Category Archives: Industry Jobs Oil Economics

China’s Best Method of Industrial Espionage

Posted on by

Obscure Chinese Firm Dives Into $22 Trillion U.S. Market

Bloomberg: When Cromwell Coulson heard that an obscure Chinese real estate firm had agreed to buy the Chicago Stock Exchange, he was shocked.

“My first reaction was, ‘Wow, that’s who they’re selling to?”’ said Coulson, the chief executive officer of OTC Markets Group Inc. in New York. “These new buyers have no connection to Chicago’s existing business. They’re completely disconnected from the current business of supporting the Chicago trading community. So wow, that’s out of left field.”

While the world has gotten used to seeing Chinese companies snap up overseas businesses, the purchase of a 134-year-old U.S. stock market by Chongqing Casin Enterprise Group — a little-known property and investment firm from southwestern China — raises a whole host of questions. For starters, why does a provincial Chinese business with no apparent ties to the securities industry have any interest in buying one of America’s smallest equity exchanges? And will U.S. regulators sign off?

So far, Casin Group’s intentions are unclear, with calls to the company’s Chongqing headquarters going unanswered on Friday. If the deal does pass muster with American regulators, it would mark the first-ever Chinese purchase of a U.S. equity exchange, giving Casin Group a foothold in a $22 trillion market where even the smallest bourses have room to grow if they can provide the best price for a stock at any given moment.

The Chicago Stock Exchange — a subsidiary of CHX Holdings Inc. — is minority-owned by a group including E*Trade Financial Corp., Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., according to the company. The minority shareholders are also selling their stake, Chicago Stock Exchange Chief Executive Officer John Kerin said in a phone interview.

The deal values the exchange at less than $100 million, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked to not be identified because the terms weren’t disclosed publicly. Mark O’Connor, a spokesman for the exchange, declined to comment on the size of the transaction.

Overseas Shopping

Casin Group’s offer, announced on Friday in a statement from the Chicago exchange, comes amid an unprecedented overseas shopping spree by Chinese companies. Businesses from Asia’s largest economy have announced $70 billion of cross-border acquisitions and investments this year, on track to break last year’s record of $123 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

While many of those deals had obvious business rationales, the reasons for Casin Group’s bid are less clear. The company, founded in the 1990s through a privatization of state-owned assets, initially focused on developing real estate projects in Chongqing, before expanding into the environmental and financial industries. While the firm owns stakes in banks and insurers, it has no previous experience owning an exchange.

Chinese Growth

Lu Shengju, the majority owner and chairman of Casin Group, wants to help bring Chinese companies to U.S. markets, according to the statement from Chicago’s bourse.

“We have reviewed CHX’s plans to improve market share through new growth initiatives and fully support them,” Lu, a torch bearer during the Beijing Olympic games in 2008, said in the statement, which didn’t disclose terms of the deal. “Together, we have a unique opportunity to help develop financial markets in China over the longer term and to bring exciting Chinese growth companies to U.S. investors.”

The Chicago Stock Exchange could serve as a venue for Chinese companies to list, said Dale Rosenthal, a clinical assistant professor of finance at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

“Because they’re an exchange, they can list stock,” Rosenthal said. “It has the potential to raise Chicago’s profile in China.”

Casin Group is no stranger to investing in outside businesses, including overseas targets. Three years ago, the firm increased its stake in Shenzhen-listed Guoxing Property to 30 percent, becoming the biggest shareholder. Guoxing, now 60 percent owned by Casin Group, has soared 170 percent in the past two months, versus a 19 percent drop in the CSI 300 Index, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Casin Group bought a 25 percent stake in Singapore-based Great Eastern Life Assurance in 2013.

“It’s interesting to see the Chinese increase their footprint in the U.S.,” said Ramon Camacho, a principal at RSM US LLP, an audit, tax and consulting company based in Chicago. “These investors are looking for a platform to showcase and bring to market Chinese companies.”

The company’s bid for the Chicago bourse could face political opposition, with American regulators and politicians taking a skeptical approach toward foreign investments in industries deemed important to national interests. When Germany’s Deutsche Boerse AG wanted to buy the owner of the New York Stock Exchange in 2011, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, raised obstacles. The deal was finally scrapped on monopoly concerns.

Heavy Scrutiny

Some Chinese companies have come under heavy scrutiny as they tried to enter U.S. markets. Huawei Technologies Co., China’s largest phone-network equipment maker, was barred by the U.S. in 2011 from participating in building a nationwide emergency network.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission would have to approve the deal, because the exchange is a self-regulatory organization. The new owners will have to show they intend to follow all of the regulations imposed on stock exchanges, whose listing and trading rules also must be approved by the SEC.

Additionally, the takeover would probably be reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., said Anne Salladin, a lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP in Washington. CFIUS, a panel of government officials led by the Treasury Department that examines purchases of American businesses by foreign investors, can recommend the president block transactions it believes compromise national security. It can also impose changes to address any concerns.

“It’s a Chinese investment, and it’s in a potentially sensitive sector: financial infrastructure,” Salladin said.

CFIUS has been closely scrutinizing purchases of American businesses by Chinese buyers. Last month, Royal Philips NV abandoned its plan to sell its lighting-components unit to a Chinese-led investment group following opposition from CFIUS.

“If you have a U.S. stock exchange that’s primarily satisfying Chinese companies, the regulators are gonna look very closely at it,” Coulson said. “If your core business is listing Chinese companies in the U.S., that’s going to pick up a lot of regulatory scrutiny and caution.”

China Industrial Espionage:

This new book is the first full account, inside or outside government, of China’s efforts to acquire foreign technology.

Based on primary sources and meticulously researched, the book lays bare China’s efforts to prosper technologically through others’ achievements. For decades, China has operated an elaborate system to spot foreign technologies, acquire them by all conceivable means, and convert them into weapons and competitive goods—without compensating the owners. The director of the US National Security Agency recently called it “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.”

Written by two of America’s leading government analysts and an expert on Chinese cyber networks, this book describes these transfer processes comprehensively and in detail, providing the breadth and depth missing in other works. Drawing upon previously unexploited Chinese language sources, the authors begin by placing the new research within historical context, before examining the People’s Republic of China’s policy support for economic espionage, clandestine technology transfers, theft through cyberspace and its impact on the future of the US.

This book will be of much interest to students of Chinese politics, Asian security studies, US defence, US foreign policy and IR in general.

***

China’s long history of spying on business

CNN: The United States indicted five members of China’s People’s Liberation Army Monday, accusing them of hacking into American companies and pilfering closely-guarded trade secrets.  The charges — rejected by Beijing as “purely ungrounded and with ulterior purpose” — are a dramatic escalation in a squabble between the two countries over spying. But they will surprise few Americans working in sensitive industries.

While many countries engage in industrial espionage, China has long been among the most aggressive collectors of economic secrets — both online and off, experts say.

“I can tell you they [China] are the most pervasive,” Kevin Mandia, founder of cybersecurity firm Mandiant, told CNN. “The indictment is about taking intellectual property … it’s the theft of trade secrets, it’s economic espionage.” Full article here.

Christian Patrols vs. Islamists in England

Posted on by

Britain First, Fighting Back, what is real on the streets on London and the suburbs. Courtesy of BritainFirst.org.

In towns like Ulster, Dewbury, Rotherham and Luton it is Chritians versus Islam where Britain First is taking a stand to reclaim their country. England is full of ‘no-go’ zones where  the corrupt government has relinquished sovereignty to a violent culture and ideology.

Jayda Fransen, Deputy Leader of Britain First podcast:

 

 

Price of Gas at the Pump too Low, Barack’s Proposal

Posted on by

Obama to call for $10-per-barrel oil tax to fund clean transport

FNC: President Obama will propose a $10 fee for every barrel of oil to be paid by oil companies in order to fund clean energy transport system, the White House announced Thursday — although Republicans were quick to declare the plan “dead on arrival” in Congress.

The fee would be phased in over five years and would provide $20 billion per year for traffic reduction, investment in transit systems and other modes of transport such as high-speed rail, the White House said. It would also offer $10 billion to encourage investment in clean transport at the regional level.

Obama is expected to formalize the proposal Tuesday when he releases his final budget request to Congress. However, the proposal immediately faced resistance from Republicans.

“Once again, the president expects hardworking consumers to pay for his out of touch climate agenda,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, arguing it would lead to higher energy prices and hurt poor Americans.

Ryan went on to describe Obama’s plan as “dead on arrival” in Congress.

“The good news is this plan is little more than an election-year distraction. As this lame-duck president knows, it’s dead on arrival in Congress, because House Republicans are committed to affordable American energy and a strong U.S. economy,” Ryan said.

The White House claims the added cost of gasoline would incentivize the private sector to reduce the reliance on oil and to increase investment in clean energy technology.

The plan also saw opposition from advocates for the oil industry, who warned it would only harm consumers.

“The White House thinks Americans are not paying enough for gasoline, so they have proposed a new tax that could raise the cost of gasoline by 25 cents a gallon, harm consumers that are enjoying low energy prices, destroy American jobs and reverse America’s emergence as a global energy leader,” API President and CEO Jack Gerard:

“On his way out of office, President Obama has now proposed making the United States less competitive.” Gerard said.

*****

In part from Bloomberg: With the proceeds targeted to transportation and climate initiatives, the proposal announced Thursday deepens Obama’s environmental credentials and signifies his ambitions to aggressively push action on climate change during his final year in office.

“By placing a fee on oil, the president’s plan creates a clear incentive for private-sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil and at the same time invests in clean energy technologies that will power our future,” the White House said in a statement.

It is unclear who, exactly would pay the tax if it were to pass, and how it would be structured. White House officials repeatedly stressed that the fee would fall on oil companies, but said it wouldn’t be charged at the wellhead and they look forward to working with Congress on the details.

The fee, which drew swift objections from oil industry groups and Republicans, is part of a broader administration plan to shift the nation away from transportation systems reliant on internal combustion engines and fossil fuels. The proposal envisions investing $20 billion to reduce traffic and improve commuting, $10 billion for state and local transportation and climate programs and $2 billion for research on clean vehicles and aircraft.

Environmentalists applauded the move. “President Obama’s vision underscores the inevitable transition away from oil, and investments like this speed us along the way to a 100% clean energy future,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in an e-mail.

Inadequate infrastructure raises costs for businesses and consumers, including motorists stuck in traffic — a “hidden tax” and a harm to the environment, said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. More here.

 

DHS Fleecing and Iffy Bookkeeping

Posted on by

DHS Reports Spending Only 1 Percent of its $1.4B Training Budget

Though Congress provides more than $1 billion in funds to train personnel at the Department of Homeland Security, DHS spends a small fraction of that on workforce training—at least according to its bookkeepers.

jehjohnsonmain.jpg

As an example of the iffy bookkeeping, auditors found that in fiscal 2014, Congress provided $1.4 billion for training, but the department reported spending only $1.9 million to the Office of Personnel Management. And as of August 2015, the DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer could account for only $267 million in training expenditures in the prior year. Such lack of oversight on data quality, the Homeland Security inspector general found, meant the department reported only 1 percent of its training expenditures that year.

“DHS lacks reliable training cost information and data needed to make effective and efficient management decisions,” the IG concluded in a report released Wednesday. “It does not have an effective governance structure for its training oversight, including clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and delegated authorities” to oversee training programs, the watchdog wrote.

The difficulty the massive department would have in tracking training funds was predicted as far back as 2003, when the Government Accountability Office named human capital management as a high-risk area for the fledgling new department merging 22 agencies.

But DHS has failed to fully implement as many as 29 recommendations for improving training efficiencies made by several working groups, the new report said.

Among other problems, the IG found that the Transportation Security Administration did not report any training costs for January 2015, but after being questioned by IG staff, that agency reported $23 million in training expenditures.

DHS also lacks an oversight structure to monitor training after it transferred authority in 2012 to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and to departmental components. Such oversight is supposed to be supervised by the undersecretary for management, through the chief financial officer.

Inspector General John Roth recommended that DHS establish a better process for tracking training funds, set up an oversight structure and implement the remaining past efficiency recommendations.

Departmental managers agreed with the recommendations, with corrective actions underway for completion this year.

The actual Inspector General report is here.

Here is a previous interview with DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, where he gives clues that he is in way above his head.

Obama Greased the System for Big Lobby/Money

Posted on by

Government Drags Us Back in Time – Because Cronies and Ideology Tell It To

Motley/RS: Government by ideological fantasy – at the expense of actual facts – is a terrible idea. So too is government of, by and for the donors. Far too often government regulators and bureaucrats ignore Reality – to tilt at ideological windmills. And WAY too often government becomes one giant stenographer for contributors – writing laws and regulations to accommodate their check-cutters’ every whim and wildest dream.

Thus does equal protection before the law – become special treatment for Friends of Government (FOG, if you will). Donors and dumb ideas are favored – at inordinate expense to the rest of us.

To wit: “green” “energy” (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, ethanol) is neither green nor energy. It’s far worse for the environment than traditional energy sources – that actually produce, you know, affordable energy. Governments here and all around the world have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this phony energy. It’s been a titanic failure – for decades.

Why has government continued to throw this copious coin out the window – to keep us locked into an uber-failed yesterday? Because their ideological fantasies trump Reality. Why else? Because donors get government money at dollars-on-the-pennies they donated. To wit: President Barack Obama and his Democrats threw $80 billion more at the fake “green energy” industry in the 2009 “Stimulus.” 80% of that money – went to Obama donors.

The more government gets involved – the less the private sector can advance. The more rapidly a sector is advancing – the bigger an impediment government is. Likely no sector is advancing more quickly than the Tech sector. Enter government.

The Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already done egregious damage there. To appease their ridiculous fantasies – and huge donors. About a year ago the Commission’s three unelected Democrat bureaucrats decided to go all the way back in time to1934 landline telephone law – and unilaterally impose it on the Internet. Behold Internet Reclassification – so as to impose the ridiculous Network Neutrality.

The Obama Administration did it – because donors asked for it. Donors like Google. No one did more to get President Obama elected and reelected – than Google. Just about no company swapped staff with the Obama Administration at such prodigious numbers – than did Google.

And after Google greased the skids for Obama – Obama greased the skids for Google. Google spent nearly the entirety of the 2000s trying and failing to get Net Neutrality passed in Congress. Because it is government forcing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to give uber-bandwidth-hogs like Google – unlimited free bandwidth. We the People didn’t want it – Congress couldn’t pass it. So Obama just issued a fiat – and gave it to them.

But the problem with buying support – is that the “supporters” rarely stay bought. Google is now channeling West Wing President Josiah Bartlet – “What’s next?” And most unfortunately, President Obama’s government stenographers have many, many responses to that request.

Here’s one: FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has penned a defense of the next backwards-looking power grab – huge new backdoor mandates via television set-top-boxes. Which they have attempted to obfuscate – as a deregulation of set-top-boxes.

Set-top-boxes are the devices we lease from cable companies – to watch their television packages. Which we are doing to a lesser and lesser degree – as the marketplace has already created myriad ways for us to “cut the cord.” Meaning give up cable television – and the set-top-boxes – altogether.

The future (and increasingly the present) of television – isn’t boxes. It’s apps (and alternate hardware like Apple TV and Amazon Firestick). Netflix, Amazon Prime, Roku, Hulu and a host of other companies deliver you (via their apps) unlimited streaming TV and movie content – using only an Internet connection. No cable TV subscription required. And unlike programmed TV, you can watch whenever you want, wherever you want. So more and more people are cutting their cords.

Meanwhile, the government is yet again stuck in the past. The FCC is dubiously invoking a twenty-year-old law (and seriously, how unbelievably different was how we watched TV twenty-years ago?) – to “open” to competitors the collapsing set-top-box market. This is a terrible idea for a number of reasons.

It is just stupid from an evolutionary standpoint. This is like the government issuing mandates to “open” the horse-buggy industry – as Model T Fords are rolling with ever increasing frequency into our driveways and hearts. If you’re “helping” prop up yesterday’s technology – you aren’t helping.

This mandate forces cable companies to spend a LOT of money totally reconfiguring their networks – to accommodate the new boxes. A new configuration for each new box, most likely – because each box will most likely connect uniquely to each network. And cable companies have a LOT of proprietary information and content to protect – so they will have to spend EVEN MORE time and money reconfiguring so as to ensure its protection. For which we will inexorably pay in higher fees – on TV, and the other services cable companies provide (like Internet). All to make room for more devices – of which people want less.

And you will be trading the box lease – for the box purchase. Which requires more coin upfront. And unlike with the lease, when the next upgraded model comes out – you won’t get it for free. You will pay all over again. And given the rapid technological advancement – how often will that purchase have to happen again, and again, and…?

Think how quick is the smart phone tech turnover (which is a MUCH more intensive product). Where you just purchased the “latest” Google Android – only to almost immediately watch Google roll out the next Android. Does Google give you that next version for free? Of course not. Google won’t give you their latest set-top-box either.

Wait – Google wants to get into the going-out-of-business set-top-box business? You bet they do. So the Obama Administration is prepping to issue yet another fiat – to make Google’s wishes come true. Again.

Crony-infested and ideologically-blinded is no way to go through life, Son. It is also absolutely no way to run a government.