Investors’ love for bonds continued in July, with intermediate-term bonds seeing an inflow of $15 billion for the month — the largest inflow of any Morningstar category. Intermediate-term bonds, which have gained 4.74% the past 12 months, have led Morningstar’s monthly report for the past five months. At the same time, investors — mainly with advisers at their sides — yanked $27.3 billion from U.S. stock funds and $5.3 billion from international stock funds. For the most part, investors seem to be driven by fear, not greed, said Todd Rosenbluth, director of ETF and mutual fund research at S&P Global Market Intelligence. “There’s a nervousness among investors, given that we’re in the 8th year of a bull market,” Mr. Rosenbluth said. Rotating into investment-grade corporates isn’t exactly a daring move. “Verizon, ATT, General Electric are all doing fine.” Investors also seem to be less convinced that passively managed fixed income funds are better than actively managed ones, Mr. Rosenbluth said, despite the fact that any supporting data for active management is “mixed at best.” Investors put $13.5 billion into actively managed bond funds, vs. $20.5 billion for passively managed once. In contrast, investors pulled $32.9 billion from actively managed stock funds and added $33.8 billion to actively managed stock funds. The big worry is whether investors are seeking riskier types of bonds in their search for yield. Unfortunately, the answer seems to be “yes.” High-yield bonds, which have returned an average 13.59% this year, saw a $3.2 billion inflow in July. Emerging-markets bond funds saw a $2.9 billion inflow. Those funds have gained 12.88% this year.  Rising interest rates could short-circuit any bond rally, although that doesn’t seem to be a danger in Europe, where the economy is still stagnant. But both high-yield funds and emerging-markets funds could take significant hits if the U.S. or world economy falls further.

Oil charges into bull market territory on hopes of output freeze Brent crude charged into bull market territory, smashing $50 a-barrel, as the world’s biggest oil producers prepared to discuss a possible output freeze at next month’s Opec meeting in an attempt to curb the global supply glut.Since hitting a low of $41.69 on August 3, oil has rallied almost 22pc, touching an intraday high of $50.87 yesterday - its highest level since July 4 when it touched $51.29. The latest leg up in the black stuff is pinned on the hopes that Opec’s meeting in Algeria on September 26 to 28, which takes place on the sidelines of the International Energy Forum, will revive talks on freezing production levels to help bolster prices. It was also lifted by the weak dollar which makes commodities cheaper for other currency holders. However, the oil price bounce comes less than three weeks after it fell into bear market territory, having fallen by more than 20pc from June 8 to July 29 amid oversupply concerns and pressures about slowing economic growth. Joshua Mahony, of IG, cautioned: “Given that this market turned higher almost instantaneously after confirming a bear market earlier in the month, perhaps this definition should be something to worry about rather than drive enthusiasm.”

The return of the bulls prompted oil majors to make gains, BP rose 2.8p at 435.6p, Tullow Oil climbed 5.5p to 239.6p and Amec Foster Wheeler advanced 13.5p to 540.5p.

IMF surveillance, intended to detect economic vulnerabilities and imbalances, was inadequate. While staff sometimes pointed to booming credit, gaping current-account deficits or stagnant productivity, they downplayed the implications. This reflected a tendency, conscious or not, to think that Europe was different. Its advanced economies did not display the same vulnerabilities as emerging markets. Strong institutions such as the European commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) had superior management skills. Monetary union, for some less-than-fully articulated reason, changed the rules of the game. Such self-serving claims were in the interest of European officials, but why was the IMF prepared to accept them? One answer is that European governments are large shareholders in the Fund. Another is that the IMF is a predominantly European institution, with a European managing director, a heavily European staff and a European culture.  Still on familiar ground, the report goes on to criticise the IMF for acquiescing to European resistance to debt restructuring by Greece in 2010; and for setting ambitious targets for fiscal consolidation – necessary if debt restructuring was to be avoided – but underestimating austerity’s damaging economic effects.  More interestingly, the report then asks how the IMF should coordinate its operations with regional bodies such as the European commission and the ECB, the other members of the so-called troika of Greece’s official creditors. The report rejects claims that the IMF was effectively a junior member of the troika, insisting that all decisions were made by consensus.

Perpetually weak growth has bedevilled attempts to tackle Greece’s chronic debt problem. Back in May 2010, when the European commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund organised the first bailout, it was assumed that a rapid recovery and tight budget controls would see Greek national debt as a share of gross domestic product fall steadily. These forecasts proved to be wildly optimistic. As Greece sank deeper and deeper into recession, the debt ratio carried on rising, and now stands at about 180% of GDP.  Unfortunately, lessons have not been learned. The 2015 bailout package assumes that Greece will run a budget surplus, once debt interest payments are excluded, of 3.5% of GDP year in and year out. The IMF, which now has a more realistic assessment of Greece than the commission or the ECB, says few countries have managed to sustain budget surpluses of this size, and that Greece could do so only by further cutting wages and pensions. The IMF also thinks “it is no longer tenable” to imagine that Greece can move from having one of the eurozone’s weakest productivity growth rates to the highest. The IMF says that without debt relief, Greece’s debt could hit 250% of GDP by the middle of the century. Germany would prefer those discussions to be delayed until after its election in autumn next year. But the chances are that Greece will be back in the headlines before then.

Italy's economy failed to grow between April and June as the country struggled with its creaking banking sector. GDP growth shrank to 0% in the second quarter compared to 0.3% in the first quarter.Germany's economy also slowed in the second quarter, albeit less markedly than had been expected.  Europe's largest economy expanded by 0.4%, down from 0.7% in the first quarter, but above forecasts of 0.2%. Overall, a second estimate of GDP across the eurozone confirmed that growth halved to 0.3% from 0.6% in the first three months of the year.GDP also fell across the 28-nation European Union to 0.4% from 0.5% between the first and second quarters.  In Italy, analysts had expected GDP to grow by between 0.1% and 0.3%.Italian Prime Minister Mario Renzi, is battling to reduce the bad debt in its banking sector, which is currently buried under €360bn worth of bad loans. Monte dei Paschi di Siena, Italy's third largest bank and the world's oldest lender, is saddled with €46.9bn of bad debt.  Alberto Bagnai, economic policy professor at the University of Chieti-Pescara, said: "There is no way to solve the banking problem without economic growth. If the whole nation doesn't start earning more it can't pay back its debts - public or private." The government expects the country to grow by 1.2% this year. However, the International Monetary Fund recently reduced its economic growth from 1.1% to 1%.The new data means that growth in the Eurozone's three biggest economies - Germany, France and Italy - has either slowed or completely stalled between the first and second quarters. France recorded no growth between April and June after GDP rose by 0.7% in the first quarter, boosted by business from the Euro 2016 football tournament.

Six investors, including American funds Apollo Global Management and KKR, are interested in the platform that will manage non-performing loans of approximately 9 billion Euros of the portfolio of "Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena" SpA, sources quoted by Reuters claim. They also state that "Monte dei Paschi" has informed the potential bidders that the deal concerning the platform will go ahead, even though with slightly different terms than initially. The oldest bank in Italy is selling its 27.7 billion Euros non-performing loan portfolio as part of a complex scheme for the securitization of loan, as part of its complex rescue plan. "Monte dei Paschi" is working together with Italian investment bank "Mediobanca" on creating a platform that would manage the NPL portfolio and to bring in a partner that would improve the debt collection activity. "Monte dei Paschi" has announced on Friday that the platform would manage 9 billion Euros in NPLs, meaning one third of the loans sold as part of the aforementioned scheme.  According to sources, the bidders for the "Monte dei Paschi" platform are Cerved Credit Management, KKR in tandem with Varde Partners, Apollo Global Management, Cerberus, Prelios - together with Christofferson Robb & Company - and Lone Star. The "Monte dei Paschi" officials and those of the other parties mentioned made no statements about the report by Reuters.

 Ever since the announcement of the new stress test, in February 2016, the EBA has stated that "passing requirements are not included, because the objective of the test is to use it as a supervision instrument, and the results will be discussed individually with the participating banks, where actions for improving the situation will also be proposed".  The methodology for assessing the solvency as part of the stress test is found on the official website of the EBA, www.eba.europa.eu and should at least engender a minimum of faith among investors when it comes to the banks' abilities to deal with non-performing loans and capitalization deficit. Unfortunately, a general state of "fatigue" seems to have taken place in the Eurozone, amid the waiting in vain for the results promised by the central banks and governments. According to Reuters, amid the disputes between the European and Italian authorities, concerning the initiation of a new bail-out program for Italian banks, but without the prior application of the bail-in procedure, Mario Draghi, the president of the ECB, has expressed his support for the governmental aid offered to Italian banks, because "such a program will allow them to sell some of their non-performing loans, which reduce their lending ability". But is such a "release" of Italian banks' lending capability rational and prudent, when the current volume of non-performing loans shows that they are incapable of correctly evaluating risks?  In the recent meeting of finance ministers of the G20 countries, Pier Carlo Padoan, Italy's finance minister said that "we are going in the right direction and there are no risks when it comes to systemic stability", according to an article in Financial Times. Padoan also rejected the possibility of a bail-in, as he said that such a measure would not be necessary.

When oil analysts look at the markets to try to get a sense of where oil prices are heading, one of the great unknowns, at least in the U.S. shale industry, is the large volume of drilled but uncompleted wells (DUCs). As oil prices began collapsing two years ago, shale drillers increasingly decided to defer the completion of their drilled wells, hoping to wait out the downturn and bring production online at a later point when prices rebounded.  But with oil prices suffering from a prolonged downturn, the DUCS began to mount, leaving a huge backlog of potential production that was yet to come online. From the point of view of the nascent and fragile oil price recovery (or more accurately, several cycles of recovery in the past year or so), the DUCs threatened to kill off the price rally, as they would bring a flood of new production online right when prices rose high enough.  However, it appears that the “fracklog” is already getting worked through. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, the number of DUCs stopped rising in the first quarter of this year.

EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker appointed former French commissioner for financial services as chief negotiator in charge of negotiations with the UK. Michel Barnier, a 65-year old former French minister and vice-president in the previous Commission between 2010-14, was in charge of the internal market and services.  He sought the job of EU Commission president in 2014, but the task was later given to Juncker, his rival in the conservative European People's Party.   Barnier said in a tweet that he was “honoured to be entrusted” with the post.  He added: "Rendez-vous for beginning of demanding task on 1 October." His official title will be "chief negotiator in charge of leading the Commission Taskforce for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom" under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The UK has not yet triggered the exit procedure under Article 50, and British prime minister Theresa May suggested it is unlikely the UK will launch the process before the end of the year. Michel Barnier will report directly to Juncker and will have a team of experts at his disposal.  He will be regularly invited to the the meeting of the commissioners to brief the college on the negotiations. Juncker said he wanted "an experienced politician for this difficult job", adding: "Michel is a skilled negotiator with rich experience in major policy areas." Most of the negotiations are nevertheless expected to be done by the council, representing member states.  They will have to navigate through the difficult two-year negotiations and find a balance between the UK's access to the single market in exchange for some level of freedom of movement from and within the bloc.  Barnier's France has been urging for a tough exit deal for Britain, as French president Francois Hollande faces challenge ahead of next year's presidential elections from far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who wants France to hold a referendum on its membership.

After the events in Nice, some citizens justifiably complained about the failure of the security measures, in an event celebrating the National Day of France. Furthermore, some of them have announced that they were going to ask the courts to decide who and to what extent was guilty for these criminal "lapses" in the procedures and measures for ensuring people's safety in a public event, which was known and prepared months in advance!!! What was the reaction of the "state"? More specifically, of some of those wallowing in the luxury of the privileges offered by the high official institutions, starting with impotent Hollande himself? They got offended!!! How can that be, some lowly citizens daring to accuse Its Majesty, the State, of failing to honor its contractual obligations???!!! And to add insult to injury, the Internal Affairs minister has announced the subjects of the state of Freedom, Equality and Fraternity that from now on, they can expect events like the one in Nice all the time, events which the state won't be able to prevent in the future, just like it wasn't able to deal with them in the past, as a result of universal fatality!!! The same chilling wind has started blowing in Germany, as, in less than two weeks, there have been three events involving lethal violence in public. So what is the State doing? Sleeping on the job? Who cares about all the paperwork, plans, resolutions and stamps put on who knows what papers, when people are getting killed by bullets, axes or machetes, or by devastating explosions? It is clear that somebody, and not just some persons, but institutions of the state, if not the State itself, is seriously, criminally liable to its citizens!!! It seems the time has come for citizens to hold the state to account. To note the failure to meet the contractual obligations and to plan the restructuring of the institutions that we collectively call the State from the ground up.

President Francois Hollande has been trying throughout his term to reduce unemployment, long around 10 percent.  Left-wing rebels, who have already failed twice by just two votes in their bid to win a censorship motion against the bill, said they would make a last-ditch attempt to muster 60 signatures from MPs to seize France's Constitutional Council for "non respect of parliamentary debate" after the prime minister rushed through the law without a vote for the third time.  Despite the final vote, leftist unions insisted the fight to see the law scrapped - which has seen dozens of sometimes violent mass protests in recent months and blockades of fuel depots - will continue after a "summer pause". "The anger is still there. The government hasn't seen the end of this," said Philippe Martinez, whose CGT union has spearheaded militant opposition to the law. FO, another leftist union, said that the final debate on the law should have been postponed "for democratic reasons" given the "context linked to terror attacks and the debate going on in parliament on prolonging the state of emergency". The small and medium-sized businesses union, CGPME has dismissed the law, saying it "won't help in any way to create jobs". The larger employers' union Medef has called the reform "failed" as it watered down several key points but said it brings progresses in some areas. In a scathing editorial, Le Monde, the daily newspaper of reference, said the government had "pulled off the feat of turning this 'great social reform' into a fiasco" due to a "calamitous method" that has split the Left, the labour and employers' unions.

Speaking in Brussels on Monday, French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said: "It would be unbelievable if the death penalty was re-established in Turkey". He said Turkish reformists should ask themselves if they wanted progress to be "abruptly stopped" and that the EU would make "no concessions on values". German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: “Reintroduction of the death penalty would prevent successful negotiations to join the EU”.  Steffen Seibert, chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman, said in Berlin that Merkel had phoned Erdogan.  “A country that has the death penalty can't be a member of the European Union and the introduction of the death penalty in Turkey would therefore mean the end of accession negotiations”, he said.  Nato does not require its members not to execute people, but the defence alliance reinforced the EU’s appeals on Monday.   Its secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, also phoned the Turkish president. “Being part of a unique community of values, it is essential for Turkey, like all other allies, to ensure full respect for democracy and its institutions, the constitutional order, the rule of law and fundamental freedoms”, Stoltenberg said afterward. In a sign of the mood in Ankara, Egemen Bagis, Erdogan’s former EU affairs minister, said on social media: “Do you think Turks care about what EU states at this point? We are furious”. “EU should support Turkey not Feto”, he added, referring to Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic preacher who lives in the US and who was also accused of plotting Erdogan’s downfall.  Speaking in a statement on Monday, John Bass, the US ambassador to Turkey, said: "Unfortunately, some ... public figures have speculated that the United States in some way supported the coup attempt. This is categorically untrue, and such speculation is harmful to the decades-long friendship between two great nations".  He said that if Turkey submitted an extradition request for Gulen, then it would be "considered" by US courts.

  In a banking system built on the foundation of money being created by banks through granting loans and fractional reserves, insolvency is the natural state of things.  In this context, the confidence of the depositors and the guarantees granted by the state, along with the permanent support of the central banks, represent essential conditions for the functioning of financial institutions. "The truth about banks" is the title of an article from the Finance & Development magazine of the IMF (author's note vol. 53, no. 1, March 2016), in which the authors, Michael Kumhof and Zoltan Jakab, write that "banks create new money when they grant loans, a phenomenon which can start and exacerbate financial crises".   Creating money out of thin air represents "a critical vulnerability of financial systems" for two reasons which have been known at least since the time of the Great Depression in the first half of the 20th century. First of all, "if banks are free to create money when they grant loans, then that amplifies the potential to create cyclical booms and busts, especially when banks mistakenly assess the debtors' repayment ability", according to the economists of the IMF.

France has suggested it is prepared to reach a deal to allow Britain to limit free movement of EU migrants while retaining access to the Single Market.  Michel Sapin, France’s finance minister, said that “everything is on the table” as he appeared to break ranks with the rest of the European Union.  Until now European leaders have insisted that Britain must continue to let in EU migrants if it wants to enjoy the benefits of free trade.  But Mr Sapin told BBC Two’s Newsnight on Wednesday night: “Everything will be on the table because Britain will make proposals, and we will negotiate all these aspects with a desire to come to an agreement.  “Britain won’t be in the same position as it was beforehand. Things will change. Things have already changed. We return to zero. As we say in France, a clean slate.  “When we negotiate with a country, a third party, Norway, Switzerland to take countries that are very close, we discuss all subjects: under what conditions there is freedom of movement of people; freedom of movement of goods; of capital.  “That is something that is very important for the UK with all the questions about financial services. So we discuss everything.”

 The comments represent a significant boost to Britain. Earlier this week, Mr Cameron attempted to lay the groundwork for Brexit negotiations by warning European leaders that they will have to reform free movement if Britain is to retain close economic ties with the continent.  In his final meeting with EU leaders before standing down as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron claimed that British voters backed a Brexit because people believe the country has “no control” of its borders.

Although inflation in Italy has slowed to next to nothing, it is still saddled with the effects of earlier inflation and so is uncompetitive. What the advent of the euro has done to Italy – and also to several other countries – is to impose Germanic values in one sphere while having very little effect on performance in most others. It is the combination of Germanic money and Italian practices that is so devastating.  One clear lesson from this is that the EU is far from being the only factor affecting economic performance in Europe. Within the EU, it is possible to do things relatively well, and it is also possible to do things relatively badly. (The same is true for countries outside the EU.) But the Italian experience also makes it clear that the various things the EU supposedly does to improve economic performance aren’t worth very much. Yes, Italy is in the single market and enjoys all the much-vaunted advantages of that arrangement: it has a seat at the table when regulations and standards are framed; these rules apply both in Italy and across the single market; no customs forms are needed when Italian goods head northward; no tariffs are encountered.  Similarly, when Italian goods and services are sold to other eurozone countries there are no problems about exchange rate uncertainty or the cost of changing money. Yet Italy has not been carried forward on a wave of prosperity brought about by the absence of form-filling at borders and the convenience of operating in a common currency. Funny that. It may have had some very successful companies, but Italy has rarely been blessed with stable and effective government. This is why Italy has traditionally been an extremely europhile country. Most Italians felt quite relaxed about Rome ceding power to Brussels. But now, in reaction to recent appalling economic performance, coupled with the EU’s imposition of an unelected “technocratic” prime minister in 2011, more and more Italians are thinking radically about the future. In a recent opinion poll, 58pc of Italians said they wanted a referendum on EU membership and 48pc said that they would vote to leave the EU.  Leaving the euro would be a good start. If the new lira dropped by 20pc-30pc, as it probably would, within a couple of years Italy would be enjoying an export boom as it retook market share from other countries, mostly in Europe. The result would be a resumption of decent economic growth and a fall in unemployment.  Come to think of it, is that a key reason why many business leaders in the countries to the north are pretty keen to keep Italy in?

The European Commission is set to present a new draft of its data-exchange pact with the US, the Privacy Shield, in early July.  EU justice commissioner Vera Jourova told EUobserver in a recent interview that the most contentious issues had been agreed by Washington and Brussels.  These concerned access to data by US security services and bulk collection of people’s personal information.  “We reached an accord on more precise listing of cases when bulk collection can occur and a better definition of how our American partners understand the difference between bulk collection which may be justified and mass surveillance without any purpose, which is not tolerable”, she said.  “These specific points have already been finished and put down in written form”.  The shield is to replace the 15 year-old Safe Harbour pact that failed to protect the privacy of EU nationals whose data was transferred to firms, such as Facebook, based in the US.  The EU Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the harbour treaty last year, due in part, to revelations by Edward Snowden, a former US intelligence contractor, of mass-scale US snooping on Europeans. The EU commission and the US, after two years of talks, proposed the shield treaty as a replacement earlier this year. But the EU's main regulatory body on privacy, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, criticised the draft in the strongest possible terms.  The body is composed of EU states’ national data supervisors and EU officials.  Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, its chair, said in April that the shield would fail to protect people's data. “The possibility that is left in the shield and its annexes for bulk collection … is not acceptable," she said.  She sent the draft back to the EU commission, which is now set to present the updated version. That text becomes binding the moment it is adopted by the 28 commissioners, with no subsequent input from the EU Council or MEPs.

Here is a longer extract from Nigel Farage's controversial 'victory' speech:  "If the predications now are right this will be a victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people. We have fought against the multinationals, against the big merchant banks, against big politics, against lies against lies, corruption and deceit and today honesty and decency and belief in nation I think now is going to win.  We will have done it without having to fight, without a single bullet having been fired.  I hope this victory brings down this failed projects and brings us to a Europe of sovereign nation states trading together.  Let June the 23rd go down in our history as our independence day."

Before referendum campaigning paused following the tragic murder of Jo Cox, there was growing disbelief among leading Remainers – the careerists, the big businessmen, the Bilderbergers, the Davos groupies and that tragic subset of my own trade that sees the journalist’s job as being to propitiate the governing elite – that polls should show a consistent lead for the Leave camp. It is disbelief born of their almost complete detachment from the realities of life outside London’s more exclusive postal districts. In their blissfully ignorant private world, they applaud each other’s existences, praise each other’s insights, and rejoice in their smug membership of an elite in which they feel safe because its ways are beyond democratic will: until now. As their presumptions and assumptions have been assaulted and undermined they have flailed about in panic: witness the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a straight face and to the embarrassment even of his supporters, promising an austerity budget to punish the nation should it vote Leave – even though he must have known a combination of his own MPs, the SNP and Labour would never allow such a measure through parliament...In the real world, as some politicians have belatedly recognized, people want change. They dislike being told that the United Kingdom cannot run itself. They deplore doomsayers who have lost faith in their country. They are angry that their country’s borders are open not just to geniuses with PhDs, nurses, teachers, plumbers, electricians and others who can contribute to it, but to welfare tourists, pickpockets, rapists and murderers. They resent a foreign power overruling their courts and their elected government. They are frustrated at being unable to change key policies when they vote. They detest contributing £8.5 billion a year net for Brussels to spend in countries less efficient, less productive and more corrupt than ours. They have had enough, above all, of being told that unless the UK concedes in perpetuity to foreign rule it will be worthless, and face ruin, danger and unremitting failure.

 

Let there be no illusion about the trauma of Brexit. Anybody who claims that Britain can lightly disengage after 43 years enmeshed in EU affairs is a charlatan, or a dreamer, or has little contact with the realities of global finance and geopolitics.  Stripped of distractions, it comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime, ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error.

For some of us - and we do not take our cue from the Leave campaign - it has nothing to do with payments into the EU budget. Whatever the sum, it is economically trivial, worth unfettered access to a giant market.  We are deciding whether to be guided by a Commission with quasi-executive powers that operates more like the priesthood of the 13th Century papacy than a modern civil service; and whether to submit to a European Court (ECJ) that claims sweeping supremacy, with no right of appeal.  It is whether you think the nation states of Europe are the only authentic fora of democracy, be it in this country, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or France - where Nicholas Sarkozy has launched his presidential bid with an invocation of King Clovis and 1,500 years of Frankish unity.

Why is George Soros selling stocks, buying gold and making “a series of big, bearish investments”? If things stay relatively stable like they are right now, these moves will likely cost George Soros a tremendous amount of money. But if a major financial crisis is imminent, he stands to make obscene returns. So does George Soros know something that the rest of us do not? Could it be possible that he has spent too much time reading websites such as The Economic Collapse Blog? What are we to make of all of this?  The recent trading moves that Soros has made are so big and so bearish that they have even gotten the attention of the Wall Street Journal…Worried about the outlook for the global economy and concerned that large market shifts may be at hand, the billionaire hedge-fund founder and philanthropist recently directed a series of big, bearish investments, according to people close to the matter.  Soros Fund Management LLC, which manages $30 billion for Mr. Soros and his family, sold stocks and bought gold and shares of gold miners, anticipating weakness in various markets. Investors often view gold as a haven during times of turmoil. Hmmm – it sounds suspiciously like George Soros and Michael Snyder are on the exact same page as far as what is about to happen to the global economy.  You know that it is very late in the game when that starts happening…One thing that George Soros is particularly concerned about that I haven’t been talking a lot about yet is the upcoming Brexit vote. If the United Kingdom leaves the EU (and hopefully they will), the short-term consequences for the European economy could potentially be absolutely catastrophic…Mr. Soros also argues that there remains a good chance the European Union will collapse under the weight of the migration crisis, continuing challenges in Greece and a potential exit by the United Kingdom from the EU.  “If Britain leaves, it could unleash a general exodus, and the disintegration of the European Union will become practically unavoidable,” he said.