Daily Archives: August 26, 2020

Vanguard has announced it will exit Hong Kong and transfer its Asian headquarters to Shanghai in a move that will be seen as a blow to the former British colony where overseas companies have expressed concerns about Chinas recent imposition of a controversial national security law.

The worlds second-largest asset manager will also wind down its Japan operations, the company said.

Vanguard issued a statement to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on Wednesday, saying it would seek to implement an orderly exit from its exchange traded funds business in Hong Kong, adding that it was considering appointing a new investment manager to take over the products, or terminating these listed funds.

We regularly review our international business, a company official said. This review has now led us to the conclusion to wind down our Hong Kong operation, which primarily serves institutional clients, and not the individual investors that are our primary strategic focus.

This article was previously published by Ignites Asia, a title owned by the FT Group.

The official stressed that Vanguard still saw growth potential in Hong Kong, but added: Unfortunately, from a distribution business standpoint, the current industry dynamics are better suited to institutional investors and do not currently support the scale needed for us to operate the economic engine behind our unique, low-cost, individual investor-orientated model.

As part of the companys departure from the Hong Kong market where its current Asia headquarters are located, Vanguard is considering transferring its Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund pension portfolio to another fund management company, a Shanghai-based official said. Vanguard listed its first ETF in Hong Kong in May 2013.

Scott Conking, Vanguards newly appointed Asia head, made the announcement to regional employees in a town-hall meeting on Wednesday, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter who said he also announced the closure of Vanguards Japan operations.

Mr Conking, who was only appointed to the role in March, also told some Hong Kong-based staff that they would have to relocate to its Shanghai office, which would become the companys new regional headquarters, while other staff were told they had to leave the company.

Vanguard, which had $5.7tn in global assets as of end-April, closed its Singapore office in 2018 when it also cut one-fifth of its headcount in the Hong Kong office.

With the closure of its Hong Kong and Japan offices, Vanguard will only have Asia-Pacific presences in Shanghai, Beijing and Melbourne in Australia. However, its Beijing representative office may also be affected by the changes to its regional business, two sources said.

The companys move to Shanghai will be seen as a blow to Hong Kong where the introduction of Chinas national security law has raised concernsin the business community, especially among US companies, and sparked fears that some companies could look to leave.

Vanguard has been ploughing resources into its China growth and development plans, while its wider Asia business has struggled somewhat to translate its low-fee, zero commission model to some of Asias regional retail fund management markets, where large banks call the shots over asset management companies.

200,000Number of clients Vanguard has won for its China fund advisory joint venture since March

Vanguard launched Bang Ni Tou, its China fund advisory digital platform, in March. The joint venture, with financial technology giant Ant, has already attracted 200,000 clients who have invested $315m.

Vanguard also confirmed that the company would cease all its onshore presence and operations in Japan, and would no longer actively market or distribute existing or new products in the market.

Earlier this year, Vanguard agreed to sell all its shares in its Japan investment joint venture, Monex-Saison-Vanguard Investment Partners, which was established in 2015.

*Ignites Asia is a news service published by FT Specialist for professionals working in the asset management industry. It covers everything from new product launches to regulations and industry trends. Trials and subscriptions are available at ignitesasia.com.

Go here to read the rest:

Vanguard to exit Hong Kong and move regional HQ to China - Financial Times

idiAn Ethiopian dam on the Blue Nile poses a threat to the water security of downstream Sudan and Egypt, catalyzing a feud between the countries and resulting on Aug. 8 in Egypt withdrawing and Sudan threatening to withdraw from dam negotiations.

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, Ethiopias hydropower project, is crucial for the countrys electricity and a symbol of its position in the region. Ethiopias Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed plans to transform the country into a regional exporter of energy through the dam.

The dam project remains significant for Ethiopias national unity and development. The country experienced ethnic violence in recent years, which critics said the prime minister failed to constrain, according to CNN.

Addisu Lashitew, a fellow with the Global Economy and Development program at the Brookings Institute, said: The Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is a national project that [got] the support of the government, opposition parties and the public as well. It has been a uniting force in Ethiopia, as it has been built by Ethiopians money.

Sudans water and irrigation minister, Yasser Abbas, said Ethiopia took unilateral action, according to Al Jazeera. This new Ethiopian position threatens the negotiations under the aegis of the African Union, and Sudan will not participate in negotiations which include the subject of sharing Blue Nile waters, Abbas said.

The controversial dam poses an existential threat to dry countries such as Egypt, where the Nile serves as a key source for both drinking water and agriculture, according to BBC. The World Bank considers Egypt a water-scarce country.

Colonial-era agreements granted Egypt and Sudan most of the Niles water, as well as veto power over construction projects on the Nile, according to the Brookings Institution. A 2010 deal signed by Ethiopia and six other Nile countries removed Egypt and Sudans veto power.

In the negotiations revolving around the worlds longest river, the three countries used different treaties to claim their rights on the dam. According to Al Jazeera, Ethiopia used the 2010 treaty, while both Sudan and Egypt called on their rights from the colonial-era treaties signed in 1929 and 1959.

According to downstream countries, building the dam indicated Ethiopias refusal to take other countries needs into account. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said: While we acknowledge Ethiopias right to development, the water of the Nile is a question of life, a matter of existence to Egypt.

Egypt withdrew from the dam talks scheduled for Aug. 8, stating Ethiopia lacked regulations for the dam and a legal avenue to settle disputes, while Sudan threatened to withdraw from the talks.

South Africa, as the current chair of the African Union, is acting as mediator in the Nile dispute. According to BBC, many Egyptians perceive South Africa as biased towards Ethiopia, with Egyptians claiming Ethiopians will receive a better outcome.

The current chairperson of the African Union, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, said in a statement negotiations were at a critical phase. It is important that all parties should be engaged, Ramaphosa said. We would like to urge them to continue to be guided by the spirit of Pan-African solidarity.

Visit link:

Dam dispute on the Nile - Vanguard - Psuvanguard.com

Despite significant market uncertainty during the firsthalf of 2020, small business employees maintained a long-term perspective in saving for retirement, according to new research by Vanguard.

The firm reports in How America Saves Small Business: An update on 2020that 95% of participants in Vanguard small business retirement plans did not make a single trade between January and June 30 of this year. The report was issued as an accompaniment to the firms annual How America Saves Small Business Edition,as well as its annual How America Savesstudy.

Participant withdrawal activity remained low on an absolute basis, with only 1.3% of Vanguard Retirement Plan Access (VRPA) participants taking a withdrawal in the first six months of the year. Although a low figure, the study notes that the withdrawal rate is up slightly when compared to the first six months of 2019, in which 0.7% of participants took out a withdrawal. Of the 2020 withdrawals, 30% were Coronavirus-related distributions under the CARES Act.

Participation and Deferral Rates Rise

By contrast, participation and deferral rates rose slightly in the first six months of 2020, with the number of participants with professionally managed allocations holding steady, indicating participants remained disciplined throughout the volatility, the study notes. As of June 30, 2020, 67% of VRPA participants were invested in a professionally managed allocation, identical to the percentage at year-end.

Plan-weighted participation rates (calculated by taking the average of participation rates among a group of plans) were 74% through June 2020, up from 72% at year-end. And participant-weighted participation rates (calculated as if all employees in Vanguard-administered plans were in a single plan) were 63%, compared with 59% at year-end. Vanguards data also shows that the average deferral increased from 7.1% at year-end 2019 to 7.6% by June 2020.

Not surprisingly, account balances did fall, but the decrease was expected based on market performance. The average account balance as of June 2020 was $60,226a 4.8% decrease from $63,274 at year-end 2019. The median balance was $11,084a 4.2% decrease since year-end.

Vanguard notes that while COVID-19-related uncertainty persists, plans offering features such as automatic enrollment and defaulting participants into target-date funds, can help small business employees continue to save for their retirement goals.

With so much economic uncertainty, its important to focus on what you can control, such as implementing automatic enrollment, accelerating total saving rates and encouraging the use of TDFs, the firm observes in the small business edition.

For example,employees enrolled in plans with an automatic enrollment feature have an overall participation rate of 83%, compared with a participation rate of only 52% for employees hired under plans with voluntary enrollment.

Moreover, the study shows that, as of June 30, 2020, 78% of new plan entrants hold a single target date fund, compared to 63% of participants overall, which was the same as in 2019.

Go here to see the original:

Small Business 401(k) Plan Participants Remain Steadfast - National Association of Plan Advisors

On July 4, the Trump administration interjected the Department of Homeland Security into the protests ongoing in Portlandin spite of Associated Press reporting the number of nightly protestors to be less than 100with no consideration for the questionable legality of these actions. With federal troops withdrawn, however, the actions of the administrationand the reasons behind themcan be called into question. According to two Portland State professors, the actions of the DHS may not only be questionable, but authoritarian.

I think it is part of a strategy by the Trump administration to escalate things, said Dr. Leopoldo Rodriguez, an associate professor of International and Development Studies at PSU. Trump can probably see the polls, and see the public reaction of his terrible management of the countryin taking care of the [COVID-19] crisis and his terrible response to the Black Lives Matter movement and protests.

Data from RealClearPolitics illustrates the gap between Trumps falling approval and rising disapproval rating has increased by nearly 20%. A poll by The Washington Post shows a distinction across party lines: about 63% of Republicans prefer he restores security as opposed to deal with the racial divide, and 72% do not believe the police have used enough force in dealing with looters and vandals.

These are tactics that are very, very scary and I think the purpose of that is to scare peopleto be quiet, to not be counted, and fully deactivating, Rodriguez said. Its true that this thing about grabbing people, putting them in cars, driving them around and questioning them; that is a kind of tactic that I have seen used in Latin America by authoritarian regimes already about to come to power and after they are in power.

A comparison to Latin America is not unwarranted, considering Operation Condora United States-backed campaign of political repression and state terror in South America. This operation generated right-wing, anti-democratic and hyper-militarized regimes in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay.

Furthermore, the domestic use of authoritarian actions is not unprecedented.

The federal government has intervened numerous times in our nations history to quell incidents of domestic unrests, explained Dr. Joshua Eastin, an associate professor of political science at PSU. Normally what happens is the Insurrection Act of 1807 is used to justify these actions; sometimes, when federal officials are sent, it is at the request of state or local officials [] we also have examples where federal troops have been sent in and local officials have opposed them.

Thomas Jefferson signed the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allowed the federal government to deploy military agents within the U.S. It was last used in the 1992 Los Angeles riots to quell the anger caused by police brutality.

Yet, despite having this avenue, the interjection in Portland did not use this rationale.

Whats different about this instance in my mind is that the president is not using the insurrection act to send in national guard troops to enforce federal law, Eastin said. What the federal government is doing is sending in non-military personnelso agents associated with the [DHS] working in the US marshals office, customs, and border protection, immigration, and customs enforcement, and the federal protections servicesunder the auspices of protecting federal property. But this is a very broad interpretation of a threat to federal property.

And its not entirely clear if its legal; one of the consequences of having a huge administrative apparatus like the [DHS] with multiple law enforcement agencies with overlapping administrative duties is that legal justifications can be stretched, or contracted, or contorted to fit particular circumstances and it feels like thats whats happening here, Eastin said.

Determining legality will take time and depend on the decisions of ongoing lawsuits.

I think its still quite early yet to call the Trump administration fascist, but I think that it would be appropriate to say there are overlaps with fascist regimes in history, Eastin said. So far, it seems that our liberal democratic institutions have been able to withstand much of the assaultin other words, it doesnt seem that overall the public does not trust the judiciary anymore because the president continues to attack them.

Whether authoritarian tactics devolve into fascism, however, depends on the public.

I dont want to conflate all authoritarian regimes with fascism; usually, when people mean authoritarian they mean non-democratic, Eastin said. Its not out of the question that were President Trump reelected that we would see things continue to erode to a point that it might be much, much more difficult to retrieve them than it is now.

Link:

Why the feds came marching in - Vanguard - Psuvanguard.com

I have my own bone to pick with Bhushan some years ago he teamed up with the fascist forces and for all his erudition and courage failed to see how they were leading India into the dark ages. It has taken years to recognise that these dark forces do not need an official and Constitutional Emergency to bend journalists or judges to their will but now, like the advocate from the Emergency days, I am beginning to think that lawyers like Bhushan and there are many more of them battling the authorities might become the bane of their existence and not allow all their evil designs to succed.

Bhushan's refusal to apologise and rethink his statement or move for a reconciliation or otherwise give in, quoting Mahatma Gandhi on taking his punishment cheerfully, I believe, could yet prove the first major strike towards the restoration of democratic processes and bringing its revered institutions back on an even keel.

Gandhiji's defiance of the British every step of the way confounded the authorities of that time. I am sure today's authorities have found Bhushan equally confounding. In fact, like Bhushan, we all need to return to the Mahatma Gandhis brand of defiance and passive resistance and in view of this government's previous attempts to deny us basic rights, as in the Citizenship Laws, disobedience rather than contesting them in the courts.

For today that estate of democracy is as much on the side of the government as the institution was with the British during the freedom movement. We know how Gandhiji broke the salt law by cocking a snook at a British judge in Ahmedabad court, who famously forbade him from undertaking the salt march.

More:

Must India fight a third war of Independenceand will lawyers be at the vanguard? - National Herald

Removing police union influence from the prosecutors office is a critical first step towards building a system that is safe, just, and fair for all.

By Miriam Krinsky and Buta Biberaj

As millions march, calling for justice for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and countless others, the responsibility for holding their killers accountable lies squarely in the hands of prosecutors. The will of the people is to have accountability for all criminal acts, regardless of who the actor is or their profession. That is the duty of a prosecutor. But all too often, prosecutors have failed to fulfill that duty, often declining to pursue charges against law enforcement, let alone securing a conviction. Those failures have struck deep blows to public trust in the justice system. Rebuilding that trust will require not simply policing reform, but also greater confidence in prosecutorial independence and the integrity of investigating and charging of police misconduct. And that confidence, as well as independence, can only be achieved through an end to financial ties between prosecutors and police unions.

A growing number of reform-minded prosecutors recognize this inherent conflict and have pledged to reject contributions and endorsements from law enforcement leaders and unions. To ensure systemic change, more prosecutors around the nation must join this pledge and the fight for police accountability, just as national and state bar associations the entities that define the ethical standards that govern all lawyers can propel reform by banning prosecutors from accepting contributions that erode both public trust and public safety.

Over the past 50 years, as the influence of most unions shrank with their membership, police unions grew and developed increasingly deep pockets. Police unions act as insurance for their members if theyre sued or prosecuted for misconduct typically footing the legal bills to defend their members. But that insurance takes another form: lobbying for local laws that make it challenging if not impossible to hold their members accountable, and doling out significant donations to DA candidates in an effort to curry favor from local prosecutors who will be charged with holding police accountable once in office.

These contributions, spread across thousands of elections, are challenging to track, but they are pervasive. A recent investigation found that in the last two decades, police unions have engaged in at least $87 million in local and state spending, including $64.8 million in Los Angeles, $19.2 million in New York City and $3.5 million in Chicago. Most recently, Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey received over $2.2 million in contributions from police unions, and the LAPD union donated another $1 million to a PAC dedicated to defeating her challenger, George Gascn, who has promised to toughen standards around police use of force.

Campaign contributions to prosecutors by individual defense attorneys or firms have already been called into question: Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance received significant scrutiny after he declined to prosecute Harvey Weinstein and members of the Trump family who were represented by large donors to his campaign but then embraced expansive reforms to address these concerns. Contributions by police unions should face even higher scrutiny. Prosecutors dont simply decide whether or not to prosecute officers, every single day they work alongside officers and make judgments about their credibility and honesty and decide whether to initiate prosecutions and take away liberty based on those judgments. The conflict is clear and any bias doesnt just threaten public trust, it threatens public safety.

Nearly 50 District Attorneys and Attorneys General recently came together and pledged to no longer seek or accept endorsements or contributions from police departments or unions, and called on their colleagues to do the same. And now 42 have joined on to an expansive pledge singularly focused on this issue. But lasting and widespread change can be solidified by reform of state and local laws or the professional rules that govern all attorneys. And while laws can be difficult to change, the American Bar Association (ABA) can immediately reform how conflicts of interest are governed.

ABA rules already state that a prosecutor who has a significant personal, political, financial, professional, business, property, or other relationship with another lawyer should not participate in the prosecution of a person who is represented by the other lawyer (Standard 3-1.7 Conflicts of Interest, 2017). Additional clarity is needed. Its time for the ABA and state bar associations to acknowledge political contributions from law enforcement groups or unions as a potential financial influence and to prohibit prosecutors from accepting such contributions and endorsements.

Police unions have repeatedly established themselves as opponents of accountability and reform. The president of the Buffalo police union recently defended two officers who shoved an elderly man to the ground. Days after the prosecutor in Minneapolis charged an officer with the death of George Floyd, the president of the Minneapolis police union called Black Lives Matter protesters terrorists and condemned the city for firing the four officers involved in Floyds death without due process. Police unions have opposed body worn cameras, transparent disclosure of disciplinary records, and civilian review boards. And these obstructionist positions arent recent ones. In the 70s, police unions even opposed officers wearing name tags. In short, police unions are zealous opponents of any and all police accountability so the time is now to protect our communities and ensure that these unions have no influence (and are perceived as having no influence) over prosecutors, whose core duty is to bring about equal accountability for all who break the law, including police officers.

Building community trust in the criminal legal system will require a transformation of policing and a transformation of prosecution: the return of power to the community, the radical downsizing of the criminal legal system, deep investment in public health solutions, transparency, and a truly equal application of the law. Removing police union influence from the prosecutors office is a critical first step towards building a system that is safe, just, and fair for all.

Buta Biberaj is the Commonwealths Attorney for Loudoun County, Virginia. Miriam Aroni Krinsky is Executive Director of Fair and Just Prosecution and a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. Article originally appeared in the Appeal.

To sign up for our new newsletter Everyday Injustice https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Read the original:

Guest Commentary: Want Prosecutorial Reform? Start with Curtailing the Influence of Police Unions - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Every investor in Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (NYSE:FNF) should be aware of the most powerful shareholder groups. Insiders often own a large chunk of younger, smaller, companies while huge companies tend to have institutions as shareholders. We also tend to see lower insider ownership in companies that were previously publicly owned.

Fidelity National Financial has a market capitalization of US$9.7b, so it's too big to fly under the radar. We'd expect to see both institutions and retail investors owning a portion of the company. In the chart below, we can see that institutional investors have bought into the company. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about Fidelity National Financial.

View our latest analysis for Fidelity National Financial

Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices.

Fidelity National Financial already has institutions on the share registry. Indeed, they own a respectable stake in the company. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of Fidelity National Financial, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too.

Since institutional investors own more than half the issued stock, the board will likely have to pay attention to their preferences. Hedge funds don't have many shares in Fidelity National Financial. The company's largest shareholder is BlackRock, Inc., with ownership of 9.3%. With 9.3% and 5.8% of the shares outstanding respectively, The Vanguard Group, Inc. and Principal Global Investors, LLC are the second and third largest shareholders. In addition, we found that Raymond Quirk, the CEO has 0.6% of the shares allocated to his name

Story continues

Looking at the shareholder registry, we can see that 51% of the ownership is controlled by the top 19 shareholders, meaning that no single shareholder has a majority interest in the ownership.

Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too.

The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves.

I generally consider insider ownership to be a good thing. However, on some occasions it makes it more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions.

We can see that insiders own shares in Fidelity National Financial, Inc.. It is a very large company, and board members collectively own US$466m worth of shares (at current prices). I sometimes take an interest in whether they have been buying or selling.

With a 10% ownership, the general public have some degree of sway over Fidelity National Financial. While this size of ownership may not be enough to sway a policy decision in their favour, they can still make a collective impact on company policies.

While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. Take risks for example - Fidelity National Financial has 3 warning signs we think you should be aware of.

But ultimately it is the future, not the past, that will determine how well the owners of this business will do. Therefore we think it advisable to take a look at this free report showing whether analysts are predicting a brighter future.

NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com.

See the article here:

Are Institutions Heavily Invested In Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s (NYSE:FNF) Shares? - Yahoo Finance