Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcher who wrote (150748)	9/16/2019 5:10:20 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217705

Racketeering is harder to prove should folks of the greater cabal work cooperatively but w/o sidebar communication, and instead hide in broad daylight / center of square For example, ... (find members of the overall cabal :0) bloomberg.com Putin Offers to Sell Saudis S-400 Missiles to Bolster Defenses Henry Meyer September 17, 2019, 2:53 AM GMT+8 S-400 anti-aircraft system Photographer: Vasily Maximov/AFP via Getty ImagesRussian leader points to ‘humanitarian catastrophe’ in Yemen President Vladimir Putin said Russia is willing to help defend Saudi Arabia by selling it the advanced S-400 anti-aircraft system after major oil facilities in the kingdom came under attack at the weekend, halting half of its crude production. “For self-defense, for the defense of one’s country, we are ready to provide help to Saudi Arabia, the political leadership of Saudi Arabia,” Putin told a joint press conference with the leaders of Iran and Turkey on Monday in Ankara. “It is enough to take a wise government decision, as the leaders of Iran did before, buying the S-300, and as President Erdogan did, buying the latest air defense system, S-400 Triumph,” Putin said, referring to the Turkish president. “They will protect any infrastructure objects in Saudi Arabia effectively.” Riyadh has been in talks with Russia on purchasing the S-400 but going through with the deal would risk U.S. sanctions. Russia’s success in persuading President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s administration to buy the S-400 provoked a rift between Washington and Turkey, a NATO member and long-time U.S. ally. In response, the Trump administration suspended Turkey’s ability to build and buy the advanced F-35 warplane. READ: Saudi Wealth and Weaponry Still Can’t Guarantee Oil’s Protection In the addition to the immediate loss of oil output, equivalent to 5% of world supply, the attack claimed by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen raised the specter of U.S. retaliation against Iran, which American officials have blamed for the operation. Putin said Yemen’s conflict between the Houthis and the United Nations-recognized government backed by a Saudi-led coalition needs to be resolved, pointing to the existence of a “humanitarian catastrophe” in the Middle East country after more than four years of fighting.

To: marcher who wrote (150748)	9/18/2019 12:39:47 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217705

turning out that the billions expended on defence are not-good-enough, and not.even.close.to.good.enough and we are told to expect more of the same and <<Saudi policymakers have long dreaded a strike against a desalination plant in Jubail which serves central and eastern Saudi Arabia. A successful attack would deprive millions of people of water and could take a long time to repair, the Saudi source said. “It’s a very target-rich environment,” said an industry source with knowledge of Saudi Arabia. “They’ve kicked them right where it hurts and there’s plenty more of them around.”>> reuters.com Costly Saudi defenses prove no match for drones, cruise missiles RIYADH/DUBAI (Reuters) - Billions of dollars spent by Saudi Arabia on cutting edge Western military hardware mainly designed to deter high altitude attacks has proved no match for low-cost drones and cruise missiles used in a strike that crippled its giant oil industry. Smoke is seen following a fire at Aramco facility in the eastern city of Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, September 14, 2019. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo Saturday’s assault on Saudi oil facilities that halved production has exposed how ill-prepared the Gulf state is to defend itself despite repeated attacks on vital assets during its four-and-a-half year foray into the war in neighboring Yemen. Saudi Arabia and the United States have said they believe Iran, the kingdom’s arch-enemy, was probably behind the strike. On Tuesday, a U.S. official said Washington believed the attack originated in southwestern Iran. Three U.S. officials said it involved both cruise missiles and drones. Tehran has denied such accusations, saying that Yemenis opposing Saudi-led forces carried it out. Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi movement is alone in claiming responsibility. Iran maintains the largest ballistic and cruise missile capabilities in the Middle East that could overwhelm virtually any Saudi missile defense system, according to think-tank CSIS, given the geographic proximity of Tehran and its regional proxy forces. But even more limited strikes have proved too much for Saudi Arabia, including recent ones by Houthis who claimed successful attacks on a civilian airport, oil pumping stations and the Shaybah oilfield. “We are open. Any real facility has no real coverage,” a Saudi security source said. The Sept. 14 assault on two plants belonging to state oil giant Saudi Aramco was the worst on regional oil facilities since Saddam Hussein torched Kuwait’s oil wells during the 1990-91 Gulf crisis. The company said on Tuesday that production would be back to normal quicker than initially feared, but the attack nonetheless shocked oil markets. Riyadh said preliminary results indicated the weapons used were Iranian but the launch location was still undetermined. Authorities initially specified drones, but three U.S. officials said the use of cruise missiles and drones indicated a higher degree of complexity and sophistication than initially thought. “The attack is like Sept. 11th for Saudi Arabia, it is a game changer,” said a Saudi security analyst who declined to be named. “Where are the air defense systems and the U.S. weaponry for which we spent billions of dollars to protect the kingdom and its oil facilities? If they did this with such precision, they can also hit the desalination plants and more targets.” The main Saudi air defense system, positioned mainly to defend major cities and installations, has long been the U.S.-made long-range Patriot system. It has successfully intercepted high-altitude ballistic missiles fired by the Houthis at Saudi cities, including the capital Riyadh, since a Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen against the group in March 2015. But since drones and cruise missiles fly more slowly and at lower altitudes, they are difficult for Patriots to detect with adequate time to intercept. “Drones are a huge challenge for Saudi Arabia because they often fly under the radar and given long borders with Yemen and Iraq, the kingdom is very vulnerable,” said a senior Gulf official. SPATE OF ATTACKS Washington and Riyadh have blamed Iran and its proxies for a series of explosive blasts on tankers in Gulf waters, including two Saudi vessels in May, and attacks on Saudi oil assets. Two oil pumping stations were hit that month. A transformer station near a desalination plant in Shuqaiq in the south was struck in June. Those caused limited damage, unlike Saturday’s strikes on Abqaiq and Khurais that damaged the world’s biggest petroleum processing facility and knocked out 5.7 million barrels per day of production. A Gulf source familiar with Aramco operations said the security system in place at Abqaiq is imperfect against drones. Authorities are investigating whether radar picked up the drones which struck in pre-dawn darkness, the source added. An executive at a Western defense firm dealing with Saudi Arabia said that as of a year ago there were Patriots protecting Abqaiq. Asked why Saudi defenses did not intercept Saturday’s attack, coalition spokesman Col. Turki al-Malki told reporters: “More than 230 ballistic missiles were intercepted by coalition forces...we have the operational capacity to counter all the threats and protect the national security of Saudi Arabia.” The government media office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It is unclear if U.S.-built short-range Avengers and medium-range I-Hawks and Swiss short-range Orelikons which the kingdom owns are currently operational. SMALL BUT EFFECTIVE The Saudi security source and two industry sources said Riyadh has been aware of the drone threat for several years and has been in discussions with consultants and vendors for possible solutions but has not installed anything new. The security source said authorities moved a Patriot battery to the Shaybah oilfield after it was hit last month. There are Patriots at Aramco’s Ras Tanura refinery. “Most conventional air defense radar is designed for high- altitude threats like missiles,” said Dave DesRoches at the National Defense University in Washington. “Cruise missiles and drones operate close to the earth, so they aren’t seen because of the earth’s curvature. Drones are too small and don’t have heat signature for most radar.” Intercepting drones possibly worth several hundred dollars with Patriots is also extremely expensive, with each missile costing around $3 million. Jorg Lamprecht, CEO and co-founder of U.S. airspace security firm Dedrone, said there are more effective ways of dealing with drones, especially in swarms. A combination of radio frequency detectors and radar detect them, high-powered cameras verify payloads and technologies like jamming demobilize them, he said. But the latest technology presents its own challenges: frequency jamming could disrupt industrial activities and have negative health effects on people. Armed drones are becoming more readily available, so the threat to vital infrastructure is rising disproportionately, according to U.S. intelligence consultancy Soufan Group. Saudi policymakers have long dreaded a strike against a desalination plant in Jubail which serves central and eastern Saudi Arabia. A successful attack would deprive millions of people of water and could take a long time to repair, the Saudi source said. “It’s a very target-rich environment,” said an industry source with knowledge of Saudi Arabia. “They’ve kicked them right where it hurts and there’s plenty more of them around.” Reporting by Stephen Kalin and Sylvia Westall, additional reporting by Rania El Gamal and Alexander Cornwell in Dubai and Samia Nakhoul in Beirut; Writing by Stephen Kalin; Editing by Ghaida Ghantous and Mike Collett-White

To: marcher who wrote (150748)	9/19/2019 6:57:51 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217705

seems the close-air-support cavalry is quick-enough and close-enough to do some good for the moment, and passed mustard during current on-going probing attack by the barbarian vigilantes now let us see how much sustaining fire power each side has ft.com The repo markets mystery reminds us that we are flying blind Quantitative easing means there is a greater chance of the global financial machine misfiring yesterday The dramatic gyrations of repo rates this week triggered by a 'temporary' cash squeeze suggests neither the Fed or investors completely understand how the modern financial machine operates © Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesWhat the heck happened? That is a question many market participants are asking about events this week at the US Federal Reserve. But the confusion is not due to the issue that was supposed to grab headlines — namely Wednesday’s announcement on interest rates. That storyline is clear (ish): although the Fed cut its core policy rate by 25 basis points, officials also signalled their reluctance to cut rates again too soon while growth is strong. That is sensible, predictable and readily understandable. Instead the development that is sowing shock and confusion is related to the normally arcane matter of financial plumbing. At the start of the week, overnight borrowing rates in the repurchase or repo market, where traders do short-term deals to swap Treasuries for cash, suddenly rose to 10 per cent, up from their normal levels of 2-2.5 per cent. Repo rates declined after the New York branch of the Fed pumped $75bn into the markets for three days running. But conditions remain jittery. After all, the last time we experienced this scale of gyrations in repo rates was the 2008 financial crisis. So should investors worry? Yes — and no. One piece of good news about this week’s events is that the movements were not sparked by the same issues in the 2008 panic, namely a fear of financial collapse. Instead, the trigger appears to be due to “temporary mismatches in the demand for funding and availability of cash”, as JPMorgan explained to its clients in a note. More specifically, American companies typically need around $100bn of cash to pay tax bills on September 15, which prompts big withdrawals from the money market funds that are an increasingly crucial pillar of the repo markets. This year, this outflow coincided with Monday’s $54bn settlement of Treasury coupons, creating more demand for cash. The resulting squeeze may have been exacerbated by an additional dash for funding among players hit by the unexpected surge in oil prices due to the drone strike in Saudi Arabia. The other bit of good news is that Fed officials seem ready to offset these temporary problems by employing “flexibility when needed”, as Simon Potter, then a senior official at the New York Fed, noted last year. This nimble and creative approach is another contrast to 2008 — and very welcome. But here is the bad news: the fact that a “temporary” cash squeeze created so much drama shows that neither the Fed nor investors completely understand how the cogs of the modern financial machine mesh. That is partly because “money markets have been and are now changing quickly in response to regulatory, technology and business model incentives”, as Mr Potter put it. A decade of extraordinary monetary policy experiments has left the system badly distorted. Thus the Fed is now like a pilot flying a plane with an engine that has been stealthily remodelled. Neither the passengers nor the pilot knows how the engine’s shifting cogs might affect the controls during a wave of turbulence, because there is little historical precedent. Take the matter of bank reserves. Quantitative easing earlier this decade caused an explosion in the level of reserves that private banks place on deposit with the Fed, hitting a peak of $2.9tn in 2014. Since the Fed started rolling back QE a couple of years ago, those reserves have shrunk to $1.3tn as of this summer. Until recently, Fed officials thought that was enough cash to keep the system running smoothly. Although $1tn in reserves are tied up by regulatory and liquidity requirements, the remaining $300bn “buffer” was presumed to be sufficient to absorb unexpected market shocks. This calculation was always a guess, not scientific projection, since the Fed has never before unleashed QE — or tried to unwind it. And, as Lorie Logan of the New York Fed said in 2017, you only truly know that a reserve buffer has run out when rates spike. The best guess now is that $300bn is not big enough. “The Fed is learning as it goes,” explains BMO Capital Markets. Although Fed officials will probably introduce new tools to create additional safety buffers, JPMorgan fears that “this sort of volatility will only persist” given all the structural changes under way. This is unnerving. But the bigger point that investors need to understand is this: the more that QE (and its partial reversal) reshapes global finance, the greater the risk that the cogs in the machine unexpectedly misfire. That is no reason to panic. But central bank pilots — like investors — are learning on the job. Better hope they stay completely alert. gillian.tett@ft.com

To: marcher who wrote (150748)	9/22/2019 10:08:01 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone	2 Recommendations Recommended By kimberley marcher Respond to of 217705

69,194 viewsSep 22, 2019, 12:00am No One Seemed To Notice Greta Thunberg’s Critique Of The Green New Deal Jeff McMahonContributor Green Tech From Chicago, I write about climate change, green technology, energy. WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 17: Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old climate change activist from Sweden, casts a wary eye on Sen. Edward Markey during a Senate Climate Change Task Force meeting on Capitol Hill. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) GETTY IMAGESGreta Thunberg’s rebuke of Congress last week took no prisoners and showed no favor to heroes of the left who have styled themselves friends of the environment. Though Thunberg did not utter the words “Green New Deal,” she characterized partisan efforts that envision an idealized future as unhelpful dreams, and her criticism culminated in these words: “No matter how political the background to this crisis may be, we must not allow this to continue to be a partisan political question. The climate and ecological crisis is beyond party politics. And our main enemy right now is not our political opponents. Our main enemy now is physics. And we can not make ‘deals’ with physics.” The Achilles’ Heel of the Green New Deal is that it deploys the climate crisis as a liberal cause, which ensures conservative opposition. The climate crisis is a universal cause. Conservatives need a way to get on board. It’s difficult for them to support a policy that evokes the New Deal. And conservative opposition will relegate the Green New Deal to the realm of fantasy at least until a cataclysm arrives like the one that inspired the original New Deal. Today In: Innovation We need a climate policy sooner than that. To explain Greta’s sudden, global impact, people have begun speaking of her superpowers. One might be that at 16 she understands political reality better than some who have spent their lives in politics.