Delegates from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Montenegro, Netherlands, Spain, Romania and the United Kingdom descended on Barcelona on the 26th of May for the 2nd edition of the Euromat Gaming Summit.  The international audience were treated to insights from some of Europe's leading operators as well as a panel discussion with regulators from Spain, Italy, Belgium and the European Commission. Commenting on the event, Eduardo Antoja, President of Euromat said: "My main conclusion from today's panel discussions is that land-based gaming continues to be the bigger segment of the gaming industry, representing almost 70% of players' expenditure. It will continue to be the first choice for many years provided that regulation keeps pace with technological, social and economic reality. Today Euromat confirmed that it's not just a great representative body for our industry, it's a think tank for our sector". Euromat confirmed that the next edition of the Euromat Gaming Summit will take place in Berlin, Germany in 2017.

Investing in “value” companies, those considered to be cheap according to various valuation measures, has historically been more lucrative than investing in “growth” companies, those on higher valuations thanks to their solid earnings potential.  Yet the period since the crisis has bucked the trend.  “Value investing has consistently and considerably outperformed over the last hundred years,” according to Thomas Becket, chief investment officer at Psigma Investment Management. “There have been periods of long underperformance, such as in the 1930s, 1980s and more recently since 2007, but ultimately the results of buying cheap, unloved shares has gone on to be very successful.”  The chart available, showing returns from value and growth companies since 1928, illustrates the point. By driving down the income from safe assets, such as cash and government bonds, the policy has made the shares of those companies that offer dependable returns very attractive.  Mr Becket said these companies have lost the “valuation anchor” provided by income from government debt, and investors have been willing to pay unsustainably high prices for them. In the current climate utilities, telecoms, healthcare and those companies producing consumer staples are considered “defensive”, while companies exposed to the ups and downs of economic growth, such as miners, banks, car manufacturers and airlines, are regarded as “cyclical” and are undervalued by investors.

China must act to sort out its private debt which anyone who has spent any significant time there knows is out of control and is a huge threat. This isn't something that could just cause some issues or even a recession, this can implode the entire nation.  Nobody knows just how bad it is, but some anecdotal evidence is shocking. I lived and worked there in the mid 2000's. None of the people I worked with had ever had access before to debt / credit. It just didn't exist. Then, all of a sudden, they had lots of it available. But no understanding of how to manage it. As a result, most of the people I knew had credit card debts with black banks many times their annual salary and when payments were due, would just get another card to make the payments with. They were not at all worried by this. Many now had 20+ credit cards.  It is the same with housing. Have a look at the average costs for buying an apartment in Beijing and you see, that by any other world standard, they should be totally out of reach to all but the very rich. But, there not. People instead are taking mortgages which they have zero hope of paying back. Now, slot in a slowing economy and people losing jobs. Not a good mix...Interesting points. However, from my experience in Beijing most people save obsessively, and put down hefty deposits on apartments, something like 30%. I believe you can't get anywhere near a 90% mortgage in China.  My old landlord (not rich) and his wife used to save scrupulously as private tour guides, they bought their two vehicles (needed for work) cash, and paid down a big deposit on an apartment on the outskirts of the city (cheaper) somewhere in the region of about £1-200,000. Not convenient as so far out, in the city centre it would be much more expensive. I think it tends to be the young and trendy with the credit cards, and their parents might help bail them out.

The core assumption of the anti-Brexit economists is that leaving would erect damaging barriers to trade; the pro-Brexit side must take on and demolish these arguments. The good news is that it’s quite easy to do so. The Leave campaign’s long-term aim is to break away completely from the EU. But there is no doubt that, were we to vote Leave on June 23, the UK would seek to adopt, as an interim solution, a Norwegian-style relationship with the EU which ensures that we remain in the single market, giving us plenty of time to work out new arrangements with the rest of the world. 

That is both the only realistic way we would quit the EU – the only model, that, plausibly, MPs would support as a cross-party compromise deal – and the best possible way for us to do it. The Norwegians would welcome us with open arms, as their own influence would be enhanced, and other EU nations would seek to join us. Such a deal would eliminate most of the costs of leaving, while delivering a hefty dose of benefits as a down payment. As part of the European Free Trade Association, we would remain in the single market, complete with its Four Freedoms, while withdrawing from agricultural and fisheries policies, justice and home affairs and the customs union. The City wouldn’t lose access and virtually all of the anti-Brexit scare stories would be neutralised, which is presumably why that option was mysteriously absent from the Treasury’s ludicrous analysis of the short-term impact of Brexit. We would save money: Norway’s net contribution per person is lower than Britain’s. We would have to follow fewer rules: Norway has adopted 1,369 out of 1,965 EU directives, and just 1,349 out of 7,720 EU regulations. So Norway has been forced to swallow just 28 per cent of the total “acquis communautaire”, against all of it for the UK. 

The head of the US Federal Reserve has said an interest rate rise is likely to be “appropriate in the coming months”, if the economy continues to improve.  Speaking at an event at Harvard University, Janet Yellen said the central bank will monitor incoming data and risks, reiterating that the Fed will tread with caution in raising rates.  “It’s appropriate - and I’ve said this in the past - for the Fed to gradually and cautiously increase our overnight interest rate over time.”  In Yellen’s biggest hint yet that the central bank could act this summer, she added: “Probably in the coming months such a move would be appropriate.”  “If we were to raise interest rates too quickly and we trigger a downturn we have limited scope to respond. We should be cautious about raising rates too steeply.”...The rate hike is contingent on the ongoing improvement in the world’s largest economy, specifically the labor market. Unemployment currently stands at 5pc. “The economy is continuing to improve…. Growth looks to be picking up,” said she added. Joshua Mahony, of IG, said: “Much has been made of today’s speech from Janet Yellen, which caps off a week where seemingly every member has had their say on the possibility of a June rate hike.”

Another vote in the Greek parliament, another self-imposed punishment beating as the parliament in Athens votes through fresh austerity measures. There will be higher VAT and an increase in taxes on all the pleasures of life: coffee, booze, fags, gambling, even pay TV. And just in case Greece might need to tighten its belt by another couple of notches to meet stringent budget targets, there will be additional measures that will kick in if there is any fiscal slippage over the next couple of years. George Harrison started his song Taxman with the words: “Let me tell you how it will be/There’s one for you, nineteen for me.” The Greeks know exactly what he meant. Greece’s predicament is simple. It has debt repayments to make this summer and it doesn’t have the money to pay the bills. The European Union can solve this acute cash flow problem by unlocking the funds pledged to Greece under the terms of last summer’s bailout agreement, but it will only do so if Athens demonstrates that it is serious about sorting out its budget. Austerity today will lead to generosity from EU finance ministers when they meet on Tuesday. That, at least, is the hope of Alexis Tsipras, Greece’s prime minister, who is looking for a package in which he gets debt relief in return for austerity. Here’s where things get interesting. The difference between this Sunday and all the other tension-packed Sundays that have studded the Greek crisis over the past six and a half years is that, this time, the battle is not between Greece and the “troika” of the European commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Instead, there is a face-off between Europe and the IMF. The Europeans badly want the fund to be part of Greece’s bailout and to contribute money to it. But Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s managing director, says her support is conditional on two things: a credible deficit reduction plan and a decent slug of debt relief.

Leaving the EU and joining EFTA would make us more, rather than less, influential. We have only a small share of the votes in Brussels and can thus easily be outvoted. But Norway, which has technically no votes, has regularly moulded key rules, including the Consumer Rights Directive. The real reason why we – as a large and powerful economy – would have greater influence in EFTA than in the EU is that Brussels is increasingly not the place where big decisions take place. Rules are increasingly negotiated under the auspices of global bodies: automotive norms are determined by the World Forum for the Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations; food standards are determined by Codex Alimentarius; naval rules are under the aegis of the International Maritime Organisation; and the crucial new banking regulations are being determined by the Financial Stability Board. These regulations are then passed down, with the odd gold-plating, by the EU. These global bodies proceed by consensus, not qualified majority; we are currently represented by the EU at these meetings. A Brexit would allow us to have a seat at these top tables, and thus to disintermediate Brussels. We would also be able to sign free trade deals with countries such as China: the EU has proved incompetent at this task, partly because it needs the agreement of all 28 members. Norway has been far more successful; we would be even more so.