally, the publication of Aramco’s financials could help whet investors’ appetite for shelved stock offering, where the kingdom had planned to float 5% – or some $100 billion, depending on the exact valuation – of the company’s shares

Read the prospectus below:

FULL DOCUMENT: The prospectus of Saudi Aramco’s first ever foray into the international bond market, with information until now considered secret in the kingdom. https://t.co/THD99WxTY4 #OOTT #oil #SaudiArabia pic.twitter.com/KEX2V81b05

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) April 1, 2019

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JUlQ8d Tyler Durden