#treaury | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

toldnews-blog · 6 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on https://toldnews.com/politics/democrats-target-mnuchin-after-treasury-eases-sanctions-on-russian-oligarch/

Democrats target Mnuchin after Treasury eases sanctions on Russian oligarch

Congressional Democrats are zeroing in on Secretary Steven Mnuchin following the Treasury Department’s controversial decision to ease sanctions on companies linked to a Russian oligarch with ties to the Kremlin, with some raising questions about his personal business dealings and potential for conflicts of interest.

Their focus: a decision the department announced Sunday easing sanctions against giant energy and aluminum companies tied to Oleg Deripaska, a sanctioned Russian oligarch. It’s relief that Treasury officials first announced in December.

Their desire to probe possible conflicts behind Mnuchin’s sanctions decision offers a window into the future for the Trump administration under a divided government, as House Democrats ramp up inquiries into administration decisions, with a special focus on actions that dovetail with the high-profile examinations of Russian influence in the campaign that swept Trump into office.

Sanctions on a range of Russian interests, including the conglomerates tied to Deripaska, were announced in April in response to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and activities in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP, FILE

Russian metals magnate Oleg Deripaska attends Independence Day celebrations at Spaso House, the residence of the American Ambassador, in Moscow, July 2, 2015.

The Mnuchin decision to remove the companies tied to the Russian oligarch from the list has faced resistance ever since it was proposed. Earlier this month, the House voted overwhelmingly to keep sanctions in place, while a similar measure in the Senate fell three votes short of clearing the 60-vote threshold.

On Tuesday, as Mnuchin moved ahead with the plan to lift sanctions, Democrats in the House wrote him to ask for “documents and records relating to entities and individuals who are affected by or stand to benefit” from the decision to remove the companies — En+, Rusal and ESE – from the sanctions list. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent a similar request for information.

This follows a request from Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., who wrote to Mnuchin last week, raising concerns about a possible conflict of interest behind the Treasury actions, citing the secretary’s reported sale of his stake in a film company to Len Blavatnik, an associate of Deripaska’s, several years ago.

“Given your business relationships with these individuals and your involvement in twice delaying sanctions, weakening the penalties, and eventually proposing relief from sanctions there is clearly a conflict of interest,” Speier wrote in her letter to Mnuchin seeking information about the transaction.

The business relationship, though, remains murky.

Mnuchin publicly disclosed the sale of his stake in RatPac-Dune, a film company, in June of 2017. One story, in the Hollywood Reporter, said the buyer was Blavatnik, who they reported bought a stake of the firm in April of 2017. However, Bloomberg reported in 2017 that Mnuchin did not sell his stake to Blavatnik’s company, Access Entertainment, citing a person familiar with the matter. And Blavatnik’s spokesman told the New York Times, “there was never at any point any contact between Mr. Blavatnik and Mr. Mnuchin in connection with the sale or operations of RatPac-Dune.”

Andres Kudacki/AP Photo

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin speaks at a press briefing at the Hilton Midtown hotel during the United Nations General Assembly, in New York, Sept. 21, 2017.

In a tweet, Tony Sayegh, a spokesman for Mnuchin, said Speier’s concerns “are premised on false information.”

“As our response to her letter will make clear, [Secretary Mnuchin] had no business relationship with Mr. Blavatnik and any suggestion of a conflict is baseless,” he wrote.

We received the letter from Rep. Speier. Her concerns are premised on false information. As our response to her letter will make clear, @stevenmnuchin1 had no direct business relationship with Mr. Blavatnik and any suggestion of a conflict of interest is baseless.

— Tony Sayegh (@TreasurySpox) January 30, 2019

On Wednesday, several more lawmakers sought details about any business ties Mnuchin may have to Blavatnik. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the chairman of the powerful House Oversight Committee, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee,wrote to Treasury seeking information on Mnuchin’s relationship with Blavatnik, and whether he sought ethics guidance or took steps to minimize potential conflicts of interest.

Blavatnik, a Ukrainian-born philanthropist who holds American and British citizenship, belongs to a cadre of billionaires close to the Kremlin. Blavatnik holds a significant interest in RUSAL, the Deripaska-linked company that received relief from sanctions. Blavatnik served on the company’s board until shortly after Trump was elected.

ABC News previously reported that Blavatnik, has contributed at least $383,000 to the Republican National Committee since late April 2016 and added another $1 million to President Donald Trump’s inauguration fund. Those figures include more than $12,000 that was later directed to Trump’s legal defense fund, as first reported by the Wall Street Journal. He did not give directly to the Trump campaign.

0 notes

meandmybigmouth · 2 years ago

Text

LMAO! LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT THE GOP’S MISUSE OF THE US TREAURY EH RON?

253 notes · View notes

tumbirus · 4 years ago

Photo

Good Evening Dears, The problem that attempt to find a legal solution to what is essentially a political problem.If stability of government is an issue due the people defecting from their parties,the answer is for parties to strengthen their internal systems. If they attract members on the basis of ideology and they have systems for people to raise within party hierarchy on their capabilities (rather then inheritance ),there would be a grater exit barrier.These characteristics seem absent in many of the political parties, and we have seen a large number of defections despite the anti-defection law. To sum up,the anti-defection law has been detrimental of the functioning of our legislatures as deliberate bodies which hold the executive to account on behalf of citizens .It has turned them into fora to endorse the decision of the government on Bills and budgets. And it has not even done the job of preserving the stability of governments. The Tenth Schedule to the Constitution must be repealed. The events in Puducherry highlights ,yet again the absurdity of the anti -defection law.In what has now become the standard operating procedure, several MLAs from the treaury benches resigned ,lowering the numbers required for no -confidence motion to succeed .This formula has been seen recently in other States such as Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. .... Continue (at Mumbai - मुंबई) https://www.instagram.com/p/CL4TR_ChB-L/?igshid=bfps7d0dh2wu

0 notes

meandmybigmouth · 2 years ago

Text

You see it’s like this!. these fucks are haappy stealing tax dollars from the US Treaury, They want to steal what you already paid into all your lives!. but, you go ahead and vote for them anyway!

230 notes · View notes

deadpresidents · 8 years ago

Note

i'm not american so this might be a dumb question but is there a vice presidential line of succession or does maybe the next person in the presidential line move up if there's a vp that dies

No, there isn’t a Vice Presidential line of succession. In the case of a Vice Presidential vacancy, the 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, allows the President to appoint a new VP who must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate. This has happened twice: in 1973 when President Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to fill the vacancy created when Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign the Vice Presidency, and in 1974 when Ford succeeded Nixon as President and appointed Nelson Rockefeller to fill his vacancy.

A mechanism for filling a vacancy in the Vice Presidency was badly needed. I’ve written about it before, but the Vice Presidency has existed since 1789 and in those 228 years there has been a vacancy in the Vice Presidency for nearly 38 years overall. So, for over 16% of our nation’s history, there hasn’t been anybody in the most important position in the Presidential line of succession. And to point out even more explicitly how crazy that is, think of it this way: every time in American history that a President has died in office or been assassinated, the new President who assumed office didn’t have a Vice President of their own.This is from an older post on this same subject:

7 Vice Presidents died in office:•George Clinton died April 20, 1812, leaving the office vacant for 318 days•Elbridge Gerry died November 23, 1814, leaving the office vacant for 2 years, 101 days.•William Rufus DeVane King died April 18, 1853, leaving the office vacant for 3 years, 320 days.•Henry Wilson died on November 22, 1875, leaving the office vacant for 1 year, 102 days•Thomas A. Hendricks died on November 24, 1885, leaving the office vacant for 3 years, 99 days.•Garret A. Hobart died on November 21, 1899, leaving the office vacant for 1 year, 103 days.•James S. Sherman died on October 30, 1912, leaving the office vacant for 125 days.2 Vice Presidents resigned from office:•John C. Calhoun resigned on December 28, 1832, leaving the office vacant for 66 days.•Spiro Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973, leaving the office vacant for 57 days.

9 Vice Presidents succeeded to the Presidency:•John Tyler succeeded to the White House upon President Harrison’s death on April 4, 1841, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 333 days.•Millard Fillmore succeeded to the White House upon President Taylor’s death on July 9, 1850, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 2 years, 238 days.•Andrew Johnson succeeded to the White House upon President Lincoln’s death on April 15, 1865, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 323 days.•Chester Arthur succeeded to the White House upon President Garfield’s death on September 19, 1881, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 166 days.•Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the White House upon President McKinley’s death on September 14, 1901, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 171 days.•Calvin Coolidge succeeded to the White House upon President Harding’s death on August 2, 1923, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 1 year, 214 days.•Harry Truman succeeded to the White House upon President Roosevelt’s death on April 12, 1945, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 283 days.•Lyndon Johnson succeeded to the White House upon President Kennedy’s death on November 22, 1963, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 1 year, 59 days.•Gerald Ford succeeded to the White House upon President Nixon’s resignation on August 9, 1974, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 132 days.

There was no provision established for filling a vacancy in the Vice Presidency until the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1967. The Amendment allows the President to fill a vacancy in the Vice Presidency by appointing a new Vice President who must be confirmed by a majority vote in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

Two Vice Presidential vacancies have been filled under the 25th Amendment. Gerald Ford was appointed to the Vice Presidency by President Nixon following Spiro Agnew’s resignation in October 1973 and confirmed by Congress in December. In August 1974, President Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford succeeded to the Presidency and President Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller as the new Vice President. Rockefeller was confirmed as Vice President by Congress on December 19, 1974.

If any of the Vice Presidents who succeeded to the Presidency prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment had died in office, the first person in the line of succession would have been – depending on the year – an “Officer” chosen by Congress (1789-1792), president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate (1792-1886), Secretary of State (1886-1947), or Speaker of the House of Representatives (1947-present).

Here are the people who were first in the line of succession to the Presidency due to a Vice Presidential vacancy prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment:Presidency of James Madison (Mar. 4, 1809-Mar. 4, 1817)(Vacancy from April 20, 1812-March 4, 1813 due to the death of Vice President George Clinton. Vacancy from November 23, 1814-March 4, 1817 due to the death of Vice President Elbridge Gerry) •Apr. 20, 1812-Mar. 4, 1813: William H. Crawford, president pro tempore of the Senate•Nov. 23, 1814-Nov. 25, 1814: Langdon Cheves, Speaker of the House•Nov. 25, 1814-Mar. 4, 1817: John Gaillard, president pro tempore of the SenatePresidency of Andrew Jackson (Mar. 4, 1829-Mar. 4, 1837)(Vacancy from December 28, 1832-Mar. 4, 1833 due to the resignation of Vice President John C. Calhoun)•Dec. 28, 1832-Mar. 4, 1833: Hugh Lawson White, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of John Tyler (Apr. 4, 1841-Mar. 4, 1845)•Apr. 4, 1841-May 31, 1842: Samuel L. Southard, president pro tempore of the Senate•May 31, 1842-Mar. 4, 1845: Willie Person Mangum, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Millard Fillmore (July 9, 1850-Mar. 4, 1853)•July 9, 1850-July 11, 1850: Howell Cobb, as Speaker of the House, was next in line to the Presidency for the two days following President Taylor’s death since there was no president pro tempore of the Senate, but Cobb was Constitutionally ineligible to be President as he was only 34 years of age.•July 11, 1850-Dec. 20, 1852: William Rufus DeVane King, president pro tempore of the Senate•Dec. 20, 1852-Mar. 4, 1853, David Rice Atchison, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Franklin Pierce (Mar. 4, 1853-Mar. 4, 1857)(Vacancy from April 18, 1853-March 4, 1857 due to the death of Vice President William R. D. King)•Apr. 18, 1853-Dec. 4, 1854: David Rice Atchison, president pro tempore of the Senate•Dec. 4, 1854-Dec. 5, 1854: Lewis Cass, president pro tempore of the Senate•Dec. 5, 1854-June 9, 1856: Jesse D. Bright, president pro tempore of the Senate•June 9, 1856-June 10, 1856: Charles E. Stuart, president pro tempore of the Senate•June 10, 1856-Jan. 6, 1857: Jesse D. Bright, president pro tempore of the Senate•Jan. 6, 1857-Mar. 4, 1857: James Murray Mason, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Andrew Johnson (Apr. 15, 1865-Mar. 4, 1869)•Apr. 15, 1865-Mar. 2, 1867: Lafayette Sabine Foster, president pro tempore of the Senate•Mar. 2, 1867-Mar. 4, 1869: Benjamin Franklin Wade, president pro tempore of the SenatePresidency of Ulysses S. Grant (Mar. 4, 1869-Mar. 4, 1877)(Vacancy from Nov. 22, 1875-Mar. 4, 1877 due to the death of Vice President Henry Wilson)•Nov. 22, 1875-Mar. 4, 1877: Thomas W. Ferry, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Chester Arthur (Sept. 19, 1881-Mar. 4, 1885)•Sept. 19, 1881-Oct. 10, 1881: There was literally NO ONE in the Presidential line of succession until a special session of the Senate nearly a month after President Garfield’s assassination. At the time of Garfield’s death and Arthur’s succession creating a vacancy in the Vice Presidency there were also vacancies in the offices of Speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate.•Oct. 10, 1881-Oct. 13, 1881: Thomas Francis Bayard, president pro tempore of the Senate•Oct. 13, 1881-Mar. 3, 1883: David Davis, president pro tempore of the Senate•Mar. 3, 1883-Mar. 4, 1885: George Franklin Edmunds, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Grover Cleveland (Mar. 4, 1885-Mar. 4, 1889)(Vacancy from November 25, 1885-December 7, 1885 due to the death of Vice President Thomas A. Hendricks)•Nov. 25, 1885-Dec. 7, 1885: At the time of Vice President Hendricks’s death creating a vacancy in the Vice Presidency there were also vacancies in the offices of Speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate. For twelve days nobody was in the Presidential line of succession.•Dec. 7, 1885-Jan. 19, 1886: John Sherman, president pro tempore of the Senate•Jan. 19, 1886-Mar. 4, 1889: Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary of StatePresidency of William McKinley (Mar. 4, 1897-Sept. 14, 1901)(Vacancy from November 21, 1899-March 4, 1901 due to the death of Vice President Garret A. Hobart)•Nov. 21, 1899-Mar. 4, 1901: John Hay, Secretary of State

Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (Sept. 14, 1901-Mar. 4, 1905)•Sept. 14, 1901-Mar. 4, 1905: John Hay, Secretary of State

Presidency of William Howard Taft (Mar. 4, 1909-Mar. 4, 1913)(Vacancy from October 30, 1912-March 4, 1913 due to the death of Vice President James Schoolcraft Sherman)•Oct. 30, 1912-Mar. 4, 1913: Philander C. Knox, Secretary of State

Presidency of Calvin Coolidge (Aug. 2, 1923-Mar. 4, 1925)•Aug. 2, 1923-Mar. 4, 1925: Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary of State

Presidency of Harry Truman (Apr. 12, 1945-Jan. 20, 1949)•Apr. 12, 1945-June 27, 1945: Edward R. Stettinius, Secretary of State•June 27, 1947-July 3, 1945: Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treaury•July 3, 1945-Jan. 21, 1947: James F. Byrnes, Secretary of State•Jan. 21, 1947-July 17, 1947: George C. Marshall, Secretary of State•July 17, 1947-Jan. 3, 1949: Joseph W. Martin, Speaker of the House•Jan. 3, 1949-Jan. 20, 1949: Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House

Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson (Nov. 22, 1963-Jan. 20, 1965)•Nov. 22, 1963-Jan. 20, 1965: John W. McCormack, Speaker of the House

Presidency of Richard Nixon (Jan. 20, 1969-Aug. 9, 1974)(Vacancy between the resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew on October 10, 1973 and the confirmation of Vice Presidential nominee Gerald Ford on December 6, 1973.)•Oct. 10, 1973-Dec. 6, 1973: Carl Albert, Speaker of the House

Presidency of Gerald Ford (Aug. 9, 1974-Jan. 20, 1977)(Vacancy between Vice President Gerald Ford’s succession to the Presidency on August 9, 1974 and the confirmation of Vice Presidential nominee Nelson Rockefeller on December 19, 1974.)•Aug. 9, 1974-Dec. 19, 1974: Carl Albert, Speaker of the House

#Vice Presidents #Vice Presidency #Presidential Line of Succession #VPOTUS #Presidential succession #Vice Presidential vacancy #Presidency #Constitutional Craziness #Constitution #Anonymous #questions

45 notes · View notes

sinarantraining · 5 years ago

Text

TRAINING PERHITUNGAN KESEHATAN BANK

Pelatihan Penilaian Tingkat Kesehatan

Penilaian Kualitas Manajemen Risiko & Penerapannya Dalam Kertas Kerja

OVERVIEW PELATIHAN PERHITUNGAN KESEHATAN BANK

Pada tanggal 25 Oktober 2011 Bank Indonesia mengeluarkan Surat Edaran No. 13/24/DPNP sebagai pengaturanatas PBI No. 13/1/PBI/2011 tanggal 5 Januari 2011 perihalPenilaian Tingkat Kesehatan Bank Umum. Dalam SE ini antara lain diatur bahwa Bank diwajibkan untuk melakukan penilaian sendiri (Self Assessment) Tingkat Kesehatan Bank dengan menggunakan pendekatan Risiko (Risk-based Bank Rating/RBBR) baik secara individual maupun secara konsolidasi. SE iniakan berlaku efektif mulai tanggal 1 Januari 2012 untuk penilaian Tingkat Kesehatan Bank posisi akhir bulan Desember 2011.

MANFAAT PELATIHAN PERHITUNGAN KESEHATAN BANK

Memberikan pemahaman yang komperhensif mengenai konsep dan mekanisme Penilaian Tingkat Kesehatan Berbasis Risiko.

Memberikan pemahaman terhadap proses penilaian, pengaplikasian kualitatif parameter dan penetapan “scoring guidance” sertabobotrisiko.

Menerjemahkan pemahaman konsepmelalui Kertas Kerja Penilaian RBBR (excel spreadsheet).

Peserta diharapkan mampu untuk menyusun Laporan Tingkat Kesehatan.

TARGET PESERTA :

Bagian Manajemen Risiko / Compliance/ Akunting / Financial Planning / Credit Analyst / Treaury Analist / Satuan Kerja Audit Internal / Operasional

COURSE OUTLINES PERHITUNGAN KESEHATAN BANK:

Sekilas tentang Revisi Kebijakan Manajemen Risiko & Prinsip-prinsip Umum RBBR

MekanismePenilaian Tingkat Kesehatan Bank

Parameter/Indikator Penilaian Tingkat Kesehatan

RBBR Framework, Implementation Process, Basis Penetapan Peer-Group, Scoring & Bobot Risiko

AplikasiPerhitunganRisiko Inherent &PenerapannyadalamKertasKerja

Aplikasi Penilaian Kualitas Manajemen Risiko & Penerapannya dalam Kertas Kerja

Penetapan Peringkat Komposit, Penetapan Rating RBBR &Persiapan Data untukLampiran III (Form BI)

Jadwal training perhitungan kesehatan bank:

23 sd 24 Januari 2019

13 sd 14 Februari 2019

20 sd 21 Maret 2019

17 sd 18 April 2019

28 sd 29 Mei 2019

25 sd 26 Juni 2019

16 sd 17 Juli 2019

15 sd 16 Agustus 2019

17 sd 18 September 2019

22 sd 23 Oktober 2019

20 sd 21 November 2019

19 sd 20 Desember 2019

Catatan : Jadwal tersebut dapat disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan calon peserta

Biaya dan Lokasi training perhitungan kesehatan bank:

Yogyakarta, Hotel Dafam Malioboro (6.000.000 IDR / participant) *

Jakarta, Hotel Amaris Tendean (6.500.000 IDR / participant) *

Bandung, Hotel Golden Flower (6.500.000 IDR / participant) *

Bali, Hotel Ibis Kuta (7.500.000 IDR / participant) *

Lombok, Hotel Jayakarta (7.500.000 IDR / participant)*

Catatan : Biaya diatas belum termasuk akomodasi/penginapan.

Investasi training penilaian:

Investasi pelatihan selama tiga hari tersebut menyesuaikan dengan jumlah peserta (on call). *Please feel free to contact us.

Apabila perusahaan membutuhkan paket in house training, anggaran investasi pelatihan dapat menyesuaikan dengan anggaran perusahaan.

Fasilitas training:

FREE Airport pickup service (Gratis Antar jemput Hotel/Bandara)*

FREE Akomodasi Peserta ke tempat pelatihan* .

Module / Handout.

FREE Flashdisk .

Sertifikat training perhitungan kesehatan bank terupdate .

FREE Bag or bagpackers (Tas Training) .

Training Kit (Dokumentasi photo, Blocknote, ATK, etc).

2xCoffe Break & 1 Lunch, Dinner .

Souvenir .

Nama : Aryo Nugroho CP : 081296794263 Email : [email protected] [email protected]

#training

0 notes

oddepia · 6 years ago

Text

Trump Administration Announces New Restrictions on Travel to Cuba.

New York Times – The Treaury department said it would crack down on the most popular ways for Americans to visit the island. Source: New feed

View On WordPress

0 notes

foursproutwealth-blog · 7 years ago

Text

The "Nuclear Option" In Global Trade Wars: Dumping US Treasuries... But Will They?

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/wealth/the-nuclear-option-in-global-trade-wars-dumping-us-treasuries-but-will-they/

The "Nuclear Option" In Global Trade Wars: Dumping US Treasuries... But Will They?

In response to Trump’s shocking announcement of a global trade war (which may have been “born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process”), the age-old question has once again returned front and center: will foreigners retaliate by selling US securities?

First a quick recap: there was $6.3 trillion in US Treasuries held by foreign nations as of Dec. 2017, of which over $4 trillion was held by official accounts: central banks, reserve managers, sovereign wealth funds, and others.

Also recall that much if not all of these official foreign Treasury holdings built up over the years as US trading partners converted dollars from persistent American trade surpluses into US debt.

Which is why, as Reuters’ Richard Leong writes, should China, Japan and other nations, which have recycled their trade dollars through their Treasuries holdings, suddenly decide to whittle them down, “markets could be in for a rough ride.”

Naturally, foreigners are well aware of the volatility-inducing leverage they have, and have previously threatened to sell US Treauries in response to adverse US policies: in April 2016, it was the Saudi Arabia who Threatened to liquidate its Treasury holdings if Congress probed the country’s role in the Sept 11 attacks (Congress did, found the Saudis responsible, yet neither has Saudi Arabia “liquidated” its holdings, nor has the nation been found guilty of terrorism in any court of law, in any jurisdiction). Then in early January, Bloomberg reported that Chinese officials would recommend “slowing or halting”, or evening selling, US Treasuries (China subsequently denied the report as “fake news”).

Nonetheless, “the threats are real,” said Kristina Hooper, Invesco’s chief global market strategist. “We need more foreign demand, not less.” She is right: a foreign retaliatory move in the wake of Trump’s first big protectionist action, would come at a time when foreign demand for U.S. debt is seen critical to offset an expected surge in federal borrowing needs.

To be sure, it is unlikely that Beijing, Tokyo and other overseas central banks would dump Treasuries altogether, if at all, analysts and investors told Reuters: after all such a move would be tantamount to mutual assured destruction as the financial health of the entire world is closely tied to not only the viability of the dollar, but the stability of US rates. As a result, countries could wind up torching their own U.S. bond investments, without winning any guaranteed gains from Washington, analysts noted.

“They already own a lot of them. They would be shooting themselves in the foot,” said Jack McIntyre, portfolio manager at Brandywine Global Investment Management in Philadelphia.

Still what U.S. trading partners might do with their collective ownership of Treasury securities looms as a hefty risk not only for the bond market.

That said, foreigners don’t need to liquidate everything or even a majority of their holdings: all they need to do is engage in a sharp, acute selloff which sends yields sharply higher which – as events in early February showed – would also likely led to a stock market crash. And with Trump increasingly grading his performance by the daily moves in the S&P, a sharp market drop may be all foreigners need to accomplish to force Trump to reverse.

* * *

What happens next is unclear: the debt market had a seesaw response on Thursday and Friday with investors firstly buying U.S. Treasuries as a safe haven and sending the 10-year yield to a three-week low. This abruptly reversed on Friday, mostly due to worries that the Bank of Japan might exit its ultra-loose monetary policy. Investors also sold to make room for next week’s heavy corporate debt supply, and the 10Y yield closed Friday near session highs, just shy of 2.87%.

However, growing anxiety among traders about foreign retaliation through selling or buying fewer Treasuries may be coming into play, some investors and analysts said. “You can’t rule it out. It’s unsettling the market a bit,” McIntyre said.

For now, the data shows somewhat mixed indications, On one hand, the latest TIC data showed that while China had been buying Treasurys in the past year…

… Japan, of all countries, had been selling.

Meanwhile, a separate data set from the NY Fed showed that as of the latest week, Treasury securities held in custody at the Fed just hit an all time high of $3.079 trillion.

Yet while on the surface there appears to be no change in foreign appetite for US paper, there is a footnote: as Bloomberg noted on Friday, the share of US Treasurys held by foreign central banks (and the Fed) has steadily declined as U.S. debt increases. Their combined share has declined to 40% from 45% in 2015. The U.S. is increasingly relying on private investors, domestic and abroad, to soak up the debt.

What it means, according to Bloomberg, is that term premium will increase as price-sensitive investors make up a larger market share. That suggests that yields are more likely to rise than fall in coming months and quarters.

And as yields rise, and dollar funding conditions get tighter (as a result of the blowing out Libor-OIS spread) making hedging of TSY purchases increasingly more costly, foreigners may have no choice but to dump US paper, whether or not in retaliation to Trump.

The question then is whether the Fed will give up all pretense of an economic recovery and do with it has always done when faced with an insurmountable US capital flow problem: unleash QE and monetize the deficit.

In other words – while it remains to be seen if foreigners dump US Treasuries in angry retaliation, it is safe to say that as of this moment, the fate of the Trump administration is in the hands of the Federal Reserve.

#Wealth

0 notes

foursprout-blog · 7 years ago

Text

The "Nuclear Option" In Global Trade Wars: Dumping US Treasuries... But Will They?

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/wealth/the-nuclear-option-in-global-trade-wars-dumping-us-treasuries-but-will-they/

The "Nuclear Option" In Global Trade Wars: Dumping US Treasuries... But Will They?

Also recall that much if not all of these official foreign Treasury holdings built up over the years as US trading partners converted dollars from persistent American trade surpluses into US debt.

“They already own a lot of them. They would be shooting themselves in the foot,” said Jack McIntyre, portfolio manager at Brandywine Global Investment Management in Philadelphia.

Still what U.S. trading partners might do with their collective ownership of Treasury securities looms as a hefty risk not only for the bond market.

* * *

For now, the data shows somewhat mixed indications, On one hand, the latest TIC data showed that while China had been buying Treasurys in the past year…

… Japan, of all countries, had been selling.

Meanwhile, a separate data set from the NY Fed showed that as of the latest week, Treasury securities held in custody at the Fed just hit an all time high of $3.079 trillion.

#Wealth

0 notes