Economic Crisis Landed Spain In Deep Political And Economical Trouble

Economic Crisis in Spain

Since 2008 to 2014, Spain has been suffering from financial crisis, and now it has become a painful experience for the people in Spain. People are without jobs and inflation is getting higher. Spanish government has been completely failed in recovering from this downfall. Things have been changing so fast in Spain, People are protesting government for all this, and they have been on road constantly in day and in night; these things making the atmosphere more uncomfortable in Spain. A great number of people have left the country seeking for jobs outside in neighbor countries.

These days, Spanish companies are having to pay three times more to borrow than their peers in Germany. Mainly stifling an economic recovery allows providing jobs for only one of the four people in the Spain seeking for job.


According to Bank of America, Merrill Lynch’s calculations based on European Central Bank(ECB) data, Spanish banks charged 4.2 percent from companies for loans for more than a year till May, just short a euro-era record of 4.39 percent in April, adjusting for anticipated inflation, whereas German lenders demanded only for 1.51 percent.

High real borrowing costs high risk hampering the investment that is required to boost an economy which is recovering from a six year failure. Tackling the budget deficit and create chances for new jobs. Since Mario Draghi has taken over at the ECB, the stock of loans to non-financial companies and households (in Spain) is going down two times faster than in 2011.

Notably, Mario Draghi’s, president of the ECB, policy statement was the major debt crisis on 26 July 2012. He narrated policy, “the ECB is intended and ready to do everything what is god and what it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough.” The subsequent program that was announced on September 6, 2012 for unlimited purchasing of short-term sovereign debt, i.e. OMT(Outright Monetary Transactions), put the ECB’s balance sheet behind the pledge.

Stefano Loreti who is a partner at Hayfin Capital Management LLP, which manages around 5 billion euros ($6.8 billion) of assists, including Spanish loans, stated, “Lenders in the periphery are still scared of a significant credit risk, so it would be hurry if I say that we have thrown off the credit crisis behind.”

Cesar Fernandez who is a Madrid-based fund manager at Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management, which oversees about 934 billion euros of assets, said in an interview, “As long as real rates in Spain remain high on a relative basis, companies based in the country have to gain competitiveness via other tools such as labor costs.”

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy himself is relying on the recovery to tackle a government debt burden approaching 100 percent of gross domestic product and taking down the highest unemployment rates in the European Union like Greece. Spain’s current economy is still about 7% less than it was high in 2008 and consumer prices are still stagnant.
Related Posts…

Mysterious Existence Of A Social Networking Company That Stocked Up 25000% In A Few Days!

Business Summary:

CYNK Technology was founded as a web based social network that connects people and organizations by allowing individuals to post their profiles and linking the same to other friends and organizations (kind of Facebook-like connecting feature). It was formerly known as Introbuzz Inc. and changed its name to CYNK Technology Corp. in 2008.

On, in About Us section, they say “Thru our marketplace you may both buy and sell the ability to socially connect to individuals such as celebrities, business owners, and talented IT professionals.”

This stock exploded 25000% in merely 16 days of trading (from $0.10 at June 17 to $14.71 as of Wednesday’s close).

One of the most successful companies and stocks of the last generation, Apple, has stocked 18000% since it went public in 1980. But CYNK has raised many eyebrows on its existence and stocking up.

It is still not clear how the company managed to explode with such a huge figure when it has no assets, no revenue but only loss.

Owing to trading over-the-counter trading on an unregulated exchange, it’s not required to follow same financial reporting rules as other companies trading on NSE or Nasdaq.

OTC Cynk Technology

The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has thus suspended its shares on Friday, July 11, 2014, because of lack of accurate and adequate information in the marketplace and potentially manipulative transactions in the stock of CYNK.

Moreover FINRA did a similar move of its suspension after CYNK’s share shooted up from six cents in early June to a closing price of $13.90 on Thursday. Surprisingly without having revenue!

Form 15 is the last SEC filing for the company that is used by the companies to suspend their duty to file financial reports with SEC. CYNK told SEC on March 31 that it’d be unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K. Thus, CYNK’s financials can’t be pictured.

On, the company’s address and contact number is mentioned. It mentions the address in Belize but the same site says that CYNK is incorporated in Nevada and classify it as a data processing and preparation firm.

The data on Yahoo Finance also mentions that, for any of the fiscal years ended on December 31 2011, 2012, 2013 the company has reported no revenue. Refer to the below screenshot taken from Yahoo finance, that shows that there was no revenue but only losses that summed $1.5 million for 2013.

CYNK’s quarterly results for the quarter ended September 30, 2013 is mentioned in its last financial report with the SEC which is from November 2013. Here again, no revenue but huge loss can be found.

In addition to this astonishing financial data, you will be surprised to know that it has only one employee. Marlon Luis Sanchez is listed as its President, CEO, CFO, Director, Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Accounting Officer. Sanchez owns 201 million shares of the company according to Bloomberg’s data.

The company in a filing with SEC said that it doesn’t have any employment contract with its key employee, the sole shareholder who is the Chief Executive and Chief Technical Officer.

According to an SEC filing, there were 291.45 million shares outstanding as of November 7, 2013.

Many people reported that their calls to phone numbers, as listed, went unanswered. The existence and its activities are still not known. It is still questionable who is buying its stock and not a lot of outstanding shares are even being traded.…

5 Years Ago Bernie Madoff Was Sentenced To 150 Years In Prison – Here’s How His Scheme Worked

Five years ago on a sunday, Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison for running the biggest fraudulent scheme in U.S. history. Even now, only a few of his victims have since regained all of their losses.bernie-madoff-7

A well-respected financier, Madoff convinced thousands of investors to hand over their savings, falsely promising consistent profits in return. He was caught in December 2008 and charged with 11 counts of fraud, money laundering, perjury, and theft.

Here’s how Madoff conned his investors out of $65 billion and went undetected for decades:
charles ponzi

Ponzi scheme

Madoff used a so-called Ponzi scheme, which lures investors in by guaranteeing unusually high returns. The name originated with Charles Ponzi, who promised 50% returns on investments in only 90 days.

Ponzi schemes are run by a central operator, who uses the money from new, incoming investors to pay off the promised returns to older ones. This makes the operation seem profitable and legitimate, even though no actual profit is being made. Meanwhile, the person behind the scheme pockets the extra money or uses it to expand the operation.

To avoid having too many investors reclaim their “profits,” Ponzi schemes encourage them to stay in the game and earn even more money. The “investing strategies” used are vague and/or secretive, which schemers claim is to protect their business. Then all they need to do is tell investors how much they are making periodically, without actually providing any real returns.

Ponzi schemes aren’t usually very sustainable. The setup eventually falls apart after: (1) The operator takes the remaining investment money and runs. (2) New investors become harder to find, meaning the flow of cash dies out. (3) Too many current investors begin to pull out and request their returns.

In Madoff’s case, things began to deteriorate after clients requested a total of $7 billion back in returns. Unfortunately for Madoff, he only had $200 million to $300 million left to give.

Another reason Madoff managed to fly under the radar for so long (despite multiple reports to the SEC about suspicions of a Ponzi scheme), is because Madoff was a well-versed and active member of the financial industry. He started his own market maker firm in 1960 and helped launch the Nasdaq stock market. He sat on the board of National Association of Securities Dealers and advised the Securities and Exchange Commission on trading securities. It was easy to believe this 70-year-old industry veteran knew exactly what he was doing.

Madoff really only made off with $20 billion, even though on paper he cheated clients out of $65 billion, according to CNNMoney. That’s hardly any consolation for his thousands of investors, the full list of whom can be found with WSJ here.

The 150-year sentence, more symbolic than literal, was followed by other convictions related to Madoff’s scheme. In March this year, five of Madoff’s employees were found guilty for their part in the Ponzi scheme. Most recently, Madoff’s accountant and lawyer is also facing up to 30 years in prison for his role.

There are several other notable Ponzi schemes in history, including Allen Stanford’s which stole $8 billion and Tom Petters’ that cheated investors out of $3.7 billion. But as far as scale goes, Madoff wins by a landslide.…

10 Words That Conservatives Hope Will Finally Destroy Obamacare

The 10 words that we are referring to are “…through an Exchange established by the State under the Section 1311” of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Supreme Court has weakened Obamacare’s contraception mandate which was only a very minor setback for the laws.

However alive in the courts are potentially a more damaging lawsuit, one that rivals 2012’s challenge to the law’s individual mandate in terms of its potential effect on this Affordable Act.

This case aims at federal insurance subsidies which is a key mechanism of the President Barack Obama’s signature law that have helped millions of lower-income Americans sign up for private insurance plans through the federal exchange. The challenge is aimed at blocking subsidies in states where insurance exchanges are handled by federal government.

Any day, the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to hand down the ruling in Halbig v. Burwell that will set the chain of events in motion which could lead to the Supreme Court again.

In this case, the plaintiffs argue the way the law was written that does not allow for subsidies to be provided by the federal government; point to the statute that says subsidies should be issued to plans that are purchased through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311 of the Obamacare (Affordable Care Act). Here, the Section 1311 establishes the state-run exchanges but plaintiffs complain that the law doesn’t permit subsidies in federal exchanges as per the Section 1321 of the law.

Obamacare news

The challenge isn’t viewed as a completely serious one as of now because of lack of success of the subsidies argument in federal court so far where one could make the stakes extraordinarily high.

One of the most basic functions of the law is handing out subsidies to lower-income people; helps provide otherwise unaffordable health insurance. It could torpedo the law in case the federal subsidies are ruled illegal, without mentioning the wreak havoc on the subsidies already dished out.

A law professor at Washington and Lee University, Timothy Jost says that if the courts took the argument seriously then it will seriously damage the implementation of the Affordable Care Act; it can destroy the individual insurance market in 2/3rd of the states.…