The Frustrated CFO

Diamond & Silk: Keeping the Common Sense Alive!

Yes, I am a pessimist; especially when it comes to my expectations of people's abilities and attitudes.  I am the one who talks about the majority's intellectual deterioration every chance I get.  So, on rare occasions when I learn of people who don't fall in with the immense mass of inept dumb-asses, I am overwhelmed with excitement. There are not too many of them, but they do exist!

According to Donald Trump, it was his wife Melania who spotted Diamond & Silk (aka Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson) on the Internet. It is truly a blessing when a busy person has someone in his or her life who can sieve through the unmanageable mess of various media.  More so, when it is someone who knows you well, i.e. your friends or family, not just some staffer who is probably too snobbish to look for interesting v-bloggers on YouTube.  (Once they get "close to politics," they stick mostly to mainstream pundits.)  

I am too a beneficiary of someone in my immediate circle who found Stump-for-Trump ladies, watched a bunch of their v-blog installments , got wowed, and shared the videos.  

And what can I say? Diamond & Silk are awesome!  My sisters in Common Sense!  Genuine, smart, quick-witted, they are capable of crystallizing lofty economic issues and obscure political agendas into essential nuggets of coherent information.  Their explanations are logical and their messages are transparent.  With their personable approach they appeal to people's practicality: "This is what it means to you!" could be their motto.  And they never lose their cool, no matter how unfair and sinister they get attacked.

This is what Bernie Sanders' campaign wishes their grassroots were: Not the confused, unclear about Bernie's politics and their own reality overgrown babies (of all ages), willing to sell their country's principles and their own souls in exchange for a place at the socialist's "free" tit; but sure-minded, grounded in reality adults armed with iron-clad logic and sound comprehension of political implications.  Bernie's supporters will say "yes" to free college and "no" to tax increases within the same questionnaire.  But you ask Diamond and Silk about "free" college and they will explain to you in great detail and with unbeatable precision how much you will end up paying for it with your own blood, sweat, and sorrow.

It would be a mistake to discount Diamond & Silk's impact as negligible (which I'm sure their opponents do).  These two women are very significant in the fight for citizens' minds we are witnessing.  They are contributing and Trump knows it.  That's why he doesn't hesitate to bring them onto the stage to stand next to him.  There is nothing more valuable in politics than campaigning that doesn't come from the campaign's HQ.  Civilian activism - it's priceless!  

I am sure that Diamond & Silk are celebrating their candidate's progress furthered this week with an amazing sweep.  And I am positive these true patriots will keep fighting for their convictions.  I wish them unyielding strength for the struggles ahead!           

US Perilous Ally Threatens the White House

There is definitely something terribly fragile about the state of our foreign affairs if I need to discuss our phony "allies" in two posts back-to-back.  This time, it's not some unnamed "friend" - it's Saudi Arabia or, as many journalists call it, one of the "most awkward" of US allies.  The reason I feel the need to talk about it is that the present tension between us and Saudi Arabia is a stark exhibit of how monetary stimuli affect the White House politics.  

But before I can address the current events, some cursory background is mandatory.  At the very least it is important to understand why we are allies with Saudis in the first place and what's so awkward about this relationship.

Ever since FDR (that Grand Master of uber-strenuous alliances) struck some sort of a secret deal with the Saudi ruler of the time King Abdulaziz in 1945, the resulting relationship has been teetering on three main financial whales:

1.  Saudi Arabia is the largest customer of the US weapon trade; no other nation buys as much military equipment and armament made in the US than that tiny country with population of 31 million.
2. 11% of American oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, with over 1 million barrels pumping in every day - second only to Canada and ahead of our next-door neighbors Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia.
3. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the largest foreign investors into US market-trading assets, specifically government bonds and corporate stocks (more related numbers below).

As in many money-driven relationships, the partners in this one don't really see eye to eye when it comes to non-monetary issues, especially with respect to social and political values.  Hence, the awkwardness.  Our President can laugh all he wants, but for those who care it's painful to know that the White House calls the country famous for its obscurantist interpretation of Islam, medieval punishments, and the harshest treatment of women "our ally." On the other hand, Saudis are not happy with US Middle-Eastern policies, especially in Syria, Iran, and Israel.  In fact, the Saudi foreign minister has been quoted as saying, "It's a Muslim marriage, not a Catholic marriage."

That's actually remarkably aphoristic:  Catholic marriage is for life.  No divorces are permitted, so the union is truly "till death do us part."  On the other hand, according to Sharia (Islamic law), Muslim divorce process is reduced to a single announcement of a husband to his wife, "I divorce you" (the phrase and the short ritual are both called talaq).  That's it - he says it and she is out on the street; no legal or even religious authorities need to be involved.  Apparently Saudi Arabia feels that the United States of America is its Muslim wife.  As I said, clearly the relationship is precarious at best.  

Into this volatile drama enters the bipartisan bill that, if passed by the Congress, may allow victims of 09/11 to sue foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia.  When was the last time you've heard of a yet-unapproved legislation proposal becoming a big international news item?  Well this one did, as soon as it hit the congressional floor.  How important is this bill to the White House?  It is so important that, according to the New York Times (our last frontier of journalism with original sources), the Obama Administration has been lobbying against it for quite some time, trying to squash it before it even got to the approval stage.   Unable to stop the bill so far, Obama went this week to Saudi Arabia to talk it over with the King.  

The administration's cover story for the bill-bashing activities, formulated on the record by the President, is the concern that this will give other nations a reason to put in place similar regulations against the United States. Well, even though we don't create disasters like 09/11, we do meddle in other nations' existence from time to time.   So, it's a plausible worry.  Only I don't buy it.  Why is he not going to any other countries that may be impacted by the bill, just to Saudi Arabia?  Why the President himself and not the Secretary of State, for example? You know why -  C.R.E.A.M.!!!    

The very same New York Times has also reported that our "ally" has already announced to the White House their retaliation strategy.  Does it have anything to do with "we-shall-sue-you-back" laws?  Nah, not surprisingly it's economic: they threaten to sell off $750 billion of American assets.  Now, that's what I'm talking about!  Money!  It talks and makes US Presidents bounce this way and that way on their strings.

I find it absolutely preposterous that some "commentators" immediately started calming themselves down and speculating that Saudis don't even have that much of US bonds and stocks; or that they wouldn't extinguish a huge cache of investments just like that, because they would lose money, etc., etc.  They sound to me like a bunch of ignorant optimists who either don't understand the extent of Saudi wealth, or are hiding their heads in the sand out of fear, or both.  But I am not like that.  I'd rather look into the face of the most damning scenario.  I think that Saudis wouldn't hesitate to act on their threat.  I also think that they are probably as conservative as I am and value their investments at the lower of cost or market.  Therefore, this specific amount, $750 billion, is exactly what they can do without any problem; moreover, with gains.   

Now, let's see what this amount means to the United States.  First, there is the most obvious implication of the threat - the one that's on everyone's mind.  $750 billion is about 1.7% of the total value (as of 12/31/2015) of American publicly-traded stocks and treasury bonds combined.  That's a pretty significant share.  (Just to give you an idea of the number's magnitude: the market capitalization, i.e. the total value of all outstanding shares, of Apple, Inc. [#1 ranked American stock] is $600 billion.)  Dumping huge buckets of equity shares and bonds into the market will start an obvious chain reaction: The stock prices will start violently dropping and bonds' discounts (percentages below par) increasing.  This will push other investors, especially day traders, into a panic and they will join the sell-off in attempt to recover at least some of their money, intensifying the effect and driving the prices further and further down.  As the result, (a) the stock market will experience a deep adjustment and (b) the US Dollar will be seriously devalued.  This, in turn, will affect the global markets, the international trade, the costs of raw materials, the deficit, etc., etc.             

And assets divesture could be just a first step.  It may be followed by another economic blow - the cancellations of arms deals.  There are always Russians, you know, with their outdated garbage, but it looks pretty sinister.  If weapons sales seize abruptly, first the military sector will need a bailout and then we shall see a contraction of the entire industrial sector.  Therefore, it is not surprising that the White House is concerned - there is a definite possibility of talaq (see above) here.  I'm sure Obama went to Saudi Arabia to promise them that he would veto whatever rightful laws the Congress might pass.

There is another significance to this number, though.  It can give you an idea of who owns the US marketable securities (and keeps their values high).  As of 10/01/2015, $12.2 trillion of those assets belonged to foreign investors.  This breaks down into 43% (!) of total outstanding US government bonds ($6.2 trillion), and 20% of all outstanding equity shares ($6 billion).  Now, as I said, not only that I think Saudis own $750 billion of American assets, I am sure that this is just a portion of what they have.  It's just hard for me to believe that they would divest of the entire lot, no matter how angry they are.   For argument's sake let's say it's 50% of what they actually have.  That would mean that the kingdom holds 12% of the total foreign investments into the US markets.  Remarkable!  

Of course, all this politico-economic rat-scuffling is very fascinating, but so is the human paradox.  Just think about it.  There always have been plenty of speculations about Saudis complicity in 09/11 attacks, but nobody ever came out with solid proofs.  If they exist, they are buried well.  And honestly, considering how fickle everyone's attention is nowadays, nobody would dwell on their suspicions too long; if only Saudis kept their guilty asses in low profile, pretending that they have nothing to hide.  But no!  They had to go to the Bush administration with, "Please, please, get us out of here ASAP," resulting in all those sweeping-away-in-helicopters shenanigans.  Nobody will ever forget that!  And now, this scandalous reaction to the bill!  Doesn't it sound like an admission of guilt? Wouldn't it be cleverer to stick to the not-guilty plea?  I mean, even if there are law suits, a country like Saudi Arabia can buy the best legal defense in the world.  On the other hand, it could be a matter of arrogance.  They must feel incredibly secure not to worry about appearances.     

Photo Quote of the Week: Even Geniuses Need Experts

Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton's Foreign Supporters

I am not an ophthalmologist.  So, I cannot explain why people can't see for themselves.  Nor am I interested enough in so-called human factors to start analyzing what makes people so confused.  But I am a career financial executive with multiple academic degrees and 30 years experience in international business relations.  As such, I can shine some light onto the monetary lining of certain political matters.  (And yes, it's always about money!)    

We are several months away from 2016 presidential face-off and the outcome of the Republican primary is still uncertain, but Hillary has already started her anti-Trump balls rolling.  In March, she and another former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright (he-Clinton's appointee), declared that U.S. allies abroad are "definitely worried" about the idea of Trump's potential presidency.

Here I feel obligated to remind the readers that Madeleine Albright keeps repeating on record that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” thus forcing upon you the idea of vagina sisterhood as the highest priority for women - more important than our survival, well-being, principles, and ideals.  This is just to underscore the speakers' vantage point.  But you've got to love the ambiguity of their statement worthy of true foreign-affairs foxes: Which allies are they talking about?  All of them or just a few?  A couple, or twenty, or none?  

In the absence of clarity, we can only speculate, but I sure hope they are all worried.  Because, unlike all those professional politicians in the running,  Donald J. Trump is not going to play nice and be concerned about our allies' opinions of him personally or of America's policies.  For Donald J. Trump, American interests come first.  And it's about time for someone to care more about us than about all the beneficiaries of IMF, the World Bank, WHO, UN (with all its agencies, funds, and sub-funds), NATO, and any other foreign support system that gets most of its financing from our personal pockets via career global manipulators in Washington, D.C.       

And let me tell you something about those possibly "worried" nations: Their governments may officially declare themselves US allies and they may act as friends of Hillary's, but people there hate Americans.  Let me repeat that: they hate us with passion.  Many writers, journalists, filmmakers, historians, social and political analysts, here and overseas, have touched on the issue of global anti-Americanism.  Most of them, including our own liberals, explain and justify even the most unfair hostility towards us by entire nations and groups.  A logical person should not even bother with all that emotional theoreticism.  All you need is to cross the border.  

Anyone who traveled abroad (even as close as Canada, let alone Europe and further) and actually interacted with random people - not polite business partners in their office environments or paid service providers on the beaten paths, but with people on the streets, in cafes, in bars - can tell you about their personal interface with unabashed anti-Americanism: the way people look at you, the things people mutter under their breath, small bits that slip out in conversations, and even open hostility.  Let alone the burning of an American flag I've witnessed on Trafalgar Square the last time I was going to the National Gallery in London.  The truth is, you don't even have to go outside of NYC: half of the taxi drivers here have BBC UK stations on.  Oh my God!  The shit that pours out of those radios!   

Why do they hate us, though?  A lot of official data sources (BBC LOVES those Americanophobia polls) concentrate on "US cultural influence," such as it is.  However, that would be the easiest thing to resolve, actually:  if you don't like American stuff, stop going to McDonald's and your movie theaters - if there is no demand, there will be no supply and no "influence".  But no, the fucking Russia with their 81% of anti-American sentiment (second largest in the world after Jordan) leaves and breathes American cinema and TV.  And China (71%), being the largest movie market in the world, is singlehandedly responsible for all the bombastic crap that comes out of Hollywood nowadays.  So, obviously, the supposed "influence" is not the reason for hatred.

What is, then?  Well, let's sing it together:  It's all about money!  The jealousy!  The primal coveting that the Judeo-Christian canons have been trying so hard to eradicate!  American wealth has always been a sore spot for our "friends" and enemies alike.  And I am not talking about super-rich either.  It's the small things: the fact that so many of us can afford more than our peers overseas; that at each level of income we have bigger houses, more technology, and more food; that many of us can travel to their countries, but they cannot afford to come here; that our gas and coffee is still cheaper; that our cereal boxes and cat-food cans are bigger; that we have dozens of ketchups and mustards in an average supermarket, etc., etc.  It's really primitive: "They've got more and we hate it!"        

Except that the reality is not some two-dimensional surface.  It is constructed on the principle of cause and effect.  There are fundamental reasons why we've got what we've got and they haven't.   And if I had to narrow it down to the most defining one, I'd say that it's all about the interpretation of Equality.  

In many countries our politicians call allies (and some even adore, e.g. Senator Sanders), Equality is misinterpreted as a socialistic notion of public uniformity, with everyone in the same lower middle-range of bare necessities, regardless of their personal merits - gifts, entrepreneurship, ambition, drive.  Whether you are a lousy or an extraordinary worker, your opportunities are "EQUAL," because you granted your government the responsibility for redistribution of wealth.  On the other hand, our Constitution treats Equality in terms of fairness.  It is defined as an opportunity to try your hardest and make the most of your own abilities.  And this difference makes their hatred of us unjustifiable.    

Yes, we keep losing a grip and sliding off our own foundation due to the government's meddling, overpopulation, pervasive nepotism, illegal immigration, useless liberal education, etc.  But the bedrock is there; the shreds of meritocracy can still be detected; and we can still do better than any of our foreign allies.  So, why would we care about them?  

Trump obviously doesn't, but Hillary, on the other hand, must care!  Why?  Yet again, money.  She needs them and she works hard to get them wherever she can.  Just in the past few months Clinton has held 13 foreign fundraisers, including in London, Durban (South Africa), Munich, and Mexico City.  Yes, the capital of Mexico, which illegally exports their devastated citizens through the US border.  Apparently, it is much cheaper for Mexico to pay off Democratic presidential candidates than to create jobs.  Hmm, that's a thought!  I wonder who we can bribe to get rid of hipsters?

But seriously, who do I trust more?  Someone who is 100% financially and ideologically independent and is hell-bent on making our country prosperous again?  Or someone on the take from pretty much everyone and with the greatest concern for her own political status?  For me the answer is obvious.  But then again, unlike most of Hillary's supporters, I'm not the kind of person who would base her political allegiance purely on gender either.  Yes, I'm all about "girl power," but I am not biased in any way!  It appears that Ms. Clinton and I have the same physical attributes in the same places.  But so what?  The body parts is not how I evaluate humans.  What's in her mind, in her heart, and in her soul is far more important to me, and it doesn't seem that we have too much in common in those departments.

Well, as long as we are on the topic of feminism, let me share the information that really rubs me the wrong way:  It is a matter of public record that Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted money from King of Saudi Arabia (at least $10 million); King of Morocco ($1 million), and King of Oman ($1 million).  How about these feminist countries where, at the very least, women must hide their hair under a scarf?  Do I need to remind my readers that it is illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia?  Are all those vagina sisters of Hillary okay with this?

Coincidentally, the other day one of my attorneys was trying to convince me that you cannot blame fundraisers for unscrupulously raising funds wherever they can.  Just because Hillary takes money from whoever, he said, it doesn't mean that she will reciprocate with any favors.  This lawyer, being a Philadelphia man himself, was using Bill Cosby's example to illustrate his argument.  Why should Temple University, for example, even consider returning the money donated to them by the legally entangled comedian?  The money was given in good faith and there are no strings attached, he asserted.

Except, there are strings.  Strings are always attached to money.  Obviously, my attorney friend is being very naive.  Let's follow his example.  If such situation arose, do you think for a second that Temple University would refuse to accept one of Cosby's kids or grandkids as their student, regardless of their GPA's and SAT scores? It is a well-known fact that parents' donations ($200,000 - $5,000,000) buy kids' ways into exclusive prep schools and Ivy League universities.  And if you think that a valuable donor cannot suggest a grant candidate to the Research Allocation Committee, you don't know how this world works.      

And that's educational institutions - that's all they can give in return for the money.  Imagine what can be requested from the President of the United States! And don't doubt it for a second: when the donors come knocking on the door, Hillary will have no choice but to open it.  Because if you refuse, there will be no more fundraising in the future - not for her, nor for anybody else.  These are not alms, these are advances on political favors with global impact.  That's how the system works.  And she is no Trump.  She is a part of the machine and she will not rise against it.  

But forget all that political bullshit!  This whole issue of Trump-worried allies is far more personal than Hillary's donations.  Let's look inside our wallets, at our bank accounts, retirement funds, our very own economic well being; and with that in mind, ask yourself, America, do you want to be on good terms with some broke-ass foreigners, or do you want to rattle everyone's cage by having once again more personal wealth than your counterparts anywhere in the world?