(Marianne) : Le Grand Mensonge des Démocrates Américains

    On ne peut pas blâmer les Démocrates américains de tenter, par tous les moyens, de masquer la portée de leur échec en l’attribuant à toutes sortes de motifs, même les plus fantaisistes. La pilule est certes amère. Toutefois, la part la plus intéressante de cette hystérie collective est le phénomène d’auto-persuasion qui en est le moteur et que la plupart des grands médias du pays alimentent.
    CBSNews
    L’argument numéro un des perdants est la faillite du système électoral et, en particulier, le fait que la candidate démocrate, Hillary Clinton, a remporté le scrutin populaire. C’est oublier que la situation, même si elle n’est pas commune, s’est produite à quatre reprises au cours de l’Histoire des Etats-Unis, et qu’elle ne constitue pas de difficulté particulière aux termes de la Constitution. De plus, le 115ème congrès, sorti des urnes le 8 novembre 2016 et en fonction depuis le 3 janvier 2017, a vu 52% des électeurs voter pour les Républicains au Sénat et 55% à la Chambre des représentants. Il n’y a donc aucune anomalie dans les élections de 2016 de ce point de vue.
    Le second argument est celui du piratage informatique à grande échelle des élections, sur ordre du président russe Vladimir Poutine, afin de faciliter l’élection de Donald J. Trump. Là encore, l’idée ne tient pas debout. Aucune trace de défaillance dans le nombre limité de votes électroniques aux élections n’a été décelée. Les services du renseignement américain, en dépit de leur conviction affichée selon lesquelles il existe un indice « haut » de confiance dans le fait qu’il y a eu piratage, ne sont pas tenus de produire le moindre élément de preuve au public, puisque de telles informations sont par essence classées « secret défense ». Il faut donc les croire sur parole.
    Poussés par ceux qui demeurent sceptiques sur la manière dont on s’y prend pour influencer le résultat d’une élection par des moyens électroniques, des experts affirment, par dizaines, que le régime russe a répandu de « fausses informations » à grande échelle afin de porter atteinte à l’image de la candidate Hillary Clinton. Les mêmes sont incapables d’expliquer concrètement comment l’on s’y prend et pourquoi il faut des « hackers » pour influencer les esprits dans leur choix lors d’un vote.

    Une mauvaise candidate
    Hillary Clinton n’a eu besoin ni de Vladimir Poutine, ni de Julien Assange et encore moins de « pirates » pour perdre les élections de 2016. Ce ne sont pas de prétendues « fausses » informations qui ont heurté sa réputation déjà bien entamée auprès de nombreux électeurs américains, par exemple, dans l’affaire des emails, mais au contraire, son refus obstiné de prendre cette affaire au sérieux et de répondre aux interrogations. On ne voit pas, non plus, quelles « fausses » informations ont poussé l’électorat noir américain à se sous-mobiliser lors du vote du 8 novembre, ou les femmes et les plus jeunes à bouder sa candidature, après la défaite de Bernie Sanders lors des primaires démocrates.
    Hillary Clinton, dont l’ambition n’est pas éteinte par la défaite, a affiché un visage froid, autoritaire et cassant, durant sa campagne. Elle n’a pas su développer un programme à la fois lisible et crédible, qui aurait pu emporter un vote, à la fois populaire et du collège électoral, si tranché qu’il n’y aurait eu aucune contestation. Comment, en effet, se revendiquer de l’héritage de Barack Obama, lorsque cet héritage peine à brandir autre chose que l’Obamacare, dont même les démocrates savent qu’il n’est pas financé au-delà de 2017 et coûte, en réalité, une fortune au regard des bénéfices qu’il apporte ?
    Photo: Sur les3145 kilomètres de frontière entre le Mexique et les Etats-Unis, un tiers est déjà protégé par un mur, la poursuite de sa construction étant gelée depuis 2010, en particulier pour des raisons environnementales.
    Mensonges et déni
    Car au-delà de cette loi sur la santé qui n’est en rien un système généreux et égalitaire tel qu’on le pense du côté des Européens, c’est le vide. Même si le Secrétaire d’Etat John Kerry blâme ces derniers jours le gouvernement anglais, prétendant qu’il est à l’origine de l’incapacité d’Obama à agir plus concrètement et durablement au Moyen-Orient contre l’état islamique, la mémoire de tous est par chance encore assez fraîche pour se souvenir que les huit années de ce président ont été celles d’une grande hypocrisie diplomatique et militaire. Mais le déni, dans ce domaine comme dans bien d’autres, est plus puissant que la mémoire.
    Les âmes sensibles sont outrées par l’idée de construire un mur à la frontière entre les Etats-Unis et le Mexique. On a beau leur montrer les mille kilomètres de ce mur déjà construit, y compris sous le premier mandat d’Obama, cela n’a guère d’effet et n’entraîne aucune interrogation sur les raisons pour lesquelles le bon président n’en n’a pas retiré une seule pierre.
    Un autre exemple est celui de la crise financière de 2008 et du retour au « plein emploi » huit ans plus tard : quel président n’aurait point réussi ce « prodige » en creusant le déficit de son pays, comme Barack Obama l’a fait, de près de 5000 milliards de dollars ?
    La période 2008-2016 n’a pas non plus été celle de législations majeures en matière d’armes à feu, d’incarcérations, de recul de la peine de mort, de maîtrise des frais de scolarité ou de gestion des prêts étudiants parvenus à des hauteurs astronomiques.
    Quel est donc ce succès dont les Démocrates se revendiquent au juste? Est-ce celui des villes défigurées sous les coups de boutoir du géant Amazon, à la fois propriétaire du puissant Washington Post et importateur massif de toutes les chinoiseries possibles qui inondent un marché américain ou l'on ne sait plus fabriquer une chaussette? Est-celui de Saint Zuckerberg, le jeune patron de Facebook, "le" média des "millénaires" qui ne savent plus à quoi ressemble un livre et qui entre désormais en politique avec de hautes ambitions? Est-ce celui du mariage gay et de la dépénalisation du cannabis, hautes priorités s'il en est dans un monde où tout le monde se fout des 250 000 morts du Sud Soudan, bien moins "sexy" que ceux de Syrie?
    Quel héritage Obama?
    Alors, que reste t-il de cet héritage Obama, au juste ? Une posture, bien évidemment. Après George W. Bush et le mensonge irakien, n’importe quel président aurait été auréolé de gloire. On attendait d’Obama, toutefois, un peu plus qu’un physique avenant, un talent rhétorique et l’humour dont il a tant usé. Car c’est à ce que laisse un président que l’on mesure son impact, pas à sa performance sur la scène du pouvoir. L’Amérique n’est pas plus sympathique dans le monde qu’elle ne l’était avant son arrivée, ni plus sûre, ni plus égalitaire. Mais elle a la chance d’être un pays pragmatique : en ramenant au pouvoir, contre toute attente, les Républicains, elle a flanqué une gifle magistrale aux « progressistes » qui se croyaient tout permis. Elle ne l’a pas fait par folie ou par irresponsabilité mais parce qu’elle a confiance dans la capacité de ses institutions à « encaisser » ce type de choix démocratique, si perturbant soit-il pour des milieux qui s’estiment mieux éduqués et éclairés que les autres. On appelle cela l’alternance, une banalité que les Démocrates veulent aujourd’hui faire passer pour un scandale et une catastrophe.
    Cherchez l’erreur.

    (TheDailyBeast) The Worst Art Thefts of the Past Century

    The Worst Art Thefts of the Past Century
    Dozens of people were arrested across Europe as part of an art and antiquities trafficking sting, but there are still some headline-grabbing pieces still in the hands of their rightful owners.

    This week Spanish police announced that seventy-five people across Europe have been arrested as part of an investigation into illegal art and antiquities trafficking. The investigation involved collaboration between Interpol, Europol (the European policing agency), and UNESCO as well as the cooperation of law enforcement in (among other countries) Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland.
    The arrests that resulted from Operation Pandora (the investigation’s code-name) were made last November, but only announced this week. While a full inventory of recovered items has not been released to the public, Spanish police reported that in the city of Murcia they recovered about 500 archeological artifacts, including nineteen that had been stolen from the city’s archeological museum in 2014. Europol is reporting that, in total, 3561, have been recovered and ninety-two new investigations have been initiated as part of the operation.
    Among the items retrieved as part of operation Pandora were several of greater archeological significance. In Greece, the Hellenic police retrieved a marble Ottoman and tombstone, a post-Byzantine icon of St. George, and two Byzantine era artifacts. But there are plenty of other important artifacts that have yet to be returned to their home countries and while many of them are lost others are on display in foreign museums.

    1. Dove with Green Peas
    In 2010 a lone hooded thief managed to climb into Paris’s Museum of Modern Art. The alarms did not sound when he entered the building and he was about to steal five priceless works right out of their frames. Among them was Dove with Green Peas by Pablo Picasso, Pastoral by Henri Matisse, Olive Tree near l’Estaque by Georges Braque, Woman with Fan by Amedeo Modigliani, and Still life with Candlestick by Fernand Leger. The heist, which reminded commentators of the Pink Panther movies, was valued at between 100-200 million euros.
    More than a year later three men were placed under official investigation. According to his story the five masterpieces ended up crushed by a garbage truck. Even though two men were convicted in the case, no evidence the artwork was never discovered. One of the alleged accomplices, a 34 year-old watchmaker, told the French police that he had panicked and thrown the canvasses into a trash container. Police were skeptical of his story. It’s possible that the art was thrown out like common trash, or someone out there still has the art on very private display.
    While there are many prominent art thefts out there, the Art Loss Registry in London said that this was “one of the biggest art heists ever, considering the estimated value, the prominence of the artists and the high profile of the museum.”
    2. Nazi Artwork
    It wouldn’t be a listicle about stolen artifacts if we didn’t mention the Nazis. There’s no end to the stories of gold, artwork, and other valuables they stole from prominent Jewish families during World War II. 

    What’s less known is how the art was effectively returned to Nazi-families in the 1950s and 60s. In the years that followed the end of the war American officials returned more than 10,000 pieces of art to the Bavarian authorities with the intent that they be returned to the families from which they had been plundered. For example, as a New York Times story revealed, Hitler’s private secretary, Henriette von Schirach, and her family effectively lobbied the Bavarian State to return nearly 300 pieces of art to them at a discounted rate. Among them was a small painting, “View of a Dutch Square,” by Jan van der Heyden. The landscape had originally been owned by the Kraus family, a Jewish family who had fled Vienna in the war and whose art collection was seized by the Gestapo in 1941. Rather than return the painting to the Kraus’s descendants it was sold to von Schirach for 300 Deutschmarks (approximately $75 at the time). A subsequent investigation by the Krauses great-grandson, John Graykowski and the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, revealed that hundreds of pieces of art were resold to Nazi-tied families for a small fraction of their worth.
    3. Priam’s Treasure
    Even if the Nazis were the most precocious looters of artwork in the twentieth century, they received a taste of their own medicine at the end of World War II. In 1837 German classical archeologist Heinrich Schliemann discovered a horde of gold and copper ancient weapons in Anatolia (modern Turkey). Among the artifacts were 8,750 gold rings, buttons, and other small gold objects. Schliemann was convinced that he had found the ancient city of Troy and named his discovery after the city’s ill-fated king. Schliemann smuggled the cache to Berlin, their removal only being discovered when Schliemann’s wife, Sophia, audaciously wore the jewels for the public. The Ottoman official who had been assigned to oversee the dig was imprisoned and Schliemann returned some of the treasure in exchange for permission to excavate at ‘Troy’ again. The rest of the hoard was exhibited at the Royal Museums of Berlin.
    But in 1945 Priam’s Treasure disappeared out of a bunker under Berlin Zoo. The Soviet Government, whose Red Army was known to have stormed the city denied an knowledge of the whereabouts of the gold. That is until 1993, when the treasure went on display at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. Technically speaking the Russians are obligated to return the treasure, but they are currently refusing to do so. The directors of the Pushkin claim that they are keeping the treasure as part of reparations owed to them by the German government.
    4. Lioness Attacking a Nubian
    As the city of Bagdad fell to coalition forces in 2003, reports began to emerge that the National Museum of Iraq, home to arguably the world’s finest collection of Ancient Near Eastern artifacts, had been repeatedly looted. Initial reports stated that 170,000 items had been stolen, but these numbers were later shown to have been greatly inflated. As the smoked cleared it emerged that the tally was closer to between 10,000 and 15,000 pieces and not every looter knew what they were doing. There were professional looters who cherry picked the most prized treasures, random looters who stole mostly excavation site pieces but also ended up lifting worthless replicas intended for the gift-shop, and there were insiders who focused on jewelry and cylinder seals. A stellar investigation by US Lt-Col Matthew Bogdanos led to the return of many items but a number, including the huge collection of cylinder seals, remain missing.

    Still missing though is “Lioness attacking a Nubian” a remarkable eighth-century BCE ivory plaque. It is set with lapis lazuli (one of the Bible’s most precious jewels) and carnelian and overlaid with gold. There are two similar plaques in existence and both of them are currently housed in the British Museum. Other prestigious items from the collection like the Warka Head were stolen and returned and others still like the Golden Lyre of Ur (one of the oldest stringed instruments in the world) was hidden from thieves and damaged by flooding. A complete list of items still missing from 2003 can be found on a University of Chicago Oriental Institute website.
    5. The Wiener Collection
    In December 2016, New York art collector and antiquities dealer Nancy Wiener was arrested for smuggling, laundering, and arranging the sale of plundered Asian art . Her prestigious Upper East Side gallery has sold art to private collectors and also to important public collections like the Art Institute of Chicago and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. According to the complaint against her, Wiener purchased antiquities from thieves, had them restored in order to erase the evidence that they had been looted (for example modern saw marks are a clear sign of recent interference), and then laundered through Sotheby’s and Christie’s. Part of her strategy, it is alleged, was to create a false paper trail of owners in order to falsify the provenance (legal chain of ownership) to a period before 1972, when UNESCO regulations about antiquities began to be implemented.
    The investigation into Wiener and the identification of trafficked items that have passed through her galleries owes a great debt to the remarkable work
    of James Felch, author of the antiquities trafficking blog Chasing Aphrodite. Felch was instrumental in exposing the illegal origins of many items in the Getty collection and is the co-author, with Ralph Frammolino, of the book Chasing Aphrodite. In just the past few weeks Felch and his readers have identified a number of pieces of doubtful provenance. Victoria Reed, a curator at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, shared details of five items in their collection about which she was concerned. These include an exquisite tenth century CE Sandstone sculpture of Shiva Lord of the Dance from Central-eastern Madhya Pradesh. Wiener sold the sculpture to the museum in 1992 and it has no known provenance.
    How did Wiener get away with this for so long? In part because she was a second-generation ‘trusted dealer’ and buyers and immigration authorities never fact-checked her paper trail. If they had, they likely would have realized that many of the ‘owners’ of the items she was selling were fictitious.
    Operation Pandora focused on criminal networks and on antiquities trafficking that involved cultural spoliation (this is trafficking that involves forcible removable of antiquities, especially from war-torn areas), but the most revealing and troubling thing about antiquities trafficking is just how far and high it goes. Illegal art and antiquities trafficking extends from terrorist groups like ISIS, plundering local archeological sites to fund their obscene war; to criminal networks and art thieves trying to turn a tidy profit; to governments who protest that plundered artifacts are just reparations; to museums, art galleries, and even royalty who claim either that they are rescuing artifacts or that time has effaced the negative circumstances under which they acquired their artifact. From the most universally hated element of our global society to the most elite and respected institutions many people have their fingers in the antiquities pie.
    If we are outraged by ISIS (and we are), we should be similarly concerned by those willing to smuggle and purchase plundered artifacts and those hesitant to return them to their rightful owners. And we really, really have to check their paperwork.

    >>> US Top Gainers/ Losers

    This week's top 20 % gainers
    • Healthcare: CARA (13.88 +21.43%)
    • Materials: ATI (21.83 +27.96%), GSV (2.78 +24.11%), HBM (8 +15.11%),
    • Industrials: TGH (14.4 +39.13%), TWI (13.17 +27.12%), MTW(7.5 +23.97%), TRTN (23.8 +23.44%), URI (128.26 +15.35%)
    • Consumer Discretionary: LRN (19.59 +15.92%), BOBE (55.2 +14.5%)
    • Information Technology: STX (44.5 +22.02%), IIVI (36.25 +17.5%), CLS (14.18 +17.38%), STM (13.59 +17.05%), LOGI (29.28 +16.42%)
    • Financials: GNBC (17 +20.57%), MKTX (179.82 +14.62%)
    • Energy: EMES (18.23 +14.8%)
    • Telecommunication Services: GSAT (1.66 +20.29%)
    This week's top 20 % losers
    • Healthcare: NOVN (4.86 -77.75%), VIVO (12.7 -24.18%), NK(5.37 -13.94%), KERX (4.8 -11.6%), PTCT (12.82 -11.16%),CSLT (3.25 -10.96%)
    • Materials: AKS (8.07 -15.23%)
    • Industrials: KEYW (10.09 -14.27%)
    • Consumer Discretionary: SHLD (7.42 -20.47%), RH (26.09 -11.8%), MAT (26.49 -11.76%), BOOT (10.58 -11.09%), MIK (19.56 -11.09%)
    • Information Technology: QCOM (54.24 -13.74%), APTI (14.6 -11.25%)
    • Energy: EEQ (20.37 -19.96%), EEP (21.33 -14.47%), PEIX (7 -13.04%), STNG (3.84 -11.32%)
    • Telecommunication Services: BT (19.43 -20.04%)

    >>> Barrons weekend summary: positive on ANTM, MGA

    Barrons weekend summary: positive on ANTM, MGA 

    * Cover story: "The Dow hitting 20,000 was no fluke. Today's stock prices are well supported by solid prospects for corporate earnings and economic growth"-and there's no reason the DJIA can't reach 30,000 if President Trump avoids a trade war. 

    * Features: 1) Positive on ANTM: Company's No. 2 health insurer has the lowest P/E ratio among peers and the most room for improvement in profit margins and earnings, and bulls argue it could earn $20/share by 2020; 2) Positive on MGA: Unlike rivals, company can build an entire vehicle to a company's specs, as it does for customers like Daimler, and it should be able to maintain growth and increase market share despite a few concerns.

    * Tech Trader: Positive on MSFT: Because of its cash horde and earnings power, shares of the tech giant now appear to be a better pick for investors than those of INTC, which may have less of an opportunity to benefit from a potential tax holiday on overseas cash. 

    * Trader: It's a strange time for a market rally, because so many issues have yet to be resolved, and uncertainty remains about taxes, regulations, and other issues-while volatility could still rear its head; If Donald Trump succeeds in bringing factories back to the U.S., many jobs that come with them are likely to go to robots rather than to humans; Positive on AMZN: In normal times, the retailer would have difficulty breaking into the auto parts sector, but Trump administration rules about importing and tariffs could make the task easier for it. 
    * Barron's Roundtable: Part three offers picks from Oscar Schafer (ABCO, AA, Liberty Global, INXN, ANIP), Brian Rogers (LM, CVS, CASY, DIS, BMY), and Abby Joseph Cohen (LLY, Olympus, BLUE, LG Chem, INTU, HMHC, Shenzhen Airport). 

    * Profile: Suzanne Hutchins, lead manager of London-based Dreyfus Global Real Return, thinks the S&P 500 could fall by 40% or more from current levels, driven by excessive valuations and rising interest rates (top holdings: Treasury bonds and notes, ES, CMS, NVS, MSFT, Wolters Kluwer). 

    * Small Caps: Positive on SYNT: Shares of infotech services company trade at a discount, but concerns appear to be overblown, and while there may not be any near-term catalysts for growth, the long term looks good. 

    * Follow-Up: Positive on CTRP: There are promising signs for the company, which is growing its overseas business by adding more hotels and focusing on China; Cautious on IR: Shares are up, and could eke out a near double-digit return over the next year, but there are better bargains, and investors should take profits; Cautious on BIP: BAM's infrastructure division will have to reveal updated valuations for properties that had different values in the past, a situation that warrants investor scrutiny. 

    * European Trader: Positive on Atlantia(ATL.IT): After getting past some hurdles, motorway and airport owner is looking to expand beyond Italy and restructure its business. 

    * Asian Trader: Investors seeking shelter amid rising rates and a stronger dollar in Asia, a trade-dependent region likely to bear the brunt of Donald Trump's protectionist policies, should look to Indonesia," which is largely insulated from turbulence in world trade. 

    * Emerging Markets: Indian prime minister Narendra Modi's reforms didn't produce much success last year, but India remains the fastest growing large emerging market, and could see GDP growth of 7% this year. 

    * Commodities: "After a big rally in 2016, palladium prices are surging again. Despite the run-up, investors say there are still plenty of reasons to buy the volatile metal." 

    * Streetwise: Rather than outsource its money management, Harvard University would do better to break with its endowment peers and consider greater equity indexation.

    WSJ : Big Chinese Deals Stall on Capital-Outflows Clampdown

    Big Chinese Deals Stall on Capital-Outflows Clampdown
    Takeover pace slows on stricter policing of money leaving China

    The pace of big Chinese takeovers abroad is slowing as buyers contend with rules tightening the flow of money out of the country and increased government scrutiny at home and overseas.

    Bankers say many of the record-breaking $225 billion in overseas acquisitions Chinese companies announced last year are stalled by financial or regulatory hurdles—including the country’s biggest-ever deal, China National Chemical Corp.’s $43 billion bid for Syngenta AG, a Swiss seed and pesticide maker. European regulators this month extended the deadline for their review of ChemChina’s bid a second time, to April.

    More Chinese acquirers are backing out of deals. While Chinese firms announced more than double the amount of overseas acquisitions last year versus the previous, the value of deals withdrawn in 2016 was up around sevenfold, to $38.39 billion, according to Dealogic. The average number of days it took a Chinese buyer to complete an overseas deal in 2016 edged upward throughout the year, with November and December notching the highest levels, at above 140 days, according to Dealogic.


    A major factor behind the slowdown: stricter policing of overseas acquisitions by Chinese regulators to curb a flood of money leaving the country.



    The resulting uncertainty about regulatory approvals has damped some investors’ enthusiasm for overseas deals. “It is unmistakable that Chinese investors are far more cautious amid mounting uncertainties,” said Fred Hu, chairman of Primavera Capital. Mr. Hu’s Chinese private-equity firm is a prominent deal maker involved in last year’s biggest U-turn: Anbang Insurance Group Co. dropping its $14 billion bid for Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc.
    Mergers and acquisitions the world over go through cycles, and given the size, wealth and ambition of corporate China, financiers say the country’s surge in overseas, or outbound, deals is likely not stopping, but taking a break.

    Some well-connected Chinese acquirers are still striking smaller deals. Ant Financial Services Group, an affiliate of online shopping giant Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., clinched a deal Thursday to buy U.S. money-transfer provider MoneyGram International Inc. for $880 million. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. also agreed to sell its Dendreon cancer business to Chinese conglomerate Sanpower for $820 million earlier this month.
    “In the long run, the trend of China Inc. going global should not be affected” by the current foreign-exchange controls, said Wang Hongzhang, chairman of state lender China Construction Bank Corp., at a January event in Hong Kong. His bank offers financing for many Chinese outbound deals, including Anbang’s Starwood bid.
    For now, though, Chinese companies are increasingly anxious about deals abroad—particularly the biggest, which get the most scrutiny.
    Chinese regulators, including the Commerce Ministry and the country’s top economic-planning agency, must now clear many outbound deals larger than $1 billion, as well as everything more than $10 billion, before companies can get approval to move funds offshore, according to people with knowledge of the matter and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Regulators also are retroactively examining many pending deals that had earlier been approved, causing delays, according to people familiar with the matter.
    State-owned China Resources Beer (Holdings) Co. dropped out of an auction for Eastern Europe brewing assets being sold by Anheuser-Busch InBev SA NV in December, after China’s economic-planning agency declined to approve its bid, according to people familiar with the situation. Representatives for China Resources and AB InBev declined to comment.
    Meanwhile, Chinese deals continue to face scrutiny from overseas regulators. Australia this month said it will set up a new body to assess security risks of foreign investments, following a surge in Chinese bids to purchase everything from ports to electricity assets. Anbang’s $1.57 billion acquisition of U.S. life insurer Fidelity & Guaranty Life has stalled for more than a year because the Chinese insurer hasn’t provided enough detail on its ownership to satisfy state insurance regulators, people familiar with the matter said. One of these people said Anbang is in talks with New York regulators and plans to refile its application in the first quarter.

    Many sellers are asking for money to be placed in offshore escrow accounts to ensure they get paid, a development that has become common in the past year, bankers and lawyers say. HNA Group deposited $500 million in a U.S. account as breakup fee for its $6.5 billion proposed purchase of a 25% stake in Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
    State-owned ChemChina already was grappling with a heavy debt load before it struck the Syngenta deal. Worries about those debt levels caused one Chinese state bank to pass on financing the bid, according to people familiar with the situation. ChemChina’s Chairman Ren Jianxin tapped HSBC Holdings PLC and China Citic Bank International Ltd. to lead the $33 billion loan-financing effort. The lack of strong backing from big state lenders raised questions among investors over whether the deal had full support from Beijing.
    A ChemChina spokesman declined to comment and declined to make Mr. Ren available for comment.
    The deal was approved in August by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., or CFIUS, which scrutinizes deals for national-security risks and has blocked several high-profile Chinese deals during the past few years. In Europe, antimonopoly regulators are still combing through ChemChina’s and Syngenta’s assets to determine what may need to be divested after extending the deadline twice.
    China’s Commerce Ministry too has yet to give the nod, a person familiar with the matter said. It isn’t clear whether the Chinese economic-planning agency is currently examining the deal.
    “ChemChina and Syngenta remain fully committed to the transaction and are confident of its closure,” said a Syngenta spokesman.
    Mr. Ren has been undeterred by the delays, telling people around him not to worry about the fate of the Syngenta deal, and that the current obstacles won’t influence other potential deals, people familiar with the matter said.

    FT : Active managers accuse FCA of using flawed data

    Active managers accuse FCA of using flawed data
    UK regulator’s damning report on competition in industry lead to ‘heated’ discussions

    Active asset managers have accused the Financial Conduct Authority of using flawed and misleading data in the UK financial regulator’s far-reaching investigation into whether competition in the fund industry is working effectively.

    The discord between active asset managers and the FCA came to a head last week when the regulator held a series of meetings with senior industry figures to discuss proposed reforms of the investment industry.

    A senior investment professional who was present at one of the meetings, who requested anonymity, said the discussions became “very heated” with some “not very pleasant exchanges” between industry executives and FCA staff.

    He said: “People are very cross. Does the FCA not understand that vilifying one of the UK’s gold-standard industries is not helpful, particularly in the context of the uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the likelihood that UK managers will not be able to continue to passport their funds into the single European market?”

    The FCA meetings were set up after the regulator published a damning report last November that suggested charging structures across the industry should be overhauled to improve investors’ returns.

    Active managers bore the brunt of the FCA’s criticism for failing to outperform their indices after fees, a finding that is consistent with a large body of academic evidence, and for failing to provide value for money for retail investors.

    Active fund managers are increasingly questioning the quality and the breadth of the data used by the FCA.

    Toby Illingworth, executive director at the New City Initiative, an organisation that represents the interests of 54 investment managers with combined assets of £400bn, said the FCA had failed to distinguish between various types of active funds.

    “The FCA’s performance analysis bundled all active managers together, even though there are huge differences in the risks and returns generated across multiple strategies,” he said.

    He added that there was “lots of evidence” to suggest that smaller managers were more nimble and delivered outperformance, even though they shouldered a heavier burden of regulatory costs.

    He highlighted a controversial figure put forward by the FCA that indicated a £20,000 investment in a passively managed fund tracking the FTSE All-Share index over 20 years could yield a return 44 per cent larger than that of an actively managed equivalent.

    Mr Ilingworth said this estimate was based on a period of strong equity market performance, whereas the real value of active management was demonstrated when stocks were more volatile or not performing well.

    “Many of the consumers of active management are sophisticated investors. They would not pay the additional fees or invest in active managers if they did not feel there was a benefit,” he added.

    The chief executive of a large fund house, who did not want to be named, said the FCA appeared to be suggesting that active managers had to take more risks if they wanted to justify their higher fees.

    “But the holy grail of investing is to add value without taking disproportionate risks. Managers that delivered good returns with low levels of risk should be celebrated, not castigated,” he said.

    The FCA declined to comment for this article.

    >>> Conde Nast reorganisation prompts sale talk; Apple, Hearst, Google and Vice

    Conde Nast reorganisation prompts sale talk; Apple, Hearst, Google and Vice Media possible bidders - report
    28 JAN 2017
    Conde Nast is to undergo a reorganisation that has prompted talk that the New York City-based magazine publisher is about to be put up for sale, The Times reported. There have been rumours for several months that Conde Nast’s owner, Advance Publications Inc., is working on a sale, the item said, without citing a source for the speculation.
    It is thought that Conde Nast could attract offers from rival publisher HearstCorporation , the publisher of Elle magazine; the internet search company Google [NASDAQ:GOOGL]; Apple Inc. [NASDAQ:AAPL], a computer company; or Vice Media Inc., an online news media company, according to the report.
    Conde Nast’s chief business officer Jim Norton said in an internal memo yesterday, 27 January that the commercial side of the company’s US division will be completely reorganised. Three heads of publishing are to step down, the item added.
    The report also noted that the editor in chief of the UK edition of Conde Nast’s Vogue magazine Alexandra Schulman announced this week that she will be leaving the company. Speculation of conflict between Schulman and her counterpart at American Vogue, Anna Wintour, was denied by both sides, the article added.
    Conde Nast’s UK Managing Director Nicholas Coleridge has already announced that he will resign his position in August, the item noted.
    Background:
    A Wall Street Journal report dated 15 September 2015 said the Newhouse family owns Advance Publications, Inc.

    Reuters - German‎ watchdog suspected VW scam on CO2 emissions: report

    German‎ watchdog suspected VW scam on CO2 emissions: report

    Germany's motor industry watchdog raised suspicions Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) was using prototype vehicles to lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in tests in 2015, soon after the carmaker's manipulation of diesel emissions tests was uncovered, the Berliner Zeitung newspaper reported on Saturday.
    The newspaper quoted the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) as telling VW in a November 2015 email it would choose test models randomly and appoint new experts to carry out testing because of doubts about the independence of the company's CO2 testing regime.
    "VW has to give a declaration that they (vehicles submitted to tests) comply with standards for serial production models and were not subject to change in any way," the newspaper quoted the KBA's email as saying.
    There was no immediate comment from a VW spokesman or the German Transport Ministry, which is home to the KBA.
    It was not clear in Saturday's report whether the KBA remains concerned about the transparency of the carmaker's CO2 emissions tests.
    VW admitted in November 2015 that besides rigging diesel emissions tests it had understated the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of about 800,000 vehicles, only to announce a month later that follow-up tests had shown the CO2 irregularities affected less than 40,000 cars.

    FT : VW car owners in EU face hard quest for compensation over scandal

    VW car owners in EU face hard quest for compensation over scandal
    Carmaker is resisting calls for US-style remedies in Europe after emissions affair

    When Volkswagen pleaded guilty this month to criminal charges in the US over the German carmaker’s diesel emissions scandal, the company’s great hope was that it would be able to move on and focus on an ambitious strategy to become a leader in electric vehicles by 2025.

    But in Europe, where almost 9m of the 11m VW diesel cars equipped with test-cheating software were sold, consumer litigation is just beginning.

    Tens of thousands of VW car owners are demanding compensation — and thereby to be treated in the same manner as their counterparts in North America, where the scandal has cost the company more than $20bn. The latest part of this European effort will take place on Monday, when a London-based court holds a preliminary hearing on a case brought on behalf of more than 20,000 UK owners of VW cars.

    However, having offered compensation and vehicle buybacks to US car owners caught up in the emissions affair, VW is strongly resisting calls by the European Commission and some other EU politicians for similar steps in Europe. And differences between US and EU legal systems mean the company is unlikely in Europe to face anything like the $21bn of scandal-related expenses it has run up in North America.

    In the US, the case against VW was close to overwhelming. In September 2015 VW admitted it had installed illegal software dubbed a defeat device in about 500,000 diesel cars, which served to understate emissions of harmful nitrogen oxides in official tests.

    The Washington-based Environmental Protection Agency sued VW, while hundreds of legal complaints by aggrieved US car owners were turned into one large case that amounted to a de facto class action lawsuit. A court in California overseeing this civil litigation demanded VW get the affected vehicles off the road as soon as possible, and because the company had no viable fix for them it was forced to offer a car buyback to about 480,000 owners of 2 litre diesel vehicles. In addition, car owners were offered at least $5,100 each.

    But in Europe the legal position is far more nuanced. VW is in the peculiar position of having admitted to installing cheat software in almost 9m diesel cars — while at the same time maintaining the technology did not violate EU laws.

    The problem for any lawyer fighting for damages is that, even though VW’s cheat software falls within the colloquial meaning of an illegal defeat device — anything intended to circumvent a vehicle emissions test — it is less clear the technology breaches the EU’s technical definition.

    The applicable EU laws contained in a 2007 regulation defining illegal defeat devices refer to any element of design which alters “any part of the emission control system . . . [during] normal vehicle operation and use”.

    One person familiar with VW’s legal strategy, who declined to be identified, said the company’s software was an “inter-engine measure”.

    In other words, the technology affected NOx discharges before they reached the emission control system. Furthermore, the software was activated in test conditions in a laboratory, not during “normal” use on the road.

    Meanwhile, while VW concedes its diesel cars could not pass strict US NOx emissions tests without cheating, the company argues that its European vehicles could in fact pass EU equivalents, which are less onerous.

    Notwithstanding VW’s defence, Germany’s federal motor transport authority, or KBA, said in December 2015 the company’s software did constitute an illegal defeat device.

    However, unlike the EPA, the KBA has not sued VW. And whereas the EPA rejected multiple proposals by VW to fix its US diesel cars, last month the KBA granted approval for VW to make changes to the near 9m vehicles in Europe affected by the affair, saying they would then would meet all EU requirements without harming performance.

    Several lawyers acting on behalf of VW car owners in Europe reject the KBA’s authority to take this action. However, in contrast to the US, class action lawsuits are not part of German law, so while thousands of European car owners are suing VW, they are doing so on a case-by-case basis.

    As VW’s home market, Germany is the EU country with the largest number of car owners affected by the scandal: a total of 2.4m.

    But VW feels confident it can see off most of the German cases. German courts have already decided on more than 100 cases and, according to the company, they have sided with VW in roughly three-quarters of them. In each case where VW loses, it appeals. The incentive for individual consumers to sue is therefore small.

    Ralph Sauer, partner at German law firm Dr Stoll & Sauer, has filed 1,200 cases on behalf of VW car owners in various German cities. He has more than 8,000 in the pipeline.

    “VW is fighting every claim individually,” says Mr Sauer. “If they start to offer a big deal like they did in the US, they fear 2.4m people will want the same thing.”

    In the UK, the law firms Harcus Sinclair and Slater & Gordon have applied on behalf of 24,000 British owners of VW cars for a so-called group litigation order, which has similarities to a US class action suit.

    London’s high court will hear the application on Monday, but even if compensation is later awarded, VW is not expected to run up a similar bill to what it did with individual US car owners.

    Indeed, VW has rejected the case for paying compensation in Europe. Chief executive Matthias Müller told German media last year that paying out some “arbitrary” amount in Europe could cause irreparable damage to VW given the number of cars involved.

    VW says it will fix the software problem, and it can cite data — for instance from Dat Group, which compiles used car sales information — showing that the value of its European diesel vehicles have not fallen following the affair.

    “To have compensation . . . you need a loss, and there is no evidence of a loss,” Paul Willis, head of VW in the UK, told the British parliament last year.