Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
NEWS!!! NAGP will file late because NAGP filed late because NAGP filed late because NAGP filed late because NAGP filed late because ....
on and on ad infinitum
Woops, my bad. I didn't give full credit for that post.
here it is in its entirety:
Been waiting patiently but not holding my breath. Would seem three months proves the hurdle was insurmountable. Is all said and done now?
An Army Captain Takes Obama to Court Over ISIS Fight
by CHARLIE SAVAGE May 4, 2016
Why aren't more people holding to their oath? SMH
WASHINGTON — A 28-year-old army officer on Wednesday sued President Obama over the legality of the war against the Islamic State, setting up a test of Mr. Obama’s disputed claim that he needs no new legal authority from Congress to order the military to wage that deepening conflict.
The plaintiff, Capt. Nathan Michael Smith, an intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait, voiced strong support for fighting the Islamic State but, citing his “conscience” and his vow to uphold the Constitution, he said he believed that the conflict lacked proper authorization from Congress.
“To honor my oath, I am asking the court to tell the president that he must get proper authority from Congress, under the War Powers Resolution, to wage the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” he wrote.
The legal challenge comes after the death of the third American service member fighting the Islamic State and as Mr. Obama has decided to significantly expand the number of Special Operations ground troops he has deployed to Syria aid rebels there.
Mr. Obama has argued that he already has the authority he needs to wage the conflict against the Islamic State under the authorization to fight the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, enacted by Congress shortly after the attacks.
That argument is controversial because the Islamic State is at odds with the current leadership of Al Qaeda and its affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front. Critics contend that the administration is stretching the Sept. 11 authorization too far by applying it to an organization that did not exist in 2001 and that operates far from Afghanistan.
The administration has countered that its position is legitimate because the Islamic State used to be a Qaeda affiliate in Iraq during the Iraq war. In an April 2015 speech, Stephen Preston, then the top Pentagon lawyer, argued that the fact that Al Qaeda splintered after the death of Osama Bin Laden did not mean that the authority to keep fighting each successor faction came to an end.
Administration officials have also said the fight against the Islamic State is covered separately by the 2002 authorization President George W. Bush obtained from Congress for the invasion of Iraq, although they are not relying on it.
Photo
Capt. Nathan Michael Smith Credit U.S. Army
The administration has asked Congress to enact new authorization for using military force against the Islamic State, but lawmakers have not acted on that request. They have, however, passed military appropriations bills that earmark funds for the effort against the Islamic State, which could suggest that lawmakers have acquiesced to the executive branch’s theory.
Captain Smith’s lawyers are David Remes, who has represented many Guantánamo detainees in habeas corpus lawsuits, and Bruce Ackerman, a Yale Law School professor who published a column in The Atlantic last year arguing that the war against ISIS was illegal and that a serviceman ordered to fight in it would have standing to challenge it in court under Vietnam-era appeals court precedents. Mr. Ackerman said Captain Smith reached out to him after reading that article.
“We want to get this back on the agenda,” said Mr. Ackerman, calling the precedent Mr. Obama is setting a “turning point” for whether constitutional checks and balances on a president’s ability to initiate a new war at his own discretion will survive.
Current and former administration officials have said that during the summer of 2014, when confronted by the Islamic State’s rapid conquest of Iraqi territory, Mr. Obama’s legal advisers presented him with a choice: he could say that bombing ISIS was part of the existing war, or he could say it was a new war. Each theory, they told him, was defensible, but each had its own downsides.
Mr. Obama decided to go with the first one – that the Islamic State campaign was part of the existing post-Sept. 11 war – because he believed that immediate intervention was necessary to halt a disaster but that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was too dysfunctional to vote on any war authorization within 60 days.
That was important because the War Power Resolution, a Vietnam-era law, says presidents must withdraw deployments into “hostilities” after 60 days if Congress has not authorized the operation to continue. In 2011, Mr. Obama’s air war intervention in Libya, which lasted longer than 60 days without congressional authorization, prompted criticism both inside and outside the administration.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who has criticized the administration’s use of the 2001 war authorization to cover the Islamic State but who is not involved in the lawsuit, said the case was significant because it could overcome a major hurdle to getting a court to review that theory.
But Mr. Goldsmith said Captain Smith faced many other hurdles, including precedents that suggest that when Congress appropriates money for a conflict it has implicitly authorized it. He also predicted that if a court did rule that the conflict was illegal, Congress would swiftly authorize the fight to continue – perhaps giving it broader scope than Mr. Obama has wanted.
“We’re in a terrible equilibrium where Congress doesn’t want to step up and play its part in this military campaign and so the president has basically gone forward and done what he thinks he needs to do,” Mr. Goldsmith said. “It would be a lot better for everyone, including the president, if Congress got more involved.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/us/islamic-state-war-powers-lawsuit-obama.html?_r=0
Sorry, plugger. I vote with Foxwoods on this.
It will be fusion energy. But, first, they have to build the rocket ships to go to the moon and get the He3 and bring it back to Earth to use in the fusion reactor.
Oh, BTW, the fusion reactor will be a table top model like about the size of a NutriBullet. I can see the late night commercials already.
I've always liked Mark Twain. Ol' Sam was a smart man.
As to the question about the ten cent price, which time are you asking about? And, what was it I said at that ten cent moment?
Todays range was twenty-two cents to thirty-five point nine.
I'm not telling anyone what to do with their money.
If it goes higher from here, I'll miss out. Yes, yes I will.
As I agree with Foxwoods and plugger, I'll not bore you with a re-hash of the facts about this company.
I also hold the same view as Foxwoods about your investment strategy. If you have money you can afford to lose while speculating on NAGP, good luck to you.
As for me, I have lost all the money I ever will on this shell of a company.
cliche - don't risk what you can't afford to lose.
yeah, I got it.
I'm just asking a straight forward question.
looks like a re-awakening? I don't see that.
notice of late (no) filing, going on for years, no change there.
changed transfer agent. I still see that as neutral, at best.
So, how did NAGP get on your radar?
What piqued your interest in NAGP?
Was it the change in transfer agent or the 12b-25 late notice?
Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent
In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, there’s only one place for globalist-minded elites to go.
BY T.A. FRANK
Rich Americans still have it pretty good. I don’t mean everything’s perfect: business regulations can be burdensome; Manhattan zoning can prevent the addition of a town-house floor; estate taxes kick in at over $5 million. But life is acceptable. Barack Obama has not imposed much hardship, and neither will Hillary Clinton.
And what about Donald Trump? Will rich people suffer if he is elected president? Well, yes. Yes, they will. Because we all will. But that’s a pat answer, because Trump and Trumpism are different things. Trump is an erratic candidate who brings chaos to everything. Trumpism, on the other hand, is the doctrine of a different Republican Party, one that would cater not to the donor class, but rather to the white working class. Rich people do not like that idea.
Yesterday’s primary handed victories to Trump and Clinton, and, if Michael Lind is right, Trumpism and Clintonism are America’s future. Lind’s point, which he made last Sunday in The New York Times, is that Trumpism—friendly to entitlements, unfriendly to expanded trade and high immigration—will be the platform of the Republican Party in the years going forward. Clintonism—friendly both to business and to social and racial liberalism—will cobble together numerous interest groups and ditch the white working class. Which might be fair enough, but Lind didn’t mention rich people. Where will they go?
e Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations, generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized labor. It’s been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential business leaders.
Trumpism changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much more appealing.
All good, say some Democrats. The more people that Trumpism scares away, the broader and more powerful the liberal-left coalition will be. But nobody offers their support without expecting something in return. It’s not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive.
In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.
The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions, but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics. That’s one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights, sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes may be worthy—and they attract sincere advocates—but politically they’re also useful. They don’t bother rich people.
It’s a costly arrangement. The more that Democrats write off the white working class, which has been experiencing a drastic decline in living standards, the harder it is for them to call themselves a party of the little guy. The more that the rich can frame various business practices as blows to privilege or oppression—predatory lending as a way to expand minority home ownership, outsourcing as a way to uplift the world’s poor, etc.—the more they get a pass from Democrats on practices that hurt poorer Americans. Worst of all, the more that interest groups within the Democratic Party quarrel among themselves, the more they rely upon loathing of a common enemy, Republicans, in order to stay united.
Things get darker still, for, if the G.O.P. becomes ever whiter, failing to peel away working-class voters of other races, then partisan conflict could look more and more like racial conflict. That is the nightmare. Our politics are bad enough when voters are mobilized mainly by culture-war issues, such as abortion, because compromise is often impossible. But when voters are mobilized by issues of identity, something most people can’t change, then nothing works. It’s just war.
Seen in this light, Bernie Sanders suddenly looks quite different from his counterpart, and quite shrewder a politician than many give him credit for. One effect of focusing on economic conflict, as Sanders has done, is that it helps reduce other types of conflict. With his calls for breaking up Wall Street banks and helping young people with tuition, Sanders is uniting people across lines of identity by directing them to a cause that has nothing directly to do with identity. Moreover, while economics cause serious and passionate fights, compromise is possible. Maybe Bernie supporters will have to settle for less tuition help than they wanted, or Wall Street will have to give up more than it expected. But people will be left standing. With economic negotiations, adversaries can arrive at something other than total victory or annihilation.
Of course, to be a credible player at all, Bernie has had to signal fealty to Black Lives Matter and effectively vow to stop enforcing the border. But Bernie’s worldview and visions still feel like products of a different time, probably of Bernie’s own youth. His popularity may be a fluke, ill-suited to the politics of today. I doubt Bernie would be an effective president. Nevertheless, Sandersism is starting to look better and better in light of Trumpism and Clintonism. Though I presume the rich might disagree.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/why-democrats-are-becoming-the-party-of-the-1-percent
Rumor confirmed by rumor from third party, no less.
And why is a change of transfer agent significant ?
I got nothing against Manhattan Transfer. Seems like I had a couple of their albums about twenty years ago. Good harmonies and it had a good beat, easy to dance to.
I consider this company a mere shell of itself.
But, even a company that doesn't do anything can generate a lot of paper shuffling.
We heard about "the rumor" the other day. My first thought was "What rumor is being started?"
NEWS!!! NEWS!!! NEWS!!! NAGP changed transfer agent
https://biz.yahoo.com/e/160414/nagp8-k.html
Well, they said they did. CORRECTION:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/correction-native-american-energy-group-182741464.html
But, of course, they did
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/correction-native-american-energy-group-182741464.html
Whew! I'm glad NAGP that got straightened out.
Has NAGP blown any oil, pumped any wind, built any rigs or found any houses, lately?
BEAUTY SECRETS OF THE SPIES
CIA’s Venture Capital Arm Is Funding Skin Care Products That Collect DNA
I kid you not. SMH. Couldn't pass up passing this along.
SKINCENTIAL SCIENCES, a company with an innovative line of cosmetic products marketed as a way to erase blemishes and soften skin, has caught the attention of beauty bloggers on YouTube, Oprah’s lifestyle magazine, and celebrity skin care professionals. Documents obtained by The Intercept reveal that the firm has also attracted interest and funding from In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The previously undisclosed relationship with the CIA might come as some surprise to a visitor to the website of Clearista, the main product line of Skincential Sciences, which boasts of a “formula so you can feel confident and beautiful in your skin’s most natural state.”
Though the public-facing side of the company touts a range of skin care products, Skincential Sciences developed a patented technology that removes a thin outer layer of the skin, revealing unique biomarkers that can be used for a variety of diagnostic tests, including DNA collection.
read more:
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/08/cia-skincare-startup/
The $1 Trillion Short Underlying Stocks' Spring Awakening
Short interest reaches highest level since 2008 despite gains
Level is contrarian bullish, sets up powerful rally, says BofA
Skepticism is one thing this rally hasn’t lacked.
QUICKTAKE
Short Selling
Amid its biggest about-face in nine decades, a funny thing has happened in the U.S. stock market, where rather than loosen their grip bears have grown ever-more impassioned. They’ve sent short interest to an eight-year high and above $1 trillion, by one analyst’s math. Position reports from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission show mutual fund managers are more skeptical now than any time since at least 2010.
In short, disbelief is running rampant after $2 trillion was restored to share values in six months. A chorus of Wall Street prognosticators says that’s a big reason the rally can keep going.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/the-1-trillion-short-underlying-u-s-stocks-spring-awakening
WOOO HOOO!!! UP 5+% ONLY $49.82 TO GO FOR BREAK EVEN, MAYBE.
plugger, you deserve a larger audience.
too bad NAGP is so under appreciated (tic)
a very good Easter weekend to you, also.
Interesting read about Hillary, email, SCIFs, NSA
The FBI isn’t the only powerful federal agency that Hillary Clinton needs to worry about as she plots her path to the White House between scandals and leaks. For years, she has been on the bad side of the National Security Agency, America’s most important intelligence agency, as revealed by just-released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act.
‘What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it? I sure wish I’d asked about it back in 2009.’
The documents, though redacted, detail a bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset of her tenure at Foggy Bottom. The new secretary of state, who had gotten “hooked” on her Blackberry during her failed 2008 presidential bid, according to a top State Department security official, wanted to use that Blackberry anywhere she went.
That, however, was impossible, since Secretary Clinton’s main office space at Foggy Bottom was actually a Secure Compartment Information Facility, called a SCIF (pronounced “skiff”) by insiders. A SCIF is required for handling any Top Secret-plus information. In most Washington, D.C., offices with a SCIF, which has to be certified as fully secure from human or technical penetration, that’s where you check Top-Secret email, read intelligence reports and conduct classified meetings that must be held inside such protected spaces.
But personal electronic devices—your cellphone, your Blackberry—can never be brought into a SCIF. They represent a serious technical threat that is actually employed by many intelligence agencies worldwide. Though few Americans realize it, taking remote control over a handheld device, then using it to record conversations, is surprisingly easy for any competent spy service. Your smartphone is a sophisticated surveillance device—on you, the user—that also happens to provide phone service and Internet access.
As a result, your phone and your Blackberry always need to be locked up before you enter any SCIF. Taking such items into one represents a serious security violation. And Ms. Clinton and her staff really hated that. Not even one month into the new administration in early 2009, Ms. Clinton and her inner circle were chafing under these rules. They were accustomed to having their personal Blackberrys with them at all times, checking and sending emails nonstop, and that was simply impossible in a SCIF like their new office.
This resulted in a February 2009 request by Secretary Clinton to the NSA, whose Information Assurance Directorate (IAD for short: see here for an explanation of Agency organization) secures the sensitive communications of many U.S. government entities, from Top-Secret computer networks, to White House communications, to the classified codes that control our nuclear weapons.
The contents of Sid Blumenthal’s June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton—to her personal, unclassified account—were based on highly sensitive NSA information.
IAD had recently created a special, custom-made secure Blackberry for Barack Obama, another technology addict. Now Ms. Clinton wanted one for herself. However, making the new president’s personal Blackberry had been a time-consuming and expensive exercise. The NSA was not inclined to provide Secretary Clinton with one of her own simply for her convenience: there had to be clearly demonstrated need.
And that seemed dubious to IAD since there was no problem with Ms. Clinton checking her personal email inside her office SCIF. Hers, like most, had open (i.e. unclassified) computer terminals connected to the Internet, and the secretary of state could log into her own email anytime she wanted to right from her desk.
But she did not want to. Ms. Clinton only checked her personal email on her Blackberry: she did not want to sit down at a computer terminal. As a result, the NSA informed Secretary Clinton in early 2009 that they could not help her. When Team Clinton kept pressing the point, “We were politely told to shut up and color” by IAD, explained the state security official.
http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/
THERE IS A WAY TO FIX STUPID
Sorry guys but I had to share this one.
Russian Roulette with semi-automatic gun leaves 1 teen shot in head, 1 teen jailed
A Tuscaloosa teen is in jail after investigators say he shot another teen in the head in February.
The shooting happened Monday, Feb. 1, in the 300 block of E 28th Place. It was about 3:45 p.m. that day when a group of teens were hanging out in front of an apartment talking about playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic handgun.
Tuscaloosa Metro Homicide Lt. Kip Hart said 19-year-old Trizell Spencer pulled out a gun, pointed it at a 16-year-old boy and pulled the trigger, according to the victim and witnesses.
The victim, who said he didn't want to play, was shot in the head and is still recovering from significant injuries. Hart said he is expected to survive.
Spencer is charged with attempted murder. He is in the Tuscaloosa County Jail with bond set at $60,000.
http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/03/russian_roulette_with_semi-aut.html#incart_river_home_pop
Al Sharpton might 'get out of here' if Trump wins
IF ONLY THERE WERE A WAY TO HOLD HIM TO HIS WORDS
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/al-sharpton-might-get-out-of-here-if-trump-wins/article/2584260
I am confused over legal system, in general. Common sense and timeliness do not exist in that world.
But, one thing I do know, lawyers will file paper work, whether they need to or not, just in case, they find out later, they should have.
Especially if they have staff and a paying client.
I know this doesn't contribute but it does give me an opportunity to say I appreciate the people on here who do contribute, especially in a non-biased way.
Thank you.
VIDEO: OBAMA CRACKS JOKE ABOUT SCALIA’S DEATH
During his National Governors Association speech Monday, President Obama joked there was a lot to get done during his final days in office, including “appointing judges.”
http://www.infowars.com/video-obama-cracks-joke-about-scalias-death/
Who or what are you listening to?
Is it your cat or your binkie telling you these things?
Or Raj? Is it Raj?
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
At this point, I don't know if $50 would really do it or not, might need more. But, at least, I could cover the broker fees and maybe buy a biscuit.
hey, I'm holding out for $50.00 per share.
I want to break even, at least.
Don't worry, jablome. You'll drink some water one day and never know the difference after the nanobots take over, but your friends and family might.
SMH.
Nope, not money in the bank. Put your savings in non-perishable trade and survival goods. Land, guns, ammo, toilet paper. Stuff you take for granted right now but where will you get it when the supply lines shut down?
Naw, this time, they really, really, really mean it. Ambitious projects will come to fruition: wind blows, uranium decays, housing crumbles and oil turns to sludge. Ghost rigs to the rescue!!
The war on cash continues. Some choice comments along with propaganda.
Big Banks to America’s Firms: We Don’t Want Your Cash
Profit-crunching low interest rates have banks judging cash too costly to keep
by JULIET CHUNG and SARAH KROUSE
Updated Oct. 18, 2015 8:50 p.m. ET
339 COMMENTS
U.S. banks are going to new lengths to ward off a surprising threat to their financial health: big cash deposits.
State Street Corp., the Boston bank that manages assets for institutional investors, for the first time has begun charging some customers for large dollar deposits, people familiar with the matter said. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the nation’s largest bank by assets, has cut unwanted deposits by more than $150 billion this year, in part by charging fees.
The developments underscore a deepening conflict over cash. Many businesses have large sums on hand and opportunities to profitably invest it appear scarce. But banks don’t want certain kinds of cash either, judging it costly to keep, and some are imposing fees after jawboning customers to move it.
The banks’ actions are driven by profit-crunching low interest rates and regulations adopted since the financial crisis to gird banks against funding disruptions.
The latest fees center on large sums deemed risky by regulators, sometimes dubbed hot-money deposits thought likely to flee during times of crises. Finalized last September and overseen by the Federal Reserve and other regulators, the rule involving the liquidity coverage ratio forces banks to hold high-quality liquid assets, such as central bank reserves and government debt, to cover projected deposit losses over 30 days. Banks must hold reserves of as much as 40% against certain corporate deposits and as much as 100% against some deposits from hedge funds.
“At some point you wonder whether there will be a shortage of financial institutions willing to take on these balances,” said Kelli Moll, head of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP’s hedge-fund practice in New York, saying that where to hold cash has become an increasing topic of conversation as hedge funds are shown the door by longtime banking counterparties.
The push comes as the globe is awash in cash, reflecting soft economic growth and low interest rates that limit investment. Some asset managers have been increasing the amount of cash they are holding in their portfolios, in part because of an increased focus by the Securities and Exchange Commission on liquidity management in mutual funds.
Domestic deposits at U.S. banks in the second quarter hit $10.59 trillion, up 38% from five years earlier, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data show. Loans outstanding at U.S. banks as a share of total deposits tumbled to 71% from 78% in 2010 and 92% in mid-2007, before the financial crisis, the data show.
Jerome Schneider, head of Pacific Investment Management Co.’s short-term and funding desk, which advises corporate and institutional clients, said that as a result of the bank actions, he and his customers have discussed as cash alternatives boosting investments in U.S. Treasury bonds, ultrashort-duration bond funds and money-market funds.
When it comes to cash, Mr. Schneider said, “Clients have been put on warning.”
Auctions for one- and three-month Treasury bills last week sold bills at zero yields, reflecting outsize demand for the securities.
Few banks disclose how much in “nonoperating” deposits they hold. Credit Suisse Group AG analysts estimated in August that the top four U.S. banks by assets hold roughly $650 billion in those deposits that require the highest levels of reserves.
Banks are struggling to generate returns for investors. A low-interest-rate environment squeezes bank profits by narrowing the spread between the rate they lend at and their borrowing, or funding, cost.
Some analysts have been predicting rates would rebound, likely boosting bank profits, but that hasn’t happened. This year, slowing growth in China and recessions in some major emerging-market nations have dimmed expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates this year.
The KBW Nasdaq Bank Index of large commercial banks has dropped about 9% since July as rate-increase expectations waned.
Deposit fees are particularly significant at State Street because its primary business is custodying client assets, including holding cash for clients rather than seeking to lend out those funds, as other banks typically do.
State Street customers earlier were told that fees were possible on accounts whose nonoperational balances had grown, the people familiar with the matter said. There is no minimum deposit size that triggers the fee, which varies and is applied case by case to new and existing clients, the people said.
“The persistence of the current rate environment requires that we take action consistent with prudent financial management with certain accounts that continually maintain significant excessive cash balances,” State Street said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal.
BNY Mellon and Northern Trust haven’t yet begun charging to hold clients’ cash, people familiar with the matter said. A Bank of New York spokesman said the bank hasn’t ruled out doing so in the future. The fees at J.P. Morgan don’t apply to clients of its custody business, a person familiar with the bank said.
Northern Trust has been taking a “transaction by transaction approach” to accepting very large deposits from clients approaching the bank, said Chief Financial Officer S. Biff Bowman on the bank’s second-quarter earnings call in July. A Northern Trust spokesman declined to say whether charges were a possibility in the future.
State Street and others have charged clients on some large euro deposits for more than a year, reflecting a negative interest rate on overnight deposits at the European Central Bank.
In 2011, BNY Mellon set plans to charge a small number of clients for holding their cash, reflecting in part a large flow of deposits triggered by investors’ flight to safety that summer. The bank rolled back the plan without imposing fees after some clients pulled money.
Since last year, Bank of America Corp. has told some institutional clients that they will need to move their deposits or pay to keep them at the bank, people familiar with the matter said. Top executives decided to approach clients that didn’t do other business with the bank.
—Christina Rexrode contributed to this article.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-banks-to-americas-companies-we-dont-want-your-cash-1445161083
Human Jobs Under Attack By Tax Code Favoring Robots Over People
Robert A. Green, CPA,CONTRIBUTOR
Hopefully, a presidential candidate or Congress will consider my tax idea to spur jobs with a new depletion allowance on human labor. Similar in concept to the depletion allowance on oil and gas, it would be an annual tax deduction for a portion of the value of the underlying energy resource. Per Mineral Web, it’s “the using up of a natural resource.” I’m sure many human workers feel used up after a lifetime of hard work, too.
Rise of Robots
In his breathtaking new book on modern economics, “Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future,” author Martin Ford explains how robots and IT replace human white-collar and blue-collar jobs. This trend is a major contributor to the “new normal,” a frightening low labor participation rate (62%), and a higher U.S. (broad U6) unemployment rate (10%).
Ford points out that robots work faster and longer and more intelligently with fewer errors and with fewer collateral issues than humans. Robots — with artificial intelligence (AI), algorithms and access to big data — are replacing white-collar jobs in law (data mining), finance (high-frequency trading), health care (Dr. Watson IBM), education, science and business. While you may not yet shake hands with a robot that looks like a human, robot systems are working broadly behind the scenes in almost everything we do today.
follow the link to read more
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/10/05/human-jobs-under-attack-by-tax-code-favoring-robots-over-people/
NEWS!!! They MIGHT start reporting again
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/150923/nagp8-k.html
The new banking service
https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/nirp-strikes-spain-to-create-tax-on-bank-deposits/
coming to a bank near you, soon.
price of silver keeps going down BUT ...
whoever has it don't want to sell it.
those few sellers, have less and less inventory
things that make you say "Hmmmmm"
scratching my head on that
Applause.
Plugger is right, you're wound too tight.
Statements like that, even with the camouflage, could get you banned.
the you'd have to make up another profile.
I was trying to stay positive, in line with our current banter. But, yeah, you are probably right, somebody finally clearing the books.
Miracle on miracle though, somebody did buy that one share. Put on your bright shiny face.
Someone gave up their burger and fries today.
Paid the transaction fee to buy ONE (1) share.
Maybe someone opened their position, BIG things are gonna happen.
You just gotta think BIG enough, long enough and BIG things will happen.
Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket.