Ditch the Playbook, Just Follow Buffett and Trump: Taking Stock
By Brad Olesen
August 31, 2018, 9:32 PM GMT+10
Whatever your game plan was to close out what became one of the busiest Augusts in recent memory was likely rendered moot late Thursday on a Bloomberg report that Trump is seeking to move ahead on tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports, subject to a public comment period that concludes Sept. 6. What was already a middling day hovering around the unchanged mark became markedly worse for the S&P 500, as this round of tariffs would be the largest thus far in the trade saga. Materials and the trade-sensitive industrial names like Caterpillar and Kansas City Southern were among stocks hit on the news, as money shifted to more defensive sectors like utilities and staples, with tobacco and food retailer sub-sectors the best performers on the day.
Worldwide markets are in the red early Friday as commerce and trade fears reemerge (Trump also threatened to pull out of the WTO), despite China PMI figures that were better than expected. S&P futures appear to be holding up rather well, poised to open below its newfound “support” at 2,900. Equity indexes have been resilient in the face of Trump shocks before, and today looks no different (on pace to post a weekly gain).
But What Happened Before the Bombshell?
It’s tempting to allow the Oval Office news to wipe away all of yesterday’s action, which featured Warren Buffett again singing the praises of equity markets. His commentary spurred a round of buying, especially in Apple (which also announced its next presumed iPhone unveiling for Sept. 12) as he admitted to buying more shares. This was timely as by the end of the day, the top four names pushing against losses in the S&P were, you guessed it, FAANG names (AAPL, AMZN, FB, NFLX). Rounding out the top five was Micron, mentioned in this column Thursday (its suppliers LRCX and AMAT were also higher, as the S5SEEQ index was among the top performing subsectors in an otherwise down-ish day).
AMZN and FB are now marginally lower in the pre-market (GOOGL ever so slightly post-market) after Trump singled the three out as a possible “antitrust situation.” China Internet names too (HUYA, BABA, IQ), are also down pre-market, likely on renewed tensions. Other parts of the interview touched on Trump’s rejection of the EU tariff offer on autos, leading all members of the EURO STOXX Automobiles & Parts index into the red. Watch U.S. names GM, F, GT and CTB for volatility.
There was also a bit of merger mania Thursday ahead of the long weekend in the U.S. (CPB asset sale plans, REXX, REIS/MCO, PARR, KTWO/SYK), which continued into this morning with Coca-Cola’s expansion into the coffee market in a $5.1 billion deal to buy U.K. coffee shop Costa from Whitbread Plc (watch KDP, DNKN, QSR, KKD, SBUX).
M&A led most of the names in the green, while discounters and dollar stores suffered (mainly DLTR). Closeout retailer Big Lots hit the tape with their earnings and early indications are for shares to open down 11 percent given a weaker-than-expected forecast.
And Wasn’t Today Supposed to Be NAFTA Day?
Friday was supposed to be about welcoming a deal from U.S. and Canadian officials on NAFTA, validating strength in equity indices earlier in the week while assisting the “melt-up.”
We were also supposed to be wary of contagion from emerging markets. The Turkish lira had resumed its downward move after a brief respite, giving up 11 percent of its value over the past four days (keep the ETF TUR in mind), while Argentina’s peso lost a third of its value in the two days since the government requested the IMF speed disbursements from a credit line (ETF ARGT had its worst day on Thursday in three years, and counts cult-ish name MercadoLibre as a top holding at 31 percent). This appears to be spreading with weakness in the Indonesian rupiah (weakest in 20 years) and the Indian rupee early (touched record lows).
We also wanted to take solace in knowing athleisure is alive and well, with Lululemon stock up 11 percent pre-market market with results. The COO said the demand in recent quarters was not slowing down. In a similar apparel vein we were to be curious if Abercrombie could recover from its worst day in more than a year after sales missed expectations.
And surely, cannabis was to be a topic of conversation as the news bombs keep driving this segment. Trump met his match with Citron Research’s Andrew Left, who waded into Cronos (previously unscathed from Wednesday’s report that the Administration was waging a "secret war" on marijuana), by cautioning on its valuation and placing a price target 70 percent below where it had then traded. Cronos extended its losses in the post-market after closing down 28 percent. It remains up 58 percent on the month despite the move. Fellow cannabis names TLRY, CGC fell in sympathy. Citron’s prior cannabis target, CV Sciences, staged a 27 percent recovery Thursday after it attempted to refute short seller allegations (and Citron claimed to have covered its short a day earlier).
Cloud software developer and new IPO Zuora is also due for an interesting day. Its lockup expiry today coincides with its second earnings report, which disappointed investors post market (-12 percent), as 3Q loss views came in worse than expected. This follows its last earnings report where it spiked 19 percent. In other earnings, American Outdoor Brands (formerly Smith and Wesson) spiked 29 percent post-market after its better than expected results -- now poised to erase much of its underperforming year (down 24 percent YTD).
On Tap for Next Week
A re-categorization of investor favorites will unfold with the heralded (?) creation of the Communication Services sector, which will include FAANG components FB, GOOGL and NFLX that were lumped into the Info Tech segment previously. These mega caps will now be part of a larger space that is comprised of other telecoms and media names and amount to ~10 percent of the S&P 500, according to Goldman Sachs.
Conference season is upon us. B Riley FBR Healthcare conference kicks off Tuesday in this abreviated holiday week, and the energy sector will be focus as the Barclays Energy Power conference gets underway Wednesday with crude up 16% year to date. Barclays is also running a Consumer Staples conference where we can hear from CAG, TUP, among others. Buckingham has its banking, cards and payments conference (any crypto commentary?). Citi is featuring Biotechs and Technology in conferences this week (two of some of the best performing sectors on the year).
Earnings is light, with earnings from Broadcom, furniture retailer RH, Gamestop and some tech names WDAY, PANW, MRVL and the deal-exposed Dell Technologies. Economic data will feature some key catalysts including monthly auto sales on Tuesday, ADP Employment data on Thursday (a day later than normal due to the Holiday week), and the much awaited Nonfarm Payrolls data Friday.
Notes From the Sell Side
Electronic Arts is getting a slight defense from one its largest bulls. Wedbush (has EA on its Best Ideas list) saw the surprise decision to delay its Battlefield V release date as the right decision in efforts to add extra polish to the game. Analyst Michael Pachter lowers units ests. for FY19, but keeps FY20 estimates for revenue and PT at $158 (implies 36% upside after Thursday’s near 10% downdraft).
Nutanix is getting multiple defenses after shares fell 6% post market. RBC’s Matthew Hedberg is a buyer on the weakness as the results were "strong". He sees the push towards a software-only model as a key highlight with high FCF margins. Piper’s Andrew J. Nowinski reiterates his overweight rating. Nowinski sees the cloud platform and storage provider’s new term-based subscription offering as outweighing the higher operating expense guidance.
Friday, August 31, 2018
Trump poised to cut all US funding for key UN Palestinian refugee programme - Guardian
Trump poised to cut all US funding for key UN Palestinian refugee programme
US administration to withdraw from services affecting 5 million people, reports say
Peter Beaumont and Oliver Holmes in Jerusalem
Fri 31 Aug 2018
Puplis gather in front of a school run by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza City.
Puplis gather in front of a school run by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza City. Photograph: Mahmud Hams/AFP/Getty Images
The Trump administration is planning to cut all remaining US funding for the main UN programme for Palestinian refugees, with potentially devastating impacts, and is lobbying other countries to follow suit.
The move, reported in several US media outlets, has been anticipated both by senior officials at the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other Washington insiders, who told the Guardian the defunding could be announced as early as next week.
Speculation about the future of US funding for the agency, which provides services to more than five million Palestinians in the occupied territories as well as Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, comes as European and Arab countries pledged to protect the agency and Germany promised a significant increase in financial backing.
The Guardian view on Trump’s Palestinian policy: setting fire to the ground
Read more
The threat emerged days after the US announced it was withdrawing $200mfrom its main development agency, USAid, for programmes based largely in Gaza where they help tens of thousands of people.
According to a report in the Washington Post, the Trump administration will use the announcement of its cessation of UNRWA funding to push for a huge reduction in the number of Palestinians officially registered as refugees.
US president Donald Trump. Photograph: Brian Cahn/Zuma Wire/Rex/Shutterstock
The reported aim was to reduce those designated as refugees from five million to around 500,000, representing only those who were physically displaced from their homes when the agency was created seven decades ago, thus excluding millions of their descendants.
The US has long been the largest individual donor to UNRWA, pledging about one third of the agency’s $1.1bn annual budget, but earlier this year the administration cut a scheduled UNRWA payment of $130m to $65m, saying the agency needed to make unspecified reforms and calling on the Palestinians to renew peace talks.
The move has been widely interpreted in both Israel and Palestine as a blunt move by the US to unilaterally sweep aside one of the main sticking points in peace negotiations – the right of return of Palestinians.
Asked on Tuesday if the US should “get the right of return off the table”, the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said she thought it should.
“I do agree with that … I absolutely think we have to look at right of return.”
Yaakov Amidror, a retired major general and former national security adviser to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said closing UNRWA “in the long run, no question, is the right move to do”.
“Reduction in funds is one way to shut up and close UNRWA. How do you do it? By saying, ‘UNRWA, you don’t exist any more, with all due respect.’”
The German foreign minister, Heiko Maas, said: “The loss of this organisation could unleash an uncontrollable chain reaction.”
Berlin has pledged to significantly increase its funding to the agency.
Trump’s cut to funding for Palestinian refugees could lead to disaster
Mick Dumper
Read more
The issue of Palestinian refugees, and whether those abroad would be allowed to return to a future Palestinian state or be compensated, is one of the three key issues at the heart of the Middle East peace process, along with the status of Jerusalem and the borders of that state.
Trump has already unilaterally intervened on the Jerusalem issue in Israel’s favour by recognising it as the Israeli capital.
UNRWA was founded in 1949 after the first Arab-Israel war and the exodus of around 700,000 refugees who fled or were driven out of Israel on its founding as a state. Netanyahu has said UNRWA should be abolished and its responsibilities taken over by the main UN refugee agency, UNHCR.
There had been speculation for some time that the Trump administration had been moving in this direction, amid unconfirmed claims that senior officials had suggested to at least one host country that UNRWA funding for Palestinian refugees there could be replaced by bilateral US funding.
Trump cuts jeopardise lives of millions of Palestinian refugees, UN warns
Read more
Critics have suggested US threats to cut aid to persuade Palestinians to accept a peace plan is a crude form of leverage. Aaron David Miller, tje head of the Middle East programme at the Wilson centre thinktank and a former Middle East adviser to several US secretaries of state, told the Guardian he believed such an approach was in line with a “transactional” foreign policy embraced by Trump.
“This is part of a broader issue with a president who sees every alliance as a transaction. We have seen it with the Europeans with Nato and we have seen it with Syria as well. This is clearly a political campaign to pressure [the Palestinians] as well as to save money, and it’s a deadly combination.”
Miller, like many in the foreign policy establishment, argues that there will never be a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue that satisfies Palestinians, but said UNRWA “serves a need” acknowledged by many Israeli officials even as they have campaigned against it.
US administration to withdraw from services affecting 5 million people, reports say
Peter Beaumont and Oliver Holmes in Jerusalem
Fri 31 Aug 2018
Puplis gather in front of a school run by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza City.
Puplis gather in front of a school run by the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza City. Photograph: Mahmud Hams/AFP/Getty Images
The Trump administration is planning to cut all remaining US funding for the main UN programme for Palestinian refugees, with potentially devastating impacts, and is lobbying other countries to follow suit.
The move, reported in several US media outlets, has been anticipated both by senior officials at the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other Washington insiders, who told the Guardian the defunding could be announced as early as next week.
Speculation about the future of US funding for the agency, which provides services to more than five million Palestinians in the occupied territories as well as Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, comes as European and Arab countries pledged to protect the agency and Germany promised a significant increase in financial backing.
The Guardian view on Trump’s Palestinian policy: setting fire to the ground
Read more
The threat emerged days after the US announced it was withdrawing $200mfrom its main development agency, USAid, for programmes based largely in Gaza where they help tens of thousands of people.
According to a report in the Washington Post, the Trump administration will use the announcement of its cessation of UNRWA funding to push for a huge reduction in the number of Palestinians officially registered as refugees.
US president Donald Trump. Photograph: Brian Cahn/Zuma Wire/Rex/Shutterstock
The reported aim was to reduce those designated as refugees from five million to around 500,000, representing only those who were physically displaced from their homes when the agency was created seven decades ago, thus excluding millions of their descendants.
The US has long been the largest individual donor to UNRWA, pledging about one third of the agency’s $1.1bn annual budget, but earlier this year the administration cut a scheduled UNRWA payment of $130m to $65m, saying the agency needed to make unspecified reforms and calling on the Palestinians to renew peace talks.
The move has been widely interpreted in both Israel and Palestine as a blunt move by the US to unilaterally sweep aside one of the main sticking points in peace negotiations – the right of return of Palestinians.
Asked on Tuesday if the US should “get the right of return off the table”, the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, said she thought it should.
“I do agree with that … I absolutely think we have to look at right of return.”
Yaakov Amidror, a retired major general and former national security adviser to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said closing UNRWA “in the long run, no question, is the right move to do”.
“Reduction in funds is one way to shut up and close UNRWA. How do you do it? By saying, ‘UNRWA, you don’t exist any more, with all due respect.’”
The German foreign minister, Heiko Maas, said: “The loss of this organisation could unleash an uncontrollable chain reaction.”
Berlin has pledged to significantly increase its funding to the agency.
Trump’s cut to funding for Palestinian refugees could lead to disaster
Mick Dumper
Read more
The issue of Palestinian refugees, and whether those abroad would be allowed to return to a future Palestinian state or be compensated, is one of the three key issues at the heart of the Middle East peace process, along with the status of Jerusalem and the borders of that state.
Trump has already unilaterally intervened on the Jerusalem issue in Israel’s favour by recognising it as the Israeli capital.
UNRWA was founded in 1949 after the first Arab-Israel war and the exodus of around 700,000 refugees who fled or were driven out of Israel on its founding as a state. Netanyahu has said UNRWA should be abolished and its responsibilities taken over by the main UN refugee agency, UNHCR.
There had been speculation for some time that the Trump administration had been moving in this direction, amid unconfirmed claims that senior officials had suggested to at least one host country that UNRWA funding for Palestinian refugees there could be replaced by bilateral US funding.
Trump cuts jeopardise lives of millions of Palestinian refugees, UN warns
Read more
Critics have suggested US threats to cut aid to persuade Palestinians to accept a peace plan is a crude form of leverage. Aaron David Miller, tje head of the Middle East programme at the Wilson centre thinktank and a former Middle East adviser to several US secretaries of state, told the Guardian he believed such an approach was in line with a “transactional” foreign policy embraced by Trump.
“This is part of a broader issue with a president who sees every alliance as a transaction. We have seen it with the Europeans with Nato and we have seen it with Syria as well. This is clearly a political campaign to pressure [the Palestinians] as well as to save money, and it’s a deadly combination.”
Miller, like many in the foreign policy establishment, argues that there will never be a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue that satisfies Palestinians, but said UNRWA “serves a need” acknowledged by many Israeli officials even as they have campaigned against it.
Movie madness: Why Chinese cinemas are empty but full - BBC News
Movie madness: Why Chinese cinemas are empty but full
By Stephen McDonell
BBC News, Beijing
31 August 2018
Chinese movie theatres may appear to be sold out online, but in reality could be completely empty
For a country which will soon assume the mantle of the world's largest cinema audience, China comes out with a surprising number of big budget B-grade flops.
Some blame this on censorship, others on a lack of creativity but there are also those who see a more sinister force at work, which has nothing to do with film-making.
It also has nothing to do with selling tickets: at least not real ones.
Some investors are apparently financially backing movies with the sole goal of boosting their stock price that can shift on the perception of a movie's performance, irrespective of its true popularity.
Chinese film critic and industry observer Raymond Zhou has been digging into the darker side of film financing in his country.
"When you have a hit film, your stock price will go up several times in terms of market valuation compared with the grosses from the box office so some 'financial genius', came up with this idea: Why don't I have fake box office numbers so that I can make much more money from the stock market?" he said.
Box office manipulation is a growing problem in China, says one film critic
I asked if it could really be true that producers were seeking to make money in ways that had nothing to do with putting bums on seats in theatres; nothing to do with making beautiful films?
China's most expensive film bombs on debut
China puts limit on film stars' pay
"The natural way is to make a good movie and then your stock price will go up right?" he responded.
"But some people have reversed this equation. They have seen the rise of the stock price as the ultimate goal and have just used the making of the movie as an excuse."
Phantom tickets
So what is actually happening?
According to Chinese government investigators, certain production and investment companies have developed ways of faking box office results.
Then, if these publicly available figures appear to show that a film is doing well, people will buy shares in the companies which paid for the movie.
So a film might be on in the cinema and one of the companies which paid for it might buy out entire late night screenings. These will register as full houses when they are, in reality, entirely empty theatres.
The movie challenging China's cinematic gay taboo
Chinese animation blocked in France
Regulators have been catching onto this so producers have allegedly started just buying all the bad seats across many hours of screenings.
Yet the authorities have now worked out that if a showing is somewhat empty in the middle and for some reason all the seats around the walls have been purchased something must be amiss.
You might wonder, if box office manipulation has been a broad problem within the Chinese film industry, if it's still worthwhile financially.
How many hundreds of thousands of seats would a company need to buy to boost the figures enough to make a difference to its own stock price?
Well what if the cinema chain is also an investor? It can just sell itself the phantom tickets for free.
Asura (L) was China's most expensive film, and one of its biggest flops
Cinema journalist John Papish is an expert in the Chinese box office and says considerable conflicts of interests in this country would be illegal in, say, the United States.
"An owner of an exhibitor can also distribute their own movies and use their cinemas as a launching pad," he said.
"They can manipulate the number of screenings in their own cinemas. Often times the third party ticketing apps also have their hands in the promotion of the films so they can push a film that they have an interest in; that they have invested in themselves."
So, in effect, a company - or connected companies - can distribute the film, have ownership of the theatres and then maybe also involve those selling the tickets. Even those apps rating the film could potentially have a financial stake.
'Cook the books'
Some films are also suspected of being used as a method of getting around China's laws designed to restrict capital flight.
This country has an annual international transfer limit per person of $50,000 (£38,921) without official clearance.
But you can "cook the books", according to Mr Zhou, if your movie is hiring international actors or even set and costume designers.
For example, in your budget, you might say you are paying a Hollywood star $10m but you're really only paying them $2m.
The other $8m you can transfer offshore without questions. And most importantly without the need to collect official Chinese receipts.
"Inside China we have this very strict invoice system," says Mr Zhou.
"Receipts can be checked and double checked using the super computers of the tax bureau. But once a lot of overseas talent or overseas service providers are involved then the system doesn't work and money can legally be moved off shore."
He thinks the authorities must be onto this and are likely to be looking at ways of closing the loophole.
This is not to say that China no longer has honest, committed filmmakers producing quality work.
The low budget drama "Dying to Survive", about a group of hapless criminals trying to smuggle cheap cancer drugs, has been described as showing what's best about this country's cinema, as well as being hugely popular.
Dying to Survive has proven to be a box office hit
Yet the Chinese government knows there is something rotten going on which needs to be cleaned up.
The National People's Congress has introduced fines for misreported box office figures ranging from $7000 to $74,000 and the authorities are allowing the Motion Picture Association of America to use an accounting firm to audit box office data here.
Communist Party anti-corruption investigators say they are now chasing a high-profile producer, who they've accused of fraud, claiming that he is currently on the run in the United States.
However there still seems to be no move to break up the vested interests in Chinese movie making, which many analysts believe will continue to pump out poor quality fare as long as there is money to be made - irrespective of how many actually people go to see the film.
By Stephen McDonell
BBC News, Beijing
31 August 2018
Chinese movie theatres may appear to be sold out online, but in reality could be completely empty
For a country which will soon assume the mantle of the world's largest cinema audience, China comes out with a surprising number of big budget B-grade flops.
Some blame this on censorship, others on a lack of creativity but there are also those who see a more sinister force at work, which has nothing to do with film-making.
It also has nothing to do with selling tickets: at least not real ones.
Some investors are apparently financially backing movies with the sole goal of boosting their stock price that can shift on the perception of a movie's performance, irrespective of its true popularity.
Chinese film critic and industry observer Raymond Zhou has been digging into the darker side of film financing in his country.
"When you have a hit film, your stock price will go up several times in terms of market valuation compared with the grosses from the box office so some 'financial genius', came up with this idea: Why don't I have fake box office numbers so that I can make much more money from the stock market?" he said.
Box office manipulation is a growing problem in China, says one film critic
I asked if it could really be true that producers were seeking to make money in ways that had nothing to do with putting bums on seats in theatres; nothing to do with making beautiful films?
China's most expensive film bombs on debut
China puts limit on film stars' pay
"The natural way is to make a good movie and then your stock price will go up right?" he responded.
"But some people have reversed this equation. They have seen the rise of the stock price as the ultimate goal and have just used the making of the movie as an excuse."
Phantom tickets
So what is actually happening?
According to Chinese government investigators, certain production and investment companies have developed ways of faking box office results.
Then, if these publicly available figures appear to show that a film is doing well, people will buy shares in the companies which paid for the movie.
So a film might be on in the cinema and one of the companies which paid for it might buy out entire late night screenings. These will register as full houses when they are, in reality, entirely empty theatres.
The movie challenging China's cinematic gay taboo
Chinese animation blocked in France
Regulators have been catching onto this so producers have allegedly started just buying all the bad seats across many hours of screenings.
Yet the authorities have now worked out that if a showing is somewhat empty in the middle and for some reason all the seats around the walls have been purchased something must be amiss.
You might wonder, if box office manipulation has been a broad problem within the Chinese film industry, if it's still worthwhile financially.
How many hundreds of thousands of seats would a company need to buy to boost the figures enough to make a difference to its own stock price?
Well what if the cinema chain is also an investor? It can just sell itself the phantom tickets for free.
Asura (L) was China's most expensive film, and one of its biggest flops
Cinema journalist John Papish is an expert in the Chinese box office and says considerable conflicts of interests in this country would be illegal in, say, the United States.
"An owner of an exhibitor can also distribute their own movies and use their cinemas as a launching pad," he said.
"They can manipulate the number of screenings in their own cinemas. Often times the third party ticketing apps also have their hands in the promotion of the films so they can push a film that they have an interest in; that they have invested in themselves."
So, in effect, a company - or connected companies - can distribute the film, have ownership of the theatres and then maybe also involve those selling the tickets. Even those apps rating the film could potentially have a financial stake.
'Cook the books'
Some films are also suspected of being used as a method of getting around China's laws designed to restrict capital flight.
This country has an annual international transfer limit per person of $50,000 (£38,921) without official clearance.
But you can "cook the books", according to Mr Zhou, if your movie is hiring international actors or even set and costume designers.
For example, in your budget, you might say you are paying a Hollywood star $10m but you're really only paying them $2m.
The other $8m you can transfer offshore without questions. And most importantly without the need to collect official Chinese receipts.
"Inside China we have this very strict invoice system," says Mr Zhou.
"Receipts can be checked and double checked using the super computers of the tax bureau. But once a lot of overseas talent or overseas service providers are involved then the system doesn't work and money can legally be moved off shore."
He thinks the authorities must be onto this and are likely to be looking at ways of closing the loophole.
This is not to say that China no longer has honest, committed filmmakers producing quality work.
The low budget drama "Dying to Survive", about a group of hapless criminals trying to smuggle cheap cancer drugs, has been described as showing what's best about this country's cinema, as well as being hugely popular.
Dying to Survive has proven to be a box office hit
Yet the Chinese government knows there is something rotten going on which needs to be cleaned up.
The National People's Congress has introduced fines for misreported box office figures ranging from $7000 to $74,000 and the authorities are allowing the Motion Picture Association of America to use an accounting firm to audit box office data here.
Communist Party anti-corruption investigators say they are now chasing a high-profile producer, who they've accused of fraud, claiming that he is currently on the run in the United States.
However there still seems to be no move to break up the vested interests in Chinese movie making, which many analysts believe will continue to pump out poor quality fare as long as there is money to be made - irrespective of how many actually people go to see the film.
Clock changes: EU backs ending daylight saving time - BBC News
August 31, 2018.
Clock changes: EU backs ending daylight saving time
The EU Commission is proposing to end the practice of adjusting clocks by an hour in spring and autumn after a survey found most Europeans opposed it.
Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said millions "believe that in future, summer time should be year-round, and that's what will happen".
The Commission's proposal requires support from the 28 national governments and MEPs to become law.
In the EU clocks switch between winter and summer under daylight saving time.
A European Parliament resolution says it is "crucial to maintain a unified EU time regime".
However, the Commission has not yet drafted details of the proposed change.
In a consultation paper it said one option would be to let each member state decide whether to go for permanent summer or winter time. That would be "a sovereign decision of each member state", Commission spokesman Alexander Winterstein explained on Friday.
He stressed that the proposal was "to no longer constrain member states into changing clocks twice per year".
The UK is one of the 28 nations, but is due to leave the European Union in March 2019. Any change would be unlikely to happen before then.
The Commission warns that uncoordinated time changes between member states would cause economic harm.
In the public consultation, 84% of 4.6 million respondents called for ending the spring and autumn clock change.
By far the biggest response was in Germany and Austria (3.79% and 2.94% of the national population respectively). The UK's response was lowest - 0.02% - but few Italians took part either (0.04%).
Some studies cited by the Commission point to adverse health impacts from the clock changes.
"Findings suggest that the effect on the human biorhythm may be more severe than previously thought," it says.
Clocks go forward by an hour on the last Sunday in March and switch back to winter time on the last Sunday in October.
Finland called for daylight saving to be abolished EU-wide, after a petition gathered more than 70,000 signatures from citizens calling for such a change.
The EU made the spring/autumn clock change the rule in all member states in 1996, based on the argument that it would reduce energy costs. But the Commission says the data on energy-saving is inconclusive.
There is also no reliable evidence that the clock changes reduce traffic accidents, the Commission says.
What are the EU's current time zones?
There are three standard time zones:
Three states apply GMT (the UK, Ireland and Portugal)
17 have Central European Time, which is GMT+1
Eight have Eastern European Time, which is GMT+2
The current seasonal clock changes are controversial partly because there is a big difference in daylight hours experienced by Scandinavia and by southern Europe.
Nordic countries have long, dark nights in winter and short nights in summer. The pattern in the south is more even across the seasons.
There are anomalies too. For example, neighbours Portugal and Spain are in different time zones, as are Sweden and Finland.
What is the situation in the UK?
The UK adopted Daylight Saving Time in 1916, along with many other nations involved in World War One, in order to conserve coal.
It followed years of pressure from William Willett, a great-great-grandfather of Coldplay singer Chris Martin.
But the UK has had its own debate about time zones.
In 2011, the government proposed a three-year trial of moving to Central European Time, so the time would be GMT+1 in winter and GMT+2 in summer.
The change would have meant lighter evenings but darker mornings, and one of the arguments was that it would reduce accidents. But it was abandoned after opposition from Scotland and northern England, where some areas would not have seen daylight until 10am under the proposal.
Clock changes: EU backs ending daylight saving time
The EU Commission is proposing to end the practice of adjusting clocks by an hour in spring and autumn after a survey found most Europeans opposed it.
Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said millions "believe that in future, summer time should be year-round, and that's what will happen".
The Commission's proposal requires support from the 28 national governments and MEPs to become law.
In the EU clocks switch between winter and summer under daylight saving time.
A European Parliament resolution says it is "crucial to maintain a unified EU time regime".
However, the Commission has not yet drafted details of the proposed change.
In a consultation paper it said one option would be to let each member state decide whether to go for permanent summer or winter time. That would be "a sovereign decision of each member state", Commission spokesman Alexander Winterstein explained on Friday.
He stressed that the proposal was "to no longer constrain member states into changing clocks twice per year".
The UK is one of the 28 nations, but is due to leave the European Union in March 2019. Any change would be unlikely to happen before then.
The Commission warns that uncoordinated time changes between member states would cause economic harm.
In the public consultation, 84% of 4.6 million respondents called for ending the spring and autumn clock change.
By far the biggest response was in Germany and Austria (3.79% and 2.94% of the national population respectively). The UK's response was lowest - 0.02% - but few Italians took part either (0.04%).
Some studies cited by the Commission point to adverse health impacts from the clock changes.
"Findings suggest that the effect on the human biorhythm may be more severe than previously thought," it says.
Clocks go forward by an hour on the last Sunday in March and switch back to winter time on the last Sunday in October.
Finland called for daylight saving to be abolished EU-wide, after a petition gathered more than 70,000 signatures from citizens calling for such a change.
The EU made the spring/autumn clock change the rule in all member states in 1996, based on the argument that it would reduce energy costs. But the Commission says the data on energy-saving is inconclusive.
There is also no reliable evidence that the clock changes reduce traffic accidents, the Commission says.
What are the EU's current time zones?
There are three standard time zones:
Three states apply GMT (the UK, Ireland and Portugal)
17 have Central European Time, which is GMT+1
Eight have Eastern European Time, which is GMT+2
The current seasonal clock changes are controversial partly because there is a big difference in daylight hours experienced by Scandinavia and by southern Europe.
Nordic countries have long, dark nights in winter and short nights in summer. The pattern in the south is more even across the seasons.
There are anomalies too. For example, neighbours Portugal and Spain are in different time zones, as are Sweden and Finland.
What is the situation in the UK?
The UK adopted Daylight Saving Time in 1916, along with many other nations involved in World War One, in order to conserve coal.
It followed years of pressure from William Willett, a great-great-grandfather of Coldplay singer Chris Martin.
But the UK has had its own debate about time zones.
In 2011, the government proposed a three-year trial of moving to Central European Time, so the time would be GMT+1 in winter and GMT+2 in summer.
The change would have meant lighter evenings but darker mornings, and one of the arguments was that it would reduce accidents. But it was abandoned after opposition from Scotland and northern England, where some areas would not have seen daylight until 10am under the proposal.
Trump threatens to pull US out of World Trade Organization - BBC News
August 31, 2018.
Trump threatens to pull US out of World Trade Organization
Mr Trump has been embroiled in tit-for-tat trade battles on several fronts in recent months
President Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw the US from the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming it treats his country unfairly.
"If they don't shape up, I would withdraw from the WTO," Mr Trump said in an interview with Bloomberg News.
The WTO was established to provide rules for global trade and resolve disputes between countries.
Mr Trump says the body too often rules against the US, although he concedes it has won some recent judgments.
He claimed on Fox News earlier this year that the WTO was set up "to benefit everybody but us", adding: "We lose the lawsuits, almost all of the lawsuits in the WTO."
However, some analysis shows the US wins about 90% when it is the complainant and loses about the same percentage when it is complained against.
Mr Trump's warning about a possible US pull-out from the WTO highlights the conflict between his protectionist trade policies and the open trade system that the WTO oversees.
US-China trade row: What has happened so far?
Is Trump the WTO's biggest threat?
Is Trump right about trade?
Washington has recently blocked the appointment of new judges to the WTO's Geneva-based dispute settlement body, which could potentially paralyse its ability to issue judgments.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has also accused the WTO of interfering with US sovereignty.
It comes as President Trump set a Friday deadline for Canada to sign a new agreement with the US and Mexico. He has threatened to tax the country's automotive sector or cut it out entirely.
What's Trump's issue with the WTO?
The US president has been sounding off about unfair trade since even before he became president.
Mr Trump said on Thursday that the 1994 agreement to establish the WTO "was the single worst trade deal ever made".
The US has been embroiled in a tit-for-tat trade battle on several fronts in recent months.
The one creating the most interest is with China, as the world's two largest economies wrangle for global influence.
Mr Trump has introduced tariffs on a number of goods imported into the US.
Early victims of Trump's trade war
What is a trade war and should I worry?
Six ways China could retaliate in a trade war
A third round of tariffs on $200bn (£154bn) of Chinese goods could come as soon as a public-comment period concludes next week, according to a Bloomberg report citing various sources.
Asked to confirm this during the Bloomberg interview, President Trump said that it was "not totally wrong".
China has responded to US tariffs by imposing retaliatory taxes on the same value of US products and has filed complaints against the tariffs at the WTO.
China's commerce ministry has said it "clearly suspects" the US of violating WTO rules.
An initial complaint at the WTO was filed by China in July after Mr Trump imposed his first round of tariffs.
Donald Trump speaks with the Mexican leader on the phone through an interpreter
The WTO is at the heart of the system of rules for international trade. It is the forum for sorting disputes between countries about breaches of global trade rules and for negotiating new trade liberalisation.
The EU, meanwhile, is trying to steer the US towards reforming the WTO rather than abandoning it.
Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament's trade committee, told Politico magazine that it would submit plans to overhaul the organisation in September. He said it would test whether the US was really interested in reform.
"This is certainly about calling [America's] bluff," he said.
What about other trade deals?
Mr Trump has not been a fan of multilateral trade agreements.
In a 2016 presidential debate with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, Mr Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) with Mexico and Canada as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere" and a "killer" of US jobs.
Once in office he said he wanted to renegotiate - not scrap - the accord, triggering a year of talks.
On Monday, Mr Trump announced that the US and Mexico had agreed to revamp Nafta, calling it a "really good deal" that was "much more fair" for both countries.
Canada is yet to agree to the new terms.
Clock is ticking for Canada in US trade negotiations
What is Nafta?
What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
On Thursday, Mr Lighthizer held talks in Washington with Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland aimed at reaching a new deal.
Following four separate meetings, which continued late into the night, Ms Freeland told reporters that a deal could not be reached, adding that talks would resume on Friday.
Also during his election campaign Mr Trump railed against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation trade deal that was a linchpin of former President Barack Obama's Asia policy.
Mr Trump said the deal was a "potential disaster for our country".
One of his first acts as president was to withdraw the US from the TTP, although he has since said he might consider rejoining if the terms were "substantially better".
Trump threatens to pull US out of World Trade Organization
Mr Trump has been embroiled in tit-for-tat trade battles on several fronts in recent months
President Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw the US from the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming it treats his country unfairly.
"If they don't shape up, I would withdraw from the WTO," Mr Trump said in an interview with Bloomberg News.
The WTO was established to provide rules for global trade and resolve disputes between countries.
Mr Trump says the body too often rules against the US, although he concedes it has won some recent judgments.
He claimed on Fox News earlier this year that the WTO was set up "to benefit everybody but us", adding: "We lose the lawsuits, almost all of the lawsuits in the WTO."
However, some analysis shows the US wins about 90% when it is the complainant and loses about the same percentage when it is complained against.
Mr Trump's warning about a possible US pull-out from the WTO highlights the conflict between his protectionist trade policies and the open trade system that the WTO oversees.
US-China trade row: What has happened so far?
Is Trump the WTO's biggest threat?
Is Trump right about trade?
Washington has recently blocked the appointment of new judges to the WTO's Geneva-based dispute settlement body, which could potentially paralyse its ability to issue judgments.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has also accused the WTO of interfering with US sovereignty.
It comes as President Trump set a Friday deadline for Canada to sign a new agreement with the US and Mexico. He has threatened to tax the country's automotive sector or cut it out entirely.
What's Trump's issue with the WTO?
The US president has been sounding off about unfair trade since even before he became president.
Mr Trump said on Thursday that the 1994 agreement to establish the WTO "was the single worst trade deal ever made".
The US has been embroiled in a tit-for-tat trade battle on several fronts in recent months.
The one creating the most interest is with China, as the world's two largest economies wrangle for global influence.
Mr Trump has introduced tariffs on a number of goods imported into the US.
Early victims of Trump's trade war
What is a trade war and should I worry?
Six ways China could retaliate in a trade war
A third round of tariffs on $200bn (£154bn) of Chinese goods could come as soon as a public-comment period concludes next week, according to a Bloomberg report citing various sources.
Asked to confirm this during the Bloomberg interview, President Trump said that it was "not totally wrong".
China has responded to US tariffs by imposing retaliatory taxes on the same value of US products and has filed complaints against the tariffs at the WTO.
China's commerce ministry has said it "clearly suspects" the US of violating WTO rules.
An initial complaint at the WTO was filed by China in July after Mr Trump imposed his first round of tariffs.
Donald Trump speaks with the Mexican leader on the phone through an interpreter
The WTO is at the heart of the system of rules for international trade. It is the forum for sorting disputes between countries about breaches of global trade rules and for negotiating new trade liberalisation.
The EU, meanwhile, is trying to steer the US towards reforming the WTO rather than abandoning it.
Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament's trade committee, told Politico magazine that it would submit plans to overhaul the organisation in September. He said it would test whether the US was really interested in reform.
"This is certainly about calling [America's] bluff," he said.
What about other trade deals?
Mr Trump has not been a fan of multilateral trade agreements.
In a 2016 presidential debate with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, Mr Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) with Mexico and Canada as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere" and a "killer" of US jobs.
Once in office he said he wanted to renegotiate - not scrap - the accord, triggering a year of talks.
On Monday, Mr Trump announced that the US and Mexico had agreed to revamp Nafta, calling it a "really good deal" that was "much more fair" for both countries.
Canada is yet to agree to the new terms.
Clock is ticking for Canada in US trade negotiations
What is Nafta?
What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
On Thursday, Mr Lighthizer held talks in Washington with Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland aimed at reaching a new deal.
Following four separate meetings, which continued late into the night, Ms Freeland told reporters that a deal could not be reached, adding that talks would resume on Friday.
Also during his election campaign Mr Trump railed against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation trade deal that was a linchpin of former President Barack Obama's Asia policy.
Mr Trump said the deal was a "potential disaster for our country".
One of his first acts as president was to withdraw the US from the TTP, although he has since said he might consider rejoining if the terms were "substantially better".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
