Figure 1. One-year U.S. Treasury Yield-ATFX

It can be seen that before last week, the US short-term debt has been in a downward trend; after the Fed’s interest rate decision, the significant long-term yang line broke through the previous multi-week K-line high. The recent rise in the US dollar index is largely due to the rise in short-term US bond interest rates. The one-year U.S. Treasury’s “low creeping” began on March 23, 2020. During this time, the United States was cutting interest rates on a large scale in response to the new crown pneumonia epidemic. Up to now, the “low creeping” time has been maintained for 15 months, which is rare. Even if the Fed does not take measures to reduce the size of monthly bond purchases in the second half of the year, market expectations will continue to heat up, which is completely sufficient for the rise in short-term U.S. interest rates. The risk is that the Fed’s decision logic is to “cut interest rates if nothing is resolved”. If there is a black swan incident in the second half of the year, the expectation of reducing the size of bond purchases will no longer exist, and both U.S. Treasury interest rates and the U.S. dollar index will plummet.

Figure 2. Ten-year U.S. Treasury Yield-ATFX

Long-term U.S. bond interest rates have performed poorly. Even when expectations of reducing the size of bond purchases were strongest last week, they only closed the inverted hammer K-line with a long upper shadow. Part of the reason is that the Fed’s monthly debt purchases are mainly long-term bonds, and ten-year U.S. bonds are one of them. The 80 billion monthly bond purchases have pushed up the price of U.S. Treasury bonds and will correspondingly lower U.S. bond interest rates. From this perspective, U.S. bond yields are not entirely determined by the market, and there are certain regulatory attributes. The Fed does not want U.S. interest rates to rise quickly without a strong economic recovery, because this will have a negative impact on the business economy. Figure 3, US dollar index weekly chart-ATFX The dollar index has successfully bottomed, and the support point is at the previous low of 89.18. As can be seen in the figure, the previous high of 93.41 has become the resistance level for this round of rising. Only when this price is effectively broken can the future upside space be fully opened. The channel line in the chart shows that the upper rail suppressed this week’s rise. There is the announcement of the PCE price index in the first quarter of the US on Thursday. If not surprisingly, the published value will be 2.5% higher than the previous value, which will give a certain boost to the US dollar index bulls. In addition, during the first four days of this week, senior Fed officials will make speeches every day. Traders need to pay close attention to their views on labor market and price changes. ATFX Disclaimer : 1, The above analysis only represents the views of analysts. The foreign exchange market is risky and investment needs to be cautious. 2. A TFX will not be responsible for any profit or loss that may be caused by the direct or indirect use or reliance on this information. Source: Financial World Network

FC Schalke 04 Back to the Bundesliga thanks to the loan?

Status: 14.06.2021 5:27 p.m.

The past season has hurt FC Schalke 04 – both athletically and financially. In order to at least quickly get better economically, the club lures its fans with a bond. From Victor Gojdka, ARD stock exchange studio Perhaps the banner on the Internet already says it all: “Glück auf” is what it says if you want to buy the bond from Schalke 04. Schalke promise their investors exactly 5.75 percent interest. In view of the zero interest on the account, that looks lush. But football fan and stock market expert Alexander Langhorst from GSC Research says: Better look twice. “In the end, the money is needed here to repay old debts,” he explains. “You can’t buy players with the money, it’s only used to pay off the old bondholders. And that’s always a sign that you should be careful.” Because if a bond company goes bankrupt, investors’ money may be gone.

April 20, 2021

The gang in League 2 hits the office

And the finances of the Royal Blues are anything but royal: they made a loss of 52 million euros in the past financial year. Overall, the Schalke push a mountain of debt of 217 million euros in front of them – and now they are relegated to the second division. A disgrace – in terms of football and finance, says sports economist Daniel Weimar, who did research at the University of Duisburg-Essen: “These are high losses on all channels of revenue generation – sponsorship money, especially in TV marketing. So it is at all levels It is to be expected that the level of the first division cannot be maintained. ” Many football clubs get into a vicious circle after relegation: less income, less money for top players, poorer performance. Not a coincidence that recently too Werder Bremen borrowed money from the fans. This club has also been relegated to the second division. This is very typical of football bonds, says sports economist Weimar: “You can see that in the names when you go through the fan bonds: Hansa Rostock, MSV Duisburg, Arminia Bielefeld – we don’t find Borussia Dortmund here, we don’t find Bayern Munich here . ”

05/17/2021

Would you rather have a season ticket than a fan loan?

That alone is an indication, says Weimar: “These are the clubs that no longer have adequate access to the normal capital market.” Means: The banks often no longer give the clubs millions. Or only at extreme interest rates. Schalke is now offering almost six percent interest to private investors who are supposed to invest in the bond. At the bank, experts speculate, the association would have to pay twice as much to get fresh money. So would you rather go to the betting shop or buy the bond? Stock exchange expert Alexander Langhorst from GSC Research has a clear opinion: “Perhaps you should consider whether you should leave both of them. Or you can buy the S04 season ticket. The joy you get from it is the greatest.” The Ruhr Area Association Schalke 04 is historically dependent on coal. But whether investors end up making coal with their bonds or burning them? That, experts say, is pretty unclear.

Because of the Karlsruhe ECB judgment EU initiates proceedings against Germany

As of: June 9th, 2021 2:58 p.m.

The EU Commission considers the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on bond purchases by the ECB to be a “dangerous precedent”. That is why she is now initiating infringement proceedings against Germany. From Klaus Hempel, ARD legal editors The Brussels Commission believes that the Federal Constitutional Court violated the primacy of EU law with its controversial ruling on the ECB’s bond purchases last year. In doing so, Germany violated the basic principles of EU law. With the initiation of the infringement proceedings, the federal government now has two months to respond to the allegations in writing.

A judgment with explosive political power

In May 2020 the The Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the multi-billion dollar bond purchase program “PSPP” of the ECB was partially unconstitutional . The European Court of Justice (ECJ) had previously ruled that at the request of the Constitutional Court the program is legally in order and there is no violation of EU law . The Karlsruhe judges did not accept this, however, and thus opposed the ECJ – for the first time ever. They called his judgment “objectively arbitrary” and “methodologically no longer justifiable”. Your main criticism of the bond purchase program: The ECB had not justified why the program was proportionate and the significant economic impact on all citizens should be justified. The ECB and, through the ruling, also the ECJ had exceeded competences. The Bundestag and the Federal Government would have to work towards ensuring that the ECB subsequently provides this reason. In June 2020 the Governing Council looked again at the PSPP program and its proportionality. A little later, the Bundestag decided in a resolution that the proportionality test carried out by the Governing Council met the requirements resulting from the judgment. In a decision from the end of April 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court finally found that the Bundestag and the Federal Government had implemented the ruling. For the Federal Constitutional Court, the case was closed. But not for the EU Commission.

EU Commission sees dangerous precedent

The Commission sees a need for further clarification. In their view, the judgment represents “a serious precedent both for the future practice of the court itself and for the constitutional courts of other Member States”. The Brussels authority fears that the German example could set a precedent. The fear: EU states such as Poland or Hungary, which the Commission accuses of violating the rule of law, could no longer follow judgments of the European Court of Justice and refer to Germany. A year ago, shortly after the verdict was announced, had Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made it clear that infringement proceedings could be initiated against Germany . Judgments by the European Court of Justice are binding on all national courts, she explains. “The last word on EU law is always spoken in Luxembourg. Nowhere else.” It is about holding the EU together as a community of values ​​and rights. The reaction of the Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki shortly after the ruling from Karlsruhe showed that the fears in Brussels are not entirely unjustified. He spoke of one of the most important judgments in the history of the European Union. The judgment makes it clear that the individual member states determine where the competency limits lie for the EU institutions. In Poland, the national-conservative PiS government has been restructuring the judiciary for years. The ECJ has already intervened several times and found that parts of the reforms violated EU law.

Federal government now on the train

With the initiation of infringement proceedings, the federal government now has two months to take a position. If the Brussels Commission is satisfied with the answer, the procedure would be ended relatively quickly. In the most extreme case, however, the EU Commission could ultimately sue Germany before the European Court of Justice. In this case, the conflict between the ECJ and the Federal Constitutional Court would most likely escalate for good. Shortly after the Karlsruhe ruling, Luxembourg had already expressed its displeasure and officially declared that its rulings would be binding on a national court like the Federal Constitutional Court if it had appealed to the ECJ. Regardless of how the Federal Government will express itself: It cannot impose any requirements on the completely independently acting Federal Constitutional Court, let alone prescribe not to oppose judgments of the ECJ in the future. In previous rulings on Europe, Karlsruhe had always reserved a kind of “emergency brake”, the right to the “last word” in certain cases, as it were. At the moment it cannot be assumed that the Federal Constitutional Court will move away from this line of jurisdiction. The EU Commission is obviously interested in exactly that. She wants to ensure that the court grants the ECJ the final decision-making right with regard to European law issues – with the big, actual goal in mind that other constitutional courts of problem countries such as Poland will then also permanently bow to the ECJ rulings. But how it should succeed in persuading the very self-confident Federal Constitutional Court to give up its previous dogmatics, no one currently has a conclusive answer. As expected, the Constitutional Court did not comment on today’s decision by the EU Commission in Brussels.

Dispute over ECB bond purchases Get together!

As of: June 9th, 2021 6:05 p.m.

It is understandable that the EU Commission is reacting to the Karlsruhe ECB ruling with proceedings against Germany. But that won’t resolve the dispute. Only the courts themselves can do that. A comment from Frank Bräutigam, ARD legal editors If anyone at Karlsruhe’s Schlossplatz had hoped that the high waves after the Karlsruhe ECB judgment of May 2020 would fizzle out silently, they were disappointed today. The EU Commission is initiating infringement proceedings against Germany because of a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court. ´ That has never happened before. The relationship between Karlsruhe and Luxembourg has always been somewhat tense. But this is now a unique escalation.

Do not lose sight of questions of democracy

The starting point of the Federal Constitutional Court on EU issues is absolutely correct and important. To see that the legal limits remain an important currency at the EU level. Because one must not lose sight of the individual voter, i.e. questions of democracy. Because the individual states have not given up all their competences to the EU. With its “yes, but” approach, the court has achieved a lot in several rulings since the financial crisis in 2012 at the latest. In this specific case of the ECB bond purchase, pulling the emergency brake, accusing the ECB and ECJ of arbitrary action, went too far.

The EU Commission had to react

That was not proportionate: in terms of content, but also with a view to the possible role model effect for other states such as Poland or Hungary. What happens there in terms of content within the judiciary is of course not comparable to Germany. Nevertheless, there is this bare result: The German court does not adhere to what the ECJ says. Then why should we do this? The fact that, from its point of view, the EU Commission must therefore react and initiate a procedure – which is understandable.

Dilemma for several actors at the same time

But you also have to be aware that if you think through the process started today, it will lead several actors into a real dilemma. First of all, the federal government, which now has to take a position as a first step. What is she supposed to do? Somehow signal an independent court to correct its judgment or take other action? And in the last step, the ECJ would decide on a breach of contract. Who? Yes exactly. One of the arguing actors. He would be a kind of judge in his own case. Would that lead to a good solution?

Take “cooperation relationship” at its word

Arguing over who “has the last word” is almost always devastating. In private life, in politics and also within a network of national and European courts. It is the last thing the citizens of the EU need in these times. If the “cooperation relationship” between the courts can be heard in many speeches, this must be taken literally. Mind you: the courts cooperate with each other. Not the courts with the state and the EU. They are supposed to strictly control these two. The fact that there is often still room for improvement at the ECJ on this point has expressly contributed to this conflict.

It is the courts’ turn

An example from the two companies at issue here shows that cooperation is fundamentally possible. Because the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court (the Second Senate acts in the ECB conflict) has shown with important rulings from 2019 that Karlsruhe and Luxembourg can achieve control of national and European fundamental rights in the interests of the citizens together. That means: the current situation can only be defused by the courts themselves. Not from the Federal Government or the EU Commission. The actors from the judiciary know each other. Well, actually. You have to pull yourself together. It is unclear what the one solution to the specific dispute should look like, but there has been no lack of creative ideas in Karlsruhe or Luxembourg for many decades.

Editorial note Comments generally reflect the opinion of the respective author and not that of the editors.

According to SCMP, Jay-Z and Beyoncé are a powerful couple and have a royal lifestyle. On the occasion of Beyoncé’s 29th birthday, the billionaire rapper bought the island for $ 20 million in Florida, US to give his wife. Currently, the price of the island is estimated at about 23.8 million USD. In 2013, the Hollywood power couple continued to buy another 360-acre island in North Abaco, Bahamas for $ 3 million. SCMP said Jay-Z and his wife and children often rent a yacht to the island. The island’s current value is about $ 3.4 million. In 2014, actor George Clooney bought the island in Sonning Eye, South Oxfordshire, England. SCMP said the actor spent up to 16.9 million USD to own a 4-acre island located near the River Thames. It also has a villa built in the 17th century, then remodeled into a villa with full amenities such as a cinema, indoor swimming pool … Singer Shakira is said to have bought Bond’s Cay island in Bahama for $ 15 million since 2011. Singer Hip Don’t Lie collaborated with music legend Roger Waters to jointly invest in the Caribbean island. Currently, Bond’s Cay is a resort chosen by the rich as a frequent destination. Not long after the success of the movie The Passion of the Christ, actor Mel Gibson spent $ 15 million to buy the island of Mago, Fiji. This is one of the largest private islands in the southwest Pacific region with an area of ​​up to 5,400 acres. In terms of market price, the island is currently worth $ 20.2 million. According to SCMP, Brad Pitt owns a fortune of 300 million USD. Therefore, it is not uncommon for a famous actor to own his own island. Petre Island is located in the Mahopac Lake area, about 80 km north of New York City. He bought them for $ 12 million since 2013, while still living with Angelina Jolie. In 2005, Leonardo DiCaprio spent $ 1.75 million to buy the island of Blackadore Caye, Belize. SCMP said the Titanic actor had intended to turn his own island into a luxury resort with the most unique ecosystem in the world. The island owned by DiCaprio has its own resort, 70 houses, half of the area is used as a nature reserve. Singer Ricky Martin once spent $ 8 million to buy an island in Angra dos Reis, Brazil. However, the Puerto Rican star is quite tight-lipped, information about the island is also relatively little. Although he spent a lot of money buying his own island, Ricky Martin and his gay partner spent a lot of time living in a villa in Los Angeles, USA. In 2007, Eddie Murphy spent $ 15 million to buy his own island named Rooster Cay, in the Long Cay, Bahamas. The island bought by the actor 14 years ago is currently valued at 19.1 million USD. There are many reports that Murphy wants to renovate the island into a resort.

Gara Medouar reappeared in the 2001 sequel ‘The Mummy Return’ in 2001. The eerie location then becomes the wicked lair of 007 Bond character Franz Oberhauser in the 2015 Specter film Oberhauser His cave is located inside a crater, but in reality, Gara Medouar is a crater. Gara Medouar, which in the local language means “round mountain”, is the remains of a large mass of limestone that has been eroded away. The current state is 50 meters higher than the desert, about 50 hectares in area. The central region collapsed, forming a valley. The partially broken circular mountain mass creates a central entrance. The bizarre crater attracts tourists in Morocco The interior was quite flat and probably because the water had washed away all the material long ago. The unique irregular terrain of the Gara Medouar makes it a very impressive natural haven. Many caravans choose this area to hide when they encounter a sandstorm during their desert journey. Later, at a time Gara Medouar became a temporary detention area for slaves sold from Africa to Portugal. In the 11th century, it developed into a fortress capable of protecting the nearby commercial city of Sijilmasa, where gold coins were minted and trade routes from the south. The defensive wall, built around a third of the mountain’s natural circumference, is currently the remains of the fortress. But the most impressive is the wall straight through the large ravine blocking the only entrance to the mountain. The wall was about 8 meters high, some were 12 meters long and 80 meters long and 4 meters thick. The wall has an extremely solid structure, limestone blocks bound together by lime mortar. The fortress with high ground is well protected, providing extensive control, from the height of the Gara Medouar, one can observe the area with a radius of up to 50 km. After Gara Medouar appeared in the famous movie ‘The Mummy’, the site became more and more popular, attracting many tourists. However, tourism activities also disrupt archaeological investigations.

Gold bar at the gold exchange in Seoul, Korea. Photo: Yonhap / TTXVN According to FactSet data, for the whole week, the precious metal price is estimated to decrease by about 0.1%. In the first session of the week (April 19), gold prices went down after being traded at a much higher level than usual in the previous week. However, a weaker dollar and falling government bond yields have helped keep the metal from falling further. In the session of April 20, gold prices regained momentum, amid the decline in USD prices and US Treasury bond yields, increased demand for gold to preserve assets. This session, the dollar index fell 0.1% against major currencies after hitting a seven-week low, while the yield on 10-year US Treasury bonds fell 1.6%. Gold prices continued to increase by nearly 1% high in the session on April 21, when 10-year US bond yields fell below 1.6%, reducing the opportunity cost of holding gold and unprofitable assets. , while the dollar is at a low level. OANDA senior market analyst Edward Moya said gold prices have been adversely affected in the past few months due to rising bond yields, but now the precious metal price has increased quite a lot. Moya added that the global economic outlook is still volatile and investors will see more cautious measures in the next quarter. However, to the session of April 22, the gold price turned to decrease due to the strength of the USD. Edward Meir, an analyst at ED&F Man Capital Markets, said both the US dollar and 10 year US government bond yields rose, thereby putting pressure on gold prices. The dollar is up 0.2% against a basket of other major currencies, making gold more expensive for buyers holding other currencies. Meanwhile, the US 10-year government bond yields rose to their intraday high of 1.587%. Gold prices have fallen 6% this year so far, mainly due to pressure from the rise in US government bond yields. In the last session of the week (April 23), gold prices continued to decline, when positive data on the housing market boosted bond yields and reduced the attractiveness of this precious metal. According to statistics, new home sales in the US reached 1.021 million units in March, the highest level since 2006. Experts say this data is “heavy enough” to push yields higher and put pressure on gold prices. Specifically, the price of gold delivered in June decreased by 0.2% to $ 1,777.80 / ounce. Carsten Fritsch, an analyst at Commerzbank, said that in order for gold prices to skyrocket to $ 1,800 an ounce, the market needs to see a reversal of the capital flow of gold exchange funds. According to the analyst, the flow of gold out of ETFs has slowed down, with April averages reaching 1.5 tons, down from a corresponding nearly 6 tons in March. Mr. Fritsch forecasts that ETFs will increase their gold holdings and that the precious metal price will rise again in the second half of the year. In addition, some market analysts also believe that gold prices are likely to increase due to increased tensions between the US and Russia. Currently, investors are waiting for a policy meeting of the US Federal Reserve (Fed) expected to take place next week./.