Podcasts about foreign assets control ofac

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explores three possible scenarios for oil prices in light of geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research may reference jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which are the subject of sanctions administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the United Kingdom, the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to jurisdictions, persons (individuals or entities), debt or equity instruments, or projects that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such jurisdictions, persons, instruments, or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Martijn Rats: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martin Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Today I'll talk about oil price dynamics amidst escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. It's Wednesday, June 18th at 3pm in London. Industry watchers with an eye on the Brent Forward Curve recently noticed a rare smile shape: downward sloping in the first couple of months, but then an upward sloping curve later this year, and into 2026. Now that changed last Friday. The oil market creates these various shapes in the Forward Curve, depending on how it sees the supply demand balance. When the forward curve is downward sloping, holding inventory really is quite unattractive; so typically, operators release barrels from storage under those conditions. The market creates that structure when the conditions are tight, and barrels indeed need to be released from storage.Now on the other end, when the market is oversupplied, oil needs to be put into inventory, and the market makes this possible by creating an upward sloping curve. So, the curve that existed until only recently told the story of some near-term tightness first, but then a substantial surplus later this year and into 2026. Now when the tensions in the Middle East escalated late last week, the oil complex responded strongly. But not only did the front-month Brent future, i.e. oil for delivery next month rise quite sharply by about 17 percent, the impact of the conflict was also felt across all future delivery dates. By now, the entire forward curve is downward sloping, which means that the oil market no longer is pricing in any surplus next year – a big change from only a few days ago. Now, no doubt, Friday's events have sharply widened the range of possible future oil price paths. However, looking ahead, we would argue that oil prices fall in three main scenarios. Together they provide a framework to navigate the oil market in the next couple of weeks and months. First, let's consider the most benign scenario. Military conflict does not always correlate with disruptions to oil supply, even in major oil producing regions. So far, there is no reduction in supply from the region. If oil and gas infrastructure remains out of the crosshairs, it is entirely possible that that continues. In that case, we might see brand prices retract to around about $60 per barrel, down from the current level of about $76 per barrel.Our second scenario recognizes that Iran's oil exports could be at risk either because of attacks on physical infrastructure or because of sanctions – mirroring the reductions that we saw during 2018's Maximum Pressure Campaign by the United States. If Iran were to lose most of its export capacity, that would broadly offset the surplus that we are currently modeling for the oil market next year, which would then in turn leave a broadly balanced market. Now in a balanced oil market, oil prices are probably in a $75 to $80 per barrel range. The third and most severe scenario encompasses a broad regional disruption, possibly pushing prices as high as 2022 levels of around $120 a barrel. Now, that could unfold if Iran targets oil infrastructure across the wider Gulf region, including critical routes like the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world's oil transits. The situation remains very fluid, and we could see a wide spectrum of potential oil price outcomes. We believe the most likely scenario remains the first – our base case – with supply eventually remaining stable. However, the probabilities of the more severe disruptions whilst currently still lower, still justify a risk premium of about $10 per barrel for the foreseeable future. As we monitor these developments, investors should stay alert to signs such as further attacks on all infrastructure or escalations in sanctions, which could signal shifts towards our more severe scenarios. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Immer wieder kommt es zu Unfällen im Zusammenhang mit der sogenannten russischen Schattenflotte. Justus Heinrich, Head of Underwriting Marine und damit Chef der Schifffahrtssparte beim Versicherer Allianz, sieht weitere Havarien – zum Beispiel auch in Form von Kollisionen mit nicht-sanktionierten Schiffen – als ein "realistisches Szenario" an. In der neuen Episode des HANSA PODCASTs spricht der Experte über die Risiken für Reeder und Versicherer, die Auswirkungen der internationalen Sanktionen gegen Russland im Zusammenhang mit dem Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine und eine mögliche künftige Arbeit mit russischen Akteuren. Die Größe der Schattenflotte lässt sich nach Ansicht von Heinrich auf einen Umfang von 600 bis 1.600 Schiffen bemessen. Warum die große Spannbreite? "Es gibt Schiffe, die eindeutig zur Schattenflotte, also zur ›Dark Fleet‹, gehören und dann solche, die in die Kategorie ›Grey Fleet‹ fallen", erläutert Heinrich und spricht dabei auch von solchen Schiffen, die den Handel mit sanktionierten Gütern unterstützen, aber selbst in einem "legalen Mantel" – also zum Teil für nicht-sanktionierte Unternehmen unter etablierten Flaggen – unterwegs und nicht sofort als Schattenflottenschiff identifizierbar sind. Auch geht er auf den Anteil der Schiffe in der Schattenflotte ein, die dem Vernehmen nach keine bekannte Versicherung haben sollen. Der Allianz-Experte spricht in diesem Zusammenhang auch von einer "Perfektionierung" eines solchen, auch in der Vergangenheit schon von anderen Akteuren angewandten, Vorgehens durch Russland, sowie von typischen Schiffstypen und Ladungsarten in der Schattenflotte. Seit Beginn der Sanktionen gegen Russland gab es immer wieder Havarien von Schiffen der Schattenflotte. Manchmal sind dabei auch nicht-sanktionierte Schiffe betroffen, etwa bei Kollisionen. Angesichts der mitunter mangelnden Wartung und Kontrolle dürften weitere Vorfälle folgen. "Ich denke, es ist nicht ausgeschlossen, dass wir weitere Havarien sehen werden, einfach aufgrund der Risikostruktur dieser Schiffe und ihrer Routen". Zum Beispiel: Eine Kollision zwischen einem Frachter der Schattenflotte und einem nicht-sanktionierten Schiff sei ein völlig realistisches Szenario, meint Heinrich und erklärt, welche Annahmen hinter dieser Erwartung stehen. Explizit erläutert er auch, welcher Aufwand in solchen Fällen auf den Eigner und den Versicherer des nicht-sanktionierten Schiffs zukommen, wenn er es etwa mit einem russischen Gegenpart zu tun bekommt – sofern ein Ansprechpartner ausgemacht werden kann. Ob die Sanktionen eingehalten werden? "Wer sein Geschäftsmodell weiter erfolgreich betreiben möchte, hat gar keine andere Wahl. Es geht sofort an die Existenz, wenn Verstöße zum Beispiel der US-Behörde "Office of Foreign Assets Control" (OFAC) bekannt werden. "Man kann innerhalb von Stunden nicht mehr geschäftsfähig sein, wir haben das bei Dienstleistern gesehen", sagt er und blickt auch seine Erwartungen in puncto Sanktionen und Schattenflotte. Der Allianz-Experte Heinrich spricht u.a. auch über Sanktionsbrecher, Unbedarftheit und Unwissenheit als Risiken für Schifffahrtsunternehmen, Grenzen der Kontrollmechanismen, den Anteil an "Sanktionsarbeit" im Versicherer-Geschäft, Verteilung der Mehrkosten, Bewertung neuer Sanktionen gegen Kapitäne, politische Sanktionsarbeit und die Einbeziehung von betroffenen Akteuren ("ein praxisnaher Austausch wäre wünschenswert") im Vorfeld sowie entscheidende Stellen in Berlin, Brüssel und Washington, Folgen der Sanktionen auf den Fachkräftemangel auf See sowie Tools für Kontrollen von Schiffseigner-Strukturen und Finanzströmen

Is your company based in the US? You may be familiar with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), but do you know what other watchlists are required based on your company attributes or your vendor's?  If you want 5 steps to build a watchlist compliance matrix to avoid fraud and fines…..Keep listening. Check out my website www.debrarrichardson.com if you need help implementing authentication techniques, internal controls, and best practices to prevent fraudulent payments, regulatory fines or bad vendor data. Check out the Vendor Process Training Center for 116+ hours of weekly live and on-demand training for the Vendor team. Links mentioned in the podcast + other helpful resources:    Build a Watchlist Compliance Matrix to Avoid Fraud and Fines:  https://training.debrarrichardson.com/course/february2024 Vendor Process Training Center - https://training.debrarrichardson.comCustomized Fraud Training:  https://training.debrarrichardson.com/customized-fraud-training Free Live and On-Demand Webinars: https://training.debrarrichardson.com/webinarsVendor Master File Clean-Up:  https://www.debrarrichardson.com/cleanupYouTube Channel:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqeoffeQu3pSXMV8fUIGNiw More Podcasts/Blogs/Webinars www.debrarrichardson.comMore ideas?  Email me at debra@debrarrichardson.com Music Credit:  www.purple-planet.com

What is the primary concern regarding the use of WhatsApp and other encrypted messaging apps recently? Recent reports indicate that spyware, specifically "Graphite," has been used to target journalists and civil society members through zero-click attacks on encrypted apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal. This means that these apps are not as secure as previously thought, even though they employ end-to-end encryption. The spyware can infect devices without any user interaction and potentially compromise communication data. What are the security vulnerabilities identified in certain healthcare patient monitors? The FDA has highlighted cybersecurity issues in Contec's CMS8000 and Epsimed's MN-120 patient monitors. These devices, when connected to the internet, are susceptible to unauthorized remote control, software backdoors, and data breaches containing personal health information. One backdoor was linked to a Chinese IP address, raising additional concerns about foreign access to sensitive health data. Why has the Chinese AI chatbot, DeepSeek, been banned in Italy and Taiwan? Italy's data protection agency blocked DeepSeek because its developers did not adequately explain how user data is collected or confirm whether it's stored on Chinese servers. Taiwan's digital ministry also banned the use of DeepSeek by government departments, citing security concerns related to its Chinese origin. What led to DeepSeek's data being exposed online and what kind of information was affected? Cybersecurity firm Wiz discovered a significant amount of sensitive data from DeepSeek was left unsecured on the open internet due to an apparent misconfiguration. This data included over a million lines of data such as digital software keys and user chat logs. What is Senator Hawley's proposed bill regarding Chinese AI models, and what could be the consequences for individuals? Senator Josh Hawley has introduced the "Decoupling America's Artificial Intelligence Capabilities from China Act," which aims to criminalize the import, export, and collaboration on AI technology with China. Under the proposed law, knowingly downloading a Chinese AI model, such as DeepSeek, could lead to severe penalties, including up to 20 years in prison, a million-dollar fine, or both. The bill reflects growing concerns about national security and the potential for China to leverage AI for hostile purposes. How is Amazon being accused of tracking consumers, and what type of data are they allegedly collecting? Amazon is facing a class-action lawsuit accusing the company of secretly tracking consumers' movements through their cellphones via its Amazon Ads SDK, embedded within third-party apps. It's alleged that the SDK collects sensitive geolocation data without users' explicit consent, such as IP addresses, location, ISP, device info, and network performance metrics. This data is used to build a detailed picture of consumers' habits and preferences, raising privacy concerns about corporate surveillance. What restrictions are being placed on open-source contributions, and who is being affected? The US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions are imposing restrictions on open-source contributions from sanctioned individuals and countries. Developers from nations such as Russia, Iran, and North Korea are facing challenges when contributing to open-source projects due to these sanctions. How is Cloudflare addressing image authenticity concerns, and what are the potential benefits? Cloudflare has implemented Content Credentials, a system based on C2PA standards, that embeds metadata into images to track their origin and modifications. This system helps distinguish between genuine and manipulated content. The benefits are significant, as Cloudflare's network handles approximately 20% of global internet traffic, greatly increasing the potential reach of the system. This helps create trust in digital images, and preserves the work of digital creators.

Preston Van Loon, an Ethereum core developer, joins The Defiant Podcast this week to discuss his role as a plaintiff in the high-profile Tornado Cash lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). He described how the sanctions imposed on Tornado Cash impacted legitimate users seeking privacy on Ethereum and underscored the significance of a recent appellate court ruling questioning whether smart contracts qualify as “property” under U.S. sanctions law. Van Loon also noted the possibility of a friendlier regulatory environment in the United States, suggesting that changing policy stances could spur crypto innovation. Finally, he addressed ongoing discussions within the Ethereum community about development priorities, governance structures, and the challenges of maintaining a decentralized protocol as the ecosystem grows. Chapters 00:00 - Introduction and Background 01:15 - What is Tornado Cash? 04:00 - Why Tornado Cash Was Sanctioned 06:45 - Filing the Lawsuit 09:50 - Court Ruling and Implications 14:00 - Next Steps in the Legal Case 18:00 - Privacy Rights and Crypto 24:00 - Impact on Builders and Industry 34:00 - Ethereum's Role and Future Challenges 50:00 - Community Feedback and Leadership 55:00 - Closing Remarks Our sponsors https://node.icn.global/?utm_source=TheDefiant&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=node_sale_live https://kelpdao.xyz/gain/growth-vault/?utm_source=Defiant https://betteron.stellar.org/ ✨ Check out our new website ✨ https://thedefiant.io/

Don't miss the new episode of the Sanctions+ Podcast, where Milana Karayanidi and Shahrzad Noorbaloochi talk to two experts in export controls and sanctions: Stephen Wilcox and Thomas Andrukonis. They reveal how they got into this fascinating field and what they learned along the way. You'll also hear about the International Sanctions and Export Control Society (ISECS), a trailblazing organization that helps businesses and professionals navigate the complex world of export controls and sanctions. Find out the myths and realities of complying with different rules and regulations around the world and how the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) agencies differ in their enforcement and compliance approaches and resources.

In this episode we interview Mohammed Khatib and Thomas Hofland from the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network.  This is our third interview with members of Samidoun since October 7th 2023, and we will link the others in the show description.  Mohammed Khatib is a Palestinian refugee from Ain el-Helweh camp in Lebanon. He lives in Belgium and is the European coordinator for Samidoun. Thomas Hofland is the coordinator of Samidoun Netherlands. Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network organizes solidarity with Palestinian political prisoners and their struggle for freedom and liberation. The network was founded in 2011 and since then expanded to more than a dozen countries.  As Samidoun write, “On October 15, the United States and Canada sanctioned Samidoun in an attempt to repress political organizing in support of the Palestinian people's struggle against genocide, colonialism and occupation, and the more than 10.000 Palestinian political prisoners that are being tortured and killed by the Zionist entity. In the US, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the sanctions, while the Canadian government has listed Samidoun as a “terrorist entity” under its criminal code.” (See full release here) November 14th Charlotte Kates - the international coordinator for Samidoun who we've previously interviewed on two occasions - had her house raided by Vancouver Police in British Columbia. While there is no official statement on this matter yet by Samidoun, we just want to say that we denounce this escalating repression on the Palestinian movement, and send our solidarity to Charlotte and her family, and to Samidoun and to all people who have been organizing on behalf of the Palestinian people who are facing repression by these imperialist genocide supporting states.  Nothing reveals the nature of the imperialist countries we live in, in the so-called global north, like the fact that as states like the US, Canada and Western European countries provide billions of dollars in arms to the genocidal zionist garrison that calls itself Israel that they also have to suppress civil society organizations like Samidoun who advocate for the political prisoners held by that same genocide enacting garrison. In this interview we get into how Samidoun understands these repressive actions and how we collectively can and must fight back as the state's efforts to quell support for Palestinians amid the attempts by western governments to complete their genocidal siege and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people in Gaza. As the interview mentions, Samidoun is part of the Masar Badil – The Palestinian Alternative Revolutionary Path Movement. The Masar, founded in 2021, aims to organize and support the Palestinian diaspora as a crucial force of the national liberation struggle.  And as the interview mentions while these restrictions may prevent folks in some places from being able to materially support Samidoun as an organization, what you can do is continue to “Support the steadfastness of Palestinian people in Gaza by all means” and “Practice your right to resist.” Previous Interviews with Samidoun: Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network with Charlotte Kates & Mohammed Khatib Palestinian Prisoners, Genocide, and Repression of Pro-Palestinian Organizations with Charlotte Kates   Other Links: Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network Masar Badil– The Palestinian Alternative Revolutionary Path Movement "We Keep Resisting" - US & Canada Sanction Samidoun

Host Gregg N. Sofer welcomes Husch Blackwell partner Grant Leach to the program to discuss the burgeoning set of requirements and restrictions placed on U.S. businesses in connection with trade law. Gregg and Grant identify the authorities and agencies involved in trade law and the various mechanisms the regulators use to make rules and enforce them. As trade law rapidly evolves to keep pace with geopolitical developments and challenges, corporate leaders and their compliance teams have the task of managing risks that are sometimes difficult to spot, especially as they involve multiple layers of the global supply chain. Our conversation stresses the necessity of diligence and knowing your customers and vendors, as well as exploring what a “reasonable, risk-based” compliance program looks like in practice.We also discuss a key change in the statute of limitations—from five years to ten—in connection with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions enforcement. This expansion of the lookback period has implications not just for compliance programs but could also complicate corporate transactions and the due diligence process.We conclude our discussion by addressing how the evolving trade law regime impacts smaller enterprises that might have difficulty scaling the compliance function to manage trade-based risk. These enterprises face heightened risk as they are often targeted by bad actors seeking to evade sanctions via transshipment or some other means.Gregg N. Sofer BiographyFull BiographyGregg counsels businesses and individuals in connection with a range of criminal, civil and regulatory matters, including government investigations, internal investigations, litigation, export control, sanctions, and regulatory compliance. Prior to entering private practice, Gregg served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas—one of the largest and busiest United States Attorney's Offices in the country—where he supervised more than 300 employees handling a diverse caseload, including matters involving complex white-collar crime, government contract fraud, national security, cyber-crimes, public corruption, money laundering, export violations, trade secrets, tax, large-scale drug and human trafficking, immigration, child exploitation and violent crime.Grant Leach BiographyFull BiographyBased in Husch Blackwell's Omaha office and a member of the firm's International Trade & Supply Chain practice, Grant focuses on trade, export controls, sanctions and anti-corruption compliance. He has extensive experience helping clients navigate complex issues related to international commerce and its associated compliance challenges. As part of his practice, Grant advises clients on requirements under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Export Administration Regulations (EAR) administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), trade sanctions administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and other import- and export-related regulations.© 2024 Husch Blackwell LLP. All rights reserved. This information is intended only to provide general information in summary form on legal and business topics of the day. The contents hereof do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific legal advice should be sought in particular matters.

In this episode of Current Account, Clay is joined by Daniel Tannebaum, a Partner and Global Anti-Financial Crime Practice Leader at Oliver Wyman and Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, to provide a sanctions update amid the recent United States's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) escalation of the December 2023 sanctions package on Russia. The episode begins with an explanation of what the new escalation package entails, before discussing the approaches of the G7 lending plan, the relationships of India and China with Russia in this context, how the upcoming U.S. Presidential Elections will play a role going forward and much more. Editor's note: This episode was taped on Friday, July 19th, 2024.

In this episode, Lisa Mays, an international trade attorney with Sheppard Mullin and leader of the firm's Supply Chain Industry Team, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the state of the global supply chain, including the impact of the war in Russia, and the intensifying trade war with China.   What We Discussed in This Episode: Most trade lawyers are on the East coast. What benefits do you bring to your clients being in California?  What roles do the different government agencies play in enforcement, and why is recent inter-agency enforcement cooperation so significant? What is the compliance obligation regarding “diversion” of goods by suppliers, distributors, sales agents, and customers? How are U.S. trade wars playing out in the global supply chain?  What specific supply chain issues are created by the war in Ukraine? What recent actions has the U.S. taken as the trade war with China intensifies? How is international trade law impacting the way the solar industry operates? Why has it become critical for companies to trace their supply chains for forced labor? Will supply chain regulation continue to be a priority for the remainder of President Biden's current term?   About Lisa Mays An international trade lawyer based in Sheppard Mullin's Orange County office, Lisa Mays leads the firm's Supply Chain Industry Team and is a leading member of the Transportation Industry Team. Lisa's practice focuses on compliance counseling and investigations in the areas of export controls, economic sanctions, anti-corruption, and customs and import regulations. She regularly advises semiconductor manufacturers, automakers, airlines, aerospace and defense firms, importers, and exporters on sanctions; export controls, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR); trade agreements; the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA); Customs and imports; antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD); the False Claims Act; Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS); anti-boycott controls; cybersecurity issues; and anti-money laundering (AML) matters.  Lisa also represents clients before the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and CFIUS.   About Scott Maberry An international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information Lisa Mays Scott Maberry Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.  

The United States government has intensified its efforts against the Sinaloa Cartel, aiming to curb the influx of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl, into the country. The Sinaloa Cartel, responsible for significant portions of illicit fentanyl entering the U.S., is a primary target due to the deadly impact of fentanyl on American communities. This potent synthetic opioid has driven the opioid epidemic, now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 49.Federal agencies like the DEA, FBI, and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) have adopted a multi-agency approach to dismantle the cartel's operations. These efforts include indictments and sanctions targeting cartel members and their operations. Recent indictments have exposed the extensive drug trafficking networks run by the Chapitos, the sons of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, highlighting their use of various methods to smuggle drugs, including aircraft, submarines, and tunnels.In collaboration with the Mexican government, the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has sanctioned key cartel members and associated entities, disrupting their financial networks. These sanctions are part of a broader strategy to cut off the financial lifelines of the cartel, leveraging international cooperation to tackle the transnational threat posed by the Sinaloa Cartel​.Overall, the U.S. government's comprehensive strategy involves legal actions, financial sanctions, and international cooperation to weaken the Sinaloa Cartel's operations and mitigate the flow of deadly drugs into the United States.(commercial at 10:04)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How the US is putting the squeeze on the Sinaloa Cartel | U.S. | EL PAÍS English (elpais.com)

The United States government has intensified its efforts against the Sinaloa Cartel, aiming to curb the influx of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl, into the country. The Sinaloa Cartel, responsible for significant portions of illicit fentanyl entering the U.S., is a primary target due to the deadly impact of fentanyl on American communities. This potent synthetic opioid has driven the opioid epidemic, now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 49.Federal agencies like the DEA, FBI, and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) have adopted a multi-agency approach to dismantle the cartel's operations. These efforts include indictments and sanctions targeting cartel members and their operations. Recent indictments have exposed the extensive drug trafficking networks run by the Chapitos, the sons of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, highlighting their use of various methods to smuggle drugs, including aircraft, submarines, and tunnels.In collaboration with the Mexican government, the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has sanctioned key cartel members and associated entities, disrupting their financial networks. These sanctions are part of a broader strategy to cut off the financial lifelines of the cartel, leveraging international cooperation to tackle the transnational threat posed by the Sinaloa Cartel​.Overall, the U.S. government's comprehensive strategy involves legal actions, financial sanctions, and international cooperation to weaken the Sinaloa Cartel's operations and mitigate the flow of deadly drugs into the United States.(commercial at 10:04)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How the US is putting the squeeze on the Sinaloa Cartel | U.S. | EL PAÍS English (elpais.com)

The United States government has intensified its efforts against the Sinaloa Cartel, aiming to curb the influx of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl, into the country. The Sinaloa Cartel, responsible for significant portions of illicit fentanyl entering the U.S., is a primary target due to the deadly impact of fentanyl on American communities. This potent synthetic opioid has driven the opioid epidemic, now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 49.Federal agencies like the DEA, FBI, and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) have adopted a multi-agency approach to dismantle the cartel's operations. These efforts include indictments and sanctions targeting cartel members and their operations. Recent indictments have exposed the extensive drug trafficking networks run by the Chapitos, the sons of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, highlighting their use of various methods to smuggle drugs, including aircraft, submarines, and tunnels.In collaboration with the Mexican government, the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has sanctioned key cartel members and associated entities, disrupting their financial networks. These sanctions are part of a broader strategy to cut off the financial lifelines of the cartel, leveraging international cooperation to tackle the transnational threat posed by the Sinaloa Cartel​.Overall, the U.S. government's comprehensive strategy involves legal actions, financial sanctions, and international cooperation to weaken the Sinaloa Cartel's operations and mitigate the flow of deadly drugs into the United States.(commercial at 10:04)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How the US is putting the squeeze on the Sinaloa Cartel | U.S. | EL PAÍS English (elpais.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In today's episode, we discuss the conviction of five men behind the illegal streaming service Jetflicks (https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/five-men-convicted-for-operating-illegal-streaming-site-jetflicks/), the U.S. Treasury's sanctions on 12 Kaspersky executives following a software ban (https://thehackernews.com/2024/06/us-treasury-sanctions-12-kaspersky.html), and the details of the Change Healthcare ransomware attack that exposed sensitive medical data for millions (https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/change-healthcare-lists-the-medical-data-stolen-in-ransomware-attack/). We cover the implications of these events on national security, legal consequences, and the impact on affected individuals. 00:00 Intro 01:00 Five Men Convicted for Jetflicks Piracy Empire 03:30 U.S. Treasury Targets 12 Kaspersky Execs in Sanctions 06:06 UnitedHealth Confirms Massive Data Breach Details 09:56 Outro Video Episode: https://youtu.be/gEFHGaSbbCI Thanks to Jered Jones for providing the music for this episode. https://www.jeredjones.com/ Logo Design by https://www.zackgraber.com/ Tags: Jetflicks, illegal streaming service, pirated, FBI, movie piracy, TV show piracy, online piracy, streaming crackdown, illicit streaming, cybersecurity, U.S. Treasury, sanctions, Kaspersky, cyber threats, ransomware attack, UnitedHealth, Change Healthcare, health data breach, personal information theft, medical data theft Search Phrases: How did Jetflicks operate as an illegal streaming service Tactics used by Jetflicks for piracy FBI shuts down Jetflicks streaming service Impact of Jetflicks on movie and TV industry U.S. Treasury sanctions on Kaspersky executives Cyber threats from Kaspersky cybersecurity ban Details on the Change Healthcare ransomware attack UnitedHealth data breach impact Types of information stolen in Change Healthcare attack Consequences of UnitedHealth's health data breach Five men convicted for operating illegal streaming site Jetflicks https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/five-men-convicted-for-operating-illegal-streaming-site-jetflicks/ Key Information: Conviction Details: A federal jury in Las Vegas convicted five individuals for operating Jetflicks, a significant illegal streaming service. Jetflicks ran from 2007 to 2019 before the FBI shut it down. Service Scale: Jetflicks offered over 10,500 movies and 183,000 TV episodes, pirated from platforms like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime. The service attracted tens of thousands of paid subscribers, providing new episodes often the day after their TV release. Financial Impact: The operation generated millions of dollars in illicit gains. The U.S. Department of Justice noted substantial financial damages to copyright owners but did not provide specific figures. Individuals Involved: Kristopher Dallmann, Douglas Courson, Felipe Garcia, Jared Jaurequi, and Peter Huber were all convicted. Dallmann faces additional charges for money laundering, making his potential sentence up to 48 years in prison. The other four face maximum sentences of five years each. Next Steps: Sentencing will be decided by a federal district court judge, with the date yet to be scheduled.` U.S. Treasury Sanctions 12 Kaspersky Executives Amid Software Ban https://thehackernews.com/2024/06/us-treasury-sanctions-12-kaspersky.html `- Sanctions Announcement: The U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned 12 senior executives at Kaspersky Lab, following a ban by the Commerce Department on Kaspersky software and services in the U.S. Actionable Insight: Be aware of potential impacts on global cybersecurity dynamics and consider alternative security solutions if currently relying on Kaspersky products. Commitment to Cybersecurity Integrity: Brian E. Nelson, Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, emphasized the U.S. commitment to protecting its cyber domain from malicious threats. Question for Listeners: How do you think these sanctions will affect global cybersecurity policies? Share your thoughts with us. Scope of Sanctions: Sanctions target 12 C-suite and senior-level executives but do not extend to Kaspersky Lab itself or its founder and CEO, Eugene Kaspersky. Engagement Tip: Consider discussing in your team meetings how leadership changes at major cybersecurity firms could impact your organization's security posture. List of Sanctioned Executives: Key roles affected include the COO, Deputy CEO, Chief Business Development Officer, and several vice presidents and heads of business units. Critical Implication: Monitoring the leadership shakeup can provide insights into potential changes in Kaspersky's operational strategies. Commerce Department Ban: As of July 20, 2024, Kaspersky is prohibited from offering its software and services in the U.S., having been added to the Entity List due to national security concerns. Efficiency Note: Prioritize reviewing and updating any Kaspersky-related security protocols before the ban takes effect. Russia's Response: Russia claims the ban is a typical move by the U.S. to limit foreign competition, while Kaspersky asserts it has no ties to the Russian government.` Change Healthcare lists the medical data stolen in ransomware attack https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/change-healthcare-lists-the-medical-data-stolen-in-ransomware-attack `- Massive Data Exposure Announced: UnitedHealth confirms the types of medical and patient data stolen in the Change Healthcare ransomware attack. Affected data includes health insurance details, medical records, billing info, and personal identifiers like Social Security numbers. Key takeaway: Be vigilant with your health data; monitor for signs of misuse. Scope of the Breach: UnitedHealth CEO reveals that approximately one-third of Americans might be impacted. Actionable Insight: Consider enrolling in credit monitoring and identity theft protection services offered by Change Healthcare. Impact and Response: The attack led to significant disruptions in the US healthcare system, especially affecting pharmacies' ability to process claims. Educational Note: Multi-factor authentication (MFA) could have prevented this breach. Ensure your organization implements MFA for all access points. Ransom Payment and Fallout: UnitedHealth paid a ransom of $22 million, which resulted in internal conflict among the attackers. Despite the ransom payment, some data was still leaked, leading to additional demands. Financial Impact: The breach has cost UnitedHealth $872 million so far. Next Steps for Affected Individuals: Formal data breach notifications will be sent out in July. Affected individuals can visit changecybersupport.com for more information and to sign up for free credit monitoring. Listener Engagement: Have you checked if your healthcare provider offers identity theft protection? Share your experiences with us!`

‘It's one of the most important developments I think you'll see coming out of the US in terms of sanctions enforcement, probably for years' -John Smith on the extension of OFAC's statute of limitations to 10 years for sanctions violations. In the latest episode of the Sanctions Space Podcast, Justine is joined by John Smith, co-head of Morrison Foerster's National Security practice and former Director of OFAC, and Chloe Cina, Partner at Morrison Foerster. They discuss the evolving sanctions enforcement landscape (across both the US and Europe), the extension to 10 years for statute of limitations for sanctions violations in the US and the resulting impact for industry, and the potential sanctions implications of the upcoming US elections. John E. Smith, former Director of the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), is co-head of Morrison Foerster's National Security practice, and a member of the Crisis Management group and Investigations + White Collar group. After serving 11 years as a top official at OFAC and three years as its Director, Mr. Smith brings to the firm unmatched experience in economic sanctions, enforcement, and national security. Read John's bio here:https://www.mofo.com/people/john-smith. Chloe Cina is a partner in the London office of Morrison Foerster with unrivalled experience in EU and UK economic sanctions and export control measures. She has nearly two decades of experience in litigating and advising on complex national security issues, both within government and in-house at two leading global financial institutions. Read Chloe's bio here:https://www.mofo.com/people/chloe-cina.

“Crypto will be a piece in almost every investigation.” In this episode, Ari and Aidan explore the pivotal role of blockchain analytics in crime prevention. They delve into why traceable technologies like the blockchain appeal to both criminals and law enforcement agencies, shedding light on how mixing services can facilitate money laundering and examining the evolution of digital currency investigations using real-world examples like the Bitfinex hack. Ari shares insights from his experiences in both the public and private sectors, including his first encounter with investigating crypto-enabled crimes.Throughout the episode, they emphasize the importance of balancing financial transparency with individual privacy and advocate for increased education and resources to enable law enforcement agencies to effectively tackle crypto crimes. Timestamps02:30 - Networking and motivation through Ari's running club05:30 - Tackling the complexities of illicit finance and crypto recovery10:00 - Libra's impact on global regulatory conversations14:30 - Understanding cryptocurrency's regulatory challenges21:30 - The normalization of crypto technology30:00 - Cryptocurrency's role in modern asset recovery investigations35:33 - Balancing privacy, innovation and security in the digital age46:45 - Combating scams and enhancing crypto asset recovery50:45 - Ari's advice for fighting crypto-enabled crimesResources Mentioned:TRM LEA Survey 23: 60% of investigations start w/o a crypto element TRM Talks PodcastTRM Weekly Roundup NewsletterTRM's Illicit Crypto Economy Report 2023About our Guest:Ari Redbord is the Global Head of Policy at blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs and the Vice-Chair of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission's Technology Advisory Committee (TAC), known for his insights on cryptocurrency policy.Prior to TRM, Ari served as the Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and the Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the US Treasury, where he regularly collaborated with teams from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCen) to investigate financial crimes involving cryptocurrency assets.DisclaimerOur podcasts are for informational purposes only. They are not intended to provide legal, tax, financial, and/or investment advice. Listeners must consult their own advisors before making decisions on the topics discussed. Asset Reality has no responsibility or liability for any decision made or any other acts or omissions in connection with your use of this material.The views expressed by guests are their own and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. Views and opinions expressed by Asset Reality employees are those of the employees and do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Asset Reality does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, suitability or validity of the information in any particular podcast and will not be responsible for any claim attributable to errors, omissions, or other inaccuracies of any part of such material. Unless stated otherwise, reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by Asset Reality.

As the U.S. presidential election remains closely contested, our experts discuss what a change in administration could mean for European equities in terms of trade, China relations and other key issues.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research.Marina Zavolock: And I'm Marina Zavolock, Chief European Equity Strategist.Michael Zezas: And on this episode of Thoughts on the Market, we'll discuss how the U.S. election could impact European markets.It's Wednesday, April 24th at 10am in New York.Marina Zavolock: And 3pm in London.Michael Zezas: As the U.S. presidential election gets closer and the outcome remains highly uncertain, we're exploring the impact of a potential departure from the current status quo of President Biden in the White House. Today, my colleague Marina and I want to discuss just what that would mean for European equity markets.Marina, how closely is Europe following the election, and why?Marina Zavolock: So, European equities derive about 25 percent of their market cap weighted revenues from the U.S. And the U.S. is the largest export market for European firms outside of Europe. So, of course, interest in U.S. elections here is very high; and this is in terms of the exposures of European stocks, sectors, asset classes, and economics as a whole. European investors, I would say that their peak interest in U.S. elections was around the Republican primaries, and it's stayed elevated ever since.And Mike, I know you want to dig in specifically on how European markets would react in a change in status quo scenario. But first let's talk about your outlook on some of the key policies that may change if Biden loses the election. What are your thoughts on trade policy and tariffs?Michael Zezas: Trump's been clear about his view that countries levying higher tariffs on U.S. imports than the US levies on their imports is unfair, and he's willing to correct it with tariffs. And while in his term as president he focused more on China, he was interested in tariff escalation with Europe. But he reportedly was moved off that position by advisors and members of his own party who were wary of creating more noise in the transatlantic alliance. But this time around, the Republican party's views are much more aligned with Trump's. So, imports on European goods like autos could easily come into scope.Marina, how are you thinking about the impact of potentially higher tariffs on the European market? What sectors might be most affected?Marina Zavolock: The initial reaction to recent tariff related headlines we've been fielding from investors is around the risks to our bullish European equities view in particular. The general investor feedback we get is that European equities may continue to rally for now, but as we approach November and as we approach US elections, the downside risks from this event start to build.What our in-depth analysis demonstrates, however, is that it's far more nuanced than that. As I mentioned, Europe derives about 25 per cent of its weighted revenues from the US. But, when we've dug into that number, most of these revenues are in the form of services or local to local goods, meaning goods produced locally in the US and sold in the US -- but by European companies. Only about 6 per cent of Europe's overall weighted revenue exposure is to goods exported into the US. So, we find the risk is far more idiosyncratic from a change in tariff policy than broad based. And in terms of individual sectors most exposed to tariff risks, these include a lot of healthcare sectors -- med tech, life sciences, pharma, biotech -- aerospace as well, metals and mining; of course, autos as you mentioned, and a number of others.After tariffs, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is the next most common policy area we get asked about in Europe, given relatively high exposures for European utilities, construction materials, and the capital goods sector.Overall, we find European equities aggregate exposure to IRA is also low, is less than 2 percent of weighted revenues, so even lower than that of tariffs. But the stocks most exposed in Europe to IRA are underperforming the rest of the market. What are your scenarios around the IRA if Trump wins, Mike?Michael Zezas: Well, we think the money appropriated in the IRA is here to stay. Many of that program's investments overlap with geographies represented by Republicans in Congress, which means repealing the IRA may be a better talking point than a political strategy -- similar to how Republicans in 2017 failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act despite campaigning on that as a priority. But Trump could certainly slow the spending of that money through regulatory means such as ratcheting up the rules about how much of the materials involved have to be sourced from within the US.Now switching gears, Marina, you mentioned the performance of European stocks related to our election scenarios. Based on your recent work, you have very granular stock level data on relative exposure to potential administration policies. How are stocks with the greatest exposures behaving overall?Marina Zavolock: Yeah, this was a very interesting conclusion from our work. We thought that it's still fairly early ahead of US elections for stocks to start to diverge on the basis of potential policy changes. But what we found when we surveyed our analysts and collected data for over 350 European stocks with material US exposure is that when we break out these exposures and we aggregate them, the stocks with the highest level of potential risk exposure to Trump administration policies are underperforming the overall market. And the stocks with the greatest potential positive exposure, to Trump administration policies are outperforming.And then you have groups like moderate exposure that are in the middle, and these groups, no matter how we slice the data for different policies, are lining up. Exactly as you might expect, depending on their level of exposure as the market starts to price in some probability of either scenario coming through. We're also starting to see the volatility of the stocks most exposed start to rise. But this is a very early trend.The other big area that we get asked about is China. So, Europe has about 8 per cent of its weighted revenues exposed to China. It's the highest of any major developed market region in the world. What are your expectations about China policy under a new Trump administration?Michael Zezas: Well, it's bipartisan consensus now that China is a rival and that more protective barriers to trade are needed to protect the US' tech advantage in order to safeguard US national and economic security. But like with Europe, Trump appears more willing to use tariffs as a tool in this rivalry, which can create more rhetorical and fundamental noise in the economic relationship.Marina, how do you think this would impact Europe?Marina Zavolock: So, we've been talking about China as a risk factor for some time for a variety of reasons, and recently when I mentioned that European stocks are starting to react to potential change in administration policies. This hasn't so much been the case on China exposures. China exposures are behaving as they were before. We're not seeing any great divergences as we approach elections; though in our overall model, we do favor sectors with lower exposure to China.Mike, and how are you thinking about Ukraine? We have a huge amount of interest in the defense sector, and it's one of the best performing sectors in Europe this year.Michael Zezas: Yeah. So here Trump's been pretty clear that he'd like to push for a rapid reconciliation between Russia and Ukraine. What investors should pay attention to is that a Trump attempt at rapid reconciliation, perhaps in contrast with the European approach. And then when you couple that with potential tariffs on Europe from the US, it can send a signal to Europe that they have to shift their own defense and economic strategy. And one manifestation of that could be greater security spending, particularly defense spending in Europe and globally. It's a key reason why defense is a sector we favor in both the US and Europe.So, Marina, what are some of the bottom-line conclusions for investors?Marina Zavolock: I think there's two main conclusions from our work. First, the aggregate exposures in Europe to potential changes in policy from a Trump administration are pretty low and quite idiosyncratic by stock. We talked about a few of the greatest exposure areas, but in aggregate, if we take all the policy areas that we've analyzed, net exposure of Europe's revenues is about 7 per cent.Second, the stocks that are most exposed, either positively or negatively, are already moving based on those relative exposures, and we think that will continue, and these groups of stocks will also have increased volatility as we get closer to November.Michael Zezas: Marina, thanks for taking the time to talk.Marina Zavolock: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen to podcasts; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly informational, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 set off a series of global sanctions enforcement actions. The United States Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has meted out sanctions to curb Russia's defense procurement, energy weaponization, and international trade activity. To date, the EU has also imposed 12 sanctions packages on restrictive measures – with the 13th to be formally approved in February.In this episode, we speak with Dr. Andrea Viski, founder and director of the Strategic Trade Research Institute and editor-in-chief of the Strategic Trade Review, on how the global sanctions environment has changed since the invasion, and where the biggest risks in sanctions-related financial crime lie.This conversation covers topics including:The impact of sanctions packages on Russia's economy – where the sanctions have been effective in disconnecting Russia from global trade and economic activityHow the global sanctions environment has changed since the invasionNew challenges KYC and AML professionals now face, and how they can mitigate sanctions-related risksThe latest sanctions evasion trends and red flagsFor additional resources mentioned in this episode, visit:WorldECRStrategic Trade ReviewIf you want to better detect sanctions-related risk in your organization, visit our website, read our latest whitepaper on sanctions, and get in touch with one of our experts – we'd love to hear from you.

With multiple, ongoing geopolitical conflicts, our analyst says investors should separate signals from noise in how these events can impact markets.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research may reference jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which are the subject of sanctions administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the United Kingdom, the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to jurisdictions, persons (individuals or entities), debt or equity instruments, or projects that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such jurisdictions, persons, instruments, or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the impact of geopolitical events on markets. It's Wednesday, February 7 at 5 pm in London.Geopolitical conflicts around the globe seem to be escalating in recent weeks. Increased US military involvement in the Middle East, fresh uncertainty about Ukraine's resources in its conflict with Russia, and lingering concerns about the US-China relationship are in focus. And since financial markets and economies around the world have become more interconnected, it's more important than ever for investors to separate signals from noise in how these events can impact markets. So here's a few key takeaways that, in our view, do just that.First, fighting in the red sea may influence the supply chain, but the results are probably smaller than you'd think. Yes, there's been a more than 200 per cent increase in the cost of freight containers moving through a channel that accounts for 12 per cent of global trade. But, the diversion of the freight traffic to longer routes around Africa really just represents a one-time lengthening of the delivery of goods to port. That's because there's an oversupply of containers that were built in response to bottlenecks created by increased demand for goods during the pandemic. So now that there's a steady flow of containers with goods in them, even if they are avoiding the Red Sea, the impact on availability of goods to consumers is manageable, with only a modest effect on inflation expected by our economists.Second, ramifications on oil prices from the Middle East conflict should continue to be modest. While it might seem nonsensical that fighting in the Middle East hasn't led to higher oil prices, that's more or less what's happened. But that's because disruptions to the flow of oil don't appear to be in the interest of any of the actors involved, as it would create political and economic risk on all sides. So, if you're concerned about movements in the price of oil as a catalyst for growth or inflation, then our team recommends looking at the traditional supply and demand drivers for oil, which appear balanced around current prices.Finally, as the US election campaigns gear up, so does rhetoric around the US-China economic relationship. And here we see some things worth paying attention to. Simply put, higher tariffs imposed by the US are a real risk in the event that party control of the White House changes. That's the stated position of Republicans' likely candidate – former President Trump – and we see no reason to doubt that, based on how the former President levied tariffs last time he was in office. As our chief Asia economist Chetan Ahya recently noted, such an outcome creates downside risk for the China economy, at a time when downside risk is accumulating for other structural reasons. It's one reason our Asia equity strategy team continues to prefer other markets in Asia, in particular Japan.Of course, these situations and their market implications can obviously evolve quickly. We'll be paying close attention, and keeping you in the loop.Thanks for listening! Subscribe to Thoughts on the Market on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen, and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you.

Host Professor Katerina Linos talks with three international law scholars on sanctions and their role in comparative perspective. Berkeley Law Professor Elena Chachko joins Professor Luis M. Hinojosa-Martínez and Professor Carmela Pérez-Bernárdez from the Department of Public International Law and International Relations at the University of Granada, Spain, for a frank look at international sanctions as a legal tool used by self-governing states via bodies like the UN Security Council, European Union, and the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Listeners will come away understanding sanctions, and their intended goal to pressure change from countries – as well as individuals, companies, or organizations – causing violent wars, implementing harmful policies, or disregarding international laws. In the 21st century, recommendations have shifted toward restrictive measures, or so-called “smart sanctions,” targeting regimes rather than people. Discussion covers current and historic implementations of sanctions with an incisive review of successes and critiques. For further study, see, e.g., Enhancing the Rule of Law in the European Union's External Action, Luis M. Hinojosa-Martínez and Carmela Pérez-Bernárdez (eds.), Edward Elgar, 2023 (Part III.A includes chapters dealing with “sanctions and the rule of law”); and “A Watershed Moment for Sanctions? Russia, Ukraine, and the Economic Battlefield,” Elena Chachko and J. Benton Heath, pp.135-139, and “Ukraine and the Emergency Powers of International Institutions,” Elena Chachko and Katerina Linos, pp. 775–87, in American Journal of International Law 116(4): Symposium on Ukraine and the International Order, AJIL Unbound, 2022; Elena Chachko and Katerina Linos (eds.), published as Open Access articles by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International Law.For a transcript of this episode, please visit the episode page on Berkeley Law website. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Reid Whitten, Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the state of the semiconductor industry, including the U.S. regulatory approach and the lessons it holds for other industries centered on advanced technologies.   Why is there so much focus on the semiconductor industry? What's new and different about the U.S. regulatory approach? What other industries could be candidates for similar regulation? If a business unit has an NSC licensing exemption, what should it do now to gain a strategic advantage in the future? What does the recent enhancement of the Foreign Direct Product Rule do? What are the implications of the U.S. Person Activity regulation?  Can you explain the concept of “technological containment?” What is the state of U.S. technological containment of China? What's the big takeaway for the semiconductor industry? What's the message for every other industry?   About Reid Whitten Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office and leader of the firm's CFIUS Team, Reid Whitten's practice centers on international trade regulations and investigations. Reid is a member of Chatham House, the UK's Royal Institute of International Affair, as well as an adjunct lecturer at the New College of the Humanities in London, at the Université Catholique de Lille in France and at Wake Forest University in the U.S, He also conducts seminars on regulatory updates for industry groups in the U.S., France, Belgium, Spain and the UK. A thought leader on cross-border business regulation, Reid is frequently called upon to provide commentary and analysis for television news channels, international newspapers and trade publications. He is also the lead author and editor of The CFIUS Book.   About Scott Maberry An international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation.  Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements.  A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information Reid Whitten Scott Maberry   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

In this episode, Harper Batts, partner in Sheppard Mullin Silicon Valley's Intellectual Property Group and co-leader of its Semiconductor Industry Team, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the different forums for patent lawsuits, the complex nature of resolving semiconductor patent disputes, the timing to resolve the lawsuits and more.   What We Discussed in This Episode: What are the different venues to resolve patent disputes? What sort of timing is associated with the different forums? Why has there been an uptick in filing lawsuits in international venues? Besides money, what sort of damages or relief can parties get? What is the benefit of showing competitive harm? How do you best litigate these complex matters in front of a jury?   About Harper Batts Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group located in the firm's Silicon Valley office. He is also the leader of Sheppard Mullin's Post Grant Proceedings (PTAB) Group and Semiconductor Industry Team. Harper has almost two decades of experience as an intellectual property litigator and client counselor. Harper has obtained institution on more than 90% of the IPRs he has filed – a number unmatched across the country. Numerous Fortune 500 clients have relied upon his experience to represent them in highly contentious patent disputes in venues across the country. He has been selected multiple times as a Top IP Attorney in California by the Daily Journal (including this year), and IAM Patent 1000 noted that Harper “performs adroitly in post-grant proceedings on both the patent owner and petitioner sides.” In 2022 and 2023, he obtained institution of numerous petitions for inter partes review, obtained numerous final written decisions finding all claims unpatentable, and obtained an exceptional case finding and an award of attorney's fees in the Central District of California in 2020. He focuses on immediately determining the most relevant and effective pressure points against an adversary to quickly resolve a dispute with minimal disruption and cost to a client. Harper is one of the leading attorneys for handling complex PTAB challenges across a variety of technologies. Harper has represented patent challengers and patent owners in more than 80 CBM and IPR proceedings. He has extensive experience in cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as well as related appeals. About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information Harper Batts Scott Maberry Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

Crypto CubedIt's enigmatic and potential problematic. Lisa Forte, Partner at Red Goat Security , Phil Ingram MBE of Greyhare Media and Ian Thornton-Trump CD, CISO for Cyjax go around the table on Cryptocurrencies and the wide-ranging impact they are having on geopolitical conflict and economic conflict. The panel covers a lot of ground. The sensational trial of Sam Bankman-Fried who was found guilty on all seven counts related to the collapse of FTX could land him 115 years in jail depending on how much momentum there is for an appeal – his attorney Mark Cohen said Bankman-Fried respects the jury's decision but maintains his innocence and will continue to "vigorously fight the charges." So, yet another chapter in the saga may yet unfold.The background to the trial was straight forward. The FTX exchange fell into bankruptcy after users found they could no longer withdraw their funds, worth billions of dollars in aggregate. The money was funnelled it into a sibling company, called Alameda Research, and used it for risky stock trades, political donations, and funding his extravagant lifestyle. He also flamboyantly ignored his lawyer's advice and prior to the trial he conducted many media interviews as well as written testimony to Congress and then as part of the final trial preceding's appeared on the witness stand to defend himself. It's safe to say the jury was unimpressed as he crumbled against all the evidence, he himself had provided to government prosecutors due to his public statements.The fundraising efforts and overt Iranian funding of the Hamas terrorist organization came under discussion.  Eleven days after the Terrorist attack in Israel the "U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed sanctions on ten key Hamas terrorist group members, operatives, and financial facilitators in Gaza and elsewhere including Sudan, Türkiye, Algeria, and Qatar. This action targets members managing assets in a secret Hamas investment portfolio, a Qatar-based financial facilitator with close ties to the Iranian regime, a key Hamas commander, and a Gaza-based virtual currency exchange and its operator." Digging deeper into this it was soon realised crypto currency and exchanges had played a massive part in providing the funds to conduct the sinister attack into southern Israel.  It appears financial sanctions against terrorist organizations were easily bypassed by cryptocurrencies exchanges despite intelligence of digital-currency wallets connected to Hamas receiving about $41 million over the past two years according to Tel Aviv-based crypto analytics and software firm BitOK and information on Palestinian Islamic Jihad receiving $93 million in crypto during the same period, based on crypto researcher Elliptic's data.Zooming out of these specific revelations the panel examined the wider implications of both nation state sanction avoidance, the ability to effectively bypass the American financial system and the role of crypto currencies in funding global political movements - somewhat anonymously. There are rather chilling revelations as cryptocurrencies are found at the very centre of political agendas, disinformation campaigns and financial transactions between countries subject to economic sanctions by both US and EU/UK governments. Despite analysis proclaiming that far more legitimate and legal transactions are occurring on crypto currency blockchains than illegitimate and illegal transactions the simple conclusion is we don't know how bad the problem is until the damage has already been done.

On this episode of EMBARGOED!, host Tim O'Toole and guest Leah Moushey (Counsel, Miller & Chevalier) return to the subject of cryptocurrency mixers, specifically in the context of Tornado Cash and recent agency guidance.  Their discussion looks at the recent federal ruling in a challenge to its designation brought by Tornado Cash and the subject of cryptocurrency and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designations generally. Roadmap: Introduction Tornado Cash OFAC Designation Storm and Semenov charged with conspiracy to commit sanctions violations FinCEN proposes new regulation to enhance transparency in convertible virtual currency mixing and combat terrorist financing Hamas virtual currency fundraising and sanctions ******* Thanks to Leah Moushey for joining us: https://www.millerchevalier.com/professional/leah-moushey  Questions? Contact us at podcasts@milchev.com. EMBARGOED! is not intended and cannot be relied on as legal advice; the content only reflects the thoughts and opinions of its hosts. EMBARGOED! is intelligent talk about sanctions, export controls, and all things international trade for trade nerds and normal human beings alike. Each episode will feature deep thoughts and hot takes about the latest headline-grabbing developments in this area of the law, as well as some below-the-radar items to keep an eye on. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts for new bi-weekly episodes so you don't miss out!

3M faced a dual settlement, first with the SEC and then with OFAC, over alleged Iranian sanctions violations stemming from misconceptions and oversights in a license plate deal with a German intermediary. Despite the gravity of the case, 3M took proactive remedial actions, including voluntary disclosure and internal changes. Similarly, Emigrant Bank maintained a CD account for two Iranian residents for over two decades without proper screening, leading to a $31,000 settlement. In this episode of Corruption, Crime and Compliance, Michael Volkov shares details of both cases, underscoring the complexities of navigating sanctions regulations, the consequences of compliance failures, and the pivotal role of voluntary disclosure and proactive remediation in mitigating penalties.You'll hear Michael talk about:3M settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for $6.5 million and with the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for $9.6 million over alleged violations of Iranian sanctions. 3M's Dubai-based subsidiary entered into a deal to manufacture reflective license plate sheeting for a German company, but it misunderstood the end user, believing it was a reseller when it was actually Iran. Between 2016 and 2018, 3M sent 43 shipments to the German intermediary, who resold them to Iran, violating OFAC regulations. This led to 54 violations of the Iran sanctions program. 3M's compliance team approved the deal without realizing the true end user was in Iran. Suggestions to review the deal were ignored, and steps were taken to conceal its true nature. 3M took remedial steps, including voluntary disclosure, termination or discipline of involved employees, leadership changes, revamped sanctions compliance training, and discontinuation of business with the German reseller.In another case, Emigrant Bank maintained a certificate of deposit (CD) account for two Iranian residents from 1995 until 2021 without properly screening it for sanctions issues. In 2016, when the account holders requested a wire transfer, Emigrant became aware of potential sanctions issues but still approved the transfer. In 2019, Emigrant's upgraded screening software flagged the account, but the compliance team overrode the alert based on erroneous guidance from the 2016 wire transfer. Emigrant recognized the account's status in 2021, closed it, and took steps to remediate compliance program shortcomings.Emigrant settled the matter for $31,000, significantly lower than the maximum penalty applicable ($9.9 million), with voluntary disclosure and proactive remediation efforts considered mitigating factors by OFAC.KEY QUOTES“In the course of setting up this agreement, numerous managers at 3M suggested that trade compliance reviewed the deal. But these 60 suggestions were ignored by the deal's proponents. Even worse, a 3M subsidiary received an outside due diligence report, flagging the connection to Iranian law enforcement, and closed the matter without further investigation.” - Michael Volkov“On September 21 of this year, OFAC announced that Emigrant agreed to pay $31,867 to resolve 30 violations of the Iran Sanctions Program. The violations all relate to a single CD account that Emigrant maintained for two Iranian residents from 1995 until it closed the account in 2021.” - Michael Volkov“In 2019, Emigrant upgraded its screening software, sanctioned screening, and the new program flagged the account as problematic due to the account holder's Iranian residency. However, software is only effective as its operator. Upon review, Emigrant's compliance team overrode the alert, basing their decision on erroneous guidance from the 2016 wire transfer. Now, Emigrant finally recognized the account status in 2021 and took steps to remediate its compliance program shortcomings.” - Michael VolkovResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

DO SANCTIONS WORK? Moderators: Ms. Kirsty MacHardy, Partner - Stephenson Harwood; Ms. Sue Millar, Partner – Stephenson Harwood Panelists: • Mr. Richard Fulford-Smith, CEO – Affinity Shipping • Ms. Michelle Wiese Bockmann, Senior Analyst, Lloyd's List Intelligence & Markets Editor - Lloyd’s List • Ms. Laura Harbidge, UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) – HM Treasury, International Group • Ms. Claire McCleskey, Assistant Director of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) – U.S. Department of Treasury • Ms. Isabelle Monfort, Russia Sanctions Team Leader, Directorate General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (DG FISMA) - European Commission The 15th Annual Capital Link Shipping & Marine Services Forum September 12, 2023 116 Pall Mall in London Held in cooperation with the London Stock Exchange, and in conjunction with the 2023 London International Shipping Week. For further information please visit here: http://forums.capitallink.com/shipping/2023london/

Companies must take a proactive approach to sanctions and export control compliance to mitigate potential risks. This includes implementing rigorous compliance programs, cooperating with the DOJ, and promptly disclosing and remedying violations. In this episode of Corruption, Crime and Compliance, Michael Volkov explores the latest joint compliance notice issued by the DOJ, Department of Commerce, and Department of the Treasury. This notice provides crucial guidelines on voluntary disclosure for sanctions and export control violations, shedding light on the increasing enforcement of such controls. He discusses the intricate relationship between sanctions enforcement and the FCPA and offers a keen understanding of how businesses can safeguard their interests and comply with global standards.You'll hear Michael talk about:The landscape of sanctions enforcement is rapidly evolving, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Security Division designating 25 prosecutors to handle sanctions compliance violations. Corporate resolutions are becoming the driving force behind settlement processes, and these resolutions could become significant revenue streams for the DOJ. In light of these developments, companies must prioritize sanctions and export control compliance to mitigate potential risks.The DOJ's Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) Guidance provides a detailed guideline for voluntary disclosures of possible violations. The JCE Guidance emphasizes the importance of prompt disclosure and swift remediation after uncovering potential violations. Generally, the DOJ will not seek prosecution if a company fully discloses a violation, cooperates wholeheartedly, and takes remedial actions. However, this is not a blanket assurance; aggravating factors such as widespread criminal activity or attempts by upper management to conceal violations can influence this stance.Voluntary self-disclosure is not merely a bureaucratic step; it can potentially be a shield, allowing companies to significantly reduce or even bypass criminal liability. Full cooperation entails timely preservation of pertinent documents, streamlined witness interviews, and proactive identification of avenues for in-depth DOJ investigation.Implementation of rigorous compliance programs, complemented by suitable disciplinary actions, can tilt the scales in favor of companies during evaluations. The JCE Guidance underscores recent modifications to the disclosure and enforcement policies adopted by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Notably, the BIS has ramped up penalties for companies that remain tight-lipped about significant potential violations. The efficacy of a compliance program, particularly its prowess in identifying and rectifying compliance gaps, plays a monumental role in BIS case resolutions.KEY QUOTES“Companies are about to face aggressive, coordinated prosecutions for sanctions and export control violations.” - Michael Volkov“[The] DOJ noted that a prompt, voluntary self disclosure provides a means for a company to reduce, and in some cases, avoid altogether, the potential for criminal liability moving forward, where a company voluntarily self discloses potentially criminal violations, fully cooperates, and timely and appropriately remediates the violations.” - Michael Volkov“The existence, nature, and adequacy of a company's compliance program, including its success at self identifying and rectifying compliance gaps, is itself considered a factor under settlement guidelines.” - Michael VolkovResources:Michael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law GroupDepartments of Justice, Commerce and Treasury Issue Joint Compliance Note on Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Potential Violations

The Cyberlaw Podcast is back from August hiatus, and the theme of the episode seems to be the way other countries are using the global success of U.S. technology to impose their priorities on the U.S. Exhibit 1 is the EU's Digital Services Act, which took effect last month. Michael Ellis spells out a few of the act's sweeping changes in how U.S. tech companies must operate – nominally in Europe but as a practical matter in the U.S. as well. The largest platforms will be heavily regulated, with restrictions on their content curation algorithms and a requirement that they promote government content when governments declare a crisis. Other social media will also be subject to heavy content regulation, such as transparency in their decisions to demote or ban content and a requirement that they respond promptly to takedown requests from “trusted flaggers” of Bad Speech. In search of a silver lining, I point out that many of the transparency and due process requirements are things that Texas and Florida have advocated over the objections of Silicon Valley companies. Compliance with the EU Act will undercut those claims in the Supreme Court arguments we're likely to hear this term,  claiming that it can't be done. Cristin Flynn Goodwin and I note that China's on-again off-again regulatory enthusiasm is off again. Chinese officials are doing their best to ease Western firms' concerns about China's new data security law requirements. Even more remarkable, China's AI regulatory framework was watered down in August, moving away from the EU model and toward a U.S./U.K. ethical/voluntary approach. For now.  Cristin also brings us up to speed on the SEC's rule on breach notification. The short version: The rule will make sense to anyone who's ever stopped putting out a kitchen fire to call their insurer to let them know a claim may be coming.  Nick Weaver brings us up to date on cryptocurrency and the law. Short version: Cryptocurrency had one victory, which it probably deserved, in the Grayscale case, and a series of devastating losses over Tornado Cash, as a court rejected Tornado Cash's claim that its coders and lawyers had found a hole in Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") regime, and the Justice Department indicted the prime movers in Tornado Cash for conspiracy to launder North Korea's stolen loot. Here's Nick's view in print.  Just to show that the EU isn't the only jurisdiction that can use U.S. legal models to hurt U.S. policy, China managed to kill Intel's acquisition of Tower Semiconductor by stalling its competition authority's review of the deal. I see an eerie parallel between the Chinese aspirations of federal antitrust enforcers and those of the Christian missionaries we sent to China in the 1920s.   Michael and I discuss the belated leak of the national security negotiations between CFIUS and TikTok. After a nod to substance (no real surprises in the draft), we turn to the question of who leaked it, and whether the effort to curb TikTok is dead. Nick and I explore the remarkable impact of the war in Ukraine on drone technology. It may change the course of war in Ukraine (or, indeed, a war over Taiwan), Nick thinks, but it also means that Joe Biden may be the last President to see the sky while in office. (And if you've got space in D.C. and want to hear Nick's provocative thoughts on the topic, he will be in town next week, and eager to give his academic talk: "Dr. Strangedrone, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Slaughterbots".) Cristin, Michael and I dig into another August policy initiative, the “outbound Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)” order. Given the long delays and halting rollout, I suggest that the Treasury's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the topic really stands for Ambivalent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.”  Finally, I suggest that autonomous vehicles may finally have turned the corner to success and rollout, now that they're being used as rolling hookup locations  and (perhaps not coincidentally) being approved to offer 24/7 robotaxi service in San Francisco. Nick's not ready to agree, but we do find common ground in criticizing a study. Download 470th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

The Cyberlaw Podcast is back from August hiatus, and the theme of the episode seems to be the way other countries are using the global success of U.S. technology to impose their priorities on the U.S. Exhibit 1 is the EU's Digital Services Act, which took effect last month. Michael Ellis spells out a few of the act's sweeping changes in how U.S. tech companies must operate – nominally in Europe but as a practical matter in the U.S. as well. The largest platforms will be heavily regulated, with restrictions on their content curation algorithms and a requirement that they promote government content when governments declare a crisis. Other social media will also be subject to heavy content regulation, such as transparency in their decisions to demote or ban content and a requirement that they respond promptly to takedown requests from “trusted flaggers” of Bad Speech. In search of a silver lining, I point out that many of the transparency and due process requirements are things that Texas and Florida have advocated over the objections of Silicon Valley companies. Compliance with the EU Act will undercut those claims in the Supreme Court arguments we're likely to hear this term,  claiming that it can't be done. Cristin Flynn Goodwin and I note that China's on-again off-again regulatory enthusiasm is off again. Chinese officials are doing their best to ease Western firms' concerns about China's new data security law requirements. Even more remarkable, China's AI regulatory framework was watered down in August, moving away from the EU model and toward a U.S./U.K. ethical/voluntary approach. For now.  Cristin also brings us up to speed on the SEC's rule on breach notification. The short version: The rule will make sense to anyone who's ever stopped putting out a kitchen fire to call their insurer to let them know a claim may be coming.  Nick Weaver brings us up to date on cryptocurrency and the law. Short version: Cryptocurrency had one victory, which it probably deserved, in the Grayscale case, and a series of devastating losses over Tornado Cash, as a court rejected Tornado Cash's claim that its coders and lawyers had found a hole in Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") regime, and the Justice Department indicted the prime movers in Tornado Cash for conspiracy to launder North Korea's stolen loot. Here's Nick's view in print.  Just to show that the EU isn't the only jurisdiction that can use U.S. legal models to hurt U.S. policy, China managed to kill Intel's acquisition of Tower Semiconductor by stalling its competition authority's review of the deal. I see an eerie parallel between the Chinese aspirations of federal antitrust enforcers and those of the Christian missionaries we sent to China in the 1920s.   Michael and I discuss the belated leak of the national security negotiations between CFIUS and TikTok. After a nod to substance (no real surprises in the draft), we turn to the question of who leaked it, and whether the effort to curb TikTok is dead. Nick and I explore the remarkable impact of the war in Ukraine on drone technology. It may change the course of war in Ukraine (or, indeed, a war over Taiwan), Nick thinks, but it also means that Joe Biden may be the last President to see the sky while in office. (And if you've got space in D.C. and want to hear Nick's provocative thoughts on the topic, he will be in town next week, and eager to give his academic talk: "Dr. Strangedrone, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Slaughterbots".) Cristin, Michael and I dig into another August policy initiative, the “outbound Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)” order. Given the long delays and halting rollout, I suggest that the Treasury's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the topic really stands for Ambivalent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.”  Finally, I suggest that autonomous vehicles may finally have turned the corner to success and rollout, now that they're being used as rolling hookup locations  and (perhaps not coincidentally) being approved to offer 24/7 robotaxi service in San Francisco. Nick's not ready to agree, but we do find common ground in criticizing a study. Download 470th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

In this episode, Michael Zhang, managing partner of Sheppard Mullin's Shanghai office, and Reid Whitten, managing partner of the firm's London office, join host Scott Maberry to discuss a new law that, for the first time, will prevent some U.S. investments in China.    What We Discussed in This Episode: Why would the United States impose a new trade restriction on its third-largest trading partner? What sectors will be affected? When do the prohibitions come into effect? What investors will the investment restrictions apply to? How does the outbound investment restriction fit into overall U.S. China policy? How is this policy viewed from the Chinese business perspective? What reaction should we expect from the Chinese government?   About Michael Zhang Michael Zhang is a lawyer and the managing partner of Sheppard Mullin's Shanghai office. He has a deep understanding of China's legal system and business practices, as well as broad experience in corporate transactions, corporate restructuring, antitrust law, intellectual property, cybersecurity, and personal information protection law in China. Throughout his career, Michael has represented many U.S. and European clients making investments in China and Asia, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and debt restructurings. He has helped invest in and create business in the internet technology, life sciences, healthcare, automotive, logistics, material hi-tech, telecommunication and software sectors. His extensive knowledge of international business transactions has allowed Michael to represent leading Chinese companies in their outbound equity and asset transactions outside Mainland China, specifically in life science and healthcare, e-commerce and green technology. Drawing on his rich knowledge of antitrust laws in China and other East Asian countries, Michael also counsels U.S. and international clients, as well as Chinese local companies, on international and PRC antitrust issues with respect to pre-merger control, price fixing and monopolistic agreement issues.   About Reid Whitten As Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office and leader of the firm's CFIUS Team, Reid Whitten's practice centers on international trade regulations and investigations. He works with clients around the world to plan, prepare, and succeed in global transactions. He focuses on his clients' cross-border investments, particularly in the technology and aerospace sectors, helping clients navigate the international trade regulations that could disrupt their deals.  Reid is a member of Chatham House, the UK's Royal Institute of International Affair. In addition to lecturing at the New College of the Humanities in London, at the Université Catholique de Lille in France, and Wake Forest University in the U.S, he also conducts seminars on regulatory updates for industry groups in the U.S., France, Belgium, Spain and the UK. A thought leader on cross-border business regulation, Reid is frequently called upon to provide commentary and analysis for television news channels, international newspapers, and trade publications. He is also the lead author and editor of The CFIUS Book.   About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group.  Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information Michael Zhang Reid Whitten Scott Maberry Resources Executive Order on Addressing United States Investments in Certain National Security Technologies and Products in Countries of Concern Treasury Department Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking   Previous episodes featuring Reid Whitten: https://www.sheppardmullin.com/notabene-447 https://www.sheppardmullin.com/notabene-356 https://www.sheppardmullin.com/notabene-278 Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

In this episode, Dr. Thomas Franklin and Dr. Marina Nikhinson of the Mindwork Group join host Scott Maberry to explore what the best companies in the world are doing to promote the mental health and well-being of their people.   What We Discussed in This Episode What does a mentally healthy organization look like?  What do great organizations do to support the mental health and well-being of their people? Why is it sometimes difficult to access high-quality mental health care? What about business executives and law partners? They sometimes need help too. What is a typical psychological profile of people with leadership roles in large organizations? What mental health needs do these individuals typically have? What is burnout? What are really good organizations doing to combat this issue?   About Thomas Franklin, M.D. A national leader in psychiatry and psychoanalysis, Dr. Thomas Franklin served as Medical Director of the Retreat at Sheppard Pratt, the premiere program of the prestigious Sheppard Pratt Hospital. He was appointed a member of the American College of Psychiatrists and the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry.   Dr. Franklin is board-certified in psychiatry and addiction medicine and is a graduate of the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute and the Johns Hopkins Carey School of Business.  In addition to serving as a faculty member of the University of Maryland School of Medicine faculty, he also serves as a discussion group leader for the American Psychoanalytic Association. Dr. Franklin is a co-founder of Mindwork Group, where he is President and Chief Executive Officer of MindWork Group. He has extensive experience treating professionals, executives, business owners, political leaders, and their families. He has been extensively quoted in the areas of substance use disorders, personality disorders, and mental health policy.     Marina Nikhinson Dr. Marina Nikhinson is a board-certified psychiatrist with advanced training in psychodynamic psychotherapy, mentalization-based therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, and the treatment of mood and personality disorders. She is a master-trainer in the general psychiatric management of borderline personality disorder. In her role as attending psychiatrist at the Retreat at Sheppard Pratt, Dr. Nikhinson became a recognized leader in the treatment of people with complex psychiatric, psychological, and substance use disorders. She is a graduate of the Washington-Baltimore Center for Psychoanalysis. A faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, she is also a Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Nikhinson is a co-founder of the MindWork Group,  serving as its Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. In her distinguished career, she has cared for an international cadre of patients, including business owners, political leaders, and executives of Fortune 100 companies.   About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information Dr. Thomas Franklin Dr. Marina Nikhinson J. Scott Maberry   Resources MindWork Group   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.  

In this episode, we speak with Lisa Fine of Pearson PLC, and co-host of the Great Women in Compliance podcast. We discuss how companies can maintain vibrant compliance programs in an increasingly complex world.   What We Discussed in This Episode: How do the best companies assess business risk and legal risk together? How does a deep understanding of the organization's culture help in creating the compliance program? How do compliance professionals stand their ground even while empathizing with the business? What are the pros and cons of using outside counsel for compliance investigations? How can outside attorneys add value and help with business strategy? How do you ensure compliance training programs are effective? How do you empower ethical decision-making in an organization? What are some takeaways from your book, “Sending the Elevator Back Down: What We've Learned From Great Women in Compliance”? What should we all be doing to help others in our professional communities?   About Lisa Fine Lisa Fine is a compliance leader with extensive experience in compliance strategy, including risk management and mitigation, internal investigations, and implementing and growing compliance programs.  As Global Head of Investigations and Fraud for Pearson, the world's leading learning company, she is involved in all aspects of the ethics and compliance program, including developing policies, risk assessment training, communications, and due diligence.   In addition to co-hosting the “Great Women in Compliance” podcast, where women compliance practitioners are interviewed and discuss their experiences, advice and substantive expertise, Lisa also co-authored “Sending the Elevator Back Down: What We've Learned From Great Women in Compliance.” She has spoken at conferences in the United States and Europe and regularly consults with and mentors other women in the field of compliance and those starting their careers   About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group.  Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements.  A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information  Lisa Fine  J. Scott Maberry   Resources:   Great Women in Compliance  Sending the Elevator Back Down: What We've Learned From Great Women in Compliance.   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.  

The U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency is diminishing, which reduces the power that U.S. leaders have over the global economic system. In this episode, hear highlights from recent Congressional testimony during which financial elites examine the current status of the global financial system and what Congress is being told to do to address perceived threats to it (and to their own power). Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the show notes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd276-the-demise-of-dollar-dominance Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD269: NDAA 2023/Plan Ecuador CD230: Pacific Deterrence Initiative CD195: Yemen CD187: Combating China CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? International Monetary Fund “IMF Financial Activities List 2023.” Updated June 21, 2023. International Monetary Fund. “Weekly Report on Key Financial Statistics.” June 9, 2023. International Monetary Fund. “IMF Lending.” Updated December 2022. International Monetary Fund. Argentina “Argentina: Letter of Intent, Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies, and Technical Memorandum of Understanding” October 17, 2018. International Monetary Fund. “Argentina Policy Memorandum.” January 11, 1999. International Monetary Fund. Ecuador “Ecuador—Supplementary Letter of Intent.” March 13, 2003. International Monetary Fund. Smaller Banks within the World Trade System International Finance Corporation China “Members and Observers.” World Trade Organization. “ China and the WTO.” World Trade Organization. “From ‘China Shock' to deglobalisation shock: China's WTO accession and US economic engagement 20 years on.” Stephen Kirchner. January 24, 2022. United States Studies Centre. “The China Reckoning: How Beijing Defied American Expectations.” Kurt M. Campbell and Ely Ratner. February 13, 2018. Foreign Affairs. The World Bank “Who can borrow from the World Bank?” December 10, 2020. Bretton Woods Observer. “Domination of the United States on the World Bank.” Eric Toussaint. April 2, 2020. Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt. “Why Is the World Bank Still Lending to China?” Yukon Huang. January 15, 2020. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Congressional Stock Trade Tracking Quiver Quantitative Unusual Whales US Abuse of Sanctions “The Other Counteroffensive to Save Ukraine.” Lawrence Summers et. al. June 15, 2023. Foreign Affairs. Allies Pivoting “Europe must resist pressure to become ‘America's followers,' says Macron.” Jamil Anderlini and Clea Caulcutt. April 9, 2023. Politico. “US State Dept backs latest raft of Saudi, UAE, Jordan arms sales.” February 2, 2022. Al Jazeera. Witnesses Mark Rosen on Linkedin Daniel F. Runde on Linkedin “Membership Roster.” Accessed June 24, 2023. Council on Foreign Relations. Tyler Goodspeed on Linkedin Carla Norrlof - “Board of Directors.” Atlantic Council. Daniel McDowell bio Marshall Billingslea on Linkedin Audio Sources Dollar Dominance: Preserving the U.S. Dollar's Status as the Global Reserve Currency June 7, 2023 House Financial Services Committee Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Dr. Tyler Goodspeed, Kleinheinz Fellow, Hoover Institution at Stanford University Dr. Michael Faulkender, Dean's Professor of Finance, Robert H. Smith School of Business at University of Maryland Dr. Daniel McDowell, Associate Professor, Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs at Syracuse University Marshall Billingslea, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Dr. Carla Norrlöf, Senior Fellow, The Atlantic Council and Professor, University of Toronto Clips 34:05 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: In 2022, as the Ranking Member highlighted, 88% of all foreign exchange transactions by value involved the United States Dollar, a figure that has been roughly constant since 1989, which is testament to the substantial path dependence in international currency usage due to large positive network externalities. As the Ranking Member also highlighted, 59% of all official foreign exchange reserves were held in US dollars, which is down from a figure of 71.5% in 2001. By comparison 31% of all foreign exchange transactions by value involve the Euro, which is the second most commonly transacted currency, which accounted for 20% of official foreign exchange reserves. 34:50 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: The fact that 90% of all foreign exchange transactions continue to involve the United States dollar, and that global central banks continue to hold almost 60% of their foreign exchange reserves in US dollars confers net economic benefits on the United States economy. First, foreign demand for reserves of US dollars raises demand for dollar denominated securities, in particular United States Treasury's. This effectively lowers the cost of borrowing for US households, US companies, and federal, state and local governments. It also means that on average, the United States earns more on its investments in foreign assets than we have to pay on foreign investments in the United States, which allows the United States to import more goods and services than we export. Second, foreign demand for large reserves of US dollars and dollar denominated assets raises the value of the dollar and a stronger dollar benefits us consumers and businesses that are net importers of goods and services from abroad. Third, large reserve holdings of US currency abroad in effect constitutes an interest free loan to the United States worth about $10 to $20 billion per year. Fourth, the denomination of the majority of international transactions in US dollars likely modestly lowers the exchange rate risks faced by US companies. Fifth, the given the volume of foreign US dollar holdings and dollar denominated debt, monetary policy actions by foreign central banks generally have a smaller impact on financial conditions in the United States than actions by the United States Central Bank have on financial conditions in other countries. 36:40 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: However, the benefits of the US dollar's global reserve status are not without costs. The lower interest rates in the United States benefit US borrowers, especially the federal government. They also lower returns to US savers. In addition, though a stronger dollar benefits US consumers and businesses that net import goods and services from abroad, it does also disadvantage US firms that export goods and services abroad as well as firms that compete against imported goods and services. Furthermore, the perception of the US dollar as a safe haven asset means that demand for the dollar tends to increase in response to adverse macroeconomic events that are global in nature. As a result, the competitiveness of US exporters and US firms that compete against imported goods and services are likely to face an increased competitive disadvantage at times of elevated global macroeconomic stress. 37:35 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: However, despite these costs, studies generally find that the economic benefits of the dollar's prominent global status outweigh the costs, providing a modest net benefit to the United States economy. This does not include the substantial benefit to which the chairman referred of the United States dollar's centrality in global transactions, allowing the United States to utilize financial sanction tools when appropriate in support of national security objectives. 44:50 Dr. Daniel McDowell: With little more than the stroke of the President's pen or through an Act of Congress, the US government can use financial sanctions to impose enormous economic costs on targeted foreign actors, be they individuals, firms, or state institutions, by freezing their dollar assets or cutting them off from access to the banks through which those dollars flow. The consequences for individual targets, known as specially designated nationals or SDNs, are severe, significantly impairing targets capacity to participate in international trade, investment, debt repayment, and depriving them of access to their wealth. Over the last two decades, the United States has used the tool of financial sanctions with increasing frequency. For example, in the year 2000, just four foreign governments were directly targeted under a US Treasury Country Program overseen by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Today that number is greater than 20, and if we include penalties from secondary sanctions the list gets even longer. The more that the United States has reached for financial sanctions, the more it has made adversaries and foreign capitals aware of the strategic vulnerability that stems from dependence on the dollar. Some governments have responded by implementing anti-dollar policies measures that are designed to reduce an economy's reliance on the US currency for investment in cross-border transactions. But these measures sometimes fail to achieve their goals. Others have produced modest levels of de-dollarization. Notable examples here include Russian steps to cut its dollar reserves and reduce the use of the dollar and trade settlement in the years leading up to its full scale invasion of Ukraine, or China's ongoing efforts to build its own international payments network based on the Yuan, efforts that have taken on a new sense of urgency as Beijing has become more aware of its own strategic vulnerabilities from Dollar dependence. 47:05 Dr. Daniel McDowell: The United States should reconsider the use of so-called symbolic financial sanctions. That is, if the main objective of a tranche of sanctions is to signal to the world or to a domestic audience that Washington disapproves of a foreign government's policy choices, other measures that can send a similar signal but do not politicize the dollar system ought to be considered first. Second, the use of financial sanctions against issuers of potential rival currencies in particular, China and its Yuan should face a higher bar of scrutiny. Even a small targeted sanctions program provides information to our adversaries about their vulnerabilities, and gives them time to prepare for a future event when a broad US sanctions program may be called upon as part of a major security crisis, when such measures will be most needed. Finally, whenever possible, US financial sanctions should be coordinated with our allies in Europe and Asia, who should feel as if they are key stakeholders in the dollar system and not vassals to it. Such coordinated efforts will prevent our friends from seeking to conduct business with U.S. adversaries outside of the dollar system and send a message to the whole world that moving activities into secondary currencies, like the Euro or the Yen, is not a safe haven. 48:35 Marshall Billingslea: I'll say at the outset that I agree with you and others that to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the dollar's demise have been greatly exaggerated. That said, we need to remind ourselves that in the 16th century the Spanish silver dollar was the dominant currency, in the 17th century it was Dutch florins, in the 18th century it was the pound sterling. The link between a nation's currency and its role as the relatively dominant political actor on the world stage is pretty clear. And that is why people like Lula from Brazil, Putin and Xi all aspire to undercut the role of the dollar as the global reserve currency. 50:00 Marshall Billingslea: If we look at what Russia did in the run-up to its further invasion of Ukraine, they began dumping ownership of treasury bonds in 2018. In that year, they plummeted from $96 billion and holdings down to $15 billion and they also started buying large amounts of gold. China is now, as the Ranking Member has observed, embarking on its own its own gold buying spree. I haven't seen the data for May, but April marked the sixth straight month of Chinese expansion in its gold holdings, and I'm not sure I believe the official figures. We have to recall that China is the dominant gold mining player around the world and half of those gold mining companies are state-owned. So the actual size of China's war chest when it comes to gold reserves may be far higher. In fact, I suspect inevitably far higher than official numbers suggest. Last year China also started dumping its treasuries. 2022 marked the largest or second largest decrease on record, with a drop of about $174 billion, and China stood at the lowest level since 2010. In terms of its holdings, though, this past March they did reverse course. This bears close watching because a sell-off may be a strong indicator of planned aggression. 51:20 Marshall Billingslea: The sheer size of the Chinese economy dwarfs what we've been contending with in the form of Iran, Russia, and so on. And one of the first things that the Biden administration did in the wake of Russia's attack was start sanctioning Russian banks and de-SWIFTing them. That's one thing when you're going after an economy smaller than the size of Texas; it's quite another when you consider that out of the 100 largest banks in the world, China has 20, and all four of the top four are Chinese banks. And that is why many within the Treasury contended when I was there, and they will contend to this day, that these Chinese banks are simply too big to sanction. I don't agree that we can allow that to stand but I do believe we have to start taking very swift action to put us in a situation where we could take punitive measures on these banks if necessary. 54:10 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: I will note that the Dollar's dominance is not quite as strong amongst private actors and private markets as it is with governments. In private transactions, it averages about 45% of the world's total. That includes FX transactions, but also things like issuance of international debt, securities, and cross-border banking. 54:55 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: The Chinese Yuan poses no immediate threat to dollar dominance. It accounts for roughly 3% of overall reserves. So far China has been successful in promoting the Yuan with its trade partners, but the Yuan is scarcely used by countries outside trade with China. China is a potential long term challenger due to its active pursuit of trade and investment relationships. If the Yuan is increasingly used by third countries, it will pose a greater threat to the dollar. 55:30 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: And in addition to these external threats, there is also a domestic threat. Flirting with the possibility of a voluntary default puts dollar dominance at risk. What should the US do to maintain dominance, to curb the domestic threat? Congress should consider creating an alternative mechanism for resolving political differences on government spending and its consequences. 56:00 Dr. Carla Norrlöf: To rein in external threats the United States should, whenever possible, implement multilateral sanctions in support of broadly endorsed goals to shore up the liberal international order. This is likely to limit dollar backlash. 59:40 Marshall Billingslea: The thing I do worry -- I come back to this fact that they've been buying a lot of gold -- that one of the things that they could do, which would be very concerning, if they wind up having larger reserves of gold than we believe, is they could start issuing Yuan or gold denominated, gold-backed Yuan contracts and that would further their ambition for introducing the Yuan onto the world stage. 1:05:00 Marshall Billingslea: China considers the actual composition of its foreign exchange reserves to be a state secret. So they don't publish and they they view it as a criminal offense to try to obtain that information in terms of the balance of how much is gold, how much Dollar or Euro denominated. But the numbers I've seen suggest that still at this moment, about 50% to 60% of their Foreign Exchange reserves are still in Dollars or Euros, which means that they are at high risk of sanctions; we can affect them. The problem is that that war chest that they've built up is enormous. It's more than $3 trillion that they have in Foreign Exchange reserves. Compare that with what Russia had at the onset of its assault, which was around $680 billion, of which we managed to freeze overseas half of it, but Russia is still keeping its economy going despite the Biden administration sanctions. So imagine how they're going to be able to continue with that sizable war kitty in Beijing if they do decide to go after the Taiwanese. 1:09:00 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: Short term I think the risk is that we continue to see diversification away from the dollar, PRC continuing to push other countries to use trade inverse invoicing and Renminbi, that they continue to promote the offshore Renminbi market, that they continue to promote or force bilateral clearing. Longer term, I think the bigger risk is that foreign investors no longer perceive the United States federal government debt to be as safe and risk free as it is today perceived. 1:41:20 Dr. Daniel McDowell: The demonstration of US control over the actual flow of dollars, of communication, absolutely provides information to adversaries to prepare for events where they may face similar circumstances. And so I think what we're seeing is China, we're seeing Russia, we're seeing other countries try to create alternative payments networks. Russia has its own SPFS payment messaging system. It's quite small. It was launched in 2014, not coincidentally, after the initial round of sanctions targeting Russia. In terms of CIPS, China's cross border payments network, Belarus announced it was having banks join immediately following the 2022 sanctions. So what I'm saying is there's a pattern between when the United States mobilizes control over the pipes and the messaging of cross-border payments and adversaries looking for alternatives. It doesn't mean they're using them, but they're getting plugged into the system as at least sort of a rainy day option in the event of a future targeting. 1:45:35 Dr. Daniel McDowell: I look at China not just as a typical country, because I think they're an alternative service provider. Most countries fall into alternative service users; they're looking for an alternative to the dollar. China, you could perhaps put Europe in this as well, are the only two sort of economic BLOCs capable, I think, of constructing an attractive enough cross-border payments network that could attract those alternative service users that are looking for that network. And so that's why I think again, with China, there should be a higher bar of scrutiny. 2:02:20 Dr. Tyler Goodspeed: As deficits mount and as the debt burden rises above 100%, I think the Congressional Budget Office has it ending the budget window at about 119% of our economy, then we will probably observe an acceleration of diversification away from the dollar as a hedge. Again, I don't see another single currency displacing the dollar as the major international currency or as the major reserve currency, but continued diversification. International Financial Institutions in an Era of Great Power Competition May 25, 2023 House Financial Services Committee Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Jesse M. Schreger, Associate Professor of Business, Columbia Business School Mark Rosen, Partner, Advection Growth Capital and former Acting Executive Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF) Daniel F. Runde, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic & International Studies(CSIS) Rich Powell, Chief Executive Officer, ClearPath & ClearPath Action Daouda Sembene, Distinguished Nonresident Fellow, CGD and CEO, AfriCatalyst Clips 39:55 Mark Rosen: The IMF is the global lender of last resort to countries that are in economic distress. IMF borrowers usually have a balance of payments problem, are running out of foreign exchange reserves, and so cannot meet their obligations. The IMF negotiates a set of economic policies with the borrower in government to alleviate the crisis, and, conditional on the government implementing the agreed policies, provides a loan in tranches, normally over a three year period. 41:00 Mark Rosen: The biggest challenge the IMF faces today is China which, as we've heard, has lent vast sums to emerging market and low income countries in a non-transparent and irresponsible manner. Many IMF members are now struggling to repay China. 42:05 Mark Rosen: The United States is the largest shareholder in the IMF and has veto power over certain key decisions and it's critical that the US continues to maintain its ownership of more than 15% which enables it to have this veto power. 42:20 Mark Rosen: China for some time, has been pressing for an increased quota share at the IMF. However, given its irresponsible lending, and then willingness to provide debt relief to developing countries, this is not the time to reward China with increased ownership at the Fund. Two other issues I'd like to focus on are anti-corruption and the catalytic role of the private sector in the work of the IMF. Corruption is a severe problem for many emerging market countries, which do not have strong institutions that can confront and root out corruption. The IMF is certainly doing a much better job than it did historically on anti-corruption, but I believe it's critical that it continues to make anti corruption laws and policies front and center in the conditions of its lending programs, as well as a focus of its technical assistance. Only by reducing corruption will many of these countries be able to attract the vast amount of private sector investment which is potentially available and remains the ultimate key to reducing poverty. Establishing a rule of law, including laws to protect private property is key to unlocking this investment. And it should be a focus of the IMF and World Bank to encourage these countries to improve the rule of law and to fight corruption. If they do that, emerging market countries can attract private capital and grow rapidly as many countries that have followed that path have already done so successfully. 44:45 Daniel Runde: Multilateral development banks, MDBs, under US and Western leadership are one way that we can respond with something. The United States built and strengthened the MDB system. MDBs provide money, advice, data and convening power to help developing countries solve problems. If the US exerts its influence over these institutions, they are forced multipliers of a US-led global system. If we disregard our leadership role, then other actors, including China, can exert influence over them. The World Bank Group is a series of institutions: it lends money to national governments, it has a private sector arm, and has an insurance arm. There are a series of other regional development bank's including the InterAmerican Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank -- Taiwan is a member of the Asian Development Bank -- the African Development Bank and the EBRD, the European Bank for Reconstruction Development Bank, focused mainly on countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain. The United States has been instrumental in creating the majority of these institutions and remains the largest, or one of the largest, shareholders of every afformentioned MDB. Since the founding of these institutions, the US has used its shareholding power to shape the policies and activities of MDBs in indirect support of American foreign policy. 47:10 Daniel Runde: What role does China play in the MDBs? They're a shareholder. China continues to borrow from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. That is crazy. That needs to stop. China is a shareholder. Also, Chinese firms can bid on MDB projects. China wins a lot of in terms of dollar value, a lot of the dollar value of World Bank contracts. Something to take a look at. 47:35 Daniel Runde: How does the Belt and Road figure into the MDBs? You all have heard of the Belt and Road. Infrastructure is now a strategic issue. China's Belt and Road Initiative is a combination of construction and financing projects for roads, airports, and energy around the world. Unfortunately for us, BRI is an ambitious project that speaks to the hopes of China's friends and potential friends. To counter the BRI, the US needs a positive alternative that says more than, "Don't work with China." Right? That's not a strategy. We've got to have an alternative. 1:12:50 Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY): How do we end China's eligibility to borrow from the World Bank? Daniel Runde: The Asian Development Bank has said they're going to end their eligibility by 2025. We should absolutely hold them to that. There is a temptation for the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to continue to loan for a couple of reasons. One is they say, "Well, this is a window into how we can understand China better." There's lots of other ways to understand China better. And or this is a way for us to -- for a bunch of lending reasons that they do it. You all have the power of the purse, you have an ability, I think you should have blunted conversations with the administration about this. I suspect it's an open door, but it's going to require, I think, some pushing from Congress. I would encourage this committee to push the administration on ending lending to China. 1:14:30 Jesse Schreger: So fundamentally right now, the Renminbi is not yet positioned to compete with the US dollar for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the reason that the dollar plays the role it does in the international financial system is it provides the global safe asset. You're confident, except for the upcoming debt ceiling, that you will always be paid back if you own US dollars. That's fundamentally what you know. When you contemplate investing in China and holding Chinese Renminbi as reserves, you're not necessarily sure that you're gonna be able to turn that piece of paper into the goods and services that you need or intervening in FX markets. 1:21:15 Jesse Schreger: First and foremost, what China is trying to do is essentially convince countries around the world that the Renminbi is an alternative asset to invoice your trade and to invest in. And so on the investment side, they've been working very hard to actually allow in foreign capital, encouraging foreign central banks to hold Renminbi denominated bonds as their reserves. And on the trade side, they're encouraging firms to invoice, basically price their goods, in Renminbi. There's a few areas in which they've had challenges there. So first, we actually don't know who are holding most of these Renminbi denominated assets. What you can see is after the US sanctioned Russia back in 2014, it was the Russian Central Bank that effectively announced they were moving out of US dollar denominated assets and into Renminbi, so they did that publicly. And so China has effectively been trying to attract foreign capital of that form and a lot of the reasons for that is that China finds itself vulnerable in the dollar-based financial system. And so what I would say the fundamental area in which the United States can assure the dominance of the dollar is making everyone understand that US Treasuries are the world's safe asset that there is no state of the world in which the United States can or will default. 2:03:25 Jesse Schreger: I think the real way in which people start being able to issue and borrow in Renminbi is when people start thinking in terms of the goods that they need to buy and consume are in Renminbi. Fundamentally, most countries around the world, if they issue a bond in Renminbi, the calculation they have to do is then "okay, I'm going to take my renminbi and convert it into US dollars to buy the thing in which I need." And so while actions in the US financial system are certainly going to affect other countries decisions to borrow in Renminbi, the kind of underlying challenges in Chinese financial markets and fundamentally the lack of goods priced and sold in Renminbi are going to continue to hold back kind of a growth of this market for a while. And in particular, the fact that many countries are reluctant to try to raise money inside of China's liquid onshore capital markets for, effectively, fear of capital controls. If you've raised renminbi in China, you can't get that out and to your projects the way you can if you raise money in the US in dollars. 2:14:55 Daniel Runde: The business model of the World Bank is they lend money to richer countries with a pretty good credit rating and then they cross subsidize that by lending to poor countries with a poor credit rating. My view is, China can finance its own development, we should stop this practice. I think the Asian Development Bank has sort of gotten the memo, but the World Bank has not fully gotten the memo and they'll give you kind of World Bank-y answers to this sort of thing. We got to stop it. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA): Mr. Runde, I could not agree with you more. And you highlighted earlier, you know, by 2025, China should graduate from this program. I'd offer that 25 is two years too late. We can start funneling them off that now. Daniel Runde: I agree, sir. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA): I think you're in the right spot. Thank you. Music Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Editing Pro Podcast Solutions Production Assistance Clare Kuntz Balcer Cover photo Eric Prouzet on Unsplash

In this episode, Sheppard Mullin attorneys Melissa Eaves and Ray Marshall join host Scott Maberry to explore how the best companies in the world are navigating between directly conflicting regulatory guidance on Environmental, Social and Governance initiatives.   What We Discuss in this Episode: What is the SEC doing regarding Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investing right now? What are state legislatures and Attorneys General doing? How do these enforcement contradict each other, and what should companies do? What should companies be doing to reduce the potential for ESG-related enforcement actions? How does "greenwashing" open the door to civil litigation? What steps should companies and investors take to mitigate risk in this complicated environment?   About Ray Marshall Ray Marshall is Of Counsel in the Governmental Practice in Sheppard Mullen's San Francisco office, where his practice focuses on White Collar and Investigations, Fiduciary Duties, and Environmental, Social & Governance issues. Ray represents clients in both complex business litigation and white-collar defense. He has conducted a wide array of internal investigations and company inquiries, including cases alleging insider trading, stock options backdating, securities fraud, accounting irregularities, antitrust violations, public corruption, FCPA and other corporate and individual wrongdoing. He has represented clients in civil, criminal and administrative proceedings brought by governmental authorities, including the Department of Justice and the offices of various U.S. Attorneys, State Attorneys General and District Attorneys. In addition to serving on Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Judicial Advisory Committee for the Northern District of California, Raymond also serves as an adviser to the American Law Institute on the Model Penal Code Sentencing Project. He is past-President of the ABA Retirement Fund Board of Directors, a past member of the ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, and former president of both the State Bar of California and the Bar Association of San Francisco. In 2004 and 2007, he was appointed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George to chair the California Supreme Court's Advisory Task Force on Multijurisdictional Practice. In addition to his professional affiliations, Ray is extremely active in community affairs, serving on the boards of the Giffords Law Center, the Equal Justice Society, the United Negro College Fund, and HomeBase/The Center for Common Concerns. In March 2009, he argued on behalf of five of the leading civil rights groups in the country (Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California State Conference of the NAACP, Equal Justice Society, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund) before the California Supreme Court, arguing that allowing Proposition 8 (a proposition which sought to outlaw gay marriage) to stand could be detrimental to other minority groups who could easily become the targets of initiative campaigns seeking to take away their rights.   About Melissa Eaves Melissa Eaves is Special Counsel in the Governmental Practice in Sheppard Mullen's Los Angeles office. Melissa currently focuses her practice on complex civil litigation, fraud, investigations white collar criminal defense and False Claims Act litigation. She has substantial experience in compliance investigations, fiduciary counseling, ESG, American with Disabilities Act, FTC, SEC and TVPRA/human trafficking litigation. Melissa has successfully represented numerous individuals and entities in connection with a wide range of federal and state investigations and prosecutions. In civil litigation, she has successfully represented both clients in both state and federal court. In addition to complex litigation and white collar defense work, Melissa handles internal investigations for companies. She is an experienced and skilled investigator, handling investigatory matters involving whistleblower claims, harassment and workplace misconduct, criminal misconduct, and healthcare fraud. She has also worked with governmental agencies such as the OIG, DOJ, FTC, SEC, and HHS in connection with such investigations.  Melissa was part of the team that recently won a complete defense victory in a human trafficking case, and she has also obtained complete defense verdicts in trials involving ADA claims. In addition, she has represented the California Insurance Commissioner in the Executive Life Insurance Company, First Capital and Mission Insurance Group insolvencies and reinsurance litigation, involving over 300 reinsurers worldwide, representing recoveries in excess of $1.3 billion. Melissa has substantial litigation experience in both state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, enforcing judgments abroad and supervising of domestic and foreign outside counsel.   About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information: Melissa Eaves Raymond Marshall J. Scott Maberry   Resources: Goldman Sachs SEC Settlement (2022)  BNY SEC Settlement (2022)  Texas AG Letter ISS Response Glass Lewis Response BlackRock Letter Kentucky AG Opinion Kentucky AG Letter Washington DC AG Letter ClientEarth Lawsuit Against Shell  BNP Paribas Case   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.  

In this episode, Paul Kim, a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Corporate and Securities Practice Group, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss recent developments in international policy and law impacting the U.S.-South Korea relationship, including the business significance of President Yoon Suk Yeol's state visit, the North Korean nuclear threat, and efforts to contain China.   What We Discussed in this Episode: What message is Korea sending by bringing the largest Korean companies on the State visit to the United States? What is the state of the North Korean nuclear threat and the allied response? What are some other key aspects of the comprehensive strategic alliance between the U.S. and South Korea? What are the allies doing to contain China from both a security and economic perspective? Where does South Korea's relationship with Japan stand? What's South Korea's position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine? What discussions will the United States and Korea have regarding electric vehicles, semiconductors, and batteries? What is the South Korean perspective on the CHIPs Act and Inflation Reduction Act? What is the South Korean business climate right now? What are the hottest issues for global companies doing business in South Korea and Asia? The last time you were our guest in early 2020 (Episode 69), you made a very accurate prediction regarding a novel virus then circulating in China. Are there any other events you see on the horizon?   About Paul Kim A partner in Sheppard Mullin's Corporate and Securities Practice Group, Paul Kim also serves as Office Managing Partner and representative, foreign legal consultant for the firm's Seoul office. Paul's practice focuses on cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A), private equity, venture capital and securities transactions, restructurings and multi-jurisdictional disputes. He has more than 25 years of experience representing a diverse range of clients operating in numerous industries and in many countries, practicing in New York for over 20 years before relocating to Seoul. His clients include private equity funds and investment managers, industrial and manufacturing companies, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and commercial banks and other financial institutions. Paul has particularly broad experience representing Korean, European and U.S. clients in complex multi-jurisdictional transactions, restructurings and other matters, and has been recognized on multiple occasions by Chambers Global, Chambers Asia Pacific and Asian Legal Business.   About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information: Paul Kim J. Scott Maberry   Resources:  U.S. Legal Insights for Korean Businesses Nota Bene Episode 69 (02.12.2020): Asia Check In: The Coronavirus's Impact on Business, the Trilateral Summit, and Japan's Criminal Justice System with Paul Kim   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month.   If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.  

As oil data in 2023 shows that second-half tightening is less likely, it may be time to alter the narrative around the expected market for the remainder of the year.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This recording references country/ies which are generally the subject of selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this recording to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the issuing entity/sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this recording are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcription -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss how the 2023 global oil market story is changing. It's Tuesday, May the 9th at 4 p.m. in London. Over the last several months, the dominant narrative in the oil market was one of expected tightening in the second half. Although supply outstripped demand in the first quarter, the assumption was that the market would start to tighten from the second quarter onwards and be in deficit once again by the second half, which would lead to a rise in price. At the start of the year, this was also our thesis for how 2023 would play out. However, as of early May, it seems this narrative needs to change. The expectation of second half tightness was largely based on two key assumptions. One, that China's reopening would boost demand, and two, the Russian oil production would start to decline. By now, however, it seems that these assumptions have run their course and are in fact behind us. On China, both the country's crude imports and its refinery runs were already back at all time highs in March, leaving little room for further improvement. On Russia, oil production has fallen from recent peaks, but probably only about 400,000 barrels a day. From here, we would argue that it's becoming increasingly unlikely it will fall much further. The EU's crude and product embargoes have been in place for some time now. Russian oil that flows now will probably continue to flow. That raises the question whether the second half tightening thesis can still be sustained. After OPEC announced production cuts at the start of April, we argued that OPEC was mostly responding to a weakening in the supply demand outlook. Perhaps counterintuitive, but we lowered oil price forecasts already significantly at the time those cuts were announced. Still, with those cuts, we thought that the second half balances would be about 600,000 barrels per day undersupplied, and that that would be enough to keep Brent in the mid-to-upper $80 per barrel range. New data from this past month, however, has further chiseled away at this deficit, which we now project at just 300,000 barrels a day. This is in effect getting very close to a balanced market, and that limits upside to oil prices, at least in the near term. Even this modest undersupply now mostly depends on seasonality in demand and OPEC production cuts. However, when the second half arrives, oil prices will start to reflect expected balances for early 2024. In the first half of '24, seasonality may turn the other way and OPEC production cuts are scheduled to come to an end. Our initial estimate of 2024 balances showed the market in a small surplus, especially in the first half. Looking beyond the next 12 months, oil prices still have long term supportive factors. Demand is likely to continue to grow over the rest of the decade, while investment levels have been low for some time now. However, the structural and the cyclical don't always align, and this is one of those moments. The second half tightness thesis does not appear to be playing out, and we don't see much tightness in the period just beyond that either. We expect Brent oil prices to stay in their recent $75 to $85 per barrel range, probably skewed towards the bottom end of that range later this year when the market enters a period of seasonal softness again and OPEC's voluntary cuts come to an end. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Despite an unprecedented proliferation of sanctions over the past 12 months, high profile enforcement cases have been notably absent in shipping, but that is about to change and much of the industry is still woefully unprepared for what is about to follow. Last year was about installing an unparalleled network of sanctions restricting trade. The remainder of 2023 is going to be defined by an increasingly aggressive enforcement regime as Western governments seek to close off the loopholes and make examples of those who have continued to skirt restrictions. So as the EU sets about considering its 11th package of sanctions against Russia that will further target shipping, this week's edition of the podcast offers a selection of expert views on what the industry needs to do about enhancing its due diligence operations. Industry experts joining the recent Lloyd's List Risk and Compliance webinar all agreed - the shipping industry is still not taking sanctions compliance seriously enough and too many companies lack the tools and expertise to dig deep enough into deceptive practices to satisfy regulatory scrutiny Speaking on this week's edition of the podcast: • Amalie Korning Wedege, Global Head of Sanctions and Head of Financial Crime Compliance at Danske Bank • Michelle Wiese Bockmann, Markets editor and sanctions analyst, Lloyd's List Intelligence • Claire Jungman, Chief of Staff of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) • Dan Tadros, Chief Operating Officer, Shipowners Claims Bureau, Inc. • Claire McCleskey, Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance and Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) (featured courtesy of Capital Link) Listen to the full edition of the Lloyd's List Risk and Compliance webinar here: https://www.lloydslistintelligence.com/knowledge-hub/focused-webinars/how-to-navigate-shippings-evolving-sanctions-risk For further information about Lloyd's List Intelligence advanced risk and compliance solutions head here: bit.ly/3oCD2E7 Listen to the full Capital Link webinar here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq2Mh4Ljv1U

In this episode, futurist Gerd Leonhard, founder of The Futures Agency, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the future, including the role of futurism in corporate strategy, and how multinational companies should be planning for the “good future.”   What We Discussed in This Episode: What are the tools for futurism, and how do they apply to running a global business? Why is it accurate to say “the future is now?" How did the Good Future Project come about? What is it? What are some of the mindsets or impediments that prevent good insight into the future? What can be done to reduce or mitigate the fear mindset? What are the links between your first profession, music, and your current calling as a futurist? What's the role of futurism in thinking about global trade, globalization, and the green revolution? For large multinational companies, how should the C-suite be planning for the future we're going to experience?   About Gerd Leonhard  Gerd Leonhard is a globally recognized and top-rated futurist, humanist, author, film producer, and TV host. Pursuing the concept of "practical wisdom," he forgoes the all-too-common techno-optimism in favor of progressive humanism, balancing exponential technological progress with human needs. Gerd zeroes in on what the future holds for humanity and how we will create the future we want (rather than just the one we could have). A musician by origin and a digital music entrepreneur in the 1990s, Gerd is the author of five books, including the bestseller The Future of Music and his latest work, Technology vs. Humanity, a ground-breaking exploration of the mega-shifts that will radically alter society, the economy, values, and even human biology. He is also considered one of the most remarkable and unique keynote speakers in the world today, having so far appeared - virtually and in-person - before a combined audience of over 2.5 million people in 50+ countries. About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information: Gerd Leonhard J. Scott Maberry   Resources:  The Good Future Project Books by Gerd Leonhard   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month.   If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show.   This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

In this episode, Andreas Stargard, a co-founding senior member of Primerio, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss recent international law and policy developments in Africa, including the competition for business on the continent, the anticipation of further AfCFTA integration, and the evolving antitrust enforcement environment.   What We Discussed In This Episode: With the United States, China, and Russia in a race for business on the continent, how would you describe the big picture? Where does the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) stand, and what are its implications? What's behind the recent meeting of African antitrust enforcers in Egypt? How does increased cooperation among African antitrust enforcers redefine the way we do business in Africa? What's the state of M&A approvals in African jurisdictions? What's the state of anti-corruption enforcement in Africa? What should we be watching in regards to digital markets and payments? Given the fallout from the FTX implosion, do you anticipate greater regulation of the crypto-verse in Africa? How might factors outside the sphere of traditional antitrust law impact Africa's enforcement regimes? What should businesses be doing to prepare for an evolving enforcement environment in Africa?   About Andreas Stargard   Andreas Stargard is a co-founding senior member of Primerio, a boutique law firm focused on the African continent. With two decades of experience in antitrust and competition law and commercial litigation, he serves as a legal, strategic,  and business advisor to companies and individuals across the globe. His focus areas include antitrust and competition advice, white-collar counseling, contract litigation and negotiation, and resolution of global business disputes, including cartel work. Andreas also advises clients on corporate compliance programs that conform to local and global governance standards, and he has handled key strategic merger-notification issues, including evaluation of filing requirements, avoidance strategies, and cross-jurisdictional cooperation. Andreas writes and speaks extensively on business litigation,  antitrust,  and competition-law issues. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of AfricanAntitrust.com and AfricanAntifraud.com, leading online resources on African competition law and anti-corruption matters across the continent.   About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information: Andreas Stargard     J. Scott Maberry    Resources: AfricanAntitrust.com     AfricanAntifraud.com   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.  

In this episode, Sheppard Mullin partner Oliver Heinisch joins host Scott Maberry to discuss international law and policy trends in Europe, including the race for green energy, greater protectionism, and the outlook for competition enforcement.   What We Discussed in This Episode: What are some implications of new signs of protectionism between the EU and the United States, particularly in terms of the green energy transition? How will green energy subsidies work under the new EU's Foreign Subsidies Regulation? How does the EU expect to subsidize the green energy transition, and at the same time consider punishing subsidies by the United States under the Inflation Reduction Act? How should companies be preparing for the EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation? What are the emerging issues in competition enforcement in the United States and EU? Where do you see Foreign Direct Investment Controls heading and how does that add to the complexity of doing business in Europe? What's the Digital Markets Act process? What is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and how is it being enforced? About Oliver Heinisch As a partner in the Antitrust & Competition Group practicing out of Sheppard Mullin's London and Brussels offices, Oliver Heinisch advises on all areas of EU, UK and German competition law with a focus on international cartel and abuse of dominance procedures, including related antitrust litigation matters as well as merger control law. He also advises on the interface between intellectual property and competition law, mainly in the context of complaint cases, investigations of competition authorities and intellectual property litigation. While most of Oliver's clients are technology, consumer electronics and life sciences companies, he also works with financial services, private equity, insurance, automotive, industrial, fashion and food clients. In addition to counseling clients on distribution agreements, parallel imports, IP licensing, R&D and cooperation arrangements, Oliver also assists companies working to comply with EU product regulations, particularly in the area of medical devices, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. He also regularly provides clients with counsel regarding BREXIT and data protection and GDPR-related issues. A qualified UK and German lawyer, Oliver maintains offices in both London and Brussels. He is ranked in the major legal directories and consistently recognized as an expert in the field.   About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values. Contact Information Oliver Heinisch   Scott Maberry Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

In this episode, Elizabeth Frazee, CEO and Co-founder of TwinLogic Strategies, and Chani Wiggins, Principal at TwinLogic, join host Scott Maberry to discuss what's likely on the horizon for the 118th Congress, including prospects for the debt limit and the potential for bipartisan action on a farm bill, tax extenders, and immigration reform.   What We Discussed in this Episode: What are the biggest challenges and opportunities for global business coming out of the 117th Congress? Does a divided Congress set the stage for gridlock? Can you explain the connection between the budget, the debt limit, and the appropriations? What can we expect from the U.S. House of Representatives in light of the new leadership and rules package? What is the Sinema factor in the U.S. Senate? In terms of immigration reform, what does business need to see fixed? On taxation, is there bipartisan support for tax extenders? What does the makeup of the current Congress mean for the farm bill? How might the Republican-controlled House approach oversight? What will oversight look like in the Democratic-controlled Senate? What's the big takeaway for business in regard to the 118th Congress? If you had a crystal ball, what would it tell us about the 2024 elections?   About Elizabeth Frazee As Co-Founder and CEO of TwinLogic Strategies, Elizabeth Frazee is a 30-year veteran of Washington D.C. politics and was recently named a Top Lobbyist by The Hill. She worked for over a decade in senior positions on Capitol Hill, spent years as an executive, leading government relations for tech and entertainment companies, and since 2003 has consulted for companies, trade associations and nonprofits.   After working for her home state Senator from North Carolina, Elizabeth served as press secretary for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. An attorney, she completed her congressional service running the legislative office of Representative Bob Goodlatte. Once in the private sector, Elizabeth was director of government relations at the Walt Disney Company. She joined AOL in the late 90s as vice president of public policy and ran its Congressional team. In 2003 she left AOL-Time Warner to build the private lobbying practice that became TwinLogic Strategies in 2009.  Elizabeth is an expert at managing issue campaigns and running industry coalitions. She delivers results for her clients by combining a thorough understanding of policy, communications, and politics with an impressive network of relationships.      About Chani Wiggins As a Principal with TwinLogic Strategies, Chani Wiggins draws on 20 years of federal government experience to assist clients with various policy interests in Congress and within the Administration.    Chani spent 11 years on Capitol Hill, serving as Senator Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) Legislative Director, former Senator Mark Dayton's (D-MN) Deputy Chief of Staff, and former Congressman Bart Stupak's (D-MI) Legislative and Communications Director. She was also a senior policy aide for Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and professional staff on the Health Education and Labor Committee. She later served as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Since September 2010, Chani has represented clients with priorities in national security, telecommunications and technology, and energy policies. She also serves as a strategic advisor for the Government & Technology Services Coalition (GTSC), an organization of small and mid-sized company executives that develop and implement solutions for the federal homeland and national security sector. Chani is known for building relationships on both sides of the political aisle, co-founding the Bipartisan Legislative Directors Group in 2007 to find common ground among the Senate's 100 Legislative Directors.     About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice, J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group. Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. government agencies and international U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements. A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information  Elizabeth Frazee Chani Wiggins Scott Maberry   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month.   If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show.   This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.  

In this episode, Reid Whitten, Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office and a frequent Nota Bene guest, joins host Scott Maberry to discuss the U.S. China-trade war, including its origins, where the conflict could be headed in the future, and the potential implications for trading partners, multinationals, and individuals.   What We Discussed in this Episode: What are the origins of the U.S.-China trade war? What were some of the seeds planted in the 1980s and 1990s? How did the U.S. approach to China change in 2018 and what were the results? What is the Foreign Direct Product Rule? What makes the rule so new and different? How is the U.S. attempting to bolster technological advances at home? What countermeasures might China take? Why haven't any of those countermeasures been implemented? Are we headed for worldwide fragmentation of the post-WWII global economic order? What happens with Europe and other big trading partners in light of the U.S.-China trade war? What do you mean by "technological containment?"  What would a policy of technical containment mean for the future? Who's impacted by all of this? What should they do?   About Reid Whitten As Managing Partner of Sheppard Mullin's London office and leader of the firm's CFIUS Team, Reid Whitten's practice centers on international trade regulations and investigations. He works with clients around the world to plan, prepare, and succeed in global transactions. He focuses on his clients' cross-border investments, particularly in the technology and aerospace sectors, helping clients navigate the international trade regulations that could disrupt their deals.    Reid is a member of Chatham House, the UK's Royal Institute of International Affair. In addition to lecturing at the New College of the Humanities in London, at the Université Catholique de Lille in France, and Wake Forest University in the U.S, he also conducts seminars on regulatory updates for industry groups in the U.S., France, Belgium, Spain and the UK.    A thought leader on cross-border business regulation, Reid is frequently called upon to provide commentary and analysis for television news channels, international newspapers, and trade publications. He is also the lead author and editor of The CFIUS Book.   About Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice,  J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves as its representative on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group.   Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements.   A member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott also advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information Reid Whitten   Scott Maberry Resources Foreign Direct Investment Controls - A Global Perspective China Law Update Blog The CFIUS Book   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show. This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

Sheppard Mullin's Nota Bene is a horizon-scanning podcast targeted at the C-suite that explores the risks facing multinationals doing business without borders. Multinational businesses have always been affected by major developments in international trade, global risk, and geopolitical shifts. The importance of these issues is increasing every day in light of events such as the U.S.-China trade war, the global response to the war in Ukraine, and the risks posed by rogue state actors such as Iran and North Korea. In order to provide actionable insights into global law and policy developments, Sheppard Mullin has relaunched Nota Bene, which was in hiatus in 2022. In this very special episode, former host Michael P.A. Cohen offers his reflections and insights as he prepares to retire and hand over the hosting reins to Sheppard Mullin international lawyer Scott Maberry, who also holds the distinction of being Michael's first and favorite Nota Bene guest.   What We Discussed in This Episode:   What inspired Michael to create Nota Bene? How has the world trade order changed since the launch of Nota Bene? Why did Michael tap Scott as his first Nota Bene guest?  What were Michael's favorite episodes, and what made those particular episodes so special? What is the vision for Nota Bene going forward?   About Michael P.A. Cohen For more than thirty years, Michael P.A. Cohen has advised multinational businesses in all aspects of their cross-border competition practices and strategies. He's also defended those practices in global government investigations and enforcement actions spanning continents.    As the creative force behind Sheppard Mullin's Nota Bene podcast, Michael hosted all 156 episodes produced from its inception in 2018 through 2021. Already an accomplished artist and poet, he's looking forward to devoting more time to his writing and painting pursuits in retirement.   About J. Scott Maberry As an international trade partner in Governmental Practice,  J. Scott Maberry counsels clients on global risk, international trade, and regulation. He is also a past co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group for the Washington D.C. office, serves as its representative on the firm's pro bono committee, and is a founding member of the Sheppard Mullin Organizational Integrity Group.   Scott's practice includes representing clients before the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry & Security (BIS), the Department of Commerce Import Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), He also represents clients in federal court and grand jury proceedings, as well as those pursuing negotiations and dispute resolution under the World Trade Organization (WTO), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other multilateral and bilateral agreements.   As a member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network, Scott advises the WEF community in the areas of global risk, international trade, artificial intelligence and values.   Contact Information   Michael P.A. Cohen    Scott Maberry     Resources   Michael's Favorite Nota Bene Episodes Mentioned in This Episode:   Nota Bene Episode 72: Space Law: License, Launch, Finance, Insurance, and Responsible Space Stewardship with Brian Weimer?   Nota Bene Episode 144: The International Race toward Green Hydrogen with GHC President Janice Lin and Tony Toranto   Nota Bene Episode 150: Building an AI Risk Management Framework with Siraj Husain   Michael's paintings and published poetry collections can be found at www.mpac.art.   Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive two new episodes delivered straight to your podcast player every month. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show.   This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

As globalization slows and companies begin to nearshore their supply chains, investors may be wondering what the costs and benefits are of bringing manufacturing back home.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly informational, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcript -----Welcome the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Global Thematic and Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, October 5th, at 10 a.m. in New York. We speak often here about the themes of slowing globalization, or slowbalization, and the shift to a multipolar world. It's important to understand these megatrends, as they will likely impact global commerce for decades to come and in many ways we cannot yet anticipate. But one impact we have anticipated is multinational companies spending money to shift their supply chains. Whereas globalization meant companies could focus on lowering their labor and transportation costs through 'just in time' logistics, 'just in case' logistics are the watchword of the multipolar world. Companies will have to invest money to nearshore or friend shore to protect their supply chains from seizing up due to geopolitical conflicts, be it war, such as Russia invading Ukraine leading to sanctions, or the proliferation of policies by Western governments, preventing companies from producing and/or sourcing sensitive technologies overseas. Now, we're increasingly seeing evidence that this dynamic is already at play. Take Apple, for example, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, recently released a supplier list showing that in September of 2021, 48 of its suppliers had manufacturing sites in the U.S., up from 25 just a year before. The article goes on to cite several semiconductor chip makers who have recently opened US based sites. One company recently agreed to invest as much as $100 billion in a semiconductor manufacturing facility in upstate New York. Another announced plans to invest $20 billion for chip factories in Ohio. So it's clear that companies are starting to respond to geopolitical incentives. The long term public policy benefits of these moves could prove to be quite sound, but in the short term they're a challenge to markets. These investments cost money and represent elevated costs relative to what these companies would have enjoyed had the geopolitical environment not become more challenging. That means investors have to price in yet another margin pressure on top of the ones our colleague Mike Wilson continues to highlight in U.S. equities, from labor costs and the fed hiking rates to engineer slower economic growth. So bottom line for investors, shifting to a new geopolitical world order may be necessary, but it will cost something along the way. And for the moment, that means extra pressure on a U.S. equity market that's already got its fair share. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

This year has seen a sharp rally in the oil and gas markets, leading to high prices and a delicate balancing act for global supply and demand. Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Markets. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist and the Head of the European Energy Research Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be giving you an update on global oil and the European gas market. It's Thursday, the 25th of August, at 4 p.m. in London. As the world emerged from COVID, commodities have rallied strongly. Between mid 2020 and mid 2022, the Bloomberg Commodity Index more than doubled, outperforming equities significantly and fulfilling its traditional role as an inflation hedge.However, this rally largely ran out of steam in June, even for oil. For nearly two years, the oil market was significantly undersupplied. For a while, storage can help meet the deficit, but at some point, supply and demand simply need to come into balance. If that can't happen via the supply side quick enough, it must happen via the demand side, and so the oil markets effectively searched for the demand destruction price.The price level where that happens can be hard to estimate, but in June we clearly got there. For a brief period, gasoline reached $180 per barrel and diesel even reached $190 a barrel. Those prices are difficult for the global economy to absorb, especially if you take into account that the dollar has been strengthening at the same time. With the world's central banks hiking interest rates in an effort to slow down the economy as well, oil demand has started to soften and prices have given up some of their recent strength.Now these trends can take some time to play out, possibly even several quarters. As long as fears of a recession prevail, oil prices are likely to stay rangebound. However, after recession comes recovery. There is still little margin of safety in the system, so when demand starts to improve again, there is every chance the strong cycle from last year repeats itself. This time next year we may need to ask the question, 'What is the demand destruction price?' once again.Now, one commodity that has defied all gravity is European natural gas. Over much of the last decade, Europe was accustomed to a typical natural gas price of somewhere between sort of $6 to $7 per million British thermal units. Recently, it reached the eye-watering level of $85 per MMBtu. On an energy equivalent basis, that would be similar to oil trading at nearly $500 per barrel.Now, the reason for this is, of course, the sharp reduction in supply from Russia. As the war in Ukraine has unfolded, Russia has steadily supplied less and less natural gas to Europe. Now total volumes have already fallen by around about 75%. Furthermore, Gazprom announced that flows through the critical Nord Stream 1 pipeline would temporarily stop completely later this month for maintenance to one of its turbines. In principle, this will only last three days, but the market is clearly starting to fear that this is a harbinger of a much longer lasting shutdown.These exceptional prices are already leading to large declines in demand. During COVID, industrial gas consumption in Europe fell only 2 or 3%. Last month, industrial gas use was already down 19% year-on-year. With these demand declines, Europe can probably manage with the reduced supply, but to keep demand lower for longer gas prices need to be higher for longer. The gas market has clearly noticed. Even gas for delivery by end 2024 is now trading at close to $50 per MMBtu, 10x the equivalent price in the United States.The full implications of all of this for the European economy going forward are yet to become clear, but we'll be sure to keep listeners up to date on the latest developments.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

Ari Redbord, Head of Legal and Government Affairs at TRM Labs, talks about the sanctions on Tornado Cash, and the role of blockchain analytics tools in crypto.    Show highlights: Ari's background as a federal prosecutor and his work for the US Treasury why regulators sanctioned Tornado Cash, according to Ari why the Ronin hack was important for regulators to start taking DeFi hacks more seriously the fact that for the first time the Treasury Department sanctioned software whether the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) messed up whether regulators understood the impact on regular users the role of TRM and blockchain analytics tools in mitigating risk how decentralized applications use tools like the ones provided by TRM to comply with regulations and to block addresses why, if Ari were a regulator, he would focus on regulation guidance whether the sanctions on Tornado Cash are unconstitutional what the future of privacy in crypto looks like and whether the government is going after privacy technologies   Thank you to our sponsors!   1inch: https://1inch.io/ Crypto.com: https://crypto.onelink.me/J9Lg/unconfirmedcardearnfeb2021   Ari Twitter: https://twitter.com/ARedbord   Tornado Cash Treasury Press release:  https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20Today%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Department,since%20its%20creation%20in%202019 Tornado Cash Sanctioned: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/08/08/crypto-mixing-service-tornado-cash-blacklisted-by-us-treasury/ Developer arrested: https://www.fiod.nl/arrest-of-suspected-developer-of-tornado-cash/ TRM Labs blog post:  https://www.trmlabs.com/post/how-defi-platforms-are-using-data-from-trm-labs-to-respond-to-tornado-cash-sanctions Tornado Cash post on compliance: https://tornado-cash.medium.com/tornado-cash-compliance-9abbf254a370 Coin Center's article authored by Jerry Brito and Peter Van Valkenburgh: https://www.coincenter.org/u-s-treasury-sanction-of-privacy-tools-places-sweeping-restrictions-on-all-americans/ Second Coin Center article authored by Jerry Brito and Peter Van Valkenburgh: https://www.coincenter.org/analysis-what-is-and-what-is-not-a-sanctionable-entity-in-the-tornado-cash-case/ Coin Center may challenge the US Treasury's decision to sanction Tornado Cash: https://decrypt.co/107475/coin-center-tornado-cash-ban-court Circle freezes USDC in sanctioned wallets: https://www.theblock.co/post/162172/circle-freezes-usdc-funds-in-tornado-cashs-us-treasury-sanctioned-wallets  Crypto exchange dYdX blocked accounts that received funds from Tornado Cash: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/08/11/crypto-exchange-dydx-blocked-accounts-that-received-even-small-amounts-from-tornado-cash/ The possibility of forking Tornado Cash: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/08/10/cloning-tornado-cash-would-be-easy-but-risky/ What the sanctions mean for privacy coins: https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/08/09/what-the-tornado-cash-sanction-means-for-privacy-coins/ Tornado Cash laundered $1.5 billion, according to Elliptic: https://hub.elliptic.co/analysis/tornado-cash-mixer-sanctioned-after-laundering-over-1-5-billion/ Celebrities get Dusted: https://decrypt.co/es/107090/tornado-cash-dusts-public-wallets-jimmy-fallon-brian-armstrong-steve-aoki-logan-paul Previous Coverage of Unchained: Tornado Cash Sanctioned. Did the Government Overstep Its Bounds?: https://unchainedpodcast.com/tornado-cash-sanctioned-did-the-government-overstep-its-bounds-ep-384/ The Chopping Block: Did OFAC Overstep by Sanctioning Tornado Cash?: https://unchainedpodcast.com/the-chopping-block-did-ofac-overstep-by-sanctioning-tornado-cash-ep-386/     Hacks linked to Tornado Cash Ronin: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/15/ronin-hack-north-korea-linked-to-615-million-crypto-heist-us-says.html Harmony: https://decrypt.co/104138/north-korean-attackers-behind-100m-harmony-hack-report Crypto.com: https://www.wired.com/story/crypto-hack-nso-group-security-news/ Nomad: https://decrypt.co/106459/crypto-bridge-nomad-exploited-190m-frenzied-free-for-all Previous Coverage of Unchained: Will the Nomad Mass Looting Change How Law Enforcement Treats DeFi Hacks?: https://unchainedpodcast.com/will-the-nomad-mass-looting-change-how-law-enforcement-treats-defi-hacks-ep-382/  

In the past two years Emerging Market sovereign debt has seen rising risks given increased borrowing, higher interest rates and a greater number of defaults, leading investors to wonder, are we heading towards an EM debt crisis? Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant Russian economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll address the possibility of an emerging markets debt crisis. It's Friday, August 19th, 12p.m. in New York.The most frequent question I get from investors right now is, 'are we heading towards an EM debt crisis?' It's not unreasonable to ask this. After all, a lot of the ingredients that led to prior EM debt crises are in place today. First, EM countries have taken on a lot of debt, not just since the pandemic, but in the past ten years, meaning most countries are at or near multi-decade highs. Second, global central banks are quickly hiking rates, with the Fed in particular a key driver in tightening global financial conditions. Third, which is related, is that servicing and rolling over that debt has suddenly become much more expensive, driven not just by a stronger dollar, but also much higher bond yields. And then fourth, which is perhaps the most important one, is that today we are as close to an extended sudden stop in flows to EM as we have been in a long time. That means that many countries have lost access to markets, so that even if they were willing to pay up to borrow, there's just no demand.Markets are telling us the risks are rising as well. Outside of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the 2020 pandemic, you'd have to go back 20 years to find EM sovereign credit spreads trading as wide. And high yield credit spreads are much wider than investment grade spreads, so markets are differentiating already.Finally, just looking at actual sovereign defaults and restructurings, they're already higher than in recent history. We have had six in the past two years and now already three in 2022, namely Russia, Belarus and Sri Lanka.From here, there are likely to be more defaults, but three key points are worth making. One, the countries at risk now are very different to the prior debt crisis in EM. Two, none would be systemic defaults. And three, they would not all happen at the same time.Large countries like Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia don't seem to be at risk of defaulting. They are completely different to what they were 20 to 30 years ago. They're now inflation targeters, have mostly free-floating currencies, meaning imbalances are less likely to build up, have large effects reserves and have the majority of that debt in local currency.Instead, the concern now is mostly with the newer issuers that benefited from the abundant global liquidity in the past ten years. And by this I mean the frontier credits, many of which are in Africa, but also in Asia and Central America. And then it's key to actually look at who has upcoming Eurobond maturities, as not all countries do. But even among these credits, the International Monetary Fund stands ready to help and there are FX reserves that can be used. So, it's not clear to me that you're going to see multiple defaults and even if you were to see two or more defaults among them, they're very unlikely to be systemic.But, all in, while there's no denying that EM countries are facing debt sustainability issues, let's not paint all EM with the same brush. The nuances should make for some exciting years ahead for sovereign debt analysts and should also open up the potential for significant alpha within the asset class.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As Europe continues to curtail Russian gas imports, equity markets are preparing for further downturn in European economic growth, but there may be more risks yet to be priced in.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of comprehensive or selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the relevant Russian economic sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Graham Secker, Head of Morgan Stanley's European Equity Strategy Team. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the two key issues that are dominating our current discussions with European equity clients, namely Russia gas supplies and the belated start to a new earnings downgrade cycle. It's Tuesday, July the 12th, at 2 p.m. in London. Over the last few months, we have been arguing that a curtailment of Russia gas imports represented the biggest risk to European equities and the main catalyst to push us down to our bear case scenario. While we are not yet ready to formally change our bull, base, or bear case index targets, recent news flow does suggest that risks remain skewed to the downside, and we note a further 17% downside from here to our bear case price target for MSCI Europe. Recent headlines about a reduction in Russia gas flows and the German government's move to level two of their emergency gas plan, has prompted our European economists to further lower their own GDP forecasts, and they now see a mild recession developing over the winter. However, with higher energy costs keeping inflation higher for longer, they make no changes to their European Central Bank forecasts and still expect European interest rates to move out of negative territory over the next few months. We have been expecting an EPS downgrade cycle to start in the third quarter, even before the recent rise in concerns around Russian gas supplies. While the realization of this risk event would likely drive a materially larger hit to profits, we note that European earnings revisions have already turned negative over the last couple of weeks, i.e. we are now seeing more analysts lowering EPS estimates than raising them. The sharp fall in equities over the last few months suggests that investors are already anticipating a sizable pullback in European profits. However, we do not think this means all of the bad news is already in the price. Rather, we note that a study of prior downturns suggests the stock markets tend to trough 2 to 3 weeks before earnings revisions bottom and that the minimum time duration between the start of a new downgrade cycle and this trough in earnings revisions is at least 3 months, but more often runs for over 6 months. In short, we are likely starting a 3 to 6 month earnings downgrade cycle and equities are unlikely to trough until we move towards the fourth quarter. Within the market, we expect the more defensive sectors to continue to outperform over the next couple of months, given their traditionally lower level of earnings volatility into a recession. The recent move lower in bond yields should also encourage some reinvestment into quality and growth stocks, and we have just raised luxury goods to overweight on this theme. In addition, the luxury sector should be a key beneficiary of the recent upturn in investor sentiment towards China. Luxury has a greater exposure to the China consumer than any other European sector. In contrast, we continue to recommend a more cautious stance on cyclicals, who don't traditionally start to outperform until the market itself troughs. Year to date, cyclical underperformance has been primarily driven by weakness in consumer facing stocks, reflecting the pressure on disposable income from high inflation. However, going forward, we expect to see greater underperformance from industrial cyclicals as weakness in end demand starts to move up the chain. These same companies are also likely to be the most adversely impacted by the disruption to Russia gas supplies, whether this be in terms of top line volumes, profit margins or both. For this reason, we are most cautious on stocks within the industrial, materials and autos sectors that also have a high degree of exposure to European end markets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Forecasts for China and other Emerging Markets have continued on a downtrend, extending last year's underperformance, meaning investors might want to look into regions with a more favorable outlook.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions.-----Transcript-----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Jonathan Garner, Chief Asia and Emerging Markets Equity Strategist for Morgan Stanley Research. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be talking about the key reasons why we recently reiterated our cautious stance on overall emerging market equities and also China equities. It's Friday, April 22nd at 8:00 p.m. in Hong Kong. Now, emerging market equities are underperforming again this year, and that's extending last year's underperformance versus developed market equities. And so indeed are China equities, the largest component of the Emerging Market Equities Index. This is confounding some of the optimism felt by some late last year that a China easing cycle could play its normal role in delivering a trend reversal. We have retained our cautious stance for a number of reasons. Firstly, the more aggressive stance from the US Federal Reserve, signaling a rapid move higher in US rates, is leading to a stronger US dollar. This drives up the cost of capital in emerging markets and has a directly negative impact on earnings for the Emerging Markets Index, where around 80% of companies by market capitalization derive their earnings domestically. Secondly, China's own easing cycle is more gradual than prior cycles, and last week's decision not to cut interest rates underscores this point. This decision is driven by the Chinese authorities desire not to start another leverage driven property cycle. Meanwhile, China remains firmly committed to tackling COVID outbreaks through a lockdown strategy, which is also weakening the growth outlook. Our economists have cut the GDP growth forecast for China several times this year as a result. Beyond these two factors, there are also other issues at play undermining the case for emerging market equities. Most notably, the strong recovery in services spending in the advanced economies in recent quarters is leading to a weaker environment for earnings growth in some of the other major emerging market index constituents, such as Korea and Taiwan. They have benefited from the surge in work from home spending on goods during the earlier phases of the pandemic. Meanwhile, the geopolitical risks of investing in emerging markets more generally have been highlighted by the Russia Ukraine conflict and Russia's removal from the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. So what do we prefer? We continue to like commodity producers such as Australia and Brazil, which are benefiting from high agricultural, energy and metals prices. We also favor Japan, which, unlike emerging markets, has more than half of the index deriving its earnings overseas and therefore benefits from a weaker yen. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As the European Central Bank prepares to meet, the war in Ukraine continues to add to uncertainty, forcing investors in Europe to adjust their expectations for the remainder of the year. Chief Cross Asset Strategist Andrew Sheets and Chief Europe Economist Jens Eisenschmidt discuss.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This research references country/ies which are generally the subject of selective sanctions programs administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the European Union and/or by other countries and multi-national bodies. Any references in this report to entities, debt or equity instruments, projects or persons that may be covered by such sanctions are strictly incidental to general coverage of the issuing entity/sector as germane to its overall financial outlook, and should not be read as recommending or advising as to any investment activities in relation to such entities, instruments or projects. Users of this report are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities in relation to any sanctioned country/ies are carried out in compliance with applicable sanctions. ----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Morgan Stanley's Chief Cross Asset Strategist.Jens Eisenschmidt And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt. Morgan Stanley's Chief Europe Economist.Andrew Sheets And today on the podcast we'll be talking about the outlook for Europe's economy amid possible rate hikes, business reopenings and the war in Ukraine. It's Thursday, April 7th at 3 p.m. in London.Andrew Sheets Jens, clearly we're dealing with a lot in Europe right now amid the Ukraine conflict and I want to get into that situation and the impacts on the economy. But given that the European Central Bank is meeting in just a few days and there is speculation about possible rate hikes, let's start there. Maybe you could give a bit of a background on what we expect the ECB is going to do.Jens Eisenschmidt Thanks a lot, Andrew. First of all, let me say that we don't expect any change at next week's meeting relative to what the ECB has been saying in March at their last meeting. They're essentially keeping all options open. They have started on a gradual exit from their very accommodative monetary policy. They have increased the pace of policy normalization at their last meeting, and we do not expect the ECB to change that roadmap now. Just as a reminder, the roadmap is asset purchases could end in Q3 and any interest rate hike would come sometime thereafter. And any decision on ending asset purchases and rate hikes is highly data dependent. And that really it takes us to the current situation. Inflation continues to surprise to the upside. We just had a 7.5 percentage point print in March, and this undoubtedly does increase the pressure on the ECB to act. At the same time, there are significant downside risks to the outlook for growth in the Euro area stemming essentially from the Ukraine-Russia conflict, and this puts a premium on treading very carefully with any changes to the monetary policy configuration, hence the emphasis on optionality, flexibility and gradualism by the ECB.Andrew Sheets Jens, when you talk about gradualism, that implies that the inflation that we're seeing in Europe is more temporary, is more transitory, isn't going to get out of hand. Can you talk a little bit about what is different at the moment between inflation in Europe and inflation in the U.S.?Jens Eisenschmidt I think there are a lot of technical aspects that indeed you could be looking at on that question, but I think it's sufficient for our purposes here really to focus on the key difference. In the U.S. there's a huge internal demand component to inflation. While the same is not true for the euro area, where most of the inflation, you could argue, largest part is imported through energy. Another difference is that the outlook for the economy is slightly different. While you would say that in the U.S., if you're talking about an overheated economy, you have a very tight labor market, it's very difficult to see, you know, some sort of self-correcting forces bringing down inflation, which is why the Fed is embarking on a relatively aggressive tightening cycle. Here in the euro area, there is, of course, growth we see in '22 in our base case but at the same time, we are far away from such an overheating situation and even we are here now relying increasingly on fiscal stimulus to keep the growth momentum going given the high energy prices that are coming, dampening growth. So I think the situation is fundamentally a different one.Andrew Sheets And so Jens, maybe digging more into that growth outlook. You mentioned this rise in energy prices. There is uncertainty over the war in Ukraine. And yet in your team's base case, we see GDP growth in Europe growing about 3% this year, which would be pretty good by the standards of the last decade. What's behind that overall outlook?Jens Eisenschmidt You're right. our base case has the euro area economy growing by 3% in '22 on the back of the ongoing recovery from the pandemic, 'reopening' in one word, which has lagged here relative to, say, the U.S., as well as due to the fiscal stimulus. But we see increasing headwinds emerging as you were just also referencing. We had this series of consumer confidence prints clearly affected by high inflation and the ongoing conflict, and we are watching attentively how this develops. Energy prices have skyrocketed. So, while we stick to our base call for now, we think that the balance of risks is slowly migrating to the downside. As for the ECB, the projections presented at their last meeting in March are more optimistic in terms of growth than ours. Now, clearly, if the ECB's view of the world prevails, so growth comes in better than we expect, we think the ECB will start to raise rates as early as September this year. Contrary to that, we think that incoming data will disappoint the ECB and this is why we have the first rate hike only in December. In any case, you can see the ECB is clearly on the path of policy normalization, the need for which is driven by the high inflation regime we are in and even the less favorable growth outlook won't change that fundamentally.Andrew Sheets Jens, given that we were discussing the ECB, I'd also like to talk about what higher interest rates mean in Europe. How do you think about that debate and do you see a scenario where the ECB might be quicker to take rates from negative to zero, but then pause at zero for a more extended period of time?Jens Eisenschmidt I think this is a fair question, given that the negative rate experiment, if you want to call it, is really unique in its scope in the Euro area. And there has been a lot of debate about the effect of negative rates on banks, and you can probably argue that revising or returning from negative to zero is a little bit of a different journey than just raising rates in positive territory like what the what the Fed is going to do or is about to do now. So I'd say while there are some merits in the argument that probably, you know, getting rid of negative rates in the front end will help banks and may be good for lending in some sense, I think overall, our assessment would be increasing rates is something that detracts from economic activity.Andrew Sheets So Jens, you know, you mentioned some of the risks around energy supply, and I think it's safe to say this is the single biggest area of questions for investors who are in Europe or are looking at Europe is, how would the region respond to either cutting off its imports of gas and oil from Russia voluntarily or this disruption happening involuntarily? What would a complete cut off of Russian oil and gas mean for Europe's economy? And how does somebody in your position even go about trying to model that sort of outcome?Jens Eisenschmidt So we have, of course, tried to get our head around this question and we we have published last week a note on exactly that issue. The typical approaches or the approaches that we have as economists here is really you look at the sectoral dependencies on on these flows of gas and oil, say. You make some assumptions and of course, it gives rise to ranges which are relatively wide. What we can say with certainty is that in a scenario of a complete cut off of Russian supplies in terms of oil and gas, we we are very, very likely in a recession in 22 in the euro area. And we are really talking about a significant recession risk. While only through higher energy prices, so oil going the direction of 150, but you know, other than that supply still flowing, we also see huge dampening impact on the economy with a shallow recession emerging not as bad as we would see in a total cutoff scenario. But I have to admit there's huge uncertainty.Jens Eisenschmidt But Andrew, I was going to ask you a similar question as a strategist looking at different asset classes around the world. What's your team's view on Europe?Andrew Sheets Well thanks, Jens. So I think, unfortunately, the outlook for Europe, as you mentioned, has deteriorated since the start of the year. This terrible conflict in Ukraine has introduced additional uncertainty and binary risks to Europe around energy security that are difficult for investors to price and to discount. So, we've lowered our price target for European equities, which now leaves very limited upside versus current prices. And I think the region is now less attractive than something like Japan, for example, where I think you still have some of the same positive arguments that apply to Europe. The valuations are low. The currency is weak. Investors, I do not think are overly positioned in the region, but with less risk around aggressive central bank policy and with less risk around energy security. So for those reasons, we now think Japan is going to be outperforming market on a on a global basis.Andrew Sheets So Jens, all that said, the war in Ukraine is a wild card for our forecasts. What are the developments or indicators that you and your team are going to be watching?Jens Eisenschmidt We are really dependent on what's happening in the political sphere, given that the cut off of energy supplies will be either a decision by Russia or by the EU to no longer accept delivery of any gas or oil or coal. And obviously, this is a political process for which you have many ingredients, so you would want to watch these ingredients and some of which are essentially in the conflict itself. So I think we are attentively watching the developments that the conflict is taking. And there for instance, the news flow coming out of potential war crimes that certainly has not helped the case of energy supplies flowing freely. So there is a discussion right now in the European Union to restrict import of coal. And I think it's exactly these sort of developments that you have to be watching. Another space that we attentively watch is energy markets because high energy prices are so detrimental for the growth outlook. And might remind you, we have one scenario, our so-called bear scenario, which sees energy prices almost as high as we have seen them or higher a little bit maybe as we have seen them in early March. That is a scenario which would get us very, very close to recessionary territory. So, in some sense, it's a situation where we have to watch the energy markets as much as we have to watch the political scene and see how this conflict evolves.Andrew Sheets Well, clearly a lot that we'll need to follow. Jens, thanks for taking the time to talk.Jens Eisenschmidt Great speaking with you, Andrew.Andrew Sheets And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.