#6800239 at 2019-06-20 21:20:29 (UTC+1) Q Research General #8698: Loose and Stupid Edition
Natixis Plunges After Its Ill-Named H20 Fund Sparks Panic Over Illiquid Holdings
Step aside Neil Woodford (and your disastrous investments in illiquid assets), and make room for French bank Natixis (and its own disastrous investments in illiquid assets), whose shares plunged 10% to the lowest in three years, after bond rating giant Morningstar suspended its rating on the woefully-named H2O Asset Management's Allegro Fund yesterday, citing concerns over "the liquidity of certain bonds".
"H20" fund… lack of liquidity… get it?
The questionable Natixis holdings are linked to debt issued by Lars Windhorst, "a flamboyant German entrepreneur with a history of legal troubles" according to the FT, which first flagged the Allegro fund's shady holdings.
ome history: the London-based H20, which oversees about ?30bn of assets, has been a subsidiary of Natixis Investment Managers since it was bought in July 2010. Executives sent a message to clients on Wednesday to reassure them about the liquidity of its investments and that its positions had been "fully disclosed to our clients and auditors".
"The suspension raises concern about the quality of oversight by Natixis management of its network of asset managers," KBW analyst Jean-Pierre Lambert told the FT, adding that in the vein of the Woodford fiasco, the ?250MM performance fee H20 pays Natixis could be affected, and questions should be raised about the French bank's flurry of recent asset management acquisitions and stated ambition for more.
In response, Natixis said on Thursday that suspension of the rating has "absolutely no impact on the liquidity and performance of H2O's funds. H2O will communicate shortly in detail to address all the questions raised by the publication of these elements." The statement added that "the risk of a potential conflict of interest" raised by Morningstar was "groundless."
Of course, a few weeks ago, UK "investment legend" Neil Woodford said the same thing when a "fund run" on his assets resulted in an unprecedented gating of investors when the market is trading at all time highs. Now, it's Natixis' turn to discover just why all those warnings written here and elsewhere about illiquid bond investments should have been taken seriously.
According to a previous report by FT Alphaville, H2O's filings list investments in more than ?1.4bn of illiquid bonds linked to Windhorst, across six funds that allow retail investors to withdraw their money on a daily basis.
H2O appears to be by far the biggest investor in many of these bonds. It often holds the majority of the outstanding amount across the firm, according to FT calculations based on each fund's latest regulatory filings.
Windhorst, once seen as a teenage prodigy and poster boy for entrepreneurship in his native Germany, saw his reputation crater after he presides over several insolvencies, a personal bankruptcy and received a suspended jail sentence in 2009. He relaunched his investment firm last month in an attempt to draw a line under several tricky years, which saw him and his company Sapinda engaged in legal battles involving at least ?220m with several investors - including Ukraine-born billionaire Sir Len Blavatnik.
The plot thickened after H2O's CEO, Bruno Crastes joined a new advisory board of Windhorst's rebranded Tennor Holding last month, along with fund management heavyweights Martin Gilbert and Avenue's Marc Lasry, who is also vice-chairman of UK asset manager Standard Life Aberdeen. In all, across these investors, they owns tens of billions in illiquid bonds and may well be engaging in marking-to-myth by occasionally "buying" each other's bonds at specifics prices just to give the impression of a liquid market across billions in illiquid bond holdings.
Potential collusion aside, Morningstar on Wednesday said that Crastes's board seat posed "a possible conflict of interest".
not a possible conflict but 100% certainty
Still, even if the "illiquid" H20 fund investments turn out to be a tempest in a teapot, Natixis has many other shady investment problems: the stock has plunged 36% in the past 12 months, even before today's 10% plunge.
In February the bank said its fourth-quarter earnings were cut in half after some Asian derivatives trades went bad, prompting questions about its risk appetite and management.
this guy, not as bad as dykstra because he actually did/does something, but lived "the life" on the backs on his clients.
a classic example of mark-to-model
this is when they produce internal reports that say a certain asset is worth 'X' and then carry it on the books that way-even though there are plenty of mark-to-market prices available.
Mark-to-market =real prices derived from an exchange or accepted pricing mechanism.
#6384459 at 2019-05-01 21:35:49 (UTC+1) Q Research General #8164: Absolutely Based pt 2. The Easy Bake Edition
Churchill was a faggot was was buggered by Crowley
A colleague brought to my attention the following exchange on Booknotes back in 1991 when Brian Lamb was interviewing Martin Gilbert about his biography of Churchill (it seems you can't avoid Churchill in this area):
Gilbert: ... When Churchill was 20 and a young soldier, he was accused of buggery, and you know that's a terrible accusation. Well, he ended up prime minister for quite a long time.
Lamb: Why was he accused of buggery, and what it is?
Gilbert: You don't know what buggery is?
Lamb: Define it, please.
Gilbert [clearly flustered]: Oh, dear. Sorry, I thought the word would ... buggery is what used to be called "an unnatural act of the Oscar Wilde type," ... is how it was actually phrased in the euphemism of the British papers. You don't know what buggery is? It's a very nasty thing which men can do to each other.
This strikes me as one of the more severe deficiencies of U.S. English. How do Americans cope without a verb for this action? And what do they make of Rossini's description of his mules: "bestie buggierone"? One of my earliest memories from an English childhood is of being goaded by my (older) sister to say "I chased a bug around a tree" without it coming out "dirty." Well, so far as definitions are concerned, I think Martin Gilbert provided the necessary clarification. That is buggery; and that, according to me, is the first thing that comes to people's minds when you raise the topic of homosexuality.
#1966158 at 2018-06-30 05:50:53 (UTC+1) Q Research General #2478: "Error made. >Name can be found due to filing" Dig Edition
>Men shoving their penis into another man's rectum and feces is disgusting.
>Let us consider what is in people's minds when the subject of homosexuality is brought to their attention. I am not talking about the faculty of Harvard University; I am talking about people, including even people who never went to law school (yes! there are such people!) What is in their minds when homosexuality is mentioned? Buggery, that's what.
>I was a bit disconcerted to find, when trying some of these themes out in conversation, that this word is almost unknown in the U.S.A. A colleague brought to my attention the following exchange on Booknotes back in 1991 when Brian Lamb was interviewing Martin Gilbert about his biography of Churchill (it seems you can't avoid Churchill in this area):
>Gilbert: ... When Churchill was 20 and a young soldier, he was accused of buggery, and you know that's a terrible accusation. Well, he ended up prime minister for quite a long time.
>Lamb: Why was he accused of buggery, and what it is?
>Gilbert: You don't know what buggery is?
>Lamb: Define it, please.
>Gilbert [clearly flustered]: Oh, dear. Sorry, I thought the word would ... buggery is what used to be called "an unnatural act of the Oscar Wilde type," ... is how it was actually phrased in the euphemism of the British papers. You don't know what buggery is? It's a very nasty thing which men can do to each other.
>This strikes me as one of the more severe deficiencies of U.S. English. How do Americans cope without a verb for this action? And what do they make of Rossini's description of his mules: "bestie buggierone"? One of my earliest memories from an English childhood is of being goaded by my (older) sister to say "I chased a bug around a tree" without it coming out "dirty." Well, so far as definitions are concerned, I think Martin Gilbert provided the necessary clarification. That is buggery; and that, according to me, is the first thing that comes to people's minds when you raise the topic of homosexuality. Not equal rights for an oppressed minority; not the gruesome death of the unfortunate Mathew Shepard; not Ellen DeGeneres "coming out" on prime-time TV; not Tom Hanks fading away photogenically in Philadelphia. Buggery. Like it or not - and I can quite understand that many homosexuals do not like it at all - buggery is, in the minds of the straight population, the defining act of the "homosexual lifestyle."
#1223384 at 2018-04-28 19:17:35 (UTC+1) Q Research General #1532: Korean End of All Hostilities Edition
REGARDING the Q "Follow the pens" post:
First, I was fairly certain that it wasn't about the pen pic Q sent us that I reposted yesterday but possibly about the EO following It? I STILL felt there was another meaning he was pointing towards as so often is the case with his posts. Secondly, it reminded me of the first two events that led me to believe HUSSEIN was not acting in America's best interests as the new President! The first event occurred immediately after he was sworn into office & addressed a middle eastern country via radio instead of addressing the American people first. The second was when his administration had our biggest ally, the U.K. as the first visiting foreign dignitaries and not only was ages old traditional protocol completely ignored, he was the personification of a rude, arrogant ass! They weren't met when they landed at Andrew's AFB by the President or ANY official at all, there was no greeting upon their arrival, there was no lavish welcoming ceremony or reception at the White House, there was no joint press conference planned, no side by side photo op with both flags in the background, no official state dinner, no trip to Camp David, and the one tradition upheld of exchanging gifts was a complete debacle! Our new U.S. President had also already insisted on giving the most famous Churchill bust back & the British diplomatically stated it was a gift of a symbol of solidarity over 9/11 & not a loan & even suggested that perhaps it could be donated to a museum that might appreciate it if he didn't want it displayed in the White House, HUSSEIN objected adamantly in his steadfast intention on returning it though. As all of this wasn't bad enough, the exchanging of gifts was the worst by far in the treatment of our first foreign dignitary visitors, who were touted as our closest allies! Obama's excuse, he was facing exhaustion over America's economic crisis and is unable to focus on foreign affairs! The real views of many in the Obama administration were reflected by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about the controversy. The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."
For his part, PM Brown gave two symbolic gifts and one that expressed national pride.
There was a first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert's authorized biography of Churchill, all seven volumes of it. There was a framed commissioning paper for HMS Resolute, rescued by an American whaler in 1856; part of HMS Resolute was later made into the desk presented by Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880, and used by American presidents to this day.
And then there was the third present. As Reuters reports it, the gift was:
a pen holder fashioned from the timber of HMS Gannet, a sister ship of the Resolute that also served for a time on anti-slavery missions off Africa.
So, what did President Obama give the British PM? 25 movies on DVD. Obama responds by sending a staffer to WalMart to pick up a few quick movies. Worse, they were American DVDs, created in the "Region One" format while those in Europe play in "Region Two" format. A U.S. DVD just won't play on a machine made for the English market.
But HMS Gannet (briefly named HMS President) was not, as a casual reader might guess, employed against the trade of slaves from Africa to the New World, and since it was built in 1878, it has nothing to do with Lincoln or slavery in the United States. It sailed the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, patrolling against Islamist slavers. In the Red Sea, the Africans it saved would have come, among other places, from Kenya. Obama has made mention of his grandfather's antipathy to Britain, stemming from his experiences in colonial Kenya. It is quite possible that grandfather's ancestors would, had it not been for the Royal Navy, have been carried away to slavery in Arabia.
The British campaign against the slave trade is instructive for another, more important, reason. By volume of business, it was the Foreign Office's most important concern for much of the 19th century. In the courts of Europe and the New World, Britain sought to negotiate effective treaties against the trade. But Britain did not restrict itself to diplomacy. Far too often, treaties were negotiated and then not enforced. Britain's first response to this was usually to negotiate again, but its patience was not infinite.
#786421 at 2018-03-25 10:00:15 (UTC+1) Q Research General #975: Patriots Never Sleep Edition
>>786420 Martin Gilbert, indefatigable Jewish campaigner on behalf of the 'Holocaust' and biographer of Winston Churchill, adds to the rich flavour and makes his own numerical claims, certainly not without chutzpah:
In his book Auschwitz and the Allies (1981) he states:
"The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe's Jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmo, Sobibor and Treblinka." (p. 26).
If we assume a minimum figure of 200,000 per day, this amounts to say one million over a five-day working week, or 6 million in six weeks, and this does not include the truly awe-inspiring claims for Auschwitz put forward by Hart and Lengyel with Gilbert's blessing.
A detailed forensic examination of the site of the wartime Treblinka camp, using sophisticated electronic ground penetrating radar, has found no evidence of mass graves there.
For six days in October 1999, an Australian team headed by Richard Krege, a qualified electronics engineer, carried out an examination of the soil at the site of the former Treblinka II camp in Poland, where, Holocaust historians say, more than half a million Jews were put to death in gas chambers and then buried in mass graves.
According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1997), for example, "a total of 870,000 people" were killed and buried at Treblinka between July 1942 and April 1943. Then, between April and July 1943, the hundreds of thousands of corpses were allegedly dug up and burned in batches of 2,000 or 2,500 on large grids made of railway ties.
Krege's team used an $80,000 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) device, which sends out vertical radar signals that are visible on a computer monitor. GPR detects any large-scale disturbances in the soil structure to a normal effective depth of four or five meters, and sometimes up to ten meters. (GPR devices are routinely used around the world by geologists, archeologists, and police.) In its Treblinka investigation, Krege's team also carried out visual soil inspections, and used an auger to take numerous soil core samples.
The team carefully examined the entire Treblinka II site, especially the alleged "mass graves" portion, and carried out control examinations of the surrounding area. They found no soil disturbance consistent with the burial of hundreds of thousands of bodies, or even evidence that the ground had ever been disturbed. In addition, Krege and his team found no evidence of individual graves, bone remains, human ashes, or wood ashes.
"From these scans we could clearly identify the largely undisturbed horizontal stratigraphic layering, better known as horizons, of the soil under the camp site," says the 30-year old Krege, who lives in Canberra. "We know from scans of grave sites, and other sites with known soil disturbances, such as quarries, when this natural layering is massively disrupted or missing altogether." Because normal geological processes are very slow acting, disruption of the soil structure would have been detectable even after 60 years, Krege noted.
While his initial investigation suggests that there were never any mass graves at the Treblinka camp site, Krege believes that further work is still called for.
"Historians say that the bodies were exhumed and cremated toward the end of the Treblinka camp's use in 1943, but we found no indication that any mass graves ever existed," he says. "Personally, I don't think there was a mass extermination camp there at all."
Krege prepared a detailed report on his Treblinka investigation. He says that he would welcome the formation, possibly under United Nations auspices, of an international team of neutral, qualified specialists, to carry out similar investigations at the sites of all the wartime German camps.
(Sources: "'Vernichtungslager' Treblinka: archaelogisch betrachtet," by Ing. Richard Krege, in Vierteljarhreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, June 2000 [4. Jg., Heft 1], pp. 62-64; "'No Jewish mass grave' in Poland," The Canberra Times, January 24, 2000, p. 6; "Poland's Jews 'not buried at Treblinka'," The Examiner [Australia], Jan. 24, 2000. Information provided by Richard Krege; M. Weber and A. Allen, "Treblinka," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, pp. 133-158; Y. Arad, "Treblinka," in I. Gutman, ed., Encyclopedia of the Holocaust [New York: 1997], pp. 1481-1488.)
#786420 at 2018-03-25 09:59:47 (UTC+1) Q Research General #975: Patriots Never Sleep Edition
"Much of the literature on Hitler's Final Solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud." (p. 55).
"Given the nonsense that is turned out daily by the Holocaust industry, the wonder is that there are so few skeptics". (p. 68).
"Annual Days of Remembrance of the Holocaust are a national event. All 50 states sponsor commemorations, often in state legislative chambers. . . Seven major Holocaust museums dot the American landscape. The centerpiece of this memorialization is the United States Holocaust museum in Washington. . . [This] museum's annual budget is $50 million, of which $30 million is federally subsidized." (p. 72). (This is in spite of the fact that, as he points out on page 32, per capita Jewish income in the US is almost double that of non-Jews).
"With a reelection campaign looming, Jimmy Carter initiated the [US Holocaust Museum] project to placate Jewish contributors and voters, galled by the president's recognition of the "legitimate rights" of Palestinians.' (p. 73).
Finkelstein exposes the SWINDLE, a word formerly most often associated with Jews.
"The Holocaust" is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality. The Holocaust is not an arbitrary, but rather an internally coherent construct. Its central dogmas sustain significant political and class interests." (p. 3). And:
"The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the "greatest robbery in the history of mankind". . . The Holocaust industry has clearly gone berserk." (p. 138-9).
Is this evaluation fair?
Have a look at a typical account by one of the seemingly endless number of survivors: Olga Lengyel's Five Chimneys: a woman survivor's true story of Auschwitz (Granada/Ziff-Davis, 1947, 1972).
The blurb on the cover of the book quotes the New York Herald-Tribune: "Passionate, tormenting". Albert Einstein, the promoter of the US construction of the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is quoted as offering "You have done a real service by letting the ones who are now silent and most forgotten (sic) speak."
"After June, 1943, the gas chamber was reserved exclusively for Jews and Gypsies. . . Three hundred and sixty corpses every half-hour, which was all the time it took to reduce human flesh to ashes, made 720 per hour, or 17,280 corpses per twenty-four hour shift. And the ovens, with murderous efficiency, functioned day and night. However, one must also reckon the death pits, which could destroy another 8,000 cadavers a day. In round numbers, about 24,000 corpses were handled each day. An admirable production record, one that speaks well for German industry." (Paperback edition, pp. 80-81). [No trace of any remains of or in 'death pits' has been found.]
This implies almost 100,000 corpses per four working days, or a million in 40 days, or six million in 240 days (eight months).
Could this claim be a misprint?
Kitty Hart, in spite of her name, a Jewish survivor born in Poland, fully confirms these figures:
"Working around the clock, the four units together could dispose of about 18,000 bodies every twenty-four hours, while the open pits coped with a further 8,000 in the same period." (p. 118; Return to Auschwitz - paperback edition by Granada (1981, 1983).
According to the cover blurb, "The subject of the award-winning Yorkshire television documentary of the same name." "Both engaging and harrowing . . . an important addition to the growing holocaust literature, very little of which conveys so courageously both the daily torment and the will to survive" - Martin Gilbert, The Times.