The Tax Credits in IRA Bill May Not Help U.S. Electric Vehicle Manufacturers


Source: kandiamerica.com


The Climate Bill Could Short-Circuit EV Tax Credits, Making Qualifying for Them Nearly Impossible

The U.S. Senate passed a far-reaching climate, energy and health care bill on Aug. 7, 2022, that invests an unprecedented US$370 billion in energy and climate programs over the next 10 years – including incentives to expand renewable energy and electric vehicles.

Rapid and widespread adoption of electric vehicles will be essential for the United States to meet its climate goals. And the new bill, which includes a host of other health and tax-related provisions, aims to encourage people to trade their gasoline-fueled cars for electrics by offering a tax credit of up to $7,500 for new electric vehicles and up to $4,000 for used electric vehicles through 2032.

But there’s a catch, and it could end up making it difficult for most EVs to qualify for the new incentive.

The bill, which needs House approval, requires that new electric vehicles meet stringent sourcing requirements for critical materials, the components of the battery, and final assembly to qualify for the tax credits. While some automakers, like Tesla and GM, have well-developed domestic supply chains, no electric vehicle manufacturer currently meets all the bill’s requirements.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to
sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by and represents the
research-based opinions of James Morton Turner, Professor
of Environmental Studies, Wellesley College.

Building a Domestic EV Supply Chain

At first glance, the revised EV tax credits seem like a smart move.

Existing U.S. policy allows credits for the first 200,000 electric vehicles a manufacturer sells. Those credits helped jump-start demand for EVs. But industry leaders, including Tesla and GM, have already hit that cap, while most foreign automakers’ vehicles are still eligible. The bill would eliminate the cap for individual automakers and extend the tax credits through 2032 – for any vehicle that meets the sourcing requirements.

Right now, China dominates the global supply chain for materials and lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles. This is no accident. Since the early 2000s, Chinese policymakers have adopted aggressive policies that have supported advanced battery technologies, including investments in mines, materials processing and manufacturing. I discuss how China got a head start in the race toward a clean energy future in my new book, Charged: A History of Batteries and Lessons for a Clean Energy Future.

Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who stalled earlier efforts to get these measures through the sharply divided Senate, said he hopes the requirements will help scale up the U.S. domestic critical minerals supply chain.

The EV incentives would complement other U.S. policies aimed at jump-starting domestic EV manufacturing capacity. Those include $7 billion in grants to accelerate the development of the battery supply chain allocated in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 and a $3 billion expansion of the Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program included in the current bill, formally known as the Inflation Reduction Act.

The problem is that the Inflation Reduction Act’s sourcing requirements come online so quickly, starting in 2023, and ratchet upward so rapidly, that the plan could backfire. Instead of expanding electric vehicle adoption, the policy could make almost all electric vehicles ineligible for the tax incentives.


Even Tesla’s Gigafactory Relies on China

The bill excludes incentives for any new vehicle which contains battery materials or components extracted, processed, manufactured or assembled by a “foreign entity of concern” – a category which includes China.

According to Benchmark Intelligence, a market research firm that tracks the battery industry, China currently controls 81% of global cathode manufacturing capacity, 91% of global anode capacity, and 79% of global lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity. By comparison, the United States has 0.16% of cathode manufacturing capacity, 0.27% of anode manufacturing capacity, and 5.5% of lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity.

Even the U.S.’s most advanced battery factories, such as Tesla’s Nevada Gigafactory, currently rely on materials processed in China. Despite Ford’s plans to expand its domestic supply chain, its most recent deals are for sourcing batteries from Chinese manufacturer CATL.

In addition to excluding materials and components sourced from China starting in 2023, the bill also requires that a minimum percentage of the materials and components in batteries be sourced domestically or from countries the U.S. has a fair trade agreement with, such as Australia and Chile. The threshold starts at 40% of the value of critical minerals in 2023 and ramps up to 80% in 2027, with similar requirements for battery components.

If a manufacturer doesn’t meet these requirements, its vehicle would be ineligible for the tax credit. Whether the Treasury Department would come up with exemptions remains to be seen.

Although EV manufacturers are already pursuing plans to develop supply chains that meet these sourcing requirements, proposals for mines and processing facilities often face challenges. Indigenous and environmental concerns have slowed a proposed lithium mine in Nevada. In some cases, key materials, such as cobalt and graphite, are not readily sourced domestically or from fair-trade allies.

Proposed recycling projects could help meet demand. Redwood Materials projects its recycling facility, currently under construction in Nevada, will supply cathode and anode materials to support one million electric vehicles per year by 2025. Despite such optimistic projections, experts anticipate that recycling can only play a small role in offsetting the demand for raw materials needed to scale up electric vehicle adoption in the coming decade.


How Much Can the Bill do to Cut Emissions?

Clean energy supporters called the bill historic. In addition to a massive investment in renewable energy and electric vehicles, it provides support for technologies such as carbon capture and storage and zero-carbon fuels, and includes a fee to curtail methane emissions, as well as some trade-offs that boost fossil fuels.

Forecasters have projected that the climate package as a whole could help put the U.S. on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 40% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels – still short of the Biden administration’s goal of a 50% reduction, but closer.

But for the U.S. to hit those goals, electric vehicles will have to replace fossil-fueled vehicles by the millions. A realistic EV tax credit that allows time for manufacturers to diversify their supply chains and makes these vehicles more affordable for all Americans will be crucial. The proposed policy risks short-circuiting EV tax credits just when they are needed most.


Suggested Content



Will U.S. Car Companies be Handed Different EV Advantages?



Copper Facing an Onslaught of Demand





How the Cost of Owning a New EV Could Also Climb Quickly



Automakers Goals Provide Rich Investment Opportunity

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

Should Medical Cannabis Patients be Forbidden from Owning Firearms?



Image Credit: Raymond Clark (Flickr)


The DOJ’s Case Against Allowing Medical Marijuana Users from Purchasing a Gun

Is it  “dangerous to trust regular marijuana users to exercise sound judgment” with firearms? The Department of Justice responded to a lawsuit asking the court to dismiss a medical marijuana lawsuit on Monday (August 7). The suit was filed by an agriculture official in Florida. The circumstances involved patients using cannabis; it claims that the federal government is unconstitutionally depriving them of their Second Amendment right to purchase and possess firearms. The DOJ asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit claiming it seeks to overturn policy involving medical marijuana users and their inability to own firearms.

The suit was filed by Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Nikki Fried (D), who is a candidate in Florida for governor. It made a unique legal argument that a congressional spending rider prevents the use of Justice Department funds to interfere in the implementation of medical marijuana programs.

Presently, in order to buy a gun, citizens are required to fill out a federal form that explicitly asks about the use of (federally) illegal drugs. Applicants that use cannabis, which is legal for medical use in Florida, are not allowed to purchase a gun and could face up to five years in prison if they lie on the application.

This case has national implications and is of interest not just to those that benefit from medical cannabis but also to investors in medical marijuana.


Components of the Case

The suit alleges a federal rule that bars medical marijuana patients from having guns is unconstitutional.

In its motion to dismiss the case or secure a favorable judgment, the U.S. DOJ claimed that the policies being challenged by the lawsuit only apply to people who use illegal drugs, in this case, cannabis. Therefore, Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens are not barred.

“These laws merely prevent drug users who commit federal crimes by unlawfully possessing drugs from possessing and receiving firearms, and only for so long as they are actively engaged in that criminal activity,” the DOJ brief to dismiss claimed.

The DOJ referenced Florida’s own medical consent form accepted by Florida marijuana regulators; the DOJ noted that it warns, that marijuana “impairs judgment, cognition and physical coordination, including ‘the ability to think, judge and reason.'” The DOJ added that there was a deeply rooted practice in American law and policy of not allowing dangerous or lawbreaking individuals to possess firearms.

“A long tradition exists of viewing intoxication as a condition that renders firearms possession dangerous, and accordingly restricting the firearms rights of those who become intoxicated,” the brief said.

In the complaint, filed April 20, 2022, the plaintiffs claim the central question in the case is whether the physical and/or psychological effects of medical marijuana render users “sufficiently dangerous or violent” so that possession or use of a firearm would cause concern.

They further referenced a study that demonstrated that medical marijuana has no such effect. The plaintiffs referenced the 2013, Office of National Drug Control Policy study that concluded there was “little support for a contemporaneous, causal relationship between the use of marijuana ‘and either violent or property crime.'”

In its Monday brief, the DOJ countered that “marijuana users with firearms pose a danger comparable to, if not greater than, other groups that have historically been disarmed,” in part because cannabis remains federally illegal.

The government argued further that Nicole Fried, the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services commissioner who brought the lawsuit, had no standing to bring the action since she did not allege her right to possess firearms had been infringed.

The DOJ is seeking the dismissal of all claims.

The case is Fried et al. v. Garland et al., case number 4:22-cv-00164, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.


Take Away

It is presumed by many that marijuana for medical use and study will at some point be
dropped as a schedule 1 drug. Despite a number of bills in the house and the Senate that, if passed and signed into law, would accomplish reclassification, to date, marijuana is still illegal on a federal level.

The status is complicated by the fact that 37 of the 50 states allow medical use for qualified individuals. The case filed by Florida’s Agricultural Secretary Fried attempts to still uphold second amendment rights to those approved for and using medical marijuana in Florida. The U.S. Department of Justice is opposed.

There is no indication whether a change in federal legal status would change, in the DOJ’s mind, the dangers of allowing firearm ownership to these patients.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Suggested Content



Senate Marijuana Bill Expected Before Summer Break



Lawmakers and Insider Trading Laws




Cannabis Vape Distribution Limited Under New Law



Evaluating Opportunity With the iPhone New Marijuana Policy


Sources

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-prem-nikki-fried-medical-marijuana-20210611-dzil5daz7rfw7k7mjf6szxpo7y-story.html

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/florida-official-sues-biden-administration-over-gun-rights-for-medical-marijuana-patients-on-4-20/

https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1519290/doj-says-medical-pot-patients-have-no-right-to-bear-arms?copied=1

https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-fried-et-al-v-garland-et-al-1182072

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Marijuana-Cannabis-2020_0.pdf

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

Taiwan Trip Turmoil May Create Investment Opportunities



Image Credit: Jimmy Liao (Pexels)


Investors’ Interest in Taiwan Being Highlighted with House Speaker’s Trip

Chinese President Xi Jinping holds the position that Taiwan is a Chinese territory that needs to be reunited with the mainland. When U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an official visit to the island, an important U.S. trading partner, Beijing, threatened to possibly intercept the plane, and members of the media there suggested they had the right to even shoot it down.

Regardless of geopolitical considerations and ignoring memes suggesting how husband Paul Pelosi may have positioned his portfolio holdings, investors should pay attention to the unfolding market swings for their own portfolios.  

Background

Speaker Pelosi had cancelled her plans to visit Taiwan last April as she was said to have been infected with Covid-19. She then rescheduled her trip for August. These plans were confirmed in late July, at which time President Biden said, “the military thinks it’s not a good idea right now.” There has been concern within the White House that China may go as far as to ground her travel by implementing a no-fly zone over Taiwan. This would put the two nuclear powers in direct conflict.

Taiwan is an important trading partner with the U.S. The announcement caused Taiwan technology stocks to dip, and the Taiwanese dollar and other Asian currencies are also off. While saber-rattling may be as far as mainland China takes their disapproval, the trip serves as a reminder of the significant risk that Taiwan represents for the U.S. technology sector. Most of the world’s advanced chips are made in Taiwan.

 

Investor Considerations

In assessing whether the dip is a buying opportunity or if this is the beginning of a need to sell and invest in domestic chip makers remains to be seen. It has certainly stirred up many semi-dormant issues between China, Taiwan, and U.S. relations. Investors should not underestimate the inherently unpredictable nature of global politics, positioning, and egos. Just as a war in Europe seemed improbable last December, this may play out differently than anticipated. One can never gauge based on the current state of relations. Analysts believe that if the U.S. and China do confront each other militarily, Taiwan would be the likely cause.

That there is genuine chatter and news reports discussing the chance of a war between China and the U.S. deserves serious attention. While the normal horrors of war first come to mind, as investors we can’t help but to contemplate all the industries this could impact.

Most of the advanced chips critical for military defense systems and corporate computing services are made in Taiwan. Taiwan represents more than 90% of the world’s most complex chip manufacturing (South Korea is at 8%). .

A large portion of this production is from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSM), which makes unique chips for external customers. TSM had total revenue of $57 billion last year and is the world’s largest third-party foundry, dominating the market for high-end chips. The products include the main processors inside Apple’s (AAPL) iPhones, the smartphone chips used by Qualcomm (QCOM), and computer processors for Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).


Source: Koyfin

Since the last days in July when the trip by the House Speaker seemed to be back on, shares of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing have dropped 5% or more. It is expected that a military conflict over Taiwan would halt production and shipments. This would disrupt the completion of production of everything from cars, aircraft, and most anything else with onboard computing capabilities.

U.S.-Taiwan Trade Stats

• In 2020, Taiwan GDP was an estimated $635.5 billion (current market exchange rates); real GDP was up by an estimated 0.0 percent; and the population was 24 million. (Source: IMF)

 • U.S. goods and services trade with Taiwan totaled an estimated $105.9 billion in 2020. Exports were $39.1 billion; imports were $66.7 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Taiwan was $27.6 billion in 2020.

 • Taiwan is currently our 9th largest goods trading partner with $90.6 billion in total (two-way) goods trade during 2020. Goods exports totaled $30.2 billion; goods imports totaled $60.4 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Taiwan was $30.2 billion in 2020.

 • Trade in services with Taiwan (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $15.2 billion in 2020. Services exports were $8.9 billion; services imports were $6.3 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with Taiwan was $2.6 billion in 2020.

 • According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of goods and services to Taiwan supported an estimated 188,000 jobs in 2019 (latest data available) (133,000 supported by goods exports and 55,000 supported by services exports).

 

Take Away

The situation where the U.S. relations with Taiwan are separate from Beijing isn’t new. The expected trip has just highlighted and stirred up undefined boundaries. Washington recognizes one Chinese government based in Beijing and doesn’t officially support Taiwanese independence. Yet the U.S. also is opposed to China’s claim over Taiwan. These murky lines have been the unchallenged status quo for decades.

This trip may help to define the lines that China have drawn as Speaker Pelosi is being told that she is crossing them. At the same time, in her position (third in line from the President) she is defining where the U.S. believes those lines are.

From a pure investors’ point of view, we have our own lines, some of them are on the charts of the companies that are affected as this plays out. As with any disruption, there will be unusual price movement; this movement could allow for opportunity.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Suggested Content



Will the Computer Chip Shortage Resolve Itself?



Can 5G and Airport Safety Coexist?




Future Challenges to the Supply Chain



Who Benefits if Oil Price Increases are Not Transitory?


Sources

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china/taiwan#:~:text=U.S.%20imports%20from%20Taiwan%20account,and%20plastics%20(%242.2%20billion).

https://apnews.com/article/china-beijing-international-law-south-china-sea-4370828e295d2eec9a4804bba9940273

https://www.speaker.gov/

https://www.ft.com/content/09669099-1565-4723-86c9-84e0ca465825

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-us-military-not-a-good-idea-pelosi-visit-taiwan-now/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-us-military-not-a-good-idea-pelosi-visit-taiwan-now/

https://www.semiconductors.org/news-events/latest-news/

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

Senate Marijuana Bill Expected Before Summer Break



Image Credit: Office of Public Affairs (Flickr)


Senate Version of Marijuana Legalization Bill May be Unveiled in Coming Days

Investors in marijuana stocks may be given something to lift their spirits prior to Congress’s summer recess. There are reports that senators will finally introduce the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA) bill. The House of Representatives has already introduced and passed its own version to legalize marijuana nationally. The Senate bill is expected to be somewhat more restrictive and have other small differences; both bills contain what the authors view as social justice measures.

It’s been a year since Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (OR) and Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) first released a draft version of CAOA detailing proposed legislation to end federal cannabis prohibition. Senator Schumer has reported that the final bill to be voted on will be made public the last week in July.

There is a push to introduce the Senate’s bill ahead of the August recess (August 8 – September 5).

The final introduction of the CAOA has had many delays as the sponsors have worked to build in what they deem important while trying to move forward with something with bipartisan support. One expected aspect is that Senator Schumer has wanted the CAOA to specifically seek to build barriers so large alcohol and tobacco companies so they can’t easily overtake the industry.

Any change in details to the bill since it was first released last year is still not public. But it’s expected to place importance on removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, impose a federal tax on marijuana sales, favor groups that have been hurt by what are seen as harsh laws, and provide a path to relief for those who have faced federal cannabis convictions.

Once the measure is introduced, its road to passage is still not straightforward. The measure would require a 60-vote threshold to pass in the Senate. While the bill is expected to have bipartisan support, the more conservative senators may be inclined to vote the bill down. Currently, there are senators from each of the major political parties that are non-committal.

Senator Schumer seems intent on bringing the bill to the floor for a vote. If it passes, the House of Representatives and the Senate would likely meet to work out differences between the
versions
. If they agree on one piece of legislation, they then hope the president signs it into law.

The year-long push by Senate leadership to get the legalization bill to the floor has frustrated businesses, banks, patients, and some states that have wanted to see the reform move quickly. Without approval on the national level, states may legalize cannabis products, but entities that rely on Federal charters, such as banks and even the Post Office, put themselves at risk if they do business within any part of the industry that is unlawful on the federal level.

There are serious questions about the prospects of passing any broad legalization bill in the current congressional climate, especially given the steep Senate vote threshold. Then another looming unknown is what President Joe Biden would do if a legalization measure does ultimately arrive at his desk.

Despite supermajority support for the reform within Biden’s political party, the president has held a firm opposition to adult-use legalization. Instead, he has supported modest changes such as decriminalization, rescheduling and continuing to allow states to set their own policies.

Dr. Rahul Gupta, Director of National Drug Control Policy, sometimes called “the White House drug czar,”  recently said that the Biden administration is “monitoring” states that have legalized marijuana to inform federal policy, and recognize the failures of the current prohibitionist approach.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Suggested Content



Bear Market Wisdom



Fed Chairman Powell Attacks the Core of Persistent Inflation




Will a Third Mandate be Added to the Fed’s Challenges?



What Investors Haven’t Yet Noticed About the Value in Some Biotechs


Sources

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-14/marijuana-decriminalization-bill-teed-up-for-senate-introduction

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social-justice.asp

https://thehill.com/policy/3559842-senate-democrats-to-roll-out-bill-aimed-at-decriminalizing-weed-next-week/

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/senate-marijuana-legalization-bill-could-come-next-week-but-congressional-sources-push-back-on-report-about-timeline/

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/senate-marijuana-legalization-bill-could-come-next-week-but-congressional-sources-push-back-on-report-about-timeline/

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

What Might be in a Portfolio Allocated for a Republican Majority in the House?



Image Credit: Gage Skidmore (Flickr)


Republicans Likely to Have the Majority in the House – Investors May Want to Pivot Early

Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives will be held on November 8, 2022. As of today (July 18), Democrats hold a 220-211 advantage in the U.S. House with four vacant seats. All 435 seats are up for election. Should investors reduce their Democrat-era portfolio? It’s four months away, and election forecasters and other statisticians view a return of a Democrat majority as highly unlikely. What industries and companies may benefit if next year Congress is controlled by Republicans?

 

U.S. House Election Odds

Statisticians at Five Thirty-Eight, a subsidiary of ABC News, which Disney owns, updated their models on July 18, ran it 40,000 times, and found the environment isn’t favorable toward House Democrats in the Fall. Their statistics show that the odds are only 13 in 100 that Democrats would retain control of the chamber. Empirically their data demonstrates that even if Republicans lose all seats that are considered toss-ups, along with those that they are expected to lose, the current Democrat majority will be lost.

Investment Implications

The data for the Senate is not as compelling. It shows a 47 in 100 probability of the Democrats being in control of the Senate after the elections. So the focus is not on the full branch of Congress but instead on who gets to set the agenda in the House.

Beginning in 2021, the national agenda changed dramatically. The new President, with a willing Congress, began implementing plans that focused on more open immigration, higher corporate taxes, a U.S. return to the Paris Climate Accord, reduced oil production and distribution, a more pro-union stance, prison reform, and infrastructure spending with a significant focus on shifting to non-fossil fuel energy alternatives.

Throughout 2021 we saw many industries and commodities rise in response to the planned initiatives, many of which can only be implemented with Congress’s approval.

Change brings opportunity and also missed the opportunity.

Whether one’s ideology supports a change or not is usually secondary to investors. Minimizing holdings in positions most likely to lose ground, and within one’s own sense of socially responsible investing, overweighting in positions that may, over time, strengthen is considered prudent.


Below the Radar

One challenge with investing when change may be afoot is not being the last in the door. The statistics I posted above are not a secret; similar results can be found in many trustworthy outlets. So investors know that the energy policies may have to be softened, that money for infrastructure projects may not be as abundant, and rebate money for EVs and other initiatives could also be slower in coming, if at all.

But what about private prisons? Six days after Biden was inaugurated, he signed an executive order to eliminate the use of privately operated criminal detention facilities. Section 2 of this order specifically prohibits renewing any contracts with criminal detention facilities. 


Source: White House Press Release (January 26, 2021)

After the order, the private prison industry shifted gears and focused on the $3 billion market of detaining immigrants. This shift has been positive, and things don’t look as dark for the two largest for-profit prison companies in the U.S., CoreCivic (CXW) and Geo Group (GEO). Each is now making 30% or more of its revenue from U.S. Customs and Immigration (ICE) contracts.


Source:  Koyfin

Since the beginning of 2022, CoreCivic is up 11.2%, and Geo has performed a bit better than the S&P 500 at negative 16.4% (S&P 500, negative 17.7%).

In an SEC filing from November 2021, GEO Group detailed how, despite the loss of $125 million in contracts due to Biden’s executive order, “record increases in migrant flows at the U.S. border have acted as a tailwind” and have more than made up for the profits lost. Would a Republican-led House of Representatives be more likely to add resources to border security and detainment or reduce it? There is very little discussion about this on investing message boards and on financial news networks and other outlets. Yet, the probabilities are lining up on the side of the Republican agenda, which includes beefing up border security and perhaps allocating more funding in that area.

 

Take Away

If the Democrats lose the significant power they now have in the legislative branch, it would seem that the party that takes power would almost have a mandate from the public to make changes to many of the increasingly unpopular moves made over the past year and a half.

These changes are likely to address the growing concern voters have over the border. In March, a Gallup poll showed that 45%, the highest proportion of Americans since 2007, are concerned “a great deal” about the border. That same poll showed 68% of Republicans are concerned “a great deal.” 

A statistical argument can be made that new doors may open for private prison companies, and investors may want to pay attention.

Register at no cost for daily emails from Channelchek here.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Suggested Content



The U.S. Gets Its First State of the Union in Two Years, Much Has Changed



Is GDP Growth Transitory and Inflation Persistent?




With Ford’s Electric F-150 Pickup, the EV Transition Shifts into High Gear



Pelosi’s Recent Investment Portfolio Tweaks


Sources

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/executive-order-reforming-our-incarceration-system-to-eliminate-the-use-of-privately-operated-criminal-detention-facilities/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/about-

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_Republican_Party_primaries,_2022

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_Republican_Party_primaries,_2022

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/

https://channelchek.com/news-channel/CoreCivic__Inc.__CXW____Biden_Signs_Executive_Order_to_End_Use_of_Private_Prisons_by_BoP

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/18/bidens-economic-approval-rating-falls-to-new-low-on-fear-about-inflation-cnbc-survey-finds.html

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/private-prison-industry-shifts-focus-to-immigrant-detention-centers-funding-immigration-hawks/

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

Financial Protection Bureau Has New Supervisory Powers



CFPB Invokes Dormant Authority to Examine Nonbank Companies Posing Risks to Consumers

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it is invoking a largely unused legal provision to examine nonbank financial companies that pose risks to consumers. The CFPB believes that utilizing this dormant authority will help protect consumers and level the playing field between banks and nonbanks. The CFPB is also seeking public comments on a procedural rule to make this process more transparent.

“Given the rapid growth of consumer offerings by nonbanks, the CFPB is now utilizing a dormant authority to hold nonbanks to the same standards that banks are held to,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “This authority gives us critical agility to move as quickly as the market, allowing us to conduct examinations of financial companies posing risks to consumers and stop harm before it spreads.”

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the CFPB has authority to use traditional law enforcement to stop companies from engaging in conduct that pose risk to consumers; this can involve adversarial litigation. However, the law also gives the CFPB authority to conduct supervisory examinations to review the books and records of regulated entities. CFPB examiners typically provide a report to entities with problems that need to be addressed, and responsible institutions typically take prompt corrective action.

Nonbank Supervision

For decades before the Dodd-Frank Act, only banks and credit unions were subject to federal supervision. But after the 2008 financial crisis in which nonbank companies played a pivotal role, Congress tasked the CFPB with supervising certain nonbanks, in addition to large depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, and their service providers. Nonbanks do not have a bank, thrift, or credit union charter; many today operate nationally and brand themselves as “fintechs.”

Congress authorized several categories of entities subject to CFPB’s nonbank supervision program. First and foremost, all nonbank entities in the mortgage, private student loan, and payday loan industries, regardless of size. Another category of supervised entities includes what the law calls “larger participants” in other nonbank markets for consumer financial products and services. The CFPB conducted rulemakings to define thresholds for entities subject to supervision in the markets of consumer reporting, debt collection, student loan servicing, international remittances, and auto loan servicing.

The third category of entities subject to the CFPB nonbank supervision are nonbanks whose activities the CFPB has reasonable cause to determine pose risks to consumers. This authority is not specific to any particular consumer financial product or service. While the CFPB did implement the provision through a procedural rule in 2013,  the agency has now begun to invoke this authority. This will allow the CFPB to be agile and supervise entities that may be fast-growing or are in markets outside the existing nonbank supervision program.

Such risky conduct may involve, for example, potentially unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, or other acts or practices that potentially violate federal consumer financial law. The CFPB may base such reasonable cause determinations on complaints collected by the CFPB, or on information from other sources, such as judicial opinions and administrative decisions. The CFPB may also learn of such risks through whistleblower complaints, state partners, federal partners, or news reports.

Transparency

The CFPB is also issuing a procedural rule today to increase the transparency of the risk-determination process. Unlike other provisions of law regarding nonbank supervision, entities subject to supervision based on risk are given notice and an opportunity to respond. In order to provide greater guidance to the marketplace on how the CFPB will make determinations, the CFPB is updating an aspect of its procedures for risk determinations to authorize the release of certain information about any final determinations made.  The company involved will have an opportunity to provide input to the CFPB on what information is released to the public.

 

Suggested Reading



Will Mortgage Forbearance Impact Other Markets? (April 2021)



How Much is a Trillion?

 

Sources

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/introducing-our-new-bureau-seal/

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/

 

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

House Overwhelmingly Passes Changes to Retirement Savings



Image Credit: Marco Verch (Flickr)


Retirees May Soon Have More Options as House Passes “Securing a Strong Retirement Act”

 

Raising the required minimum distribution age to 75 (from 72) on retirement accounts will have more impact than many may realize. The House advanced legislation on Tuesday (March 29) raising the age where retirees must take RMDs or face severe IRS penalties. The measure seems to take into account much that is facing retirees, but there are some pitfalls older Americans must be watch as well.

Background

The House of Representatives passed the Securing a Strong Retirement Act, often referred to as the Secure Act 2.0, by a vote of 414-5. The most consequential provisions are below:

  • Raise the age savers must take minimum distributions, or RMDs, from their retirement savings accounts to 73 from 72, effective next Jan. 1, to 74 starting in 2030 and to 75 starting in 2033. *The RMD age was raised to 72 from 70½ by the Secure Act of 2019.
  • Increase the limits on “catch-up contributions for employees ages 62 to 64. In 2021, this age worker was permitted to contribute up to $6,500 to their retirement savings plans beyond the standard limits. The bill would increase the limit to $10,000, beginning in 2024, and indexes it to inflation.
  • Expanded automatic enrollment of workers in employer-sponsored retirement saving plans. Beginning in 2024, employees would be automatically enrolled in plans such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s unless they opt out. Workers’ initial automatic contributions would be between 3% and 10% of pretax earnings, and that amount would be increased by 1% each year until reaching 10%.

    All current 401(k) and 403(b) plans are “grandfathered,” the employer-based plan doesn’t have to comply with this provision. There’s also an exception for businesses with 10 or fewer employees, businesses that have existed for less than three years, church plans, and governmental plans.

  • Reduces the penalty for failure to take RMDs to 25% from 50%. In addition, if this failure is corrected in a timely manner, as defined by the bill, the penalty would be further reduced to 10%.
  • Allows employers to match a worker’s student loan payment by making the same size contribution to that worker’s retirement savings plan. This provision, which will take effect Jan. 1, is to help workers who find it difficult to save for retirement because of student-loan payments. Npt contributing causes them to miss out on their employers’ matching contributions to company-sponsored retirement savings plans.
  • Enhances the Saver’s Credit, which intends to incentivize low- and middle-income Americans to save for retirement with a tax credit of up to $1,000 each year. Today these workers can qualify for a tax credit of 50%, 20%, or 10% of their contributions to a qualified retirement plan, up to $2,000, based on  income level.
  • Creates an online, searchable “retirement savings lost-and-found database” at the Labor Department to help workers and retirees find their lost retirement accounts, including those from previous employers.

People are living longer than ever before, and everyone’s situation is different. Raising the minimum age for a person to take distributions allows more freedom to design around one’s own retirement and tax circumstances.

The purpose of the requiring distributions is that the IRS did not collect taxes on the qualified retirement money when it was earned. RMDs are their way to finally collect. Should savers opt to wait longer, it is likely the IRS will benefit as the savings is likely to grow and the expected time remaining until death is likely to shrink. Therefore, the RMDs will be much larger and taxes would be higher. This could benefit the tax rolls but still benefits the retiree.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

 

Suggested Reading



IRA Investments and Small Cap Stocks



Index Funds Still May Fall Apart over Time





Trading Accounts for Children



Robinhood Continues to Push to Expand Their Users’ Possibilities

 

Sources

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2954

https://www.barrons.com/advisor/articles/senators-retirement-security-bill-secure-act-cardin-portman-51638537894

https://www.reportdoor.com/how-the-secure-act-could-trigger-higher-taxes-for-some-retirees/

https://www.barrons.com/articles/secure-act-2-0-retirement-rmd-requirements-51648594141

 

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

Detailed Data Sharing Plans for Medical Research are Soon Due



Image Credit: Nat’l Institute of Health


New Data-Sharing Requirements from the NIH are a Big Step Toward More Open Science – and Potentially Higher-Quality Research

 

Starting on Jan. 25, 2023, many of the 2,500 institutions and 300,000 researchers that the U.S. National Institutes of Health supports will need to provide a formal, detailed plan for
publicly sharing the data generated by their research
. For many in the scientific community, this new NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy sounds like a no-brainer.

The incredibly quick development of rapid tests and vaccines for COVID-19 demonstrate the success that can follow the open sharing of data within the research community. The importance and impact of that data even drove a White House Executive Order mandating that “the heads of all executive departments and agencies” share “COVID-19-related data” publicly last year.

 

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of Stephen Jacobs, Professor of Interactive Games and Media, Rochester Institute of Technology.

 

I am the Director of the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Open Programs Office. At Open@RIT, my colleagues and I work with faculty and researchers to help them openly share their research and data in a manner that provides others the rights to access, reuse and redistribute that work with as few barriers or restrictions as possible. In the sciences, these practices are often referred to as open data and open science.

The journal Nature has called the impact of the NIH’s new data management policy “seismic,” saying that it could potentially create a “global standard” for data sharing. This type of data sharing is likely to produce many benefits to science, but there also are some concerns over how researchers will meet the new requirements.

 


The National Institutes of Health has had data-sharing guidelines in place for years, but the new rules are by far the most comprehensive. NIH

 

What to Share and How to Share It

The NIH’s new policy around data sharing replaces a mandate from 2003. Even so, for some scientists, the new policy will be a big change. Dr. Francis S. Collins, then Director of the NIH, said in the 2020 statement announcing the coming policy changes that the goal is to “shift the culture of research” so that data sharing is the norm, rather than the exception.

Specifically, the policy requires two things. First, that researchers share all the scientific data that other teams would need in order to “validate and replicate” the original research findings. And second, that researchers include a two-page data management plan as part of their application for any NIH funding.

So what exactly is a data management plan? Take an imaginary study on heat waves and heatstroke, for example. All good researchers would collect measurements of temperature, humidity, time of year, weather maps, the health attributes of the participants and a lot of other data.

Starting next year, research teams will need to have determined what reliable data they will use, how the data will be stored, when others would be able to get access to it, whether or not special software would be needed to read the data, where to find that software and many other details – all before the research even begins so that these things can be included in the proposal’s data management plan.

Additionally, researchers applying for NIH funding will need to ensure that their data is available and stored in a way that persists long after the initial project is over.

The NIH has stated that it will support – with additional funding – the costs related to the collection, sharing and storing of data.

 

Sharing Data Promotes Open Science

The NIH’s case for the new policy is that it will be “good for science” because it maximizes availability of data for other researchers, addresses problems of reproducibility, will lead to better protection and use of data and increase transparency to ensure public trust and accountability.

The first big change in the new policy – to specifically share the data needed to validate and replicate – seems aimed at the proliferation of research that can’t be reproduced. Arguably, by ensuring that all of the relevant data from a given experiment is available, the scientific world would be better able to evaluate and validate through replication the quality of research much more easily.

I strongly believe that requiring data-sharing and management plans addresses a big challenge of open science: being able to quickly find the right data, as well as access, and apply it. The NIH says, and I agree, that the requirement for data management plans will help make the use of open data faster and more efficient. From the Human Genome Project in the 1990s to the recent, rapid development of tests and vaccines for COVID-19, the benefits of greater openness in science have been borne out.

 

Will the New Requirements be a Burden?

At its core, the goal of the new policy is to make science more open and to fight bad science. But as beneficial as the new policy is likely to be, it’s not without costs and shortfalls.

First, replicating a study – even one where the data is already available – still consumes expensive human, computing and material resources. The system of science doesn’t reward the researchers who reproduce an experiment’s results as highly as the ones who originate it. I believe the new policy will improve some aspects of replication, but will only address a few links in the overall chain.

Second are concerns about the increased workload and financial challenges involved in meeting the requirements. Many scientists aren’t used to preparing a detailed plan of what they will collect and how they will share it as a part of asking for funding. This means they may need training for themselves or the support of trained staff to do so.

Part of a Global Trend Toward Open Science

The NIH isn’t the only federal agency pursuing more open data and science. In 2013, the Obama administration mandated that all agencies with a budget of $100 million or more must provide open access to their publications and data. The National Science Foundation published their first open data policy two years earlier. Many European Union members are crafting national policies on open science – most notably France, which has already published its second.

The cultural shift in science that NIH Director Collins mentioned in 2020 has been happening – but for many, like me, who support these efforts, the progress has been painfully slow. I hope that the new NIH open data policy will help this movement gain momentum.

 

Suggested Reading



Stem Cell-Derived Retinal Pigment Epithelium Cells – Vision for the Future



House Approval Expected for Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act)





A Global Reimagined Health Ecosystem



Ultra-Rapid DNA Sequencing Identifies Rare Diseases in Hours

 

Main Image

Scientists discover how eye neurons in the eye may use math to distinguish moving objects.

 

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

Marijuana Hits the House This Spring



Image: Elsa Oloffson (cbdoracle.com)


House Approval Expected for Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act)

 

The first week of Spring may be exciting for marijuana businesses, both publicly traded and private. On Thursday (March 24), The House branch of Congress scheduled a vote to legalize cannabis federally, (MORE Act).

As soon as Monday, The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Disposal Act. This bill would remove marijuana from the list of federally controlled substances. The MORE Act is expected to pass, at that point, it would make its way to the Senate for a vote and is expected to eventually wind up on the desk of the President to be signed into law.

Investors viewed this move to put it on the calendar the last week in March as a huge positive which then pushed cannabis-related stocks higher. Medicine Man Technologies – Schwazze (SHWZ) saw its shares leap 10.48% on Thursday.  SHWZ is involved in production, consulting, and retailing. Stem Holdings (STMH), is involved in properties used in cannabis agriculture, it saw its shares jump 9.37%. Both SHWZ and STMH are small, growth companies with equity research coverage provided on Channelchek, by Noble Capital Markets. Other cannabis companies involved in various ends of the business, both large and small saw similar movement.

The federal legalization of marijuana has bipartisan support in Congress. While it is widely expected to pass in the House and Senate, it is not certain whether President Biden will sign. Senate Majority Leader Schumer has been lobbying President Biden on the positive implications of legal marijuana and has expressed hope Biden will support the law.

Cannabis is legal for recreational use in 18 states and for medical use in 38. Federal recreational drug legalization would dramatically increase the market for cannabis growers, refiners, and distributors while eliminating concerns over banking and securities laws related to involvement in federally illegal businesses.

 

 

Sources

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617/

https://norml.org/blog/2022/03/24/us-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-more-act-next-week/

 

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

ESG Policies and Corporate Departures from Russia



Image: Sandra Cohen (Flickr)


Are ESG Social and Governance Policies Why Companies Stopped Russian Operations?

 

At a more rapid pace than ever before, large companies from the U.S. and non-American companies were quick to halt operations to support social concerns. These actions by companies doing business in Russia were in many cases in addition to sanctions mandated by the US and the other countries where the companies are headquartered.

For example, Nike (NKE) and McDonald’s (MCD) announced they are temporarily closing their Russian stores. Disney (DIS), Warner Bros. (WB), and Sony (SONY) paused the release of new films in Russia. Apple (AAPL), General Electric (GE), and Microsoft (MSFT) stopped selling their products within Russian borders. McKinsey, Ernst & Young, and other large accounting firms said they are leaving the Russian market, indefinitely. 

Since February 24, the growing list now exceeds 300 companies with plans to close outlets, reassign staff or stop selling products in Russia, according to a running count by Yale management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld.

ESG Investing

In some ways, these quick decisions fit in with the recent ESG movement where companies have increasingly adopted policies on often debated social and political issues. The groundswell of adoption sometimes has been to cater to investor
appetite
, although not always. Last year non-publicly owned  Major League Baseball moved the planned location of the All-Star Game from Georgia to a state it felt better conformed to the MLB view on voting rights/privileges. While it is easy for a company to not align itself with unpopular actions, including invading a neighboring country, in the past, profits have been the overriding factor driving policy and actions. In the case of corporations leaving Russia, the speed at which these companies departed, often leaving assets behind, and in most cases leaving the companies financially worse off, is in part tied to the ESG adopted policies of these businesses.

Many of the policies were driven by and made to appeal to investors.

 

Betterment

Until relatively recently, companies rarely took a stand on social or political issues. In fact, many that are departing Russia did the opposite. A certain Firestone (BRDCY) tire that had been original equipment on Ford (F) Explorers were failing. The social impact was that they caused 271 fatalities in the early through the mid-90s. While both companies were made aware of the dreadful statistics, neither did anything until lawsuits and eventually, an act of Congress, forced their hand. Another car company, Volkswagen (VWAGY), had a clean diesel Jetta that was anything but clean – and Volkswagen knew it. Their response, until getting busted in 2014, was to install emissions software on more than a half-million diesel cars in the US. and 10.5 million worldwide. The software makes it appear the cars comply with EPA standards. Both Ford and Volkswagen, along with a host of other companies known for previous environmental or social misdeeds have handled the Russia decision differently; they have quickly backed out.

Public Relations

In addition to investor relations, another reason for the change over the years in management governance and policies is customers. News travels fast over the internet, even misleading news. Companies rely on reputations. One post-invasion poll found that 86% of Americans saw the invasion as unjustified. Many categorized Russian President Vladimir Putin with the same disdain as the likes of Adolph Hitler.

A good reputation is worth quite a bit for companies. Today social media “shaming” is taken seriously by CEOs. After #BoycottMcDonalds began trending on Twitter (TWTR) to protest its continued business in Russia, the fast-food chain said it was temporarily closing its stores there. Burger King (BK) has stayed with the promise of donating profits to help refugees and others. Car company Tesla (TSLA), CEO Elon Musk, agreed to provide Ukraine with free satellites after officials from Ukraine used Twitter to request them. Muck replied on the same social media platform.

While the decision to suspend operations often is presented as a trade-off between reputation and revenue, in this multi-stakeholder, interconnected world, it’s increasingly likely that harm to reputation will lead to an impact on revenue. While some companies—particularly those in consumer-packaged goods—have a strong sense of how their stances on social and political issues can affect consumer decisions and therefore revenue, other types of firms have more work to do in developing models to understand the impact of reputation on the bottom line.

Take-Away

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the intersection of risk, reputation, and revenue. For many companies, the decision to suspend or cut ties may be a relatively easy one. Given the size of the Russian economy, low amounts of revenue may be involved. And the reputational harm of continuing business—and the benefit of announcing a withdrawal—may be high. But even if this is an easy case, investors need to know if the management of the companies they are invested in has a consistent policy for deciding whether and how to sever business ties. Inconsistency brings uncertainty for stockholders. It is likely many of the larger international companies are fine-tuning some of their policies right now. Smaller companies also should have consistent policies, even if their decisions do not make headline news – investors have become hyper-sensitive to a company’s impact.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

 

Suggested Reading



Decentralized Finance, is it the Future?



ESG Growing Pains Include Greenwashing





What’s an ESG Score



Can Buffett and Icahn Both be Right on Occidental Petroleum


Sources

https://www.conference-board.org/topics/geopolitics/cutting-ties-with-russia

https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2022/letter-to-partners-from-kevin-johnson-on-ukraine/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/business/mcdonalds-pepsi-coke-russia/index.html

https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-300-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-microsoft-and-other-tech-companies-stop-sales-in-russia/

https://www.mashed.com/789748/heres-why-boycott-mcdonalds-is-trending-on-twitter/

https://theconversation.com/why-apple-disney-ikea-and-hundreds-of-other-western-companies-are-abandoning-russia-with-barely-a-shrug-178516

https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-auditors-to-leave-russia-amid-invasion-of-ukraine-11646666419?mod=djemCFO

https://www.mlb.com/news/2021-all-star-game-draft-relocated

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-corporations-pull-out-invasion/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15339250/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-vw-diesel-emissions-scandal/

 

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

Nancy Pelosis Coattail Investors Get an Update


Image: BJClayborn (Flickr)


Pelosi’s Recent Investment Portfolio Tweaks

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, financier Paul Pelosi, has had remarkable stock-picking success. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by coattail investors and others that peruse the couple’s investment transactions for ideas. Nancy Pelosi’s wealth, in part because of her spouse’s investment track record, is now listed as 13th among the wealthiest members of Congress. This is why others look to see where they are committing assets.

Background

So-called coat tail or copycat investors that follow hedge fund managers and other professional investors often have to wait 45 days for a quarterly filing to be made public. This makes some of the listed transactions as ancient as 135 days old by the time they become public information. Perhaps too old to act on, the positions may no longer even be held in the portfolio.

Congress and close family members are required to release information concerning their transactions within 45 days of the trade execution. This provides much more current information on a member of Congress’ account than a quarterly 13F filing by Ark Invest or Scion Capital does. The most recent Periodic Transactions Report of the Pelosi’s is comprised of investments all made in late January.

Holdings Changes

From January 21- January 27 there was $2.9m of large tech and financial firms added to Pelosi’s assets. They were Alliance Bernstein (AB), American Express (AXP), Apple (AAPL), Paypal (PYPL), and Walt Disney (DIS). There was nothing reported to suggest that they lowered their holding in previous high flyers, Slack (WORK), Tesla (TSLA), Alphabet (GOOGL), Facebook (FB), or Netflix (NFLX)

 

Image: Paul Pelosi’s Stock Act filing (January 2022)

 

Related News

The latest transaction report comes at a time when actions are being discussed by lawmakers that could require members of Congress and their spouses to be barred from trading individual stocks. A House panel is meeting on March 16th to debate the merits of a Congressional ban on trading and what any trading rules should include. Similar restrictions have been placed on officials at the Federal Reserve.

Representative Lofgren chairs the House Administration Committee; he has been compiling recommendations on how best to enact a ban. The House leadership, steered by Speaker Pelosi, will then have the final decision on how to proceed. Other laws covering members and staff, such as the Ethics in Government Act, are expected to be reviewed as well.

Take-Away

Copycat investing is easiest if you’re mimicking a lawmaker as their reporting is more frequent than SEC-regulated money managers. One of the most successful accounts in Congress is that of the Pelosis. The opportunity to follow lawmakers’ trades may one day come to an end as lawmakers are looking to ban themselves from trading in stocks. Should this ever come to be, this method for self-directed traders to discover ideas will come to an end.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

 

Suggested Reading



Lawmakers and Insider Trading Laws



About Cathie Wood’s SEC Filing for a Private Equity Fund





Michael Burry’s Stock Market Holdings (Filed Feb 14, 2022)



The SPAC Advantage in a Volatile or Bear Market

 

Sources

Pelosi’s Transaction
Report

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coattailinvesting.asp

https://email.punchbowl.news/t/ViewEmail/t/FA92DBE67DB478132540EF23F30FEDED/BCD22D0840B16355A0F01D70678E0DEE

https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-discloses-stock-trades-amid-calls-trading-ban-congress-2022-3


 

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

Kleptocapture and its Targets


Image: BJClayborn (Flickr)


Seizing Assets of Wealthy and Powerful Russians to Help Weaken Resolve

 

What’s an oligarch, what’s a Russian oligarch, and can nations around the globe choose to seize their assets?

In a US Justice Department press release on March 2nd, Attorney General Merrick Garland Announced the launch of Task Force KleptoCapture. According to the release, the “task force will surge federal law enforcement resources to hold accountable corrupt Russian oligarchs.”

The Task Force is dedicated to enforcing the strict sanctions, export restrictions, and economic countermeasures that the US, EU, and other partners have imposed on the aggressor, says the release.

It explains that Task Force KleptoCapture exists to ensure enough power is provided, so the full effect of the punitive actions and Russian isolation from global markets is fully implemented. The intent is to impose serious costs for an “unjustified act of war, by targeting the crimes of Russian officials, government-aligned elites, and those who aid or conceal their unlawful conduct” according to the DOJ release.

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco is quoted in the release as saying, “To those bolstering the Russian regime through corruption and sanctions evasion: we will deprive you of safe haven and hold you accountable”. “Oligarchs be warned: we will use every tool to freeze and seize your criminal proceeds.” The press release goes on to define the task forces full mission which not only has implications for powerful Russians, it may also impact cryptocurrency transactions and others that under “normal” circumstances may not have been considered as crimes that are worthy of the penalties imposed. The DOJ summarized the mission of the Task Force to include:

  • Investigating and prosecuting violations of new and future sanctions imposed in response to the Ukraine invasion, as well as sanctions imposed for prior instances of Russian aggression and corruption;
  • Combating unlawful efforts to undermine restrictions taken against Russian financial institutions, including the prosecution of those who try to evade know-your-customer and anti-money laundering measures;
  • Targeting efforts to use
    cryptocurrency to evade
    US sanctions, launder proceeds of foreign corruption, or evade US responses to Russian military aggression; and
  • Using civil and criminal asset forfeiture authorities to seize assets belonging to sanctioned individuals or assets identified as the proceeds of unlawful conduct.

Using the combined force of powerful nations to determine guilt and then punish people with close ties to President Putin and their families may turn out to be effective, but, not unlike the conundrum experienced by crypto
exchanges
,  it does create questions related to who owns what and who may seize that which others own. For example, a 500-foot megayacht seized this week in Germany owned by a member of the Russian elite.

A group of mostly obscure officials and businessmen from Russia are now being closely tracked financially. Some of the listed targets have indicated publicly they are against the war. And according to the Wall Street Journal, many of Russia’s better-known oligarchs aren’t on any governments’ sanctions lists. This is the case with Roman Abramovich, who made his money in the energy business and is the owner of British soccer club Chelsea FC. In recent days, he has offered to mediate peace efforts and said he’s looking to sell Chelsea.

Western governments hope that heightened scrutiny of Russia’s oligarchs will pressure President Vladimir Putin.

What is an Oligarch?

An “oligarchy” describes a power system led by a small group of people. It could be compared to a ruling monarchy, although the small number of leaders aren’t necessarily related. In recent years, the word “oligarch” has taken on a more specific meaning when it relates to states from the former USSR. Here it translates to businesspeople and officials who gained wealth and power in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

“We are joining with our European allies to find and
seize your yachts, your luxury apartments, your private jets. We are coming for
your ill-begotten gains.”
President Biden, State of the Union Address (March 2022)

 

How Russia’s Oligarchs Gained Wealth and Power?

The country’s current crop of billionaires and officials accumulated wealth and power in different ways. Some of those on the sanction list are part of Mr. Putin’s inner circle; others are longtime associates; while others benefited from a wave of privatizations that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Their Public Stance on the War

Oleg Deripaska, a raw-materials magnate who had been sanctioned before (2014/Crimea) by the US, wrote on social media Sunday that peace “is very important.” Mr. Deripaska sued the US Treasury Department in 2019, challenging his inclusion in the Treasury’s report on Russian oligarchs as well as the sanctions against him. He alleges the US made false accusations based on rumor and innuendo to support the sanctions. A court ruled against Oleg last June.

Mikhail Fridman is the founder of Alfa Bank, Russia’s largest private bank. Mikhail was sanctioned by the EU late Monday. Fridman says he will contest the designation and that he isn’t politically or financially connected to Mr. Putin. “It seems to me that we have done a lot of good things, invested in companies, created a lot of jobs,” Mr. Fridman said at a press conference from his private-equity firm’s office in London. “We will litigate to protect our reputation.”

Take-Away

All matters related to war, politics, and justice are delicate.

 

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

 

Suggested Reading



Should Bitcoins Ability to Soften and Stabilize Russian Finances be Stopped?



Integrating Innovative Technology Inputs in Modern Warfare





Cryptocurrencies with the Help of DAOs Provide a Means to Support Ukraine’s Efforts



Will the SEC Allow ETFs to Own Cryptocurrency?

 

Sources

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-announces-launch-task-force-kleptocapture

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/2/us-launches-kleptocapture-task-force-against-russian-oligarchs


 

Stay up to date. Follow us:

 

Nancy Pelosi’s Coattail Investors Get an Update


Image: BJClayborn (Flickr)


Pelosi’s Recent Investment Portfolio Tweaks

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, financier Paul Pelosi, has had remarkable stock-picking success. This hasn’t gone unnoticed by coattail investors and others that peruse the couple’s investment transactions for ideas. Nancy Pelosi’s wealth, in part because of her spouse’s investment track record, is now listed as 13th among the wealthiest members of Congress. This is why others look to see where they are committing assets.

Background

So-called coat tail or copycat investors that follow hedge fund managers and other professional investors often have to wait 45 days for a quarterly filing to be made public. This makes some of the listed transactions as ancient as 135 days old by the time they become public information. Perhaps too old to act on, the positions may no longer even be held in the portfolio.

Congress and close family members are required to release information concerning their transactions within 45 days of the trade execution. This provides much more current information on a member of Congress’ account than a quarterly 13F filing by Ark Invest or Scion Capital does. The most recent Periodic Transactions Report of the Pelosi’s is comprised of investments all made in late January.

Holdings Changes

From January 21- January 27 there was $2.9m of large tech and financial firms added to Pelosi’s assets. They were Alliance Bernstein (AB), American Express (AXP), Apple (AAPL), Paypal (PYPL), and Walt Disney (DIS). There was nothing reported to suggest that they lowered their holding in previous high flyers, Slack (WORK), Tesla (TSLA), Alphabet (GOOGL), Facebook (FB), or Netflix (NFLX)

 

Image: Paul Pelosi’s Stock Act filing (January 2022)

 

Related News

The latest transaction report comes at a time when actions are being discussed by lawmakers that could require members of Congress and their spouses to be barred from trading individual stocks. A House panel is meeting on March 16th to debate the merits of a Congressional ban on trading and what any trading rules should include. Similar restrictions have been placed on officials at the Federal Reserve.

Representative Lofgren chairs the House Administration Committee; he has been compiling recommendations on how best to enact a ban. The House leadership, steered by Speaker Pelosi, will then have the final decision on how to proceed. Other laws covering members and staff, such as the Ethics in Government Act, are expected to be reviewed as well.

Take-Away

Copycat investing is easiest if you’re mimicking a lawmaker as their reporting is more frequent than SEC-regulated money managers. One of the most successful accounts in Congress is that of the Pelosis. The opportunity to follow lawmakers’ trades may one day come to an end as lawmakers are looking to ban themselves from trading in stocks. Should this ever come to be, this method for self-directed traders to discover ideas will come to an end.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

 

Suggested Reading



Lawmakers and Insider Trading Laws



About Cathie Wood’s SEC Filing for a Private Equity Fund





Michael Burry’s Stock Market Holdings (Filed Feb 14, 2022)



The SPAC Advantage in a Volatile or Bear Market

 

Sources

Pelosi’s Transaction
Report

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coattailinvesting.asp

https://email.punchbowl.news/t/ViewEmail/t/FA92DBE67DB478132540EF23F30FEDED/BCD22D0840B16355A0F01D70678E0DEE

https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-discloses-stock-trades-amid-calls-trading-ban-congress-2022-3


 

Stay up to date. Follow us: