JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Banks and trading houses bought two-thirds of carbon permits

During the northern winter, there were more speculators in the carbon market than genuine players.

Those bankers must be very concerned about the environment.

Speculators main buyers in EU carbon auctions -report
17 May 2013

LONDON, May 17 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Banks and trading houses bought more than two thirds of the 138 million carbon permits sold by 25 European governments between Nov. 2012 and Feb. 2013 to help power plants and factories comply with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, an EU Commission report published Friday showed.

Six “credit institutions” and six “investment firms” dominated the 35 auctions held over that period, picking up as much as 80 percent of the allowances sold in January alone, the report said, adding that only one of those companies was eligible to bid on behalf of clients.

http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2378205 paywalled.

Things have changed in the carbon market. From 2005-2012 most allowances were given away free, but now they are being sold at auction. So the period starting Nov 2012 was probably the first sales under the new system. It is expected that the bankers and traders will sell the permits to the power companies in the futures market.

Hat tip: Scott the trader.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (52 votes cast)
Banks and trading houses bought two-thirds of carbon permits, 9.2 out of 10 based on 52 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/odhzg62

68 comments to Banks and trading houses bought two-thirds of carbon permits

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    This news is a continuation of a long running story. The not very tree-green but very greenback-green scheming behind CO2 taxation has been covered here before in extensive comments. Monetising land as carbon sinks has been a bankster goal for 25 years. Goldman Sachs brag about it, and as for the Rothschilds… they wanted to tax the world to save the planet before the IPCC even existed.

    The last I heard, in Nov 2012 Julia said her government was going to help the bankers get their share.
    Sounds like the bankers do not have long to wait.

    90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      My pick, is that Julia has her eyes on a job with the IMF, once her time as “Preim Mineister” has run its course.

      70

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I was just watching Parliament house live. (Very infuriating, brace yourselves.)
      The prime minister said that “carbon pollution” was causing climate change, the science says so, and “no person of reason could possibly disagree”. (!)

      At this point I believe the honourable Member for Tangey was ordered to leave the chamber for interjecting.
      I shouted my approval at the television, “Good on ya Dennis Jensen!!” as Dr Jensen took one last disgusted look at the chamber before closing the door behind him.

      The government then gave the opposition leader a “chance” to answer the question of “whether he believes in anthropogenic climate change” and is he still committed to a 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Obviously this was intended to highlight Abbot is also an adherent of the new religion and that there was still bipartisan agreement to a reduction target, so anything Abbot whinges about will ultimately have no substantial basis or lead to no significant change in outcome.

      Tony Abbot’s reply (and you can look up the exact quote from Hansard probably within an hour) was basically along the lines of:

      A) We accept the science that tells us that “something is happening to our planet“.
      B) But our Direct Action plan on more trees, improved soils, and better technology will actually achieve domestic “carbon” emissions reductions when the government’s Great Big New Crippling Carbon Tax will not.
      C) Domestic “carbon” emissions were projected to rise even under a $37/tonne price. The only way the government is reaching a 5% reduction target is by buying 100 million tonnes of emissions from overseas carbon traders. This tax is a 3.5 billion dollar gift to the foreign carbon traders, paid for by everybody in Australia.

      I found this final admission of a nugget of truth in a house of lip-service and deceit quite surprising.
      The fact the carbon tax is a gift to the banksters and the UN has been a poorly kept secret for over a year and based on the comments I just saw in Parliament it is totally out in the open now.

      120

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Andrew, even though you said to brace ourselves I’m still infuriated.
        Maybe it’ll all change when the LNP gets in. end/sarc

        20

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    “to help power plants and factories comply with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme”

    By purchasing the majority of credits, the banks and investment houses can do what the government can’t do: set a minimum price for carbon credits.

    What will be interesting to see is what the opening price is, and what the incremental-credit prices become. If your plant cannot operate without them, the price you pay will represent your desperation (and ability to pass the costs on to the consumer).

    This is the end-run: rather than the market-as-users determine the price, the market-as-providers will set the price. With the nod-nod-wink-wink of the government who has an opinion of what the minimum price should be. Then when the people complain, the object of complaint is not the government, but the “free-market” so loved by Republicans. A situation Democrats can applaud and Republicans can’t complain about.

    Regulation through third party self-interest.

    Brilliant! But we shoulda seen this coming.

    110

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Yep,

      But I am wondering if the laws surrounding the formation of cartels, might not be a weak point, in that strategy.

      If a large generator just refuses to pay an inflated price for the credits, but generates the power anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens.

      110

  • #
    Richard deSousa

    Who will the purchasers sell their carbon credits?! The European Carbon Trading market has collapsed due to fraud and the US carbon trading stock has collapsed due to lack of profit. When the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsed credits were selling at $0.10 per ton, a far cry from the initial asking price. Now Crazyfornia is about to try to sell it’s carbon credits and it wants $10 per ton. Hahahaha! Naive idiots!

    70

  • #

    Since money is no longer any thing tangible, what does it profit the bankers if they add still more zeros to their accounts that exist only in magnetic domains? The bit patterns that are called money can be used to “buy” things only if the government uses its guns to force a potential seller to accept them as payment.

    When the system finally breaks down and no one can make anything, the guns and the bit patterns become meaningless. The bit patterns destroyed real wealth just as the guns can and have destroyed those who produce actual wealth.

    What I find interesting is the way this game has been played since the first government was formed. Money started as something with value and was debased until it was worthless. The producers of wealth were forced at point of gun to give up their wealth in return for worthless “money” until they could no longer produce. The government and the society it governed collapsed into chaos.

    There is no historical case if this not being so. Why then do the present day governments and bankers think it will not happen now? They know damn well what will happen. However, they like to pretend that the collapse won’t happen on their watch. It will eventually because it has every other time this scheme has been attempted.

    I suggest that they really want the collapse because in spite of 7000 years of history and countless collapsed civilizations from much the same causes, they persist in doing the same old same old. They will therefor invariably get the same results. Only minor and irrelevant details of names, places, events, and timing will differ.

    There is a basic moral principle that if someone repeatedly follows the same policy and gets the same result contrary to their stated goals, they INTEND to get those results. Their claims to the contrary are simply a smokescreen to hide their true motivation from both themselves and others. Their final gasp will be “I didn’t mean for this to happen.” Yes they did. Every last bit of it.

    Yet, We the People continue to vote them into office and cheer them on for their every extravagance. That is as long as enough crumbs fall off the table and into our mouths. Clearly then, there is something about We the People having the self same death wish as our government and the bankers. We, like they, simply hope we can party hearty until the collapse.

    There is a way out but it requires that we follow a different path. There is a chance for that to happen, but it is on the none side of slim and none.

    110

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Bitcoin is a direct threat to the monetary system, not because of what it is, but because it demonstrates exactly what you are saying — there is nothing tangible about monetary wealth.

      That is the real reason why the US Treasury are investigating ways to “monitor” and “possibly regulate” the Bitcoin market.

      80

      • #
        Winston

        I think Bitcoin is a bait and trap for those trying to hedge against collapse of the system. I think it seems to make everyone who “invests” in it traceable, a trojan horse to infiltrate people’s financial affairs selectively, and as an added bonus completely collapsible with a flick of a switch.

        It would probably be a dangerous alternative to the current fiat currency system for the banker elite if it was legit. My sense is it isn’t anything more than an elaborate banker scam designed to corral those canny enough to want to protect themselves from what may come, but naive enough to think they have actually outsmarted the game.

        I’m happy to stand corrected if others have a better idea.

        51

        • #
          MemoryVault

          I’m inclined to agree with you, Winston.

          Back when Bartercard was originally set up our ATO, the Yank’s IRS, and all the other grubmint tax bodies were all over it, because of its utility in supporting tax-free trade of goods and services.

          If Bitcoin was what they claim it to be, it would be a boon not only for avoiding tax, but also for trading in illegal and banned substances and so on.

          And yet hardly a peep from the authorities.

          50

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Agree with you Winston.

          Wouldn’t trust it as far as I could kick it.

          KK :)

          30

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            While on the topic, I’ve also had a very uneasy feeling about PayPal.

            Only used it a few times and still can’t figure out why I did.

            KK

            20

  • #
    Manfred

    How stunningly ironic, and just as the real science is catching up with the intellectually and morally corrupt political consensus that funds the climate science charade. The UK Met Office, short of chairs, have been left standing when the music stopped, finding themselves unable to answer a simple statistical question that they ought to have been able to address routinely.

    The issue here is the claim that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050). The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html

    The climate charade is imploding before our eyes, with or without the bankers and speculators. The music is about to stop and there are no chairs. The people left holding the baby will not only have egg on their face, they’ll be high and dry. Have I left anything out?

    200

  • #
    Jon

    It’s just another pyramid scam?

    60

  • #
    Dave

    .
    They bought them from:

    138 million carbon permits sold by 25 European governments between Nov. 2012 and Feb. 2013

    And these 25 Governments spent all the money on – bailing out other banks maybe????

    It has always been about the money, nothing else, as Jon above said, another Pyramid Scheme.

    100

  • #
    handjive

    Off topic but…

    Congratulations to Ms. Joannenova.
    You made the pages of the Courier Mail, specifically the science ignorant scribbler Paul Syvret who denies the evidence.

    Quote:
    One of the AEF’s favourite targets, aside from its love of links to sites promoting climate-change denial (such as junk science queen and conspiracy theorist Jo Nova), is wind farms – an aesthetic act of vandalism, an acoustic affront and a potentially deadly health hazard, apparently.

    Wind power in the sights of climate change deniers the Australian Environment Foundation

    We must blame tonyfromoz, who continually posts fact laden electrical engineering data about the useless wind & solar power generation.

    190

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      We must blame tonyfromoz …

      Yeah, way to go team!

      60

    • #

      Note specifically where this guy mentions about Wind Farms Plants:

      ….. is wind farms – an aesthetic act of vandalism, an acoustic affront and a potentially deadly health hazard, apparently.

      While those three things are important, far and away the single most important failing is that they don’t deliver power.

      It’s like doing a review of the latest car release, a brand spanking new car with only two wheels at the front and none at the back.

      The review would harp on the fact that the paint was an odd colour, there was no GPS, and only a single CD player with no stacker.

      Tony.

      POST SCRIPT – How I detest the word farms attached to these things.

      110

      • #
        Manfred

        Tony,
        I’ve always referred to them as ‘windmills’ myself, used pointedly to highlight an old technology, discarded for good reason.

        100

        • #
          Dave

          Another windmill loses a Blade? 16/05/2013

          Siemens Energy announced it is shutting down all its turbines worldwide that use the same blade until their safety can be assessed.

          This was on 16th May because a 10 tonne blade was thrown 150 meters away in California. Siemens Energy shuts down all it’s turbines with the same blade. These were probably half subsidised by government.

          Well that’s going to take a huge slice out of the power market. NOT.

          When will these Ugly, Useless, Expensive, Bird Killers be banned?

          80

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Not an Olympic record. A 3 tonne piece flying 1300 metres is the current holder.

            Flying is the right verb; the blades are aerofoils.

            Unfortunately most wind farm enthusiasts live a long way from wind farms. There’s nothing like a 6 tonne piece crashing on your roof in the middle of the night as an introduction to reality. But then most enthusiasts for wind farms are a long way from reality.

            30

            • #
              Mark D.

              Blade? Foil? (a blade used in fencing) both are names for weapons and once torn free they should be classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. That might cause the owners of these beasts to get serious about engineering and quality control during manufacturing and construction.

              30

        • #
          Dave

          .

          And another windmill bites the dust in Japan.

          Apparently they don’t like wind?

          60

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Hey Tony you will go ape about another thing I heard Jooolia saying in the Lower House yesterday.
        She said the RETs were effective at reducing carbon emissions!

        Now that the Hansard is available you can read the full quote:

        Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:23): To
        the member’s question, I absolutely confirm to him that
        I accept the science of climate change. I absolutely
        confirm to him that I accept that science, as I accept
        other scientific conclusions. Consequently that means
        that I understand that carbon pollution, in particular,
        is making a difference to our climate and so if we
        are to tackle climate change then we need to tackle
        carbon pollution in our atmosphere. It is that that has
        driven the government’s policy about carbon pricing,
        because we believe that the cheapest, most effective
        way of reducing carbon pollution is by pricing it
        and we believe in terms of the government’s carbon
        pricing scheme and Renewable Energy Target that the
        evidence is already in, that it is working to reduce
        carbon pollution.
        I absolutely accept the science and do
        not believe that it is possible for a person of reason to
        have any other view.

        Breathe in, ffFFFFFffffffff, breathe out, aaaaaaaarrk.

        Will policy-induced taxpayer convulsions be covered under the NDIS, or is that excluded as a pre-existing condition?

        20

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      Jo also cracked a mention on Delingpole today.

      .
      Sneaky girl, Jo. You didn’t tell us you were going to be movie star.

      50

    • #

      conspiracy theorist Jo Nova

      They’re more than theories when there’s evidence.

      If Syvret reckons that windmills are such a good idea, let him put his money into them and not insist that the government and electricity generators stick their collective hands in other people’s pockets; take money by force. To finance dead-end technologies that don’t deliver what’s needed, when it’s needed.

      FWIW: And to expand Paul Syvret’s apparently woeful education: People who don’t believe in a particular religion are “infidels” or “unbelievers”. People who speak against the beliefs a religion are “heretics”.

      60

  • #

    In Britain, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown blamed the 2008 financial collapse on the very financial institutions that are now supporting the Carbon Market.

    Are there any bloggers here who reside in the constituency of the Right Hon Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath? Would they be prepared to ask the following question via the website http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/gordon_brown/kirkcaldy_and_cowdenbeath#hansard ?

    Dear Mr Brown,
    In light of the fact that (according to Reuters) some of the very financial institutions behind the financial collapse of 2008 are now allegedly making money speculating on carbon credits, could you please ask for an investigation into their activities? As you will no doubt appreciate, such speculation is working against the interests of the the British people, both in pushing more of the poorer sections of society into fuel poverty and increasing the costs of energy to the very sectors of society that we are relying upon for recovery. All of this with no benefit in terms of reduction of CO2 emissions that are required to meet the targets mandated in the Climate Change Act 2008.

    I have just sent a similar message to my own MP. However, given that the worst of the UK financial crisis was due to the structural deficits run up by the Rt Hon Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer and the collapse of the banks were due to a lack of oversight from the tripartite structure that he set up on assuming office of Chancellor, I believe that the British public is entitled to a comment. Also given that the former Prime Minister has since 2010 has been one of the least active of the 650 representatives, I believe the British people should get some value for money.

    80

    • #
      Winston

      Fabians like Gordon Brown and his partner in crime Tony Blair must suffer from “Deficit Attention Disorder”- In fact, I’m sure it must be one of the eligibility criteria to become a member of the society, because they all seem to suffer from it- from Whitlam to Hawke to Keating to Rudd to Gillard………………

      60

      • #

        Sorry Winston, I disagree. They do not suffer from a psychological disorder. There is something much worse. In Britain in the 1980s the Labour Party was unelectable, due to being held back by the beliefs in nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy, giving trades unions massive powers and subsidizing every failing industry to save jobs. The response of the modernizers was to replace this with the political spin doctrine. Everything was based on projecting a positive image of their own policies and a negative image of the opposition. Error, or doubt was never included in the language. Straight answers were never given to awkward questions, with all politicians being coached in evasive measures. Pressure groups were sponsored to give reports in favoured policy, and (when Labour was in power) programmed in timing to headline the daily news bulletins, to shut out any adverse criticism or bad news.
        Many of the same techniques have been learnt by politicians elsewhere. Some of these have also crossed over into climatology, though there are uglier practices in that subject as well.

        30

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    There’s a fight going on in the world of emissions certificates.

    In Europe companies have been submitting UN carbon credits to the EU for their emissions. This was because the UN “grey” CER’s were much cheaper than even the EU certificates.

    Then the EU banned them, leaving 144 million of them worthless. I wonder how many banks and trading companies were caught?

    When the ban was announced the UN CER price dropped to one cent per tonne. Which shows you just how much waste CO2 is worth in reality.

    More recently though the price of UN CER’s has been rising again (to an amazing 37 cents/tonne today). It looks to me that European companies are finding ways around the ban and are again buying and submitting the cheaper UN ones again.

    If so I wouldn’t like to be the banks and traders holding all those highly priced EU credits that industry doesn’t need when they can buy the UN ones for a tenth the price.

    All of this makes Ms Gillard look pretty silly forcing us to pay 60 times as much to emit CO2 than the UN charges.

    120

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Bruce:
      The Banks and trading companies might be gambling that the EU can ram through the support for the carbon permit market which was voted against recently, by a majority of countries. The EUROcrats think they know better, and may well push again.

      I don’t think the Utility Companies are holding permits anymore. Everyone of them will have seen the rush of new coal fired projects in Germany, and will know that the German government won’t be penalising them. The recent decision by EU countries to pursue cheaper electricity to help their manufacturing sector means the same. The tide is going out.

      70

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Graeme – yes. But if the EU Commission does get the legislation through (a big if) then the next thing is going to be great fun.

        See, the EU banned the UN CER’s because they were undermining the whole EU cap and trade system. But if the legislation to restrict EU permit issuance gets through then the countries who disagree and those whose industries are being harmed (with the unions squawking loudly) will just let their own companies submit UN CER’s. Or look the other way when their own companies do the sort of laundering job they seem to be doing in that latest Bloomberg article.

        Then when the EU tries to whack that particular mole, the dissident politicians will say ‘don’t you accept the UN needs to be involved since it is a global problem?’ whereupon the EU is snookered, because Eurocrat progressive socialists back the UN and world governance, so they can’t easily say no to UN CER’s without saying no to the UN. And they will get nothing through the Security Council because the Chinese will block it.

        In the end the EU will have to let them use UN CER’s because of the political pressure and the UN has no incentive to restrict their issuance. No way will they go up in price, there is too much dollar incentive for more to be invented out of thin air.

        I suspect the whole thing will quietly fizzle anyway, because temperatures will get so cold that global warmers in the EU will be too discredited to get the legislation up. But it’ll be fun watching them squirm and struggle trying to.

        90

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Bruce:
          I think the whole scam is collapsing too fast for the power companies to worry about UN permits, or any other.
          Germany has (and is having) one of the coldest springs on record. (So has the rest of Europe). They need lots of electricity to keep warm, and as Tony keeps noting, to keep industry running.

          23,000 wind turbines are not supplying it. Those big new turbines in the Baltic Sea are either not working yet, or cannot supply the south of Germany (where they want the power) because the german transmission lines cannot carry the load, and the alternative route through Poland and the Czech Rep. has been blocked by them. Because they don’t want the sudden variations in wind output upsetting their power stations. (That’s the noble view, but they are making lots of money selling power into Germany).

          The Greens have forced a political decision to shut down all the german nuclear stations in the next 8(?) years. So the German Government is issuing permits to build coal fired power stations all over the place; 5 certain and 32 applications (although some of them are for gas).

          There is no way the German government is going to allow permits to hinder these power stations. Apart from the jobs in the coal mines, railways and power stations they face a freezing public who might start thinking that a good way to warm up is a raging bonfire with a few politicians on top.
          Any EUROCRAT decrees will be ignored, as they have been whenever inconvenient by other countries, notably France.

          Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and the Nederlands have drastically reduced subsidies for wind turbines. There are still a few SNIP (euphemism for those slow in thought) in the UK (and Scottish) governments, but they will soon be running for cover.

          Unfortunately, Australia and South Australia in particular are still infested by those SNIP…. but time will dispose of them.

          40

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          I agree completely Graeme. This is why the EU emissions permit system will collapse, because there is a huge incentive for national politicians to undercut it using UN CER’s. They can’t stop it.

          So my message to the trading companies and banks who’ve bought the lie and bought up the EU certificates, get out while you can.

          30

  • #
    Manfred

    It appears as though we’ve got the wrong end of the schtick. Dang.

    Climate change is real, it’s caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks for our health. Some members of Congress disagree with this simple, scientifically proven fact. We need to work to curb climate change, and a big step is to raise our voices to change the conversation in Washington. Call these deniers out. Hold them accountable. Ask them if they will admit climate change is a problem.

    http://www.barackobama.com/climate-deniers/

    40

    • #
      handjive

      Apparently Obama is considering making these people stitch yellow stars on their clothes so they can be properly identified & vilified.

      If they refuse to comply, tattoos & force will be used, and they will be put on trains and taken to re-edumakation camps for their own good.

      Showering is not an option there.

      It worked once before.

      60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Obama didn’t happen to provide the scientific proof behind that simple scientific fact, did he? No I thought not.

      But it is still a fail. His PR folks should never, ever, consider putting up a “wall of shame” on the internet. For every person who writes to one of these politicians, calling them names and worse, five to ten people will write to them in support. If you were a politician, who would you take more notice of?

      The fail-factor for this will be almost as bad as the 10-10 videos.

      Mind you, I am not suggesting that Obama get rid of his PR team, at least not while they are doing such service for the skeptic camp.

      90

      • #
        MemoryVault

        Funny you should mention that, Rereke.

        I’m about a quarter of the way through the list, deleting the default message, and pasting in my own thanks for their efforts.

        I’d strongly urge anybody else with a couple of spare hours to do the same.

        30

    • #
      Yonniestone

      How about Obummer goes one step further and gets these “climate change deniers” to publically explain themselves, in an open debate with other skeptical scientists to put their cases forward.
      Sorry I forgot warmists only stop at ad homs, What the hell was I thinking?

      30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    In 2011 total Carbon Trading was in the order of $176 Billion.

    At a commission rate of 0.1 cents for every dollar that changed hands, the facilitators, ie Banksters, would net commission of $176 Million annually.

    Of course that is IF the Credits changed hands.

    Now, what has the WWF, SkS and Gr$$np$ace got to do with this?

    KK :)

    60

  • #
    pat

    Keiser Report was hilarious covering this AP piece:

    18 May: USA Today: AP: Bernard Condon: Narcissist’s rally led by giant stock buybacks
    Flush with cash and a world of opportunity at their doorstep, companies have decided there’s nothing more attractive than themselves. So, they’re offering big money to buy back their own stock. This year, big U.S. companies have given the go-ahead for $286 billion of buybacks, up 88% from the same period last year, according to Birinyi Associates, a market research firm. If the pace continues for the rest of the year, the tally will exceed the record set in 2007.
    Every manner of company is caught up in the buying binge, including home-improvement chains, makers of farm equipment and jet engines, airlines, sellers of soft drinks and of hard liquor alike. Not one to miss a hot trend, Apple recently authorized as much as $50 billion of buybacks…
    Buybacks are also crucial to the rally for a reason that’s not widely known. Companies are one of the few big stock purchasers nowadays. Nearly every other big player in the stock market has been selling more than they’ve been buying.
    Pension funds have been selling. Local and state governments have been selling. Investment brokerages have been selling. And, yes, until recently, even Main Street investors.
    You can see this in the data released by the Federal Reserve each quarter, and it’s a sea of red — save for corporate buying, that is, buybacks plus purchases of other companies. In total, U.S. companies, not counting banks and other financial firms, have bought more than $1 trillion of stock in the five years through 2012, net of stock they’ve sold in the open market…
    The dilemma facing buyback skeptics who are thinking of selling is the same one facing those worried the rise in the market has come mostly from the Federal Reserve efforts to stimulate the economy. “Don’t fight the Fed,” the old Wall Street saw goes.
    Perhaps a new saw should be added: “Don’t buck the buybacks.”
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/18/buybacks-are-a-big-factor-behind-stock-market-boom/2267039/

    28 May: Australian: Andrew White: High-frequency traders ‘should pay more for messages’
    In a submission on cost-recovery measures for ASIC, the FSC said market makers who provided genuine liquidity and who facilitated trade in exchange-traded funds should be exempt from the higher messaging charges.
    High-frequency traders seek to profit from large numbers of usually small trades and small movements in the price.
    They issue and withdraw hundreds of buy and sell orders as part of their trading and do not hold stocks after the market close.
    The FSC said “excessive” messaging is usually aimed at “extracting information about the intentions of other market participants to their detriment” and should carry a higher burden of ASIC’s costs in regulating the stockmarket.
    “This has the effect of increasing the friction cost of transactions for investors with a longer-term time horizon,” the FSC wrote in its submission…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/high-frequency-traders-should-pay-more-for-messages/story-e6frg916-1226651695674

    70

  • #
    pat

    Youtube: Bill Black: Our System is So Flawed That Fraud is Mathematically Guaranteed
    Bill Black is a former bank regulator who played a central role in prosecuting the corruption responsible for the S&L crisis of the late 1980s. He is one of America’s top experts on financial fraud. And he laments that the US has descended into a type of crony capitalism that makes continued fraud a virtual certainty – while increasingly neutering the safeguards intended to prevent and punish such abuse…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9JfmzUtlWM

    Part 2 is only available to subscribers.

    80

  • #
    RoHa

    Ah, the glories of free trade and deregulated markets!

    41

    • #
      Manfred

      Be that as it may, I’d still prefer acquiescing to a delusion that there is an outside possibility that I possess a miniscule chance to exert an influence on my destiny.

      The alternative – being part of a toxic Green Super State, answerable to the Personal Oversight Directorate with its departments of internal and external environmental compliance – the former regulating personal lifestyle, the latter anthro-environmental impact , with five, ten and fifteen year plans, and a predetermined date of expiration (human shelf life), is little more than a mindlessly compliant hell.

      Humanity shows over and over again, that regimes of any persuasion that threaten and stifle the human spirit always fail. In this case, endemic corruption leads to growing inefficiency and widespread decline.

      70

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      What on earth does modern bankstering have to do with “free trade and deregulated markets”?

      60

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Yep, nothing.
        It’s not regulation versus deregulation per se but rather the right kind of regulation being requested by the regulated and given by the regulators that means free trade isn’t happening.

        Financial deregulation (mainly in the USA starting under Clinton) made the GFC possible by relaxing bank leveraging limits, deregulating derivatives, and relaxing mortgage risk checks. The subsequent banker bailouts were considered by several schools of thought to be necessary to keep the economy afloat though of course that’s a sign of cronyism rather than a free market.

        At the same time new regulations creating rigged phoney markets in a vapourware product you’re required to buy had established a new stream of corporate welfare for the true owners of the modern State.

        There’s a sucker born every minute, but to monetise stupidity requires removal of laws that require people to actually get something for their money. Requiring people to buy nothing and removing penalties of failure may require either regulation or deregulation as appropriate for the bankster market segment in question.

        It’s a bit like falling for the Left/Right paradigm when no practical difference exists today.

        80

  • #
    crosspatch

    The entire notion of “carbon credits” was dreamed up by Enron in the US so they could profit by acting as an exchange for them. That these banks and trading houses have done this should be no surprise. That was the original plan. There was an “unholy alliance” between Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and Enron at the time to create a scheme that would make them all rich. All they had to do was convince people that CO2 was a pollutant.

    http://reddpill.com/news.php?page=article&id=154&title=%E2%80%AAEnron+CEO%2C+Goldman+Sachs+Helped+Craft+Al+Gore%27s+Carbon+Trading+Scheme.

    80

  • #
    Dave

    .
    This is a worry,

    the report said, adding that only one of those companies was eligible to bid on behalf of clients.

    So even if you’re ineligible, you can still purchase.

    So of the six “credit institutions” and six “investment firms”, only ONE was ELIGIBLE?

    So illegal is obviously the norm at these auctions.

    40

  • #
    Joshua

    Hi Jo anne Im surprised that may skeptic sites have not taken up probably the most important story that the Met Office in London has had to admit indirectly that there has been no significant warming since 1850 see Bishop hill or WUWT. The whole AGW theory has been blown apart!!!

    50

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      It does seem somewhat obscure to the untrained eye and I can’t see the MSM picking up on it any time soon, even if they wanted to.
      Full marks to the characters involved for persisting & shining a light on this small corner.
      Hiding in obscurity is the hallmark of many academics, while their political masters would rather appeal to emotion and ignorance while defering to their appointed authorities in seeking to control us.
      Intrigueing as it is there is more to significance than statistics, which is sensitive to selection of both model and endpoints.
      I look forward however to seeing how clearly the significance of this discovery can be communicated to a naive audience.

      40

  • #

    O/T Reminder: Last 24 hours to contribute to Topher’s 50 to 1 project

    50 to 1 project: The true cost of ‘action’ on climate change.

    50 to 1 is a video / web / interview project which shows beyond doubt that we are better off ADAPTING to climate change than we are trying to ‘stop’ it.

    3. … Expert Interviews. So far we have 7 confirmed interviewees, Former President Vaclav Klaus, Prof Henry Ergas, Prof Fred Singer, Anthony Watts, Prof David Evans, Christopher Essex, and Joanne Nova. …

    Contributing will, in the future, give you licence to say “I told you so!”.

    40

  • #
    handjive

    British Parliament, November, 2012 …

    … The Parliamentary Question that started this was put by Lord Donoughue on 8 November 2012.
    The Question is as follows:

    “To ask Her Majesty’s Government … whether they consider a rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 to be significant. [HL3050]”
    .
    The question put by Lord Donohue to was whether global warming since 1850 was statistically significant.
    Six times the question was put in the UK parliament and five times the answer was obfuscating spin about global warming without answering the question.
    However on the sixth time an answer was forthcoming.
    Global warming was not statistically significant.
    This is an incredible breakthrough and the post by Doug at Bishop Hill is attached below in full (at link).
    .
    The issue here is the claim that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”, which was made by the Met Office in response to the original Question (HL3050).

    The basis for that claim has now been effectively acknowledged to be untenable.

    Possibly there is some other basis for the claim, but that seems extremely implausible: the claim does not seem to have any valid basis.

    Plainly, then, the Met Office should now publicly withdraw the claim.

    That is, the Met Office should admit that the warming shown by the global-temperature record since 1880 (or indeed 1850) might be reasonably attributed to natural random variation.
    .
    Game over.

    30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The Met Office will probably “do a McEnroe” and claim the ball is still in play.

      O/T but do read http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
      Russians DRIVE from Russia to Canada via the North Pole (and plan to drive back via the Bering Strait). It seems the arctic ice isn’t cooperating with the AGW mob either.

      40

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Doug McNeall says :

      “If we are asked if there has been a statistically significant change in temperatures since the 1880s, we do not say “yes” or “no”, we say “that is not a valid question”. A difficulty may be in getting people to understand the reasoning sufficiently to accept the latter as the correct answer to the question.”

      Heh, heh. If you can’t give the answer you want to, blame the question.
      A more helpful correspondent might suggest then what can be said about the apparent change.

      10

  • #
    Steve Thatcher

    Dave
    May 28, 2013 at 2:04 pm · Reply

    .
    This is a worry,

    the report said, adding that only one of those companies was eligible to bid on behalf of clients.

    So even if you’re ineligible, you can still purchase.

    So of the six “credit institutions” and six “investment firms”, only ONE was ELIGIBLE?

    So illegal is obviously the norm at these auctions.

    ***********************************************
    I took this to mean that they were buying on their own behalf, not for clients (for which they were not eligible). So not necessarily illegal, anybody know differently please?

    00

  • #
    jim2

    Sorry about this OT post, but I can’t believe it. The census has gotten a lot more invasive here in the States, but nothing like this. Is this true, Jo?

    “Australian citizens have been complaining about government surveyors knocking on their doors and asking very intrusive personal questions. One resident in particular was asked what sexual partners his wife had, and also asked when either of them would be home alone. If residents decline these questions, they can face fines or even jail time.

    The Australian government has been conducting what they refer to as a “Monthly Population Survey” (MPS) since 1960 in order to provide regular information about the country’s workforce. However, recent complaints have revealed the questions are much more personal than how long you’ve been out of work.

    Residents are randomly selected for surveys based on their address. Despite the contradictory information on the ABS website, once residents have been chosen, they’re required to participate in the invasive surveys once a month for eight months. One Aussie in particular was told the only way to get around the survey would be to change addresses.”

    http://www.infowars.com/86240/

    00