‘The Death of One Man is a Tragedy, the Death of Millions is a Statistic’ – Joseph Stalin

Jamal Khashoggi’s murder in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey this past October has caused a zealous chorus of international outrage amongst governments, businesses and concerned world citizens, alike. Yet more than a month on from his ‘disappearance’ one must wonder why everyone has been so upset, as Saudi Arabia’s brutal and medieval view on human rights generally elicits not so much as a peep from anybody aside from Amnesty International and other human rights groups. Indeed, one might even question the authenticity of the collective scorn, as it has not really amounted to any tangible punishment for the Kingdom. Saudi Arabia’s track record of bloody oppression and its endorsement of a form of Islam that many religious Muslims would define as ‘extreme’ is well documented. Despite this, the death of one journalist – who was one of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s (MbS) most fierce critics – has been the proverbial straw that has broken the camel’s back and has allowed the world to see this country for what it is: a brutal and bloody autocracy. As a result some of Saudi Arabia’s closest allies like the United States of America – have expressed the gravest concerns and have threatened economic sanctions. Wall Street, leading banks and major corporations –have echoed these sentiments. Others have gone a step farther and snubbed the previously considered ‘un-missable’ investment conference the Future Investment Initiative that took place in Riyadh at the end of October 2018.

When Khashoggi was first suspected of having been murdered (allegedly ordered by MbS) President Donald Trump said that if the Saudi authorities were found responsible, America’s response would be ‘severe’.  He suggested he might impose economic sanctions, but he did not go as far to say he would halt arms sales. Yet, despite his critics saying that this did not go far enough – not to mention Trump’s interim silence on the issue – it was clearly a change from the jovial and fraternizing figure he cut in Saudi Arabia during the first official state visit to any foreign country in his presidency. Furthermore, mere talk of putting sanctions on Saudi Arabia – however abstract and unlikely – represented crossing a line that few in previous administrations would have ever considered. British Prime Minister Theresa May also took the unusual step to condemn the Kingdom over Khashoggi’s murder and added that the Saudi account that rogue operatives killed him was not credible. As a result, the United Kingdom’s government ordered that any British visas belonging to the murder suspects be immediately revoked. France, Germany and the Netherlands have also joined in by suspending political visits to Saudi Arabia until there are ‘clarifications’. Yet, like Trump, no one has seriously considered ceasing or suspending arms sales to the Kingdom.

Wall Street and the international business community were served an opportunity to express their disapproval on a silver plate, as Khashoggi’s murder happened just before the much anticipated Future Investment Initiative, or ‘Davos in the Desert’. As a result, a number of business and banking A-listers who were scheduled to attend MbS’s signature investment conference pulled out at the last moment. Among those who did not attend were Jamie Dimon, Chief Executive of JPMorgan Chase, Stephen Schwarzman, Chief Executive of Blackstone, Larry Fink, Chairman and Chief Executive of BlackRock, Dara Khosrowshahi, Chief Executive of Uber, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Chief Executive of EL Rothschild and Bill Ford, Chairman at Ford, amongst others. United States Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and International Monetary Fund Managing Director and Chairwoman Christine la Garde were also among the notable absentees, along with expected media partners the Financial Times, Bloomberg and The New York Times. Despite the Future Investment Initiative having been declared a success, the combination of such heavyweights pulling out of the event and the wide-ranging negative publicity about Saudi Arabia during the conference combined to strip off some of its gloss.

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Wall Street and the international business community were served an opportunity to express their disapproval to Saudi Arabia on a silver plate, as Khashoggi’s murder happened just before the much anticipated ‘‘Davos in the Desert’.

It is absolutely clear that the initial response by governments and businesses rattled Saudi Arabia. It widely believed that MbS’s reputation took a major hit, which could even deteriorate further if any evidence points to him ordering Khashoggi’s murder. Moreover, it is reported that there have been murmurs both inside and outside the Kingdom that have questioned MbS’s suitability to take over the crown from his father, King Salman. But perhaps the item that showed Saudi Arabia’s vulnerability most acutely is that King Salman re-emerged from the comfort of his retirement to help his favourite son manage Saudi Arabia out of this crisis. Yet, despite the real and palpable way in which this has affected and even damaged the Kingdom, beyond the initial outcry, governments and businesses have failed to follow up with anything meaningful or impactful.

One wonders about the incongruity of it all. The world was compelled to respond harshly to Saudi Arabia following to Khashoggi’s murder; but despite the collective condemnation it is unlikely that it will lead to any lasting deceleration of diplomatic or business relations with the Kingdom. And yet, if the final outcome was always going to be maintaining the status quo, albeit after a firm smack on Saudi Arabia’s wrist, why did the world choose to be stirred into action after the death of one journalist as opposed to resorting to it its typical inactivity and ‘looking the other way’? Indeed, Khashoggi’s murder managed to make an impact that Saudi Arabia’s history of bloody oppression, totalitarian rule and extremist Islam simply could not. Lest one forgets, Saudi Arabia frequently treats its citizens brutally and horrifically: due process and women’s rights are all but absent, the state endorses public beheadings, flogging and cross-amputation and political dissidents are imprisoned and often tortured. Moreover the Kingdom’s state-enforced denomination of Islam called Wahhabism, which many committed Muslims see as vile, is generally believed to have inspired Islamic terrorism and to have nurtured Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State into the malevolent organizations they are. Beyond overlooking these toxic attributes, the devastation caused by the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing of Yemen in the Yemeni Civil War has killed thousands of innocent civilians and millions are at risk of starving in what might become the worst famine the world has seen in a century. One hastens to add that this has been achieved through weapons purchased from the United States, Britain and other Western countries.

Desert, Saudi Arabia
The world was compelled to respond harshly to Saudi Arabia following to Khashoggi’s murder; but despite the collective condemnation it is unlikely that it will lead to any lasting deceleration of diplomatic or business relations with the Kingdom.

Has Khashoggi’s murder spurred the world to outrage because it rubs us in a different or worse way than normal bloodshed and oppression? Is it, perhaps, the case that he was ‘silenced’ on the basis that he was a journalist that had the audacity to criticize the ruling elite? Possibly, but it would seem that collectively our love of the freedom of the press is somewhat less ardent than what our superficial genuflections towards it might otherwise suggest. Are we compelled to turn a blind eye to what happens within Saudi Arabia but moved to react if and when it murders on another country’s soil? Quite possibly, as the world came to Britain’s side when Russia allegedly instigated the Novichok poisoning of the Skripal family in Salisbury, England. But perhaps the greatest clarity might be offered through the words of one of the world’s most significant standard-bearers of state-managed mass murder, Joseph Stalin: The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic. Simply put, it is easy to ignore the plight of faceless persons whose tragedy and devastation is only given form through a sterile number, indeed, even if this number pushes into the thousands or, indeed, the millions. But it is nearly impossible for Western countries and its businesses and citizens not to be moved – or at least feel the need to feign having been moved – when a person wearing a kind, smiling face whose only sin is using his pen to stand up to and shed light on injustice is brutally extinguished.

Yet, despite the initial uproar of indignation, even Khashoggi’s murder has failed to move governments and businesses to set Saudi Arabia adrift from the international community. Politics and money have won the day. Aside from Saudi Arabia’s natural resources from which both governments and businesses greatly benefit, the Kingdom presents tremendous potential for new ways to earn billions through new initiatives including the ambitious Vision 2030 that will attempt to modernize Saudi Arabia and open it up to Western tourism. Politically speaking, Saudi Arabia is also the country through which the West is able to maintain its own sphere of influence and counter the perceived threat of Iran and its allies, something that will not be given up easily or capriciously. But, unless one were to argue that the response to Khashoggi’s killing was just for show, one wonders if it was ultimately an unequivocal notice to Saudi Arabia and its de facto King that these kind of headline grabbing shenanigans are simply bad for business and that any more infractions might well result in the West clandestinely locating and installing a new head of state who will work within, and for, the West’s political and business agenda.

Will Labour Save Theresa May’s Brexit Bacon?

Anyone who has ever seen Prime Minister (PM) Theresa May battle Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons would find it borderline impossible to imagine any kind meaningful political union between the two parties. Historically, the Tories (as Conservatives are known locally) and Labour vehemently disagree on practically everything in contemporary politics – from austerity, to corporate taxation, unions, education, and far more. And yet, as the PM nervously clings to her so-called Chequers deal – her vision for Britain’s future relationship with the European Union (EU) and the basis for her upcoming Brexit negotiations – an unholy alliance of desperation and convenience is brewing between the two parties.

Brexit Bacon
Will Labour Save Theresa May’s Brexit Bacon?

Key Brexit-supporting Tory Members of Parliament (MPs) are deeply dismayed by the Chequers deal, saying that it fails to deliver the ‘hard Brexit’ for which the people voted, and are therefore threatening to abandon their leader should it come to a vote in the House of Commons. On the other side Labour MPs have been ordered by their leader Corbyn to vote against Chequers on the basis that it fails to meet the six tests the left-leaning party have set to establish their definition of what a good Brexit deal would be. Were May’s Chequers deal to be voted down in the House of Commons, it would effectively end her time as PM and – as Corbyn hopes – will likely lead to another general election, which the Labour leader would hope to win. Given the vitriol between the two leading British political parties, one might take it as a given that Labour would only be delighted by the idea of a Tory PM battling desperately for her political life with enemies of all persuasions knocking on the gates of 10 Downing Street.

And yet, politics are not so simple these days, something that holds true for both the Tories and Labour. There are potentially over 30 Labour MPs who are strongly considering defying their leader and supporting the PM’s Chequers deal as they fear the economic consequences of a no-deal Brexit. Such is the depth of their concern that will consider betraying Corbyn even if it means inadvertently propping May up and keeping Labour out of power. On the other side, the most dogmatic Brexiteer Tory MPs – chief among whom Jacob Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson, David Davis and Steve Baker – along with another 30 or so of their parliamentary colleagues are poised to defy May and vote down Chequers, presumably to preserve their slim hopes of a pristine hard Brexit. Of course, they must be aware that failing to support May might come back to bite them, particularly if toppling her brings forth another general election that results in Labour, not them, in the Brexit negotiation driver’s seat, a scenario which some have suggested might see Brexit called off entirely. What we have in front of us is a near perfect syllogism by which both parties are putting their Brexit concerns and aspirations over traditional party politics and ambitions.

Brexit politics
The Conservative and Labour parties are putting their Brexit concerns and aspirations over traditional party politics and ambitions.

Despite Labour MPs overwhelmingly supporting Britain’s EU membership, there are seven in their ranks, with the notable inclusion of leader Corbyn, who can be classified as Euro-skeptics or even ‘card-carrying’ Brexiteers.  Yet, even beyond this minority group there are a wide range of Labour MPs who represent Brexit-heavy constituencies, which means that many will be forced to consider abandoning their own views to pander to their voters’. Beyond this awkward dilemma, for Labour MPs a May-brokered deal is vastly preferred to a no deal Brexit. As such they will face what one shadow minister referred to as a ‘crisis of conscience’: on one side the party leader telling MPs to vote ‘no’ to Chequers and help catapult Labour into government; on the other side the wishes of Brexit-voting constituents and the havoc a no-deal Brexit might wreak on Britain’s stuttering economy.

Labour MP Kevan Jones from North Durham is among the many in this predicament and he indicated that he would be open to supporting Chequers in Parliament. He said: ‘I would not support [a] no-deal [Brexit] because that would be disastrous both for my constituents and the country.’ Jones’ Labour colleague Lisa Nandy, MP, is also worried about how a no-deal Brexit might affect her Wigan constituency, and if what May brings to parliament is deemed good enough she will feel pressure to support it. Nandy said: ‘The public wants [Brexit] over, they are fed up with this and want it done so the government can get on with other difficult decisions. There is a push from the public to just sort this out.’ Another Labour colleague anonymously added that while it will not be easy for Labour MPs to defy Corbyn and back a Tory government – far from the neat and tidy solution that Labour would merely stroll into 10 Downing Street in another general election – there is a real threat that an ideological hard Brexiter like Rees-Mogg might be the next PM who will pursue either a hard Brexit or a no-deal Brexit. Therefore, even with the false choice of two unappealing alternatives; i.e. Chequers or a no deal Brexit, May’s vision for some Labour MPs might seem the more palatable.

Parliament will vote on Brexit
Theresa May’s Brexit vision will likely seem more palatable than a no-deal Brexit for Labour MPs on the fence.

Within May’s Conservative party it is clear that those who oppose Chequers will not budge and will vote it down in Parliament if given the opportunity. One might say that this is rank and brazen stupidity (if one were a Tory and/or Brexit voter) as surely a Chequers Brexit is better than risking an even softer Brexit or even no Brexit at all under a Labour government. And yet Rees-Mogg and his eurosceptic crew are prepared to risk this and topple May’s government if it is the only remote way to achieve their perfect hard Brexit.

With daggers pointed at May from all directions, will she accept re-enforcements from her sworn enemy? One would imagine that reaching across the aisle, as it were, would be among the bigger ‘no brainers’ in the PM’s career… That is, if she’s given the opportunity. Yes, despite the borderline impossible situation May is facing domestically, there is a tangible threat that she many never be able to give her Labour colleagues the chance to save her Brexit bacon. Upon hearing the details of Chequers EU leaders, chief among whom President of the European Council Donald Tusk, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, rejected it out of hand based on its solution for avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; i.e. what will be the only land border between the EU and UK. Chequers sets out a vision whereby the whole of the UK would remain in the EU custom union for a limited time while a reasonable trade solution is worked out. EU leaders have said such a concept is unacceptable, which means that as things currently stand, there is serious doubt as to whether the EU will even consider entertaining Chequers in its current form. If the EU rejects Chequers, it will never ever be put to a vote in the House of Commons, making May’s unlikely Labour allies irrelevant.

Theresa May's vision for Brexit
If Theresa May’s political shrewdness out-maneuvers her European counterparts and she brings a Chequers-inspired Brexit deal back to Parliament, will Labour’s support even be enough?

And yet, in the event that May’s political shrewdness out-maneuvers her European counterparts and she manages to bring a Chequers-inspired Brexit deal back to Parliament, will Labour’s support even be enough? Not only have there been estimates of up to 80 Tory MPs who view Chequers suspiciously, on a good day May’s government only has a majority – albeit a slim one – in the House of Commons only because she is propped up by the 10 Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MPs from Northern Ireland. Depending on the agreement May makes regarding the Irish border, the DUP’s support may be called into question. In a scenario in which she is coerced to accept a version of the EU’s solution for the Irish border – their so-called ‘backstop’ that would see Northern Ireland remain in the EU customs union and single market on a temporary basis while the rest of the UK existed on the outside – the DUP would withdraw its support from Chequers. In the words of Arlene Foster – leader of the DUP – her party’s only ‘red line’ is a situation in which Northern Ireland is treated differently in customs or constitutionally than the rest of the UK. She said: ‘We don’t know what will happen in five or 10 years’ time. We don’t want Northern Ireland going off in a different direction from the rest of the UK.’ To say that the PM is in a tight spot is an understatement, as it is clear a sleight of hand or some other magic trick will be necessary to resolve the conflicting needs of the EU and the DUP just to give willing Labour MPs a hope and a prayer at turning her Brexit vision into law.

Why is Brazil doing so well in the current geopolitical climate?

Since 1980, the Brazilian economy has consistently underperformed compared to other LatAm markets, but the end of July may be showing promise of returning to the glory days. With workers often striking and a questionably inefficient public sector – Brazil often struggles to keep afloat financially. It seems that 2018 has been the year of buoyancy for the brasileros. In the rubble of the current trade conflict – Brazil may re-establish itself as the captain of Latin American markets.

001

Since Trump declared a trade war with China, Brazil has found itself in a strong position. Seeking alternatives, the Chinese have begun trading with Brazil to fill the gap left by sanctioned American supplies, which have been taxed by up to 25%. Should they continue to build this trade relationship, Latin American emerging markets could profit significantly – with Brazil at the spearhead.

Brazilian stocks have been rallying as their domestic political environment improves and they take the mantle as a primary beneficiary for the U.S.A.’s trade war with China. The Bovespa Index has since jumped 12% during the past month while the iShares MSCI Brazil Index ETF has also risen by 12%.

As exportation makes up a mere 13% of the Brazilian GDP, they are relatively unaffected by external events. However, they still remain the largest exporter of food, soft commodities, and minerals – coincidentally, the same exports that China previously bought from America. These two aspects should be seen as the reason China would turn to Brazil – a somewhat stoic economy with expertise in exports that the Chinese have been deprived of. Because of this, should the Chinese decide to continue trading with Latin America, the Brazilian GDP will most likely prosper.

Peter Donisanu, an investment strategy analyst at Wells Fargo Institution, has claimed that there is an improvement in risk sentiment across emerging markets and Brazil is piggybacking off of that. He continues arguing that recent easing of trade tensions between the U.S. and some of its key partners has improved sentiments around emerging markets, and consequently, Brazil.

While there has been an improvement in risk sentiment, as Donisanu claims, LatAms sudden boost seems to be directly correlated to recent political events, and it would be a large coincidence to say otherwise. While Brazil most definitely is piggy backing off attitudes towards emerging markets, their disproportionate boom should be attributed to the Chinese interest – not a general interest.

Who Will Be Affected by China’s Trade War?

After sitting on the cusp of a financial war with China, the U.S.A. has finally unleashed their tariffs on Chinese goods after accusing them of stealing intellectual property in March. This back-and-forth disrepute of imposing tariffs on certain items will have a backlash on the citizens of both countries as China seek to reprimand the U.S. The Chinese have since stated has since stated that although they did not start this conflict, they will fight back.

asia-932068__340

Chinese technology is receiving a 25% tariff due to accusations by the Trump administration that the Chinese stole intellectual property which optimizes semi-conductor chips. These chips are found in most electronics, ranging from televisions, personal computers, iPhones, and cars. Unfortunately, it seems that the U.S. consumer will most likely be footing the bill as China’s production pricing will remain the same, but the cost to American citizens will increase by 25%, and the Chinese will not be covering these expenses.

China will not take a hit to its economy lightly and have already planned their retaliation by focusing their own tariffs on a wide variety of U.S. exports. This ranges from plastics, to nuclear reactors, to even dairy making equipment. China must be vigilant and handle these tariffs sensibly as Chinese brokerages are sitting on more than £240 billion of loans that grow riskier by the day as China’s equity market tumbles. Losses on the debt could wipe out 11pc of the industry’s net capital, the U.S. bank reported in July; and we suspect this is something U.S. Administration is aware of.

The reality could be more than fist wagging as this tariff war is the biggest economic attack in history. Although undoubtedly better than boots on the ground, this conflict still poses a threat to Americans and Chinese citizens. Firstly, American citizens have a lot to lose beginning with the aforementioned 25% tax they are going to need to pay on certain goods. Further issues include a shrinking market from Chinese buyers, and even rotting livestock due to smaller demand which will heavily affect farmers in the red Mid-West as they lose access to China’s market and are left with excess goods.

It seems likely that the war will not take place in the open, and the real battle will be “on the flanks in the form of unnecessary inspections, product quarantines, and heightened regulatory scrutiny” says James Zimmerman, a partner in the Beijing Office of International Law.

But in reality, this war affects everyone across the globe. With reduced access to the U.S. market, China’s growth may come to a halt which would have a knock-on effect to all world economies. Increased caution and confidence for business will cause uncertainty within China’s market and puts expansion plans on ice. With the two biggest economies grinding themselves against each other, could there be space for a third party to intervene?

Italy’s Harlequin Performance

The laughable situation in Italy in which the traditional political parties struggle for majority votes at the behest of the populist movement “5 Star” (MS5) is somewhat remnant of the Renaissance theatre style commedia dell’arte. MS5, the ambiguous and enigmatic harlequin-esque populist movement, has danced its way into mainstream politics taking a large slice of votes from the Right-Wing parties, who are now screaming “encore” as they attempt to scramble enough power to encourage a second election. But why have these events had a tumultuous effect on the rest of the world?

carnival-275517__340

The political drama began when the MS5 seized power through their refusal to bow down to political elites. This is not the typical Left vs. Right epidemic we see in most Western countries, but more of a working class vs. elite struggle like the Catalonians against Franco or British Labour reforms in the 60s. At this stage, MS5’s aim seems drastic – this is not just about a reform, this is about a revolution with a focus on domestic empowerment, immigration issues and the European Union alongside a strong hatred of the mafia. But nothing is set in stone, and due to this, Italy are currently proving real tricksters to label which is a massive turn-off for international investors.

italy-1633682__340

Geo-political issues and rapid social change tend to not bolster share prices, and since the beginning of this new chapter, Italy’s stocks have gone on sale. Rocky prices like we have seen it Italy do however tend to draw in the braver investors who hedge their bets on the dangerous side. Unfortunately, the sale prices don’t match the level of volatility in political stability, and therefore don’t seem to be a great bargain. This of course puts off even the high-risk investors. JP Morgan strategist Mislav Matejka noted recently that there is a poor risk-reward going forward giving the strong run and the political overhang.” It seems that nearby German equities have been the preferred route for most investors after taking profits on Italian stocks.

This mass sell-off of Italian stocks was originally triggered by fears of a second election and investors fear of Italy ditching the Euro, which currently seems highly likely. Investors have decided to keep their money in their pockets for now until the situation cools down with SocGen trio warning that buying could remain weak for several months.

Italy’s performance hasn’t just affected Europe, it managed to dance its way across to the Atlantic and cause the Dow Jones Industrial Average to drop 391 points. Although the Dow Jones made a huge recovery, making back most of the May dip, it is still undeniable that Italy’s Euroscepticism and quick social change managed to scare even the Americans.

No one can predict the ending of this drama, and although for now it seems that Italy have put forward a government, we don’t know if we are at the beginning or end of this unbridled saga which will likely continue to tighten the strings on investors’ wallets.

 

Just What Is Happening with Brexit?

Since the Brexit vote of 2016, British politics has been tumultuous with inter- and intraparty disagreements causing investors to treat FTSE and UK market investments as high-risk. So far, the most damaging aspect of Brexit seems to be uncertainty. Beyond the ramifications of leaving the EU, analysts are struggling to predict what a post-Brexit Britain will be like. It is difficult to predict how red tape around the Customs Union, which greatly benefits the British economy, will affect British trade, market capitalisation, and deciphering whether the market is undervalued or not.

The constant battles and disputes surrounding the legitimacy of Brexit and how Britain should go about it are frequently voiced in the House of Commons, appropriately reflecting the nations division over Brexit. Despite disunion being apparent between the two main British parties, Conservatives pushing for Brexit and Labour for a second referendum, there is a glaring divide notable within the Labour party – the left-wing alternative in the British parliamentary system.

Although individual Members of the Labour Shadow Government Parliament are for the most part Remainers, the party is a life-long Eurosceptic which is an obvious conflict of interest. Voters are very aware of this, and it is making Labour’s position on Brexit unappealing and creates more confusion among the electorate. Ex-British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair has come out of the woodwork and criticised the current shadow government leader Jeremy Corbyn’s policies as being “the worst of both worlds”.

Following from this glaring division, an unforeseen issue has arisen in Ireland as talks of a hard border are discussed. Northern Ireland will follow Britain out of the EU, but Ireland will not. This issue was made more prominent when Theresa May stated recently that Britain is leaving the EU and will not softly exit the customs union.

This debate could reopen a healing wound with Northern Ireland by raising the issues of borders between the Ireland and Northern Ireland causing more political instability. Four political parties have backed Northern Ireland staying in the single market – stating that there should be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland – and Ireland and the rest of the UK. This is also being supported by the DUP who propped Theresa May into power during the last election.

These political conditions reflect peoples’ uncertainty as to what will happen. Since the referendum, there have been market crashes, volatility, and stagnation in house prices all related to the vote.

Theresa May has opened the Conservative sails to the wind with her firm Leave stance when addressing the EU last week, stating that Britain will not be “climbing down” and will leave the Customs Union. Hopefully, Britain will decide soon how it will tackle leaving the EU so that it can begin reshaping itself according as currently no one seems to know what is going on, making it tricky for investors to trust British markets.

Oil Prices – Who Wins and Who Loses?

Due to Trump’s recently announced Iran trade sanctions and OPEC led geopolitical shifts, oil prices have soared to a three and a half year high since March 2018. Saudi Arabia are set to benefit greatly from this if they look to use the opportunity to diversify their economy, but consumers will be left footing the bill all around the world as companies pass on their new oil expenses.

Donald Trump is reinstating sanctions on Iran, one of the world’s major oil suppliers, claiming the deal was a “horrible agreement” and “an embarrassment” during his speech on Tuesday, May 8th. In restricting trade with Iran, he inadvertently increases the price of oil by reducing supply to the market. This has happened at a point in which crude oil prices were already estimated to breach the $80 mark due to other geopolitical factors.

Aside from Trump’s involvement, OPEC has rallied its efforts to reduce exports, curtailing the quantity supply to the demand, therefore erasing a global surplus. Consequentially, we could soon see a global shortage of crude oils – theoretically increasing the value of crude oil for years to come. Other factors include a 0.6 million barrel per day reduction in supply from Venezuela due to domestic issues, aging wells naturally depleting all over the world, and exhausted supplies from China and Angola.

Saudi Arabia, who can use the money from oil to diversify its economy from this single commodity propping up its market, are set to benefit from this opportunity greatly. These circumstances fuel its long-term “2030 vision” which seeks to lessen domestic reliance on oil. Unsurprisingly, this OPEC member has led the way in curbing supplies by 0.7 million barrels a day since 2016.

saudi-2224135_1280

Although OPEC countries will thrive in this economy, airlines may experience some turbulence as they pass on surmounting costs to the consumer. They will inevitably have to dump the pain of expensive fuel unevenly to jetsetters meaning flights prices might increase above inflation. Airline analyst Savanthi Syth claims this will mainly affect leisure travel lines – whose consumers are highly price sensitive – and are more loyal to price than to brand. This is opposed to business travel airlines, who will not suffer much grief in passing the costs along.

Despite this, budget airlines could use these incidents to push their brand as being the cheapest – taking a short term hit to profit and hoping for long term loyalty after the oil hype dies down – if it ever does.

 

Is It Finally Euro-Russian Economic Armageddon?

Russia’s economy is heavily reliant on the European Union (EU). Over the last six years, we have seen a decline in trade relationships between the neighbours with EU investment falling by heights of as much as 44pc in 2014. Could the recent alleged Russian chemical attack in Salisbury, Britain hammer the final nail in to the coffin of an already dying economic relationship?

The EU/Russia trade relationship is based on the price of oil. Here’s why: The EU market’s relationship with Russia is dependent on the growth of the Russian economy, but this growth is intrinsically linked to oil prices. If this commodity does badly, then Russia does badly. Since 2011, and most significantly 2012-2016, the price of oil began to a steady decline – which is correlated to the weakened financial partnership between the EU and Russia. This was seen most notably at the end of 2015, when hydrocarbon exports were down 42pc from 2012. This subsequently leaves Russia in a weakened financial position – they could not burden further blows and remain buoyant in their current economic situation.

eu

But the Salisbury attack could be the last straw. Western states have already begun an exodus of Russian politicians from their embassies which worsens Russia’s geo-political influence worldwide.  So far, this has had no impact on the EU/Russia trade deal. Yet, if these sanctions begin to affect trade relations, Russia’s economy could find itself on life support as it stumbles toward a nadir. Its economy is already being pressurised by the decline in oil price, and a dwindling relationship with the EU – trade sanctions would leave the Russian economy in a hopeless situation, seeking alternative solutions.

It seems Russia is  aware of this and have begun reaching out to alternative markets to keep their economy afloat. In difficult circumstances Russia has reached out to Turkey, a nation who has been trying to gain access to the EU for years but has been rejected for a myriad of reasons – most notably their poor human rights record. Earlier this month, Putin joined President Erdogan at a ceremony for a Russian made Nuclear Power Plant. This isn’t the first sign of a romance brewing between the two nation states. Over Christmas they finalized an agreement that Turkey would purchase their S-400 Missile Defence System. Aside from this, they are building the Turkstream pipeline to transfer Russian gas to Turkey. Will Russia need the EU if relationships blossom with alternative markets? They have reached out to Turkey, but could this become a patterned behaviour?

DISCLAIMER: This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities. Past investment performance may not be indicative of future investment performance. 

Financial Ramifications of the UK Response to Russia’s Chemical Attack

From the outside, the purported Russian chemical attack in Salisbury, England is reminiscent of your favourite spy novel – one by John Le Carré, perhaps. The story might go a bit like this: a former Russian intelligence officer living in exile, enjoying lunch with his daughter at a popular local Italian restaurant, only to be found left for dead on a nearby park bench alongside a range of questions like How? Why? And Who? Unfortunately, this compelling drama isn’t a novel but real life, and as British-Russian relations tumble to a post-Cold War low as a result, how will this ordeal impact these two great nations’ economies?

By of the end of March 2018, over 200 diplomats have already been expelled from over 20 countries in Europe, Australasia, and North America in solidarity with the UK against Russia’s alleged aggression. NATO has further removed 7 diplomats from their alliance.  Since the attack, Russia has haemorrhaged political influence as countries turn their back on them to condemn their aggressive behaviour. The question on everyone’s mind is, could this soon escalate and become a financial Cold War?

The London property market and UK banks have long been known to shelter the money of Russian oligarchs. British Prime Minister Theresa May and her government are in the process of deciding whether they should clamp down on these assets and impose a ban on the City of London from helping Russia sell its sovereign debt, a process which props up their economy. It would certainly send a strong message to Moscow that Britain is still a strong international actor – even during the instability she faces during Brexit negotiations.

elegant-1498631_1920

Were the British Prime Minister to take this drastic action it is reasonable to expect that Vladimir Putin’s Russia would respond in equally robust terms. In our hyper-globalized world, it should come as no surprise that Russia has influence over socio-political conditions in Britain. The UK’s National Grid has been using Russian natural gas reserves to help keep up with demand for years; in 2015 nearly 10% of the UK’s consumption came from Russia. Although the winter is nearly over, and natural resources may not be important during the summer months, winter always returns, and there is the risk that next year Britain may struggle turning on the central heating.

radiator-250558_1920

The question remains: are economic sanctions and restrictions worth bearing the socio-political ramifications of a stand-off? That remains to be decided. For now, the world waits to see both May and Putin’s next moves.

DISCLAIMER: This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities. Past investment performance may not be indicative of future investment performance. 

 

What South Korea Learnt from Sochi’s Winter Games

Hosting the Olympic Games brings with it a recipe for prosperity – and opportunities for disaster.   past, trends have dictated that countries overspend and rarely see returns in the long term. South Korea has decided to take an innovative approach. They cut heavily on spending and infrastructure that usually lies derelict for years after the Games. Maybe they learnt something from recent events in Russia?

 

sochi-266806__340

 

The Sochi Olympic Games in 2014 cost Russia a staggering $51bn. During the run-up to the Games, it was made clear that Sochi was to be the most extravagant Olympics ever. The 40’000-mile torch run from Kaliningrad to Chukotka which passed through all 83 regions of the country set the tone for a month of excessive and unnecessary folly. $30bn of the money went into embezzlements to Putin’s close associates while the rest was pumped into ensuring that Russia was portrayed affluently on the world stage. The absence of fair competition in building, strict censorship and clan politics led to sharp increases in prices and low quality of work. Only weeks after the event, Sochi began to fall apart with deserted buildings, empty streets and inhabited almost exclusively by stray dogs. Russia’s taxpayers are footing the bill and seeing very little return.

 

South Korea has learnt from these mistakes. Pyeongchang cut costs by saying no to unnecessary infrastructure and have to build low-cost temporary stadiums in lieu of behemoths that would later sit unused and decay. The stadium cost just over $109m and is set to be used 4 times before demolition. Currently, their frugality is bringing Pyeongchang bad press as blankets were handed out during the opening ceremony as opposed to intense heating. However, this decision is symbolic of their plan to cut costs. Although (like all Olympic Games) South Korea will break their budget of $12.9bn it is still a fraction of what was spent in Russia.

 

sculpture-3167712__340

 

DISCLAIMER: This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities. Past investment performance may not be indicative of future investment performance.