TY1: There sure is a lot of convergence for Thursday…
1st – The first amendment to the amnesty law is passed
2nd – The judges are going to talk tomorrow during a holiday…Sounds like could be a set up for National Reconciliation
3rd – Budget could be in Gazette on Thursday
4th – Parliament meeting Thursday to pass all laws on docket – Possibly HCL?
A lot of stuff beginning to SHOW!
Risk1: In my notes from a few weeks ago Frank said the budget was put on hold from publication to ensure numbers were based on the new rate so foreign investment wouldn’t be discouraged. President approves budget and sent to be published….This based on the above should be our week..
MexSal: Ok so the rate in the budget according to math 100t/85b=1176…i know this question is made every year a budget goes out but…now that the budget is to be published…is there a legal procedure in wich they can change the numbers on budget once it is law in the gazzete? Or are we here for another year? As Frank said i don’t care how many 72’s takes but Man i’m trying to look for what is positive of another TRILLIONS dinar budget.
Risk1: IMO….The key numbers in the budget are the 100T…/ 85B…….Those numbers are solid, however the formula via the exchange rate can be arbitrary…..So no worries..
Ps…LOL I think it’s safe to say Frank cares ……….What i think he’s trying to say, (without putting words in his mouth), is even if there’s more 72’s…….He knows it’s coming
Tank: I have been reading on here more and more about any possible revaluation happening wont happen until ‘O’ is out of office and ‘T’ is in office, because the M.E. does not like ‘O’ and they collectively do not want to give him the satisfaction or credit for any revaluation, etc. And I was only pointing out that (as you have agreed) ‘O’ will get credit and satisfaction no matter if/when a revaluation happens…because of the intrinsic role that ‘O’ has played in this reformation process for Iraq. So to say that “any possible revaluation may not happen until after ‘O’ leaves office, because the M.E. does not like him” is not a quantifiable statement and makes absolutely no sense in my humble opinion.
PappaJack: Tank, nothing has to be quantifiable within the Iraqi mindset. Remember o INSULTED ABADI, ME mindset requires satisfaction for a wrong/ real or perceived. In this case o did it in front of the world. No pass for o on this one. I am sure that as narsasistic as o is he will try to claim this as part of his legacy. Irrelavent to ABADI and the rest of Iraq …… We all know the truth. Watch closely to the relationship that develops publicly between ABADI and TRUMP ,o will be swept aside quickly. As doc would say, ITS TIME TP MAKE THE DOUGHNUTS BOYS!! PJ
Tank: The intention of my initial post was not to give credit to this person or that person. Because as you have just stated, History and how it’s written is what decides who gets the credit. And as you also have insinuated…IRAQ should be getting most of the credit for what they have accomplished.
They have FINALLY stood together (as much as possible without fighting too much amongst themselves) in order to push-out/irradicate this ideology compound into a group now being labeled as Da’esh.
Other countries have helped Iraq, buy providing financial support, as well as guidance and training on how to get their finances in order. And they have received military support from nations around the world, as well as assistance building training camps and courses to better train their willing and able military age males so they can learn to become more combat effective out on the battlefield. (Credit for these feets will <and should> go out to the countries that have helped Iraq along over these past few years since ISIS/Da’esh took controlling interests within the levant).
The U.S. played a huge role in this. ‘O’ being the CiC of the U.S. military forces that enabled this transformation of Iraq’s military forces to allow for this success to even thrive and transpire the way it has…is where his credit will be given. I do feel that it was disrespectful to the lives of the men/women whom fought and died in Iraq … and for the U.S. to spend trillions of dollars from ’03-’11 helping Iraq build a government and military…all for it to freely/willingly be allowed by the Iraqi people, to be taken over so quickly and easily by a group of thugs following an ideology and leaving chaos and mayhem in their wake. Then for Iraq to ask for us to come back, because they were unable to stand up for themselves against ‘the bad men’ knocking at their door…but still limit the U.S. and tie not one but two hands behind their back, yet still ask for more help.
Yet what did ‘O’ authorize? The funding, aide, arms, and select military groups to return to provide help. ‘O’ signed off on that. The preverbial holding of the hand, to bring Iraq along in their financial short comings, stop gaps and processes…who helped with that?
The IMF, UST, WB, UN, etc. Who plays some key roles in each of those entities? The U.S. And who is the P.o.t.U.S. that was in charge while most of of this Da’esh has kicked off and started being irradicated? ‘O’. So no matter how it’s spun in the political realm, statements being made like ‘the revaluation will not occur until after the 20th and ‘O’ is out of office” really and truly do not make sense to me.
Sure, the M.E. may not like him, so what. Sure the M.E. may not respect him, so what. Can Iraq revalue their currency before ‘O’ is out of office, maybe, maybe not. THAT all depends on if all the boxes are checked, are they? Only key people in Iraq government/leadership, IMF, WB, UST and the W.H. know the estimated answer to that question.
Can Iraq afford to wait a few more months to revalue their currency, sure. They have revenue coming into the country, they have approved substantial loans from various countries/organizations around the globe. But doing (or in my point I’ve been trying to make) or not doing a revaluation because of one certain person in the W.H. office or another person in the W.H. office…makes no sense to me because history will still provide credit and satisfaction where it’s due and to whom it’s due. All in my humble opinion
Surfer223: IMO, Trump will get credit for this in the trickle down effect. Even if it happens today while Obama is still in office….Trump will get the credit …why or how you ask is because everything is reported in quarters financially.
So therefore when the 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th quarter numbers come out. Who is going to get credit. TRUMP. Because think of all the people that hold dinars, those people will most likely leave there jobs, open businesses, and or spend money in the economy.
The financial numbers will look so positive shedding a positive light on a Trump presidency. He will get credit and Obama will be a thing of the past, majority won’t even think or thank George Bush who made all this possible.
Vipor: Trump Tax Cuts Could Jump-Start Global Economy, World Bank Says
by Andrew Mayeda
January 10, 2017, 3:00 PM CST
President-elect Donald Trump’s tax cuts and spending plans could deliver a shot in the arm to the U.S. economy, lifting growth around the world, although uncertainty about his trade policies adds to the risks, according to the World Bank.
The Trump administration could squander the economic gains of fiscal stimulus if it imposes new trade barriers that provoke retaliation by other countries, the Washington-based development lender said Tuesday in the latest update to its global economic outlook.
Overall, it’s too early to assess what the net impact will be of Trump’s economic policies, the World Bank said. Accordingly, it left its forecast for U.S. growth this year and next unchanged, at 2.2 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. The outlook doesn’t incorporate the expected effect of Trump’s policy proposals, according to the report.
The bank projects the world economy will grow 2.7 percent in 2017, down 0.1 percentage point from its forecast in June. Stalling trade, weak investment and heightened policy uncertainty have dampened global economic activity, pushing growth down to an estimated 2.3 percent last year — the slowest rate since the financial crisis.
The World Bank estimates global growth will pick up to 2.9 percent next year, also down 0.1 percent from its June call.
The development lender sees the euro zone expanding at a 1.5 percent rate this year with uncertainty lingering as the U.K. starts negotiations to withdraw from the European Union, which will weigh on growth this year and next. Japan is seen growing 0.9 percent this year, while China’s output is set to expand 6.5 percent, the World Bank said.
U.S. growth could accelerate to as much as 2.5 percent this year and 2.9 percent in 2018 if the Trump administration follows through on a pledge to cut the corporate income-tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, and slash individual rates, the World Bank estimates.
“When you have this combination of tax cuts, you have a positive outcome on investment and personal consumption,” Ayhan Kose, director of the bank’s Development Prospects Group, said in an interview.
A U.S. pickup on that scale would boost global growth by 0.1 percentage point in 2017 and at least 0.3 point next year, depending on the timing of the tax cuts and the response of the Federal Reserve, according to the development lender.
The World Bank said Trump’s plan to boost infrastructure spending could also lift growth, but it cautioned that the benefits could be offset if overall federal spending falls.
The U.S. is the biggest trading partner for about a quarter of the world’s nations. As a result, efforts by the U.S. to renegotiate trade deals and impose new barriers could set back the global economy, the World Bank said. Trump, who will take office on Jan. 20, focused on trade during his campaign for the president, saying he’ll rethink trade relations with China, renegotiate or withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and keep the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
“Whenever a country imposes a trade restriction, on the other side of the table the country might impose policies as well, and that could escalate the conflict,” Kose said.
Three FX Traders Criminally Charged With Currency Rigging
Jan 10, 2017 4:46 PM
Moments ago, U.S. prosecutors charged three traders who made up the infamous “Cartel” currency rigging chat room, and who were at the heart of a criminal investigation that has ensnared the world’s biggest banks over the rigging of currency rates.
Richard Usher, formerly head of G10 spot trading at JPMorgan, Rohan Ramchandani, formerly of Citigroup and Chris Ashton, formerly of Barclays, were indicted Tuesday for conspiring to fix prices. They’re all outside the U.S. and will have to be extradited unless they surrender voluntarily.
As first reported back in 2013 when the FX rigging scandal broke out, the three used an online chatroom they dubbed ‘The Cartel’ to coordinate the rigging of foreign-exchange benchmarks by sharing confidential customer information, according to the U.S. charge. Another member, Matt Gardiner, formerly of UBS Group AG, has been helping prosecutors build cases against the traders, Bloomberg reported earlier.
Citigroup, Barclays, JPMorgan and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc pleaded guilty in May 2015 to conspiring to rig currency rates. UBS Group AG received immunity from prosecution, but its conduct breached an earlier agreement over its role in manipulating benchmark interest rates.
The Cartel chatroom ran from at least December 2007 until January 2013, prosecutors have said in court papers. It was limited to specific euro/dollar traders, they said. Many conversations took place just before daily fixes, the brief windows of time when data providers take a snapshot of trading so they can set daily rates.
As Bloomberg noted previously, the charges make good on the government’s long-running promise it would hold individuals to account in the case. As far back as September 2014, then-Attorney General Eric Holder said charges against traders were imminent.
Those efforts were hampered by issues of evidence and lack of cooperators, people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg last year. Bloomberg published a series of articles in 2013 exposing how the world’s biggest banks were colluding to rig foreign exchange rates.
Some prosecutions are moving forward. Over the past six months, two currency traders were charged and a third pleaded guilty to rigging allegations. This summer, Gardiner and Ashton were banned from the U.S. banking industry for life by the Federal Reserve, which also imposed a $1.2 million fine on Ashton.
Unlike the US, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office dropped its investigation into currency rigging last year citing insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. The agency interviewed 19 individuals as part of its probe, according to a freedom-of-information request by Bloomberg in August, including four under caution. Interviews under caution generally mean the person is being treated as a suspect.
Some more details from Bloomberg for those unfamiliar with the story:
Citigroup, Barclays, JPMorgan and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc pleaded guilty in the U.S. in May 2015 to conspiring to rig currency rates. UBS received immunity from prosecution in the currency case, but its conduct breached an earlier agreement over its role in manipulating benchmark interest rates.
During the banks’ Jan. 5 sentencing, a federal judge in Connecticut urged the Justice Department to pursue individuals in the cases.
“Mischief will be best deterred if the people responsible are not only fired but that any compensation made to them that was triggered by the wrongful conduct, for example bonuses, are clawed back or disgorged,” U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill said. “Frankly I would encourage the government to consider prosecution of individuals.”