How much is the tax on Forex trading...in Canada - Trading ...
ELI5: How to do taxes with forex trading in Canada ...
Canadian Taxes on Capital Gains? @ Forex Factory
Canadian Forex Online Trading
Why buy Canadian ETFs if they are consistently outperformed by US ETFs?
I'm curious about whether Canadian ETFs are worthwhile, as they have been a constant drag on my returns for the past 5 years. I consider the S&P 500 to be the benchmark for any stock returns. It feels like Canadian ETFs will crash every time the S&P 500 does, but we will never rise to new all time highs the same way. The S&P TSX composite has roughly stagnated in the last 15 years, but the S&P 500 has shown substantial gains in that time (and in all of its history). It is true that past results should not be used to justify future returns, and that Canadian ETFs do have some advantages. Off the top of my head:
No need to pay a forex fee or do Norbert's Gambit
Generally higher dividend payout ratios (helps with total returns)
No 15% dividend withholding tax that US ETFs have
Would it be worthwhile to drop Canadian stocks altogether to chase higher potential returns? Some thoughts:
Lesser geographical diversification
Increased currency risk due to USD:CAD FX
I prefer the assets of the S&P 500 over the S&P TSX. VCN has heavy exposure to banks, oil & gas, and Shopify, which wouldn't be my ideal investment focus at this time.
I'm looking to get a little more tuned into investing. For the past several years I've been doing the Canadian Couch Potato strategy of e-series index funds with TD in both my RRSP and TFSA. Each of those accounts has about $30k in it, and I also have a LIRA with about $20k that is invested the same way. I recently moved my TFSA to Tangerine and put it in a savings account (partly to take advantage of a high-interest offer they had, but mostly because I'm planning on purchasing a detached home in the very near future and wanted to keep that money in cash). I already used $25k of my RRSP a few years ago for part of the downpayment on my current home, so the $30k I have in there now is really only going to be used for retirement. I also plan on making larger contributions to the RRSP going forward once I buy my next home (I've been skimping on my annual contributions recently to save for my next downpayment). Basically, that RRSP is going to get bigger (well...hopefully) and I will probably not be withdrawing that money for 30+ years until I retire, so I have a high tolerance for risk with that account. The TFSA is going to be emptied for the new house, but I'll probably build it back up slowly with low-moderate risk e-series index fund or ETF. Lately I've been thinking of taking the RRSP out of TD and moving it to Questrade to dabble in ETFs and stocks. I know stocks aren't very highly recommended here, so maybe I'm just being naive. I was thinking of doing something like keeping half the RRSP (~$15k) in a high growth ETF like XGRO, and then the other half (~$15k) in US stocks that I can play around with...mostly for fun, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a couple friends who did pretty well with Tesla and other similar stocks recently and their enthusiasm about it is a bit infectious. As I contribute to the RRSP, I'll probably aim to keep that mix of half going to the ETF and half to stocks. I plan to keep all the stocks within my RRSP to avoid the withholding tax on US dividends, and also use Norbert's Gambit to avoid the forex fee on that initial conversion of $15k CAD to USD. Additional context: I'm 31, married (dual income), make about $120k myself (I'm only investing my own money), no debt apart from mortgage, no kids (but could happen in the next couple years). Am I crazy to do this? Should I just stick to index funds and / or ETFs? Maybe I'm being overzealous with the amount I want to potentially gamble away with stocks?
Moving to London from Canada (30y/o) and looking for the basics: bank account, phone plan, credit card, etc.
Greetings from /PersonalFinanceCanada ! I am looking to move to the UK in the coming months to live with my partner who is working in London. I am able to telework/remote work from the UK with my current Canadian job that pays in Canadian dollars. I have a work Visa for the UK, but am not looking just yet. The pay is good enough, even with the low dollar, high pound, to get by in London. I am hoping some of you can offer some words of wisdom to a financially prudent individual with little knowledge of the UK system. I am looking for a good cellphone plan (I already own a phone, just just a month-by-month or 1-year contract max), an easy bank to open that ideally offers a credit card that I can get with no UK-credit history (I have great Canadian credit history), and any other tips that may aid me in this move. So, for example, any promos from banks or credit cards that are work looking into? I also understand that there are more bills in the UK (property tax, water, heat, electricity, etc.) and many cannot be paid by credit card, but through a current/checking account. How does one best set up their finances for this? Since I'm paid in CAD$ not GBP, I will be transffering using TransferWise the basic amounts I need to get by in London for now, and perhaps using a no fee FOREX credit card for daily purchases. Thank you all! BONUS Q: anyone with knowledge of taxation across Canada-UK, please share. Given I'll be teleworking and paid in CAD$, the UK gov't wont even necessarily know I'm living there, but want to make sure I dont have to pay 2x the tax. :S
I'm a Canadian getting married to a Spaniard and we're planning to live in Spain to be close to her family. Most of my savings are in CAD and USD and at current rates, they total around 1.5 Million EUR. At a 2% withdrawal rate that would give me around 30k EUyear which is probably enough to cover our cost of living. I work remotely and can pull in 50-200k EUyear but given Spanish tax rates I'll probably be aiming to make less than <100k EUyear given how high the tax rates are for 60k EUR+. I'll consider it a "semi-FIRE" for the next few years. I still haven't decided whether to go SL or Autonomo but it doesn't seem like there is much difference between the two if I make around 100k EUR based on my calculations. We don't have a house or plan to buy one right now as we love living internationally and will likely move somewhere new in 5-10 years. Based on the above, I thought I was in good shape but the more I research Spanish tax rates (which must have evolved from the colonial methods of raping and pillaging all those who are not nobles) the more I'm freaking out about my tax and investment situation here.
We'll live in Castilla y Leon and I understand the wealth tax kicks in at 700k Euros. Can my future wife and I share the allowance (i.e. 1.4 million Euros between the two of us?) or will I get hit for my savings over 700k unless I transfer half of my savings to her?
I historically traded/invested through InteractiveBrokers with long-term passive strategies (Index funds). I'm now reading that USD/CAD ETFs are typically not available to Europeans due to EU laws. I'd rather keep my investments in a diverse mix of currencies - any recommendations on how to do that or the best low management fee ETFs in Europe?
I've read on here that some types of investments can be reinvested in similar funds without being taxed on dividends/ETFs. Does anyone have a link or more information I can read on that? I'm definitely looking for tax-efficient strategies, both with respect to withholding taxes and taxes when I rebalance.
How do ForEx savings/investments get converted for taxes? Is it the spot price on Dec. 31 or average in Q4 of the year or average over the entire year? I know a lot about investing and prefer to DIY but I really need to wrap my head around the tax situation here. There seems to be a ton of incorrect opinions and false information spread about and my lack of Spanish ability (I'm learning - but not conversant in technical stuff yet) doesn't help. My fiance and her family are pretty simple and don't seem to have a clue about the world of investing.
If anyone can recommend an English speaking tax lawyer / investment advisor who works on a reasonable fee basis that would be great too.
Moving USD/CAD funds and the implication of capital gains taxation
Hello, US Citizen living and working in Ontario. I have both a Canadian bank account and my original US bank account that I still use when I'm travelling/spending money in the US. I'd like to replenish my US-based bank account with more funds using Transferwise if the power of the loonie increases against USD. But I don't want to bother with that if I need to pay a capital gains tax on it. When does/doesn't moving CAD between USD count as an 'investment'? I have noticed the big banks here in Canada often offer chequing/savings accounts in US dollar funds. Has anyone used these? I presume you move your CAD from your primary account to the USD account. But, what if you move the funds back from the USD account to CAD? Does Capital Gains taxation apply here? tl;dr: When does converting currency get considered as FOREX trading? Where's the line drawn?
I am a US and canadian citizen looking into investment optionsfor taxable account. Can't do Canadian ETF as its a pfic and causes complications with US taxes. US ETFs are safe but exchange rate not favorable right now and I am worried I might lose portfolio value if exchange rate goes from current 1.4 to 1.2 twenty years later which is very much possible as 1.2 is the mean so I have to assume that. Will be investing 70k CAD annually for next 20 years so need a good strategy. I am not concerned about forex fee as I will use interactive brokers. TIA!
I am a US and canadian citizen looking into investment optionsfor taxable account. Can't do Canadian ETF as its a pfic and causes complications with US taxes. US ETFs are safe but exchange rate not favorable right now and I am worried I might lose portfolio value if exchange rate goes from current 1.4 to 1.2 twenty years later which is very much possible as 1.2 is the mean so I have to assume that. Will be investing 70k CAD annually for next 20 years so need a good strategy. I am not concerned about forex fee as I will use interactive brokers. TIA!
Moving to live in another country, but getting paid in CAD$, how best to arrange my finances
I will be moving temporarily (12 months) to work in another country but will remain earning in Canadian dollars. I will not be changing my tax or residency status (remaining Canadian) but looking how best to optimize my spending. Obviously I will need to transfer over $XXX to a new local bank account, but also suspect that I will be buying lots of things and getting hit by typical 2.5% exchange fees. Looking for advice on the following:
it seems transferwise is the best for transfering large sums of cash. Is there anything else I can do to optimize this?
it seems I should get a credit card that will give me the best exchange forex rates or least fees. I know the Roger's WE Mastercard was great for this, but is being demoted. Does anyone else have other suggestions for credit cards?
I got into forex a few years. Learned about pride action and risk ratio reward etc. As a Canadian, is there any fellow Canadian in this sub that offer guidance on how to get started? Which broker to go with. And how does it work in respect to income tax? Is there micro trading option for someone like me to start small etc. Thanks.
Foreign Currency ACB Reporting for Day Trading Forex
Hello, I am looking for any advice and insight into tracking trading and investments with USD borrowed margin involved as a Canadian, as well as Day Trading / Forex multiple pairs. It sounds like it is possible to track the Adjusted Cost Base of Forex Trading through tracking long and borrowed positions when doing a spot trade on a currency pair such as EUUSD with Canadian Currency, but I can't find too many resources on how-to, or software that assists with this other than. https://www.adjustedcostbase.ca/blog/calculating-adjusted-cost-base-with-foreign-currency-transactions/ Holding Canadian Dollars as the Account Currency in a Forex Trading Accouunt My understanding is that 1) Going long on EUUSD, with EUR being the base currency, USD being the quote currency, you're purchasing EUR, and borrowing USD to cover the EUR position? 2) Going short on EUUSD, you're borrowing EUR and selling it, and also borrowing USD to go long on USD position? Anyone have any insight, or resources, or referrals to trading/investment tax accountants? If the frequency of trades are say 2-3 times a week (with say 1-2 trades per day, enter and exit same day), but this is not a full-time profession, would this be better tracked as capital transactions (therefore need to track ACB in a capital account) or just claim these transactions as income transactions for simplicity? Thanks
I am Canadian day trader day trading in US dollars. Will I owe IRS taxes at the end of the year?
I am a Canadian about to start day trading in short term in ForEx and commodities like gold. I will have transactions of over 300 in 1 week for part time (20 hours a week). My trading account is in US dollars but I live in Canada. Will I owe IRS taxes at the end of the year even though I day trade in Canada using US dollars? Please note that I will have more questions when I see responses so I have the facts to prepare for the end of the year. if you could please help me with this, there is not much content on the web for being a Canadian day trader using US dollars for transactions. Any canadian books or legitimate web links to read up on would be great as well. Edit: what is the minimum amount of transactions per hour per week to be categorized as business income/ loss rather than capital gains/loss?
Can I do Forex trading with my bank account? How is it taxed? And is it worth it?
I currently have Canadian and US bank accounts that let me convert money back and forth easily. The exchange rate between the two seems to fluctuate a fraction of a percent daily. I'm wondering if it's worth the time to continually flip money back and forth when the exchange rate is favorable on each side. Is this even legal to do without a proper Forex broker? Would my bank block me from doing this? How would this be taxed? I'm thinking if I just had a 10k emergency fund in cash, I could flip it back and forth occasionally to make some profit, and I might get a higher yield than putting it in a savings account with a 0.5-1% rate.
I am a US and canadian citizen looking into investment optionsfor taxable account. Can't do Canadian ETF as its a pfic and causes complications with US taxes. US ETFs are safe but exchange rate not favorable right now and I am worried I might lose portfolio value if exchange rate goes from current 1.4 to 1.2 twenty years later which is very much possible as 1.2 is the mean so I have to assume that. Will be investing 70k CAD annually for next 20 years so need a good strategy. I am not concerned about forex fee as I will use interactive brokers. TIA
Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.
This article is taken from the Wall Street Journal written about nine months ago and sits behind a a paywall, so I decided to copy and paste it here. This article explains Trump's policies toward global trade and what has actually happened so far. I think the article does a decent job of explaining the Trade War. While alot has happenedsince the article was written, I still think its relevant. However, what is lacking in the article, like many articles on the trade war, is it doesn't really explain the history of US trade policy, the laws that the US administration is using to place tariffs on China and the official justification for the US President in enacting tariffs against China. In my analysis I will cover those points.
When Trump entered the White House people feared he would dismantle the global system the US and its allies had built over the last 75 years, but he hasn't. He has realign into two systems. One between the US and its allies which looks similar to the one built since the 1980s with a few of quota and tariffs. As the article points out
Today, Korus and Nafta have been replaced by updated agreements(one not yet ratified) that look much like the originals. South Korea accepted quotas on steel. Mexico and Canada agreed to higher wages, North American content requirements and quotas for autos. Furthermore, the article points out Douglas Irwin, an economist and trade historian at Dartmouth College, calls these results the “status quo with Trumpian tweaks: a little more managed trade sprinkled about for favored industries. It’s not good, but it’s not the destruction of the system.” Mr. Trump’s actions so far affect only 12% of U.S. imports, according to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In 1984, 21% of imports were covered by similar restraints, many imposed by Mr. Reagan, such as on cars, steel, motorcycles and clothing. Protectionist instincts go so far in the US, there are strong lobby groups for both protectionist and freetrade in the US.
The second reflects a emerging rivalry between the US and China. Undo some of the integration that followed China accession to the WTO. Two questions 1) How far is the US willing to decouple with China 2) Can it persuade allies to join.
The second is going to be difficult because China's economic ties are greater than they were between the Soviets, and China isn't waging an ideological struggle. Trump lacks Reagan commitment to alliance and free trade. The status quo with China is crumbling Dan Sullivan, a Republican senator from Alaska, personifies these broader forces reshaping the U.S. approach to the world. When Mr. Xi visited the U.S. in 2015, Mr. Sullivan urged his colleagues to pay more attention to China’s rise. On the Senate floor, he quoted the political scientist Graham Allison: “War between the U.S. and China is more likely than recognized at the moment.” Last spring, Mr. Sullivan went to China and met officials including Vice President Wang Qishan. They seemed to think tensions with the U.S. will fade after Mr. Trump leaves the scene, Mr. Sullivan recalled. “I just said, ‘You are completely misreading this.’” The mistrust, he told them, is bipartisan, and will outlast Mr. Trump. both Bush II and Obama tried to change dialogue and engagement, but by the end of his term, Obama was questioning the approach. Trump has declared engagement. “We don’t like it when our allies steal our ideas either, but it’s a much less dangerous situation,” said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute whose views align with the administration’s more hawkish officials. “We’re not worried about the war-fighting capability of Japan and Korea because they’re our friends.”
The article also points out unlike George Kennan in 1946 who made a case for containing the Soviet Union, the US hasn't explicitly made a case for containing the Soviets, Trump's administration hasn't, because as the the article explains its divided Michael Pillsbury a Hudson Institute scholar close to the Trump team, see 3 scenarios
New Cold War with drastically reduced economic ties
China resolve their tensions, integrate and run the world together
Transactional US-China relationship of the sort during the 1980s
Pillsbury thinks the third is most likely to happen, even though the administration hasn't said that it has adopted that policy. The US is stepping efforts to draw in other trading partners. The US, EU and Japan have launched a WTO effort to crack down on domestic subsidies and technology transfers requirement. US and Domestic concerns with prompted some countries to restrict Huawei. The US is also seeking to walloff China from other trade deals. However, there are risk with this strategy
Other countries like Japan and South Korea to dependent on China. Too integrated.
Raise objections to Belt and Road. But no alternative
My main criticism of this article is it tries like the vast majority of articles to fit US trade actions in the larger context of US geopolitical strategy. Even the author isn't certain "The first goes to the heart of Mr. Trump’s goal. If his aim is to hold back China’s advance, economists predict he will fail.". If you try to treat the trade "war" and US geopolitical strategy toward China as one, you will find yourself quickly frustrated and confused. If you treat them separately with their different set of stakeholders and histories, were they intersect with regards to China, but diverge. During the Cold War, trade policy toward the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc was subordinated to geopolitical concerns. For Trump, the trade issues are more important than geopolitical strategy. His protectionist trade rhetoric has been fairly consistent since 1980s. In his administration, the top cabinet members holding economic portfolios, those of Commerce, Treasury and US Trade Representative are the same people he picked when he first took office. The Director of the Economic Council has changed hands once, its role isn't as important as the National Security Advisor. While State, Defense, CIA, Homeland Security, UN Ambassador, National Security Advisor have changed hands at least once. Only the Director of National Intelligence hasn't changed. International Trade makes up 1/4 of the US economy, and like national security its primarily the responsibility of the Federal government. States in the US don't implement their own tariffs. If you add the impact of Treasury policy and how it relates to capital flows in and out of the US, the amounts easily exceed the size of the US economy. Furthermore, because of US Dollar role as the reserve currency and US control of over global system the impact of Treasury are global. Trade policy and investment flows runs through two federal departments Commerce and Treasury and for trade also USTR. Defense spending makes up 3.3% of GDP, and if you add in related homeland security its at most 4%. Why would anyone assume that these two realms be integrated let alone trade policy subordinate to whims of a national security bureaucracy in most instances? With North Korea or Iran, trade and investment subordinate themselves to national security, because to Treasury and Commerce bureaucrats and their affiliated interest groups, Iran and the DPRK are well, economic midgets, but China is a different matter. The analysis will be divided into four sections. The first will be to provide a brief overview of US trade policy since 1914. The second section will discuss why the US is going after China on trade issues, and why the US has resorted using a bilateral approach as opposed to going through the WTO. The third section we will talk about how relations with China is hashed out in the US. The reason why I submitted this article, because there aren't many post trying to explain US-China Trade War from a trade perspective. Here is a post titled "What is the Reasons for America's Trade War with China, and not one person mentioned Article 301 or China's WTO Commitments. You get numerous post saying that Huawei is at heart of the trade war. Its fine, but if you don't know what was inside the USTR Investigative report that lead to the tariffs. its like skipping dinner and only having dessert When the US President, Donald J Trump, says he wants to negotiate a better trade deal with other countries, and has been going on about for the last 35 years, longer than many of you have been alive, why do people think that the key issues with China aren't primarily about trade at the moment.
OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE ORIENTATION
Before 1940s, the US could be categorized as a free market protectionist economy. For many this may seem like oxymoron, how can an economy be free market and protectionist? In 1913, government spending made up about 7.5% of US GDP, in the UK it was 13%, and for Germany 18% (Public Spending in the 20th Century A Global Perspective: Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi - 2000). UK had virtual zero tariffs, while for manufactured goods in France it was 20%, 13% Germany, 9% Belgium and 4% Netherlands. For raw materials and agricultural products, it was almost zero. In contrast, for the likes of United States, Russia and Japan it was 44%, 84% and 30% respectively. Even though in 1900 United States was an economic powerhouse along with Germany, manufactured exports only made up 30% of exports, and the US government saw tariffs as exclusively a domestic policy matter and didn't see tariffs as something to be negotiated with other nations. The US didn't have the large constituency to push the government for lower tariffs abroad for their exports like in Britain in the 1830-40s (Reluctant Partners: A History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation, 1850-2000). The Underwood Tariffs Act of 1913 which legislated the income tax, dropped the tariffs to 1850 levels levels.Until 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 making income tax legal, all US federal revenue came from excise and tariffs. In contrast before 1914, about 50% of UK revenue came from income taxes. The reason for US reluctance to introduced income tax was ideological and the United State's relative weak government compared to those in Europe. After the First World War, the US introduced the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, than the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 followed by a Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Contrary to popular opinion, the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 had a small negative impact on the economy, since imports and exports played a small part of the US economy, and the tariffs were lower than the average that existed from 1850-1914. Immediately after the Second World War, when the US economy was the only industrialized economy left standing, the economic focus was on rehabilitation and monetary stability. There was no grandiose and ideological design. Bretton Woods system linked the US dollar to gold to create monetary stability, and to avoid competitive devaluation and tariffs that plagued the world economy after Britain took itself off the gold in 1931. The US$ was the natural choice, because in 1944 2/3 of the world's gold was in the US. One reason why the Marshall Plan was created was to alleviate the chronic deficits Europeans countries had with the US between 1945-50. It was to rebuild their economies so they could start exports good to the US. Even before it was full implemented in 1959, it was already facing problems, the trade surpluses that the US was running in the 1940s, turned to deficits as European and Japanese economies recovered. By 1959, Federal Reserves foreign liabilities had already exceeded its gold reserves. There were fears of a run on the US gold supply and arbitrage. A secondary policy of the Bretton woods system was curbs on capital outflows to reduce speculation on currency pegs, and this had a negative impact on foreign investment until it was abandoned in 1971. It wasn't until the 1980s, where foreign investment recovered to levels prior to 1914. Factoring out the big spike in global oil prices as a result of the OPEC cartel, it most likely wasn't until the mid-1990s that exports as a % of GDP had reached 1914 levels. Until the 1980s, the US record regarding free trade and markets was mediocre. The impetus to remove trade barriers in Europe after the Second World War was driven by the Europeans themselves. The EEC already had a custom union in 1968, Canada and the US have yet to even discuss implementing one. Even with Canada it took the US over 50 years to get a Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA was inspired by the success of the EEC. NAFTA was very much an elite driven project. If the Americans put the NAFTA to a referendum like the British did with the EEC in the seventies, it most likely wouldn't pass. People often look at segregation in the US South as a political issue, but it was economic issue as well. How could the US preach free trade, when it didn't have free trade in its own country. Segregation was a internal non-tariff barrier. In the first election after the end of the Cold War in 1992, Ross Perot' based most of independent run for the Presidency on opposition to NAFTA. He won 19% of the vote. Like Ross Perot before him, Donald Trump is not the exception in how America has handled tariffs since the founding of the Republic, but more the norm. The embrace of free trade by the business and political elite can be attributed to two events. After the end of Bretton Woods in 1971, a strong vested interest in the US in the form of multinationals and Wall Street emerged advocating for removal of tariffs and more importantly the removal of restrictions on free flow of capital, whether direct foreign investment in portfolio investment. However, the political class embrace of free trade and capital only really took off after the collapse of the Soviet Union propelled by Cold War triumphalism. As mentioned by the article, the US is reverting back to a pre-WTO relations with China. As Robert Lighthizer said in speech in 2000
I guess my prescription, really, is to move back to more of a negotiating kind of a settlement. Return to WTO and what it really was meant to be. Something where you have somebody make a decision but have it not be binding.
The US is using financial and legal instruments developed during the Cold War like its extradition treaties (with Canada and Europe), and Section 301. Here is a very good recent article about enforcement commitment that China will make.‘Painful’ enforcement ahead for China if trade war deal is reached with US insisting on unilateral terms NOTE: It is very difficult to talk about US-China trade war without a basic knowledge of global economic history since 1914. What a lot of people do is politicize or subordinate the economic history to the political. Some commentators think US power was just handed to them after the Second World War, when the US was the only industrialized economy left standing. The dominant position of the US was temporary and in reality its like having 10 tonnes of Gold sitting in your house, it doesn't automatically translate to influence. The US from 1945-1989 was slowly and gradually build her influence in the non-Communist world. For example, US influence in Canada in the 1960s wasn't as strong as it is now. Only 50% of Canadian exports went to the US in 1960s vs 80% at the present moment.
BASIS OF THE US TRADE DISCUSSION WITH CHINA
According to preliminary agreement between China and the US based on unnamed sources in the Wall Street Journal article US, China close in on Trade Deal. In this article it divides the deal in two sections. The first aspects have largely to do with deficits and is political.
As part of a deal, China is pledging to help level the playing field, including speeding up the timetable for removing foreign-ownership limitations on car ventures and reducing tariffs on imported vehicles to below the current auto tariff of 15%. Beijing would also step up purchases of U.S. goods—a tactic designed to appeal to President Trump, who campaigned on closing the bilateral trade deficit with China. One of the sweeteners would be an $18 billion natural-gas purchase from Cheniere Energy Inc., people familiar with the transaction said.
The second part will involve the following.
Commitment Regarding Industrial Policy
Provisions to protect IP
Mechanism which complaints by US companies can be addressed
Bilateral meetings adjudicate disputes. If talks don't produce agreement than US can raise tariffs unilaterally
China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
China deprives U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations.
China directs and unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets to generate large-scale technology transfer.
China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks to gain unauthorized access to commercially valuable business information.
In the bigger context of trade relations between US and China, China is not honoring its WTO commitments, and the USTR issued its yearly report to Congress in early February about the status of China compliance with its WTO commitments. The points that served as a basis for applying Section 301, also deviate from her commitments as Clinton's Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky paving the way for a trade war. Barshefsky argues that China's back sliding was happening as early as 2006-07, and believes the trade war could have been avoided has those commitments been enforced by previous administrations. I will provide a brief overview of WTO membership and China's process of getting into the WTO. WTO members can be divided into two groups, first are countries that joined in 1995-97, and were members of GATT, than there are the second group that joined after 1997. China joined in 2001. There is an argument that when China joined in 2001, she faced more stringent conditions than other developing countries that joined before, because the vast majority of developing countries were members of GATT, and were admitted to the WTO based on that previous membership in GATT. Here is Brookings Institute article published in 2001 titled "Issues in China’s WTO Accession"
This question is all the more puzzling because the scope and depth of demands placed on entrants into the formal international trading system have increased substantially since the formal conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in 1994, which expanded the agenda considerably by covering many services, agriculture, intellectual property, and certain aspects of foreign direct investment. Since 1994, the international community has added agreements covering information technology, basic telecommunications services, and financial services. WTO membership now entails liberalization of a much broader range of domestic economic activity, including areas that traditionally have been regarded by most countries as among the most sensitive, than was required of countries entering the WTO’s predecessor organization the GATT. The terms of China’s protocol of accession to the World Trade Organization reflect the developments just described and more. China’s market access commitments are much more far-reaching than those that governed the accession of countries only a decade ago. And, as a condition for membership, China was required to make protocol commitments that substantially exceed those made by any other member of the World Trade Organization, including those that have joined since 1995. The broader and deeper commitments China has made inevitably will entail substantial short-term economic costs.
What are the WTO commitments Barshefsky goes on about? When countries join the WTO, particularly those countries that weren't members of GATT and joined after 1997, they have to work toward fulfilling certain commitments. There are 4 key documents when countries make an accession to WTO membership, the working party report, the accession protocol paper, the goods schedule and service schedule. In the working party report as part of the conclusion which specifies the commitment of each member country what they will do in areas that aren't compliant with WTO regulations on the date they joined. The problem there is no good enforcement mechanism for other members to force China to comply with these commitments. And WTO punishments are weak. Here is the commitment paragraph for China "The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of China concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report. The Working Party took note of the commitments given by China in relation to certain specific matters which are reproduced in paragraphs 18-19, 22-23, 35-36, 40, 42, 46-47, 49, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78-79, 83-84, 86, 91-93, 96, 100-103, 107, 111, 115-117, 119-120, 122-123, 126-132, 136, 138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148, 152, 154, 157, 162, 165, 167-168, 170-174, 177-178, 180, 182, 184-185, 187, 190-197, 199-200, 203-207, 210, 212-213, 215, 217, 222-223, 225, 227-228, 231-235, 238, 240-242, 252, 256, 259, 263, 265, 270, 275, 284, 286, 288, 291, 292, 296, 299, 302, 304-305, 307-310, 312-318, 320, 322, 331-334, 336, 339 and 341 of this Report and noted that these commitments are incorporated in paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Protocol. " This is a tool by the WTO that list all the WTO commitment of each country in the working paper. In the goods and service schedule they have commitments for particular sectors. Here is the a press release by the WTO in September 2001, after successfully concluding talks for accession, and brief summary of key areas in which China hasn't fulfilled her commitments. Most of the commitments made by China were made to address its legacy as a non-market economy and involvement of state owned enterprises. In my opinion, I think the US government and investors grew increasingly frustrated with China, after 2007 not just because of China's back sliding, but relative to other countries who joined after 1997 like Vietnam, another non-market Leninist dictatorship. When comparing China's commitments to the WTO its best to compare her progress with those that joined after 1997, which were mostly ex-Soviet Republics. NOTE: The Chinese media have for two decades compared any time the US has talked about China's currency manipulation or any other issue as a pretext for imposing tariffs on China to the Plaza Accords. I am very sure people will raise it here. My criticism of this view is fourfold. First, the US targeted not just Japan, but France, Britain and the UK as well. Secondly, the causes of the Japan lost decade were due largely to internal factors. Thirdly, Japan, UK, Britain and France in the 1980s, the Yuan isn't undervalued today. Lastly, in the USTR investigation, its China's practices that are the concern, not so much the trade deficit.
REASONS FOR TRUMPS UNILATERAL APPROACH
I feel that people shouldn't dismiss Trump's unilateral approach toward China for several reasons.
The multilateral approach won't work in many issues such as the trade deficit, commercial espionage and intellectual property, because US and her allies have different interest with regard to these issues. Germany and Japan and trade surpluses with China, while the US runs a deficit. In order to reach a consensus means the West has to compromise among themselves, and the end result if the type of toothless resolutions you commonly find in ASEAN regarding the SCS. Does America want to "compromise" its interest to appease a politician like Justin Trudeau? Not to mention opposition from domestic interest. TPP was opposed by both Clinton and Trump during the election.
You can't launch a geopolitical front against China using a newly formed trade block like the TPP. Some of the existing TPP members are in economic groups with China, like Malaysia and Australia.
China has joined a multitude of international bodies, and at least in trade, these bodies haven't changed its behavior.
Trump was elected to deal with China which he and his supporters believe was responsible for the loss of millions manufacturing jobs when China joined the WTO in 2001. It is estimate the US lost 6 Million jobs, about 1/4 of US manufacturing Jobs. This has been subsequently advanced by some economists. The ball got rolling when Bill Clinton decided to grant China Most Favored Nation status in 1999, just a decade after Tiananmen.
China hasn't dealt with issues like IP protection, market access, subsidies to state own companies and state funded industrial spying.
According to the survey, 39 percent of the country views China’s growing power as a “critical threat” to Americans. That ranked it only eighth among 12 potential threats listed and placed China well behind the perceived threats from international terrorism (66 percent), North Korea’s nuclear program (59 percent) and Iran’s nuclear program (52 percent). It’s also considerably lower than when the same question was asked during the 1990s, when more than half of those polled listed China as a critical threat. That broadly tracks with a recent poll from the Pew Research Center that found concern about U.S.-China economic issues had decreased since 2012.
In looking at how US conducts relations foreign policy with China, we should look at it from the three areas of most concern - economic, national security and ideology. Each sphere has their interest groups, and sometimes groups can occupy two spheres at once. Security experts are concerned with some aspects of China's economic actions like IP theft and industrial policy (China 2025), because they are related to security. In these sphere there are your hawks and dove. And each sphere is dominated by certain interest groups. That is why US policy toward China can often appear contradictory. You have Trump want to reduce the trade deficit, but security experts advocating for restrictions on dual use technology who are buttressed by people who want export restrictions on China, as a way of getting market access. Right now the economic concerns are most dominant, and the hawks seem to dominate. The economic hawks traditionally have been domestic manufacturing companies and economic nationalist. In reality the hawks aren't dominant, but the groups like US Companies with large investment in China and Wall Street are no longer defending China, and some have turned hawkish against China. These US companies are the main conduit in which China's lobby Congress, since China only spends 50% of what Taiwan spends lobbying Congress. THE ANGLO SAXON WORLD AND CHINA I don't think many Chinese even those that speak English, have a good understanding Anglo-Saxon society mindset. Anglo Saxons countries, whether US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are commerce driven society governed by sanctity of contracts. The English great philosophical contributions to Western philosophy have primarily to do with economics and politics like Adam Smith, John Locke, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes. This contrast with the French and Germans. Politics in the UK and to a lesser extent the US, is centered around economics, while in Mainland Europe its religion. When the Americans revolted against the British Empire in 1776, the initial source of the grievances were taxes. Outside of East Asia, the rest of the World's relationship with China was largely commercial, and for United States, being an Anglosaxon country, even more so. In Southeast Asia, Chinese aren't known for high culture, but for trade and commerce. Outside Vietnam, most of Chinese loans words in Southeast Asian languages involve either food or money. The influence is akin to Yiddish in English. Some people point to the Mao and Nixon meeting as great strategic breakthrough and symbol of what great power politics should look like. The reality is that the Mao-Nixon meeting was an anomaly in the long history of relations with China and the West. Much of China-Western relations over the last 500 years was conducted by multitudes of nameless Chinese and Western traders. The period from 1949-1979 was the only period were strategic concerns triumphed trade, because China had little to offer except instability and revolution. Even in this period, China's attempt to spread revolution in Southeast Asia was a threat to Western investments and corporate interest in the region. During the nadir of both the Qing Dynasty and Republican period, China was still engaged in its traditional commercial role. Throughout much of history of their relations with China, the goals of Britain and the United States were primarily economic, IMAGINE JUST 10% OF CHINA BOUGHT MY PRODUCT From the beginning, the allure of China to Western businesses and traders has been its sheer size I. One of the points that the USTR mentions is lack of market access for US companies operating in China, while Chinese companies face much less restrictions operating in the US.
China uses joint venture requirements, foreign investment restrictions, and administrative review and licensing processes to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies.
China deprives U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations.
Trade with China has hurt some American workers. And they have expressed their grievances at the ballot box. So while many attribute this shift to the Trump Administration, I do not. What we are now seeing will likely endure for some time within the American policy establishment. China is viewed—by a growing consensus—not just as a strategic challenge to the United States but as a country whose rise has come at America’s expense. In this environment, it would be helpful if the US-China relationship had more advocates. That it does not reflects another failure: In large part because China has been slow to open its economy since it joined the WTO, the American business community has turned from advocate to skeptic and even opponent of past US policies toward China. American business doesn’t want a tariff war but it does want a more aggressive approach from our government. How can it be that those who know China best, work there, do business there, make money there, and have advocated for productive relations in the past, are among those now arguing for more confrontation? The answer lies in the story of stalled competition policy, and the slow pace of opening, over nearly two decades. This has discouraged and fragmented the American business community. And it has reinforced the negative attitudinal shift among our political and expert classes. In short, even though many American businesses continue to prosper in China, a growing number of firms have given up hope that the playing field will ever be level. Some have accepted the Faustian bargain of maximizing today’s earnings per share while operating under restrictions that jeopardize their future competitiveness. But that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it. Nor does it mean they aren’t acutely aware of the risks — or thinking harder than ever before about how to diversify their risks away from, and beyond, China.
What is interesting about Paulson's speech is he spend only one sentence about displaced US workers, and a whole paragraph about US business operating in China. While Kissinger writes books about China, how much does he contribute to both Democrats and the Republicans during the election cycle? China is increasingly makING it more difficult for US companies operating and those exporting products to China.
On Tuesday 16th July, just a few weeks ago I was invited to attend a Karatbit, Karatbars/Karatbank presentation. The presentation was touting everything including a blockchain mobile phone. Someone had approached me over the weekend to investigate an investment, they had made with Karatbit/Karatbars. I attended the presentation with some research which, to be honest, was not that favourable to the company but nevertheless still went with an open mind. KaratBank, a Singapore-based financial organization, has propelled another digital currency that it claims is bound to real physical gold. Is this a progressive thought – or a trick? KaratBank, an organization located in Singapore, has quite recently declared the dispatch of KaratBank Coins (KBC), another digital currency it said is attached to gold. Be that as it may, not just the cost of gold, as different monetary forms — to real bits of gold: they're embedded in plastic cards or banknotes. In any event, that is the way it appears upon first sight. KaratBank is a sister company of KaratBars International, located in Germany. KaratBars really sells gold in exceptionally small quantities (like 0.1g to 1g bullions), inserted into plastic cards (Karatbars) or money like notes (CashGold). The notes are famously overpriced: back when 1 gram of gold was $40, the 1g CashGold note cost $65. As per KaratBank whitepaper, 10,000 KBC can be traded for 0.1g CashGold notes. The initial coin offering kicked off earlier this year and proceeded until March 21, with the ICO starting March 22 (1 KBC = $0.05), Coin Telegraph reports. Be that as it may, KaratBars International as an organization is emphatically connected with scams. A basic search for KaratBars on Google returns three connections with the word "scam" in them on the first page. KaratBars was prohibited in Canada in 2014 over an Autorité des marchés agents (AMF) with a Scam warning. The Canadian government found that KaratBars executes some kind of multi-layered marketing (MLM), or "pyramid" scheme organisation that urged individuals to get new recruits and profit from their sales, promising a return of $15,000 to $136,000 every month. In any case, Is KaratBank is a different story? All things considered, yes and no. Upon a more intensive look at the organization's whitepaper, one finds the following: "United States of America citizens, residents (tax or otherwise) or green card holders, as well as residents of Canada, the People's Republic of China or the Republic of Singapore, are not qualified to partake in the KaratBank ICO." As indicated by the Behind MLM site, the explanation behind this may lie in the way that those nations have actualized strict regulation on ICOs, and KaratBank does not have any desire to have anything to do with them. "ICOs are not unlawful in the US or Canada. In the US, however, ICOs are ordinarily viewed as securities and require registration with the [Securities and Exchange Commission]," the site reads. "Singapore hasn't prohibited ICOs however it is one of the nations KaratBars International works in through the shell companies KaratPay and KaratBars Singapore. Singapore regulators closing those organizations down would cripple KaratBars International. The board most likely figure it's best not to take any risks." To work lawfully in any purview, KaratBars International would need to register itself with the proper securities regulator in that jurisdiction, which the organization appears to need to abstain from, raising doubts. From one's point of view what is disheartening is that blockchain is a great new technology and companies like this seem to mix their existing business with cryptocurrencies. Knowing full well that the general public does not really understand cryptocurrencies, let alone blockchain or Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT). As a blockchain consultant, one feels obligated to pose some questions anyone thinking of getting involved should be asking. At the presentation, I heard the presenters say “ Karatbars is giving its members the opportunity to buy gold in small quantities. They also encourage you to save in gold instead of paper money. This can easily be done by buying as little as 0.1 gram of gold or 1 gram - 2.5 gram or 5 grams.” They said members can keep their gold in Karatbars' vault or ask them to send it to you. Cash gold is the most popular form of buying gold as the gold is embedded in a banknote. 24kt gold 99.9% pure makes it easier for anyone to accumulate wealth. Karatbars is also involved in cryptocurrency and got their own coins, namely KBC and KCB coins. I'm going to get very deep into this, but the main thing to remember is that they say, “these coins are increasing in value and that it is backed by gold”. whereas and another Cryptocurrency is backed by nothing. As a self-proclaimed proponent of blockchain and a graduate of Digital Forensics, I feel obligated to say a few words about this presentation on Karatbit or at least as a conscious citizen of this global world of technology users. Blockchain is a magnificent emerging technology that can be harnessed to do so many things. But most importantly it is a technology that provides one single source of truth. If groups are using this single source of truth technology to spread untruths, someone concerned must come out to say something. Blockchain is a technology that can put everyone on an even playing field but it seems very few understand it. The individuals with even the fleeting basic understanding can influence the general public perception of cryptocurrencies. This leads me to ask a great quote from a book called Richest Man in Babylon …. “if you want advice on investing in expensive jewels, why would you go to a butcher?” The following is what the masses are being manipulated to attach their hopes and dreams. It is that “a further drop in the value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has recently left investors nursing heavy losses. Many proponents are holding out for a new breakout “if their digital assets can go mainstream.” The most important part of that statement is “if their digital assets can go mainstream”. This made me ask some questions about Karatbit and this is what I came up with. Something is fishy!! Can someone clarify the following? Claim 1: Gold mine worth $900 million provides security. Can’t find any official source as proof. Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyKQIckXyIU Claim 2: Backed by a gold mine in Africa Can’t find any official source as proof. Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Q3ZvR4b04 Claim 3: Audit report by MM Revisors for a gold mine in Madagascar Can’t find proof that MM Revisors exists. Not sure if this report was published by Karatbars Int (can’t find it on their official website), but this is being circulated by some investors as if it were. Reference: https://karatbars-me.webnode.es/\_files/200000070-01d6002d18/audit.pdf Claim 4: Karatcoin Bank is a fully licensed crypto bank and is situated in Miami Can’t find proof that they are registered as a licensed financial institute in Miami, Florida. Can’t find Karatcoin Bank as a registered corporation, but found Karat Coin Corp. Reference: http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResults?inquiryType=EntityName&searchNameOrder=KARATBANK&searchTerm=Karatbank Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXip2Fizz5U&t=152s Claim 5: Not a pyramid scheme Karatbit describes this as an affiliate program but clearly is a pyramid scheme at best, see links below; Canada: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/karatbars-quebec-activities-covered-by-prohibition-orders-514201571.html Namibia: https://economist.com.na/43874/extra/karatbars-international-is-a-scamsays-central-bank/ Netherlands: https://www.afm.nl/en/nieuws/2014/mei/waarschuwing-karatbars Claim 6: 100KBC = 1g of Gold at $40 per gram (1 KBC = $0.40) (guaranteed) Total supply = 12,000,000,000 KBC (can’t find figures of circulating, so using supply instead) Total gold needed to cover buy back of all coins: 12,000,000,000 / 100 = 120 000 000g = 120 tons (South Africa as a whole produced 139.9 tons of Gold in 2017). Total money needed to buy back all the coins: 120 000 000g x $40 = $4.8 Billion Can’t find proof that they have 120 tons of gold in storage (or backed up by the mines as claimed) or that they are at least worth $4.8 Billion to buy the gold? Taking a more conservative approach: According to icobench.com, they raised $100 000 000 with their ICO from 60% of the total supply. Let’s assume the 60% of 12,000,000,000 is in circulation. This equals to 7,200,000,000 KBC. Total gold needed for the buyback of 7,200,000,000 KBC: 7,200,000,000 / 100 = 72 000 000g = 72 tons Total money needed to buy back all coins: 72 000 000g x $40 = $2.88 Billion Loss for buying back the KBC that were sold during the ICO: $100,000,000 - $2,880,000,000 = - $2,780,000,000 A potential loss of $2,78 Billion!!! Or am I taking crazy pills? Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgeHjhlMfn0 Reference: https://icobench.com/ico/karatgold-coin Claim 7: This Forbes.com article gives credibility to the KBC coin This article was written by a Contributor. Reference: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joresablount/2019/05/31/10-blockchain-companies-to-watch-in-2019/#308b507e543f There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing. If a story gets hot or makes the homepage, a producer will “check it more carefully,” DVorkin said. Reference: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forbes-model-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/ “Blogging for Forbes requires being what is commonly referred to as a "self-starter." So far, nobody has said, "Um, you can't do that," or, "Oh, my God, no!" Reference: https://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2011/04/06/how-to-become-a-forbes-blogge#231bb9972862 “Warning over 'scammers paradise' as watchdog reveals victims lost £27m to bitcoin, cryptocurrency and forex frauds last year” • Some 1,850 cases were reported to Action Fraud, a 250% increase on 2017-18 • Victims lost an average of £14,600 - with fewer than 1 in 20 getting money back • Investors are often initially told they've made a profit • They are then encouraged to put in more money - at which point the fraudsters run off with their cash Potential victims have been warned over bogus online 'get rich quick' schemes as it emerged people lost more than £27million to cryptocurrency and foreign exchange scams last year. Fraudsters promise high returns to those who invest, according to Action Fraud and the Financial Conduct Authority. Victims lost an average of £14,600 in 2018-19 and stand little chance of getting their money back. Reports of cryptocurrency and forex investment scams increased by nearly 250 per cent in 2017-18, from 530 to nearly 1,850. The scams work by criminals promoting get-rich-quick online trading platforms through social media. Posts often use fake celebrity endorsements and images of luxury items like expensive watches and cars. Beat the scammers: These then link to professional-looking websites where consumers are persuaded to invest. Often investors are led to believe their first investment has successfully returned a profit, and are then enticed to invest more money or introduce friends in return for greater profits. But the returns stop, the customer account is closed, and the scammer disappears with no further contact. 'Anyone handing over their hard-earned cash should make sure they understand what they're getting into, they've checked it's a legitimate investment, and not rely on hype and excitement from friends or social media. 'Investing isn't a get-rich-quick scheme - and anything that uses fear of missing out or requires you to invest before thinking is best to be avoided.' Those considering an investment to check the following for tips on how to avoid investment fraud at www.fca.org.uk/scamsmart. Scammers can be very convincing so always do your own research into any firm you are considering investing with, to make sure that they are the real deal. 'It's vital that people carry out the necessary checks to ensure that an investment they're considering is legitimate. UK consumers are being increasingly targeted by crypto asset-related investment scams. Certain crypto assets, like Bitcoin and Ether (also known as cryptocurrencies), are not regulated in the UK. This means that buying, selling or transferring these crypto-assets falls outside FCA remit. The same is true for the operation of a cryptocurrency exchange. However, some types of crypto-asset products may be or may involve regulated investments depending on their nature and how they are structured. For example, firms that sell regulated investments with an underlying crypto asset element may need to be authorised by the FCA to do so. In recent months, the FCA claims it has received an increasing number of reports about crypto-asset investment scams. Some of them may involve regulated activities, others don’t, but all use similar tactics. How crypto-asset investment scams work Cryptoasset fraudsters tend to advertise on social media – often using the images of celebrities or well-known individuals to promote cryptocurrency investments. In this case, laughably they said KaratBit was endorsed by Barak Obama’s sister. Who is she and what does she know about cryptocurrencies and blockchain? The ads then link to professional-looking websites. Consumers are then persuaded to make investments with the firm using cryptocurrencies or traditional currencies. The firms operating the scams are usually based outside the UK but will claim to have a UK presence, often a prestigious City of London address. Scam firms can manipulate software to distort prices and investment returns. They may scam people into buying the non-existent crypto asset. They are also known to suddenly close consumers’ online accounts and refuse to transfer the funds to them or ask for more money before the funds can be transferred. Action Fraud has also issued a warning on cryptocurrency scams. How to protect yourself Be wary of adverts online and on social media promising high returns on investments in a crypto asset or crypto asset-related products. Most firms advertising and selling investments in crypto-assets are not authorised by the FCA. This means that if you invest in certain crypto assets you will not have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if things go wrong. The FCA doesn’t regulate crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ether which are vastly the most recognized cryptocurrencies, let alone KBC, they do regulate certain crypto-asset derivatives (such as futures contracts, CFDs and options), as well as those crypto assets I would consider securities. A firm must be authorised by FCA to advertise or sell these products in the UK – check FCA Register to make sure the firm is authorised. You can also check the FCA Warning List of firms to avoid. You should do further research on the product you are considering and the firm you are considering investing with. Check with Companies House to see if the firm is registered as a UK company and for directors' names. To see if others have posted any concerns, search online for the firm's name, directors' names and the product you are considering. If you’ve already decided you want to invest in gold, this might not be a bad company to side with. But if you’re just looking for an opportunity to earn a sustainable income and become financially independent, there are better options out there.
I'm doing a tribute to the 24 days of Christmas by going over the financial statements of 24 companies that are considered downrange, speculative, and just plain high risk. The legal cannabis industry already has a ton of risk in it - but this stuff - is only for thrill seekers. All opinions are my own, and certainly not a recommendation for or against any of them, or to buy or sell. I've limited myself to 45mins to each, and kept to most recent financial statements You'll likely know more about the company than me if you're following them. This is only my reactions with a brief commentary about what I see in their financial statements. I haven't been consistent in following them all over the past year: some I have, others not. The first one this year.....is here LDS - Lifestyle Delivery Systems Price Then: $0.34 - Price Now: $0.37
They call themselves a pharmaceutical company. Ok. Yet R&D as a percentage of expenses is less than 5% of total. Guessing they discovered what they were looking for.
SBC $1.8MM last quarter.
Revenues have been languishing until this quarter. $600k reported, double the first 6 months of their year.
Gotta say, related party transactions seem to be an emerging theme of this year’s crawl. Note 7.
At the burn rate they have (consulting fees per note 7), they’re gonna have to go back to the well pretty quick.
PP&E increased by $6MM, to $16MM.
Capital structure is a steaming pile (Note 8). Should have a warning statement in front of it before reading.
Speaking of which, immediate vesting of stock options for management is waaay cute.
And unlike most of the year, share price decay is going to be shutting down any fun that could’ve been had.
Almost all o/s warrants exercised. Only 5MM left now.
Bleh. Still looks like a very expensive front office for a million a year in revenue and 50% margin. Leverage is nose bleed inducing, $26MM in accumulated deficit, and no real end in sight. If I was a shareholder - I’d be all over mgmt. As in: ‘when will a business actually emerge here?’. Still looks like an ATM for mgmt. RTI - Radient Technologies Price Then: $1.54 - Price Now: $0.77
Buckets and buckets of cash. $47MM. 2 large raises, one each previous quarter.
Revenue flat yoy. $3.5MM in operating expenses last quarter. Expenses suggest operational build out occurring.
Given quarterly sales of $100k - that build out will need to do something. Sometime. Soon.
SBC is down from $4.2MM to $800k same period. Hmm.
Margin no hell.
Share printer on overdrive (glowing white hot really. Probably could be deployed as a cogen for heat recapture).
Long term debt is cheap.
Share capital in Note 10: an abominable snowman. Really. And since so many of these seem to land in the #10 slot, I’m going to avoid that number on all lotto tickets I buy from here on out.
Take out the bank balance, the market is valuing the business at about $0.50. For 2 years of stagnant revenue and billowing losses...$7MM last 2 quarters alone...meh. They do look to be operationalizing, perhaps that’s the dev cycle this industry business model is within. If that’s the case, I’m looking to see what happens over the next year - and if the spend justifies the returns. Investors should be hoping their sales pipeline doesn’t turn into a TransMountain. TNY - Tinley Beverage Company Price Then: $0.85 - Price Now: $0.46 Funny enough, Tinley came across the radar a few months ago, and the elves took a stab at it. A couple of fans of this outfit took umbrage with their characterization at the time. They still didn’t put up any math though. Nor referenced the financials. I was talking with u/GoBlueCdn the other day on the phone, and in conversation, he said: ‘fundamentals will always bear out.’ I couldn’t agree more. The noise and heat and smoke and knees and elbows of the intra-houday/week/month price moves….will always get throat-punched by solid ops. Never a question of it. It’s simply a function of time. The question of whether fanboys (and their accusations) will still be there when night turns to day….is an answerable one. They usually melt like toilet paper put into water. I stick to financials. If they're rocking it, I'll say so. If they're not......same deal. I haven’t looked at these guys since then. Let’s do it again…..
Cash issues on back burner, they have some now. Given they need it to operate, that’s a good thing.
Intangibles mercifully low (fresh as a spring rain in this crowd).
$30MM deficit in S/E. A pretty large bump under the corner of the rug.
Lost $1.1MM on $52k of sales. Been a year now. And they’ve had the margaritas out now for a quarter. Maybe haven't shown up yet.
Net $100k loss on forex. Sigh. Just like the good ol’ days of last year's Crawl.
Props to them for a SBC and G&A. If this thing looked like an actual business, I suspect it’d be higher.
Shares o/s metastatic. Shares that are issued are seemingly born pregnant.
Godammit. Another Note ’10’. This one is like staring at the sun. Where’d I put those welding glasses…..
CFO is cheap relative to others in c-suite. Bad negotiator, or, value for money? Your choice.
G&A inelegant. See for yourself….Note 15. Honest.
Ok. I could wax poetic for awhile on this, nothing other than incremental at this point really. I don’t have anything against it. I like the idea of drinkables, but I've never tried one. And….I’m woefully ignorant about emulsions and such. If it’s a good product: I’m there. Probably like most people. The reality is that these guys have tripped and slipped and reset several times…and aren’t delivering. Maybe I have expectations that are unreasonable (like the one’s they’ve established in the investor decks?). One way or the other, limping along with no sales will eventually catch up with you. Despite the pitch. Revenues fix almost everything. Onward: iAn - Ianthus Capital Holdings Scratched! Now post merger with MPX - and that I’ve already done that one - means redundancy at this juncture. We’ll skip this, and add a newcomer to the list at the end. Xmas surprise time! CHV - Canada House Wellness Group Inc Price Then: $0.37 - Price Now: $0.13
Lots of cash atm. That’s definitely gonna be needed as we’ll see. Sales Tax rec’ble says they’ve had sales too. They're gonna need every cent.
Liabilities remain as big of yoke as last time. An ox pulling a dull plough through compacted soil is the mental image I get.
$32MM in accumulated deficit in S/E. Plenty of ‘junk in the trunk’.
$1.2MM in revenue. $1.4MM in salaries.
That $1.4MM in salaries is only 38% of total operating expense.
Love the detail in financials. Remember it from last year. All companies can do this. And it’s appreciated.
Interest expenses are from another planet. A very, very big planet.
These guys need a tourniquet. Hemorrhaging from every limb, orifice, window, door, niche and crevice.
Seeing SBC of $1.4MM - in this operational state - C’mon. Seriously. There’s pushing envelopes, and then there’s that.
Added $1.1MM in ‘intellectual property’ - but it’s not itemized. WTF. Did I miss it? Curious if actually omitted. ?
Another Note 10 setting new benchmarks of vulgarity….I got light headed reading it.
This one could have a sign over it’s Note 10 portcullis: ’Abandon all Hope Ye Who Enter Here.’
Interest free loans to a director (when an outfit is in this shape????)
“You are now entering Liquidation City” Population: CHV Home of the ‘cash only’ auction. All purchases must be removed by 5PM or goods and purchase price will be forfeited From doing these guys last year, I recall vividly how much I appreciate good disclosure. With it, there’s not only many more items to divine the entrails of - it also allows one to get a 3D look at an outfit. Often, business dislikes this for obvious reasons (it signals activities/plans/competitive advantages), but also because many people are uncomfortable taking a shower in public. I took my foot off the throttle though after a certain point with these guys - there’s much more to speak to. All of it negative. I went a little overtime on this one, because I like the idea of a patient-centric Canadian producer. But. If these guys last a year….there’s going to have to be capital infusion, and Note 10 will probably expand to the size of a large city’s phone book. It’s looking as proof that c-suite changes don’t change underlying business realities. And these guys need major changes, in far more than management. LIB - Liberty Leaf Holdings Price Then: $0.48 - Price Now: $0.10
not much cash, all they had seems to have gone into ‘facility equipment’.
Since they don’t seem to have a facility (on their books anyhow) that makes sense.
Appears to have pivoted (the elves always chuckle hearing that word) from aspiring producer, to ‘cannabis business accelerator’.
I read this as that they took a couple of runs at getting a grow op up, but got high centred on the meridian of ACMPR licensing delays (Pivot Time!)
Note 8 & 9 cover their ‘investing activities’. But it’s mainly transactional. If they’re ‘building value’ for shareholders, odd way to do it using paper on non-operating assets, and no apparent uplift able to be predicted.
CEO has gotten some help - he’s gone from ‘Chief Cook & Bottle Washer’ to mainly big chair activities.
SBC of a million dwarfs all other income statement spends
60% of assets is their own paper, issued as ‘investment in associate’
$26MM of S/E? Please meet $26MM deficit in S/E. LIB’s capital is ostensibly only paper, and more paper.
If liquidated on hard assets, company would realize $2MM. I didn't have time to look into unconsolidated subs.
The loading of optionality in 2019? Pretty much all struck. Most of management's fruit has been shaken from the tree.
Whoop. Spoke too soon. Still 5MM of $0.17 options left to go. Looks like there’s still a lot of fruit up top yet
Note 19 is all one needs to read on this thing.
This feels like a squatter-aspiring-to-be-taken-out…..shifted to……business-accelerator-ATM-for-mgmt. The businesses they’ve invested in could use a lot of accelerating btw, they’ve picked ones that are like cars rusting in a field. The blockchain outfit has shed half its value since listing, and the late stage applicant’s business(es) appear to be suspended in amber. They’re also connected to some clinical trials, a retail facing outfit, among several others. All paper, all the time. If there’s a business in here outside of a cashlessly fuelled pitch deck (written on lots of paper), I can’t see it. Perhaps something will happen someday. Nothing has in the last 365 of them. Excepting SBC of course. It's been busy there. QCC - Quadron Cannatech Corp Price Then: $0.38 - Price Now: $0.12
Cash and inventory and liabilities and S/E relatively flat.
A/R shows sales throughput
30% margins. G&A lean. SBC exemplary for industry.
SBC might also be low because share price has tanked.
Sales needed. Slower industry ramp has slowed industry need for equipment. Should be stronger year if the underlying operational capacity begins to expand, and demand for units cranks.
Very clean financials. Not much else to say or see.
This one is dead simple in the financial statements. Love love love. Whether they’ll start extracting revenue, is solely a function of their sales channel. As I’ve learned over the past year - everybody (and I mean everybody) - is in the extraction space. Operating in this industry sub-sector is like being in a sardine can without any oil (pun intended). Crowded space indeed. Cashflow is the core of business, and, if QCC can compete and succeed within what is a very competitive landscape - all power to them (and Canadian manufacturing as well). Calling this a ‘challenging environment’ is an understatement. Sales need to begin growing. Another year in the same general state will test market patience, which, is looking like its' already becoming impatient. Disclaimer - I've met Rosy several times now, and have come to respect her very much. I believe she’s a class act: both professionally, and personally. FWIW, full disclosure. I’m gonna go have some egg nog with the elves and compliment them on their behavior. They don't start drinking until after 1PM most days now. That they get out of bed around noon, it's not really saying much. Still, a big improvement over last year.
Due to Alberta SEC rules, Canadian brokers do not allow Alberta residents to trade Forex without being an "accredited investor". I do not qualify. 1) Does the law prohibit Canadian brokers from providing service to me OR does it prohibit me from trading? In other words, if I use an offshore broker, am I breaking any Canadian law? 2) If is illegal and I do it anyway, what power does the SEC have over me, an individual trading my own funds for personal/entertainment purposes? 3) My profits, if any, would not qualify as capital gains. Do I report this as business income, just as if I'd done any contract job for a Canadian? Does it matter for tax purposes that the money came from outside Canada? I'm aware of the inherent risks of having assets at an offshore financial institution. Thanks to anyone who would care to respond.
How-to & FAQ for holding Bitcoin and Ethereum in an RRSP/TFSA
A few months ago I came across a way to hold crypto in my RRSP/TFSA and have been answering questions about how to do that in comments, DM's, and Skype consults. I figured it would be helpful to put together one big comprehensive FAQ. Cryptocurrency is treated as a commodity by the CRA and you must pay capital gains taxes on any profits if held outside a TFSA. If bitcoin goes to $1m as some are predicting, the Canadian government is going to be taxing a huge windfall in capital gains taxes. BACKGROUND Bitcoin & other crypto cannot be held directly in a RRSP/TFSA, and there are no eligible ETF's in North America yet. However, the ETN COINXBT which trades on the Stockholm Stock Exchange in Sweden (Nasdaq Stockholm) is eligible. ABOUT COINXBT COINXBT holds bitcoin directly and its price per share is based on a 0.005 multiple of the current bitcoin price. For example, if the current price of bitcoin is $10000USD, a share of COINXBT will be worth $50USD (ie: $493 Swedish Kroner) Company's website and full prospectus at: https://xbtprovider.com/ Price quote / chart: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/COINXBT:SS HOW-TO TRADE Only some Canadian brokerages allow you to trade on eligible international exchanges in your TFSA. Some do not. Typically placing trades on international exchanges online is not an option and must be made over the phone broker-assisted at a much higher cost than typical North American securities. CANADIAN BROKERS I've called pretty much every brokerage to inquire if international securities can be held in a TFSA and what the fee is to transact. You may want to call yourself to see if policies have changed, but here's a summary:
National Bank: $75 per trade + $0.06 per share (confirmed works)
TD: Fee dependent on amount traded. Up to $5K is $187, $80K would be $520 per trade (confirmed works)
CIBC: $250 minimum, based on trade amount. $50K would be about $350 to buy and $350 to sell (confirmed works)
Scotia iTrade: $250 CAD per trade CAD, unlimited shares & order size (should work)
BMO Investorline: Fee-based on total trade amount. $50K would be $325 to buy $225 to sell, $50-$60K would be $350 to buy $240 to sell (should work)
Not available, or not available in RRSP/TFSA:
Interactive Brokers, can trade it, but not in RRSP/TFSA
HSBC (has access to almost every exchange other than Stockholm)
FAQ's Are you sure it's legal? I'm quite sure it's illegal.
I used National Bank Direct Brokerage. The fee's came out to $75 per trade + $0.06 per share. For example, the commission for a trade I did for 885 shares of COINXBT was $75 + $53.10 for a total of $128.10. Canadian funds were used to make the purchase and there were no forex fees for converting to Swedish Kroner (SEK)
How do I make a trade once I'm ready?
Call your brokerage and say you want to place a trade on the Stockholm stock exchange. You may be forwarded to a person that specializes in that, and eventually to a broker that deals with placing order on international exchanges. Tell them the symbol to trade is COINXBT and the name of the ETN is "Bitcoin Tracker One".
How do I calculate the number of shares to trade to max out my TFSA?
The price of COINXBT is in SEK. In my case using NB I took my balance minus anticipated fees divided by the current price to see how many shares I could buy. For example: For a $10,000 TFSA, current COINXBT price = $554.77SEK (84.27CAD), would be 117 shares at a cost of $9859.59 + $82.02 commission for a total of $9941.61CAD
Market or Limit order?
The first time I placed an order for COINXBT I tried to place a limit order a little below the market price. Over the next week the price of bitcoin ran up a lot and didn't come down. I ended up buying a lot higher. Since then I've been placing limit orders slightly above the current price or just market orders so that they go through right away. I've had no issues doing it either way.
When can I trade? Is it only possible to make the trade while the Swedish market is open and the TSX are open at the same time? Or can you place the order at any time of day?
XBT Provider has said they will monitor forks for 3-months and then decide what action to take. In the case of Bitcoin Cash, they sold the forked coins and distributed it as a dividend to anyone that held ETN shares on the fork date.
What about other cryptocurrencies?
An ethereum ETN was recently launched: COINETH that also trades on the Stockholm exchange. https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/COINETH:SS Other than that, I am not aware of any other eligible crypto securities that can be held in a RRSP/TFSA
How is the price of COINXBT determined?
It's based on the average price of the top 3 exchanges
Why not just buy GBTC?
GBTC is traded on the OTC exchange in the US and is not RRSP/TFSA eligible
Why can't I place a trade online myself?
For now, there are no crypto ETF's on North American exchanges. They have been in the works for years in the US, but no approvals yet. Evolve funds recently said they plan to launch a Canadian Bitcoin ETF. Trading COINXBT is a bit of a hassle, but you're getting in ahead of everyone else that are not willing to put in the time/effort. Once the Canadian/US ETF launches, it will probably be worth it to sell COINXBT and switch to the North American one which should be easy to trade online just like other ETF's.
Feedback If you've managed to get crypto into your RRSP/TFSA in any other ways than listed above please do leave a comment and I'll update the post. Thanks!
I was playing around with Ulta's website tonight. I was going to ship some of my items to the states because I have an ulta giftcard and the other half to Canada. I found out some two weird quirks with their website that I thought I would pass on.
You can now use a Canadian CC with the american Ulta provided you have an american shipping address. I really really did not expect it to work because Ulta used to flat out deny Canadian cards but my gift card came up a few dollars short so I fudged my billing address and added my Canadian CC and it went through! It even shows as pending on my CC companies website. YMMV but I have been able to use my CC on american only websites before by shoving as much as I could of my Canadian billing address into the fields available. Most companies don't validate your address only the card details.
If you add a gift with purchase going to a Canadian address through borderfree they charge you tax on the value of the gift. I couldn't figure out why my purchase was coming up at a 24% tax rate until I removed the cyber monday gift that they value at $99CND and then my tax rate went back to normal. The samples weren't worth the $12
EDIT : my order to a US address using a Canadian cc worked! It shipped tonight. But as comments below indicated YMMV. I forgot to mention my "fudged" address was given to my cc company in the past. They said it wasn't necessary but they added it anyways. Maybe they were just humoring me and didn't put it anywhere. Who knows. This was just a bmo MasterCard. If I was smart I would have used my home trust visa which doesn't have forex fees.
Which bond ETFs trading in Canada guarantee interest and principal at maturity, like individual bonds?
My grandma in Canada asks this same question, but to lessen capital gains tax and forex loss, she prefers bond ETFs that trade in Canada.
Is there a bond ETF I can hold until a maturity date similar to a bond? In theory that should provide interest + return of principal at maturity?
She couldn't spot, on Invesco's or iShares's Canadian websites, the ETF recommendations in u/ChekovsWorm's comments in Feb 2019
Invesco BulletShares and iShares iBonds are exactly what you're looking for. ETFdb has an overview with list on the investment-grade corporate offerings. BulletShares also has a high-yield ("junk bond") target maturity series where, for example, if BSCL is the Corporate target 2021, BSJL will be the Junk bond 2021. Last letter of the symbol is their internal coding for target year, 3rd letter C or J is Corporate (investment grade) or Junk (High-Yield).
2) Misunderstanding about what a bond fund does. ("fund" here means both mutual fund and exchange-traded fund. Except for a very few bond funds that are deliberately designed to "work like an individual bond", namely the "BulletShares" from Invesco (formerly from Guggenheim, which sold its ETFs to Invesco), or the iShares iBonds series of ETFs from BlackRock, bond funds do not have a maturity date when the fund itself expires.
The first is the taxation of profits made during a trading day. Under the Canadian laws, any day-trading gains made from forex broker are viewed as business income. In other words, you are looking at deductible losses and reported profits. Some traders choose to reduce the amount of taxes by subtracting losses from other sources of income. Canadian Dollar. Forex investors in Canada usually sign up to brokerages that offer the Canadian dollar (CAD) as a currency. This can reduce trading costs and conversion fees. The Canadian dollar is the 6th most traded currency and forms 2% of the global currency reserves held by banks. The biggest influence on the CAD is the domestic economy, which is driven largely by oil, gas, and mining ... Canadian traders, u guys are seriously lucky with taxes 10 replies. Canadian Taxes- How do I report my forex income? Please Help 1 reply. Taxes on FX gains 3 replies. Capital gains as primary income tax rate in the US? 4 replies FOREX.com is a trading name of GAIN Capital - FOREX.com Canada Limited, 135 US Hwy 202/206, Bedminster, NJ 07921, USA is a member of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada and Member of the Canadian Investor Protection Fund. GAIN Capital Group LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of StoneX Group Inc. forex is not treated as lottery (unfortunately) You have to pay taxes on all the income that you make on currency exchange… it is still a “grey area” and there is not specific “line number” to enter your income but “officially” you should post your forex income under “other income” field when you do your income tax return. I'm just wondering what do I need to know about paying taxes so I don't into trouble with forex. What percentage do you pay ? Also, any advice? 20 comments. share. save hide report. 67% Upvoted. This thread is archived . New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. Sort by. best. level 1. 3 points · 1 year ago · edited 1 year ago. The amount of advice that seems to be unresearched ... Canadian online forex trading is taxable, and earning from forex trading are treated as capital gains tax. You should always consult with your accountant or tax agent if you need further clarification on how these tax laws apply to you. There is a really great read I found about capital gains tax. It explains Paul's personal experience from dealing with taxes from Canadian forex online trading ...
**This video is not intended to be tax advice. Seek your own tax professional about your personal tax situation. ** Grab a copy of the Home Business Success ... CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO: https://rebrand.ly/forex33 And start earning in the Forex Market Now! In our growing international company setting, there are busin... paying taxes when trading forex online - Duration: 2:48. FXStartsHere 10,786 views. 2:48. My Oanda Forex Broker Honest Review !! - Duration: 8:41. Micheal Bailey 7,430 views. 8:41. How to Trade ... CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO: https://rebrand.ly/forex33 And start earning in the Forex Market Now! In our growing multinational company environment, there are c...