We look after your interests

(+34) 93 626 47 75

Torres Sarrià, Carrer de Can Ràbia, 3-5, 4ª Planta BCN 08017

(+34) 91 794 19 82

Pº de la Castellana, 93 2nd floor MADRID 28046

Cluster Family Office Blog

Russian Queen's Gambit

You will probably be familiar with this title, since only six months ago we published the article entitled «.«Chinese Queen's Gambit»in which we analysed the reasons why Xi Jinping had taken certain internal control measures. Well, now we are witnessing another chess game, this time on the European international geopolitical chessboard with Biden and Putin as opponents, under the watchful eye of Germany, the rest of the European countries and of course China, always waiting to take advantage of any resulting scenario.

.

It is worth noting that this conflict between NATO (Biden), Ukraine and Russia (Putin) coincides with the US's negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue and the applicable sanctions. The background to the whole conflict is none other than the global energy flow in the coming years. We could call it the New World Energy Order.

.

How many images of NATO troops and heavy weapons in Ukraine have been seen on our Western television screens? And yet there are plenty of them, but only the menacing Russian troops appear again and again everywhere. In fact, the press conference held by the State Department spokesman on Thursday, February 3, was a very good example of this. Ned Price is not wasted. In it Price accused the veteran journalist Matt Lee of preferring the official Russian version to the US version of the alleged existence of the preparation of a false flag attack, while Lee only repeatedly asked the US State Department spokesman for proof, who said that the proof was simply the official statement he had just made. Here is the excerpt from the video with the tense moment from last Thursday's press conference. Incidentally, Ned Price has already has not appeared The icing on the western propaganda cake is the mistake of none other than Bloomberg publishing fleetingly the headline «Russia invades Ukraine» before the alleged false flag attack or any other move for which the headline is designed. These are all examples of the news bias that we also suffer from in the West, and not only in the Chinese- or Russian-controlled media in the East.

.

That is why it should be recalled time and again that the start of the conflict was caused by the threat of Ukraine's imminent NATO membership, insistently urged by the USA, in order to be able to place heavy weapons on the Russian borderline itself. That and no other was the opening of the chess game and the conflict, in which Biden made the first hostile move. And this threatening opening has generated a logical response from Russia, which, baring its teeth, has amassed troops around Ukraine in an attempt to get Biden and NATO to return to square one and leave the chessboard as it was. We are therefore facing a confrontation that would not have occurred if Biden had not actively pushed for Ukraine's inclusion in the Western military alliance, despite the Western media's insistence on selling the idea that it was Putin who started the conflict by threatening to invade Ukraine unilaterally, something the Kremlin has denied to no avail. So we are dealing with a US action and a Russian reaction, and not the other way around, as all the Western media are selling it without the slightest rigour or blushes.

.

Having made this necessary preamble, let us now turn to the conclusion itself. Let us start from the premise that any political-military conflict that does not lead to a classic open war, in disuse in the developed world since the Second World War, has relative winners and losers. And that often the most feasible outcome is the most plausible one, i.e. the one in which all parties involved suffer the least possible economic damage.

.

In this US-NATO-Ukraine-Russia conflict, the least hurtful outcome would be a commitment by Ukraine not to join the Atlantic Alliance club, at least for a decade, in exchange for Russia also renouncing the incorporation of new Russophile territories in Eastern Ukraine or even giving back some of the territories it already holds in the Donbass. That is, more or less, back to square one of just a few months ago. Logically, to get to that point, Putin «demands» the major, i.e. that the NATO line returns to the borders where it was in 1999, when Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria joined the Atlantic alliance. A Western military goal to what was then a very weak Russia. And Putin's impossible demand is the chrome he will be more than willing to concede if he gets a few more decades of Ukrainian independence from the Western military alliance.

.

An agreement would make perfect sense for both parties, as explained by Gavekal in his report on Russia, as it would allow Ukraine's economic progression and the pacification of its endemic low-profile armed conflict with Russia in the east of the country, both of which are impossible to achieve if the conflict escalates. For Putin it would put out the fire on a new front of NATO's threatening rapprochement with Moscow for at least a few years. And for the EU it would be the lifeline it badly needs to avoid the energy suffocation it would face in the event that Russia decides to turn off the tap, not only on gas but also on oil.

.

.

On the other hand, if the conflict escalates with galloping sanctions against Russia, the logical response will be to turn off the tap to Europe, and with that we will see fuel prices rise to infinity and beyond and an outrageous inflationary spike. That in turn would generate a radical increase in interest rates in an anaemic economic environment, i.e. a textbook runaway stagflation, which would trigger all sorts of market dislocations, risk premiums and also economic costs that would take a long time to recover (especially in Southern Europe). Putin knows this and is therefore willing to use his power to get the chessboard reversed to the starting position, i.e. 2021. Energy self-sufficient Biden does not have as much to lose as Europe. But the destabilisation of an EU with already semi-ripped north-south seams would create a scenario in which the Western bloc would be at a distinct disadvantage vis-à-vis a China-Russia alliance that is going through one of its best moments. As shown by this button in the form of a new gas pipeline and a 30-year supply agreement between Putin and Xi, which to top it all off is denominated in Euros.

.

However, resolving the conflict via pact and de-escalation does not mean that there will not be some bombings and deaths, unfortunately. Negotiations are usually concluded in-extremis, both in time and in form, i.e. after skirmishes that seem to foreshadow imminent and inevitable military escalations. But let us remember that the economic cost of open war (read ground invasion and open NATO-Russia military confrontations) is unaffordable for Europe, high for Russia and extremely dangerous for the stability of the Western bloc USA-EU.

.

.

Therefore, an agreement seems the most likely outcome. But it is likely to be an unofficial agreement, i.e. without light and stenographers or photos of the leaders shaking hands in front of journalists, but an agreement nonetheless. The only ones who would clearly lose in a scenario of de-escalation and a pact between Russia and the West would be the Russophobic and ultra-nazionalist Ukrainian politicians (yes, with a «z» for Nazis), once nurtured by the West to perpetrate the 2013 coup d'état that was whitewashed under the name of the Euromaidan revolution. Which by the way was not such but a violent regime change orchestrated by the West, as Rafael Poch well explained in this prescient article in 2014, which had little media coverage as was to be expected. As we said, these Ukrainian ultranationalists are perfectly sacrificable, in exchange for Europe not being blown apart by the energy suffocation that could result from the culmination of Ukraine's NATO membership.

.

It is true, however, that a priori Biden has the least to lose if the conflict escalates, and that adds risk and uncertainty to the situation. Moreover, Putin knows that he will not get concessions if his military threat is not credible, and for that some bloodshed will probably be unavoidable. But, as we have already said, usually the options that end up being given in any conflict are the least costly economically for the parties, and in this case it is undoubtedly a temporary backtracking on Ukraine's inclusion in NATO and a return to square one in 2021 (not 1999 as Putin initially stated in his letter to the Three Wise Men). The Normandy Quartet knows that it is the four of them who have the most at stake in this conflict, and they are rushing to negotiate without the interference of those who have the least to lose, namely Biden and NATO.

.

In all this turmoil, the gains of fishermen investing in Russia at the height of the conflict will, as always, be obvious only after the event. And as always the Chinese, the smartest in the class, They are already benefiting strategically from the Russian-European turbulent river and continue unstoppably towards world hegemony.

Eurozone tested positive for Covid-19

Those of you who read us regularly will know that we have been saying for years that the Eurozone, as we know it, is neither viable nor sustainable. We warned this almost a decade ago (how time flies!), when the banking crisis was straining the seams of the Eurozone to the limit, and the dreaded Men in Black (MIB) of the Troika were scrutinising the public accounts of the Mediterranean countries of the south. The much-vaunted and politically correct concept of «More Europe» repeatedly hit the wall of the rich and productive North, which preferred a simple and profitable market union to a political, monetary and fiscal union.

.

Thus, the MIBs more or less discreetly shielded the Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) to avoid the free bar that we demanded from the South. Only in exchange for this and the stubbornness of the Eurobureaucrats to kick the can down the road and postpone the moment of truth, the Eurozone went ahead with all its incompatibilities and manifest unsustainability. The hope - in which nobody believed any more - was that with the help of the ECB's QE, and a few years of pseudo-bonanza, the South would, macroeconomically speaking, catch up with the North for once and for all. But the circle has remained unsquared for all these years.

.

The final blow to the economies of the South has come in the form of the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus pandemic, also known as Covid-19 disease. In this mother of all health crises, which is as bloody as it is short-lived, economies as large as Italy or Spain would need a shower of billions in debt (Coronabonds, Eurobonds or whatever you want to call them), which the northern Europeans are not prepared to finance jointly. Paradoxically, this time Merkel is not the standard-bearer of the NO to the free bar but the Netherlands, although it is also true that it is easy for the Germans to play the good cop with the bad Dutch cops. For whatever reason, the South (including France) is trying to take advantage of the final stretch of Merkel's political career to make some desperate concessions in spite of fierce Dutch opposition. The fact is that whatever comes after Merkel is likely to be much less inclined to make concessions to the South, remember the populism that Wolfgang Schaeuble achieved with his proposal to expel Greece from the System. A proposal that, on the other hand, made all the economic sense in the world.

.

Today, what the Netherlands and its circle of influence openly propose is a Europe as a simple common market (sound familiar?). And this idea of the EU coincides with the UK's idea of the EU, which has always been so vilified by Euro-bureaucrats. So this drift towards a «Less Europe» with which the North would feel comfortable could be the way forward, despite the opposition of the countries of the South, since we know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. But there is one small detail that complicates this idea of Europe: the Euro. A Common Market loses much of its meaning and simplicity if the monetary policy of all its members must necessarily be the same. In other words, having the same currency exchange rate, the same price of money (interest rates) and a single issuing bank (ECB), puts us back at the same starting point where we are right now. In other words, the South urgently needs trillions to survive, as well as a depreciation of the currency to regain competitiveness and hopes for growth, but the North is not willing to grant it at the expense of its economies. And this constant refusal is generating the rejection also of the European project by the countries of the South, since they know that the - insufficient - financial aid granted by the North will bring with it the relentless return of the dreaded IMFs, which entail the absolute loss of budgetary, fiscal and economic sovereignty in the countries of the South. The EU seems to be finally facing the final wall of the cul-de-sac along which it has been kicking the can down the road since 2011.

.

The glimmer of lucidity in the face of this permanent flight forward that the coronavirus has precipitated seems to be coming from France. Emmanuel Macron told none other than the Financial Times this week that the pandemic has brought the EU to a «moment of truth».». It is no coincidence that  Shahin Vallée, former advisor to the President of the European Council and strongman of the French Ministry of Finance, proposes to create what he calls «the coalition of the will» within the EU. In other words the EU to split into groups according to their intention to evolve towards «More» or «Less» Europe. Thus, countries that want more integration could keep their single currency and monetary policy, giving up sovereignty in exchange for a growing and irreversible fiscal and political union. But what is more curious is that those countries that want less integration, once freed from those who want «More» Europe, could also remain integrated. That is to say that the two incompatible parts would accommodate each other once they are freed from each other, resulting in a Europe not only with two speeds but with two different currency rates, two central banks and two different monetary policies. It would not be a Europe in perfect equilibrium, but it would be much more stable than the unsustainable powder keg in which Covid-19 leaves us.

.

All this could well be covered up under the same Europeanist sheep's clothing, of course. That is to say, using euphemisms that might even keep the less informed in European inopia (continue to call both currencies the Euro, continue to call both issuing banks the ECB, etc.). But there would be undeniable differences, such as, for example, the value of the euro in the southern countries, which could be 20 or 30% lower than the euro in the north. Of course, they would initially be quoted at par, intervened by the ECB, to avoid as far as possible the implementation of corralitos in order to prevent the flight of assets from the south, but they would necessarily drift apart over time. Post-covid19 rates would not diverge in the short or medium term, as everyone needs zero or negative rates at the moment. But in the medium term, Northern Europe could finally follow in the footsteps of the Fed. gradually increased the price of its strong Euro. Maybe we could even see a political and fiscal union beyond the mere common market in one of these - at least - two distinct zones, who knows, since the circle is much easier to square with truly converging economies and a club with fewer members and more common interests.

.

So, how should southern wealthy individuals position themselves in the face of such a post-pandemic scenario? Well, obviously they should avoid accumulating assets in the South or in the South, i.e. avoid having real estate anchored in the less wealthy EU countries (Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and even France). Instead, they could hold them in countries that are likely to be able to sell in Euros that are not affected by the depreciation against the Euro in the North. Or hold them directly outside the EU, for example real estate in the USA, buying them still with the only existing Euro and not with the future devalued Euro of the South. As for financial assets, obviously shares of companies from these southern countries should also be avoided in portfolios, and of course their public and private debt. Moreover, as we have said countless times before, and today more emphatically than ever, the more safety steps we can add between our money and the need to collect or confiscatory In the southern states, we will sleep better at night. We must be aware that in times of extreme situations, extreme solutions will be taken, which we would never have foreseen just 6 months ago.

.

What is undeniable is that even if this EU evolution takes more or less time to arrive and Euro-bureaucrats keep banging their heads against reality, this pandemic is going to leave the West's economic and political supremacy mortally wounded. Covid-19 will have a clear winner, if anyone is going to win in this pandemic, and that winner is none other than China. Not only because it has coped and preserved its economy in an exemplary manner during the epidemic, but also because the rest of the world will inevitably set back several years of economic growth. And that will radically accelerate the leadership of China and its very powerful economic orbit (Vietnam, Korea, Malaysia, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, etc., even India itself), making Asia the new centre of the world. It is true that many will say that the figures of contagions and deaths from the coronavirus in China are unreliable. But let's not kid ourselves, because the figures for many Western countries are not reliable either, and very few question them.

.

In these weeks and months of the pandemic, we have seen how each country has handled the health crisis in very different ways. The results are as diverse as the idiosyncrasies of the respective governments and citizens. And in the European Union, especially in the South, we find countries (read Spain and Italy) that are managing the health crisis in a more than dubious way. Once again we are seeing the differences between North and South within the EU, also in health policy management. The only thing that will probably remain of this European union after the pandemic will be the relative resilience of the northern economies, and the common market that has always been advocated by the most realistic.

.

Golden times for the awakened investor. We warned mid-March and also last day 1st April (by the way, the markets have risen close to 30% since the lows of that time). This crisis will change a lot of things in Europe, and at the same time it is uncovering huge opportunities. Imagine if we can take advantage of the restructuring of the Eurozone and the Euro, if we can invest in healthcare companies around the world and especially in China, or if we can take advantage of the pull of the stock markets and economies of what will be the new centre of the world. And all this with the wind at the back of every central bank on the planet. Unfortunately times are bad for the local investor with local assets.

 

La Democracia cambió el Mundo: Más América y menos Europa.

En tan sólo unos pocos meses el mundo, o al menos el mundo occidental, ha dado un giro de 180 grados. Y no ha sido causado por ninguna guerra en especial o ningún cataclismo, sino por el resultado de dos votaciones. Así es, nos gusten o no las decisiones tomadas, la Democracia ha cambiado el mundo. De hecho, ¿quién sinó sería el más indicado para cambiar de rumbo de los países más influyentes del planeta? Ambas votaciones han marcado el camino de los que supondrá un giro tan vertiginoso como inequívoco: Más América y menos Europa.

.

La primera votación se produjo el 23 de Junio, en la que 17,410,742 británicos decidieron abandonar la UE, rompiendo así todos los esquemas que hasta ese momento aún defendían los Euroburócratas a capa y espada, o sea a Troika y divisa única. Aún demostrándose económica y políticamente inviable, la consigna de los dirigentes europeos era, hasta ese mismo momento, más Europa, más Unión y menos soberanía de los Estados miembros. Digamos que el Brexit -contra la realización del cual aún luchan los defensores de una UE imposible- abrió los ojos de muchos dirigentes y también la veda para decir y planear oficialmente cosas como éstas o éstas, sin que por ello se les tachara de parias o perdieran su cargo. Porque independientemente del timing y los traumas que generen la ejecución del Brexit, la ruptura de la UE en al menos dos sub-uniones de Estados, no sólo es un horizonte ya reconocido oficialmente sino que además es el único viable. Podéis leer más en «Los EE.UU. de Europa van tomando forma«.

.

La segunda votación tuvo lugar al otro lado del charco anteayer. La realidad de las urnas ha sido, una vez más, tozuda. Y 59,692,974 de personas han votado a Donald Trump a pesar de la oposición feroz de prácticamente el resto del mundo. El presidente electo es todavía un melón por abrir, ya que su racismo, homofobia, sexismo y demás querencias hitlerianas durante la campaña, bien pueden moderarse y quedar en tan sólo vehemencia y heterodoxia política durante su mandato. La razón es simple, desde el mismo momento en el que fue electo ya no necesita pedir el voto de nadie. Y ello le llevará a mostrar el verdadero Trump presidente, que el tiempo dirá si es peor o mejor que el Trump candidato mostrado en campaña. Sus políticas inciertas tienen en vilo incluso a los propios Republicanos. Y sus relaciones personales con otros presidentes como Enrique Peña, Merkel, May, Putin o Xi Jinping tienen en vilo al mundo entero. Pero su idiosincrasia nacionalista, proteccionista y autoritaria va en la inequívoca dirección del concepto «Más América» o el «Make America Great Again». Y eso es un cambio radical respecto al aperturismo/modernismo/globalismo de la era Obama.

.

Fijaos que tanto en el referéndum del Brexit como en la elección presidencial de Trump el resultado de las urnas fue contra pronóstico. Curioso, ¿verdad? Quizá no es que las encuestas sean tan chapuceras o que los encuestados mientan, sino que éstas sean pre-cocinadas por el establishment: Políticos y Euroburócratas aquí; y políticos y Demócratas (e incluso parte de los Republicanos) allí. Ante el riesgo de unos resultados rompedores que aniquilasen el rumbo actual (malo, sí, pero conocido) del mundo desarrollado, la movilización de medios para evitar Trump y Brexit, ha sido enorme. Es evidente que dicho establishment pretendía a toda costa generar opinión entre la población y no generar información para la población. Pero han fracasado. Y hoy el Mundo es otro a ambos lados del Atlántico.

.

A priori unos EE.UU. más encerrados en sí mismos y una Europa partida en dos, no tienen porqué ser escenarios perdedores, ni tampoco ganadores. En cualquier caso un ganador es indiscutible: La Democracia. Sólo el tiempo dirá si esos 17 millones de británicos y 59 millones de norteamericanos nos habrán llevado a un mundo mejor o peor. Porque su decisión soberana nos afectará a todos, y mucho. Es lo que tienen las economías influyentes en un mundo globalizado.