Our Mission is to keep our audience with an interrupted stream of financial information from serious sources, with the objective to provide the tools and sufficient knowledge about investments in the financial markets. we inform you, for example, CNBC, The Guardian, Washington Post, New York Times Selected News, selected financial news and videos, the Fed, FDIC, SEC, FTC press releases and enforcement actions.
Shares of generic-drug manufacturer Lannett Company Inc.
shot up 40% in Monday afternoon
trade. The company has not released any news that would account for the
stock move, a spokesman for the company said. However, Lannet stock's
short interest stood at at 20.66 million shares at the end of June,
equal to 74.3% of the company's public float of 27.8 million shares.
Ihor Dusaniwsky,managing director for predictive analytics at S3
Partners, a company that tracks short interest, said the move was not
caused by a short squeeze, although it could trigger one if the stock
keeps rallying. Short positions were down about $128,000 year-to-date,
through Friday. "Shorts have taken a good stomach punch today, they're
down $46.2 million," he said. "They are definitely a candidate for a
short squeeze after today." Shares of Lannett have gained 67.9% in the
year to date, while the S&P 500
has gained 19.2%.
By David Ignatius David Ignatius Columnist covering foreign affairs Email Bio Follow
U.S. troops patrol at an Afghan National Army base in Logar province, Afghanistan, in August 2018. (Omar Sobhani/Reuters)
the military headquarters here where commanders oversee America’s
longest war, an official explains in one sentence the U.S.-led
coalition’s bottom-line objective: “Peace is a situation where we can
leave, and we don’t have to come back.”
will the United States move toward this endgame, as U.S. special envoy
Zalmay Khalilzad nears conclusion of his secret peace negotiations with
the Taliban jihadists that America has been fighting for 18 years?
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is said to have complained late last week
that a draft of Khalilzad’s agreement contains “mere promises”from the
Taliban and major concessions by the United States, according to a
knowledgeable Afghan source who talked recently with Ghani.
is particularly concerned, according to this Afghan source, about a
U.S. pledge to release 13,000 Taliban prisoners, a reference to the
Taliban as an “emirate,” a deal for “safe passage” of American troops
but not Afghan forces, and other measures that in Ghani’s view would
diminish the sovereignty and authority of the current Afghan government.
He also fears that presidential elections scheduled for September will
A visit here shows there aren’t
clear answers yet to the questions about transition that vex Ghani and
others who want a stable Afghanistan. When officials try to describe the
future, many begin with the word “uncertainty.” Nearly everyone
supports peace, but none of the half-dozen U.S., Afghan and European
officials I spoke with is sure just how it would work.
Gen. Austin “Scott” Miller, who commands U.S. forces here, says he’s
focused on preventing Afghanistan from again becoming a sanctuary for
terrorists who could strike the United States and its allies. “The
outcome in Afghanistan should be about safeguarding the national
interests of the U.S. and our allies” by protecting their homelands, he
explained in an interview.
The hidden danger is
that if the Taliban does accept a peace pact with the United States,
die-hard jihadists will move to the black flag of the Islamic State’s
Afghan affiliate, which has built a base in the territory it calls
“Khorasan.” A U.S. intelligence analyst who focuses on “ISIS-K,” as it’s
known, says the group is recruiting operatives who can cross borders,
reach “seam cities” such as Tehran, Baku and Istanbul, and then operate
in the West.
The strange dynamics of the ISIS-K
fight became clear over the past two years in Jowzjan province, along
the northern border, and Ghor province, in the northwest, the
intelligence analyst says. Recruiters appealed to disaffected Taliban
fighters, and ISIS-K was gaining ground, with about 350 supporters in
Jowzjan and 200 in Ghor. But then it faced an unlikely double whammy:
U.S. counterterrorism forces struck the top leadership, and mainstream
Taliban fighters cleaned up the rest.
of ISIS-K, and its dual threat to the United States and the Taliban,
raises an intriguing possibility. Could the United States and the
Taliban quietly cooperate against a common enemy, after a peace deal?
Khalilzad’s draft agreement is said to contain language about the
“elimination” of ISIS-K. This shared interest could provide a rationale
for the United States to maintain a residual counterterrorism presence
in Afghanistan, even after withdrawing its main force.
would be a neat double-cushion shot, but analysts are cautious. “Can
the Taliban existentially make the leap to letting us stay?” asks one
official. “Their self-definition is that they exist to get out the
Americans and their hirelings.” If the mainline Taliban did agree to
this counterterrorism presence, would that cause more hard-liners to
defect to ISIS-K?
The best hope for Afghanistan
might be the simple fact that the nation is exhausted by war, and the
younger generation is sick of the warlords and thieves who wrecked the
country and profited from its misery. “Even if these talks fall apart,
they have engraved ‘peace’ as the only way forward. Even the warlords
are recalculating,” says one Western official who advises the U.S.-led
A glimpse of what the future might
look like came in an interview with Nasrat Rahimi, the 31-year-old
spokesman for the Interior Ministry. He deplored a new attack that
killed eight people outside Kabul University. The ministry blamed the
Taliban for the attack, though the group denied responsibility. “People hate this,” he said. “The only hope that my generation has is to see the end of the 40 years of war.”
modern history is a caution against optimism. “You can always default
to the negative in Afghanistan,” says the Western official. But
Khalilzad has pressed ahead, and he seems near a breakthrough agreement,
whatever its defects.
The United States has
spent so much blood and treasure here that the one unforgivable mistake
would be to leave without a clear counterterrorism strategy to prevent
our ever having to return.
The FDIC, along with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network is issuing a joint statement on risk-focused Bank Secrecy
Act/anti-money laundering supervision. Statement of Applicability to Institutions: This Financial Institution Letter applies to FDIC-supervised banks and savings associations.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, along with the other
federal depository institution regulators and the U.S. Department of the
Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a joint
statement to clarify their risk-focused approach to examinations of
banks' Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance
This statement is intended to improve transparency into the
risk-focused approach used for planning and performing BSA/AML
examinations and does not establish new requirements.
Banks structure their compliance programs to be risk-based and to
identify and report potential money laundering, terrorist financing, and
other illicit financial activity. A well-developed risk assessment is
part of sound risk management.
Federal banking agencies tailor BSA/AML examination plans and procedures based on the unique risk profile of each bank.
The extent of examination activities necessary to evaluate a bank's
BSA/AML compliance program generally depends on the risk profile of the
bank and the quality of processes implemented by the bank to identify,
measure, monitor, and control risk and to report potential money
laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activity.
By GABBY ORR, MARIANNE LEVINE, ANITA KUMAR and IAN KULLGREN
President Donald Trump is likely to nominate Eugene Scalia, son of
the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, to be the next Labor
secretary, according tothree sources familiar with the plans.
The younger Scalia, a partner at the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, is a management-side attorney who in 2006 argued on behalf of Wal-Mart against a Maryland law that would have required the retail giant to spend more health care money on its employees.
Story Continued Below
Scalia‘s expected nomination comes about a week after Labor
Secretary Alexander Acosta was forced to resign over a lenient 2008 plea
agreement for wealthy sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He will be replaced
Friday by his deputy, Patrick Pizzella, who many Republicans had
expected to get a formal nomination.
A greenback is a slang term for U.S. paper dollars. Greenbacks got
their name from their color. In the mid-1800s, the Continental Congress
did not have taxing authority. The "greenback" was a negative term
because they did not have secure financial backing authority and banks
were reluctant to give customers the full value of the dollar.
It took half a century to get all foreign coins and competing state currencies out of circulation, but by the early 1800s, the U.S. was ready to try the paper money
experiment again. Bank notes had been in circulation for a while, but
because banks issued more notes than they had coins to cover, these
notes often traded at less than face value.
In the 1860s, the U.S. created over $400 million in legal tender
to finance its war against itself. The government had earlier issued
bonds to raise capital. However, the war's timeline depleted its
finances. The idea of issuing paper money was opposed by bankers because
it would bring the federal government into markets and could
potentially translate to its bankruptcy, if the war failed to go in its
favor. To prevent such an eventuality, the paper money's value depended
on the health of individual banks issuing the currency.
They were called greenbacks simply because the backs were printed in
green. The government backed this currency and stated that it could be
used to pay back public and private debts. However, despite the
government backing, they were not exchangeable for gold or silver.
Greenbacks, or U.S. dollars, were first created to finance the
civil war and were called as such because their backs were printed in
Their value against gold depreciated during the war but recovered after the war ended.
Demand Notes vs. Paper Notes
Greenbacks came in two forms; demand notes and U.S. paper notes.
Demand notes were issued in 1861 and 1862 to pay for salaries and other
government expenses during the civil war. In February of 1862, the Legal
Tender Act saw the government issue paper notes, which would eventually
become the official currency of the U.S. as demand notes were phased
During this period the value fluctuated according to the North's
success or failure at certain stages in the war. However, due to the
size of the issue - $400 million - the value of greenbacks against gold
steadily declined. According to H. W. Brand's book "Greenback Planet:
How the Dollar Conquered the World and Threatened Civilization as We
Know It," the value of the greenback had a temporary recovery in value
after the battle of Gettysburg before plummeting to a value of 258
greenback to 100 gold (its lowest point) in 1864. When the war ended in
1865 the value of the greenback recovered to 150 greenback to 100 gold.
Greenbacks are reported to
have funded 15% of the war's costs. But the rise in their value also
increased the cost of everyday goods and supplies. Inflation was 14% in
1862 and 25% in 1863 and 1864.
Today, the term greenback is an anecdotal term used by foreign exchange traders for the U.S. dollar.