Schweinkram-portfolio

Global bonds

Posted by PILLZ (Monday, March 10, 2003)
Schweinkram-portfolio

Positions in CH11 :

- GX bank-loan ( in June it will be about 60% cash and 40% new 3 year 11% GX bonds ) = 33%

- GX bonds = 8.7%

- Conseco bonds = 3.7%

- Worldcom bonds = 3.3%

- UPC bonds = 1.7%

- AX bond = 1.7%

- Enron bond = 0.5%

Current Schweinkram bonds:

- Level 3 bonds = 3.2%

- Revlon bonds = 3.1%

- AES bonds = 2.9%

- Charter Com. bonds = 2.9%

- RCN Corp. = 2.7%

- Calpine Canada bonds = 2.6%

- Quwest-LCI bond = 2%

- Edison Mission bond = 1.8%

- Calpine bonds = 1.7%

- Air Canada bond = 1.3%

- Continental Air. bond = 1.3%

- Westpoint Stevens bond = 1.1%

- Loral space & Com. bond = 0.74%

- Fleming Co. bond = 0.67%

- AMR bond = 0.67%

EM bonds:

Ecu 30 = 3.4%

Veny 27 = 2.2%

Uru 11 in Euro = 1.6%

Sold last week Brazil 24 and Time Warner Telecom bonds both make me now about 12% in cash

Newest messages appear on top.

03-16-03 wally: <I am also aware late april-may gets quite hot> so what <carib>? it is a comfortable dry heat in Iraq (except Basrah and the shat-el-arab) which cannot be compared with the terrible humidity in the evenings and nights of the Gulf coast. Riyadh or Baghdad at 42º C is a breeze compared to Dhahran, Kuwait or down south at 32º C.

03-16-03 carib: Kurdish leaders, who will be part of an Iraqi opposition delegation, are expected to have a critical tripartite two-day meeting with Turkish and US officials starting today in Ankara. The Kurds will try to allay Turkish fears about Kurds declaring independence, taking the northern cities or refusing to recognise the rights of the Turkomans in Kirkuk. The US, originally willing to countenance a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq in return for American use of Turkish bases, has now reversed its position and is pressing Turkey not to attack. Masoud Barzani warned: "If the Turks come in, there will be a war, it will be major war."

03-16-03 amigo latino: <…And nobody spends more time on his knees - I am back in metaphorical mode here - than George W Bush.

He is famously born again - at the age of 40 <it was goodbye Jack Daniels and hello Jesus.> He has never looked back.

So while there are plenty of rational people giving rational advice about policy matters in the Bush White House there is also a channel, an input, from on high.

The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night.

It's not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying bibles. A friend who works in the press office of 10 Downing Street tells me that - even in these difficult times - such a sight would be highly unusual.

Having made the decision to fight the good fight - and have no doubt about it President Bush has made that decision - the nagging doubts, the rational fears, the worldly misgivings - all those things felt so strongly by post-religious Europeans - can be set aside. President Bush looks as tired as Prime Minister Blair sometimes, but never as worried

Both are religious men but the simple American faith - with heaven and hell, good and evil and right and wrong - appears rather better suited to wartime conditions. >

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programm...

Surely, there is no scope for dialogue if George Bush is acting on messages he receives from God! Be a friend or an enemy =Better obey or be destroyed!

03-16-03 carib: Haaretz: <The situation assessment prepared by the (israeli) defense establishment Sunday night includes two alternative scenarios: In one, the U.S. succeeds in mustering a "moral majority" in the UN Security Council for its decision to attack Iraq, even though any such resolution would presumably be vetoed. In such a case, the U.S. is expected to spend another few days finalizing its preparations and begin the attack next week.

In the second scenario, the U.S. fails to muster UN Security Council support for its position. In such a case, Israel believes that the U.S. will attack almost immediately, perhaps as soon as Wednesday or Thursday. >

03-16-03 carib: Lupa: correct, at this point Bush cannot retreat, and IMHO it would be bad for the world if he did. BTW: did you listen to Chirac on CNN? Veeeery tame, I would say...He said he is in love with America, he shares the goal, but disagree on the means...never was a pal of Saddamn...France never sold Saddamn forbidden stuff... O-Chirac was a peaceful reactor...if it comes to war He would wish for a US complete success...he only does not send french troops because the americans do not need more help...of course the US forces can use french air space...the guy must be getting really scared, isn't it?

03-16-03 La Lupa: Carib: <...at the point we are now I consider the risk of inaction as greater than the risk of action. > Bush simply can't back down now, a fact which public opinion seems not to recognise. Either Saddums quits or is thrown out or assasinated, or there will be war. I bet "Walker Texas W@nker" is as lousy a poker player as he is a geostrategist. Doesn't he or one of his "Comrades-in-Harms" know that in diplomacy, you always have to give the opponent a smooth trip into goldplated exile, if your goal is to avoid war?

03-16-03 La Lupa: K1, Bush shuuuure got his timing wrong on this. If he'd managed to pin Sept 11th on Saddam, even without any real evidence whatsoever, he probably could have gone into Iraq a long time ago (17 months is a VERY long time in world politix). For shuuure he's gonna end up looking really bad, unless his war effort is really really QUICK, SUCCESSFUL, brings democracy to the place, and does not try to take total control of the Near Eastern oil market. Fat chance. I'm especially sad at the abandonment by traditional allies Belgium, the people who brought you the BELGIUM CONGO. How to heal these tragic wounds? Gauffre-it, Pilly!

03-16-03 amigo latino: Is the inclusion of a ban on capital controls under any conditions in free trade agreements justified? Is the requirement that “American” investors should be compensated in the event of capital controls(without mentioning other investors) fair ? Are trade restrictions(which America uses) inherently better than capital controls ?

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...

03-16-03 La Lupa: Gosh, I just left Bradynet to its own devices for a few days, and the whole place goes to pot! What's up? I saw but did not participate in the big antiwar demo in Madrid. I believe most people were sincere, but this kind of thing makes no sense to me as it was more of a fun evening out for the majority, rather than a serious debate on the issues. There were some loony types around, too... the people to whom no-one ever pays any heed: some with DDR tee-shirts, che-guevara fans, anti-capitalist revolutionry student marchers, some sweet little Palestinian girls chanting in perfect Castilian Spanish, and more, much more. Bad news for Aznar, who should have obeyed the rule every soldier knows, not to stick your head out over the parapet or the trenches. Things look bleak for him and Tony B. My journalist pals say MONDAY could well be the big day. I still say that we should be as worried as Hell. Even if the Racky army caves in in a week or two, the repercussions are going to last for years: anti-Americanism and one step further toward the much-touted "CLASH of ..."

03-16-03 k1: carib <we can agree on two things: 1) time will tell; 2) the US diplomatic-external propaganda effort was miserable. >

Yep.

03-16-03 amigo latino: <Anonymous: US Motives Behind the Invasion of Iraq http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp... >

I simply repost an article that was posted elsewhere on Bradynet, without any comment.

03-16-03 carib: "Saddam Hussein can leave the country, if he's interested in peace," Bush said. "You see, the decision is his to make. And it's been his to make all along as to whether or not there's the use of the military. He got to decide whether he was going to disarm, and he didn't. He can decide whether he wants to leave the country. These are his decisions to make. And thus far he has made bad decisions."

03-16-03 carib: France has proposed a 30-day timetable for Iraq to meet disarmament tasks with its proposal, a 30-day timetable for Iraq to meet key remaining disarmament tasks that chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix is expected to distribute on Monday. The French plan does not include an ultimatum for war.

Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed the French proposal, saying "it's difficult to take the French serious."

03-16-03 carib: K1. we can agree on two things: 1) time will tell; 2) the US diplomatic-external propaganda effort was miserable. As far as Shredder is concerned, we do not share the same opinion. Too bad, but really it does not matter.

03-16-03 k1: carib, Schröder opposed military options (not US actions!) at the time of the elections. That was time of the election. It was more or less obvious, that Germany could not veto any decision and public opinion at that time was equally devided. It would have been possible to win over public opinion in Germany (which in generall is really pro american). Instead of trying to win peoples opinion Bush played games not congratulating Schröder on his reelection (congratulation is diplomatic use) and Rumsfeld offended German military minister by not talking to him at various summits. If you are a smart politician you don’t play childish games like these - you concentrate on the big picture.

I sure do hope, that the US will have a quick success in Irak, as this would be the way to have the least toll in dead people. But it is a question of who will success in the long run. Those joining the US in an "attack now" oppinion are loosing out with their citizens (UK/Blair Spain/Aznar).

03-16-03 amigo latino: <Notice that Powell repeated today the Us have a quarrel with France, not with Russia and China >

It is only a crude attempt by Powell(US) to isolate France. First the US ire was directed at Germany. Now the ire is directed at France since the opposition of France is materially more powerful because of its veto power. Russia and China are equally opposed but are less vehement about it because of their fear of offending US. In addition to Rssia, France, Germany, China, India(not a security council member) also opposes strongly the US military attack, and the Indian government is somehow afraid to come forward strongly about it.

03-16-03 carib: Jackie, thanks for the input. Interesting....

03-16-03 carib: PT: how very true: a lot of people hope the US <screws up>. Having opinions opposite to those, I hope the US does not. Time will tel whose <hopes> will be met, but in any way we cannot make our financial decisions assuming the best, but trying to assess risk.

03-16-03 Jackie: bbo Equity Research Weekly Report
Central Bank Director on policy
Central Bank Director Armando León was extremely critical of the Government this week in both newspaper and TV interviews. In a country where the transparency of economic numbers is already quite low, to hear Central Bank Director say that the lack of flow of any foreign currency from PDVSA to the Central Bank remains a “great mystery” within the institution, can only be a cause for concern. León questions how it can be that PDVSA is indeed exporting oil, but fails to register any revenues in US dollars which it has to sell, by law, to the Central Bank. Moreover, independent of whether PDVSA is or not making money due to the fact that it has to subsidize gasoline purchases, the company has to pay royalties on all oil produced. León was highly critical of the current economic crunch, saying that establishing exchange controls was unnecessary. But the effect has now been extended indefinitely due to the absence of foreign currency. Given the “delicate” estate of the Venezuelan economy, León thinks that establishing such a strict control was undesirable. He also believes that if action is not taken immediately to restart the economy, unemployment will reach “monstrous” levels.
To the Central Bank Director, the solution is to resolve the flow of foreign currency to the Central Bank or otherwise the problem will get even worse, as the Government will not be able to spend. This, together with expenditure cut in the short term could alleviate the pressure and tension that we are seeing in the economy.
Clearly Dr. León must be quite worried in order to publicly use the harsh words and express these concerns in such public fashion. So are we. Oil Production up, or is it?
The Government has been hailing the recovery of the country’s oil production. While it claims to have reached the 2.6 million-barrel per day level, we understand that it is slightly under the 2 million-barrel mark, of which, roughly 800,000 correspond to associations run by foreign companies. Definitely an improvement over the 1.5 million at which production had been stuck for quite a while. However, we understand the picture is not as rosy as they Government makes it out to be. Production went up in part due to the fact that some of the heavy crude joint ventures are now producing again an estimated two to three hundred thousand barrel’s per day. However, we understand that on Wednesday some companies were told to expect only half of the natural gas that they have been receiving, indicating that production is now being brought down as the Government has filled storage capacity but is not capable of exporting its full production.
To complicate matters even further, the only refinery currently working anywhere near full to its production capabilities, that of Puerto La Cruz, should have been shutdown for maintenance in January. The Paraguana complex has some units working while there was a new accident this week at the El Palito refinery.
Reportedly PDVSA is also running into problems with the placement of its oil. Apparently placement of its production through the web site Pepex did not work well with the company having to discount significantly its crude and sell to intermediaries rather that to final clients. (PDVSA’s President denies this is happening) PDVSA then decided to sell its crude through CITGO, with CITGO acting as the intermediary which has very negative tax consequences on PDVSA since the profit would be left at CITGO and would thus be subject to US taxation.
Meanwhile PDVSA continues to offer various companies to run oil fields under contract. Both local and foreign service companies have been offered important oil fields. We have heard of a drill bit company with no experience in servicing oilfields that has been offered a contract. We have also heard of a multinational, which was offered to start managing an oil field, but with no signed contract. The company obviously refused. Thus, the nationalistic Chávez Government is giving up partial control of the industry just to get back at the striking oil workers. Such are the ways of this bizarre revolution.

03-16-03 Patient-Trader: Carib, regarding risk - the point is that Bush has opened the opportunity to challenge the world domination of the US on morally and legally sound basis. He has pitted the core European continental powers, Germany, Russia and France and the core Asian power, China, against the US and Britain. Something which has never happened before in history. The game is up. If the US scre.s up now - which probably a lot of people hope secretly - it's myth and power is on a rapdily declining path. Is Saddam worth that risk ?

BTW: Clinton's argument against war now was very insightful IMVHO, that in 50 years the US will be not the most economical powerful nation and that it will be judged then by it's actions now.

03-16-03 carib: K1 <the real world is greyscale> I agree, but this does not appear to affect GW's opinions. On Shredder, I disagree on your reading. Nobody, I think, had asked for a german direct military involvment, so that was not the issue at stake. The issue at stake was to choose between openly opposing US action or remaining on the sidelines. Shredder was, at least initially, the most vocal adversary of US policy. Later, C-Iraq took over from Shredder.

03-16-03 k1: carib, Schröder said in the election campaign, that Germany would not join military action. I am certainly no friend of Schröder, but this was time of the election. Schröder moved already and he stated some time ago, that ultimately military action would be acceptable.

If it is not possible to get a maiority in the UN council, there are serious reasons. It is a sign of US weakness, that they can’t get the maiority.

Bush’s problem is his "who is not with us is against us". This doctrin is a real serious mistake and in the long run this would bring up all nations againts the US.

The real world is not black and white, it is a grayscale.

03-16-03 carib: Wally: concerning <shamal> I am aware of it, but I am also aware late april-may gets quite hot, at least from my modest experience of visits to kuwait and dubai....

03-16-03 carib: K1: I am not Bush, nor Tenet, so I cannot answer questions like "Why did you not catch Bin Laden? As far as <convincing France, Germany, Russia, China> I do not agree with your opinion. Had the Us been able to present a much stronger argument, some more countries might have concurred. But Shredder said from the beginning:Germany is against no matter what, and C-iraq promptly followed suit, so I do not think they would have shifted fast in favor of military action. Notice that Powell repeated today the Us have a quarrel with France, not with Russia and China.

03-16-03 k1: Carib

wally/carib, I already mentioned the weather being the problem with time running out. But that is due to bad timing from the US.

"IMHO it was a mistake to try shifting the responsibility of that choice on the poor shoulders of Cameroon guinea, and the like."

If it were the poor Cameroon it would be no problem. But it is Germany, France, Russia, China (these four representing huge economic power and +1 billion people alone) and others. The odd thing is, that it would have been possible to convince most of these nations to join, if there would have been less "Bush" attitude.

03-16-03 wally: <what puzzles me why US decided to withdraw money offer? i see that as a sign US is considering to strike in next days> this is not logical <glut>. to get the ships and their cargo from offshore Turkey through Suez to Kuwait takes quite some days. i wonder how the news media can talk today of a strike this wednesday.

03-16-03 wally: <carib: K1: the answer to your question is: the weather> but for another 2-3 weeks it's "shamal" time. if an attack runs into duststorms as the one that hit southern Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia two days and the ground troops have neither air support nor logistical supplies....

03-16-03 wally: <Also please explain me, why US were not able so far to get enemy #1 Osama Bin Laden?> that's an easy one <k1>. until a few days ago the official U.S. stance was "bin-Laden is <marginalized> and not important anymore" in other words nothing else but the story of the fox and the sour grapes.

Please read our disclaimer.

General Correspondence: bradynet@bradynet.com Questions/Problems? support@bradynet.com