PDA

View Full Version : Soros Rewarded by US Loans?


SF-TX
09-02-2009, 19:17
Follow the money.

Obama's Oil Man
By: Tait Trussell
Wednesday, September 02, 2009

The anti-drilling White House gives a generous loan to a Soros-affiliated oil company.
President Obama is adept at rewarding those who put him into office. And hard-left financier George Soros is emerging as a leader of the patronage pack.

A payback to Soros was due. As the chief moneyman behind left-wing political action committees like MoveOn.org, Soros, an early supporter of Obama, played an instrumental role in drumming up voter mobilization and political advertising on the novice candidate’s behalf. In no small part, Obama’s triumph in the Democratic primary over better-known rivals was a testament to Soros’s deep pockets and his political commitment.

Now it’s time for Soros to collect on his investment. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Obama administration has committed up to $10 billion to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance oil exploration off of Brazil’s coast.

Yet Obama historically has opposed expanded oil drilling. This was not only a strategic decision, aimed at pleasing the environmental Left, but also a personal choice, since Obama sincerely believes that drilling is deeply destructive to the natural environment. Thus, as a Senator, Obama voted against permitting the U.S. to drill for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the grounds that it would be a crime to despoil such “beautiful real estate.” Similarly, during last year’s presidential campaign, he warned of the “environmental consequences” of oil drilling, and insisted that “we cannot drill our way out of the [energy] problem.”

But apparently George Soros can. The president has elected to help another nation with the same type of drilling that he opposes so vehemently for this country, and the reason seems to be Soros’s $811-millon investment in Petrobras. The company just happens to be the largest holding in Soros’s investment fund. Soros’s connection to the company is no secret; he has been investing in Petrobras since 2007. A profitable venture, Petrobras has estimated recoverable reserves for the so-called Tupi oil field of between 5 and 8 billion barrels. With his billion-dollar loan, Obama has taken patronage politics to striking new level.

The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the US. The administration is prepared to lend up to $10 billion to a foreign company to drill off its coast, when it could bring in $1.7 trillion in government revenue, as well as create thousands of new jobs, by allowing drilling off the coast of the United States.

This is no empty speculation. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security. Federal data from the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of Interior says the U.S. has enough oil and natural gas to fuel more than 65 million cars for 60 years, and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. In fact, the government estimates that there are 30 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil on federal lands currently closed to development. But rather than investing in the country’s energy future, the administration seems to be offering an expensive kickback to a political ally in a time of economic recession and high unemployment.

The oil deal stinks for other reasons, as well. For instance, there is the rank hypocrisy of Soros – an enthusiastic proponent of global warming theory and environmental liberalism – investing in the fossil fuels whose use he otherwise condemns – and doing so in part with the aid of taxpayer funds. For years, Soros has urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would punish companies that contribute to global warming. But that didn’t prevent him from plowing money into Petrobras.

The cozy Soros-Obama alliance goes beyond favorable oil deals. It’s also playing a role in the health care debate. Huge demonstrations dedicated to enacting Obama’s universal health care are largely a Soros-financed operation. When tens of thousands of people rallied in the nation’s capital in support of Obama’s health care plan, the demonstrations were organized by Health Care for America Now! (HCAN), a new national grassroots movement of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states encompassing 30 million people dedicated to winning health reform now.

The “grassroots” organization appears to be more like a gang of interconnected ultra-liberal pressure groups. Among the 21 members of its steering committee are such Soros-funded groups as ACORN, MoveOn.org, and the Center for American Progress (CAP), headed by Clinton former chief of staff John Podesta, who also has been a key adviser to Obama. Soros’s charity, the Open Society Institute, in 2007 gave CAP $1.75 million and approved added grants of $1.25 million.

Obama’s collusion with Soros and his agenda-driven squadrons is an unfortunate turn from an administration that entered office promising unprecedented transparency in the White House. Soros certainly did his share for Obama. Now, with his backing for a billion-dollar oil loan to a Brazilian company, the president has proven more generous to Soros than to the American voters who put him in office.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36166

SF-TX
09-02-2009, 19:20
The Wall Street Journal editorial:

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling
Too bad it's not in U.S. waters.

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.

The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.

This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html#

nmap
02-09-2010, 16:17
I regret to say that I missed this important article. It's well worth the time to read and consider.

Here's a Wall Street Journal article on the subject:

LINK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html)

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.

The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.

This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.

Paslode
02-09-2010, 16:30
Let's see we have a massive trade deficit, a microscopic manufacturing sector, an economy in the S-Can, millions unemployed, a declining tax base.....sounds like the fiscally responsible thing to do to get us back on our feet.

nmap
02-09-2010, 16:42
There is, however, a nasty twist to this. Since the content is behind a subscription pay-wall, I have attached a PDF so that those who wish to see the source may do so.

From Dow Theory Letters, 02-09-2010

I received the piece below from my friend, famed analyst, Louise Yamada -- Russell Comment -- What the devil is going on with this country and with Obama!?? Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following:

"Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher...the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil".

We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting.

Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign.

If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks!

Richard
02-09-2010, 17:13
:confused:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/

Richard

jatx
02-09-2010, 17:34
You guys need to get your facts right and not believe everything that Glenn Beck says...:rolleyes:

Pete
02-09-2010, 17:44
From Richard's story-

"....The message claims that George Soros would "benefit most" from the loan, but that is also a baseless accusation. Soros is a favorite whipping boy of conservatives because of his early financial help to the liberal group MoveOn.org. And he is indeed a major investor in Petrobras, through his New York-based hedge-fund firm, Soros Fund Management LLC. But the hedge fund recently sold 22 million shares of common stock in the company (which carry voting rights) while buying 5.8 million shares of preferred stock (which is non-voting.) As reported by Bloomberg News, Soros reduced his stake in the company before any of the Ex-Im Bank’s promised loan has been dispensed...."

You guys should listen to Beck more. Richard, if you story was not trying to slant their "side" of this story they would have mentioned just how many shares Soros had before he sold the 22 million. 22 million out of 24 million would be alot. 22 million out of a couple of 100 million? Not so much.

So who slants with more truth? Well I don't see any new oil rigs going up off the coast of NC.

Dad
02-09-2010, 17:53
The fact is still the loan was approved by Bush appointees, Obama had nothing to do with it. So it is not what Beck says it was. So, that only leaves me to believe that George W Bush was secretly in cahoots with the ultra liberal George Soros, probably introduced by Cheney through his relationship with Halliburton which hopes to get contracts out of it. Yep, another right wing conspiracy.:D

Sigaba
02-09-2010, 18:01
While Soros merits scrutiny, I'm more disturbed by the fact that the current president is, once again, crawfishing on an issue. As a senator and as a candidate, he blasted Bush the Younger and Senator McCain on the issue of off shore drilling (source is here (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/#cnnSTCText)).

Now, he wants to consider the option.

I do not care for the fact that the current president acts like we don't know how to use the search button.

nmap
02-09-2010, 18:18
Hmm...PBR is on the NYSE, presently around $39.54 per common share.

Per their website financial statements for the year 2008 (the most current available) LINK (http://www2.petrobras.com.br/ri/ing/ConhecaPetrobras/RelatorioAnual/pdf/AFDC2008_ING.pdf) they made 32,998 R$, with a conversion rate of about 0.54 R$ to USD. So, their net consolidated profit was on the order of USD $17 billion.

So, then - whoever the involved parties might be - why are we involved in helping them acquire financing?

Dad
02-09-2010, 18:42
Hmm...PBR is on the NYSE, presently around $39.54 per common share.

Per their website financial statements for the year 2008 (the most current available) LINK (http://www2.petrobras.com.br/ri/ing/ConhecaPetrobras/RelatorioAnual/pdf/AFDC2008_ING.pdf) they made 32,998 R$, with a conversion rate of about 0.54 R$ to USD. So, their net consolidated profit was on the order of USD $17 billion.

So, then - whoever the involved parties might be - why are we involved in helping them acquire financing?

Nmap, that is the real question! What is the purpose of the EX-Imp Bank? who stands to benefit? Whole lotta companies besides PBR stand to make money off this oil field. Maybe the loan guarantees American companies will participate in the field, thus creating/protecting American jobs. I think it is much more likely someone OTHER than the current president pushed this through as a political favor. The current presidents mistake is not stopping it (if he can). Maybe he is gaining some political capital by not stopping it with some people on the more conservative side of the aisle. Maybe he is letting it go through on the condition Halliburton will shut Cheney up. He has been quiet lately. Whole lot of questions and Beck has made absolutely no effort to answer them.

nmap
02-09-2010, 20:02
Dad, there are days I wonder if politicians of every type are not simply different sides of the same coin. I also wonder whether their ears are best attuned to the sounds of money.

There are a lot of questions, and not just about this. I wonder if the public really wants the whole truth. Perhaps not.

jatx
02-09-2010, 20:10
What is the purpose of the EX-Imp Bank? who stands to benefit?

Everyone please take a deep breath. If you do not know what the ExIm Bank is, do some reading before putting on the tinfoil hats. ExIm, OPIC, etc. assist US businesses with interests overseas in many important ways and are not staffed by political hacks from either side.

Loans, or more likely loan guarantees, by the US government to enable the purchase of US MANUFACTURED GOODS are properly seen as an export stimulus. It has been the business of the US government for many decades to get involved in similar situations to sweeten the deal and tilt things in favor of US companies.

Similarly, the Soros claims are unfounded. Petrobas may have a partial float, but it is still 55% state owned. Therefore it is impossible that Soros as an investor stands to gain more than anyone else. This is plainly true before considering the size of his current shareholdings.

Paslode
02-09-2010, 20:33
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126020495383780245.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126020495383780245.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)

Q: Is taxpayer money at risk? Could Washington end up bailing out Ex-Im Bank the way it bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

A: Ex-Im Bank's loans and guarantees are backed by the U.S. Treasury, so the ultimate recourse is to taxpayer money. Ex-Im protects itself by vetting deals in detail and demanding significant amounts of collateral. The transportation division, for example, uses all of an airline's planes as security for a loan, not just the specific planes being financed in a particular deal.

Ex-Im also guarantees a wide range of projects in many countries, so its exposure to any one sector -- other than Boeing jetliners – is fairly limited.

The mortgage-guarantee institutions, like Ex-Im Bank, essentially sold federal guarantees. [/COLOR]But the mortgage-backers were private, listed companies aiming to turn a profit. Many analysts say this made them more willing to take risks.

"We are truly different," says Ex-Im Senior Vice President for Export Finance John McAdams

Based on that, it would appear Ex-Im is a Corporate version of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. While Taxpayer dollars may not be funding the loan, it appears the taxpayers are liable if the loan goes into default.

jatx
02-09-2010, 20:58
Based on that, it would appear Ex-Im is a Corporate version of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. While Taxpayer dollars may not be funding the loan, it appears the taxpayers are liable if the loan goes into default.

Major exports do not happen by themselves, my friend. It's the way of the world and every other industrialized nation plays the game, as well.

Paslode
02-09-2010, 21:16
Major exports do not happen by themselves, my friend. It's the way of the world and every other industrialized nation plays the game, as well.


Agreed.

My point was directed to the FactCheck information:

The Ex-Im Bank also would like it known that no loan has yet been made, and that the "preliminary commitment" could eventually result in either a direct loan or a loan guarantee. Either way, the Ex-Im Bank states, "no taxpayer dollars are involved." The bank is self-sustaining.

But according to WSJ the Ex-Im Bank's loans and guarantees are backed by the U.S. Treasury, and the ultimate recourse is to taxpayer money how can it be that 'no taxpayer dollars are involved'?

jatx
02-09-2010, 21:23
They do due diligence on their loans and guarantees just like every other lender, with one exception: what do you think the default rate is on trade-related loans in which the USG is involved, especially when the buyer of the goods being financed is state-owned? ;)

Paslode
02-09-2010, 21:48
They do due diligence on their loans and guarantees just like every other lender, with one exception: what do you think the default rate is on trade-related loans in which the USG is involved, especially when the buyer of the goods being financed is state-owned? ;)

Probably pretty good at present, but that could always change and the taxpayer could get thumped again.

Razor
02-10-2010, 09:25
Similarly, the Soros claims are unfounded. Petrobas may have a partial float, but it is still 55% state owned. Therefore it is impossible that Soros as an investor stands to gain more than anyone else. This is plainly true before considering the size of his current shareholdings.

Given his purchase of almost $6M in preferred stock, which reportedly will pay a 10% larger per share dividend than common stock and carries all the other potential benefits of preferred stock, I'd say if the fields do well he stands to gain a handsome sum. Further, selling common stock (that carries voting rights) in a 55% state owned company simply makes sense from a profitability standpoint--why not give up meaningless voting rights in exchange for a much better ROI?

Regardless of the Ex-Im Bank's 'political' makeup, as Sigaba pointed out the President's inaction on this move piques my interest.