Even the promise of a “Brinks truck” full of money won’t get Daniel Cormier to fight past his 40th birthday.
Desiree Linden’s victory left the California-born runner as the first American woman to win in 33 years. It also helped propel Brooks Sports Inc., a Seattle-based running specialty shoe brand, into the spotlight on a day typically been dominated by athletic marketing behemoths Nike and Adidas.
Push to improve quality of figures aimed at helping post-Brexit strategy
Boost eases fears Beijing will dump US government debt in retaliation for tariffs
The writing is on the wall and major financial institutions across the world are warning about the economic disaster to come. Unabated money printing, tariff trade wars, rising interest rates and retail slowdowns point to one result, and it’s going to be brutal.
Big banks and governments know what’s coming and they are preparing for this eventuality by stockpiling huge amounts of “real money” ahead of the crisis.
According to Keith Neumeyer, the CEO of the world’s top primary silver producer First Majestic Silver and chairman of First Mining Gold, the cartels he’s previously reported to the CFTC have continued to manipulate the prices of precious metals while loading up their own vaults with gold and silver. The answer to why they’re doing it is simple, as Neumeyer highlights in a recent interview with SGT Report:
The verdict is still out on whether we’re going into a dis-inflationary or inflationary environment… gold can do well in both environments… the fact of the matter is governments are printing extraordinary amounts of fiat currencies and that is not going to change…
The stage is set for higher gold prices due to the amount of money being printed… I am of the belief a major reset is coming where the governments of the world will need to get rid of their debt by fixing everything to the price of gold… and that’s why governments like China and Russia and other governments around the world are accumulating gold… it’s because they know what’s going to happen over the next several years…
If it is true [that JP Morgan has acquired the largest position of physical silver in the world] then it’s pretty amazing… Any bank wanting a long position like that is doing it for a reason…
Banks like JP Morgan… they haven’t had a losing trade in multiple years… if they’re long something that’s probably what you want to be buying.
Neumeyer explains that not only are there monetary factors at play, but also supply issues, as production, especially in silver, has dropped markedly over the last several years.
All of this bodes well for rising precious metals prices going forward, with reasonable estimates for future growth far exceeding the all-time highs we saw in recent years:
Metals are in an extremely tight trading range… This base the metals are building right now is three years in the making… and when the metals finally take off this year it’s going to be astounding to watch.
… We lived through it in 2010 and 2011… a good mining stock will far exceed the movement of the metal itself… a stock like First Mining would absolutely explode in an environment like that… it’s hard to predict the exact prices that stocks would do but it would be quite different than it is today…
I think $2000 or $3000 gold… these are reasonable numbers that we will experience in the not too distant future.
Financial analysts and large institutions have generally avoided gold and silver for nearly a decade. But the tide appears to be changing.
As prices remain suppressed, government are acquiring, big banks are acquiring and even Morgan Stanley recently noted that gold can be used as a “very good proxy of the true value of a dollar over long periods of time.”
We know economic collapse on a massive scale is approaching.
To get an idea of where one should be diversifying their assets in the event this worst-case scenario plays out, one need only ask the following question: What is money when the system collapses?
5,000 years of history for the single most reliable monetary asset class of last resort has already given us the answer.
WWE Raw news, notes and business analysis on April 16, 2018 form Hartford, Conn. featuring Night 1 of the Superstar Shake-Up.
Switzerland’s ultra-low interest rates seen as deterring capital inflows
With most of the media in a feeding frenzy after judge Kimba Wood – the same judge who 5 years ago married the 83-year-old George Soros to 42-year-old Tamiko Bolton…
… unveiled that Michael Cohen’s “third client” is Sean Hannity, questions swirled over potential conflicts of interest, and whether Hannity had an obligation to disclose his relationship to Cohen, whom he defended on his show on more than one occasion.
As we observed earlier, Hannity justified his silence on the matter claiming Cohen never represented him “in any matter involving a third party”, had never “retained [Cohen’s] services” and had occasionally “asked Mr Cohen questions concerning the law that Mr Cohen indicated would be privileged.” This however prompted more questions, the top two being i) whether asking your lawyer “some legal questions” and saying “attorney/client privilege” makes you their client and, ii) why was Cohen’s team so reluctant to reveal Hannity’s name in the hearing, and why the secrecy?
Earlier on Monday, even attorney and frequent Fox News guest Alan Dershowitz Sean Hannity criticized host Sean Hannity for not disclosing his relationship with Cohen during his frequent discussions about Cohen in recent weeks.
Dershowitz, a defender of Trump amid his legal woes, was brought on to discuss former FBI Director James Comey’s Sunday night interview on ABC News, but first addressed the Monday revelation that Hannity is the previously unnamed client of Cohen. “I really think you should have disclosed your relationship with Cohen,” Dershowitz said, calling it a “complicated situation.”
Alan Dershowitz (!) says that Hannity should have disclosed that he was a client of Cohen before discussing the FBI raid last week.
Hannity responds: “I have the right to privacy.” pic.twitter.com/lheMdQWqHl
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 17, 2018
So to answer all of this, in his show on Monday night Hannity addressed the Cohen situation for the second time as follows.
“Michael Cohen never represented me in any legal manner. I never retained his services, I never received an invoice. I never paid Michael Cohen for legal fees. I did have occasional brief conversations with Michael Cohen, he’s a great attorney, about legal questions I had or I was looking for input or perspective.
“My discussions with Michael Cohen never rose to any level that I needed to tell anyone that I was asking him questions. And to be absolutely clear: they never involved any matter, any – sorry to disappoint so many – matter between me, a third party, a third group, at all. My questions focused almost exclusively on real estate. I said many times on my radio show ‘I hate the stock market, I prefer real estate.’ Michael knows real estate.
“So in response to all the wild speculation, I want to set the record straight here tonight. I never asked Michael Cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf. I have no personal interest in this legal matter. That’s all there is, nothing more.”
To be sure, if Hannity is lying – and with both the FBI and NSA now in possession of all Cohen docs – we will know momentarily, or as soon as the leak to the NYT/WaPo hits, at which point Hannity’s future at Fox News will be no more. On the other, if indeed as Hannity claims “there is no there, there”, maybe Trump will be right, and “attorney-client” privilege is indeed dead, in which case perhaps judge Wood who officiated the wedding of the the lovely couple in the photo above, in which the bride is exactly half the age of the groom, can disclose just what the nature of their relationship is.
PS. the following brief blurb on Judge Kimba Wood is certainly interesting:
In 1993 President Bill Clinton nominated her to become the first female Attorney General. But she withdrew from the nomination after the White House learned she had hired an undocumented immigrant as a baby-sitter.
Wood, who was Clinton’s second choice for AG post, didn’t break the law employing the nanny and in fact paid the woman’s taxes. But the White House asked her to withdraw because her situation was similar to Clinton’s first AG nomination, Zoe Baird.
Baird bowed out of consideration for the job after she drew criticism for employing two undocumented immigrants as housekeepers.