YCLOAK

Chinese stocks will be included for the first time in a leading U.S. index of emerging market shares.

The New York-based index giant MSCI said Tuesday that it would add 222 Chinese A shares beginning next year.

“International investors have embraced the positive changes in the accessibility of the China A shares market over the last few years, and now all conditions are set for MSCI to proceed with the first step of the inclusion,” Remy Briand, MSCI managing director and chairman of the MSCI Index Policy Committee, said in a release.

MSCI’s decision to give the Chinese shares the green light represents a victory for the Chinese government, which has long sought MSCI inclusion because it could help establish Shanghai and Shenzhen as global financial centers.

MSCI has in the past cited obstacles such as China’s restrictions on market access and on moving capital in and out of the country. Prior to Tuesday’s decision, it had excluded Chinese shares for three years in a row.

“Inclusion in the MSCI index family is a strong signal of greater market openness, and it will undoubtedly help the A share market to attract broader attention and participation of international investors,” said Yannan Chenye, head of China equities research and portfolio manager at Harvest Global investments in Hong Kong.

While China celebrated, Argentinian investors reeled as the index compiler defied predictions that the country would be upgraded to emerging-market status, keeping it in its frontier group for at least another year.

MSCI also said it would consult on adding Saudi Arabia to the benchmark, and that Nigeria would remain a frontier market, awaiting further review on a possible downgrade to “standalone” status.
…

As South Korea’s new leadership works toward easing long strained inter-Korean relations, U.S. experts are eyeing the country’s conciliatory overtures to the Kim Jong Un regime, worried that a possible resumption of the Kaesong Industrial Complex could provoke discord with the Trump administration.

Shortly after South Korean President Moon Jae-in named Cho Myoung-gyun to be his North Korea point man on June 13, Cho, who played a key role in launching the now-stalled economic cooperation project, told reporters, “Operations at the Kaesong Industrial Complex should be restored. I will speak after thoroughly looking into the details.” 

That statement caused a flurry of criticism in Washington, with many analysts saying reviving activities at the complex possibly could hurt Washington-Seoul relations and diminish their alliance coordination. Seoul closed the complex in February 2016 as punishment for the regime’s nuclear test and long-range rocket launch.

“Reopening the Kaesong Industrial Complex is very problematic from Washington’s perspective,” Sue Mi Terry, a former CIA analyst who specializes in North Korea, told VOA’s Korean Service.

Launched in 2004 to enhance cooperation between the two Koreas, the jointly run industrial complex in Kaesong, just north of the border, has reportedly provided $100 million a year in wages to 54,000 North Korean workers and contributed almost $2 billion in trade for Pyongyang.

Terry said any conciliatory action that translates into significant financial benefits for Pyongyang contradicts Washington’s North Korea policy, which is focused on thwarting the Kim regime’s nuclear weapons program by severing all possible revenue streams that fund it. 

“We don’t know where the money is going,” Terry said. “It could be contributing to North Korea’s WMD (weapons of mass destruction) missile program. There is no evidence that it’s not.”

Thomas Countryman, who served in the Obama administration as assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, said restarting Kaesong’s activities would not only reward Kim for the continued provocations, but also throw cold water on international efforts.

“It would be inconsistent with the [U.N. Security Council] resolutions if not in the letter, then in the spirit,” Countryman said. “There is simply no way that [South Korea] could convince China to have a strict enforcement of the U.N. resolutions, if South Korea is reopening a complex that provides tens of millions of dollars of hard currency every year to the North Korean regime.” 

Formerly the Obama White House coordinator for arms control and WMD, Gary Samore of the Belfer Center at Harvard University said Seoul should be more strategic and use Kaesong as a bargaining chip in response to or as part of a deal with Pyongyang to take steps toward limiting and eventually eliminating its nuclear activities.

“It would be a big mistake to resume the Kaesong Industrial Park without getting something in return,” Samore said. “So if Kim Jong Un agrees to some limits on nuclear and missile activity — for example, a freeze on testing — then I think one response that [South Korea] could make would be to resume the Kaesong Industrial Park, with the understanding that the facility would be suspended if Kim Jong Un resumed nuclear and missile testing.”

Negotiations on Pyongyang’s nuclear program have been in limbo for almost a decade, with Washington and Seoul ratcheting up economic pressure and a stubborn Pyongyang persisting with weapons development. But since Moon took office last month, he appears to be easing conditions for talks with the North.

“I make it clear that we will open dialogue without a precondition” should North Korea stop launching missiles and testing nuclear devices, Moon said Thursday at an event marking the 2000 inter-Korean summit.

But when President Donald Trump’s top diplomat Rex Tillerson led a U.N. Security Council special meeting in April, he rejected negotiations with Kim, saying North Korea “must take concrete steps to reduce the threat that its illegal weapons programs pose to the U.S. and our allies before we can even consider talks.” Those steps would be dismantling its nuclear and missile programs.

Moon Chung-in, South Korea’s special presidential advisor for foreign and security affairs, commented at an event in Washington Friday that his president proposed “scaling down” the Washington-Seoul joint military drills if North Korea “suspends its nuclear and missile activities.”

The State Department downplayed the significance of the comments.

“We understand these views are the personal views of Mr. Moon and may not reflect official ROK govern policy,” said Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs spokesperson Alicia Edwards in an email to VOA.

A senior official at the South Korean presidential office said the advisor did not coordinate with the president’s office on the proposal.

This report originated on VOA Korean.
…

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Chevron Corp. by preventing Ecuadorean villagers and their American lawyer from trying to collect on an $8.65 billion pollution judgment issued against the oil company by a court in Ecuador.

The justices turned away an appeal by New York-based lawyer Steven Donziger, who has spent more than to two decades trying to hold Chevron responsible for pollution in the Ecuadorean rain forest, of lower court rulings blocking enforcement in the United States of the 2011 judgment.

While not disputing that pollution occurred, San Ramon, California-based Chevron has said it is not liable and that Donziger and his associates orchestrated the writing of a key environmental report and bribed the presiding judge in Ecuador.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan barred enforcement of the judgment in 2014, citing the corruption used to obtain it. The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld Kaplan’s decision, citing “a parade of corrupt actions” by Donziger and his associates, including coercion and fraud, culminating in the bribe offer.

The 2nd Circuit found that Chevron’s $8.646 billion judgment debt was “clearly traceable” to corrupt conduct by the legal team representing the villagers from the area affected by the pollution.

The lengthy legal battle with Chevron has been waged in several countries and was documented in “Crude,” a 2009 documentary film. The plaintiffs have said they plan to continue efforts to enforce the judgment in other countries, regardless of the outcome in the United States.

The saga was drawn extensive media attention over the years, with a succession of reporters given tours by both sides of the affected sites on the edge of the Amazonian jungle near the town of Lago Agrio. The plaintiffs also touted the backing of several celebrities including actors Mia Farrow and Danny Glover.

Donziger and representatives of residents of the Lago Agrio region have sought to force Chevron to pay for water and soil contamination caused from 1964 to 1992 by Texaco, which Chevron acquired in 2001. Chevron has said a 1998 agreement between Texaco and Ecuador absolved it of further liability.

Donziger’s crusade began to unravel when Chevron noticed a deleted scene in the “Crude” documentary, released in 2009, showing Donziger working with supposedly neutral experts in preparing a report for the Ecuadorean court.

Chevron was then able to get access to out-takes and other material related to the documentary via court order. Chevron cited this evidence when it filed its lawsuit in 2011 seeking to block enforcement of the judgment, saying Donziger’s actions violated U.S. anti-racketeering law.

Donziger has also tried to enforce the judgment in Canada, Brazil and other countries where Chevron operates.

 
…

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday tightened rules on where injury lawsuits may be filed, handing a victory to corporations by undercutting the ability of plaintiffs to bring claims in friendly courts in a case involving litigation over the Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. blood-thinning medication Plavix.

The justices, in an 8-1 ruling, threw out a lower court decision allowing hundreds of out-of-state patients who took Plavix to sue the company in California. State courts cannot hear claims against companies that are not based in the state when the alleged injuries did not occur there, the justices ruled.

The court last month reached a similar conclusion in a separate case involving out-of-state injury claims against Texas-based BNSF Railway Co.
…

Climate change, trade and terrorism were highlighted Monday at a Beijing meeting of foreign affairs officials from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, known collectively as the BRICS nations.

The five nations are seeking to further align their views on key issues at a time when President Donald Trump is withdrawing the U.S. from multilateral arrangements such as the Paris climate accords and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China in the coming year would look to “expand with more broad and wide-ranging cooperation in areas such as trade and commerce and investment.”

Together the BRICS countries account for roughly 40 percent of the world population and 20 percent of the global economy. All five countries are members of the G20, although their economic prospects have declined somewhat amid crises in Brazil and South Africa and the effect of sanctions lodged against Russia by the West.

South African Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane pointed to climate change as a major concern.

“There is one climate and for future generations we must employ every effort at our disposal to reverse the effects of climate change,” she said.

Nkoana-Mashabane also pointed to the need to form joint efforts to fight terrorism, sentiments reflected by Vijay Kumar Singh, an Indian External Affairs official.

“It is important to enhance BRICS security in counterterrorism matters,” Singh said.

Leaders of the five nations are due to meet for a summit in the southeastern Chinese city of Xiamen in September.
…

When Wal-Mart Stores Inc. bought online retailer Jet.com for $3 billion last year, it marked a crucial moment — the world’s largest brick-and-mortar retailer, after years of ceding e-commerce leadership to arch rival Amazon, intended to compete.

On Friday, Amazon.com Inc. countered. With its $14 billion purchase of grocery chain Whole Foods Market Inc., the largest e-commerce company announced its intention to take on Wal-Mart in the brick-and-mortar world.

The two deals make it clear that the lines that divided traditional retail from e-commerce are disappearing and sector dominance will no longer be bound by e-commerce or brick-and-mortar,  but by who is better at both.

Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods also brings disruption to the $700 billion U.S. grocery sector, a traditional area of retailing that stands on the precipice of a ferocious price war.

German discounters Aldi and Lidl are battling Wal-Mart, which controls 22 percent of the U.S. grocery market, with each vowing to undercut whatever price the others offer.

The stakes are highest for Wal-Mart. Amazon’s move aims at the heart of the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retail giant’s business — groceries, which account for 56 percent of Wal-Mart’s $486 billion in revenue for the year ending Jan. 31. With the deal, Whole Foods’ more than 460 stores become a test bed with which Amazon can learn how to compete with Wal-Mart’s 4,700 stores with a large grocery offering that are also within 10 miles (16 km) of 90 percent of the U.S. population.

Amazon is expected to lower Whole Foods’ notoriously high prices, enabling it to pursue Wal-Mart’s customers. The push comes as Wal-Mart is headed in the opposite direction — going

after Amazon’s higher-income shoppers with a recent string of acquisitions of online brands such as Moosejaw and Modcloth and on Friday, menswear e-tailer Bonobos.

Wal-Mart may be ready. In preparation for the grocery price war, Wal-Mart in recent months has cut grocery prices, improved fresh food and meat offerings, modernized shelving and lighting

in its grocery aisles, and expanded its online grocery pickup service.

Marc Lore, the Jet.com founder who now runs Wal-Mart’s e-commerce business after selling a startup to Amazon, told Reuters in an interview that Amazon’s move does not change Wal-Mart’s game plan. “We’re playing offense,” he said.

Wal-Mart is offering curbside pickup of online grocery purchases at 700 locations, with 300 more planned by year end.

It also is testing same-day fresh and frozen home delivery from 10 of its stores. “We see an opportunity to do a lot more of that,” Lore said.

Roger Davidson, who oversaw Wal-Mart’s global food procurement and now is president of Oakton Advisory Group, said the deal will reduce Wal-Mart’s brick-and-mortar advantage.

“I think this acquisition is a concern,” he said.

Some industry observers say Amazon will find it difficult to use Whole Foods to pull away Wal-Mart shoppers because the two stores appeal to different customers. But Michelle Grant, head of retailing at market research firm Euromonitor, said Amazon could use an obscure part of the Whole Foods portfolio — Whole Foods 365 — to lure Wal-Mart shoppers.

Whole Foods 365 offers private-label goods and lower prices than typical Whole Foods stores, and is targeted at younger, value-conscious shoppers. Amazon could provide the financial

capital and tactical ability to build that into something big.

“That [Whole Foods 365] may become a big problem for Wal-Mart,” Grant said.

Amazon, which reported $12.5 billion in cash and equivalents and a free cash flow of $10.2 billion in the year ended March 31, has plenty to spend. Wal-Mart reported $6.9 billion in cash

and equivalents and $20.9 billion in free cash flow at its year ended Jan. 31.

Brittain Ladd, a former senior manager at Amazon who worked on its brick-and-mortar strategy, said Amazon will use Whole Foods to test concepts for the grocery store of the future.

Ladd, who left Amazon in March, said Amazon will seek to eliminate checkout lines by using technology that automatically scans goods as customers add them to their shopping carts. It

will select merchandise based on Amazon’s vaunted customer data, and potentially expects the use of technology to change prices during the course of a day.

Amazon declined comment on competition with Walmart but spokesman Drew Herdener said in a statement the company has no plans to cut jobs or use technology in development at its

Seattle Amazon Go store to automate jobs of cashiers.

Ladd, who helped with AmazonFresh’s global expansion and now is a supply chain consultant, said an Amazon-owned Whole Foods also likely will offer in-car pickup of online purchases, and

home delivery from Whole Foods stores, add pharmacies and showcase Amazon devices inside the stores.

“Amazon will reduce prices and change the assortment of products carried in Whole Foods stores to attract a larger customer base,” said Ladd. “Kroger and Wal-Mart will be impacted as their customers will defect to Amazon.”
…

A key part of House Republicans’ plan to overhaul the way corporations pay taxes is on life support, leaving lawmakers scrambling to save one of President Donald Trump’s biggest priorities and increasing the chances the GOP will simply pass a tax cut instead of overhauling the tax code.

A proposed tax on imports is central to the GOP plan to lower the overall corporate tax rate. It would generate about $1 trillion over the next decade to finance the lower rates without adding to the deficit. It would also provide strong incentives for U.S.-based companies to keep their operations in the United States and perhaps persuade companies to move overseas operations to the U.S.

But the tax faces strong opposition from retailers, automakers and the oil industry, and a growing number of congressional Republicans have come out against it. They worry that it will increase the cost of imports, raising consumer prices.

Import tax

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., says there probably aren’t enough votes to pass the import tax in the Senate — not a single Republican senator has publicly endorsed it. And a powerful group of House conservatives says it’s time to dump the idea.

“The sooner we acknowledge that and get on with a plan that actually works and actually can build consensus, the better off we will be,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus.

Even one of the biggest backers of the new tax says he is open to other ideas.

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, has pushed the tax as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. He still says it’s the best way to promote economic growth and domestic jobs, but he has softened his stance on alternatives.

“I’m still confident that we’re going to stay at the table until we solve that problem, which is how do we stop U.S. jobs from continuing to leave the United States,” Brady said. “We’re going to remain open to the best ideas on how we do that.”

On Tuesday, Brady proposed gradually phasing in the tax over five years to give corporations time to adjust.

It wasn’t received well by opponents.

“Forcing consumers to pay more so that some profitable companies can operate tax-free is no better of an idea in five years than it is today,” said Brian Dodge of the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

What next?

But if the import tax is dead, then what?

“I would never declare anything dead until there was a fully formed alternative,” said Rohit Kumar, a former tax counsel to McConnell who now heads PwC’s Washington tax office. “I think that’s one of the big challenges that Republicans are struggling with right now.”

Thirty-one years after the last tax overhaul, there is widespread agreement that the current system is too complicated and picks winners and losers, compelling companies to make decisions based on tax implications instead of sound business reasons.

The goal — for now — is to simplify the tax code and make it more efficient in a way that does not add to the federal government’s mounting debt. That means some would pay more and some would pay less, a heavy political lift among politicians who have deep political and practical disagreements.

Lawmakers also are trying to overhaul taxes on individuals, which raises another set of big challenges.

“It’s easier to get a coalition to cut taxes,” said Mark Mazur, a former Treasury official under President Barack Obama. “And if the conversation is, `how long do they last and how deep are the tax cuts,’ each party knows how to do that conversation. It’s not like you’re asking for a huge lift.”

The new import tax, which is called a border adjustment tax, would radically change the way corporations are taxed. Under current law, corporations pay a top tax rate of 35 percent on their profits. But the tax code is filled with so many exemptions, deductions and credits that most corporations pay a much lower rate.

Proposal

Under the proposed system, American companies that produce and sell their products in the U.S. would pay a new 20 percent tax on the profits from these sales. However, if a company exports a product, the profits from that sale would not be taxed by the U.S.

Foreign companies that import goods to the U.S. would also have to pay the tax, and they would not be able to deduct the cost of the imported good as a business expense.

Republicans in Congress and at the White House have been meeting behind closed doors for weeks to come up with viable alternatives. Democrats have been largely excluded from the talks, leaving Republicans with little room for error.

“I still think that Republicans, out of pure political necessity, if nothing else, are likely to find a way to get some sort of tax bill to the president’s desk for his signature,” Kumar said.

Whether it’s genuine tax reform or simply a tax cut “is still very much in question right now,” he added.
…

U.S. farm groups criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to retreat from his predecessor’s opening toward Cuba, saying it could derail huge increases in farm exports that totaled $221 million last year.

A trade delegation from Minnesota, one of the largest U.S. agriculture states, vowed to carry on with its planned visit to Cuba next week. 

“We’re going to continue to beat the drum and let them (the Trump administration) know that trade is good for agriculture,” said Kevin Paap, a farmer in the delegation.

Trump signed a presidential directive Friday rolling back parts of former President Barack Obama’s opening to the Communist-ruled country after a 2014 diplomatic breakthrough between the two former Cold War foes.

Farm groups saw the move as a step backward in what had been an improving trade relationship between the two countries, which are 90 miles (145 kms) apart, even though agriculture is not directly targeted.

U.S. law exempts food from a decades-old embargo on U.S. trade with Cuba, but cumbersome rules on how transactions were executed have made deals difficult and costly.

Since Obama’s detente, substantial headway has been made with shipments of U.S. corn and soybeans to Cuba soaring 420 percent in 2016 from a year earlier to 268,360 tons, U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows.

Through the first four months of 2017, total shipments of U.S. grain and soy were 142,860 ton, up from 49,090 tons during the same period of 2016.

While the quantities are dwarfed by total U.S. exports — nearly 56 million ton of corn alone last year — the added volumes were welcome as farmers face a fourth year of languishing grain prices and crimped incomes.

“At a time when the farm economy is struggling, we ask our leaders in Washington not to close doors on market opportunities for American agriculture,” Wesley Spurlock, president of the National Corn Growers Association, said in a statement.

The group sees an opportunity for $125 million more a year in trade to Cuba.

Trump’s move could cut off near-term sales and stymie economic development that would drive longer-term demand growth, said Tom Sleight, president of the U.S. Grains Council, a grain trade development organization, in a statement.

“Neither of those outcomes is favorable for the U.S. ag sector or the Cuban people,” he added.

Paap said the United States should be doing more to encourage exports.

“It’s frustrating because we’ve made some advances and built those relationships,” he said. 
…

The key to success for ride-hailing providers like Uber is keeping drivers happy so they run their app, ensuring that enough cars respond to passenger demand.

Estonia upstart Taxify is hoping to win over drivers and take on Uber Technologies Inc., the industry leader, by offering a larger share of the profit.

Upstarts across the world, such as Lyft Inc. and Ola, are trying to catch Uber in the on-demand car-ride market by securing brand loyalty.

But Uber has gathered critical mass and reached a valuation of more than $60 billion in eight years, despite a lack of profits. It has kept rivals at bay, partly by offering incentives to drivers to stay online.

Taxify hopes to lure drivers

Taxify, a minnow compared with Uber, cannot afford these perks but believes that by taking a smaller share of fares, 15-20 percent compared with Uber’s 20-25 percent, it can steal market share from its San Francisco-based rival.

It also hopes that allowing drivers to take cash as well as credit card fares will also help it attract more passengers.

“Taxify’s biggest advantage is the focus on good service by treating the drivers and riders better than other platforms. This means having higher pay for drivers, thanks to lower fees,” Chief Executive Markus Villig told Reuters at Taxify’s headquarters in Estonia.

An Uber spokeswoman declined to comment but the company has said it had fare revenue of around $20 billion last year. Villig said Taxify generated fares worth “tens of millions of euros” each month. Taxify runs in just 25 cities in Europe and Africa, while Uber operates in nearly 600 cities worldwide.

Its basic business model is identical — both connect passengers with self-employed drivers. Many incumbent cab companies in Europe have developed apps to operate in a similar manner but most have focused on their domestic markets.

Markets not Uber dominated

But Taxify is unusual in launching in about 18 countries, mainly smaller markets in Eastern Europe and Africa, where Uber is absent or not yet dominant.

Uber usually takes market share by giving drivers money to sign on to its app, paying them even if they are not driving passengers. Then, as it becomes more popular with passengers, it withdraws the inducements. Analysts say Uber aims to build a customer franchise and stable of drivers to dominate the market.

“The way I see it, Taxify is cheaper than Uber,” said Tumelo Malatjie, 33, a former truck driver for a logistics firm turned full-time Taxify driver in Johannesburg. “Taxify takes 15 percent and Uber about 25 percent or 30 percent,” said Malatjie, who nonetheless is on a waiting list to become an Uber driver.

Taxify has avoided expensive head-to-head battles with its much larger rival but its model will soon be tested as Villig plans to launch in London, Uber’s biggest European market in the coming months.

“We are coming in as a second wave,” Villig said.

Small but growing

Founded 3½ years ago, Taxify has 140 staff worldwide, a third of whom are based in Estonia. It says it has 2.5 million active passengers in 18 countries. Uber says it has more than 12,000 people across the world and millions of passengers in 70 countries.

In Africa, Villig said Taxify has hired away 20 former Uber executives, helping its expansion in cities like Lagos, Cairo and Johannesburg.

The start-up has raised 2 million euros in outside financing from local venture capitalists. Like Uber, it is losing money, although it was “close to profitability for the past six months,” Villig said.

Uber reported in late May that its net loss, excluding employee stock options and other items, narrowed in the first quarter to $708 million, from $991 million in the fourth quarter.

Same challenges

Taxify and Uber face many of the same regulatory and commercial challenges.

Uber was dealt a major setback to its European ambitions in May when the lead advocate for Europe’s highest court said it should be regulated like a transport company rather than an online electronic intermediary.

Taxify could face the same legal treatment, which would make it more susceptible to new regulations being introduced by a growing number of European cities.

Similarly, bans on ride-sharing in cities such as Brno in the Czech Republic, apply to Taxify as much as Uber.

Uber has faced complaints from its drivers in London, France and the United States who were unhappy about compensation.

But Taxify has also had protests from drivers in Estonia unhappy at how the company had slashed fare rates. Villig declined to comment.

While analysts do not expect Uber to be dethroned by Taxify anytime soon, the Estonian company’s lower commission model may put pressure on Uber’s margins in countries where it is seeking to cut fares or increase its share of fares.
…