Cross Border Trading - Fortune or Curse

 HK/Shanghai Exchange Linked Cross Border Trading ELT

Only on Thursday have we heard the announcement of this ELT, HSI shot up right away but enthusiasm cool on Friday, why?

First of all, that is a short squeeze, timed with the announcement to make it more believable and short punters have no time to listen to others of their viewpoints of the scheme and many are frighten to close their positions.

Many fans of China opening up further on the financial front hurray this is a step in the right direction, but is it?

If you looked at the limits of Cross Border trading, it is not really opening up, it merely wants to attract further capital into China as the HK->Shanghai limit is 300b while the other way is 250b. Don't stop here, there is also a daily limit of about 13b vs 10.5b. That is to say if there is a crash, there is limit down ie once the limit is reached, you have to wait till tomorrow to sell. It will be a full 23 days before you can unload the full limit or load up the full limit.

If China is confident about her financial being, since her exchange reserves are way too high, it should allow the invest HK limit to be much bigger than the invest Shanghai limit.

How trustworthy are the financial accounts of listed companies in Shanghai and their shares in HK? No one really knows, but there is the belief that the Chinese knows better than the outside world and this is one reason for the low level of investors interest in China of A shares.

Many A/H shares have very high A share prices, but the China banking shares in HK are higher than those in China, while HSI is heavily weighted towards China Shares these days, we likely would see a southern drifting of the Shanghai market [sell those highly priced A share and buy H share in HK] and a lower HSI because China banking shares in HK will drift lower too.

There is a wait period of six months to realize the scheme and we still haven't heard the details of how to trade aside from the limits and details of qualified investors in China, there should be no comparative qualification of investors in HK.

Once all the full details are out, the markets would have adjusted to more normalized levels ie only a 2-3% difference between A/H shares that are traded on both markets.

Yet this is on the assumption that investors from China still wants to own those China shares, who knows, they might choose to avoid China heavy shares altogether.

Do you hate the FED?

check this out

FORTUNE -- If you hate the Federal Reserve, you have a new hero.

A few weeks ago, Jeremy Grantham, the co-founder of money management firm GMO, called newly appointed Federal Reserve chairman Janet Yellen "ignorant" in the New York Times. He also said the reason for the slow recovery was not the severe financial crisis, continued high unemployment, or the many standoffs in Washington. Instead, he blamed the Fed for ruining the recovery it was supposed to stimulate. To someone who believes in the laws of economics, it's hard to overstate how odd that claim is. It's positively bonkers.

Low interest rates stimulate the economy. The Fed has done everything in its power to keep interest rates down, lower and longer than anyone can remember. That should have helped the economy. And yet the recovery has been just meh.

So, either Grantham is bonkers, or he is onto something. Fortune recently caught up with him to find out.

Fortune: You believe the Fed's policies, particularly quantitative easing, have slowed the recovery. What's your proof?

Grantham: It's quite likely that the recovery has been slowed down because of the Fed's actions. Of course, we're dealing with anecdotal evidence here ecause there is no control. But go back to the 1980s and the U.S. had an aggregate debt level of about 1.3 times GDP. Then we had a massive spike over the next two decades to about 3.3 times debt. And GDP over that time period has been slowed. There isn't any room in that data for the belief that more debt creates growth.

MORE: The Fed doesn't care about the unemployment rate anymore

In the economic crisis after World War I, there was no attempt at intervention or bailouts, and the economy came roaring back. In the S&L crisis, we liquidated the bad banks and their bad real estate bets. Property prices fell, capitalist juices

started to flow, and the economy came roaring back. This time around, we did not liquidate the guys who made the bad bets.

Can you really blame the Fed for the bailouts? That was an act of Congress.

I don't like to get into the details. The Bernanke put -- the market belief that if anything goes bad the Fed will come to the rescue -- has had a profound impact on people and how they act.

Okay, but that's still not proof that quantitative easing slowed the recovery.

There's no proof on the other side, that the economy is any stronger from quantitative easing. There's some indication that

the crash would have been worse and the downturn would have been sharper had the Fed not stepped in, but by now the

depths of that recession would have been forgotten, the system would have been healthier, and we would have regained our growth.

It's economic doctrine that lower interest rates boost the economy. Are you saying that's wrong?

Economic doctrine says the market is efficient. My view of the economy is not really principle-based. Higher interest rates would have increased the wealth of savers. Instead, they became collateral damage of Bernanke's policies. The theory is that lower interest rates are supposed to spur capital spending, right? Then why is capital spending so weak at this stage of the cycle. There is no evidence at all that quantitative easing has boosted capital spending. We have always come roaring back from recessions, even after the mismanaged Great Depression. This time we are not. It's anecdotal evidence, but we have never had such a limited recovery.

MORE: Janet Yellen: The Fed will steer clear of bitcoin

But the Fed does seem to have boosted stocks. Even if it did nothing else, doesn't a better market help the economy?

Yes, I agree that the Fed can manipulate stock prices. That's perhaps the only thing they can do. But why would you want to get an advantage from the wealth effect when you know you are going to have to give it all back when the Fed reverses course. At the same time, the Fed encourages steady increasing leverage and more asset bubbles. It's clear to most investing professionals that they can benefit from an asymmetric bet here. The Fed gives them very cheap leverage on the upside, and then bails them out on the downside. And you should have more confidence of that now. The only ones who have really benefited from QE are hedge fund managers.

Okay, but then I guess that means you think stocks are going higher? I thought I had read your prediction that the market would disappoint investors.

We do think the market is going to go higher because the Fed hasn't ended its game, and it won't stop playing until we are in old-fashioned bubble territory and it bursts, which usually happens at two standard deviations from the market's mean.

That would take us to 2,350 on the S&P 500, or roughly 25% from where we are now.

So are you putting your client's money into the market?

No. You asked me where the market is headed from here. But to invest our clients' money on the basis of speculation being driven by the Fed's misguided policies doesn't seem like the best thing to do with our clients' money. We invest our clients' money based on our seven-year prediction. And over the next seven years, we think the market will have negative returns. The next bust will be unlike any other, because the Fed and other centrals banks around the world have taken on all this leverage that was out there and put it on their balance sheets. We have never had this before.

Assets are overpriced generally. They will be cheap again. That's how we will pay for this. It's going to be very painful for investors.

Tencent [700] vs Apple

click for better view
chart 1 - apple reaching 600
chart 2 - tencent [stock code 700] reaching 600
chart 3 - apple reaching 700 after a steep correction at 600

tencent is a china stock that is the favorite among fund managers and as hedged derivatives for investment banks.

can you tell the difference between apple and tencent from the chart, looks similar hah.

the road ahead for tencent will begin to look rough as 700 is going through the J curve phenomena that apple endured when it is the darling of the stock market. it must keep on rising faster to make it look attractive thus every stock will go through the J curve phenomena when it becomes a favorite in a sector or in a market.

if you have been investing in 700, do some hedge. if you want to invest in 700, you are warned here that the return on investment does not look so attractive from now on unless you see a steep correction, still then, the last leg up will be fast and the drop as well, so you must be contented with making returns that are not 10/20 folds, the time to make easy money has passed, but only in percentage terms of 20/30.

Market volatility will continue, here's why

watch the video of Marc Faber at
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101386850

Global market volatility is not just down to the U.S. Federal Reserve's tapering of its monetary stimulus program, according to influential investor Marc Faber, who warned that the wild swings seen in recent weeks are also down to a global slowdown in growth.
"It would seem to me that it's not just tapering that is putting pressure on markets," Faber, the author of the closely watched "Gloom, Boom & Doom Report" told CNBC on Tuesday. "In emerging economies we have practically no growth, we have a slowdown in China that is more meaningful than the strategists seem to think and than the official, Chinese statistics seem to suggest."
"That then puts pressure on the earnings of the multinationals because most of the growth in the world over the last five years has come from emerging economies," he told CNBC Europe's "Squawk Box." No growth, he said, was causing "a vicious circle on the downside" with slowing emerging economies and inflated asset markets that are now deflating, in turn putting more pressure on asset prices and on the economies.
(Read more: Global stock selloff – Rumble or rout?)

Faber's comments come as volatility in equity markets continued this week, prompting concerns among traders and investors that markets were at the start of a sharp correction. The moves lower follow a rally last year on the back of the U.S. Federal Reserve's monetary stimulus.
(Read more: Look out – Technicians see more selling)
Since the Fed started tapering its monthly asset purchases by $10 billion a month in December and another $10 billion in January, stock markets have taken a tumble. Emerging markets fell first; this week the U.S. and Europe have also seen significant weakness.

Spencer Platt | Getty Images News | Getty Images

On Monday, U.S. stocks saw their worst start to February since 1933 after a manufacturing report heightened concern about the strength of the U.S. economy. Overall factory activity hit an eight-month low in January as new order growth plunged by the most in 33 years.
(Read more: Emerging markets – is it time to bottom fish?)

Illustrating the heightened state of concern among investors, the CBOE Volatility Index rose above 20 on Monday for the first time in four months, while the yield on the 10-year Treasury note hit a three-month low. Faber said he had been advising his readers to buy 10-year U.S. Treasurys over the last few months. He expects yields to rise as investors would seek a safe haven.
"For the next three to six months probably they are a better place to be than equities," he warned. "I don't like [10-year Treasurys] for the long-term because the maximum you can earn is something like 2.65 percent per annum for the next 10 years, but Treasurys are expected to rally because of economic weakness and a stock market decline. In the last few years at least there was a flight into quality – that is, a flight into Treasurys."
(Read more: Markets fear US chilled by more than weather)

Faber warned of the risks of the present global credit bubble and said another slowdown could follow on the back of rising consumer debt levels – which had previously helped to create growth.
"Total credit as a percent of the global economy is now 30 percent higher than it was at the start of the economic crisis in 2007, we have had rapidly escalating household debt especially in emerging economies and resource economies like Canada and Australia and we have come to a point where household debt has become burdensome on the system—that is, where an economic slowdown follows."
- By CNBC's Holly Ellyatt, follow her on Twitter

if you are wondering why the euro is so strong, you are right.

read article below from CNBC

just how much qe is still in the pipeline even with tapering ongoing?

Rome, the next Detroit?

By: Jessica Morris, special to CNBC.com

Rome could be about to follow in the footsteps of bankrupt Detroit, after the country's new government scrapped a measure that would have helped with the Italian capital's budget deficit.
Italy's central government – under new Prime Minister Matteo Renzi – announced on Wednesday it would be dropping a bailout package designed to help plug city's gnawing €816 million ($1.17 billion) budget gap.
(Read more: Italy's new leader Renzi already in the soup)

Kevin Winter | Getty Images

Artisans and merchants gathered in Rome to demand that Parliament the new government in the midst of being formed make an urgent breakthrough in economic policy after the economic crisis shut down more than 372 000 businesses in 2013.

The move could bring Rome one step closer to a Detroit-style default.
Rome's mayor Ignazio Marino responded to the move by saying "In March there won't be money to pay 25,000 city employees, to pay for fuel for the buses, to keep the nurseries open, to collect rubbish or to organise that canonisation of the two popes, an event of a planetary scale" the Italian news agency ANSA reported on Thursday.
(Read more: Fears rise that Italy's 2014 budget could spark further trouble)
He also threatened to bring the city to a halt if the government failed to him answers – warning the ceremony for the canonisation of Popes John Paul II and John XXII on April 27 was at risk.
"I'll halt the city from Sunday … the politicians are lucky because they have chauffeur-driven cars, but the Romans won't be able to move around. People will have to fend for themselves" the local paper Gazetta del Sud reported.

Play Video

'Back to normal' in Italy

Virginie Maisonneuve, deputy CIO of PIMCO, says the political instability in Italy could provide a buying opportunity for investors.

The so-called "Save Rome" decree – which had been passed under the administration of Renzi's predecessor, Enrico Letta – has stirred up controversy in Italian politics.

It was obstructed by opposition parties such as the Northern League and anti-establishment 5-Star Movement (M5S) – and was in danger of not getting cabinet approval by the 28^th February deadline, according to reports by the Italian news agency ANSA.
Italy's new government – which was sworn in last Sunday --is currently working on another package of aid to provide basic funding for services, Marino said, according to the Italian news agency ANSA.
(Read more: Doubts over Renzi's 'ambitious' reforms for Italy)
And yet, wrangling over the aid package will divert resources from Renzi's pivotal package of reforms. Commentators have already highlighted concern as to the five-month time frame for his reform agenda.
The new prime minister has said he wants to overhaul the country's electoral system and constitution by the end of February before tackling labour reform in March and public administration and the fiscal system in April and May respectively.
Rome's budgetary concerns are set against a backdrop of economic trouble in Italy. Its economy grew for the first time in just over two years in the last quarter of 2013 according to Rome-based national statistics office Istat. But it still faces a worryingly high unemployment rate which rose to a record high of 12.9 percent in January.

Secret Bank Bailout

i have been pondering why the usd is so weak against euro and gbp given she said her economic data are almost unbeatable, then usd should be strong.

the reason - too much pumping of credit or usd.

read below

Is a Secret Bank Bailout Coming?

By Geoffrey Pike | Friday, February 21st, 2014

I've heard a few stories about people worried about the condition of the banks.

I've heard other stories alluding to a future bank bailout.

Some people fear what happened in Cyprus is coming to the U.S. They fear their money is not safe in the banks.

And they're right to worry about the money they have in the bank... but not because of a coming confiscation in the style of Cyprus.

Truth is, there is little need to worry about the government coming in and directly confiscating funds from your U.S. bank account. You do have to worry, however, about the government and the Fed working to destroy the value of the money that is in your bank account.

You also likely don't need to worry about your bank going bankrupt as long as you are within the FDIC limit (currently $250,000). It is not that the FDIC has the money to bail out the major banks; it's that the Federal Reserve can do it by creating money out of thin air.

I also don't think you have to worry about another bank bailout in the fashion of 2008. There is rarely an economic issue where there is so much agreement amongst the American people, but in 2008, 90% or more of the American voting population was adamantly opposed to the bank bailouts. The government and Fed almost had a revolution on their hands.

They are not going to let that happen again. Instead, the Fed has been quietly bailing out the banks for almost a year and a half now with few cries of opposition. Why risk causing a revolt when they can do it this way?

---

The Hidden Agenda of QE3

In September 2012, the Fed announced a new buying program. It was the third round of quantitative easing, or QE3 for short. The Fed had already gone through two previous rounds of quantitative easing starting in late 2008.

Quantitative easing is just another term for money creation. The Fed simply buys assets with new money created out of thin air. We use the term "money printing," but most of the new money is actually in the form of digits.

Prior to 2008, the Fed would buy government debt. It would typically buy shorter-term U.S. Treasuries, but it could also buy longer-term debt. It wasn't until the fall of 2008 that the Fed started a policy of buying other assets aside from government bonds.

QE3 actually came about in two steps.

The first one, in September 2012, announced that the Fed would buy $40 billion per month in mortgage-backed securities, or MBS. It wasn't until December 2012, three months later, that the Fed upped the ante and announced it would buy $45 billion in new U.S. government debt each month. This was in addition to the $40 billion per month in MBS.

So the Fed was buying $85 billion in assets through most of 2013, essentially creating $85 billion per month out of thin air. It was just back in December of 2013 that the Fed finally announced the beginning of its taper. It is still buying assets (inflating the money supply), but at a slower pace.

When the buying program was first announced for the MBS, the Fed and the media touted it as a plan to help housing. They reasoned it would lower interest rates and help boost a struggling housing market that had recently come off of a major bust.

While housing across the country has certainly recovered a bit (although not to the all-time highs in most areas), we can't be sure how much QE3 has affected mortgage rates. The rates were already very low when the Fed began buying MBS.

But I believe the main purpose of QE3 was not as stated. Instead, I believe the main purpose — at least for the portion of buying MBS — was to bail out the banks and make them more solvent.

Interestingly, I have seen very little commentary pointing this out, even among many websites devoted to criticizing the Fed. In this sense, the Fed's plan has worked brilliantly (though not for us). It has been able to bail out the banks without having any backlash like it experienced back in 2008.

Buying Toxic Assets

For almost a year and a half, we have been hearing about the Fed buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS). But we are never really told exactly what they are buying and how much they are actually worth.

So what is this $40 billion "worth" of MBS per month really worth? Our best guess is that these are so-called toxic assets. They are non-performing or under-performing loans.

When the housing bubble burst around 2007, most new (and even not so new) homeowners who had mortgages were underwater. Their mortgages were bigger than the values of their houses. In many cases, people simply could not afford the payments. They had miscalculated their ability to pay.

Ironically, most of the distortion took place because of the Fed and its policy of loose money and artificially low interest rates.

As a result, many mortgages held by the banks and government agencies quickly lost value because so many people stopped paying their mortgages.

If the Fed buys $40 billion of MBS in a month, is it really paying the current market value, or is it paying what they were originally worth? My guess is the latter.

---

This is a pure bailout of the banks, plain and simple. They are buying $40 billion each month in assets that aren't really worth $40 billion because many of the mortgages are in default. Pooled together, they are worth something, as some people will continue to pay or try to resume paying.

Imagine a company buys a stock for $100 per share, and then the value falls to $40 per share. Then the Fed comes along and says, "We are going to buy your shares from you at the original price of $100 per share."

In this scenario, the company would be getting bailed out to the tune of $60 for every share bought up by the Fed.

It doesn't matter what the asset was originally worth. It matters what it is worth today. In the case of MBS, the Fed is buying assets that are worth far less than what it is paying for them. It's buying these assets with money created out of thin air.

If you were a bank that had a bunch of mortgages worth a total of $5 billion that originally cost you $20 billion, then you would probably be more than happy for the Fed to come along and buy them up at the original value of $20 billion.

You can push your losses off to the Fed, which is really pushing your losses off on anyone who uses U.S. dollars.

Crazy?

This may sound crazy, but in some ways I prefer the Fed secretly bailing out the banks to it buying U.S. government debt.

At least the money going to the banks is helping to make them solvent, so it isn't a complete waste.

It is bad that we see big bonuses for banking executives that would otherwise be out of business if it weren't for the bailouts. It is bad that the bailouts create moral hazard and encourage more risk-taking in the future. And it is bad that the whole thing is inflationary.

But at least the bank bailouts are going to where you keep your money. The only bigger revolt by the American people than an open bailout would be bank failures without a bailout where the FDIC does not make good on its promises.

Meanwhile, the other part of QE3 — the Fed's buying of government debt — is terrible. It allows the government to run massive deficits at lower interest rates, preventing spending cuts and making things far more painful in the future. The government's spending severely misallocates resources and will only lead to a major correction at some point in time.

Regardless of your thoughts on the subject, you probably don't have to worry about major bank failures right now. Small banks will be absorbed by the bigger banks if they fail, and bigger banks are being taken care of right now. Even with the so-called tapering, the Fed is still currently buying $30 billion per month in MBS.

If you keep your money in an FDIC-insured bank account, it will probably be safe — at least in terms of any direct confiscation. But if you really want to keep it safe, you will probably need to put some of it in hard assets to protect yourself against continued inflation.

Until next time,

Geoffrey Pike for Wealth Daily

HSI MAJOR FALLOUT

during this festive season, we are supposed to celebrate, but not for long.

just early jan, i already alerted readers that market isnt looking good.


this is a 5 months chart of HSI futures of 1 hour, it shows that a true head shoulder has formed, it has already broken to the down side and the pull back has also occurred.

the market looks like to fall to at least 24100 - 22400 = 1700 points from the neckline of 22400 which makes 20700.

the break out happens on 24 Jan, thus the market will hit the above target likely not later than end april.

do go back and make your own chart for 941, 5 and others, you will see a similar pattern if not exactly the same.

when you are aware of a fallout, you should protect yourself and/or try to profit from it.

finally, hope you all have a happy horse year and getting healthier by the day.

HSI 941 HSBC

CLICK FOR BETTER VIEW - 941, HSI, 5

not long ago in this blog, i have re iterated that stock markets esp hsi and a few stocks are under stress, but i dont have time to include the charts, here they are.

941 is esp bad, it formed a platform of two heads over six months and another multiple heads over two years, so dont expect much from this stock, it will also pull down hsi.

HSI is under severe manipulation because of derivatives in the market, but if you look at the chart above, there are a total of 7 long spikes up/down in the last month, but six of them are down. this tells you that the pros are not likely to push it up further.

5 has the best chart of three, but it also formed a base of multiple heads over 7 months and recent highs are already at high rsi, so the chance of it breaking the earlier high [top pink line] is not likely.

JAPAN RADIATION

WND EXCLUSIVE

Japan radiation poisoning America?

New concerns hitting U.S. Pacific coast

Published: 6 days ago

by Steve Elwart Email | Archive

Steve Elwart, P.E., Ph.D., is the executive research analyst with the Koinonia Institute and a subject matter expert for the Department of Homeland Security. He can be contacted at steve.elwart@studycenter.com.

Some tuna caught off California is showing evidence of radiation poisoning. (RT photo)

Like a slow-motion train wreck, the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster is still causing damage long after the world’s media has left the news story behind.
On March 11, 2011, the most powerful earthquake ever to hit Japan triggered a tsunami with waves that reached as high as 144 feet. These waves swamped the Fukushima nuclear power-plant complex, causing a resulting shutdown leading to the world’s worst nuclear incident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
The accident has been rated a level 7, on a scale of 1 to 7, on the International Nuclear Event Scale.
As a result of this disaster, the complex’s coolant pumps failed to operate and the power plant reactors overheated, leading to a release of radionuclides directly into the ocean exceeding that from any previous accident.
Water is currently being pumped into the reactors in an attempt to keep them cool and prevent further explosions, but handling the water is becoming a problem.
The contaminated cooling water is being released directly into the ocean and is making its way into the ecosphere. Water from the storage tanks has also seeped into the groundwater and from there, into the ocean. Efforts to use a various barriers to prevent contamination have not completely stopped the leakage.
In another effort to stem the radioactive water from reaching the sea, Japan has pledged to spend $470 million to construct an “ice wall” around the reactors to contain the water. Under the Japanese plan, a wall of frozen earth will be constructed around the reactors to prevent the water being used to cool the fuel rods from comingling with the sea.
“The world is closely watching whether we can dismantle the (Fukushima) plant, including the issue of contaminated water,” said Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. “The government is determined to work hard to resolve the issue.”
This is quite a change from previous statements the prime minister has made. In a speech Sept. 7 in front of the International Olympic Committee in Buenos Aires, Abe stated categorically, “Let me assure you the situation (the contaminated groundwater problem) is under control.”
Six days later, Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the plant, disputed the prime minister’s claim at a meeting in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture.
“We regard the current situation as not being under control,” said Kazuhiko Yamashita, a senior official at Tepco.
Tokyo was awarded the 2020 Olympic Games following Abe’s speech.
“The quantities of water they are dealing with are absolutely gigantic,” said Mycle Schneider, an independent consultant who has previously advised the French and German governments and has consulted widely for a variety of organizations and countries on nuclear issues. “What is worse is the water leakage everywhere else – not just from the tanks. It is leaking out from the basements, it is leaking out from the cracks all over the place. Nobody can measure that.”
It is clear that the repercussions from this disaster are far from over.
There has been a debate over the size of the Pacific Ocean and the quantity of the contamination. Some say that even though the U.S. is directly across the ocean from the accident, the volume of the water will easily disperse the contaminants.
Others say the particular isotopes from the reactor do not disperse easily and don’t sink to the bottom. They remain in the water column, from top to bottom.
In this last scenario, sea life has a much greater chance of contacting and carrying the suspended radiation. They either breathe it or eat it in others. Scientists are watching carefully for any signs of contamination in the ocean’s biosphere.
According to Maxim Shingarkin, deputy chairman of Russia’s State Duma Committee for Natural Resources, “Currents in the world ocean are so structured that the areas of seafood capture near the U.S. northwest coast are more likely to contain radioactive nuclides than even the Sea of Okhotsk, which is much closer to Japan. These products are the main danger for mankind because they can find their way to people’s tables on a massive scale.”
This is an issue of significant importance to the United States since, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. imported almost 45 million pounds of fish from Japan in 2012.
There is evidence the radioactive water emanating from the plants starting two years ago has made its way into the ocean currents and will soon start to affect the ecosystems in North America as early as the spring of 2014.
Some say it is already here.
Reports are coming in that the North American food supply is already being affected by Fukushima.
Bluefin tuna caught off the San Diego coast is showing evidence of radioactive contamination. This is the first time that a migrating fish has been shown to carry radioactivity 3,000 miles from Fukushima to the U.S. Pacific coast. It is a nutrition source that accounts for approximately 20,000 tons of the world’s food supply each year.
According to the report published by the National Academy of Sciences, “We report unequivocal evidence that Pacific Bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, transported Fukushima-derived radionuclides across the entire North Pacific Ocean.”
“We were frankly kind of startled,” said Nicholas Fisher, one of the researchers reporting the findings online Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“That’s a big ocean. To swim across it and still retain these radionuclides is pretty amazing,” Fisher said.
To rule out the possibility the radiation found in the tuna was carried by ocean currents or dropped into the ocean through rainfall from the atmosphere, the team also analyzed Yellowfin tuna, found in the eastern Pacific, and Bluefin that migrated to Southern California before the nuclear crisis. They found no trace of cesium-134 and only background levels of cesium-137 left over from nuclear weapons testing in the 1960s.
The report went on to say: “The levels of radioactive cesium were 10 times higher than the amount measured in tuna off the California coast in previous years. But even so, that’s still far below safe-to-eat limits set by the U.S. and Japanese governments.”
The results were surprising enough to conduct further tests this coming summer with a larger sampling of migratory fish. The tuna that were the subject of the previous study were exposed to radiation from Fukushima for approximately one month. The upcoming study will be looking at fish that have been swimming in radioactive waters for a longer period.
They will also be expanding their study to cover other migratory species including sea turtles, sharks and seabirds.
There have been many other reports of fish and sea-creature populations dying in the Pacific. Also, there have been many discoveries of cesium–137 in high concentrations in seafood caught in the Pacific and sold in North America. There have also been many reports of unexplained deaths among wildlife:

• Vast amounts of sea stars are “melting” off the west coast of North America

• Killer whales are dying off the coast of British Columbia

• There is an epidemic of sea lion deaths due to starvation along the California coastline. The question is: why are they starving? Has the food chain been disrupted?

• Polar bears, seals and walruses along the Alaska coastline are suffering from fur loss and open sores

• Along the Pacific coast of Canada and the Alaska coastline, the population of sockeye salmon is at a historic low

• Something is causing fish all along the west coast of Canada to bleed from their gills, bellies and eyeballs

• Experts have found very high levels of cesium–137 in plankton living in the waters of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and the west coast, affecting the food chain in a process called “biomagnification”

As of now, there has been no direct correlation between these events and Fukushima, but the timing of the events and some contributing factors are giving scientists pause and are giving substance for calls for more studies.
While the evidence may circumstantial at this point, it is enough for countries to take action.
Due to radiation fears, Fukushima Prefecture fishermen have had to dump most of their catch. Two years into the nuclear disaster, South Korea still bans Japanese fish and seafood imports from eight Japanese prefectures. The ban covers an area of Japan that exported 5,000 metric tons of fishery products, or about 13 percent of the 40,000 total tons imported last year to South Korea.
In eastern Japanese ports outside of the prefecture, hundreds of pounds of fresh fish are sent to Onjuku, a small town a few hours away from Tokyo.
Once they arrive, samples of the fish are checked for radiation in a move to restore the world’s confidence in Japan’s food supply in the wake of Fukushima.
Japan’s Marine Ecology Research Institute, or MERI, operates out of Onjuku and is charged with the testing. MERI was established in the mid 1970s to certify that fish supplies remain safe despite wastewater discharge from the nuclear plants. It is now working overtime to assure the world that Japan’s fish are safe to eat.
Even with these assurances, many buyers are not sure just how much to trust the quasi-government laboratories. The U.S. has recently banned agricultural and fishery imports from 14 prefectures in Japan, up from the eight that South Korea banned.
Leung Ka-sing, an associate professor at Hong Kong’s Polytechnic University’s department of applied biology and chemical technology, has stated his country should expand its ban on fish products from the current conditional ban on eight prefectures to all of Japan. This is in response to public fears of contamination from ongoing leaks at the Fukushima nuclear plant. He said the ban would act as a preventive measure and address fears over radiation.
The events in the Pacific Rim do not seem to be isolated incidents. They may not be provocative. The oceans are large, and they contain a massive population of species that get sick from time to time. But they are in numbers that warrant an in-depth discovery and full disclosure.
Radiation is found everywhere in the world, so some radiation in food can be expected. How much is a safe level seems to vary over time. Immediately following the World War II atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, American military construction crews were sent into the cities to clear irradiated rubble, telling the crews that the work was safe.
Only years later did they find out it wasn’t safe, and that serious, permanent injury resulted from working in the area.
Gordon McDonald, Ph.D, executive director of Research for the Koinonia Institute, contributed to this report.

QE, Tapering and the Stock Markets

Towards year end, I have done less reading and have also been on a trip to Europe, so you do not see much update here

Most readers are waiting for an update and I have personally advised a friend or two by whatsapp that the market is riped for a correction esp HSI since the charts of a couple of blue chips [5, 941, 2628, 1199] look pretty ugly.

Tapering, how much and when it will stop

If you look back in this blog, you will find an article about how much of the T bonds in 2011 have been bought by Fed – 60%. At that time the deficit is close to 1 trillion ie 1000 billion which means only 40% or 400 billion was bought by the public [individuals and institutions],

Now the two wars once raised by Bush is close to an end, by end of 2014, most if not all troops should have withdrawn from IRAQ and Afghanistan according to the timetable of Obama, this will cut deficits caused partly by the war.

According to estimates the cut back in deficits can be as much as 500 billion, which is why Big Ben has the courage to say so and now do so. If you then look at deficits of 500 billion and a purchasing power of 400 billion by the public to finance deficits then the Fed sure has a lot of room to cut on the bond buying.

Hold it, is it that simple?

Effects on the stock market

How will this react on the economy, again this blog has an article on the effects of QE on GDP, the GDP is inflated by prices alone and not much by quantity, recent oil prices have been kept artificially high to make the economy looks better but earlier reports from Wal-Mart [also read an earlier blog on Wal-mart] already tells you that the lower rung of the economy is not doing so well.

So if you withdraw QE, GDP will grind to a halt. As the states have shale oil and gas discoveries pushing their economy plus figures massaging the stats, once they started tapering, they will withdraw to the point of hurting foreign economies that boomerangs back to their own before they will stop doing so. Wall street and Fed have always been good partners if you are talking about US interests though you see a lot of fighting between them in the states.

Many state and city governments are already on the verge of bankruptcy. Chicago if you are not aware is one of them but you dont read much in the media, why? Because they want you to believe that the economy is doing well and tapering is ongoing. Detroit has gone bankrupt and many more will due to good pensions, tapering will squeeze these cities hard as they cannot borrow as easily.

There will be a lot of disappointments in the results announcement by listed companies first in the overseas markets, then back to the states.

Thus brace yourself for a very rough ride in stock markets in the first two quarters.