another site
Following the shooting death of the Russian ambassador to Turkey, The US State Department has issued a travel ‘Security message’ warning US citizens to avoid the area near the Embassy compound “due to an ongoing security incident.”
Ankara, #Turkey – ongoing security incident near US Embassy. All US citizens should avoid area near Embassy compound until further notice. http://pic.twitter.com/5EABdgBO4o
— Travel – State Dept (@TravelGov) December 19, 2016
via http://ift.tt/2i7xRV5 Tyler Durden
From Morgan Stanley’s Elga Baartsch, Chief European Economist
The Lessons of 2016
As we are entering the finishing stretch towards the festive season, financial market activity and economic newsflow are likely to slow this coming week. Away from procuring last-minute presents for loved ones and posting belated holiday greetings to far away ones, these calmer days offer a good time to reflect on the year that is about to end and think about what the next year might bring. This reflection about the accuracy of our key calls and the major surprises we encountered form an essential part of the forecasting process, for we aim to constantly improve by learning from our mistakes, reviewing our priors and engaging in a robust debate with our colleagues and clients.
So, here is how our forecasts fared over the last 12 months and what this implies for 2017.
In our 2016 outlook, where we pegged global GDP growth at 3.3%Y, the MS macro team was too optimistic about growth. At about a quarter of a percent, the forecast miss was relatively small though and almost equally due to misses in DM and EM. Our inflation forecasts, by contrast, did less well, in particular in DM, where headline inflation, at 0.8%Y on average, ended up half as high as we projected in November 2015. Our EM teams did a much better job collectively, projecting headline inflation a touch below 4%Y. A considerable part of the inflation forecast error can be attributed to an unexpected fall in commodity prices in early 2016, which the oil futures we base our forecasts on did not reflect. But in some countries, e.g., Japan and the UK, we also had material misses on core inflation.
As a result of the downward revisions to the growth and inflation outlook in the course of 2016, we also had to amend our monetary policy forecasts, taking out two Fed rate hikes, pushing the ECB depo rate deeper into negative territory and adding to the ECB’s QE programme. Like the market, we did not see the BoJ’s U-turn on negative interest rates coming in early 2016. However, our Tokyo team had given the idea of yield curve control some thought already in 2015. In the UK, Brexit caught us and the BoE wrong-footed and forced a prospective tightening cycle to be replaced by additional monetary policy easing. The key EM central banks, on average, kept policy tighter than we had thought, especially the PBOC and the CBR. At the same time, the RBI and the BCB reduced rates more than expected.
In the middle of the year, we got too cautious on growth in the wake of Brexit, which, contrary to our and most other forecasters’ expectations, did not push the UK into recession or dent euro area growth. The other big political surprise of the year, the election of Donald Trump in the US, caused us to revise up our growth forecast on the expectation of a material fiscal stimulus. The US equity market did better than we had expected in 2016, while European and Japanese equities were trailing behind. We would expect this relative performance to reverse in 2017 and currently prefer Japanese and European equities over the US. EURUSD did not hit parity in 2016, but is expected to break below this key level in the course of 2017. JPY strengthened more than expected in 2016, but is now likely to weaken materially in 2017. Bond yields experienced much more of a rollercoaster ride than we had anticipated in 2016, first falling further and then bouncing back faster. While UST yields are likely to end 2016 not that far away from our original target of 2.70%, yields on Bunds, JGBs and gilts are far lower than we had anticipated a year ago in our 2016 outlook.
The biggest surprises in 2016 were clearly political – notably Brexit and the US presidential election. As a result, we will be keeping a close eye on political developments in 2017, notably in Europe, where not just Germany, France and Italy are heading to the polls in 2017, but also the Netherlands and possibly also Greece. Political discontent in Europe could once again cause investors to question the long-term viability of the euro. One major pivot for financial markets in early 2016 was investor concern about capital outflows from China. We expect this issue to remain in focus in 2017 and acknowledge that it – together with the vibrant credit dynamics – could call into question our call for a PBOC rate cut. Ongoing pressures on the capital account could also reignite the debate about the benefits of a large, one-off RMB devaluation – something that our China team does not deem to be likely though. In 2016, the Fed was much more dovish than we and the market projected initially – a development that our US economists took on board much faster than the consensus. In 2017, barring a complete U-turn on the part of the Trump camp on the desirable monetary stance, there seems to be to a risk of a hawkish tilt at the Fed.
While we don’t exactly know what 2017 will bring, we believe that 2017 will be another year of interesting and intense macro debates where reflation has further to run before the sparkle in risk assets will start to fade. We are already very much looking forward to actively engaging in the debates on the fatter tails of the distribution of the likely macro outcomes next year.
via http://ift.tt/2i7oF30 Tyler Durden
Authored by Steve H. Hanke of the Johns Hopkins University. Follow him on Twitter @Steve_Hanke.
The fog of war, coupled with the output from multiple propaganda machines, makes it difficult to determine which side has the upper hand in any conflict. After the fall of Aleppo, it appears that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces are getting the upper hand. But are they?
The best objective way to determine the course of a conflict is to observe black market (read: free market) exchange rates, and to translate changes in those rates via purchasing power parity into implied inflation rates. We, at the Johns Hopkins-Cato Institute Troubled Currencies Project, have been doing that for Syria since 2013.
The two accompanying charts – one for the Syrian pound and another for Syria’s implied annual inflation rate – plot the course of the war. It is clear that Assad and his allies are getting the upper hand. With their recent victory in Aleppo, the black-market exchange rate has moved in Assad’s favor and, likewise, inflation has continued to fall.
via http://ift.tt/2h2RwI8 Steve H. Hanke
Moments after the Russian ambassador to Turkey was shot dead during an exhibition by an attacker who screamed “Allahu Akbar”, Swiss Blick magazine reported that three people were hurt during a shooting at an Islamic center in Zurich.
#BREAKING THREE PEOPLE HURT IN SHOOTING AT #ZURICH ISLAMIC CENTRE – BLICK NEWSPAPER
— Global Markets Forum (@ReutersGMF) December 19, 2016
The initial report from Blick is sparse, and follows, google translated.:
As the city police confirms against BLICK, an operation runs: Three people were injured. Nothing is known about the severity of the injuries-just as much on the offense. The area around the military street / ice lane was closed off by the police. (Rey)
Swiss 20 Minuten adds the following:
Shots have fallen in a Muslim center in the Militärstrasse / Eisgasse in Zurich. Three people were injured as the city police confirmed a message of “look” about 20 minutes. One of the perpetrators is on the run.
Developing story
via http://ift.tt/2h4e64P Tyler Durden
President Obama warned President-Elect Trump about overusing executive orders to get his agenda through. In an interview with NPR that aired today, Obama explained that “the legislative process is always better” than an executive order, “in part because it’s harder to undo.” He also expressed concern about the concentration of power in the presidency when it comes to the war on terror, insisting his administration has imposed “guard rails internally” where the Congress has failed to do so.
Obama admitted Trump was “entirely within his lawful power” to use executive orders in the same manner he has, but insisted that his “strong preference” was always to legislate where legislation is possible.
“In my first two years, I wasn’t relying on executive powers, because I had big majorities in the Congress and we were able to get bills done, get bills passed,” Obama noted. “And even after we lost the majorities in Congress, I bent over backwards consistently to try to find compromise and a legislative solution to some of the big problems that we’ve got.”
Obama brought up his immigration executive order, insisting he had only resorted to it after failing to get Congress to pass a bill, and pointed to the Senate passing a version of the bill as support for his executive order, which deprioritized deportations for illegal immigrants identified by the administration as low risk.
“So my suggestion to the president-elect is, you know, going through the legislative process is always better, in part because it’s harder to undo,” Obama said. Executive orders, as well as executive agreements like the Paris climate accord or the Iran nuclear deal, can be unilaterally dismantled just like they are unilaterally imposed. Obama called it “part of the democratic process,” but the expansion of presidential powers through methods like the executive order is actually a subversion of the democratic process.
While President Obama framed the legislative process as something he personally preferred to the executive order, the legislative process is not something that ought to be bypassed by executive action. That the last century has seen the legislative process increasingly ignored in favor of executive action and bureaucratic feat is a bug in the republican system, not a feature.
Asked directly whether he thought the presidency had grown too powerful, Obama separated foreign policy from domestic policy. He pointed out that the current military campaign against ISIS was being waged under the authority of the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force.
“The concern I have right now is because we’re in a nontraditional war,” Obama explained. “It’s what we call the war on terrorism, although terrorism to some degree is a tactic. We’re in a war against a non-state, a set of non-state actors that are operating in the shadows, are in nooks and crannies and crevices around the world.”
“The danger is that over time, Congress starts feeling pretty comfortable with just having the president do all this stuff and not really having to weigh in,” Obama continued, insisting on issues like drones and the National Security Agency, his administration had imposed guardrails internally where Congress has failed to do so—Obama did not articulate whether acting without the explicit authority of Congress was constructive in the first place.
On domestic policy, Obama resisted the idea that the presidency has grown too powerful. “The truth is that, you know, there hasn’t been a radical change between what I did and what George Bush did and what Bill Clinton did and what the first George Bush did,” Obama insisted. “It’s, you know, the issue of big agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Labor, having to take laws that have been passed, like the Clean Air Act, which is hugely complicated and very technical, and fill in the gaps and figure out our ‘What does this mean and how do we apply this to new circumstances?’ That’s not new.”
“Having federal bureaucracies and federal regulations, that’s not new,” Obama noted. What was new was “that Congress has become so dysfunctional, that more and more of a burden is placed on the agencies to fill in the gaps, and the gaps get bigger and bigger because they’re not constantly refreshed and tweaked.”
Obama is, in part, correct. George W. Bush was a disaster on federal regulations, just as he was a disaster on government spending. Yet the assumption that federal regulations are necessary, proper, or constitutional is a dangerous ones—by one account federal regulations have made Americans 75 percent poorer. The passage of complex laws that leave fill-in-the-blanks for regulators are a major part of the problem, as is the drive to keep them “updated” without further action by Congress. What Obama misidentifies as “dysfunction” is actually a reflection of a politically divided and uncertain populace. Gridlock is good for government—and it’s a feature, not a bug of a republican system.
That point is missed by today’s post-Trump chicken littles. Trump is precisely such a threat to the republican system because of the decades of work to dismantle it that preceded him. In an op-ed in The New York Times today, Paul Krugman explains “how republics end,” drawing parallels with ancient Rome. Comparisons to Rome are nothing new. We did a segment on it on Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch five years ago.
Krugman notes Rome transformed from a republic into an empire in large part because of Romans privileging strong rulers to the rule of law. Such privileging in contemporary politics is nothing new. How exactly did Krugman think President Obama having “a pen and a phone” fit into a republican system? What did it say about the health of the republic?
The newfound concern for the republic expressed by liberal thinkers like Paul Krugman ought to be welcomed. Recognizing how the republican system of government is being threatened is an important first step in preserving it—but such thinkers, who have often been boosters of big government and unilateral executive action when they agree politically with the person holding the presidency, need to also recognize and acknowledge their role in getting here. It’s the best way to move forward if the concern for the republic is authentic, and not just more partisan posturing, as much of Republicans’ concern for limited government has turned out to be now that they’ve got a strong man of their own on his way into the Oval Office.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2hMZtCw
via IFTTT
After a brief respite, the bloodbath in Chinese bonds is back, with futures plunging back to lows overnight amid liquidity fears (short-term lending rates are inverted) and growing anxiety over China's almost unprecedented debtload.
As The Wall Street Journal reports, a gradual tightening of short-term credit by China’s central bank – combined with rumors of liquidity squeezes at brokers – prompted a mini-rout in the country’s $8 trillion-plus bond market last week, forcing authorities to reverse course and inject some $86 billion in short- and medium-term funds.
China’s total debt surged to around $27 trillion this year, or 260% of gross domestic product, compared with 154% in 2008 at the start of a stimulus program to offset the financial crisis. It is continuing to grow at more than twice the pace of the economy.
Economists say growing amounts of money are flowing into less-productive channels, such as keeping struggling companies on life support, or feeding speculative investments in everything from property to bonds and steel.
And overnight saw the short-term credit markets invert (overnight rates higher than 12m rates) as demand soars…
The bond selloff is raising concerns about the stability of China’s opaque and deeply intertwined credit markets.
“When you have an event like last week people take notice of it, you have to go back and review your China [investment] thesis,” said Jim Veneau, head of Asia fixed income at AXA Investment Managers in Hong Kong, with $2.2 billion under management.
“Everyone is nervous,” said Wang Ming, a partner at Shanghai Yaozhi Asset Management Co., which holds $2.9 billion in debt.
And it appears the brief moment of stability has passed…
Pushing bond futures back near their lows…
And while Chinese stocks were 'stable' overnight, Hong Kong was slammed. As Bloomberg reports, for the first time in four months, the city’s benchmark equities gauge has fallen into the red for the year.
The Hang Seng Index’s losses since its Sept. 9 high are approaching 10 percent, while the gauge is close to breaking below the closely-watched 200-day moving average. A separate momentum indicator has dropped to the lowest level since January’s rout.
The $4 trillion stock market, the world’s fourth largest, is losing ground as property developers tumble on rising borrowing costs, inflows from mainland investors dry up and a slumping yuan undermines investor confidence in Chinese assets. The retreat is also a blow to bulls who saw the previous quarter’s jump by the Hang Seng Index — its biggest in seven years — as the start of an extended rally after months of global underperformance.
“The crisis is not over,” said Zeng Xianzhao, a fund manager at Chongqing Nuoding Asset Management, with $28.7 million in assets: “The central bank’s liquidity injection only assuaged the crisis but didn’t solve it at its root.”
via http://ift.tt/2hABMgj Tyler Durden
There’s little question that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars discrimination in federally funded schools and programs, has been interpreted by education bureaucrats and college administrators as mandating that they peer into every nook and cranny of university life. As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and the University of Tennessee’s law school writes, “from this small, simple statement — there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex — has been created a regulatory Tower of Babel governing sports teams, student discipline and even, and most dubiously, sexual consent.”
Indeed, as Cathy Young documented in a January 2014 cover story for Reason magazine, much of the climate of hysteria on college campuses around sexual activity can be traced back to a “dear colleague” letter from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which urged university administrators to lower the burden of proof and reduce due process protections when prosecuting cases of rape and harassment. As Linda LeFauve and Robby Soave have shown, that sort of decision didn’t simply come out of the blue but followed a decade or more of extremely dubious social science capturing the minds of administrators and regulators.
Writing in USA Today, Reynolds says that one good aspect of a Donald Trump administration may be the rollback of the most extreme (and ultimately pernicious) interpretations of Title IX. He stresses that the reigning interpretation of Title IX is not actually law or even fully articulated and binding rules. Rather, the “dear colleague” letter is used to nudge institutions along without necessarily taking full responsibility for any outcomes.
The new Education Department [might] do something the previous department didn’t do — probably for fear of being overruled by the courts — which is to actually promulgate new binding regulations after notice and comment. Those regulations might say that colleges should turn over complaints of sexual assault to law enforcement authorities, and that things like “microaggressions” and opinions with which one disagrees do not constitute “discrimination.”…
Ideally, we’ll take an approach based on due process and common sense, which would represent a considerable change over the past several years’ policies.
One thing is clear: The micromanagement of universities — and of students — in the name of Title IX needs to change.
Read the whole thing here. Relying on the Trump administration to exercise “common sense,” as Reynolds hopes, may be a bridge too far, but his proposed Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is likely to agree with the notion of Title IX overreach.
In 2015, Reason TV talked with Robby Soave about “3 of the Most F*cked-Up College Campus Stories of the Year.” Check it out here:
If you like our videos, subscribe to our YouTube channel and get automatic notifications when new material goes live (we post three to five new videos a week).
And subscribe to our Reason Podcast at iTunes, near-daily new conversations hosted by me and other Reason staff with leading newsmakers, authors, and libertarians. Here’s what some listeners are saying:
For even more ways to follow Reason’s audio and video offerings:
Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2hMfLsL
via IFTTT
There’s little question that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars discrimination in federally funded schools and programs, has been interpreted by education bureaucrats and college administrators as mandating that they peer into every nook and cranny of university life. As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and the University of Tennessee’s law school writes, “from this small, simple statement — there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex — has been created a regulatory Tower of Babel governing sports teams, student discipline and even, and most dubiously, sexual consent.”
Indeed, as Cathy Young documented in a January 2014 cover story for Reason magazine, much of the climate of hysteria on college campuses around sexual activity can be traced back to a “dear colleague” letter from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which urged university administrators to lower the burden of proof and reduce due process protections when prosecuting cases of rape and harassment. As Linda LeFauve and Robby Soave have shown, that sort of decision didn’t simply come out of the blue but followed a decade or more of extremely dubious social science capturing the minds of administrators and regulators.
Writing in USA Today, Reynolds says that one good aspect of a Donald Trump administration may be the rollback of the most extreme (and ultimately pernicious) interpretations of Title IX. He stresses that the reigning interpretation of Title IX is not actually law or even fully articulated and binding rules. Rather, the “dear colleague” letter is used to nudge institutions along without necessarily taking full responsibility for any outcomes.
The new Education Department [might] do something the previous department didn’t do — probably for fear of being overruled by the courts — which is to actually promulgate new binding regulations after notice and comment. Those regulations might say that colleges should turn over complaints of sexual assault to law enforcement authorities, and that things like “microaggressions” and opinions with which one disagrees do not constitute “discrimination.”…
Ideally, we’ll take an approach based on due process and common sense, which would represent a considerable change over the past several years’ policies.
One thing is clear: The micromanagement of universities — and of students — in the name of Title IX needs to change.
Read the whole thing here. Relying on the Trump administration to exercise “common sense,” as Reynolds hopes, may be a bridge too far, but his proposed Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is likely to agree with the notion of Title IX overreach.
In 2015, Reason TV talked with Robby Soave about “3 of the Most F*cked-Up College Campus Stories of the Year.” Check it out here:
If you like our videos, subscribe to our YouTube channel and get automatic notifications when new material goes live (we post three to five new videos a week).
And subscribe to our Reason Podcast at iTunes, near-daily new conversations hosted by me and other Reason staff with leading newsmakers, authors, and libertarians. Here’s what some listeners are saying:
For even more ways to follow Reason’s audio and video offerings:
Subscribe to our video channel at iTunes.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2hMfLsL
via IFTTT
Submitted by Brendan Brown via The Mises Institute,
Markets have not been slow to see through the hollowness of the European Central Bank's announced (on December 8) curtailment of the pace of money printing planned for April next year. The ECB plans to reduce its “stimulus” from 80 billion euros per month down to 60 billion euros per month. But, it plans to do this for nine months before any further review — rather than the usual 6-month fixed period until further review.
Sixty billion is a huge number and the persistence of the ECB in sticking to its radical policy suggests that Chief Draghi, and ultimately Chancellor Merkel, are deeply anxious about the dangers of financial crisis ahead which could rock the status quo in Europe. The potential triggers to crisis include first and foremost Italy — but also the looming elections in Holland, and most importantly France.
Everyone and their dog in the marketplace realizes that an EMU (European Monetary Union) debt crisis before the German elections next Autumn could sink Chancellor Merkel.
There is a deeper problem here.
It is becoming clear that even beyond Europe’s election season, “monetary normalization” may well not be feasible.
To understand this, we should realize that monetary normalization in any real sense (not the Bernanke-Yellen-Fischer sense of embarking on minute highly broadcast rate rises whilst leaving everything else unchanged) has three main components:
First, the restoring of monetary base to the pivot of the monetary system, meaning a big shrinkage in the central bank balance sheet;
Second, a freeing of interest rates from central bank manipulation; and
Third, the repeal of the 2% permanent inflation target in favor of stable prices in the long run (but not short run).
Markets realize that the US may go down this road under the incoming Trump administration, at least until the next crash and recession. The exact timing of entry could depend on when Chief Yellen retires or resigns. But the starting point is a detail, and in any case, the new administration can give a strong signal of intent by its choice of two Fed governors early in the New Year and its nomination of the new chief to be. An announcement is widely expected by mid-year.
Information could emerge by then about how monetary normalization in the US is to proceed. Most likely, this will involve the White House brokering a deal between the Fed and Treasury whereby the former swaps its portfolio of long-maturity treasuries (and possibly mortgage backed securities) with the latter in exchange for short-maturity T-bills, which can then be sold off rapidly in the markets in an open market operation which would shrink the monetary base.
True, Ms. Yellen and Mr. Fischer would not contemplate such a deal, as it appears to run contrary to much-vaunted central bank independence. But a deal is patently practical between two Trump nominees — at the Fed and Treasury respectively — and it would be widely approved of by many who are enthusiastic about sound money.
Problem: any intimation of such a deal and path ahead would send the dollar up against those currencies where no such normalization is practical — demonstrably Europe. And of course China is a whole different topic, but any monetary normalization in China is light years away given the huge financial risks there.
So Germany, with the largest trade surplus on Earth (its current account surplus next year could reach 9% of GDP), becomes a candidate country for naming and shaming in the semi-annual report put out by the Treasury on currency manipulation. And in the past, Germany has been mentioned as a possible candidate for that list though not actually put on it. China in its defense of huge trade imbalances is quite ready if the past is any indication to point to Japan and Germany as offenders which should also be brought into the discussion.
But this time round Japan is in a different situation.
It is well within the realm of the politically possible that PM Abe and his central bank Chief Kuroda would copy the US example in organizing a swap to bring down the monetary base (the two parties would be the BoJ and the Ministry of Finance). And before then there is widespread expectation that the BoJ will move away from its present pegging of long-term rates at zero (via potentially huge but volatile intervention financed by money printing). This would most likely happen in two stages (first moving the peg upward, then abandoning it).
The over-riding priority for Tokyo could be solidifying the strategic alliance with Washington not least in view of the rising geo-political dangers related to China and the vacuum now remaining after the collapse of the Trans-Pacific Trade deal.
Is it possible that the ECB and Berlin could have second thoughts about monetary normalization in the context of a threatened trade war with the US?
Yes they are sure to have second thoughts, but what can they do?
There is no European Finance Ministry with which all the bad loans and bonds in the ECB balance sheet can be swapped for T-bills. And if the German, French, or Dutch finance ministries were to step up to the task, their governments would have to recognize the huge losses to date in ECB interventions to “do whatever it takes to save EMU.”
And so it is not just popular elections that now challenge the status quo in Europe. Trade war lurks not far behind. And this is a challenge not just for the modern Chancellor Metternich and the European status quo, but also for global prosperity.
via http://ift.tt/2hMJVij Tyler Durden
The market is about to wake up to something bad.
That something is the fact that the $USD’s strength is going to crush corporate profits in 1Q17.
You see, companies begin to issue guidance for their results during the last week of the quarter. So the warnings are about to start hitting. Indeed, we’re already beginning to see this.
Safra Catz is CEO for Oracle, a $160 BILLION tech company. And she just issued a major warning of what's coming this way.
This quarter, the effects of currency movement were more than what I had included in my guidance, mostly because of the strengthening U.S. dollar after recent elections in U.S. and Europe, resulting in currency headwind of 1% in total revenue, 2% in some revenue categories and one penny to EPS.
Here's a Fortune 500 CEO warning that the $USD's strength is already going to shave 1% off of revenues. Lest you think that 1% isn't a big deal, consider that it comes to $371 MILLION.
As we head into quarter end, we’ll be hearing more of this. Indeed, Coca-cola, Restoration Hardware, and other companies are all already warning about the impact of the $USD post election.
After all, if the $USD's bull market since 2014 has already crushed corporate earnings to 2012 levels… this current rally to new highs will be ANNIHILATING profits going forward.
And this is happening at a time when investors are RECORD bullish on stocks.
Everyone and I mean EVERYONE is "all in" on stocks. Hedge funds, commercial traders, even individual investors have piled into the market.
This will end badly as all manias do. We believe the market is primed for a 10% drop… possibly more.
THIS WILL HIT BEFORE THE END OF JANUARY.
Another Crisis is brewing… the time to prepare is now.
If you've yet to take action to prepare for this, we offer a FREE investment report called the Prepare and Profit From the Next Financial Crisis that outlines simple, easy to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from it, but actually produce profits.
We made 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public.
As we write this, there are fewer than 19 left.
To pick up yours, swing by….
Best Regards
Graham Summers
Chief Market Strategist
Phoenix Capital Research
via http://ift.tt/2h3Tl9g Phoenix Capital Research