(23.05.2008) У Citadel - один из наиболее мощных по интеллектуальной силе аналитических отделов среди всех инвестиционных фондов, а также есть «запасная» компьютерная система, расположенная где-то за пределами Чикаго.
…Два основных фонда, через которые Citadel торгует на биржах, называются Kensington Global и Wellington. Сейчас на Citadel приходится 2-3% дневного оборота торгов на Нью-Йоркской, Лондонской и Токийских биржах (около 70 млн. акций), почти 10% рынка казначейских облигаций и около 15% рынка опционов. На рынке опционов Citadel – единственный хедж-фонд, который может действительно серьезно на влиять на торги.
Фонд не ограничивает свою торговлю перечисленными инструментами, а зарабатывает буквально на всем, что продается и покупается: от фьючерсов на газ до валюты
Когда 5 мая в легендарном отеле King David получили подтверждение, что президент Дональд Трамп остановится у них, а не у соперников - в Waldorf Astoria или David Citadel, начался двухнедельный логистический аврал.
Authored by M.K.Bhadrakumar via The Strategic Culture Foundation, When President Donald Trump received President Recep Erdogan on Tuesday at the White House, his legendary deal-making prowess was be on trial. Trump has not been in a tearing hurry to receive Erdogan. During the first 100 days of his presidency, Trump received the leaders of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan (twice), Iraq and Palestine. Yet, none of them belongs to a Nato member country and or is a crucial “swing” state in Trump’s messianic war against ISIS, as Turkey is. Could it be Erdogan’s dalliance with ISIS in the past that put a dampened Trump’s enthusiasm for this “strongman”? But then, Saudi Arabia too was promoting al-Qaeda groups in Syria. Or, was it Erdogan’s growing friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin that discouraged Trump? But then, Trump greeted Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in the White House as an old ally. Clearly, the only good reason could be that Trump deliberately decided that there is a time for everything – even for meeting Erdogan. Trump thoughtfully let the Turkish referendum on constitutional reform run its course first. Trump now has the answer. Erdogan extracted a “yes” vote in the referendum alright, and is set to concentrate executive power in his hands, but, paradoxically, he is a wounded man, having lost the referendum vote in all major cities, especially Istanbul, which has been his citadel. Erdogan barely scraped through. On the other hand, an invigorated German-French axis following the resounding election victory of Emmanuel Macron means that a consolidated EU pressure is building on Erdogan to curb his authoritarian drift. Erdogan knows that a rupture of Turkey’s ties to the West would have grave economic and political consequences. Meanwhile, if Erdogan had calculated that he could play off the US and Russia, that is also not to be. Trump simply outflanked him by opening a line to Putin regarding Syria before he met Erdogan. Erdogan has been naïve. The Kremlin won’t risk annoying Trump. Détente with the US is an overriding concern for Russia. All things taken into account, therefore, Trump did the right thing to meet Erdogan in the fullness of time. Trump’s decision to sign the executive order allowing the Pentagon to transfer heavy weapons to the Kurdish militia on the eve of Erdogan’s visit underscores it. Trump is looking for a quick victory in Raqqa. The liberation of Raqqa will be prime time news in America. Who’d pay attention anymore to “a showboat” such as James Comey when the pictures are beamed from Raqqa into the living rooms of America? The Pentagon commanders estimate that the Kurdish militia with US air support will liberate Raqqa successfully and swiftly. Indeed, latest reports suggest that the Kurdish militia has reached within two kilometers of Raqqa city limits. Simply put, Erdogan who was hoping to dissuade Trump from aligning with the Kurds will now have to discuss concerns over post-liberation Raqqa. The ground beneath Erdogan’s feet has dramatically shifted. He still can resort to strategic defiance by resorting to air strikes against the Kurdish militia, similar to the attacks staged by the Turkish air force on April 25 on the town of Sinjar (Iraqi Kurdistan) and on targets in the Karachok Mountains (northeastern Syria). However, the US and Russian deployments to the Kurdish cantons in northern Syrian show that both Washington and Moscow have factored in such a possibility and have a tacit understanding that only their physical presence might act as a deterrent against Erdogan’s adventurism. This opens up a tantalizing prospect – US and Russia having an unwritten division of labor to “tame” Erdogan. The Russian diplomacy has shown masterly skill in shepherding Turkish policies away from covert backing for extremist groups toward new directions that help to end the fighting in Syria. The Russia-US cooperation in Syria drastically curbs Erdogan’s elbow room. What are Erdogan’s options? Trump has put him out of business since the US is no longer using Turkish proxies to push the “regime change” agenda in Syria. American retrenchment affects Saudi and Qatari policies, too. Besides, Erdogan will be wary of provoking Trump. Apart from the discord over the extradition of Islamist preacher Fetullah Gulen, the US is keeping under detention the top executive of Halkbank Mehmet Hakan Attila whom it implicates in the sensational criminal case (which is also linked to Erdogan’s immediate family members) regarding abuse of the US financial system to conduct fraudulent transactions on behalf of Iranian entities. Will Erdogan retaliate by shutting down Incirlik air base? Such a possibility exists, but remains unlikely. At any rate, Washington is focused on the liberation of Raqqa, and access to Incirlik is a secondary issue at the moment. The bottom line is that Erdogan is running out of options and may be coming under pressure, finally, to (re)open his own channels to the Kurdish groups. Indeed, Turkey got along well with the leadership of Iraqi Kurdistan and a similar deal can be worked out with Syrian Kurds. Being the consummate pragmatist that he is, Erdogan may well decide to pick up the threads of the peace process with the Kurds from where he summarily left them in 2015 due to compulsions over forthcoming electoral battles culminating in the March referendum to transform Turkey into a presidential system. Significantly, Erdogan has reacted with extraordinary restraint to the Pentagon move to arm Kurds in Syria. He is mulling over his options. Trump can encourage him to seek a deal with Kurds. It may not be the mother of all deals, but a historic deal nonetheless, which will go a long way to stabilizing Syria and the wider Middle East.
Last week news emerged that as a result of the deteriorating local economy, coupled with a plunge in hedge fund profits, the capital of Connecticut - Hartford - was preparing for bankruptcy. Among the reasons cited by Department of Revenue Services Commissioner Kevin Sullivan was that wealthy people are “dramatically less wealthy than they were before.” It turns out that, at least relatively speaking, he was correct. According to the latest annual ranking by Institutional Investor's Alpha magazine, the woes that have plagued hedge fund LPs who have paid 2 and 20 (or 1 and 10 as the case may ) for seven consecutive years of market underperformance have finally spread to management and in 2016 the 25 top paid hedge fund managers made a combined $11 billion. Although that sounds like a lot, it's actually the lowest total since 2005, when the top 25 earned just $9.4 billion. It's also just a little over half of what the top 25 managers earned just three years ago, when they reaped a total of $21.2 billion. The average top earner made $440 million in 2016. The median earner made $250 million, the lowest since 2011, when the median earner made $235 million. Surprisingly, even in 2008, when the stock market and many hedge funds were down by large-double-digit percentages, the highest earners made more money as a group: $11.6 billion. To qualify for the top 25 this year, managers needed to earn "only" $130 million, the lowest floor since 2011, when a manager required $100 million to make the list. Last year's comparatively lower numbers underscore the dichotomy of the hedge fund industry in 2016. And while data scorekeepers like HFR talked up the fact that the average hedge fund had its best year since 2013, that does not accurately portray what really happened on a fund-by-fund level. Rather, there has been a group of managers that enjoyed strong double-digit gains last year. However, looking beyond this top-performing group reveals that a significant proportion of the largest hedge fund firms - those whose principals are more likely to make the most money - either suffered small losses or eked out low-single-digit gains. As has been the case in recent years, in 2016 compensation was led by the quants who have been least impacted by the death of fundamental analysis in a centrally-planned market. RenTec's James Simons topped the table for the second year in a row, earnings $1.6 billion, down only $100 million from the previous year, after his two main funds posted double digit returns. In second place was Bridgewater's Ray Dalio, which manages around $160bn in assets for 350 institutional clients, with earnings of $1.4 billion. As the FT notes, the popularity of the computer-driven funds helped the quants rack up their eighth consecutive year of inflows in 2016, doubling their assets since 2009 to $918 billion, according to Hedge Fund Research. After the top two earners, the ranking amounts drop considerably: two more quants filled out the third and ourth spot: Two Sigma founders John Overdeck and David Siegel, who each made $750 million. Last year their Compass Fund rose by double digits. Continuing a trend from the previous year, quantitatively focused firms, so called because they mostly or totally rely on computers to make their investment decisions, were among the big winners in 2016. The four highest earners on this year's ranking hail from quant firms. A total of13 managers from last year's "Rich List" are among the top 25 earners this year; with several of qualifying even though they posted their worst results in several years. They include Kenneth Griffin of Citadel, the top earner in last year's ranking, who slipped to 6th place after his total earnings fell by about 65%. In 2016, Citadel's main multistrategy funds, Wellington and Kensington, rose a little more than 5 percent, their smallest gain in eight years. Notably, some of the best-known names in the industry, including Bill Ackman, John Paulson and Eddie Lampert failed to make the list. Among those missing in the Top 25 this year but qualified for last year's top ranking, four are from firms headed by so-called Tiger Cubs that lost money on their long-short funds in 2016. They include Chase Coleman of Tiger Global Management, Andreas Halvorsen and Daniel Sundheim of Viking Global Investors, and Stephen Mandel Jr., of Lone Pine Capital. As a result, this is the first time since 2010 that no one with ties to Julian Roberton's Tiger Management qualified for the top 25 ranking. Just to put these earnings in context, even the lowest-ranking manager on Alpha magazine’s expanded top-50 list made more money in 2016 than any big United States bank executive, including Jamie Dimon of J. P. Morgan, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and James Gorman of Morgan Stanley, all of who have been criticized for their big paychecks.
Last week we showed a fascinating statistic demonstrating just how poor market breadth has been in the latest push higher by the S&P: according to Goldman, as of May 10, just 10 companies have been responsible for half, or 46% to be exact, of the entire S&P's rally YTD. And with the 13-F reporting period now over, we now know the reason why just six tech stocks were reponsible for the majority of the S&P's upward surprise YTD - virtually every prominent hedge fund piled into them. The breakdown presented below, courtesy of Bloomberg, reveals just how urgent the scramble for "growth" was in the first quarter. As Bloomberg adds, with an average gain of 26% , "it’s hard to overstate the influence of just six stocks on the U.S. stock market in the first quarter: Facebook Inc., Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Microsoft Corp., Alphabet Inc. and Netflix Inc." Here’s where some of the best-known hedge funds stood on the companies according to filings covering positions on March 31. Facebook (FB) Top new buy: Corvex (+850,000) Boosted stake: Adage (+822,100) Citadel (+4,289,917) Lansdowne (+899,846) Melvin (+963,021) Moore (+850,492) Omega (+194,100) Point72 (+2,020,400) Pointstate (+2,564,100) Renaissance Tech (+2,141,800) Ruane Cunniff (+300,000) Soros (+284,400) Tiger (+338,396) Cut stake: Sylebra (-358,944) Top exit: Airain (-229,332) * * * Apple (AAPL) Top new buy: Moore (+255,000) Boosted stake Adage (+140,600) Berkshire (+75,881,454) * * * Amazon (AMZN) Top new buy: Melvin (+251,084) Moore (+58,183) Renaissance (+329,255) Boosted stake: Lansdowne (+35,525) Pointstate (+265,878) Cut stake: Viking (-535,762) Top exit: Soros (-28,100) * * * Microsoft (MSFT) Top new buy: Moore (+1,190,000) Boosted stake: Pointstate (+2,758,200) Viking (+7,068,972) Top exit: Renaissance Technologies (-2,368,100) * * * Alphabet (GOOGL) Boosted stake: Moore (+47,860) Omega (+19,440) Pointstate (+267,500) Cut stake: Lansdowne (-99,638) Tiger Global Management (-97,750 and -67,800 GOOG) Viking (-388,219 and -4,017 GOOG) Top exit: Airain (+14,612 and -12,577 GOOG) Soros (+1,300 and -20,200 GOOG) * * * Netflix (NFLX) Top new buy: Omega (+77,700) Lansdowne (+30,164) Tiger (+429,000) Boosted stake: Tybourne (+590,966) Cut stake: Melvin (-175,000) Viking (-556,280) Source: Bloomberg
Market makers Citadel Securities and XTX join UK start-up platform
Writing from the road... Author Vince Lanci on marketslant.com We have written many times about manipulation in this column. We seek justice and fairness in the markets that we continue to consider "free". First some thoughts on the trail of trader-speak I've been pouring over recently. The takeaway is this: getting over the circumstantial evidentiary bar to be permitted to get to discovery was a big deal. Rosa Abrantes has done much to get these cases as far as she has. But now, forensic work at the operational level is needed. And it just is not easy to prove the cases. Now, even with chats and trade logs, the facts can almost never be known. Within the constraints of our legal system, it is much harder to prove manipulation then the plaintiffs would have you think. This refers to the precious metals cases, the current FX cases, and the pending treasury cases. We are now at the discovery level, thousands of documents with chats and messages back-and-forth between traders are available for the plaintiffs to review. This is great. But can the lawyers understand intent from written words? He was just kidding! Can you prove otherwise? PROVING INTENT IS NOT EASY This is because the facts needed to prove "intent" are in the traders heads. And without intent you cannot win. In the three legged stool that is the legal system, intent is hardest leg to establish. I think "means, and opportunity" are the other 2. Trader conversations are not prose, to say the least. It is near impossible without inflection and confirmation in chats to determine, or differentiate sarcasm from sincerity. How can one divine intent from a chat where a trader alternately asserts he's infallibly correct in an opinion, and then laughs at himself for having such an outrageous opinion? No, the burden of proof that the plaintiffs must satisfy is very difficult in this circumstance. Note my own spelling in these very articles that the Soren K group posts. My own trading messages were difficult to translate let alone divine my intent. Frequently brokers would object to my horrible typing. I would respond with "My misspelling is protection against your execution error. If you mess up I can always blame you for not clarifying." I would then follow that with a LOL. Was I joking? How can you tell? Frankly, I was truly sloppy and not detail oriented. But it also served to me as a hedge against what sometimes was poor service. I insisted on clarification. This was one way I got it. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE SAYS TRUTH WITHOUT FACTS LOSES In one instance I was subject to an eight hour deposition regarding a manipulation case in natural gas options. It Involved a major bank in Canada, a major energy exchange, a multibillion-dollar hedge fund, a new electronic trading platform, and traders who executed on that platform of which I was one. I was a material witness and wasn't a party to either side of the prosecution. But I ended up essentially being an expert witness because of the questions asked by one excellent attorney. It was clear that they were not able to divine intent at the trading and forensic level of other participants in that scandal. They sought evidence of manipulation between the hedge fund and a bank employee. There was none to be found in the trades, or chats as damning as they may have been in appearance. It was that day that I learned in the legal world, conditional probability and narrative do not hold up when there are no facts to back it up. TRADERS USE CONDITIONAL PROBABILITIES TO MAKE DECISIONS IN UNCERTAINTY. JUDGES RISK NOTHING. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO FACTS. WITHOUT FACTS, A CASE GETS SETTLED ON THE COURT STEPS. And the facts proving intent were in the peoples' heads. Short of a download of their brains the cases cannot be won easily. It was made obvious to me later by my own attorney that the focus should've been on something entirely different then the line of questioning being asked. His advice was meant to let me know that if something was going on it would've been impossible for them to divine it from trying to figure out what traders are doing and why they're doing it. The plaintiffs actually settled days later in part most likely because of the information given during my testimony. Ironically months before my deposition, one of the prosecuting law firms' consultants tried to hire me for their case. They actually called me seeking me as an expert witness. First question to me was: Can you ever lose money by selling American Options and buying financial look alikes? I shit you not. This was their angle to prove that the EOO trades their clients' trader had done were fraudulent from the get-go as not even being real trades. That trader was under the bus before the case started. And theexchange would have been next I bet if they were proven right. My response was "I am qualified to do this, but if you check your list I'm a material witness in the case as I participated in the trades." Based on their discovery interview on me, I now know that case would have ended differently had they been able to translate, correlate and corroborate trades to chats. HFT IS EASIER TO PROVE It is actually easier to prove intent in HFT cases. And that is because the programming used is essentially a trader's intent in code. Programmers write down exactly what the trader wants to do! But that won't happen as long as it is run by bigger players. Mike Coscia was an impediment to other bigger firms' HFT rigging. Ask NANEX's Eric Hunsader. Once you get a hold of a firm's programmer, intent is easily proven. This is why you will increasingly hear form firms like Goldman and Citadel: "The programmer is privy to proprietary secrets and cannot be deposed." Secrets as in "INTENT TO SPOOF"? CHATS DO NOT PROVE INTENT Reviewing some of the Gold and FX conversations, even in context of the actions, is not such an easy proof of manipulation as the prosecutors would have you believe. It seems to me that the plaintiffs have a less than 50/50 chance of conviction and will settle on the court steps if they scare the defendants sufficiently. Deutsche bank in our opinion was a fluke. A fluke because they had much bigger fish to fry with the DOJ. Why else would a bank walk away from its London precious metals vault only two years after opening? LOST IN TRANSLATION The Gold, Silver, Fx and now the Treasury manipulation cases are not easily proven using facts. And our legal system just does not burn witches without proof anymore. Having been a material and expert witness in these type things, the accusers are not usually prepared for the arcane speech traders use. Just as when a lawyer says "res ipse loquitor", a trader can say, "it's going down, I guarantee it! Lol." And no one an KNOW what he really intended. How can the plaintiff prove that the LOL is him not mocking himself? Often times it is self recognition of his own failure, hubris, and ego. This, as opposed to him laughing at some unsuspecting victim. So, given this, how can the plaintiffs pretend to know what goes on in the traders mind? There is lexicon, trader sarcasm, wishful thinking as opposed to willful manipulation, and the old adage that "no one is bigger than the market." FACTOIDS ARE NOT FACTS Point here is that to win, all the defense has to do is make it clear that no one can know what the words written were intended to convey. In a legal system that needs facts, and where those facts are in the heads of the chat writers, it is not a slam dunk to get the evidence recognized as fact and not interpretation of what we feel a person may or may not have intended. Lacking expert forensic preparation that links and correlates the chats with time stamped subsequent actions, all the plaintiffs will likely get is conjecture and muddied waters. Facts will not be proven we bet. Not without narrative and contradictions found in discovery process. A ton of circumstantial material will not substitute for a real fact. And unless litigators can prove contradiction of deposed traders on the stand between what they wrote, their actions, and what they say in discovery, the case is not easily won. Read what Matt Levine has to say on the topic below. Vince Lanci. [email protected] Twitter @vlancipictures Marketslant Articles Trader chats. by Matt Levine. My basic theory of post-crisis financial scandals is that the main illegal thing that traders do is send each other dumb emails and chat messages. So many of these scandals are hard to describe in objective terms. The Libor scandal was about submitting fake numbers in Libor surveys, but even non-scandalous Libor submissions were pretty fake, so the only way to distinguish the bad fakes from the good ones was by finding chat messages saying things like "LOWER MATE LOWER !!" What was scandalous in the foreign-exchange-fixing scandal was that banks traded ahead of customer orders, but that was also legal; what was illegal was the dumb chats between those banks sharing customer information. The chats and emails are evidence of substantive illegality -- illegal collusion, manipulation, etc. -- but also display an attitude. If they were written in dull legalese, they would have created much less of a reaction; regulators might not even have noticed the problem. But they weren't; they were filled with obscenity, slang, misspelling, and promises of Champagne, all of which tend to enrage prosecutors and juries and the public. Anyway I enjoyed this story about the irreducible atomic unit of dumb trader chat: A five-word message to a rival banker was enough to cost former Citigroup Inc. trader David Madaras his job as the bank fought to appease regulators probing the foreign-exchange scandal engulfing the industry. Citigroup’s Timothy Gately disclosed the message on the first day of Madaras’s employment lawsuit in London Tuesday. The executive said the April 2011 chat constituted gross misconduct and firing Madaras was the only appropriate sanction. "he’s a seller/fking a," Madaras told a rival trader who had just disclosed the identity of a client, Gately said in a filing prepared ahead of the hearing. That chatroom message "validated an external trader’s disclosure of a client name," Gately said in the filing. The first three words -- "he's a seller" -- are substantive misconduct, disclosing a client's order to a competitor, and enough to get you fired in an atmosphere of heavy scrutiny of that sort of thing. The next two -- "fking a" -- are substantively superfluous, but you can't have a scandalous trader chat without obscenity and misspelling. You can't imagine a trader actually being fired for typing "he's a seller," but of course one was fired for typing "he's a seller/fking a." This is partly a matter of psychological makeup -- how could the traders resist cursing? -- but it might also be a matter of technology. What search, what flags, brought that chat to the executives' attention? Does compliance monitor every time traders type "he's a seller"? (Presumably they type that a lot!) Or is there a search for "fking," and other variant spellings, that triggers review?
By Justin Elliott A political appointee hired by the Trump administration for a significant State Department role was accused of multiple sexual assaults as a student several years ago at The Citadel military college. Steven Munoz was hired by the Trump administration as assistant chief of visits, running an office of up to 10 staffers charged with the sensitive work of organizing visits of foreign heads of state to the U.S. That includes arranging meetings with the president. At The Citadel, five male freshmen alleged that Munoz used his positions as an upperclassman, class president and head of the campus Republican Society to grope them. In one incident, a student reported waking up with Munoz on top of him, kissing him and grabbing his genitals. In another, on a trip to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., a student said that Munoz jumped on him in bed and he “felt jerking and bouncing on my back.” An investigation by The Citadel later found that “certain assaults likely occurred.” A local prosecutor reviewed the case and declined to seek an indictment. Munoz’s hiring raises questions about the Trump administration’s vetting of political appointees, which has been both slow and spotty, with multiple incidents of staff being fired only weeks into their jobs, including for disloyalty to Trump. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment. Munoz, a Miami native, worked as a political consultant in South Carolina after graduating from The Citadel in 2011. He was publicly reported to be under investigation the following year around the time he was working for Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. Stories from that time, which outline some but not all of the allegations against Munoz, are easy to find via a simple Google search. Details of the case, drawn from an extensive, previously unreported police case file, also raise questions about The Citadel’s response to the alleged string of assaults, according to experts in campus sexual assault. After one student reported to a school official in 2010 that Munoz had sexually assaulted him, The Citadel didn’t discipline Munoz. Instead, it gave him a warning. Over the next year and a half, Munoz allegedly assaulted four other students. Those incidents weren’t reported until well after Munoz graduated in 2011. Munoz referred questions to his lawyer, the prominent Charleston defense attorney Andy Savage, who denied the allegations. “I believe that certain disgruntled cadets made exaggerated claims of wrongdoing concerning Munoz’s participation in boorish behavior that was historically tacitly approved, if not encouraged, by the Institution,” Savage said. Upon graduation, The Citadel gave Munoz an award for “leadership, sound character and service to others.” The citation said he could “always be counted upon to help classmates who need assistance and to mentor younger cadets adjusting to life at The Citadel.” A Citadel spokeswoman, Kim Keelor, said the committee that gave the award would not have known about the 2010 allegation because of privacy law. Keelor said of the case overall: “The college proceeded thoughtfully in addressing the reports in accordance with its policy and related processes, and with great concern for those involved and the protection of their privacy.” When more students came forward the year after Munoz graduated, The Citadel banned him from campus and referred the case to state police, who did an extensive investigation. When The Citadel later conducted its investigation, it interviewed complainants and witnesses and concluded in 2014 that assaults occurred “based upon a ‘preponderance of evidence,’” according to a statement from the school to ProPublica. ***** The Citadel is a storied public college based in Charleston, South Carolina, where students, known as cadets, get military instruction as well as traditional coursework. Many join the armed services after graduation. Freshman are dubbed “knobs” for their shaved haircuts. They go through what the school refers to as “strict indoctrination.” They are subordinate to upperclassmen. There have been repeated hazing problems for many years, and there was a major scandal involvingsexual abuse at the school’s summer camp in the mid-2000s. The students who accused Munoz of assaults say that he abused his power as an upperclassman and student leader. Here is what one Citadel student told police about his encounters with Munoz in 2009 and 2010 during his freshman year: Munoz coerced threatened and convinced me to allow inappropriate touching, grabbing, and kissing by leading me to believe it was what I needed to do to gain acceptance in the corps of cadets. He threatened to call my upperclassmen who would be upset if I did not comply with him. The student told police he and Munoz would sometimes return to campus early and stay at the home of a Citadel professor, where “during the night Munoz would enter my room and continue the touching.” Another student who was a freshman in 2011 traveled with Munoz, then a senior, as part of the Republican Society trip to the annual CPAC event in Washington. The student later said in a statement to police that Munoz had jumped on him two times. In one incident, after the freshman was caught with alcohol, Munoz informed the younger student that he would not be citing him for the violation, then came into the freshman’s hotel room: I was groggy, [Munoz] jumped on me, I felt jerking and bouncing on my back, I threw my elbow up which threw him off the bed to the floor. A third student, who met Munoz through the Republican Society, described Munoz setting up a series of meetings with him alone in Munoz’s room to talk about how to get leadership positions in campus organizations. He instructed me to sit on his bed during these meetings. … After a few meetings he began to rub my leg with his hand. He moved his hand under my shorts and the first time I pushed his hand off my leg he said he was just playing and that he did it with his other knobs so I shouldn’t mind. I had seen this in the past and when I asked my classmates about the interaction, they said when they resisted, he yelled at them for not trusting him and Mr. Munoz made them stay longer in his room. In another meeting, Munoz “put his other hand down my underwear until I again pushed him away, but he did not stop. He said as a new leader I had to learn to trust other leaders on the team and this was how I should show him I trusted him.” Munoz said “he read the Bible and knew what it said and I should not question his love of God. He continued to rub my leg and rub my private area. … He said this needed to stay between us and dismissed me.” The first incident reported to the school took place in April 2009. As later recounted by a state police investigator, Munoz, then a sophomore, and a freshman were at an off-campus house watching TV and consensually spooning. The freshman later woke up in the middle of the night, “thinking he was having a wet dream, but it was Munoz on top of him with fully body contact, kissing him with his tongue in his mouth. Munoz had his left hand down [the other student’s] shorts touching his penis.” The following year, in February 2010, the student reported that incident to a Citadel official, Sexual Assault Response Coordinator Janet Shealy. The reporting student told Shealy he didn’t “want to do anything but informal,” according to her notes. School officials set up a mediation session in which Munoz and the other student met in a conference room. In that meeting, according to Shealy’s notes, Munoz “said it was consensual and that accuser started it.” The other student left “upset,” saying that Munoz had “lied.” Shealy and another Citadel official, Col. Christopher “Hawk” Moore, met with Munoz again to tell him there would be no disciplinary action taken. Munoz was warned and told to write a statement about what happened. Experts on campus sexual assault questioned how The Citadel handled that initial report. “The school has the responsibility to keep people safe on campus,” said Colby Bruno, an attorney at Victim Rights Law Center. “The school should have investigated this more thoroughly. Instead of investigation they went to this mediation.” Bruno pointed out that the federal government’s guidance on how schools should respond to sexual assault under federal civil rights law explicitly says that even voluntary mediation is not appropriate in assault cases. “Sexual assault is about power and control,” Bruno said. “You can’t sit two people down who have an imbalance of control and power to have a balanced mediation.” Citadel spokeswoman Keelor said in a statement that the school’s policy on mediation differs from the federal guidance “because it was developed under the direction of the Department of Justice and the federal courts during the school’s transition to coeducation” in 1996. Keelor said after the 2010 assault report “the college conducted an investigation.” She said the school could not give details about any specific case. But she said in a statementthat generally an “informal investigation” would include interviewing both students and providing options for support services. The statement also details how the Citadel requires sexual assault prevention classes for each year of a student’s time at the school. Shealy, The Citadel’s sexual assault response coordinator, declined to comment. Bruno said a thorough investigation would include speaking to potential witnesses or people who had seen Munoz or the other student soon after the alleged assault. When more students came forward in fall 2012 — more than a year after Munoz graduated — The Citadel referred the case to the state police, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. The school also sent a campus-wide email notifying students of the allegations and banned Munoz, then an alumnus, from campus. One student said in a statement to campus police that he had come forward so long after what happened because he had heard of other incidents and “I want this school to be safe from sexual predators.” Over the course of several months, police interviewed the five alleged victims, who said they were willing to press charges. (None of them responded to our requests for comment.) The incidents were classified variously as forcible fondling, sexual battery and simple assault. In March 2013, the state police referred the case to the office of the Charleston County prosecutor, Solicitor Scarlett Wilson. A week after receiving the nearly 200-page case file, the prosecutor said in a letter to police that her office would not seek indictments against Munoz because “there is no probable cause that he committed a crime prosecutable in General Sessions Court.” Wilson’s office did not respond to requests for comment. In 2014, according to The Citadel, Munoz requested that the school review its decision to ban him from campus. That’s when the school conducted its own investigation and found that “certain assaults likely occurred.” Later that year, the school partially rescinded the no-trespass order, “permitting general access to public facilities and events, but no direct cadet interactions.” Asked why, the school pointed to the prosecutor’s decision not to seek indictments. Savage, Munoz’s lawyer, said in his statement: “Steven Munoz, a graduate of the Corp with a sterling reputation for honesty, integrity and all Corp values, was used as a whipping boy in an attempt by the institution to change its shameful image shaped by its ignorance of the conduct of Skip ReVille and Michael Arpaio.” ReVilleand Arpaio were at the center of widely covered Citadel sexual assault and child abuse scandals. At the time two of the allegations against Munoz surfaced in 2012, Savage told The Post and Courier newspaper that the allegations were not only false, but also politically motivated. Savage claimed that an unnamed Citadel employee — who was also the mother of one of the alleged victims — had released information on the allegations because she disliked Munoz’s conservative politics. Savage declined our request to provide details to substantiate his claim. Savage also criticized the investigation of the case, saying that “several cadets complained that they were being pressured to provide misleading statements.” They were “pressured to report interactions that the cadets considered typical barracks banter as if they felt it was inappropriate,” he said. When asked for details, Savage provided the name of one student, who Savage said was a witness, not a victim. The student is not cited as a witness in the nearly 200-page police case file, and was not immediately available for comment. Savage also criticized the school’s investigation, saying he was not given enough time to provide witnesses or statements. Since Munoz graduated, he has been president of a Charleston-based political consulting firm called American Southern Group, according to his LinkedIn profile. The Trump campaign paid the firm tens of thousands of dollars for “event consulting,” according to disclosure filings. Munoz was then hired to work on Trump’s inaugural committee. He joined the State Department on Jan. 25, a spokesperson confirmed. The agency declined to comment further. During the Obama administration, vetting of potential political appointees like Munoz was extensive. A possible hire would be thoroughly examined by the White House Office of Presidential Personnel before being offered a job. That would include everything from a Google search to running a person’s name through criminal records and news databases. Any significant negative media reports or criminal accusations would lead a file to be flagged for further scrutiny by White House lawyers, according to a former staffer in the office who vetted Obama appointees. Sexual assault allegations would be a serious flag. In the Obama years, candidates under consideration for jobs were passed over because of, for example, a drunk driving case or for being a registered lobbyist. President Trump’s personnel office is being run by a former Republican Capitol Hill staffer, Johnny DeStefano. But not much is known about how the office checks the backgrounds of political appointees. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment about details of its vetting process. Timeline April 2009: Alleged assault of Student #1 occurs. November 2009-May 2010: Alleged assaults of Student #2 occur. February 2010: Student #1 reports assault to The Citadel. February-March 2010: School officials meet with Munoz and Student #1 for mediation. Officials warn Munoz but take no disciplinary action. April 2010: Alleged assault of Student #3 occurs. February 2011: Alleged assault of Student #4 occurs. March-April 2011: Alleged assault of Student #5 occurs. May 2011: Munoz graduates. September 2012: After receiving more reports of past alleged assaults, The Citadel refers case to state police. The school bans Munoz, now an alumnus, from campus. March 2013: After an investigation of over five months, state police send case file to the office of the prosecutor, Solicitor Scarlett Wilson. March 2013: Prosecutor declines to seek indictments. 2014: Munoz requests that school review no trespass order. The Citadel “conducted an investigation, interviewing complainants and witnesses. Based upon a ‘preponderance of evidence,’ it was concluded that certain assaults likely occurred,” according to a spokesperson. Later in 2014, the no-trespass order was partially rescinded, allowing Munoz to attend public events at the college, but limiting interactions with students. Like this story? Sign up for ProPublica’s daily newsletter to get more of their best work. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
BELGRADE (Reuters) - The 21st-floor offices of Studio B boast an unrivalled view of the Serbian capital, taking in Orthodox Church domes, a Gulf-financed property development and a citadel built by Celtic, Roman, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian rulers.
BELGRADE (Reuters) - The 21st-floor offices of Studio B boast an unrivalled view of the Serbian capital, taking in Orthodox Church domes, a Gulf-financed property development and a citadel built by Celtic, Roman, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian rulers.
“My fantasy is we actually break up the big banks,” billionaire Ken Griffin of Citadel, told an audience of big name investors and corporate executives at the Milken Global Institute Conference on Monday.
Even though conditions are dire, the remaining citizens of the once thriving city are trying to pick up the pieces of their former livesNear Aleppo’s ancient citadel, the scent of rose and jasmine rises from the rubble of a half-destroyed shop covered in bullet holes. Months ago it was a battleground, but for years before that it was a perfumery, and war has not changed its smell.For centuries Aleppo’s souk, its alleyway marketplace, was world-famous. The city was one of the westernmost points on the Silk Road and in both modern and ancient times it was full of haggling customers, canny businessmen, donkeys, and piles of goods – pistachios, za’atar and soap – from across the region. Continue reading...
ERBIL, Iraq (Reuters) - High on a rocky outcrop, just 50 miles from the fighting that is wrecking historic sites across Iraq, workers are busy laying out floor tiles, determined to save at least one ancient structure amidst the turmoil.
Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com, Central banks around the world have colluded, if not conspired, to elevate and prop up financial asset prices. Here we'll present the data and evidence that they've not only done so, but gone too far. When we discuss elevated financial asset prices we really are talking about everything; we're talking not just about the sky-high prices of stocks and bonds, but also of the trillions of dollars’ worth of derivatives that are linked to them, as well as real estate in dozens of countries and locations. All are intricately linked together. For instance, stocks are elevated, in part, because bond yields are so low. Sam for real estate. Here are three questions most alert investors are asking: Question #1: When will financial assets ever ‘correct’ and fall in price? Question #2: How much does overt propping by the central banks have to do with today's elevated prices? Question #3: How much does covert propping by central banks play a role in these inflated markets? These are important questions to consider because if central banks have been too involved and gotten themselves mixed up in trying to ‘wag the dog’ by using elevated financial asset prices as a means to drive economic expansion -- then the risk is a big implosion in financial asset prices if their efforts fail. The difficulty, as always, is that you can't print your way to prosperity. It's never worked in history and it won't work this time either. You can, however, print (or borrow) to delay a correction, after which a boost in real economic growth (or additional income) had better materialize to save your bacon. But if enough growth does not emerge to both pay back all the old outstanding loans plus all the newly created debt and currency, then you're going to experience a worse correction than if you had not tried to print/borrow your way to prosperity. As I’ve outlined before, that economic boom the central banks have been staking everything on been MIA the entire time during the “recovery” following the Great Recession. And there’s no sign of it showing up any time soon. The latest Atlanta Fed GDPNow forecast for the US stands at a paltry 0.5%: (Source) Folks, that just isn’t going to cut it. You cannot justify a massive increase in debt and sky-high stock and bond prices on the basis of such “growth.” So something has to give. Either much higher GDP (income) growth is right around the corner, or these financial asset prices are grotesquely over-inflated. To explain this in depth, let's tackle those questions above one at a time, in reverse order. Question #3: How much does covert propping by central banks play a role in these inflated markets? This one is fascinating. It takes forensic analysis and connecting a few dots to make the case that central banks are propping up a lot more than they admit to. Before we begin, whether it is a central bank directly, or one of its agents or proxies, it doesn't matter who's doing the intervention if any one of these entities (or all of them) is responsible for goosing asset prices for the purpose of achieving a policy aim. Second, my motivation here has nothing to do with having a trade going against me and then seeking to explain it away as some nefarious working of a secret group. Instead, this is about pointing out that the preponderance of evidence points to repeated and direct market intervention by “some entity” that appear to be very afraid to see stocks and bonds decline in price (or for gold to go up too much). Here are three pieces of data for you to consider. The NY Fed moved part of its market group operations to the same place that Citadel (one of the key ‘proxy' suspects in this story) and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) just magically happen to have their operations. For those of you unfamiliar with the CME, that’s the place one uses massive leverage to participate in (or move) markets. Futures, options and other derivative products which are the perfect vehicles for telegraphing loaded messages to all the robot computers that watch the CME feeds like hungry hawks. The CME actually has a Central Bank Incentive Program. The CME incentive programs are reserved for their very best (i.e., highest volume) customers. So we can state, without question, that central banks are heavy participants at the CME. No central bank admits to having any of the CME products on their balance sheet. An additional fourth observation is that the equity markets continue to experience remarkable recoveries time and time again, even when only the slightest weakness in prices is seen, and at all key support levels. So let’s break all that down and dig a little deeper. The (cover) story behind the NYFed moving its market-oriented trading operations to Chicago was because they allegedly got worried by superstorm Sandy and wanted to relocate a little further inland, away from the effects of any future such storms. It’s just a massive coincidence that the chosen spot happens to be right where the CME lives: Wary of natural disaster, NY Fed bulks up in Chicago April 14, 2015 The New York branch of the U.S. Federal Reserve, wary that a natural disaster or other eventuality could shut down its market operations as it approaches an interest rate hike, has added staff and bulked up its satellite office in Chicago. Some market technicians have transferred from New York and others were hired at the office housed in the Chicago Fed, according to several people familiar with the build-out that began about two years ago, after Hurricane Sandy struck Manhattan. Officials believe the Chicago staffers can now handle all of the market operations that are done daily out of the New York Fed, which is the U.S. central bank's main conduit to Wall Street (Source) Shortly after this news became known (and there is only this sole Reuters article to pull from, I couldn’t find any other major news outlet that covered it) some sharp eyes at ZeroHedge noticed that the new job offerings that opened up soon after in the Chicago area included this job description element: Perform account services to foreign central banks, international agencies, and U.S. government agencies. You’ll find out why that’s meaningful in the next few paragraphs. It will support the contention that moving the Fed's offices to the Chicago area might have had less to do with superstorm Sandy and more with preventing superstorm financial meltdowns. Now let’s look at the CME's Central Bank Incentive Program ("CBIP"). Here’s the notice from the CME webpage. (Source) The first two things we note in the program is that it heavily discounts fees to central banks to help them conduct “proprietary trading of CME products.” As a reminder, those 'products' are options and futures (both leveraged derivatives). We can also note that the program is reserved for non-US central banks (more on that in a minute) and that the trading can be conducted by a “manager or representative.” Could that representative or agent be a NYFed staffer? We don’t know, but it’s not forbidden in the rules. And we know the NYFed was actively recruiting for people whose job description included the duty of “Perform account services to foreign central banks, international agencies, and U.S. government agencies.” Next, let’s take a look at the most recent discount schedule for the CBIP and see what it can tell us: Well, first up it’s obvious that the central banks are playing with a huge array of leveraged derivative products. Second, we might glean something from the offered discounts. Assuming that the heavier the trading the greater the discount, this table makes sense to me. Everything in yellow has a discount of 30% or greater. The heaviest discounts are applied to Eurodollar futures and options, a category that makes perfect sense for central banks to play in given their legal role and public mandates. Coming in next in order are US Treasury futures and options. Again, these make sense if central banks have exposure to US Treasury bonds that they’d like to hedge, and I have no complaint with these. However, I cannot find a good reason that central banks should be monkeying around in US stock futures. Nor can I make a good case for energy, agricultural or metal contracts. Yet they all appear on there. Note in orange at the bottom are thee metals contracts. We can deduce that they are bought and sold by central banks, but coming in at a 27% discount, perhaps not in the same large quantities as other products. This doesn’t seem odd to me because the commercial bullion banks do such a good job of smashing gold and silver with disturbing regularity and zero regulatory response. Perhaps the central banks only feel the need to intervene every so often. Finally, I have no idea what “Other financial products” are at the CME but they're traded often enough to garner the largest discount (49%) on the entire table. One wonders if perhaps this isn’t a “masked bucket” that includes everything the central banks would prefer was not revealed at all. The central bank that I could imagine might have some justification for hedging stock exposure, as opposed to buying stock futures to goose the market at key moments, would the Swiss National Bank because they have about $60 billion in direct US equity ‘investments.’ But there’s nothing remotely on here that looks anything like a CME option or future product: (Source) Nor is there anything on their income statement that looks like a CME related gain or loss. Further, I have not been able to find a single central bank that admits to using CME products. But we know that they are, so having some secrecy there is clearly important to them. This supports the “market propping” idea because admitting such a thing is simply a big no-no….unless you are the Bank of Japan which not only buys equities and ETFs hand over fist, but openly does so specifically on down days when the Japanese stock markets could use a helping hand going in the “right “ direction (which is always "up"). The Fuse Is Lit... Many people might be tempted to shrug their shoulders and say “why should I care if the central banks are monkeying around the in the markets?” In Part 2: The Coming Conflagration, where we answer Question #2 and the all-important Question #1 raised above, it becomes abundantly clear why all of us should care -- deeply. A tumble from these heights would destroy jobs by the millions, wipe out trillions of (phony) wealth, and invite great populist angst opening up the possibility of truly horrible leaders to emerge. As I’ve quipped to some people, if you don’t like Trump you are going to positively *hate* whoever comes next if the current wealth gap persists (or worsens). But make no mistake: it will be the ordinary people who will be forced to eat the losses when all this blows up. So we should care. As well as remain very alert to what the Federal Reserve and other central banks are doing. Because if they fail, it’s our wealth, our jobs -- and possibly even our lives -- on the line. Click here to read the report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)
«Рынок движется от уровня к уровню, поиск крупного игрока, крупный игрок набирает позицию, психология трейдина, хитрые каналы, японские модели, поддержка/сопротивление». Россия 2017 «Саймонс нанимает в свой фонд Rerenaissance technologies Ленни Баума для исследования и использования в финансах математического феномена русского математика под названием Марковский процесс». США 80ые года. Хотел бы рекомендовать к прочтению книгу как по мне так наиболее современную и интересную про про трейдинг. Почему-то большинство книг про трейдинг описывают то время когда трейдеры были похожи на Гордона Гекко. На мой взгляд это лучшая книга про фондовый рынок. Вы узнаете что гипотеза эффектного рынка возникла еще аж в 60ые года, когда и кем был создан статистический арбитраж и сколько миллионов долларов заработали на нем крупнейшие фонды. Что основатели крупнейших фондов(Rerenaissance technologies, Citadel, PDT) все как один математические гении с докторскими степенями в 20 лет, криптоаналитики, шахматные гроссмейстеры. Эта книга именно про тех, кто через несколько лет станут Rerenaissance technologies и Citadel как они зарождались и кем были созданы. Как устроенна работа в Renaissance technologies и насколько сильное эмоциональное давление там на сотрудников что один из квантовых аналитиков из России не выдержал и застрелился, предварительно застрелив жену. Книга приоткрывает тайну над самыми закрытыми хедж фондами в мире. Как они управляются и как были созданы. В общем книга читается в захлеб, особенно доставляет после прочтения популярные на СЛ методы анализа рынка. То что мы знаем сегодня о рынке и используем, либо никто никогда из фондов не использовал(к примеру ТА) либо уже успел забыть( статистический арбитраж, марковские процессы) http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/22685935/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw2-bHBRDEh6qk5b6yqKIBEiQAFUz29hW8oCas4I-VSENapkb0es83D6-fklxn11lVf3lMleUaAiuU8P8HAQ
Rostov kremlin. Church of Resurrection (right), north wall, Dormition Cathedral. Oct. 4, 1992. / Photo: William Brumfield At the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian chemist and photographer Sergei Prokudin-Gorsky invented a complex process for vivid, detailed color photography. Inspired to use this new method to record the diversity of the Russian Empire, he photographed numerous historic sites during the decade before the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917. In 1911, Prokudin-Gorsky visited Rostov Veliky, or Rostov the Great, located some 130 miles northeast of Moscow. Rostov is one of the earliest historically attested towns in Russia. It was first mentioned under 862 in the ancient chronicle "Tale of Bygone Years." Prokudin-Gorsky traveled to Rostov not only to photograph its monumental architecture, but also its Museum of Antiquities, whose august patron was Nicholas II. My own photographs were taken during several visits from 1988 through 2013. Rostov kremlin. Church of Resurrection (right), north wall, Dormition Cathedral. View north from Metropolitan's chambers. Summer 1911. / Photo: Sergei Prokudin-Gorsky Rostov's main architectural ensemble is its majestic kremlin, which rises above the north shore of Lake Nero. Although most of the ensemble was not built until the 17th century, this citadel conveys an unforgettable sense of Rostov's importance for medieval Russia. A valuable patron The ensemble’s original designation was the Court of the Metropolitan, in recognition of its founder, Metropolitan Jonah of Rostov. After Patriarch, Metropolitan is the highest ecclesiastical rank in the Russian Orthodox Church. An ambitious, dynamic church leader, Jonah Sysoevich (ca. 1607-90) was the son of a country priest named Sysoi. Tonsured at the Resurrection Monastery in Uglich, he rose through the regional monastic hierarchy and in 1652 was appointed Metropolitan of Rostov by the newly elected Patriarch Nikon in Moscow. Rostov kremlin. Church of Resurrection (right), north wall, Dormition Cathedral. Southwest view. August 21, 1988. / Photo: William Brumfield Jonah had at his command land holdings and villages with some 16,000 peasants, as well as the best craftsmen and artists of a large, prosperous diocese. Within 20 years — between 1670 and 1690 — Jonah's builders erected not only several large churches and other buildings for the Metropolitan's Court and residence, but also magnificent walls with towers and gate churches. Among Prokudin-Gorsky’s several photographs of the kremlin is a view north from the Metropolitan’s Chambers. On the right is the superb Church of the Resurrection, located over the north Holy Gate, which served as the main entrance to the kremlin from Cathedral Square. Rostov kremlin. Church of Resurrection. South view. Oct. 4, 1992. / Photo: William Brumfield Architectural treasures Built in 1670, the Resurrection Church was one of the earliest churches within the ensemble. Its extended base supports an enclosed gallery on the south and west. The main structure is crowned by five soaring cupolas topped with ornamental iron crosses. Its interior, also photographed by Prokudin-Gorsky, is covered with frescoes and will be the subject of a subsequent article. On the wall to the left of the church is a small bell pavilion. The Rostov kremlin walls, supported by massive arches, resemble the late 17th-century walls of the St. Cyril-Belozersk Monastery in Kirillov, which was intended to serve as a mighty fortress guarding the Russian North. The Rostov kremlin, however, was never intended for military purposes, and its walls are solely for the imposing effect desired by Jonah. Rostov kremlin. Church of Resurrection. Southwest view. Aug. 21, 1988. / Photo: William Brumfield Visible beyond the walls on the left is the upper part of the Dormition Cathedral, first built of stone in the mid-12th century and rebuilt twice thereafter. Its final form, erected in 1508-1512, was modeled on the Dormition Cathedral in the Moscow kremlin, thus symbolizing the spiritual unity of the Muscovite realm. As with many other major Russian churches, the Dormition Cathedral’s original curved roofline was later replaced with a simpler sloped roof visible in Prokudin-Gorsky’s photograph. My photographs show the post-war restoration to the earlier roofline that followed the contours of the semicircular gables (zakomary). My more recent views also show changes in the color of the Resurrection Church walls. Rostov kremlin. Church of Resurrection. Southwest view. July 12, 2012. / Photo: William Brumfield Otherwise, a comparison of our photographs shows few changes over the decades. This stability is in no small measure due to the remarkable success of an early Russian preservation effort. With the transfer of the metropolitanate from Rostov to Yaroslavl in 1787 the Rostov kremlin rapidly fell into decay. Many of its buildings were used as warehouses, and there were thoughts of demolishing structures for their brick. Fortunately, in the late 19th century Rostov merchants gathered funds to maintain the ensemble. In 1883 the White Chamber, built as a banquet hall for the Metropolitan of Rostov, opened as a museum of church antiquities, predecessor of the current distinguished Rostov Kremlin Museum. Thus through local pride Metropolitan Jonah’s visionary project was preserved for Prokudin-Gorsky and many subsequent generations. Cathedral of the Dormition. Southwest view. June 28, 1995. / Photo: William Brumfield In the early 20th century the Russian photographer Sergei Prokudin-Gorsky invented a complex process for color photography. Between 1903 and 1916 he traveled through the Russian Empire and took over 2,000 photographs with the new process, which involved three exposures on a glass plate. In August 1918 he left Russia with a large part of his collection of glass negatives and ultimately resettled in France. After his death in Paris in 1944, his heirs sold his collection to the Library of Congress. In the early 21st century the Library digitized the Prokudin-Gorsky Collection and made it freely available to the global public. A number of Russian websites now have versions of the collection. In 1986 the architectural historian and photographer William Brumfield organized the first exhibit of Prokudin-Gorsky photographs at the Library of Congress. Over a period of work in Russia beginning in 1970, Brumfield has photographed most of the sites visited by Prokudin-Gorsky. This series of articles will juxtapose Prokudin-Gorsky’s views of architectural monuments with photographs taken by Brumfield decades later. Read more: The Massive Walls of Solovki: From Prokudin-Gorsky to the present
Антикоррупционная кампания 2011 года, приведшая к роспуску Сейма и досрочным выборам, была спецоперацией по перераспределению власти.
Was today the Yellen Fed's Irrational Exuberance moment? It started off so well: the blistering ADP payrolls report, the highest in over two years (despite disappointing PMI and ISM reports), sent stocks soaring off the bat with the Dow jumping nearly 200 points higher, rising as high as 20,887, and the S&P knocking on the all time high 2,400 door again, and AMZN to new all tim highs, and making some wonder if the reflation trade had returned. It was not meant to be, because while it took the market some time to digest the Fed's minutes, the FOMC delivered one of its loudest warnings to date that it was focusing not so much on inflation or employment, but was seeking to deflate what even "some members" of the FOMC agree is a stock bubble, warning that stock prices are "quite high", and warning that its forecasts face "downside risks" if "financial markets were to experience a significant correction." From the Minutes: "A few participants attributed the recent equity price appreciation to expectations for corporate tax cuts or to increased risk tolerance among investors rather than to expectations of stronger economic growth. Some participants viewed equity prices as quite high relative to standard valuation measures." Then, more ominously, this: ... a number of participants remarked that recent and prospective changes in financial conditions posed upside risks to their economic projections, to the extent that financial developments provided greater stimulus to spending than currently anticipated, as well as downside risks to their economic projections if, for example, financial markets were to experience a significant correction. It took algos a while to process what the Fed was really saying, which is why while the dollar briefly spiked to the day’s highs in kneejerk reaction to the minutes, it then surrendered all gains and then some after the minutes showed most officials backed a policy change that would begin shrinking the central bank’s balance sheet, as wellas warn explicitly about valuations. The weakness in the dollar meant that everyone's favorite market-influencing carry pair would likewise suffer, and after breaking out above 111, the USDJPY tumbled as low as 110.70 once again threatening the key 110 support level. Of course, with both the dollar and USDJPY tumbling, it was gold's turn to shine and it did just that, surging virtually uninterrupted since its post-minutes kneejerk selloff. Oil did not help, because after rising to multi-week highs this morning, WTI promptly tumbled after the DOE not only rejected yesterday's API draw report, but showed yet another record in commercial oil stocks coupled with the latest weekly increase in US crude production. The result: crude slumped back under $51, once again driving a dagger through the heart of the reflation trade. Across the rates complex, if it was the Fed's intention to orchestrate a smooth selloff, it failed: having failed to selloff earlier in the day as RBC discussed, yields briefly spiked higher after the Minutes only to eventually grind to session lows. As for stocks, with the most shorted universe soaring in early trading, dragging the Russell higher, this too was pummeled on all sides after the Fed's stark warning, prompting an accelerated liquidation of the most overvalued stock group, as shorts reasserted themselves. Not even that poster child of the Fed's latest bubble, Amazon, could withstand the selling and after hitting all time highs in early trade, was aggressively sold off. To be sure, the selloff could have been far worse if it wasn't for some aggressive buying programs, emanating perhaps from the NY Fed's arms-length market market Citadel, or some other central bank, which nonetheless was unable to prevent the day's substantial gains from becoming losses. In fact, the sharp move lower, which wiped out more than 200 points from the DJIA, was the sharpest intraday reversal in 14 months. And yes, for those asking, the Dow Jones closed at the lows. We need to check but this may be the first time in many years the DJIA has done this Minutes day. In short: today was a mess for the bulls, although it could have been much worse. However with the reflation trade now hobbled again, with Trump set to meet Xi perhaps unleashing another diplomatic fiasco, with payrolls looming - and after today's ADP number, Friday can only disappoint - there is a slew of downside risks on the immediate horizon, coming at a time when the Fed itself is warning that the S&P is too damn high. And in this painfully illiquid market, all that it would take is for someone big to start selling. Of course, everyone knows that the Fed will not let stocks drop too low before it re-engages the QE4 "jawbone" machine. The only question is "how low is too low"...
Sample wines in an ancient Bordeaux citadel during Blaye's spring wine festival.
JONATHAN HAIDT ON THE CULTURAL ROOTS OF CAMPUS RAGE: When a mob at Vermont’s Middlebury College shut down a speech by social scientist Charles Murray a few weeks ago, most of us saw it as another instance of campus illiberalism. Jonathan Haidt saw something more—a ritual carried out by adherents of what he calls a […]
В четверг открылась очередная ежегодная встреча членов Бильдербергского клуба. Среди 133 гостей, собравшихся на этой неделе в австрийском городке Тельфс-Бюхен, 21 политик. В их числе – министр финансов Великобритании Джордж Осборн...