|Day's Range||6.14 - 6.70|
Analysts at UBS downgrading the stock to “neutral” saying they see the company at a “bit of a crossroads” entering 2020, in terms of capitalizing on opportunities like the Olympics, European football championship and the U.S. election, while keeping the network safe and secure.
(Bloomberg) -- Move over materials, there’s a new kid on the block. The C$300 billion ($230 billion) industrials group has ousted miners and forestry stocks to become the third-most valuable collection of companies on Canada’s equity market, behind banks and energy.Comprised mainly of transportation, engineering and construction stocks, industrials are generally seen as cyclical stocks and had blockbuster gains last year with a 24% rally. That was behind only tech and utilities.Last year Ballard Power Systems Inc.’s shares more than doubled after reporting a technology breakthrough that will reduce the amount of high-cost platinum used in its fuel-cell products. Air Canada came in second in the group after announcing a planned acquisition of tour operator Transat AT, accelerating its global presence in the leisure industry.Ballard’s surge has continued this year, climbing about 70% in January, as China signaled it wouldn’t further cut subsidies for electric vehicles, easing some fears for battery investors.One drag on the sector has been Bombardier Inc., which saw its stock slump and bonds tumble this week after the company said it was rethinking the A220 jet program with Airbus as it seeks ways to increase cash flow to help with paying down its $10 billion debt load. But, at a shadow of its former self, its contribution to the sectoral gauge is less than 1%.Markets -- Just The NumbersChart of The WeekEconomyCanadian businesses reported improved sentiment amid reduced concern about global trade conflicts, according to a Bank of Canada survey. Future sales like new orders have picked up, particularly outside of the energy sector, the Ottawa-based central bank’s fourth-quarter survey of executives found.Economists will see a big data dump on Jan. 22 with new housing price figures, inflation and the Bank of Canada’s rate decision.PoliticsPrime Minister Justin Trudeau’s bid to complete the Trans Mountain oil pipeline won a major victory Thursday as the nation’s top court rejected an appeal brought by British Columbia aimed at challenging the controversial project. The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the case, the court said in a statement.TrendingInCanada1\. St. John’s, Newfoundland, has declared a state of emergency as a blizzard ramps up with 75 centimeters of snow expected in the province.2\. And if you missed it, we taste-tested McDonald’s Corp. and Beyond Meat Inc.’s new PLT burger, which is getting a trial run in Ontario.\--With assistance from Steven Frank.To contact the reporter on this story: Divya Balji in Toronto at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Kyung Bok Cho at firstname.lastname@example.org, Jacqueline Thorpe, David ScanlanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
KEY WORDS ‘You’re a liberal hack, buddy.’ — That’s the answer CNN reporter Manu Raju got when he asked Sen. Martha McSally what seemed to be a straightforward question on Thursday. “Should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?” Raju asked.
Musk (TSLA)has more than 30 million followers on Twitter, where he has stirred plenty of controversy of his own over the past few years. Dorsey spoke to Musk via a video call from a company meeting in Houston with Twitter employees watching.
Starr’s investigation exposed President Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky, leading to his 1998 impeachment
After more than two decades as a top corporate lawyer and lobbyist, she took a golden parachute retirement package from her position as vice president of external affairs and policy at Consolidated Natural Gas. Build your network.
NBC’s streaming entry is cheap enough to compete with Disney and Netflix, with enough free content to compare well with ViacomCBS. Good news for Comcast.
Business momentum is here to stay for Snapchat parent Snap, but 2020 will bring headwinds for Twitter, analysts say.
Twitter Inc (NYSE: TWTR ) has admitted that it temporarily allowed ad targeting with sensitive terms such as "neo-Nazi," “white supremacist” and “anti-gay,” according The Verge . BBC Tests Keywords ...
Shares of Pinterest Inc. have had a strong week, rising 17% over the past three trading sessions, and the rally looks poised to continue after an upgrade to overweight from equal weight by Wells Fargo analyst Brian Fitzgerald. The stock is up more than 4% in premarket trading Friday. "Shares have materially underperformed the broader market since the company's April 2019 IPO, despite our view that the company's fundamentals remain on solid footing, as Pinterest has delivered generally solid results, handily exceeding pre-IPO targets with healthy audience and engagement growth, strong revenue growth and solid progress toward profitability," he wrote. He sees several catalysts down the road, including greater engagement stemming from more video on the platform, improvements in monetization on the heels of ad-tech upgrades, and better international monetization as the company invests in an overseas sales force. Fitzgerald said that Pinterest's average revenue per user in the U.S. was 22.5 times what it was internationally in the third quarter, compared to 3.6 times for Snap Inc. , 4.6 times for Twitter Inc. , and 6.9 times for Facebook Inc. . He upped his price target to $30 from $28. Pinterest shares have risen 26% over the past month, but they're off 12% over three months. The S&P 500 has climbed 4% over one month and 11% over three.
Shares of Twitter Inc. fell 1.4% in premarket trading Friday, after UBS analyst Eric Sheridan downgraded the social media company, saying continued investments into safety and security and ad technology are likely to cap valuation. Sheridan cut his rating to neutral, after being at buy since April 2018, and trimmed his price target to $35 from $37. "As we enter 2020, we see [Twitter] at a bit of a crossroads--we...hear from ad industry contacts that 2020 should be a year where [Twitter's] platform is set to capitalize on large scale events (Olympics, European football championship & US election) but exiting from its 'buggy' summer we think [Twitter] management also is likely to persist with investments around safety/security and ad tech stack (both of which are needed against long-term management goals)," Sheridan wrote in a note to clients. The stock has tumbled 13.7% over the past three months through Thursday, while the S&P 500 has gained 10.6%.
Twitter drops after the stock gets a downgrade from analysts at UBS, who see the social media platform at 'a bit of a crossroads' in 2020.
(Bloomberg) -- Elon Musk’s suggestion for how to fix Twitter? Identify the bots.Musk, the SpaceX and Tesla Inc. chief executive officer, was asked Thursday by Twitter Inc. CEO Jack Dorsey how he would fix the social network, where Musk has almost 31 million followers.“Give us some direct feedback,” said Dorsey, who spoke to Musk via a video call from a company meeting in Houston. Musk was projected onto a giant screen as thousands of Twitter employees watched the two executives chat. “If you were running Twitter,“ Dorsey continued, “what would you do?”“I think it would be helpful to differentiate” between real and fake users, Musk replied, according to a video posted to Twitter by an employee. “Is this a real person or is this a bot net or a sort of troll army or something like that?”“Basically, how do you tell if the feedback is real or someone trying to manipulate the system, or probably real, or probably trying to manipulate the system,” Musk continued. “What do people actually want, what are people actually upset about versus manipulation of the system by various interest groups.”It’s possible at least one of the groups Musk had in mind was “TSLAQ,” a loose collective of critics, skeptics and short sellers who often tweet using the hashtag combining Tesla’s ticker symbol with the -Q that is added when listed companies go bankrupt.Musk faces relentless criticism from the group on Twitter. The billionaire is one of the site’s most popular users and one of its most controversial. He called a British caver a “pedo guy” in 2018 and was later sued for defamation. Later that same year, he tweeted that he was thinking of taking Tesla private, prompting a temporary halt on trading and a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit.Musk, one of many high-profile Twitter users to speak at the company event this week, also predicted that humans would send a tweet from Mars sometime in the next five to nine years, according to videos posted by employees. After Dorsey and Musk finished chatting, model and cookbook author Chrissy Teigen, another popular user, made an appearance on stage.\--With assistance from Dana Hull.To contact the reporter on this story: Kurt Wagner in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at firstname.lastname@example.org, Andrew PollackFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Facebook Inc. “very irresponsible” and “shameful” for the way the company allows false information to spread on its social media platform.She said that during the last election Facebook made no attempts to look at Russia’s use of the platform to spread disinformation and doesn’t view it as their obligation to try to stop it in the future.“They intend to be accomplices with misleading the American people,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday in response to a question about whether Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg and other tech executive have too much power. “I think their behavior is shameful.”Companies including Facebook, Twitter Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google have been under pressure to take action to prevent the spread of false and misleading information on their sites. Facebook’s new policy to address “deepfake” videos has come under fire from some lawmakers and disinformation experts who say it fails to address other kinds of online manipulation.QuickTake: How Deepfakes Make Disinformation More Real Than EverThe California Democrat was asked about the social media company, given its proximity to her San Francisco district.“All they want are their tax cuts and no antitrust action against them, and they schmooze this administration in that regard,” Pelosi said. “They have been very irresponsible.”The company is facing antitrust probes by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department, as well as a majority of state attorneys general led by New York’s Letitia James.Facebook declined to comment on Pelosi’s remarks. The company has been working to better detect instances of foreign governments trying to manipulate U.S. users, and in recent years has taken down several campaigns similar to Russia’s effort during the 2016 presidential campaign.But Facebook has stopped short of fact-checking politicians, saying last week that it would allow candidates to continue to lie in their ads. Facebook executives have said the company shouldn’t determine truth or falsity in political speech. Instead, Facebook is putting political ads in a public archive, where voters can see who paid for which messages.(Updates with context on Facebook actions in the final two paragraphs.)\--With assistance from Ben Brody and Sarah Frier.To contact the reporter on this story: Billy House in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at firstname.lastname@example.org, ;Jillian Ward at email@example.com, Andrew Pollack, Alistair BarrFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Today’s Food and Drug Administration moves much faster than it used to. That may not always be a good thing. A review of drug approvals by the agency from researchers at Harvard Medical School released Tuesday found that the FDA is approving drugs more rapidly with weaker evidence than it did in the past. That can be beneficial when it leads to needed medicines getting to market quickly, and I believe that’s the agency’s intent. As the study’s authors highlight, however, this emphasis on speed and flexibility could be eroding standards. It may be time for a gut check.The gold standard for demonstrating efficacy — and the surest way of winning drug approval — is to demonstrate success in large, well-controlled studies that result in a hard outcome. But there are faster ways to get to market. In 1992, Congress created the accelerated approval program, which can green light medicines based on “surrogate” endpoints that predict rather than confirm benefit for patients, or those that have shown a shorter-term benefit. It’s one of several initiatives that have changed how the agency works. According to the study, 80.6% of approvals between 1995 and 1997 were supported by at least two pivotal trials. That number dropped to 52.8% between 2005 and 2017. Companies that get accelerated approval have to prove their drug works with a confirmatory trial in order to gain full approval, but there’s no hard timetable no when that must be done. Thus, drugmakers often don't hurry to conduct those tests. This is problematic at best, dangerous at worst.Here’s just one case: In 2016, Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. sought approval of a medicine to treat a rare muscle-wasting disease in young boys based on weak evidence from a tiny trial. In the face of significant public pressure, the FDA approved Exondys 51 even though one of its scientists called the treatment “an elegant placebo” in a report. Sarepta is selling the drug for over $300,000 a year but has continually delayed a confirmatory trial. It’s now years away from completion, and there have been no real consequences for the delay.When companies do complete post-approval trials, it sometimes reveals a mistake. Eli Lilly & Co.’s cancer drug Lartruvo got accelerated approval in 2016. Lilly then pulled the medicine from the market last year after a larger trial found no benefit. That’s a rare outcome, but there are many expensive drugs on the market that have never moved beyond surrogate endpoints. A study of 93 accelerated cancer drug approvals between 1992 and 2017 found that only 19 had proved to help patients live longer in a followup trial. There are some good reasons for faster approvals, as former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb outlined in a Twitter response this week to a critical New York Times editorial penned on Jan. 11. Scientists are better at evaluating the safety of medicines and trial design has improved, for example. And advances have made it easier to create drugs that target small populations and have dramatic effects, Gottlieb wrote.He makes good points. But the agency arguably hasn’t found the right balance between embracing advances and maintaining a high bar. It certainly has a ways to go on post-approval follow up. America is entirely unable to control the price of new medicines; the approval of marginal drugs has financial consequences. The FDA will soon face one of its most important and controversial decisions yet. Biogen Inc. is seeking approval for the first purportedly disease-modifying Alzheimer’s drug — a medicine that could be used by millions of people and cost billions — without good evidence that it works. The agency often uses unmet need as a justification for shifting standards, and there’s no bigger unmet need than Alzheimer’s. That doesn’t justify an approval based on one failed trial and another that is a questionable success at best.The agency will have to decide whether to review or approve the medicine in the next year or so. This choice is an opportunity to resist public pressure and move back toward demanding firmer proof of efficacy before drugs hit the market. To contact the author of this story: Max Nisen at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Max Nisen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, pharma and health care. He previously wrote about management and corporate strategy for Quartz and Business Insider.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- An online feud between two of the top Democratic presidential candidates took an odd turn Wednesday morning when defenders of Senator Elizabeth Warren helped promote a hashtag ostensibly attacking her. It was an instructive moment in the mechanics of online political discourse as passions around the 2020 election season rise.The situation began Tuesday at the Democratic presidential debate. Some of the most dramatic moments of the night were exchanges between Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders, in the wake of reports that he had told Warren a woman could not be elected president, which she confirmed and he denied.After the debate, a video circulated appearing to show Warren refusing to shake Sanders’ hand, followed by a sharp exchange ending with Sanders turning and walking away abruptly. Warren said to Sanders, “I think you called me a liar on national TV.”On Wednesday morning, the hashtag NeverWarren appeared at the top of Twitter’s trending topics. As of late Wednesday afternoon it had been mentioned more than 80,000 times, according to Ben Nimmo, director of investigations for social media monitoring company Graphika. “It looks like it started off among some long-standing Sanders supporters,” he wrote in an email, “but the most striking thing is that all the most-retweeted posts are of people criticizing the hashtag and the mentality behind it, and/or calling for unity.”The hashtag fit into a long-running narrative about Sanders supporters, who some Democrats criticized in 2016 for being insufficiently supportive of Hillary Clinton in the general election. Even before the debate Tuesday a faction of his fans had signaled they might not vote for any other Democratic nominee. This faction was clearly somewhat responsible for pushing the anti-Warren hashtags Wednesday.The Sanders campaign itself didn’t seem to be involved. His spokeswoman, Briahna Gray, repeatedly Tweeted the hashtag WomenForBernie, but did not use the NeverWarren hashtag. Some pro-Sanders activists discouraged others from using it.A significant amount of the NeverWarren activity actually came from those trying to rebut its message. NBC News reporter Ben Collins used a disinformation identification tool to determine that the three most popular tweets using the hashtag were all denouncing it. Mehdi Hasan, a columnist at the Intercept, tweeted, “Yep, let’s be clear: if you’re tweeting in support of this ludicrous NeverWarren hashtag, you’re not only dumb but you’re also telling the world that you’re ok with kids in cages and bans on Muslims.” That message has received more than 1,700 retweets.Britt Julious, a Chicago Tribune columnist, posted a tweet attacking the hashtag (while still deploying it). She received more than 1,200 retweets.“I thought it was odd that it was trending when I woke up this morning. When I looked through the hashtag, I saw that it was a lot of Warren supporters who seemed upset that it was trending,” Julious wrote in an email, saying she remembered a similar dynamic during the 2016 campaign. “Twitter tends to have that echo effect. Like one person will say something weird and then someone else finds it, replies back trying to shoot it down, and the pileup begins.”There has been evidence of significant manipulation of trending topics for years, including numerous media reports exposing coordinated activity pursuing commercial and political ends.Nor is this the first example in the 2020 Democratic primary. Late last year, a comedy troupe managed to get the hashtag DropOutBloomberg onto the list of trending topics, after members pretended the Michael Bloomberg presidential campaign had fired an intern for tweeting a bizarre (and fictional) Bloomberg campaign staff dance video. Some of the people tweeting the hashtag were clearly in on the joke. Others didn’t seem to be. (Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.)A major reason things like this happen is that Twitter has automated its trending topics. The company’s algorithms look for hashtags that are included in large numbers of tweets, not necessarily the underlying message of the tweets. A Twitter spokeswoman wrote in an email that “people can choose to Tweet with a hashtag they might disagree with, and our Trends product neutrally represents their behavior in the form of a trending topic.“Alex Stamos, a disinformation expert and former Facebook executive, said many Twitter users don’t realize that by quote tweeting a message that they disagree with, they’re only fueling the underlying hashtag. “Some of these hashtags, it’s like a ten-to-one ratio of people criticizing the hashtag do to people pushing it,” Stamos said in a phone interview.Activity on Twitter can inspire news coverage that fails to interpret the context. The Hill and the Daily Wire wrote about the NeverWarren hashtag. CNN’s Chris Cillizza also mentioned it without explaining that much of the engagement came from Warren’s defenders.Stamos cautioned that Twitter isn’t representative of actual public sentiment and that some of the accounts tweeting about Warren have racked up thousands of tweets within a few days of creation, a suspicious sign. “There’s empirical evidence over and over again that Twitter does not reflect political reality in the United States.”Meanwhile, pro-Sanders accounts flooded Warren’s Twitter mentions with images and emojis of snakes--an icon typically lobbed at women accused of being dishonest.In a tweet, Stamos encouraged users to change their behavior to avoid accidentally promoting that which they oppose. He wrote, “1) Don’t use a hashtag to criticize that hashtag. 2) Stop quote-tweeting small-follower accounts as criticism. 3) Don’t believe that the population of ‘people’ on Twitter is reflective of anything, including ‘candidate X’s followers.’”(Updates third paragraph with Warren’s post-debate remarks)To contact the reporter on this story: Eric Newcomer in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Mark Milian at email@example.com, Joshua BrusteinFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Get Jonathan Bernstein’s newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe.It’s not yet clear how much of what Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas told Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and the New York Times in an interview will turn out to be true. Parnas, a Soviet-born businessman under indictment for campaign-finance violations, may have strong incentives to make things up. On the other hand, he’s also turned over a considerable amount of supporting evidence that he worked closely with Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer. And what he alleges — that Trump was fully informed all along of a plot to pressure Ukraine to help Trump’s re-election by throwing dirt at Joe Biden — is generally consistent with the evidence that the House considered when it drew up and voted on impeachment. Still, the legal analyst Susan Hennessey was correct Wednesday when she cautioned on Twitter that everyone should be duly cautious about the Parnas allegations. There’s danger here for those building the case against Trump; false accusations based on the word of a criminal could be damaging. But the danger for Republicans is pretty obvious, too. As someone said Wednesday evening on Twitter, Republican senators don’t even know what they’re covering up for, or at least what they would be covering up for if they follow the White House’s preference to rush through the Senate impeachment trial that starts next week and refuse to hear from relevant witnesses and collect relevant documents. Some of those senators, to be sure, just don’t care. They’ve decided they can live with (both politically and ethically) any revelations that may come down the road — that no one who they care about will hold them accountable for burying important evidence, no matter what it turns out to be. Others may really be so fully inside the conservative information-feedback loop that they sincerely think that Trump is an honest, innocent man being railroaded by partisans; they may not even be aware of the considerable evidence to the contrary.But for anyone else? As I said just 24 hours and a couple rounds of ugly revelations ago: “If new ugly details are still emerging, who’s to say that more won’t turn up later?”Of course, that doesn’t make decision-making easy for Republicans who are worried — that is, Republicans who are comfortable voting to acquit on the current evidence, but are concerned that they’ll be abetting a coverup if they try to cut the trial short and then will be exposed as more evidence comes out anyway. It’s easy to say that they should just demand a thorough trial. But that, too, has real costs for them; it means voting against the leader of their party on procedural issues, and therefore winning the wrath of the White House and some of their strongest supporters. That’s not something that any politician does lightly. And even a thorough trial could end up producing no new significant reasons to vote to remove Trump, either because that evidence doesn’t exist or because the House Democratic impeachment managers can’t produce it.It’s easy to say that the political side of those considerations should be irrelevant and that Republican senators should care only about justice. To that I’ll only say: Good luck getting politicians to ignore politics.A better argument might be that those Republican senators should factor into their considerations the institutional and personal self-interest they have in keeping constraints on the presidency in general and this president in particular. Allow him to treat impeachment as a joke, and both he and all future presidents will be more likely to treat the threat of future impeachments as minor inconveniences. That would be true in any case. It’s especially true if they suspect that Trump really is trying to get away with something, even if they think the proof isn't there or that it doesn’t quite rise to the level of removal from office.1\. David M. Edelstein at the Monkey Cage on the U.S., Iran, China and Russia.2\. Matt Grossmann talks with Justin Grimmer, Will Marble, John Sides, and Lynn Vavreck about bigotry and Trump voters.3. I really like Paul Waldman’s item on Trump and dishwashers. 4\. Charles Gaba on the individual mandate.5\. S.V. Date on Trump and the truth.6\. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Conor Sen looks back on a great decade for the wealthy.7\. And Alyssa Rosenberg on what a woman in the Oval Office would face.Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.To contact the author of this story: Jonathan Bernstein at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. Donald Trump famously declared that trade wars are easy to win.With the phase one trade agreement between the U.S. and China now inked, observers are hesitant to declare a winner. While most welcomed the truce they also cautioned that the toughest negotiations are yet to come.For now, obvious beneficiaries include America’s farmers, refiners, crude and gas exporters who could see Chinese demand soar. U.S. finance firms including investment banks, credit card companies and ratings firms won allowances that will hasten their ambitions to grab a bigger slice of China’s $45 trillion financial industry.On the Chinese side, the truce offers relief for a slowing economy and gives breathing space for the government to meet its growth targets.Potential losers include Brazilian soy bean farmers and Australian suppliers of liquefied natural gas amid stiffer competition for their Chinese order book. The World Trade Organization has been left on the sidelines as globalization gives way to managed trade.Even with the deal, Chinese goods remain levied with stinging U.S tariffs while American firms still face heavily subsidized Chinese competitors.Trump hailed the agreement as “remarkable” and Xi Jinping described it as “good for China, the U.S. and the whole world.”Here’s a sample of some other reaction:Steve Schwarzman, chief executive officer of Blackstone Group Inc:“You have to remember that the U.S. and China, other than the WTO deal in 2001, fundamentally haven’t had a trade agreement since the 1940s so what has been achieved is very, very significant. It provides a base line for a better world economy.”Charles Freeman, Senior Vice President for Asia, U.S. Chamber of Commerce“Let’s celebrate while we can and then we will regroup and move on. The enforcement tools are there and I believe both sides are sincere. This is one of those agreements where both sides could agree to do these things and get them done. With the best of intentions we can bank this and hope it goes forward and we can begin the hard work of negotiating on subsidies.”Chinese state mediaThe deal’s signing received almost 20 minutes of live airtime on Chinese state television in the middle of the night. CCTV published a commentary on its app arguing the deal has two salient features: balance and equality and is a “win-win”.The People’s Daily made a similar argument in an article published via WeChat, a social-media platform.Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the Communist Party-backed Global Times, welcomed the deal in a tweet.Joerg Wuttke, head of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China:“The good news is the downward spiral has been stopped for business, that means more predictability but unfortunately for the likes of EU business and others such as Brazil it means that for the next two years $200 billion will be traded between two nations without competition.”Timothy Stratford, managing partner in Covington & Burling LLP and a former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative“It is a fairly fragile truce. There are going to be a lot of challenges implementing the agreement.”Tom Orlik, Bloomberg Economics“China -- the main loser from the trade war -- is the main beneficiary of the truce. Our China team have raised its forecast for the country’s 2020 GDP growth to 5.9% from 5.7%. The composition of growth will also be a little more balanced, with less need for state investment to offset weak exports and private-sector capex.”Former U.S. Treasury officials had a mixed response on what the deal will mean for the yuan’s stability.Here’s Brad Setser, who worked at Treasury during the Obama administration and is now at the Council on Foreign RelationsAnd here’s Mark Sobel, a former Treasury and International Monetary Fund officialWendy Cutler, a veteran trade negotiator now at the Asia Society Policy Institute“It is a solid deal and the administration should get credit for achieving this deal, that said, it falls way below the expectations they set out at the beginning of this negotiation when they were going to address all the issues that are keeping U.S. companies out of the Chinese market. This negotiation proved a lot tougher than they thought.”Andy Rothman, a former U.S. diplomat in Beijing who’s now an investment strategist at Matthews Asia.“I have two serious concerns about the deal. First, the targets for increases in China’s imports from the U.S. appear to be unrealistically high, which could set up the deal to fail, leading to additional tariffs or even a full-blown trade war. Second, Lighthizer acknowledged today that “This deal will work if China wants it to work.” Over the long term, will the Chinese government want it to work if the Trump administration continues to pursue confrontational policies on almost every issue aside from this deal?”Hubert Tse, partner at Boss & Young law firm in Shanghai, who advises global banks, insurers and financial institutions in China.“The U.S. financial firms are clear winners, it’s a major step-forward for them in China. It’s unimaginable 10 years ago for Wall Street banks and financial institutions to have majority control in China ventures, let alone outright ownership.”Michael Hirson, New York-based practice head for China and northeast Asia at Eurasia Group“If serious frictions do arise – we see this as all but inevitable – will Trump once again raise tariffs on Chinese goods? The president will be somewhat cautious about taking actions that derail phase one, especially ahead of elections. However, his restraint has limits: criticism that he is failing to live up to the enforcement provisions of his deal could sting.”Arthur Kroeber, a founding partner and managing director at research firm Gavekal Dragonomics“Leaving aside the continuing risk to the tech sector, the implausibly high targets for increased U.S. exports to China leave open another source of risk. Under the terms of the deal, if China fails to live up to its commitments, the U.S. is free to reimpose tariffs. If, as is likely, it proves impossible to double U.S. exports to China within the next two years, a renewed trade war could well be a feature of a Trump second term. For the moment, though, it is probably best to enjoy the calm of the storm’s eye for as long as it lasts.”\--With assistance from Kismet Singh, Sharon Cho, Stephen Stapczynski, Miao Han, Jun Luo and Zhang Dingmin.To contact the reporter on this story: Enda Curran in hong kong at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Malcolm Scott at email@example.com, Jeffrey BlackFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Wikipedia is available in Turkey again after a nearly three-year ban.The Turkish government agency in charge of internet technologies lifted the ban after the nation’s top court ruled last month that the restriction violated free speech.A detailed explanation of the court’s ruling was published in the Official Gazette on Wednesday, prompting regulators to restore access to the website.“As access to Wikipedia is still actively being restored across Turkey, some users in Turkey may experience restored access sooner or later than others,'’ the website said in a statementThe site was blocked in April 2017 after Wikipedia refused to remove entries that accused the government of cooperating with terrorist organizations.The Turkish government has blocked access to other popular websites such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook in the past, for allegedly promoting terrorist propaganda or insults against Turkish political figures.The limits on free speech have been denounced by opposition parties as well as the European Union and human rights groups.To contact the reporter on this story: Asli Kandemir in Istanbul at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Stefania Bianchi at email@example.com, ;Onur Ant at firstname.lastname@example.org, Amy TeibelFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Boris Johnson promises a quick deal with US president Donald Trump. will start only next month when Britain leaves the Union. Britain will soon have deals with nations from every corner of the globe.
A crucial figure in the Ukraine scandal that sparked the impeachment of Donald Trump said the US president “knew exactly what was going on” in relation to efforts by Rudy Giuliani to pressure Kyiv to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. Lev Parnas was central to the effort by Mr Giuliani, Mr Trump’s personal lawyer, to pressure President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Mr Biden, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination.