Nell’attesa che, a Dio piacendo, l’Unione Europea si liberi di Mr Juncker e di Mr Tusk, e magari anche della ingombrante presenza di Frau Merkel, la Cina prosegue imperterrita la sua penetrazione dell’Europa dell’est.
Questo incipit apparentemente tranchant constata come gli umori attuali del corpo elettorale si siano distanziati da detti personaggi in modo così marcato da renderli sicuramente legalmente in opera, ma screditati politicamente: rappresentano sé stessi, non l’Unione Europea.
«Sofia, Bulgaria hosted the annual China-CEEC think tank conference on June 29 under the theme of “Advancing 16+1 Cooperation Platform – the Way Ahead.” The conference was part of the official calendar of events of the 7th CEEC-China 16+1 Summit»
*
«The 16+1 was established in 2012 as a multilateral platform facilitating cooperation between China and 16 Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC).»
*
«In recent years, the platform’s summits have attracted a lot of attention, especially in Western Europe»
*
«The intensifying level of engagement between the 16 countries in the CEE region and China has considerably alarmed Brussels and Berlin»
*
«Many Western European observers and policymakers have raised concerns about the potential risks of growing Chinese presence in Eastern Europe, claiming that Beijing’s major interest in engaging with the region is a part of its long-term strategy to undermine EU unity»
* * * * * * * *
La dirigenza dell’Unione Europea ed i capi dei Governi delle nazioni più ricche stanno guardando con crescente apprensione il consolidarsi dei rapporti commerciali della Cina con i paesi dell’est europeo. Temono, a ragione, che alla lunga il baricentro politico ed economico si sposti verso la Cina.
Questi timori stanno aumentando giorno per giorno, e più che a ragione. Ma nella realtà dei fatti la Cina, nel costituire il Ceec, il 16 + 1, ha occupato uno spazio lasciato vuoto dall’Unione.
L’errore di maggiore portata è stato quello di voler imporre la propria Weltanschauung a paesi che proprio non ne volevano sapere.
Ottimo uno Zollverein, ottima un’Unione Europea di nazioni sovrane ma collegate da vincoli economici, pessima l’idea di voler trasformare questa Unione negli Stati Uniti di Europa a guida liberal e socialista. In casa propria la gente vorrebbe potersi gestire a piacere, secondo diritto e tradizioni. In fondo, gran parte del contenzioso con il Gruppo Visegrad e, più in generale, con il Ceec è ascrivibile a questo tentativo cruento, fallito sotto il peso di un Elettorato che ha mutato orientamenti.
Di non minore importanza è il fallimento economico dell’Unione Europea.
A costo di essere estremamente riduttivi, l’Unione Europea ha destinato ingenti risorse al mantenimento del welfare ed a quelle politiche di ‘integrazione’ che alla resa dei fatti non generano reddito, mentre la Cina fornisce investimenti per la messa in opera di infrastrutture, generatrici di reddito indotto.
*
Questa Unione Europea si è già parzialmente rinnovata nel Consiglio Europeo, suo sommo decisore politico, ed il risultato dell’ultimo Consiglio Europeo è sotto gli occhi di tutti: la componente avversa l’attuale dirigenza non è ancora sufficientemente forte da poter governare, ma lo è abbastanza da bloccare le iniziative degli attuali dirigenti,
Sarebbe da facili profeti il constatare che con una guida politica come l’attuale l’Unione Europea andrà incontro a fatti disgregativi.
Sofia, Bulgaria hosted the annual China-CEEC think tank conference on June 29 under the theme of “Advancing 16+1 Cooperation Platform – the Way Ahead.” The conference was part of the official calendar of events of the 7th CEEC-China 16+1 Summit that will take place in the Bulgarian capital on July 7.
The 16+1 was established in 2012 as a multilateral platform facilitating cooperation between China and 16 Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC). In recent years, the platform’s summits have attracted a lot of attention, especially in Western Europe. The intensifying level of engagement between the 16 countries in the CEE region and China has considerably alarmed Brussels and Berlin. Many Western European observers and policymakers have raised concerns about the potential risks of growing Chinese presence in Eastern Europe, claiming that Beijing’s major interest in engaging with the region is a part of its long-term strategy to undermine EU unity. This is by no means a new perspective, as these kinds of concerns have been raised multiple times since the platform’s establishment.
Meanwhile, the international situation has changed significantly during the last six years. China under Xi Jinping has changed its foreign policy course, intensifying its international presence in many parts of the world. The promotion of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as China’s major foreign policy tool has been accompanied by the advancement of local regional initiatives, such as the 16+1 platform. Simultaneously, China’s new international behavior has become one of the major points of contention among observers and policymakers looking at Chinese presence in places like Australia, New Zealand, and Czech Republic, just to name a few.
What is important to note is the emergence of certain trends highlighted by a number of experts during the Sofia conference. One of the dominant themes was the anticipation of some kind of breakthrough regarding the broader direction of China-EU relations and a need for the CEEC to find its “own voice” when it comes to bringing forward a desirable model of cooperation. This does not imply accepting Chinese investment and engagement without critical assessment, but it points toward a more fact-based approach to managing the region’s relations with Beijing. Uncertainty as one of the dominant themes of the current international situation and its impact on China-CEE-Western EU states trilateral relationship was said to be included in the draft version of the 16+1 Sofia Summit Declaration to be published after the main summit on July 7.
The opinions articulated by many experts during the 16+1 think tank conference in Sofia seem to present a counterpoint to the dominant Western European narrative about growing Chinese influence in the CEE and the region’s alleged inability to critically assess this new development. Experts from the region do have insights into the complicated nature of China-CEE relations. A lack of critical perspective is far from the biggest problem. Already, existing cases of business deals and political cooperation between China and some individuals or groups within CEEC should be considered more alarming. In other words, it is elite capture that should generate worry, rather than the general existence of the 16+1 platform itself.
The example of Ye Jianming, Czech President Milos Zeman’s economic adviser, is a case in point. The former CEO of Chinese energy giant CEFC has been under investigation in China for a couple of months now. A controversial figure himself, he was accused in the West of having ties to Chinese military intelligence. In China, he has been accused of having committed “economic crimes,” meaning high-level corruption. Although the investigation is still ongoing, it seems alarming enough to conclude that this is precisely the kind of relationship that should be looked out for when it comes to future projects between individuals or institutions from the CEE region and China.
Increased Eastern European interest in fostering ties with China could be seen as a purely pragmatic attempt to diversify the region’s international trade ties. Simultaneously, from the perspective of Berlin and Brussels, this new trend overlaps with the anti-progressive political turn among some Eastern European nations, most notably Poland and Hungary. While concerns about the region’s populist turn are indeed rooted in reality, there seems to be little evidence that this development is in any way related to the growing Chinese presence in the region.
It is crucial to bear in mind the way in which many CEE states might perceive Brussels and Berlin’s anxiety as somehow exaggerated. Chinese economic engagement in the region still has been marginal compared to other Asian investors, like Japan and South Korea, not to mention Western investors. Despite growing tensions, EU remains the most important political and economic partner of CEEC.
Nevertheless, Berlin has objected many times to the further development of the 16+1 framework. Most recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel raised the topic during her visit to China in late May 2018. Shortly after the end of her visit, Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi met with his German counterpart in Berlin, where he suggested that Germany would be welcome to participate trilaterally in the 16+1 platform’s activities.
How could that change the decision-making processes and the bargaining power of each CEE state involved in the platform? Could it become a tool ensuring more accountability and transparency within its work? Or would it rather help to benefit the two largest partners, namely China and Germany? Declarations about China’s willingness to combine economic complementary advantages of China and Germany together with the CEE region’s developmental needs seem reasonable, yet their implementation might prove difficult. The same applies to finding a common ground to even start discussing certain problematic issues trilaterally.
Although the overall feeling of deepening divisions between Eastern and Western Europe and a general crisis of both EU as an institution and its transatlantic relations were all evident throughout the conference, constructive proposals for future development of the platform were also brought forward. But given the importance of the international environment, what might eventually be more important is the upcoming China-EU summit in late July. Brussels and Berlin expect Beijing to accommodate their anxieties, which are partially reasonable, but are also rooted in many misperceptions on the part of the EU. Most importantly, the EU should critically assess the overestimation of the scale of Chinese engagement in the CEEC. This does not mean that the issue of the political implications of Chinese presence in the region should be overlooked. It is not a non-issue, yet it should be assessed on the basis of a truly fact-based discussion, ensuring the agency of all parties involved.
Ahead of this July’s 16+1 summit in Bulgaria, Chinese officials are busy trying to sell the idea that Beijing’s outreach work in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is about “win-win” cooperation. The summit, launched in Warsaw in 2012, brings together 16 CEE countries, including 11 EU member states, with high-ranking Chinese officials, ostensibly to foster economic cooperation and investment. Many leaders, pundits, and experts, however, fear that the Chinese-driven initiative is nothing more than a Trojan horse, threatening to undermine EU norms, disadvantage Western investors, and spread corrupt development practices amongst vulnerable democracies. But are they right or is this just European Sinophobia?
Though Beijing has been playing down the 16+1 initiative as a loose multilateral framework for cooperation between CEE and China, the reality of the situation falls somewhat short of even such understated rhetoric. A more honest depiction of the format, however, is the grouping together of bilateral partnerships through which China can more easily field competition for Chinese bank loans.
By its own admission, the 16+1 seeks to foster economic cooperation in the infrastructure sector. In other words, the initiative serves as a platform through which Beijing can implement Xi Jinping’s signature global infrastructure push, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The downside is that in place of bargaining collectively, as countries might be able to do through the EU, the 16+1 framework fosters competition in Beijing’s favor and reduces CEE countries to passive recipients of agendas and policies formulated by Chinese officials. Of course, this set up isn’t particularly healthy for the 16+1 countries themselves, but it’s also causing consternation and worry further afield in Western European capitals.
For one thing, in CEE countries and within the context of the Belt and Road more generally, Beijing tends to invest in sectors that are critical for national security, such as transport and energy infrastructure. For instance, in this year’s 16+1 summit host country, Bulgaria, the China National Nuclear Corporation has confirmed its interest in working on the Belene nuclear power plant project. Long tarnished by accusations of corruption, the Belene project has been under a construction moratorium since 2012 and has been described by Prime Minister Boyko Borissov as “the corruption scheme of the century.” Now, six years later, Borissov has made a complete about-face, and President Rumen Radev – who has been known to clash with the prime minister – has also expressed his support for the project.
Given the history of scandals surrounding Belene, it is unclear to many observers why the government has now decided to revive the project. The fact that Sofia is embracing the Chinese at the same time it’s breaking ties with AES and ContourGlobal, two American power companies responsible for a fifth of Bulgaria’s energy production, did little to assuage fears that the country is tacking east.
Of course, security-related concerns are not the only 16+1 related problem raising eyebrows in Brussels. The growing influence that Beijing is fostering through the initiative also threatens to undermine the very norms and values the EU seeks to foster in newly joined and aspiring member states.
Already, the grouping has triggered a race to the bottom for Beijing’s affections. Czech President Miloš Zeman has gone so far as to offer his country as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier for China in Europe,” while Hungary’s Viktor Orbán’s attitude toward Beijing might be described as positively fawning. Inevitably, this lust for economic attention from Beijing turns into subservience when it comes to Beijing’s political demands. In 2016, CEE diplomats insisted on watering down an already vague EU statement related to China’s illegal action in the South China Sea. In 2017, Hungary refused to sign a letter condemning the torture of detained lawyers in China, while Greece, a country that has also received considerable investment from Beijing, derailed an EU statement at the UN on China’s human rights record.
Aside from flying in the face of European values like respect for human rights, such acquiescence also breeds disunity at a time when the EU can suffer it least. Despite Beijing’s protestations to the contrary, a divided and politically weak EU clearly serves China’s strategic ambitions in Europe.
Unfortunately, the alliance of some CEE countries with Chinese political values is not purely a question of greed. For leaders like Orbán, who seeks to establish an “illiberal bloc” in the midst of Europe, Beijing’s brand of state capitalist authoritarianism provides a welcome model. Even CEE candidate countries like Serbia, which still harbor pro-EU political ambitions, find something attractive in the economic model that Beijing offers.
After all, while EU funds come with strong transparency and accountability requirements, loans from Chinese-controlled state banks are free from such cumbersome attachments. And while countries like Serbia are making slow progress toward EU membership requirements, corruption remains endemic. Because of Beijing’s “no strings attached” policies, loans from Chinese banks are comparatively easy to funnel into local patronage networks. Next to paperwork-heavy EU funds, they are a vastly more attractive prospect for local elites.
Beijing’s deepening footprint in the CEE region thus threatens to roll back progress toward transparency and good development practice that has hitherto been successfully sponsored by the EU. And not surprisingly, this growing preference for illiberal and corrupt practices has come at the expense of Western investors. In non-EU 16+1 countries, Beijing can attach conditions to its loans that require the participation of Chinese companies in projects, but even in EU member states, countries are flouting regulation in order to privilege easy Chinese capital.
Of course, if you listen to Chinese officials like Foreign Minister Wang Yi, you’ll hear a different story. His “win-win,” “mutual development” rhetoric is appealing, but it’s hard to see how the initiative outlined above can, as he claims, “facilitate the European integration progress.”
La Rai è da sempre l’ente pubblico più esecrato e deprecato, a partire dal canone da moltissimi percepito come iniquo, per proseguire alla pletora di dipendenti – 11,635 nel 2014 -, un fatturato di 2.8 miliardi nel 2016 ed un utile netto di 14.3 milioni nel 2017.
Per decenni è stata feudo delle sinistre, e questo sarebbe ancora il meno.
La stragrande maggioranza dei giornalisti e degli anchorman è tediosamente liberal e ìschierati a sinistra da far rimpiangere la Pravda di Brèžnev.
Per decenni ha svolto una smaccata campagna elettorale liberal senza che nessuno avesse potuto dire nulla. La loro faziosità era semplicemente nauseante.
Anzi, a loro dire, erano viole mammole, candidi gigli in odore di santità.
*
Dal nuovo consiglio di amministrazione ci aspettiamo soltanto una cosa.
Che epuri gli organici, specie quelli dei telegiornali e dei programmi di attualità, da tutti coloro che abbiano attivamente partecipato alla propaganda liberal e di sinistra.
Per cercare di essere chiari, li vogliamo vedere licenziati.
Borioni e Coletti scelte a Palazzo Madama, alla Camera eletti Igor De Biasio e Gianpaolo Rossi
*
Beatrice Coletti e Rita Borioni sono i due componenti del Consiglio di amministrazione della Rai eletti da palazzo Madama. Coletti è una manager con esperienza di amministratore delegato e direttrice di canali televisivi. Sulla piattaforma Rousseau è stata la più votata dai militanti 5 stelle. Invece la ricercatrice Borioni, ex viceresponsabile del dipartimento Cultura e informazione del Partito democratico, è stata confermata nella governance con il sostegno di Pd, Forza Italia e Fratelli d’Italia. Alla Camera sono stati eletti Igor De Biasio e Gianpaolo Rossi. De Biasio, in quota Lega, tra i fondatori del Movimento Giovani Padani, ha ottenuto 312 voti, mentre Rossi, vicino a Fratelli d’Italia, ne ha incassatti 166. De Biasio è figlio dell’ex sindaco o meglio «borgomastro» di Biassono, storica roccaforte leghista in Brianza.
Due voti a Santoro
Nel votare per i due membri del cda Rai di competenza del Senato, a Palazzo Madama hanno raccolto consensi – oltre ovviamente alle elette Beatrice Coletti e Rita Borioni con 133 e 101 preferenze rispettivamente – altri cinque candidati. Sono Giovanni Minoli (11 voti), Sebastiano Roccaro (5 voti), il conduttore Michele Santoro (2 voti), Giuseppe Rossodivita (un voto) e la giornalista del Tg1 Claudia Mazzola (un voto). Le schede bianche sono state 21, le nulle 31.
I cacciatori di teste sulle tracce dell’ad
Se la partita del cda si può considerare quasi chiusa, rimane ancora definire invece il prossimo amministratore delegato. Secondo l’Adnkronos il ministero dell’Economia avrebbe affidato la ricerca a una società di cacciatori di teste. Tra i nomi contattati ci sarebbe anche quello di Raffaele Annecchino, executive vice president di Viacom. La sua nomina però potrebbe essere ostacolata dal tetto di 240mila euro lordi l’anno previsto per legge per i dirigenti pubblici.
Per oltre cinquanta anni in Francia la destra francese rappresentata dal Front National, che di recente ha mutato denominazione in Rassemblement National, è stata accuratamente isolata politicamente con una sorta di arco costituzionale. Anche se sia diventata la seconda forza politica nazionale in termini percentuali, in tutti i ballottaggi ai quali si era presentato, sinistre e destre si votavano vicendevolmente pur di escluderli.
Questa conventio ad excludendum ha funzionato più che bene, unitamente al sistema elettorale francese in due turni, l’ultimo dei quali è sostanzialmente un ballottaggio. Così, a fronte di un 30% dei voti, FN ha ottenuto solo 7 / 577 deputati, 2 /348 senatori, 17 / 74 eurodeputati. Nelle elezioni regionali del 2016 FN ha conquistato 333 / 1,758 seggi.
*
Questa situazione sembrerebbe iniziare a mutare, per svariati motivi.
– Il partito socialista francese è crollato da quasi maggioranza all’attuale 8%, generando una costellazione di formazioni politiche di ideologia socialista ma fortemente conflittuali, per lo più su base personale.
– In risposta, molti ambienti politici e sociali hanno generato lo scorso anno il partito En Marche!, guidato da Mr Macron, che ottenne il 24% dei consensi al primo turno delle elezioni presidenziali del 2017, che poi vinse grazia al massiccio voto delle sinistre.
– Alle elezioni presidenziali e politiche del 2017 i Les Républicains, LR subirono una severa sconfitta elettorale, perdendo la gara per la presidenza ed ottenendo solo 98 / 577 deputati.. Si prese una buona rivincita al senato, grazie al sistema elettorale ad hoc, ottenendo 146 / 348 senatori. LR perse 87 seggi in parlamento e scese dal 38% al 15 – 22%.
– I concetti di ‘sinistra’ e ‘destra’ stanno perdendo i loro contenuti ideologici, ed i problemi economici sono diventati prioritari su quelli ideologici.
* * * * * * * *
Ma nessuna realtà umana è immutabile, specie poi la politica.
La destra francese ha un potente alleato in Sorella Morte, che con grande puntualità e precisione falcidia i rancorosi vegliardi che si adattarono a votare Mr Macron pur di fare un dispetto al Front National. Muoiono e le generazioni subentranti sembrerebbero essere di parere alquanto differente.
Adesso sembrerebbe che un’alleanza elettorale tra Les Républicains e Rassemblement National potrebbe prendere corpo, almeno per le prossime elezioni europee del prossimo anno.
Chiaramente, una cosa sono i numeri, peraltro indispensabili, ed un’altra è la volontà politica.
Di certo però l’Elettorato potrebbe apprezzare una simile coalizione, che metterebbe fuori gioco le sinistre ed il partito En Marche!.
Se così fosse, la Francia volterebbe pagina politica ed economica e, verosimilmente, in modo irreversibile.
* * * * * * * *
Il sondaggio Bva evidenzia, in sintesi:
– Il 37 % dei francesi si colloca politicamente a destra, il 36% a sinistra.
– il 65% dei francesi potrebbe votare una coalizione di destra per le elezioni europee, ma solo per quelle.
– Se questi sono i dati numerici, le valutazioni politiche degli Elettori sono fluide:
→ I francesi “piuttosto di destra” si distinguono per una maggiore vicinanza ideologica a La République en Marche!
→ I repubblicani non trovano un’eco di maggioranza tra i francesi che dicono di essere “molto di destra”.
→ La linea politica della RN e di Debout la France è respinta dalla “destra piuttosto”.
→ Tra le personalità i cui sostenitori si appoggiano “alla destra”, Marion Maréchal e Nicolas Dupont-Aignan appaiono piuttosto unificanti.
→ Mentre Laurent Wauquiez ha una posizione più centrale sulla destra, il suo profilo non appare essere molto unificante.
* * *
Ci si rende perfettamente conto che di qui alle elezioni europee correranno undici mesi, durante i quali molte cose impreviste ed imprevedibili potrebbero accadere.
Tuttavia questi risultati numerici dovrebbe dare da pensare alla realtà francese che sta mutando.
* * * * * * * *
La Bva ha rilasciato recentemente il seguente report:
37% des Français se positionnent politiquement à droite : la majorité d’entre eux pourrait voter pour une liste d’union de la droite aux élections européennes (65%)…mais l’intérêt pour des listes d’union serait surtout ponctuel.
– 83% des Français peuvent se positionner politiquement sur l’axe gauche-droite : 36% à gauche, 10% au centre et 37% à droite. A l’inverse, 15% se disent ni de gauche ni de droite et 2% ne se prononcent pas.
– Parmi les 37% des Français se positionnant politiquement à droite : 14% se placent plutôt à droite, 14% à droite et 9% très à droite.
– 65% des Français se positionnant à droite pourraient voter pour une liste d’union de la droite aux élections européennes 2019, rassemblant des candidats Les Républicains, Debout la France et du Rassemblement national.
– Uniquement 32% des sympathisants de la droite soutiendraient des listes d’union « quelles que soient les élections » et le soutien à cette possibilité varie très fortement selon la position politique, de 60% chez les « très à droite » à seulement 35% chez les « à droite » et 12% chez les « plutôt à droite ».
Verbatim de la communauté POP by BVA : «Je ne pourrais pas voter pour une telle association qui n’aura le nom d’union que par la circonstance. Ce serait plutôt une liste d’union d’intérêts personnels »
*
Peu de partis ou de personnalités politiques apparaissent susceptibles de rassembler l’ensemble des sympathisants de la droite
– Les Français « plutôt à droite » se distinguent par une plus grande proximité idéologique à La République en Marche !
– Les Républicains ne trouvent pas d’écho majoritaire chez les Français se disant « très à droite »
– La ligne politique du RN et de Debout la France est rejetée auprès des « plutôt à droite »
– Parmi les personnalités dont les soutiens penchent « très à droite », Marion Maréchal et Nicolas Dupont-Aignan apparaissent assez rassembleurs
– Si Laurent Wauquiez dispose d’une position plus centrale à droite, son profil est peu fédérateur
Verbatim de la communauté POP by BVA : «Il est difficile aujourd’hui de cerner la droite, le RPR a éclaté et ne s’est toujours pas trouvé, DLF balbutie et fait un peu la girouette, le RN n’a rien à envier au FN, et la faiblesse de son programme reste nette. Alors comment s’y retrouver ? Pour le moment je pense que je n’en ai même pas envie. La main sur le cœur, ils sont tous pour « une France », mais leurs chemins divergent.»
*
Au-delà d’un certain socle commun, des divergences de position sur des questions-clefs (économie libérale, Euro, Union européenne) et sur certaines valeurs (égalité, solidarité, tolérance, laïcité)
– Des positions plutôt proches sur les sujets sociétaux (identité française, protection sociale), plus éloignées sur l’économie libérale.
– Des opinions plus clivées sur les questions européennes, l’attachement à l’Euro et à l’Union européenne différant fortement selon les segments de la droite.
– Le Travail, la Justice, la Famille, la Liberté, l’Autorité, le Mérite et le Patriotisme, valeurs transverses à l’ensemble des Français se positionnant à droite.
– L’Autorité, le Mérite et le Patriotisme font figure de « marqueurs de droite », l’importance qui leur est accordée à droite différant significativement de celle exprimée par les Français.
– L’Egalité, la Solidarité, la Tolérance et la Laïcité apparaissent comme des valeurs moins consensuelles à droite.
Verbatim de la communauté POP by BVA : «Liberté, responsabilité, justice, famille et amitié, respect et politesse. L’autorité est nécessaire et ne doit pas se discuter, le patriotisme est un plaisir personnel léger qui s’applique aux différents cercles d’appartenance de chacun pour moi, le monde, l’Europe, ma région. Oui à l’égalité dans la différence et un non puissant et définitif à l’égalitarisme des jaloux et des loosers. La laïcité oui dans le sens de la liberté de penser offerte à chacun.»
Sarebbe difficile pensare che stia bene il paziente a cui il medico abbia suggerito come unico rimedio quello di andare in pellegrinaggio a Lourdes a chiedere il miracolo.
Ma se questo potrebbe anche essere comprensibile se a suggerire simile rimedio fosse un pio francescano, molto meno comprensibile diventa quando a dirlo sia una persona dichiaratamente atea.
«Questo mette un rischio aggiuntivo sul rifinanziamento di questi debiti.»
*
«Non resta che sperare che i nodi di un decennio di denaro facile non vengano al pettine…»
«Hanno toccato 3.700 miliardi di dollari i debiti delle società europee ed area Emea di cui 1.400 miliardi in scadenza nei prossimi quattro anni. Un livello salito di circa 800 miliardi di dollari in un anno dai 2.900 miliardi di dollari nel 2017, secondo un recente report dell’agenzia di rating Moody’s. ….
Guardando i settori, auto, energia e utility rappresentano oltre il 50% del debito mentre per quanto riguarda i paesi, Germania, Francia e Gran Bretagna sono i più rappresentati»
«Oggi gli occhi sono tutti puntati sulla Cina, che detiene 1.176 miliardi di dollari di debito pubblico americano. Dato che Donald Trump ha dichiarato guerra commerciale al Paese, il timore che Pechino possa “vendicarsi” vendendo titoli di Stato statunitensi si diffonde sui mercati finanziari ….
Ma il dubbio è che questo problema, in un mondo oberato da 61mila miliardi di debiti pubblici, possa capitare a qualunque altro Stato. Del resto quando un Paese ha troppi debiti, il rischio è che finisca ostaggio di investitori spregiudicati come accadde all’Italia durante la crisi dello spread del 2011»
* * * * * * *
Gli articoli allegati, dei quali si suggerisce caldamente la lettura, sono ricchi di numeri.
Dieci anni di usbergo liberal sono riusciti ad appestare il mondo.
Qui vorremmo solo evidenziarne uno, peraltro non citato.
L’aumento di un solo punto percentuale del tasso di interesse su si una cifra di 247 trilioni rappresenta 2.47 trilioni di Usd.
Se percentualmente sembrasse poco, in fondo è solo l’uno per cento, si pensi che 2,470 miliardi Usd sono un po’ meno del debito sovrano italiano: un gran pacco di denari.
Ottomila miliardi di dollari. Detti così sembrano numeri irreali. Da fumetti. Ma sono numeri veri. Secondo l’ultima ricerca dell’Institute of International Finance (IIF) i debiti pubblici e privati a livello globale nel solo primo trimestre del 2018 sono aumentati proprio di questa cifra: di 8mila miliardi di dollari. Si tratta dell’incremento trimestrale maggiore dal primo trimestre del 2016, che porta i debiti globali alla cifra di 247mila miliardi di dollari. Una montagna pari al 318% del Pil del mondo intero.
Questi numeri sono l’effetto di un decennio di politiche monetarie ultra-espansive, che hanno aumentato la liquidità globale e portato a zero (o addirittura sotto zero) i tassi d’interesse in molte parti del mondo. Questo ha favorito il ricorso al debito da parte di tutti: imprese, Stati e famiglie.
Oggi però il mondo è alla svolta. Innanzitutto la liquidità sta diventando meno abbondante: secondo i calcoli di Pictet Asset Management, dopo che nel 2017 le banche centrali hanno iniettato nel sistema finanziario un totale di 2.600 miliardi di dollari di liquidità (inclusa la Banca centrale cinese), nel 2018 le iniezioni scendono a 580 miliardi e nel 2019 a 40 miliardi. Al netto della Banca cinese nel 2019 verranno drenati 80 miliardi di dollari dal sistema. Inoltre i tassi d’interesse stanno salendo, soprattutto quelli Usa.
Questo rischia dunque di pesare in un mondo iper-indebitato, che si è coperto di debiti proprio grazie a un “ecosistema” fatto di tassi a zero e di liquidità abbondante che ora non c’è più. E rischia di pesare maggiormente sui soggetti più vulnerabili: quelli indebitati a tasso variabile e quelli esposti sul dollaro.
L’IIF proprio su queste due categorie punta il dito. Secondo l’Istituto «Le aziende Usa sono particolarmente esposte al rischio di rialzo dei tassi»: non solo hanno un debito molto elevato (20mila miliardi di dollari), non solo sono molto esposte sul volubile mercato obbligazionario (il 43% del loro debito è in bond), ma hanno anche un’esposizione ai tassi variabili pari al 25%. Non tanto, ma abbastanza da pesare in un ciclo di rialzi dei tassi. L’altra categoria debole è quella di chi si è indebitato in dollari, pur vivendo fuori dagli Stati Uniti: escludendo i mercati emergenti – scrive IIF - il 30% del mercato obbligazionario non statunitense è denominato in dollari. Da oggi al primo trimestre 2019 giungeranno a scadenza ben 900 miliardi di questi debiti.
Infine c’è la categoria oggi più vulnerabile: quella dei Paesi emergenti e delle loro aziende. Molti Paesi sono iper-indebitati in valuta estera sia a livello statale sia aziendale: Turchia, Ungheria, Argentina, Polonia e Cile hanno più del 50% del debito totale (pubblico e privato) in valuta estera secondo IIF. Circa 2.700 miliardi di debiti di Paesi emergenti scadranno entro la fine del 2019, e di questi circa un terzo sono denominati in dollari. Per Argentina, Colombia, Egitto e Nigeria circa il 75% del debito in scadenza nel prossimo anno e mezzo è in dollari. Questo mette un rischio aggiuntivo sul rifinanziamento di questi debiti. Non resta che sperare che i nodi di un decennio di denaro facile non vengano al pettine…
La Csu e Cdu scenderebbero dal 32.9% del 24 settembre 2017 agli attuali 29%, e la Spd dal 20.5% al 17%.
Alternative für Deutschaland invece salirebbe dal 12.6% al 17.5%: un sorpasso sulla Spd che sembrerebbe essersi stabilizzato nel corso delle ultime settimane.
*
Mancano due mesi e mezzo alle elezioni in Assia ed in Baviera, ma anche per quelli stati si stanno delineando quadri analoghi.
Se è vero che al momento attuale le forze politiche tedesche considerano i deputati di AfD come dei “lebbrosi” con i quali sia indegno anche il solo colloquiare per convenevoli, sarebbe altrettanto vero inferire che in un lasso di tempo finito si dovrà dapprima trattare con AfD, poi, dopo ancora un po’ di tempo, stare sugli attenti a prenderne gli ordini.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (L) and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (R) leave after a meeting in the parliament in Budapest on February 2, 2015 during Merkel’s first visit to Hungary in last five years. AFP PHOTO / ATTILA KISBENEDEK / AFP PHOTO / ATTILA KISBENEDEK
Machiavelli soleva ripetere che è meglio non avere nemici mortali che amici fidati.
«I myself have also experienced a part of Germany being occupied by the Soviet Union …. I am very glad that we are united today in freedom as the Federal Republic of Germany and that we can therefore also make our own independent policies and make our own independent decisions.»
Orgoglio e superbia sono due gran brutte bestie: fanno esperire già sulla terra quello che sarà l’inferno futuro.
*
Per Treccani la superbia consiste in una considerazione talmente alta di sé stessi da giungere al punto di stimarsi come principio e fine del proprio essere. È sequenziale che la superbia sposi l’orgoglio, ossia la stima eccessiva di sé, l’esagerato sentimento della propria dignità, dei proprî meriti, della propria posizione o condizione sociale, per cui ci si considera superiori agli altri.
«we can therefore also make our own independent policies
and make our own independent decisions»
*
La Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel sembrerebbe essere uscita di senno: scollata dal mondo reale, che certo non le riserva delicatezze. Non si riesce a comprendere chi si crede di essere.
Sarebbe sufficiente pensare a come andarono il G20, poi il G7 ed infine l’ultimo Consiglio Europeo. Per non parlare delle elezioni del 24 settembre.
Le decisioni di Frau Merkel hanno solo fatto cadere la Germania in una crisi politica di entità tale da richiemare alla memoria i tempi di Weimar.
Se sicuramente Frau Merkel può continuare a dire ciò che le pare, altrettanto sicuramente tutti gli altri la bloccano nel tentativo di passare dalle parole all’azione. I suoi avversari la stanno soffriggendo a fuoco lento, lasciando che finisca di rovinarsi da sola.
Basti solo pensare come Herr Seehofer la stia prendendo a baccalà in faccia.
Mr Trump glielo ha detto in faccia senza perifrasi alcuna:
«a captive of Russia»
Frase lapidaria che segue quelle dell’Ambasciatore americano a Berlino, Mr Grenell:
«Donald Trump talks a lot about chain migration, and that is actually the issue here in Germany — it’s chain migration, …. many migrants have been allowed to come in, that was the policy of Chancellor Merkel, I think she has suffered politically by not having a plan that was implemented properly and you saw a lot of political concern in the campaign about chain migration …. We want to make sure we work with all of the different politicians here in Germany who are concerned about migration, the chain migration issue, working with the proper intelligence and law enforcement officials so we know exactly who is here under false pretences …. there are German politicians who are not always so supportive of German intelligence officials …. With family reunification, we import the Islamic family system, which leads to parallel societies and integration problems»
*
«The American ambassador in Germany has just implied that he would like to unseat the current German government»
Se è vero che formalmente l’Ambasciatore Grenell mai abbia detto la frase «regime change», obbligando l’Handelsblatt alla ritrattazione di quanto scritto, sarebbe altrettanto vero asserire che Mr Trumph come obiettivo la rimozione di Frau Merkel, ultimo significativo baluardo liberal in Europa.
* * * * * * *
«We must no longer have any illusions»
Al mondo nessuno ama Frau Merkel, e questa non ha più amico alcuno.
È solo questione di tempo: sarà sufficiente avere pazienza ed anche questa testa cadrà nella cesta.
Former German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has said Europe should stand up to Trump, warning that the US President is pushing for “regime change” in Germany.
“[Trump] gives guarantees to the North Korean dictator and at the same time wants regime change in Germany,” Gabriel told Spiegel Online on Friday. “That’s difficult for us to put up with.”
“We must no longer have any illusions,” added the Social Democrat (SPD) politician. “Donald Trump only understands strength. So we have to show him that we are strong. If he demands billions back from us for the USA’s military spending, then we should demand billions back from him for the refugees produced by failed US military interventions for example in Iraq.”
Gabriel’s words come at the end of a week in which Trump claimed Germany reliance on gas imports meant the country was “of a captive Russia”.
Trump made the explosive comment ahead of a fractious NATO meeting this week in Brussels. On Thursday, he threatened to withdraw the US from the military alliance if partners failed to meet 2 percent spending targets by 2019.
Trump is currently in the United Kingdom on a “working visit”, where he has also made controversial remarks undermining Prime Minister Teresa May’s recent proposals for a softer Brexit.
Gabriel, who left his post as Foreign Minister this March, has always been an outspoken critic of President Trump, sharply criticizing his “nationalistic tone” and warning that his actions have “weakened the West.”
I candidati al senato che si sono presentati in stati a forte maggioranza repubblicana hanno una grande paura a boicottare la nomina di Sua Giustizia Brett Kavanaugh alla Suprema Corte: temono il furore degli Elettori e di perdere ogni chance di successo o, quanto meno, di una perdita dignitosa. Di converso, se votassero per la nomina di Sua Giustizia Brett Kavanaugh alla Suprema Corte renderebbero quel fortilizio inespugnabile ai liberal per decenni.
*
Un funereo The New York Times commenta la notizia.
«Three of those Democrats — Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — voted to confirm Neil M. Gorsuch, nominated by Mr. Trump last year. None gave any hint on Tuesday of how they would vote on Judge Kavanaugh, but all will undoubtedly face intense pressure at home. ….
Republicans are already delighting in watching Democrats like Mr. Manchin squirm. ….
“You’ve got red-state Democrats who are up for re-election this year who are going to be faced with some pretty significant challenges with this vote,” said Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, the chairman of the committee charged with electing Republicans to the Senate. “I think it’s a hot potato.”
At a time when the United States is deeply polarized, with the ideological balance of the court at stake, Democrats and Republicans are keenly aware that Judge Kavanaugh, if confirmed, would push the court to the right, cementing its conservative majority and shaping American jurisprudence for decades to come.»
*
Ma cosa mai sarà accaduto?
Semplice. Più che il dolor poté il digiuno.
«Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III said Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh “has all the right qualities” to serve on the high court.
Mr. Manchin didn’t say how he plans to vote on the nomination, in an interview with radio network West Virginia MetroNews ….
Mr. Manchin, who is up for reelection in a state carried by President Trump in 2016, is facing a pressure campaign from conservative groups to support Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. Liberal activists also are demanding that he and other Democratic senators block the nomination»
E ci sarebbero molti altri senatori democratici a pensarla come il senatore Joe Manchin III.
Il Presidente Trump li ha messi tutti nella tonnara.
Valutate bene il peso di queste parole:
«Judge Kavanaugh, if confirmed, would push the court to the right, cementing its conservative majority and shaping American jurisprudence for decades to come.»
La Suprema Corte avrà almeno trenta anni di tempo per demolire sistematicamente tutta la costruzione liberal.
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III said Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh “has all the right qualities” to serve on the high court.
Mr. Manchin didn’t say how he plans to vote on the nomination, in an interview with radio network West Virginia MetroNews.
“No, I don’t have a lean,” he told host Hoppy Kercheval. “I think he seems to be a very fine person of high moral standards, a family person who’s very involved in his community, has all the right qualities. He’s well-educated.”
The senator said “we have to just look at making sure that the rule of law and the Constitution is going to be followed, and that’s going to basically preempt anything else he does.”
Mr. Manchin, who is up for reelection in a state carried by President Trump in 2016, is facing a pressure campaign from conservative groups to support Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. Liberal activists also are demanding that he and other Democratic senators block the nomination.
The lawmaker said he intends to listen to his constituents.
“Most importantly.. I intend to hear from West Virginians,” he said. “That’s who I work for. They’re my boss. And we want to hear from them, too, during this process.”
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats, facing an uphill struggle to defeat the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, opened a broad attack on Tuesday, painting him as an archconservative who would roll back abortion rights, undo health care protections, ease gun restrictions and protect President Trump against the threat of indictment.
But as Judge Kavanaugh arrived at the Capitol to begin making courtesy calls on the senators who will decide his fate, the White House expressed confidence in the man that Mr. Trump introduced to the country as “one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time.”
The White House is embarking on an intensive sales campaign that has already enlisted more than 1,000 interest groups, including farmers and religious organizations, to build support for Judge Kavanaugh. Administration officials are pushing for hearings and a confirmation vote by Oct. 1, in time for the court’s new term.
In a sign of how difficult the Democrats’ path will be, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a key swing vote, spoke favorably of Judge Kavanaugh on Tuesday, telling reporters, “When you look at the credentials that Judge Kavanaugh brings to the job, it’ll be very difficult for anyone to argue that he’s not qualified for the job.”
Washington is no stranger to bitter and divisive judicial confirmation fights, but the coming battle over Judge Kavanaugh is likely to be intense — and expensive. At a time when the United States is deeply polarized, with the ideological balance of the court at stake, Democrats and Republicans are keenly aware that Judge Kavanaugh, if confirmed, would push the court to the right, cementing its conservative majority and shaping American jurisprudence for decades to come.
That has galvanized liberal and conservative advocacy groups, who began mobilizing even before the nomination was announced and expect to spend tens of millions through the summer and into the fall.
Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group, has already posted a website — ConfirmKavanaugh.com — and is airing television ads. Leading social conservative political groups are rallying the anti-abortion grass-roots to support his confirmation with ads, rallies and online campaigns. Demand Justice, a liberal group, is running advertisements in Maine, aimed at Ms. Collins, as well in Alaska, the home state of another swing-vote Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski.
But the positive comments from Ms. Collins — who voted in favor of Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, two of President Barack Obama’s nominees — may have already shifted the pressure from leery Republicans to skittish Democrats running for re-election in states won handily by Mr. Trump in 2016.
Three of those Democrats — Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — voted to confirm Neil M. Gorsuch, nominated by Mr. Trump last year. None gave any hint on Tuesday of how they would vote on Judge Kavanaugh, but all will undoubtedly face intense pressure at home.
“I thought he came across as a good family person, good, decent human being,” Mr. Manchin said of his initial reaction to Judge Kavanaugh. But he said he would not be making a hasty decision about a Supreme Court appointment mere hours after the announcement, noting his concern about Judge Kavanaugh’s views of the Affordable Care Act given the “lives at stake” in West Virginia.
Republicans are already delighting in watching Democrats like Mr. Manchin squirm.
“You’ve got red-state Democrats who are up for re-election this year who are going to be faced with some pretty significant challenges with this vote,” said Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, the chairman of the committee charged with electing Republicans to the Senate. “I think it’s a hot potato.”
In picking Judge Kavanaugh to fill the seat vacated by the retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Mr. Trump has turned to an experienced jurist with an Ivy League pedigree (Yale undergraduate and Yale Law), a deep conservative bent and a past in politics. Judge Kavanaugh worked under Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton; served in the administration of President George W. Bush; and joined the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2006.
Administration officials are betting that Judge Kavanaugh’s record of around 300 court decisions, combined with his ability to speak fluently on a range of complex issues, will make it impossible for Democrats to cast him as unqualified for Justice Kennedy’s seat. His effusive praise on Monday night of his mother and wife — and his coaching of his daughter’s basketball team — seemed aimed at defusing Democratic efforts to make him appear anti-woman.
“Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials and interprets the law as it was written and intended,” said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. “His record sells itself.”
Democrats are already picking apart that record, citing rulings and dissenting opinions they find troubling.
Among them: a 2017 case, Garza v. Hargan, where Judge Kavanaugh delayed an abortion for a 17-year-old immigrant who was in the United States illegally; a 2015 case, Priests for Life v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where Judge Kavanaugh said the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for contraceptive coverage violated the religious freedom of religious nonprofits; and a 2011 dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia, where he argued the Second Amendment included the right to own a semiautomatic rifle.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, joined all of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday to deliver a direct appeal to Americans to rise up in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. One by one, they ticked off warnings.
“If you are a young woman in America or you care about a young woman in America, pay attention to this,” said Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California. “Because it will forever change your life.”
Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, issued a specific plea to the survivors of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla.: “If you care about common-sense gun violence protection, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare.”
Republicans, in turn, excoriated Democrats for not giving Mr. Trump’s nominee a chance.
“We’re less than 24 hours into this, and folks are already declaring that if you can’t see that Brett Kavanaugh is a cross between Lex Luthor and Darth Vader, then you apparently aren’t paying enough attention,” said Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska. “The American people are smarter than that.”
Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, complained that Democrats had declared their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh even before his nomination was announced.
“They wrote statements of opposition only to fill in the name later,” the ordinarily staid Mr. McConnell said, growing exercised as he delivered his customary morning remarks on the Senate floor. “Senate Democrats were on record opposing him before he’d even been named! Just fill in the name! Whoever it is, we’re against.”
But Democrats were quick to call Mr. McConnell hypocritical, noting that when Mr. Obama nominated Judge Merrick B. Garland — a colleague of Judge Kavanaugh’s on the federal appeals court in Washington — many Republicans refused even to meet with Judge Garland, and denied him the opportunity to have a hearing.
Before Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination on Monday night, Democrats had centered their strategy on abortion rights and health care, warning that anyone Mr. Trump picked would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision legalizing abortion, and would imperil protections for people with pre-existing conditions under the Affordable Care Act.
But Judge Kavanaugh has given them a new line of attack: his past writings on the powers of the presidency, which go to the heart of the special counsel’s investigation of Mr. Trump. In 1998, Judge Kavanaugh wrote a law review article that raised doubts about whether a sitting president could be indicted. In another article, he argued that a sitting president should not be distracted by civil suits or criminal proceedings.
Democrats said Tuesday that those views would be a central focus of questioning during Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings; already, some Democrats were calling for Judge Kavanaugh to pledge that he would recuse himself from any Supreme Court proceedings involving the president.
«putting these German banks in the same category as Italy’s.
Short positions on some big Italian banks»
«La vendita allo scoperto, chiamata anche vendita a nudo (in lingua inglese short selling, o semplicemente short), è un’operazione finanziaria che consiste nella vendita, effettuata nei confronti di uno o più soggetti terzi, di titoli non direttamente posseduti dal venditore. Più in generale con questa terminologia si denominano tutti i tipi di operatività finanziaria attuata con l’intento di ottenere un profitto a seguito di un trend o movimento ribassista delle quotazioni di titoli (azioni, strumenti, beni) prezzati in una borsa valori.
La vendita allo scoperto è un’operatività finanziaria di tipo prettamente speculativo e orientata verso un orizzonte temporale d’investimento di breve periodo. ….
Tali titoli, solitamente forniti da una banca o da un intermediario finanziario, durante lo short selling vengono istantaneamente prestati dal loro fornitore al venditore allo scoperto (chiamato anche scopertista o short seller oppure venditore a nudo) e quindi subito venduti da quest’ultimo.
Pertanto la vendita allo scoperto si configura come un prestito non di denaro bensì di titoli e, come solitamente accade in quello di denaro, vi è un interesse da corrispondere al datore del prestito. L’ammontare dell’interesse da pagare cresce in relazione all’aumento della durata di questo prestito di titoli, poiché chi effettua la vendita a nudo deve, entro un certo lasso temporale, acquistare sul mercato (quindi a prezzo di mercato) i titoli rifondendoli così al prestatore: operazione tecnicamente definita ricopertura dello scoperto (in inglese short covering). Per l’acquirente lo short selling attuato dal venditore è praticamente invisibile e perciò ininfluente, dunque per il compratore non vi è differenza tra i titoli acquistati da una vendita allo scoperto o non allo scoperto.» [Fonte]
*
Il sistema bancario tedesco assomiglia sempre più ad un paziente malato di cancro inoperabile ai polmoni, che abbia contratto una polmonite virale.
I bollettini medici cautamente ottimisti suonerebbero come una solenne presa in giro. Per dirla in modo eufemistico: si faccia fagotto e si porti il gruzzolo altrove, sempre che ciò non sia già stato fatto.
«Deutsche Bank was the only one of 35 big banks operating in the United States to fail the US Federal Reserve’s recent round of stress tests. Commerzbank, a component of the DAX since its inception, may well be forced out of the index in the upcoming review as its market capitalization continues to decline relative to other blue chips.»
*
«It’s hard to know where all this will end, but the short sellers seem confident it won’t end well for shareholders»
*
«It was a familiar sight on Thursday morning: Shares of Germany’s two largest banks, Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, were the worst-performing stocks in Germany’s blue-chip DAX. Perhaps that explains why they’ve become the target of massive short sales by US hedge funds, which are betting that share prices of the troubled institutions have even further to fall.»
*
«Deutsche Bank, once Germany’s flagship financial institution, has four investment funds betting €979 billion ($1.1 billion) that its shares, already below €10, will decline even further. AQR Capital Management, one of Deutsche’s short sellers, also has a €172 million short position in Commerzbank.»
*
«Adding insult to injury, hedge fund speculators seem to be putting these German banks in the same category as Italy’s. Short positions on some big Italian banks expect that their large holdings of government bonds and the country’s shaky finances will push down share prices.»
* * * * * * * *
Il problema è semplicissimo.
Per lunghi decenni la classe politica tedesca, specificatamente quella socialdemocratica, ha sostenuto politicamente il sistema bancario tedesco che ritenevano dovesse essere una delle loro migliori fonti di sostentamento.
Non solo hanno avuto mano pesante, la mafia è ben più morigerata, ma hanno anche riempito quelle banche di persone politicamente gradite ma professionalmente inette, ancorché in larga quota di sesso muliebre.
Adesso arrivano i conti da pagare: li pagheranno gli azionisti e tutta la Germania.
Big investors are betting on further declines in the share price of Germany’s top banks. The short selling, a disputed trading technique, only adds to downward pressure on the stocks.
*
It was a familiar sight on Thursday morning: Shares of Germany’s two largest banks, Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, were the worst-performing stocks in Germany’s blue-chip DAX. Perhaps that explains why they’ve become the target of massive short sales by US hedge funds, which are betting that share prices of the troubled institutions have even further to fall.
Deutsche Bank, once Germany’s flagship financial institution, has four investment funds betting €979 billion ($1.1 billion) that its shares, already below €10, will decline even further. AQR Capital Management, one of Deutsche’s short sellers, also has a €172 million short position in Commerzbank.
Adding insult to injury, hedge fund speculators seem to be putting these German banks in the same category as Italy’s. Short positions on some big Italian banks expect that their large holdings of government bonds and the country’s shaky finances will push down share prices.
Short selling weighs on shares
Short selling is a standard practice for active investors. An investor borrows the shares from a stockholder for a fee and sells them in the open market in anticipation the price will decline. When the price goes down, the short seller buys back the shares and returns them to the owner, pocketing the profit on the sale.
The risk is that if the price instead goes up, the seller must pay more to buy them back and suffers a loss. The practice has its critics and is subject to abuse, but it adds liquidity to the market, helps investors in price discovery, and is a useful tool for hedging long positions in the same sector.
Short selling can become a self-fulfilling prophecy if enough investors jump on the bandwagon. At the very least, it can help depress the share price.
The short position on Deutsche, equivalent to nearly 5 percent of outstanding shares, helps explain its sharp decline in recent weeks. The bank’s shares have been flirting with new record lows since the end of May.
AQR, a fast-growing fund backed by US billionaire Cliff Asness, has a short position equal to 2.4 percent of Deutsche Bank’s shares, as well as the Commerzbank position, equal to 1.6 percent. Other hedge funds betting against Deutsche are Marshall Wallace (1.34 percent), Capital Fund (0.6 percent), and World Quant (0.51 percent). Investors are required to report only short positions exceeding 0.5 percent, so these big positions may not tell the whole story.
The problems of the two banks are well-chronicled. Deutsche has suffered years of losses from scandals, egregious missteps, and a cost-heavy structure. Swapping out chief executives in April has done little to slow its decline as it seems incapable of trimming costs as fast as it is losing business. Commerzbank suffers from years of troubles being an also-ran that has never had particularly good management. It remains part-owned by the German government after a bailout in 2008-2009.
Silver lining is possible rebound
The silver lining in this cloud is that shares can rebound when short sellers close out their positions and buy shares back. A crash in the blue-chip DAX index earlier this year is attributed in large part to short sellers. The subsequent recovery reflected them closing out their positions.
Bridgewater Associates, backed by US investor Ray Dalio, was particularly active shorting German blue chips. This backfired in the case of Bayer, which continued to rise despite the turmoil over its acquisition of Monsanto. But it succeeded spectacularly in the case of Deutsche Bank, which fell 25 percent from the end of January to mid-April without ever getting back to its starting point.
It was mid-April when Bridgewater’s short positions fell below the 0.5 percent reporting threshold. The DAX closed above 12,500 that day, after reaching its low for the year, 11,787, just three weeks earlier.
Short sellers may magnify gains and losses in share prices, but they ultimately reflect the underlying trend. The two German banks have shown little success in overcoming their difficulties and may well face darker days ahead.
«Germany’s constitutional court on Monday denied an appeal from a suspected Islamic State member who was trying to avoid deportation to Tunisia, saying the threat of the death penalty was not likely to be realized»
*
«Haikel S.’s lawyer filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, but judges in Strasbourg declined to intervene Monday»
*
«Haikel S. was involved in the 2015 Bardo Museum attack, where Islamic State supporters killed 22 people and injured dozens more»
*
«He initially came to Germany in 2003 as a student, and after being deported returned in 2015, claiming to be a refugee from Syria»
*
«He was captured in an anti-terror raid in 2017 and is currently in a Frankfurt jail awaiting deportation.»
*
«The decision is definitely a win for Horst Seehofer, Germany’s interior minister and leader of Bavaria’s Christian Social Union»
* * * * * * *
Il 24 settembre 2017 sarà una data che i tedeschi ricorderanno bene. In quel giorno i partiti tradizionali subirono una terrificante débâcle. Non ne uscirono annientati, ma gli equilibri si erano rotti.
Gli Elettori avevano voltato le spalle alla Union, Csu e Cdu, ed alla socialdemocrazia: tutto sommato AfD aveva ottenuto un ottimo risultato per desistenza altrui.
Se constatiamo come la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel sia tuttora in ruolo di comando, constatiamo altresì come il suo potere effettivo sia il fantasma di ciò che era stato in passato. Ed infatti in sede internazionale Frau Merkel ha ricevuto trattamenti da terzo mondo.
Ma alla mutata scena politica non è ancora corrisposto il cambiamento del deep state.
In questi sistemi politici occidentali, che si sciacquano in continuazione la bocca di essere “democratici“, gli Elettori possono mandare a casa o ridimensionare i politici, mentre i magistrati se li tengono a vita o per lunghissimi periodi di tempo. In Germania i giudici costituzionali durano in carica dodici anni.
Se la componente liberal socialista è uscita politicamente battuta, la somma magistratura ritiene tuttora simile orientamento politico, ed agisce politicamente ogniqualvolta le sia stata data la possibilità: funziona come un vero e proprio gruppo di fuoco
Ci si sarebbe quindi aspettati che la Suprema Corte avesse ribadito la non estradabilità di Herr Haikel S., coimputato per 22 omicidi.
Ma i giudici, specie poi quelli di grado elevato sono i più perfezionati sistemi per stabilire donde tiri il vento.
Così la Suprema Corte di Karlsruhe ha stabilito la possibilità legale di estradare Herr Haikel S., ancorché in Tunisia viga la pena di morte.
Ça va sans dire: questa sentenza smentisce le ventun altre sentenze già emesse in materia. Le Corti non amministrano la giustizia ma assecondano il potere in atto.
The ruling is a win for the CSU’s Horst Seehofer, who sought the swift deportation of asylum seekers classified as terrorist threats.
*
Germany’s constitutional court on Monday denied an appeal from a suspected Islamic State member who was trying to avoid deportation to Tunisia, saying the threat of the death penalty was not likely to be realized.
Haikel S.’s lawyer filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, but judges in Strasbourg declined to intervene Monday. The ruling paves the way for more deportations of people considered “terrorist threats.” German law prevents deportation if the suspect would face the death penalty or life without parole in the destination country, but Tunisia has not executed anyone since 1991.
Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the ruling. “It is a judgment that gives us clarity and makes the enforcement of rights possible,” she said. It could bring a conclusion to the case of Sami A., a former bodyguard of Osama bin Laden who has so far avoided deportation to Tunisia.
The decision is definitely a win for Horst Seehofer, Germany’s interior minister and leader of Bavaria’s Christian Social Union, who is thinking about the state’s election in October. He has been trying to speed up deportations since he came into office in March and is currently creating a plan for “anchor centers” to process asylum seekers more efficiently.
——
“It is a judgment that gives us clarity and makes the enforcement of rights possible.”
——
The project is part of the coalition pact that the CDU/CSU and SPD agreed upon in March. Mr. Seehofer says the anchor centers would swiftly take in and process refugees, and direct them out of Germany if necessary. Critics call anchor centers a euphemism for concentration camps and point to the recent uprising in Ellwangen, where asylum seekers prevented police from taking a man slated to be deported last week.
Authorities in Germany and Tunisia believe Haikel S. was involved in the 2015 Bardo Museum attack, where Islamic State supporters killed 22 people and injured dozens more. He initially came to Germany in 2003 as a student, and after being deported returned in 2015, claiming to be a refugee from Syria. He was captured in an anti-terror raid in 2017 and is currently in a Frankfurt jail awaiting deportation.
Ms. Merkel’s cabinet is expected to wrap up another sticking point this week and cap the number of family members allowed to follow immigrants to Germany at 1,000 per month.
Uno dei più evidenti segni del collasso politico di un partito è il conseguente crollo delle realtà economiche che prima lo avevano supportato e che esso tutelava con cura amorosa. Se è vero che talora il collasso economico potrebbe anche precedere quello politico, sicuramente la perdita del potere politico determina la morte di quello economico. Ma mantenere i partiti politici costa, ed anche molto.
Nell’Occidente infatti un certo quale numero di grandi entità economiche hanno potuto prosperare solo ed unicamente grazie alla copertura politica che era loro concessa dai potenti di turno, e questa poi si sdebitavano in modo adeguato.
Ma qualora venisse a mancare un ragionevole senso dell’equilibrio, il potere politico diventa insaziabile, sempre più esigente, ed impone al sistema economico tutta una lunga serie di scelte che, essendo politiche, per definizione non sono produttive. In altri termini, se la politica parassita l’economica, sarebbe altrettanto vero che un certo sottoinsieme economico sopravvive esclusivamente con un appoggio politico, venendo a mancare il quale si avvia mestamente al fallimento.
Ci si rende conto perfettamente di quanto sia delicato il problema.
Se sicuramente la politica deve orientare le grandi strategie economiche di una nazione, altrettanto sicuramente non può parassitarle fino alla loro estinzione. Nessuno si scandalizza che i politici si arricchiscano, ed anche in modo consistente: è da quando esiste la storia scritta che questa realtà è evidente in ogni qualsiasi Collettività.
Ripetiamo: il problema è solo il rimanere nell’alveo di un ragionevole buon senso.
*
La Tabella riportata è eloquente.
Nel 1972 la Spd raggiunse il 18.9% nei voti circoscrizionali ed il 45.8% dei voti proporzionali. È riuscita a restare sopra il 40% fino al 2000, quindi è restata coinvolte nel processo mondiale di devoluzione del’ideologia socialista: alle ultime elezioni ha conseguito nel proporzionale il 20.5% dei voti, ed attualmente è quotata attorno al 17%. Si è dimezzata.
Ma la perdita del potere di influenza sul sistema economico non segue andamento lineare. Quando un partito scende sotto una certa quale soglia percentuale, in linea generale un 20%, diventa virtualmente ininfluente. Il suo passato splendore economico diventa argomento di bucoliche ridondanze di vecchietti che si struggono nel ricordo del passato: la totale mancanza di una prospettiva futura diventa il loro inferno già su questa terra.
È il momento in cui si scatenano le forze contrarie.
È infatti del tutto evidente come questa devoluzione possa essere fortemente accelerata distruggendo le basi economiche del partito socialdemocratico. E sono molti coloro che intendono togliersi tutti i sassolini dalle scarpe.
* * * * * * *
«A German court has handed down lengthy jail sentences in one of the biggest financial swindles in the country’s history»
*
«But it’s a verdict that not all investors are happy about»
*
«A court in Dresden on Monday sentenced the founder of financial services firm Infinus, Jörg Biehl, to eight years in prison for fraud»
*
«Four other managers from the Infinus empire received sentences of between five years and four months to six years and 10 months»
*
«Yet many investors have disagreed and sided with defense attorneys, who argued that the company would have survived if the police hadn’t come knocking.»
Badate bene ad una corretta lettura della seguente frase:
«who argued that the company would have survived if the police hadn’t come knocking.»
Non ci sarebbe stato il fallimento se la polizia non fosse intervenuta. Ma la polizia è invece intervenuta su specifico ordine dei nuovi potenti.
*
Si faccia alquanta attenzione. Molte realtà economiche tedesche sono state in piedi, e lo sono ancora ancorché traballanti, solo perché disponevano di appoggi politici che convogliavano su di esse rivoli di fondi pubblici.
Mutato il quadro politico, si preannunciano grandiosi fallimenti.
Nota.
Nessuno ha la sfera di cristallo: il futuro è semplicemente imprevedibile.
Se però, come di norma, le prospezioni elettorali fossero abbastanza precise, i sondaggi darebbero in Baviera l’Spd al 12% ed AfD al 14%. La Csu sarebbe ulteriormente in discesa al 39%.
È quanto basta per sconvolgere gli attuali equilibri.
A German court has handed down lengthy jail sentences in one of the biggest financial swindles in the country’s history. But it’s a verdict that not all investors are happy about.
*
It’s one of the biggest financial scandals in German history – depending on who you ask.
A court in Dresden on Monday sentenced the founder of financial services firm Infinus, Jörg Biehl, to eight years in prison for fraud. Four other managers from the Infinus empire received sentences of between five years and four months to six years and 10 months. Another employee was given 4 1/2 years for abetting fraud.
Prosecutors accused the managers of running a Ponzi scheme, whereby returns for older investors are covered from the money of new investors. It’s a fraudulent business model that is doomed to fail over time. Yet many investors have disagreed and sided with defense attorneys, who argued that the company would have survived if the police hadn’t come knocking.
Mr. Biehl, 56, and the other defendants were charged with defrauding 22,000 investors to the tune of €320 million ($375 million). That’s only a fraction of the suspected losses, though. Overall, more than 50,000 investors are believed to have invested up to €2 billion in the 22 companies of the Infinus group. To prevent the trial getting too complicated, prosecutors focused only on part of the intricate web of companies surrounding Infinus AG and Future Business KG.
The court heard testimony from 220 witnesses in the trial that started back in November 2015. The prosecutors summarized their evidence in 757 pages, quite an achievement given that their files ran to 60 folders with 15,000 pages.
In the end, the judge ruled that the company was unsustainable because it could not have generated the promised returns.
A success story in the making
Infinus started out in 2001, buying up life insurance policies and offering the owners improved surrender values. The sellers then invested their freed-up money in new financial products offered by Infinus, such as fixed-interest bonds, registered bonds and profit participation rights with attractive interest rates.
The court was convinced that, after a time, the managers could only keep on paying out the returns by tapping fund inflows from new investors and finding inventive ways to conjure up new liquidity, such as arranging big new life insurance policies for subsidiaries and employees that immediately generated millions of euros in new income.
While everything was going well, the company managed to attract celebrities such as soccer greats Franz Beckenbauer and Oliver Kahn, and ice-skating legend Katharina Witt to annual parties to honor the best salesmen and women.
But then, in November 2013, the empire collapsed following police raids and suspicions that it was defrauding investors. During the trial, Mr. Biehl said Infinus had been a success story that “some people had disliked.” Prosecutors argued they had to intervene to prevent bigger losses.
Ready to appeal
Not surprisingly, the defendants plan to appeal. That means the verdict will have to be reviewed by the Federal Court of Justice, Germany’s highest court in all matters of criminal and civil jurisdiction.
Defense attorneys said the court ignored evidence, including a report by the Dresden financial authority, which had declared in 2017 that Infinus had “a sustainable business model from a fiscal point of view.” It was the authority’s argument for rejecting a claim by one of the group’s insolvency administrators for the repayment of €17 million in tax.
“The court didn’t want to hear anyone from the financial authority as a witness,” said Ulf Israel, Mr. Biehl’s defense attorney. “You can’t have that.”
Getting money back
The court’s verdict is bad news for many investors who put money in profit participation rights sold by Infinus subsidiary Prosavus. But it strengthens the case of insolvency administrator Frank-Rüdiger Scheffler, who is waging some 800 lawsuits demanding the return of up to €15 million in interest paid to investors. He says the earnings-related interest should never have been paid out because the company wasn’t generating any real earnings.
That spells trouble for people like former broker Raymond Neumann, an investor who traveled to Dresden for the verdict but who couldn’t get into the packed court. “They want €68,000 back from me too,” he said.
