Since mid-April, financial tensions have been easing in the emerging countries. Bolstered by the very gradual return of portfolio investment, exchange rates have stabilised.
Since mid-May, cumulative net inflows of non-resident portfolio investment into bond and equity markets amounted to USD 22 bn (according to data from the Institute for International Finance (IIF) for a selection of 20 emerging countries), compared to cumulative net outflows of USD 100 bn from the end of February to mid-May
As a result, the emerging market currencies have regained some of the ground lost in the first 3 to 4 months of the year (+1.6% on average since mid-March, vs. -6% in Q1). Equity prices, in contrast, have erased most of their losses (+17% on average since the end of March, vs. -20% in Q1). Is this normalisation process, which is very advanced in the equity markets, truly justified?
cyclical indicators suggest a recovery in H2 2020. Yet the size and diffusion of the recovery remains highly uncertain. For this reason, the rebound in local equity markets seems a bit excessive and even premature. In Brazil, India and Mexico, the pandemic is not under control, and some governments have even imposed new, selective lockdowns.
Despite the surge in fiscal deficits, for the moment we have not observed any difficulties in refinancing public debt. Bond yields have been held down through conventional monetary easing (via policy rate cuts, which have been widespread throughout the emerging countries) and/or through quantitative easing (by expanding the ways in which central banks can refinance banks and indirectly companies, or through the monetary financing of fiscal deficits). Yet if the pandemic persists, this financial support will not prevent an upsurge in delinquencies and non-performing loans.
Lastly, higher risk premiums on sovereign debt in the local currency increase the attractiveness of carry trades and the inflow of volatile capital at a time when the emerging countries need financial stability even more than usual. For of a selection of 17 emerging countries, the median yield spread between the sovereign bond and a bond with an equivalent maturity in the financing currency (USD, EUR or JPY) remained stable at about 450 basis points (bp) between end-December 2019 and end-June 2020. But this spread must be looked at in terms of foreign exchange volatility to evaluate the profitability of the carry trade. After taking into account the policy rate differential, and thus the possibility of short-term foreign exchange coverage of positions (via the futures market or currency swaps), the median yield spread has nearly tripled, from 80bp to 200bp. For investors ready to take the risk of rolling over very short-term forex hedges, the spread is very attractive.
The banks being sued are: Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Japan’s MUFG Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland, Societe Generale, Standard Chartered and UBS. ... The plaintiffs in Wednesday’s lawsuit accused the banks of violating U.S. antitrust law by conspiring from 2003 to 2013 to rig currency benchmarks including the WM/Reuters Closing Rates for their own benefit by sharing confidential orders and trading positions.
I usually pitch BSV to between 5 and 10 people a day, and have been doing so on average for five days a week, since around mid February when I first bought into BSV myself. I started paying attention to Wright in 2017 after I saw his talk at Arnhem*, and then again seriously in November last year after the CoinGeek conference in London, but it took me a couple of months to dig through all of the available information and make absolutely sure that my gut reaction was correct and that my intuition wasn’t lying to me before I decided to go full ‘BSVtard’. (I have been in Bitcoin since May 2012, but left in 2014, and didn't get seriously involved again until 2017. I stepped out for most of 2018). The people I pitch to are mostly financial types like Investment Bankers, Wealth Managers, M&A analysts, Risk Assessors, IT admins and system engineers at banks, Lawyers, Accountants, Stock Brokers, Liquidity specialists, Entrepreneurs and Stock, Bond and Forex Traders I estimate I’ve done around 300 pitches in the last three months to employees of JPM, Citibank, Barclays, Credit Suisse, EY, KPMG, HSBC, BNP Paribas and the FCA, amongst others. I have memorised Wright’s narrative, watched and rewatched his videos and interviews over and over again, and constantly read and re-read his blog in order to keep up to date with current events and developments. I’ve found that in my own pitches, presenting BTC as ‘the prototype’ can be quite a neat way of explaining why BTC with a 1Mb block size has a limited capacity and is not really a good business solution for their industry. It’s just a small stub of an idea, because the truth is quite different, but if you put it in its historical context, I think it makes sense. Like the Wright brothers’ first attempt at flight, the first prototype of BitCoin may well crash and burn. I’m also a fan of the ‘BitCoin as a jet engine’ analogy, wherein the block acts like a combustion chamber into which raw transactional data is fed, and from which information is then extracted, that then powers an information economy. The circular velocity of energy in the system increases as more and more data is fed into the block, and more and more information is extracted, refined, sold, disseminated and recycled. The result is a kind of ‘data ramjet’, which propels the value of BSV upwards as its circular velocity through the block chain and the mining economy increases.
"Satoshi Nakamoto" the mysterious creator of Bitcoin is no other than the CIA
Bitcoin has surged to all time highs, Who created Bitcoin, and why? The creator of Bitcoin is officially a name, “Satoshi Nakamoto” – very few people believe that it was a single male from Japan. In the early days of Bitcoin development this name is associated with original key-creation and communications on message boards, and then the project was officially handed over to others at which point this Satoshi character never appeared again (Although from time to time someone will come forward saying they are the real Satoshi Nakamoto, and then have their posts deleted). Bitcoin could very well be the ‘one world currency’ that conspiracy theorists have been talking about for some time. It’s a kill five birds with one stone solution – not only is Bitcoin an ideal one world currency, it allows law enforcement a perfect record of all transactions on the network. It states very clearly on bitcoin.org (the official site) in big letters “Bitcoin is not anonymous” : Some effort is required to protect your privacy with Bitcoin. All Bitcoin transactions are stored publicly and permanently on the network, which means anyone can see the balance and transactions of any Bitcoin address. However, the identity of the user behind an address remains unknown until information is revealed during a purchase or in other circumstances. This is one reason why Bitcoin addresses should only be used once. Another advantage of Bitcoin is the problem of Quantitative Easing – the Fed (and thus, nearly all central banks in the world) have painted themselves in a corner, metaphorically speaking. QE ‘solved’ the credit crisis, but QE itself does not have a solution. Currently all currencies are in a race to zero – competing with who can print more money faster. Central Bankers who are in systemic analysis, their economic advisors, know this. They know that the Fiat money system is doomed, all what you can read online is true (just sensationalized) – it’s a debt based system based on nothing. That system was created, originally in the early 1900’s and refined during Breton Woods followed by the Nixon shock (This is all explained well in Splitting Pennies). In the early 1900’s – there was no internet! It is a very archaic system that needs to be replaced, by something modern, electronic, based on encryption. Bitcoin! It’s a currency based on ‘bits’ – but most importantly, Bitcoin is not the ‘one world currency’ per se, but laying the framework for larger cryptocurrency projects. In the case of central banks, who control the global monetary system, that would manifest in ‘Settlement Coin’ : Two resources available almost exclusively to central banks could soon be opened up to additional users as a result of a new digital currency project designed by a little-known startup and Swiss bank UBS. One of those resources is the real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system used by central banks (it’s typically reserved for high-value transactions that need to be settled instantly), and the other is central bank-issued cash. Using the Utility Settlement Coin (USC) unveiled today, the five-member consortium that has sprung up around the project aims to help central banks open-up access to these tools to more customers. If successful, USC has the potential to create entirely new business models built on instant settling and easy cash transfers. In interview, Robert Sams, founder of London-based Clearmatics, said his firm initially worked with UBS to build the network, and that BNY Mellon, Deutsche Bank, ICAP and Santander are only just the first of many future members. the NSA/CIA often works for big corporate clients, just as it has become a cliche that the Iraq war was about big oil, the lesser known hand in global politics is the banking sector. In other words, Bitcoin may have very well been ‘suggested’ or ‘sponsored’ by a banker, group of banks, or financial services firm. But the NSA (as we surmise) was the company that got the job done. And probably, if it was in fact ‘suggested’ or ‘sponsored’ by a private bank, they would have been waiting in the wings to develop their own Bitcoin related systems or as in the above “Settlement Coin.” So the NSA made Bitcoin – so what? The FX markets currently represent the exchange between ‘major’ and ‘minor’ currencies. In the future, why not too they will include ‘cryptocurrencies’ – we’re already seeing the BTC/EUR pair popup on obscure brokers. When BTC/USD and BTC/EUR are available at major FX banks and brokers, we can say – from a global FX perspective, that Bitcoin has ‘arrived.’ Many of us remember the days when the synthetic “Euro” currency was a new artificial creation that was being adopted, although the Euro project is thousands of degrees larger than the Bitcoin project. But unlike the Euro, Bitcoin is being adopted at a near exponential rate by demand (Many merchants resisted the switch to Euros claiming it was eating into their profit margins and they were right!). And to answer the question as to why Elite E Services is not actively involved in Bitcoin the answer is that previously, you can’t trade Bitcoin. Now we’re starting to see obscure brokers offering BTC/EUR but the liquidity is sparse and spreads are wacky – that will all change. When we can trade BTC/USD just like EUUSD you can bet that EES and a host of other algorithmic FX traders will be all over it! It will be an interesting trade for sure, especially with all the volatility, the cross ‘pairs’ – and new cryptocurrencies. For the record, for brokers- there’s not much difference adding a new symbol (currency pair) in MT4 they just need liquidity, which has been difficult to find. So there’s really nothing revolutionary about Bitcoin, it’s just a logical use of technology in finance considering a plethora of problems faced by any central bank who creates currency. And there are some interesting caveats to Bitcoin as compared to major currencies; Bitcoin is a closed system (there are finite Bitcoin) – this alone could make such currencies ‘anti-inflationary’ and at the least, hold their value (the value of the USD continues to deteriorate slowly over time as new M3 introduced into the system.) But we need to pay Here’s some interesting theories about who or whom is Satoshi: A corporate conglomerate Some researchers proposed that the name ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ was derived from a combination of tech companies consisting of Samsung, Toshiba, Nakayama, and Motorola. The notion that the name was a pseudonym is clearly true and it is doubtful they reside in Japan given the numerous forum posts with a distinctly English dialect. Craig Steven Wright This Australian entrepreneur claims to be the Bitcoin creator and provided proof. But soon after, his offices were raided by the tax authorities on ‘an unrelated matter’ Soon after these stories were published, authorities in Australia raided the home of Mr Wright. The Australian Taxation Office said the raid was linked to a long-running investigation into tax payments rather than Bitcoin. Questioned about this raid, Mr Wright said he was cooperating fully with the ATO. “We have lawyers negotiating with them over how much I have to pay,” he said. Other potential creators Nick Szabo, and many others, have been suggested as potential Satoshi – but all have denied it: The New Yorker published a piece pointing at two possible Satoshis, one of whom seemed particularly plausible: a cryptography graduate student from Trinity College, Dublin, who had gone on to work in currency-trading software for a bank and published a paper on peer-to-peer technology. The other was a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, Vili Lehdonvirta. Both made denials. Fast Company highlighted an encryption patent application filed by three researchers – Charles Bry, Neal King and Vladimir Oksman – and a circumstantial link involving textual analysis of it and the Satoshi paper which found the phrase “…computationally impractical to reverse” in both. Again, it was flatly denied. THE WINNER: It was the NSA The NSA has the capability, the motive, and the operational capacity – they have teams of cryptographers, the biggest fastest supercomputers in the world, and they see the need. Whether instructed by their friends at the Fed, in cooperation with their owners (i.e. Illuminati banking families), or as part of a DARPA project – is not clear and will never be known (unless a whistleblower comes forward). In fact, the NSA employs some of the best mathematicians and cryptographers in the world. Few know about their work because it’s a secret, and this isn’t the kind of job you leave to start your own cryptography company. But the real smoking Gun, aside from the huge amount of circumstantial evidence and lack of a credible alternative, is the 1996 paper authored by NSA “HOW TO MAKE A MINT: THE CRYPTOGRAPHY OF ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC CASH” The NSA was one of the first organizations to describe a Bitcoin-like system. About twelve years before Satoshi Nakamotopublished his legendary white paper to the Metzdowd.com cryptography mailing list, a group of NSA information security researchers published a paper entitled How to Make a Mint: the Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash in two prominent places, the first being an MIT mailing list and the second being much more prominent, The American Law Review The paper outlines a system very much like Bitcoin in which secure financial transactions are possible through the use of a decentralized network the researchers refer informally to as a Bank. They list four things as indispensable in their proposed network: privacy, user identification (protection against impersonation), message integrity (protection against tampering/substitution of transaction information – that is, protection against double-spending), and nonrepudiation (protection against later denial of a transaction – a blockchain!). It is evident that SHA-256, the algorithm Satoshi used to secure Bitcoin, was not available because it came about in 2001. However, SHA-1 would have been available to them, having been published in 1993. Why would the NSA want to do this? One simple reason: Control. As we explain in Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – the primary means the US dominates the world is through economic policy, although backed by bombs. And the critical support of the US Dollar is primarily, the military. The connection between the military and the US Dollar system is intertwined inextricably. There are thousands of great examples only one of them being how Iraq switched to the Euro right before the Army’s invasion. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar – ‘the currency of the enemy’ – for the more multilateral euro. The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time. Almost all of Iraq’s oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York. The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a higher rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars. The point here is there are a lot of different types of control. The NSA monitors and collects literally all electronic communications; internet, phone calls, everything. They listen in even to encrypted voice calls with high powered microphones, devices like cellphones equipped with recording devices (See original “Clipper” chip). It’s very difficult to communicate on planet Earth in private, without the NSA listening. So it is only logical that they would also want complete control of the financial system, including records of all electronic transactions, which Bitcoin provides. Could there be an ‘additional’ security layer baked into the Blockchain that is undetectable, that allows the NSA to see more information about transactions, such as network location data? It wouldn’t be so far fetched, considering their past work, such as Xerox copy machines that kept a record of all copies made (this is going back to the 70’s, now it’s common). Of course security experts will point to the fact that this layer remains invisible, but if this does exist – of course it would be hidden. More to the point about the success of Bitcoin – its design is very solid, robust, manageable – this is not the work of a student. Of course logically, the NSA employs individuals, and ultimately it is the work of mathematicians, programmers, and cryptographers – but if we deduce the most likely group capable, willing, and motivated to embark on such a project, the NSA is the most likely suspect. Universities, on the other hand, didn’t product white papers like this from 1996. Another question is that if it was the NSA, why didn’t they go through more trouble concealing their identity? I mean, the internet is rife with theories that it was in fact the NSA/CIA and “Satoshi Nakamoto” means in Japanese “Central Intelligence” – well there are a few answers for this, but to be congruent with our argument, it fits their profile. Where could this ‘hidden layer’ be? Many think it could be in the public SHA-256, developed by NSA (which ironically, was the encryption algorithm of choice for Bitcoin – they could have chosen hundreds of others, which arguably are more secure): Claims that the NSA created Bitcoin have actually been flung around for years. People have questioned why it uses the SHA-256 hash function, which was designed by the NSA and published by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). The fact that the NSA is tied to SHA-256 leads some to assume it’s created a backdoor to the hash function that no one has ever identified, which allows it to spy on Bitcoin users. “If you assume that the NSA did something to SHA-256, which no outside researcher has detected, what you get is the ability, with credible and detectable action, they would be able to forge transactions. The really scary thing is somebody finds a way to find collisions in SHA-256 really fast without brute-forcing it or using lots of hardware and then they take control of the network,” cryptography researcher Matthew D. Green of Johns Hopkins University said in a previous interview. Then there’s the question of “Satoshi Nakamoto” – if it was in fact the NSA, why not just claim ownership of it? Why all the cloak and dagger? And most importantly, if Satoshi Nakamoto is a real person, and not a group that wants to remain secret – WHY NOT come forward and claim your nearly $3 Billion worth of Bitcoin (based on current prices). Did the NSA create Satoshi Nakamoto? The CIA Project, a group dedicated to unearthing all of the government’s secret projects and making them public, hasreleased a video claiming Bitcoin is actually the brainchild of the US National Security Agency. The video entitled CIA Project Bitcoin: Is Bitcoin a CIA or NSA project? claims that there is a lot of compelling evidences that proves that the NSA is behind Bitcoin. One of the main pieces of evidence has to do with the name of the mysterious man, woman or group behind the creation of Bitcoin, “Satoshi Nakamoto”. According to the CIA Project, Satoshi Nakamoto means “Central Intelligence” in Japanese. Doing a quick web search, you’ll find out that Satoshi is usually a name given for baby boys which means “clear thinking, quick witted, wise,” while Nakamoto is a Japanese surname which means ‘central origin’ or ‘(one who lives) in the middle’ as people with this surname are found mostly in the Ryukyu islands which is strongly associated with the Ry?ky? Kingdom, a highly centralized kingdom that originated from the Okinawa Islands. So combining Nakamoto and Satoshi can be loosely interpreted as “Central Intelligence”. Is it so really hard to believe? This is from an organization that until the Snowden leaks, secretly recorded nearly all internet traffic on the network level by splicing fiber optic cables. They even have a deep-sea splicing mission that will cut undersea cables and install intercept devices. Making Bitcoin wouldn’t even be a big priority at NSA. Certainly, anonymity is one of the biggest myths about Bitcoin. In fact, there has never been a more easily traceable method of payment. Every single transaction is recorded and retained permanently in the public “blockchain”. The idea that the NSA would create an anarchic, peer-to-peer crypto-currency in the hope that it would be adopted for nefarious industries and become easy to track would have been a lot more difficult to believe before the recent leaks by Edward Snowden and the revelation that billions of phone calls had been intercepted by the US security services. We are now in a world where we now know that the NSA was tracking the pornography habits of Islamic “radicalisers” in order to discredit them and making deals with some of the world’s largest internet firms to insert backdoors into their systems. And we’re not the only ones who believe this, in Russia they ‘know’ this to be true without sifting through all the evidence. Nonetheless, Svintsov’s remarks count as some of the more extreme to emanate from the discussion. Svintsov told Russian broadcast news agency REGNUM:“All these cryptocurrencies [were] created by US intelligence agencies just to finance terrorism and revolutions.”Svintsov reportedly went on to explain how cryptocurrencies have started to become a payment method for consumer spending, and cited reports that terrorist organisations are seeking to use the technology for illicit means. Let’s elaborate on what is ‘control’ as far as the NSA is concerned. Bitcoin is like the prime mover. All future cryptocurrencies, no matter how snazzy or functional – will never have the same original keys as Bitcoin. It created a self-sustained, self-feeding bubble – and all that followed. It enabled law enforcement to collect a host of criminals on a network called “Silk Road” and who knows what other operations that happened behind the scenes. Because of pesky ‘domestic’ laws, the NSA doesn’t control the internet in foreign countries. But by providing a ‘cool’ currency as a tool, they can collect information from around the globe and like Facebook, users provide this information voluntarily. It’s the same strategy they use like putting the listening device in the chips at the manufacturing level, which saves them the trouble of wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping, and other risky methods that can fail or be blocked. It’s impossible to stop a cellphone from listening to you, for example (well not 100%, but you have to physically rewire the device). Bitcoin is the same strategy on a financial level – by using Bitcoin you’re giving up your private transactional information. By itself, it would not identify you per se (as the blockchain is ‘anonymous’ but the transactions are there in the public register, so combined with other information, which the NSA has a LOT OF – they can triangulate their information more precisely. That’s one problem solved with Bitcoin – another being the economic problem of QE (although with a Bitcoin market cap of $44 Billion, that’s just another day at the Fed buying MBS) – and finally, it squashes the idea of sovereignty although in a very, very, very subtle way. You see, a country IS a currency. Until now, currency has always been tied to national sovereignty (although the Fed is private, USA only has one currency, the US Dollar, which is exclusively American). Bitcoin is a super-national currency, or really – the world’s first one world currency. Of course, this is all great praise for the DOD which seems to have a 50 year plan – but after tens of trillions spent we’d hope that they’d be able to do something better than catching terrorists (which mostly are artificial terrorists)
Seven banks face EU antitrust fines for forex rigging: sources
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 46%. (I'm a bot)
BRUSSELS - Barclays, Citigroup, HSBC, JPMorgan and three other banks are set to be fined by EU antitrust regulators in the coming weeks for rigging the multitrillion dollar foreign exchange market, two people familiar with the matter said. The other three lenders are Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS and a small Japanese bank, the people said. The banks will see a 10 percent cut in their fines for admitting wrongdoing. The EU antitrust enforcer, which has been investigating the case over the last six years and could hand out fines up to 10 percent of a company's global turnover for breaching EU rules, declined to comment. It is possible the EU could space out its rulings against the banks over several weeks rather than lump them together in one day, the people said. Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS have entered related guilty pleas in a U.S. case, and been collectively fined more than $2.8 billion.
De rol van in Nederland werkzame vermogensbeheerders en beleggingsinstellingen bij grote financiële schandalen en het feit dat Nederlandse pensioenfondsen geheime overeenkomsten sluiten met hen waarin zeer waarschijnlijk de beheerder feitelijk nooit aansprakelijk gesteld kan worden voor schade
Vragen van het lid Omtzigt (CDA) aan de minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid over de rol van in Nederland werkzame vermogensbeheerders en beleggingsinstellingen bij grote financiële schandalen en het feit dat Nederlandse pensioenfondsen geheime overeenkomsten sluiten met hen waarin zeer waarschijnlijk de beheerder feitelijk nooit aansprakelijk gesteld kan worden voor schade. (ingezonden 13 februari 2019) 1 Hoeveel geld hebben Nederlandse pensioenfondsen en klopt het dat het grootste deel van deze gelden wordt beheerd door vermogensbeheerders, die aangesloten zijn bij Dutch Fund and Asset Management Association (DUFAS)? 2 Herinnert u zich dat het aangenomen amendement-Omtzigt (Kamerstuk 35015, nr. 10) heel duidelijk stelt welke werkzaamheden een pensioenfonds niet mag uitbesteden, namelijk: "a. taken en werkzaamheden van personen die het dagelijks beleid bepalen, daaronder mede verstaan het vaststellen van beleid en het afleggen van verantwoording over het gevoerde beleid; b. het opstellen van en toezien op het strategisch beleid ten aanzien van vermogensbeheer; c. werkzaamheden waarvan uitbesteding de verantwoordelijkheid van de uitvoerder voor de organisatie en beheersing van bedrijfsprocessen en het toezicht daarop kan ondermijnen; d. indien de uitbesteding een belemmering kan vormen voor een adequaat toezicht op de naleving van het bij of krachtens de Pensioenwet bepaalde"? 3 Herinnert u zich dat belangenvereniging van in Nederland werkzame vermogensbeheerders en beleggingsinstellingen DUFAS bepaald ongelukkig was met de toelichting op het amendement? 4 Herinnert u zich dat u antwoordde dat u niet op de hoogte bent dat de leden van DUFAS zich onder andere schuldig gemaakt hebben aan Libor fraude, Forex manipulatie, Euribor fraude, fraude met edelmetalen, fraude met Swaps (ISDA fix) en meer, en dat pensioenfondsen hierdoor schade geleden hebben en dat u vertelde dat deze informatie doorgaans niet openbaar is? 1) 5 Bent u bekend met het feit dat DUFAS leden Citi, JP Morgan en UBS onder de banken waren die schuldig waren aan LIBOR fraude, dat toegegeven hebben en daar miljarden boetes voor betaald hebben in de Verenigde Staten (VS)? 2) 6 Bent u bekend met het feit dat DUFAS leden Citi, JP Morgan, UBS en BNP Paribas samen meer dan 5 miljard dollar boete betaald hebben in de VS, het Verenigd Koninkrijk (VK) en Zwitserland voor hun rol in de manipulatie van de wisselkoersen? 3) 7 Bent u bekend met het feit dat DUFAS lid JP Morgan één van de banken is die een boete kreeg in de Euribor fraude zaak (waaraan ook de Nederlandse Rabobank zich schuldig heeft gemaakt)? 8 Bent u bekend met het feit dat DUFAS lid State Street honderden miljoenen boete betaalde aan Amerikaanse toezichthouders en aan een settlement met Amerikaanse klanten vanwege fraude met wisselkoersen? 4) 9 Bent u bekend met het feit dat DUFAS lid State Street pensioenfondsen stiekem extra verborgen kosten in rekening bracht en dat zij daarvoor een aantal niet-Nederlandse pensioenfondsen compenseerde? Bent u bekend met het feit dat een aantal mensen hiervoor lange gevangenisstraffen heeft gekregen? 5) 10 Bent u bekend met het feit dat DUFAS lid KPMG onder andere een schikking van het openbaar ministerie (OM) geaccepteerd heeft voor fraude en voor valsheid in geschrifte? 6) 11 Bent u op de hoogte van het feit dat een aantal bestuurders van DUFAS lid KPMG in de Verenigde Staten (VS) vervolgd worden voor het lekken van vertrouwelijke informatie over ophanden zijnde audits? 7) 12 Bent u op de hoogte van het feit dat het DUFAS lid UBS een schikking betaald heeft voor het manipuleren van de markten van edelmetalen en dat een trader van JP Morgan heeft toegegeven schuldig te zijn aan het manipuleren van de markt van edelmetalen? 8) 13 Bent u op dat hoogte dat DUFAS leden BNP Paribas, Citi, JP Morgan hoge boetes en/of afkoopsommen hebben betaald in de schandaal rondom fraude met swaps (Isdafix)? 9) 14 Klopt het dat pensioenfondsen in onder andere de VS schadevergoeding hebben gekregen voor de schade die zij geleden hebben als gevolg van de manipulatie van de derivatenmarkt? 15 Klopt het dat de Nederlandse pensioenfondsen enorme derivatenposities innemen en dat zij bij marktmanipulatie dus zeer waarschijnlijk schade lijden? 16 Wilt u opnieuw de vraag beantwoorden of u op de hoogte bent dat de leden van DUFAS zich onder andere schuldig hebben gemaakt aan Libor fraude, Forex manipulatie, Euribor fraude, fraude met edelmetalen, fraude met Swaps (ISDA fix) en meer, en dat pensioenfondsen hierdoor schade hebben geleden? 17 Weet u of de vereniging DUFAS ooit enige maatregel heeft genomen tegen een lid vanwege bijvoorbeeld fraude of valsheid in geschrifte? Zo ja, kunt u dan een voorbeeld geven? 18 Is het u opgevallen dat de in de ijlings verwijderde modelovereenkomst van DUFAS was opgenomen dat "- De Fiduciair Beheerder is niet aansprakelijk voor schade, tenzij die het gevolg is van opzet of [grove] schuld van hemzelf [of van enige persoon voor wie hij krachtens de wet aansprakelijk is]. [De aansprakelijkheid voor zulke schade is beperkt tot aansprakelijkheid voor [directe] schade als gevolg van het bedoelde opzet of de [grove] schuld en omvat niet ook indirecte schade, waaronder begrepen maar niet beperkt tot gevolgschade, gederfde winsten en gemiste besparingen.] â€¨(artikel 23.1) - [De hoogte van de aansprakelijkheid van de Fiduciair Beheerder is beperkt tot een bedrag gelijk aan [â—?] maanden vergoeding als bedoeld in artikel 11.1.] (artikel 23.2) - Voorwaarde voor het ontstaan van enig recht op schadevergoeding is steeds dat de Cliënt de Fiduciair Beheerder schriftelijk in gebreke stelt en daarbij een redelijke termijn ter zuivering van de tekortkoming stelt, terwijl de Fiduciair Beheerder ook na die termijn toerekenbaar in de nakoming van zijn verplichtingen tekort blijft schieten. De ingebrekestelling dient een zo gedetailleerd mogelijke omschrijving van de tekortkoming te bevatten, zodat de Fiduciair Beheerder in staat is adequaat te reageren. (artikel 23.3)"? 19 Deelt u de mening dat contracten die artikel 23.1, 23.2 en 23.3 bevatten, het bijna onmogelijk maken om een fiduciair beheerder aansprakelijk te stellen, omdat gederfde winsten en gemiste besparingen zijn uitgezonderd, de aansprakelijk gelimiteerd is tot een paar maanden vergoeding van de kosten betaald aan de beheerder en de fiduciair beheerder eerst in gebreke moet zijn gesteld en de mogelijkheid gehad moet hebben om zijn fout te herstellen? 20 Herinnert u zich dat u aan de Kamer schreef dat het pensioenfondsbestuur te allen tijde verantwoordelijk is voor het beleggingsbeleid en toezicht daarop? 10) 21 Is het pensioenfondsbestuur bestuursaansprakelijk, indien er sprake is van verlies door opzet of grove schuld bij de beheerder, maar die beheerder niet aansprakelijk gesteld kan worden omdat die via het contract gevrijwaard is van die aansprakelijkheid of in ieder geval het bedrag waarvoor die aansprakelijk gehouden kan worden, geminimaliseerd heeft? Kunt u het antwoord toelichten? 22 Bent u bereid om in overleg met de pensioenfederatie of de toezichthouder na te gaan of pensioenfondsen ooit een beheerder aansprakelijk hebben gesteld? Zo ja, kunt u dat voorbeeld dan vertrouwelijk delen met de Kamer? 23 Welke contacten heeft u (of uw ministerie) sinds 15 november 2018 met DUFAS gehad? Kunt u de e-mailberichten en gespreksverslagen van die contacten aan de Kamer doen toekomen? 24 Kent u de contracten tussen beheerders en pensioenfondsen? Op welke informatie baseert u de zin: “De overeenkomsten die in de praktijk gesloten worden, zijn doorgaans niet gebaseerd op de modelovereenkomst, maar op deze herziene principes”? 11) 25 Kent u enig pensioenfonds waar de deelnemer inzagerecht heeft in de beheersoverkomst? 26 Kent u enig pensioenfonds waar het verantwoordingsorgaan inzagerecht heeft in de beheersovereenkomst? 27 Kan een verantwoordingsorgaan decharge verlenen als zij geen inzage heeft in de beheersovereenkomst? 28 Acht u het wenselijk dat een verantwoordingsorgaan inzagerecht heeft in de beheersovereenkomst? 29 Wie gaan controleren of beheerders geen derivaten van zichzelf aan pensioenfondsen verkopen die niet vrijelijk verhandeld worden op een open markt? 30 Wat is uw oordeel over het feit dat een aantal Nederland werkzame vermogensbeheerders en beleggingsinstellingen ongeveer meegedaan heeft aan elke vorm van marktmisbruik en er nog steeds alles aan doet om geheime overeenkomsten te sluiten met pensioenfondsen, die deze beheerders bijna volledig vrijwaren van aansprakelijkheid? 31 Kunt u deze vragen één voor één, volledig en binnen drie weken beantwoorden? 1) Aanhangsel bij de handelingen 1247, 2018/2019, antwoord 8 2) https://www.cfr.org/backgroundeunderstanding-libor-scandal 3) zie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forex_scandal en https://www.ft.com/content/76dda416-02af-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5 4) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-state-str-settlement/state-street-to- pay-530-million-to-resolve-forex-fraud-claims-idUSKCN10706B 5) https://www.ipe.com/news/regulation/ex-state-street-transitions-chief- convicted-of-fraud/www.ipe.com/news/regulation/ex-state-street-transitions- chief-convicted-of-fraud/10025449.fullarticle 6) https://nos.nl/artikel/2183845-pijnlijke-boete-van-8-miljoen-euro-voor- kpmg-wegens-fraude.html 7) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kpmg-fraud-plea/former-kpmg-executive- director-pleads-guilty-to-audit-fraud-scheme-idUSKCN1MQ2OZ 8) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cftc-arrests/u-s-authorities-due- to-make-arrests-in-futures-spoofing-probe-sources-idUSKBN1FI19J en https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/06/ex-jp-morgan-trader-pleads-guilty-to- manipulating-metals-markets.html 9) https://www.businessinsider.com/citi-fined-cftc-libor-isdafix-rate- fixing-evidence-chat-logs-transcripts-2016-5?international=true&r=US&IR=T, https://www.reuters.com/article/jpmorgan-cftc/jpmorgan-to-pay-65-mln-to- settle-charges-of-attempted-isdafix-manipulation-idUSEMN306QQ7, en https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cftc-bnp-paribas/u-s-cftc-orders-bnp- paribas-to-pay-90-million-penalty-for-rate-rigging-idUSKCN1LE2AS 10) Aanhangsel bij de handelingen 1247, 2018/2019, antwoord 4 11) Aanhangsel bij de handelingen 1247, 2018/2019, antwoord 3 Datum: 13 februari 2019 Nr: 2019Z02795 Indiener: Pieter Omtzigt, Kamerlid CDA Bron: tweedekamer.nl
Big investors sue 16 banks in U.S. over currency market rigging
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 42%. (I'm a bot)
NEW YORK - A group of large institutional investors including BlackRock Inc and Allianz SE's Pacific Investment Management Co has sued 16 major banks, accusing them of rigging prices in the roughly $5.1 trillion-a-day foreign exchange market. The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan by plaintiffs that decided to "Opt out" of similar nationwide litigation that has resulted in $2.31 billion of settlements with 15 of the banks. The banks being sued are: Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Japan's MUFG Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland, Societe Generale, Standard Chartered and UBS. Investors typically opt out of litigation when they hope to recover more by suing on their own. The plaintiffs in Wednesday's lawsuit accused the banks of violating U.S. antitrust law by conspiring from 2003 to 2013 to rig currency benchmarks including the WM/Reuters Closing Rates for their own benefit by sharing confidential orders and trading positions. Norway's central bank Norges Bank and the big public pension fund California State Teachers' Retirement System are among the several other named plaintiffs. Many of the plaintiffs plan to pursue similar litigation in London against many of the bank defendants with respect to trades in Europe, a footnote in the complaint said.
General info and list of exchanges for Digital Asset Exchange Token (DAXT)
About DAXT The Digital Asset Exchange Token (symbol: DAXT) is BlockEx’s ICO. It is a utility token in which allows holders access to buy ICO tokens on BlockEx Markets ICO Market on a pre-sale basis before the public at large. In order for you to buy ICOs on a pre-sale basis, you must pay 2.5 percent of the notional purchase amount in terms of DAXTs. For example, if you wanted to buy €100 worth of ABC tokens you must pay 2.5 DAXTs in conjunction with the funds. The Pot Allocation System automatically calculates and adjusts each individual’s token allocation proportionate to the total funds received relative to the token supply available. Therefore, the DAXT guarantees token allocation tokens listed on the ICO Market. Interested? Here is How to Buy DAXT is now available on secondary market at Our Team Adam Leonard CEO Aleks Nowak CIO Ronald Martin COO Alex Kotenko CTO Dan Starr CMO James Godfrey MD Capital Markets Edd Carlton Head of OTC Trading Dotun Rominiyi Head of Product Andrew Perkins Director of Finance and Structured Products Biser Dimitrov Brokerage Technical Director Advisors Eric Benz | Linkedin Eric has over 10 years of experience working in and around Financial Technology. He has delivered innovative SaaS systems for some of today’s biggest institutions around payments, identity, and banking infrastructure. Eric has been in the Blockchain space for the past few years and has been responsible for helping build some of today’s most exciting Blockchain businesses. He is currently Managing Director for Cryptopay, which has been one of the longest running bitcoin exchanges, merchant processors, and pre-paid bitcoin card issuers. Paul Kim | Linkedin Paul Kim is a 15 year gaming executive having served companies such as GoPets, ZAM Network, and Gazillion Entertainment. He was the CEO of Xfire, the world’s largest gaming community site with over 24 Million registered users and then COO of Oomba, a cutting edge SaaS based Tournament platform. He has taken his extensive background in game based virtual currencies and ecosystems into the world of Blockchain. Having advised on a number of successful ICO's such as Paragon, Blockex and Academy, which collectively raised over $120M in total token sales. He was a Senior Advisor at DNA and currently the Managing Director of ICO’s at Blockchain Industries, a publicly listed company focused on Blockchain businesses (BCII) Trent McConaghy | Linkedin PHD Co-creator of the BigchainDB scalable blockchain database, its public network IPDB, and ascribe.io for IP on blockchains. Previously, he spent 15 years designing distributed AI systems to help drive Moore’s Law. Jon Matonis | Linkedin Founding Director of Bitcoin Foundation. Chief Forex Dealer; Director of Interchange VISA, CEO Hushmail, Senior Derivatives and Money Market Trader Sumitomo Bank, Director of Financial Services VeriSign. Roger Ohan | Linkedin 30+ years of experience in Financial Services. CFO at Wilberfoss Inc. Non-exec director of multi $Bn hedge fund. Former MD, Citco Fund Services (UK) Ltd. Former MD, Chemical Bank (now JPMorgan Chase). Scott Walker | Linkedin Serial Entrepreneur, Early Internet CEO, 2012 Invested in BTC, ETH, EOS, and many others. One of the most knowledgeable crypto investors in the sector. Jean Louis Jamin | Linkedin 30 years of private banking experience in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Malta & London. Previously Managing Director BNP Paribas Fortis, CEO Banca Intermobiliare di Investimenti e Gestioni, Managing Director Bank Degroof EXCHANGE LIST Binance Huobi Kucoin Bibox Qryptos Satoexchange BIGone Bitrue Bilaxy Bit-Z Linkcoin SECURE WALLET Ledgerwallet Trezor
Three British former foreign exchange traders for major banks have surrendered to US authorities to face criminal charges of market manipulation, the Justice Department announced. The men were traders for affiliates of JP Morgan Chase, Barclays, Citicorp and the Royal Bank of Scotland
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 39%. (I'm a bot)
Three British former foreign exchange traders for major banks have surrendered to US authorities to face criminal charges of market manipulation, the Justice Department announced Monday. The men were traders for affiliates of JP Morgan Chase, Barclays, Citicorp and the Royal Bank of Scotland and appeared Monday before a federal judge in New York. Richard Usher, Rohan Ramchandani and Christopher Ashton face a single-count indictment charging that they conspired to fix prices and rig bids for dollars and euros traded on the foreign exchange spot market. US officials have taken aggressive action in recent years to prosecute interest rate and foreign exchange rate manipulation by major banks. The banks affiliated with the former traders settled with the Justice Department in 2015, together agreeing to pay more than $2.5 billion in fines over foreign exchange manipulation. Earlier on Monday, the Federal Reserve fined French giant BNP Paribas $246 million, also over foreign exchange practices.
I am a foreign exchange spot trader. We take speculative positions on the movements of various currencies. Over a one day period we give you a snapshot into life trading on our London Floor. The Best/Simplest Forex Scalping Strategy/Method 2020 - Duration: 21 ... AEX week 29 2020 - Nioco Bakker - Daily Charts BNP Paribas Markets - Duration: 3:00. BNP Paribas Markets 1,075 views. 3:00 ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Bienvenue sur la chaîne officielle de BNP Paribas. Welcome on BNP Paribas' official YouTube channel. Find out more about Capital Markets De Daily Charts video's van Nico Bakker zijn verhuisd naar het channel van BNP Paribas Markets: ... 95% Winning Forex Trading Formula - Beat The Market Maker📈 - Duration: 37:53. TRADE ATS ...