Macro Afternoon

It’s been a straight risk-off session here in Asia as the Huawei headlines are fracturing the possibility of a trade deal between the US and China, fueling safe haven bids and dumping of stocks. US Treasury yields continue to fall while commodity currencies their downward trajectory as markets expect a dour night on Wall Street as traders return from the state holiday.

The Shanghai Composite is selling off sharply going into the close, down over 1.5% to 2606 points, barely hanging on above the previous support level at 2600 points.  The Hang Seng Index has retreated even further, down nearly 3% to 26067 points, slumping below the previous support level, the low moving average and ATR trailing resistance at 26700 points, creating another dead cat bounce:

US and Eurostoxx futures have fallen sharply going into the London open, with the four hourly S&P 500 futures chart showing a market that will fall tonight on the re-open after yesterdays holiday:

Japanese stocks have slumped as well as Yen buyers stepped in, with the Nikkei 225 closing 1.9% lower to 21501 points, making a new weekly low.  The USDJPY pair has also made a dead cat bounce with a sharp retracement after last night’s meagre bounce up to the high moving average, falling back to the mid-week low at the 112.70 level:

The ASX200 was the best of the region, falling only 0.2% lower to 5657 points, as the trade balance and retail sales numbers didn’t disappoint as expected. The Aussie dollar however continued its slump, remaining well below the 73 handle and now almost back to the previous weekly lows:

The economic calendar has three releases/speeches to watch out for tonight, starting with the moved ISM non-manufacturing print, followed by the DOE oil inventory report and finished off by a speech from Fed Chair Powell.

Comments

  1. FiftiesFibroShack

    It was only a matter of time.

    “The Premier also announced the WA Government would be expanding its Keystart loan book by more than $420 million to help stimulate demand in the housing market.

    Keystart provides loans to disadvantaged and low-income buyers who are unable to meet the deposit requirements of mainstream lenders.

    “It’s evident APRA’s credit control measures of the past three to four years, and further tightening to come from the Banking Royal Commission, has dampened activity across the nation,” Mr McGowan said. ”

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-06/wa-budget-to-return-to-surplus-after-6-years-of-deficits/10590786

    • ChristopherJMEMBER

      Help who, Skip? Describes reality does it, so TY for your persistence in this space. Still, I think we lack the democratic structures to enable this to work (prolly too late for us as well). Our Federal Government, the Australian Government, the Commonwealth of Australia – well, it was formed to divvy up the money it’s able to confiscate from wage earners, consumers and corporations. And, the deal with the banks to fund deficits? Well, that’s a deep dive that one. A hard deal for countries to break.
      I like your three line summation you posted the other day. There’s an international conference on btw. They’ll prolly still be debating how to get some traction when the lights go out…

    • That was just painful to listen to.
      So much confidence it what he was saying, long pauses for effect, dramatic and polished presentation.

      content completely wrong start to finish.

      • Its a video which attempts to simplify core concerns wrt currency and money to a broad audience Sweeper, I mean, were it to be absolutely dry as yesterdays toast and delivered by some dusty academic with bad hair some would respond with quips like pseudo or ivory tower intellectual with no environmental experience or knowlage. I think a quick hilarious you tube search on what is money or currency to the unwashed on the street would be informative.

        I would also acknowledge that there is a lot of over lapping periods that form an ad hoc reality, do to claims and preferences, which get put through the old political grinder and were left with one foot in the past and one in the future.

        So I guess its up to you or others to correct any major concerns and show how they are arrived at, links are fine, the topic matter is not well suited to his format of media – hence the aforementioned above.

      • when you are getting Dorothy Dixer’s and closeups it is clearly ideology not academic study

      • As always with this pitch, the giveaway is in what is completely avoided. Notably any theory of the interest rate.
        Supposedly money only provides benefit to issuer and holder. there is no cost to holding it so people will hold unlimited quantities regardless of rate of return available on other assets.

      • I’ve given you the sources to the more academic works which underpin this video, of which, I not received an academic reply too, so, I fail to find reason for your use of an obscure leading the question reference when you fail to uphold your own complaint.

      • Skippy I’ve responded to the academic MMTer links you have published on what determines interest rates and the effect on demand. I’ve said I disagree with them and have provided historical example as to why it’s wrong. In terms of theory it flies in the face of Keynesian theory of asset prices by claiming you can have one asset (money) which permanently returns more than all other assets.

      • Having replied I see you have a second comment.

        The theory which I desiderate would deal … with an economy in which money plays a part of its own and affects motives and decisions, and is, in short, one of the operative factors in the situation, so that the course of events cannot be predicted in either the long period or in the short, without a knowledge of the behaviour of money between the first state and the last. And it is this which we ought to mean when we speak of a monetary economy. – J.M. Keynes A monetary theory of production (1933)

        To that I thought you understood the PK perspective on so the called natural rate [Milton’s quasi 2% gold standard] and alternatives, not that any moeny is driver in its own right when contracts and then trade proceed its function in accounting. I also think this gets to the nub of the CC and Capital not being steady state IMO.

        Albeit I will concede that due to epic proportions of corruption, self dealing, and out right fraud, your concerns have a point WRT userbility, so my question is whom screwed the pooch on that level and better yet why.

      • You are aware of all the Keynesians and PK’ers [not neo or new] that support MMT as a description and not as some ex ante deductive approach to it all.

      • Skippy that quote; Read about 4 paragraphs below it. The key difference he saw between a real exchange economy of Marshall and Ricardo and a monetary economy was in the theory of *interest rates*. Unlike marshall he believed changes in supply and demand of money could effect total employment through the money rate of interest. Which he saw as the benchmark rate. But stability in employment depended on being able to change the money rate of interest (up to a point and not in all circumstances) to complement the MEC or expected return on real capital (internal rate of return on real investment). This is in total contrast to MMTers who claim the money rate of interest is a policy choice or giveaway to bond holders so you may as well set it at zero since it has no effect on demand anyway regardless of animal spirits or where the expected rate of return is on real capital.

      • OK …

        A. Hes dead … and can’t add information to the currant reality… and not omnipotent …

        B. Bonds are a hang over and a subsidy to the wealth set, we could as Hudson and others suggest do a peoples bank and fire wall off the sundry savers. The wealth set then can eat its own or invest in socially productive activities … I would invest on eat its own …

        B. I said PK … hence you should know its not affiliated with Keynes from his monetarist period or non distributional post period and that is extended to social democracy or human dignity.

        Again this medium is not a very good media for in depth quantifying and tends to just end in too and fro, so I hope you entertain me with allowing a few links for a more granular perspective, with out so much time lag and tax on our time, especially since it give readers a chance to delve deeper into the topic at their own leisure.

        “Some decades ago the British economist Joan Robinson – one of John Maynard Keynes’ most brilliant students who helped him with the original draft of his General Theory – half-jokingly referred to some of her colleagues as “Bastard Keynesians”. These colleagues were mostly American Keynesians, but there were a few British Bastard Keynesians too – such as John Hicks, who invented the now famous ISLM diagram. What Robinson was trying to say was that these so-called Keynesians were fatherless in the sense that they should not be recognised as legitimately belonging to the Keynesian family. The Bastard Keynesians, in turn, generally assumed that this criticism implied some sort of Keynesian fundamentalism on the part of the British school. They seemed to assume that Robinson and her colleagues were just being obscurantist snobs.

        Such a misinterpretation exists to this day. The second and third generation Bastard Keynesians – which include many of those who generally collect under the title “New Keynesian” – have reinforced this criticism. Paul Krugman, for example, in response from criticisms that he was misrepresenting the work of Keynes and his follower Hyman Minsky wrote:

        So, first of all, my basic reaction to discussions about What Minsky Really Meant — and, similarly, to discussions about What Keynes Really Meant — is, I Don’t Care. I mean, intellectual history is a fine endeavor. But for working economists the reason to read old books is for insight, not authority; if something Keynes or Minsky said helps crystallize an idea in your mind — and there’s a lot of that in both mens’ writing — that’s really good, but if where you take the idea is very different from what the great man said somewhere else in his book, so what? This is economics, not Talmudic scholarship.

        This is a classic misrepresentation of those who accuse Krugman and his ilk of Bastard Keynesianism. When people accuse Krugman and others of distorting the work of others it is not because of some sort of sacredness of the original text, but instead because Bastard Keynesianism is racked with internal inconsistencies that its adherents cannot recognise because, blinded as they are by their neoclassical prejudices, they never get beyond a shallow reading of actual Keynesian economics. What is more, these inconsistencies are not simply some sort of obscure doctrinal or theoretical nuance that only matters to hard-core theorists; rather they generate concrete policy responses that may well cause a great deal of trouble and, quite possibly, discredit Keynesian economics itself if and when they fail spectacularly should they be implemented.”

        https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/philip-pilkington-paul-krugman-and-the-fatherless-keynesians.html

        https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/philip-pilkington-interest-rates-animal-spirits-response-jw-mason.html

        Hope that helps you and others to understand what I’m on about, lastly I would respectfully ask your take on Lars as a Keynesian.

      • Sorry … just to drive my point – I can judge risk, but no one can judge uncertainty, this observation is paramount in reconciling reality and as such how to meet it …

      • Skippy,

        The JW Mason article was very good and I agree with him that liquidity premium of an asset has to be separated from the risk premium. A short term t-bill has no risk premium, virtually no expected price change so the entire return is the liquidity premium of money v the bond.
        Or on the flipside, negative yielding short term bills have the same credit risk as cash, virtually no expected price change which means the negative yield must be the liquidity premium of the *bond* v money – ie. it has more ability to settle large transactions eg. repo v cash (if you are a bank).
        The liquidity premium is just the return you get to give up being able to settle large transactions at short notice. This is not related to the probabilities of future cash flows as I think Pilkington may be confusing. eg.bitcoin pays no liquidity premium (lets face it can’t settle anything) and risk is inordinate.
        But it is abit off topic from MMT

        You seem to use Post Keynesian and MMT interchangeably whereas I don’t think they are at all. I don’t regard MMT as Keynesian.
        Post Keynesians like Harcourt and Davidson emphasise uncertainty and instability in expected returns on real investment and how the flipside of this is a volatile demand for money which is very hard to respond to on the pessimistic side with monetary policy. I don’t really have a problem with that intepretation of Keynes.
        MMT is a different kettle of fish. as I’ve said before it’s not a theory of recessions or dealing with unemployment it’s a public finance theory for all stages of the busines cycle which makes all sorts of un supported claims with confidence and great theatrical ability as demonstrated by that video you posted. eg. that choosing between a bond finance deficit and money financed deficit when interest rates are positive is a “policy choice”. No it isn’t. it just rests on their unstated assumption that people will just hold cash regardless what rate of return they can elsewhere which is just wrong because positive interest rates on bonds means people are already holding as much cash as they want to hold at that interest rate. And the interest rate on bonds does effect spending in the real economy by making future streams of income on all assets more or less valuable as Mason points out:
        “And on the other hand, every contract that involves payments in more than one period — which is to say, every asset — equally incorporates i. If we are looking for the “interest rate” of economic theory in the economic world we observe around us, we could just as well pick the rent-home price ratio, or the profit rate, or the deflation rate, or the ratio of the college wage premium to tuition costs. These are just the yields of a house, of a share of the capital stock, of cash and of a college degree respectively. All of these are a ratio of expected future payments to present cost, and should reflect i to exactly the same extent as the yield of a bond does”.

      • Also I don’t like paying interest to bond holders either but am not naïve enough to think the RBA could just increase base money from $80B to $600B by swapping half trillion in bonds for cash and bond holders will happily leave the money in their wallets

      • Thanks for the reply Sweeper …

        A few things…

        A. why drag crypto into it when it has no intrinsic value, completely anchored in an ideological expectation derived from deductive processes, and still has to be converted to FRN for taxation aka technovaporware ….

        B. you still have not reconciled MMT as a descriptive of the currant reality and retreat to opinions about choices which are secondary to it as economic topics e.g. MMT is not based on economic grounds e.g. its a latter concern which has political ramifications and what informs those i.e. MMT only proposes what policy formation is on offer due to economic platitudes.

        C. PK is diverse.

        D. per past opinions on your side about Joan I find your lack of response curious as she was pivotal in Keynes works, as well, your non response to quires about Lars. In all honesty I have trouble with such avoidance because you seem to be avoiding aspects which might bring certain perspectives into the light and then be subjected to further inquires.

        E. it smacks of sell side or attempts at framing the topic without regard to introspection aka a bit Temple Grandin conditioning.

        PS. Why isn’t Investment More Sensitive to Interest Rates: Evidence from Surveys (PDF) Steve A. Sharpe and Gustavo A. Suarez, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board

        https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2014/files/201402r.pdf

      • I’ve responded to you on Joan Robinson before and you didn’t like my response so I figured I would let it go.

      • In terms of introspection where are all the caveats in MMT doctrine?
        A theory which focuses on the sales pitch not the underlying assumptions, which isn’t even modest enough to call itself a theory instead its operational reality! and if the real world doesn’t follow MMT doctrine well then that’s a policy choice.

      • Sweeper,

        “..Also I don’t like paying interest to bond holders either but am not naïve enough to think the RBA could just increase base money from $80B to $600B by swapping half trillion in bonds for cash and bond holders will happily leave the money in their wallets..”

        Not naive enough?

        Whoever said you were? Apologist is closer to the mark.

        Tell us more about what happens to those RBA deposits when the RBA buys a bunch of bonds from bond holders?

        Or better still if the RBA buys the bonds direct from the AOFM?

        You reckon those bond holders convert the RBA account deposits into cash and put it in their wallets?

        Really?

        And then what?

        Tell us more about the horrors when there is a limited supply of interest bearing government issued securities?

      • If memory serves you only said you had issues with Joan.

        Fiat money is not backed by anything that fixes its unit value. We left that world a long time ago. Money is endogenous.

      • Greenspan: “There is nothing to prevent the government from creating as much money as it wants.”

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCZHAQnfGU

        Which I also think is instructive since Greenspan is acknowledging MMT … albeit had to offer a mea culpa about getting the humans bit wrong, due to his and like ideological take or methodology to arrive at, no need to flesh that out.

      • Under MMT, federal debt does not fund federal spending. Federal debt is a good created to soak up excess money. MV=PQ. Adding a placebo to Q changes MV.

      • I think you are missing the point 007. I wanted to focus on behaviour and avoid being distracted by plumbing.

      • Skippy,

        “..Federal debt is a good created to soak up excess money…”

        Yes that is about the only legitimate justification for it. A fast and voluntary way of removing excess money if the need arises.

      • Sweeper,

        The plumbing is very relevant to the behaviour.

        You made claims about behaviour. People can only behaviour in ways permitted by the plumbing.

        What do bond holders do with their RBA deposits after bond sales if they dont want them?

      • No worries …

        I would only add that the fraud – corruption issue is the cornerstone to the dramas before anything else. Hence my past views on human tool user problem and its administration. I do understand the difficulties – socially – in adopting such, due to legacy concerns, due to dominate narratives being pushed for so long, but its not a reason when there are people that are highly qualified and have past experience – per se Bill Black.

        So were back to information and real politic rather than waiting for or being duped into giving license to some over the top authoritarian figure or religious leader – those always work out so well eh …

      • Hay Freddy ….

        I think your ideological bias on commodity money and the inability to understand the prose wrt savers and inflation et al is a self inflicted wound. Hint most of it has nothing to do with the unwashed, were talking about [C]aptial owners, where everything else is just a subset of that paradigm. I also think this is acerbated by atomtistic individualism propaganda used to pretend we all start off the same and results may vary, by the aforementioned to condition the unwashed into excepting the results on moralistic grounds.

        I disagree from a capitalistic back drop on immutable labour tokens on historical grounds, but then again, the same sorts are completely opposed to any taxation which might address many concerns e.g. want the cake and eat it too…. everyone else can pound sand …

    • It says factual so must be so. Banks create money out of thin air yet still have a funding cost. Your money is safe in govt bonds yet purchasing power can be destroyed by inflation.

      skip, just admit that you are pro-inflation. You want to steal money from savers to fund your ideology. No acknowledgement that inflation is a rich person’s means of stealing money from the poor.

      • Irony being MMTers reality only exists in a deflationary world where people are indifferent between holding bonds and money.

      • No skip. I just want to work and save for my own home and my own retirement. I am more than happy to cough up some of my productive gains to fund a welfare safety net for those who genuinely need it.

        Instead of talking about things like inheritance taxes to remove or redistribute funds, we keep pushing down the path of currency debasement so that greedy people can own 10 houses without ever having worked for it, and so that lazy people capable of working can live a free life. Free houses and free retirements for everyone except the people doing all the work.

      • Freddy your verging on money crank territory where all things are currency related and the plural of anecdotal is not data IMO. Your concerns would better be argued from the stand point of lost share of productivity and structual dynamics wrt to RE making it an investor play thing with a side of risk bundled up for short term price taking and fat tail risk off loaded on to say pension funds or PE mobs.

        BTW I suggest you have a browse at my response to Sweeper above and the links attendant.

      • skip, you are still not getting it. Even if I received my fair share of productivity gains the savings end up being stolen via inflation. Let me bank my honest earnings without having it stolen. I don’t care if the concept of money is replaced with a concept of productivity (e.g. hours worked) or if instead of interest I earn a tax free rate equivalent to the true rate of inflation. Just stop stealing from me.

        If you steal too much from me then the only option available to me is to attempt to steal from others. This is also known as Investing.

      • I think you need more reading Freddy… as your complaint is a commodity theory of money drama and not one of inflation or of the multidisciplinary problem set that confounds you – if your being honest.

        By the way your glib comment about stealing is not a good look ethically and basically reinforces the neoliberal meme e.g. how can you call for ethical behavior on any grounds and still give an apologia for theft of any kind i.e. its irrational and logically inconstant.

        Basically all the precursors for the ideology you ascribe to are quite apparent and I’m not ploy to such rudimentary emotive special pleas …

      • “apologia for theft of any kind”

        Standard Progressive response is to shutdown debate with Virtue Signalling.

        You know that inflation is theft, and Progressive are no better than Conservatives in that regard. Complain about the wealthy boomers but don’t acknowledge the wage inflation that caused the wealth inequality.

      • “Standard Progressive response is to shutdown debate with Virtue Signalling.”

        Non sequitur … fobbing off an evidenced based based retort with what you decry – virtue signalling – moral imperative that is disingenuous or bad faith argumentation. Please supply the information and sources for your stance and desist with the the crude attempt at pigeonholing without any means to establish how you arrive at it.

        Again I remind that rhetorical prose is subject to methodology which can identify its source, being clever is not a substitute for logical argument or debate … it broaches on name calling and projections of deviant.

        It must be difficult for some to except that others don’t share the same view of reality and blithely resort to authoritarian moral ascription rather that support their views, BTW did I mention ex ante totalitarianism.

    • I’m sure there would be a fair few remote Aboriginal communities and country towns with a similar population level to Nauru which could only dream of having the medical patient staff ratio the Australian government is providing to the economic refugees on Nauru.
      When will Phelps, the ALP and the fake greens stick up for these disadvantaged Australians?

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        There was a great interview on the wireless yesterday with Chris Rogers about young Handscomb and what they’ve done to get him back to speed. There seems to be a lot of work going on behind the scenes with the whole team.

        We’ll know by this time tomorrow.

      • Great run out by Cummins. Class innings from Pujara. He is a very giving and modest man, they said how much he puts back into cricket in his local area. 153 balls for his 50, whats the man doing? Anyone would think the game goes for five days. This is well set for Australia, India has played three seamers, just one spinner, its going to be a hot, pitch, will be great to bat on for tomorrow. should make 500

      • I hope this doesn’t occur but , like Australian rugby union, Australian cricket needs backbone and they need to find it soon.

      • Union is a pool of person hours insufficient to develop muscle memory which leads directly to a skill deficit, no?

        Directly linked to the loss of union on FTA TV.

        So, cricket is going the same way (although Windies are showing the way in 2020?)

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      I have no idea what you’re talking about MB. I spent all day looking for cricket on Channel 9, and couldn’t find any. Not one ball. I had to assume it had to be postponed due to poor form.

      These fantastical made-up in your dreams results which you parade past us like a grain of sand papering carpenters do you no credit at all my good man. None at all.

      Now please excuse me while I retire to the relative safety of pre-season AFL coverage on 7.

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      Santa’s still going to be getting a pretty stern talking to though. And Rudolph’ll be getting his carrot – but maybe not the way he’s expecting.

  2. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/reserve-bank-paves-way-for-further-cuts-in-official-interest-rates/news-story/de78ea629f6efc63cc17564bca562f2e

    “In a shock move the Reserve Bank has paved the way for further cuts in official interest rates and could even resort to quantitative easing – ‘printing money’ to buy government bonds – to ward off a potential downturn, with the deputy governor declaring the central bank was prepared to “go fast, go hard and not die wondering”.”

    • Those government bonds will be sold to overseas investors as they are now………..RBA will be funding the buying of mortgages to put something in those deposit accounts. RBA has no Magic Money Tree like the Fed has ( at least until the first aircraft carrier is sunk )

      DAX has a 10 handle now

    • Jeez what a bunch of wusses the RBA are. Two days ago they were all like “prices are easing, relax” and now they’re hitting the panic button. Firing their last bullets like a hapless sidekick in a dodgy western before they can even see the enemy. D!ckheads.

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      Well. Well. Well.

      flawse will be exploding with all sorts of isms right now. Possibly eudes also.
      H&H is busy chucking out mountains of copy and pasted text (always wondered why he never just asked skippy to source that) so he can fill tomorrow’s articles from scratch.
      And I am going to open bottle number 2 of 6.
      haroldus (who hasn’t read this far) has wandered off… somewhere… to the kitchen?
      Perhaps flawse and I should start a blog. The three things flawse, Wilbs and H&H agree on. It certainly wouldn’t take long to put the content up!

      Are we sure this isn’t just the Betoota Advocate hacking a real newspaper?

      Twice on the same day!

      • So, I have this friend…with around 150k in decent interest shortish term bank deposits. What might said friend do best with that coin?

      • I have a friend like that too! To be honest not sure. So I’m long USD and Euro. But still have $AUD deposit.. I’m actually thinking of buying a house maybe $150-$200k loan at most. Not many good options as far as I’m concerned.

  3. GunnamattaMEMBER

    The Poms have buckled on their equivalent of Special Investor Visas about 4 hours ago…..

    Investor visa scheme halted in money laundering crackdown – Beeb
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46463319

    U.K. Suspends Visa Program for Super Rich in Crime Crackdown – Moscow Times
    https://themoscowtimes.com/news/uk-suspends-visa-program-for-super-rich-in-crime-crackdown-63724

    UK suspends visa programme for super rich in crime crackdown – Arabian Business
    https://www.arabianbusiness.com/politics-economics/409207-uk-suspends-visa-programme-for-super-rich-in-crime-crackdown

    Britain suspends visa programme for super rich in crime crackdown – Straits Times
    https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/britain-suspends-visa-programme-for-super-rich-in-crime-crackdown

    U.K. Suspends Visa Program for Super Rich in Crime Crackdown – Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-06/u-k-suspends-visa-program-for-super-rich-in-crime-crackdown

    UK suspends ‘golden visa’ scheme for super-rich due to corruption fears – SCMP
    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2176615/uk-golden-visa-scheme-suspended-over-corruption-fears

    Time for Australia to end Special Investor Visas too……they are nothing but money laundering

    …..Mr Speaker, the Question for the Prime Minister is, seeing as the United Kingdom has ended its equivalent of the Special Investor Visa due to corruption fears, Is Australia planning on ending its Special Investor Visa Scheme?

    Can the Prime Minister reassure Australians that those potentially corrupt oligarchs now being excluded from the United Kingdom will not be able to launder their corruption proceeds in Australia?

    If the United Kingdom has such fears about the veracity of money acquisition processes amongst the super rich who qualify for their Tier 1 visa programme, does Australia examine the processes by which the same applicants for the Australian Special Investor Visa Scheme acquire their wealth? Given that more than 90% of Special Investor Visa applicants to Australia, and more than 90% of those successful originate from China, which is openly acknowledged, including by the ruling authorities in China – so much so that they have dispatched law enforcement officials to Australia as part of ‘Operation Fox Hunt’ – what guarantees do hardworking everyday Australians have that their government protects them from the pernicious influence of money laundering on local asset prices?

    Can the Prime Minister quantify for the Parliament and the People of Australia how many applicants for Special Investor Visas to Australia have been rejected because concerns about their probity and the veracity of the process by which their wealth has been accumulated?

    Can the Prime Minister assure the Parliament and the people of Australia that funds of dubious provenance have not been made available to Australian politicians (at Federal State and |local levels), Political Parties and regulatory authorities?

    Can the Prime Minister quantify the proceeds ‘invested’ into Australia over the period of the current government or since the incept of the Special Investor Visa programme?

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now