Tag Archives: markets

Blatant Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

Or blatant aiding and abetting. Or both. Here is the critical part of how things went down in the JBS Corporation hacker attack and JBS’…surrender…to the hackers:

After identifying the incursion early on Sunday, May 30, JBS said it alerted US authorities…. By that afternoon, the company had concluded that encrypted backups of its data were intact, said Andre Nogueira, chief executive officer of JBS USA Holdings Inc.

Then

Tuesday evening, progress getting JBS’s systems back online using its backup data made Mr Nogueira confident enough to issue a statement announcing that the majority of JBS plants would be operational on Wednesday, June 2.
The company’s consultants had continued negotiating with the hackers. Though forensic analyses by JBS and its specialists showed that no customer, supplier or employee data had been compromised, Mr Nogueira said, the cybercriminals claimed they had captured some.
JBS’s cybersecurity experts warned that the attackers may have left themselves some way to pry back in. After JBS negotiators and the hackers arrived at an $11 million sum….

Promptly getting back on the air with sound backups, JBS unharmed even if sorely inconvenienced, Nogueira continued negotiating with the hackers, and ultimately, Nogueira paid off anyway. And all, apparently, because the hackers claimed to have gained “some” data and that, according to his consultants, maybe—maybe—the hackers had left a back door for later use.

Never mind that the hackers claimed, after payment, that no, they didn’t have any stolen data. Who can trust the words of criminals? Never mind that, payment or not, the hackers’ back door remains—if it exists at all. Where’s JBS’ IT? Where’s JBS’ training—with enforced sanctions—of its employees regarding phishing and malware in general?

Then there’s this bit of cynicism:

The cost of the attack, he [Nogueira] said, would be immaterial to JBS….

Except for the part about Nogueira has made JBS an open target for further hacks, and their costs. Never mind the exposure Nogueira’s behavior has created for other businesses by demonstrating that such hacks actually work with impunity and as revenue-generators for the criminals (and political gain-generators for their State sponsors). Never mind, either, the costs this particular hack imposed on JBS’ customers and on the company’s suppliers.

The Biden Oil Price Spike

Posted on by
2

President Joe Biden (D) has killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, is blocking oil production from Federal lands, killed oil production in northern Alaska, is working to kill fracking altogether, is working to kill American oil (and natural gas) production, and has given the go ahead to Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline. In sum, he’s actively working to kill American energy independence.

All of that is driving up American citizens’ energy costs, and that is reflected in the market’s anticipation of spiking oil costs. Here are a couple of graphs illustrating that. They illustrate the expectation that oil will soon cost $100/barrel, after several years of $50-$65/barrel. The first presents the spike since the start of the year in the number of West Texas Intermediate $100/barrel futures contracts against a current $70 price.

This graph reflects the price of a $100/barrel call option on WTI for delivery in December this year and next.

The expectation of actual market pricing of $100 is rising, also, sharply enough to drive up the price of the option.

This is what expert traders (some of whom are trading on the trends themselves and not on underlying oil prices, to be sure) are seeing as the future price of oil for our citizens. Even if oil settles out at its current price of $70 or just a little higher (and the anticipations turn out to be overstated), this current price represents a sharp increase over the last several years, when Government wasn’t moving so zealously to restrict our nation’s oil supply.

This is what Biden has wrought for our nation’s energy supply and cost of energy.

An Inappropriate Judicial Question

Posted on by
Reply

The Apple-Epic trial has gone to the jury (in this case, the judge, the matter being a bench trial). This case centers on the level of commissions Apple charges app developers for marketing their apps in Apple’s App Store and whether those app developers can, under Apple’s rules, market their products/collect revenue for their products through other venues as well as the App Store—vis., in-app advertising.

In the course of the trial, the presiding judge—the “bench”—US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, has asked an inappropriate question.

…confronted Mr Cook [Apple CEO] with survey data that, she said, indicated that 39% of developers were either very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with Apple’s distribution services. “How is that acceptable?” she asked.

There is much to decry about Apple’s business practices, particularly with its App Store.

In particular, one would think those survey results to be unacceptable, to developers, users, even to Apple.

However.

The question is a business matter, solely among Apple, its customer/developers, and the market in general. It is not at all a judicial matter, and it is completely out of place and inappropriate for a judge to ask in a courtroom.

Maybes and Could Bes

Posted on by
Reply

Illumina is a company that makes platforms that do genetic sequencing for the likes of Covid variants and fetal abnormalities. Grail is a company that has blood tests that can detect DNA from cancer cells before people show symptoms. At the outset, Illumina created Grail for that purpose then spun the company off so each could focus on what it does best.

Grail succeeded, strongly.

Now Illumina wants to (re)acquire Grail, and Grail wants to be (re)acquired. Illumina says its regulatory satisfaction expertise can greatly facilitate bringing Grail’s tests to market and to the benefit of countless folks at risk of any of the 50 cancers Grail’s tests can detect quickly and reliably, along with the 12 most deadly cancers with 60% accuracy. All with a simple blood draw.

Potential competitors petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to block the merger, and the FTC agreed and has sued to block the merger.

That’s a problem. The FTC’s case centers on two premises and a false underlying assumption. The merger would, according to the FTC,

lessen competition in the US multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test market by diminishing innovation and potentially increasing prices.

“Diminishing innovation”—not at all. Aside from the lack of actual evidence of such a diminution—this is just tacit speculation—this sort of development only spurs competition (my own, no more or less valid speculation).

“Potentially increasing prices”—again, not at all. That first word says it all: the plaint is just overt speculation. There are no increasing prices here, and there’s no evidence that increasing prices are per se anticompetitive (as opposed, for instance, due to too high demand for too little product. Never mind that neither demand nor product yet exist.)

The false underlying assumption is that a market for this sort of thing even exists. It does not, and that lack renders both of those speculations, individually and severally, wholly irrelevant.

Maybes and could bes in a nonexistent market—what a way to regulate.

A Compendium of Reasons

Posted on by
Reply

Nike provides them, to do two things.

Here’s Nike’s ad regarding the WNBA. Especially beginning at 0:19, and most especially Nike’s closer, starting at 0:23.

The two things: continue not watching the WNBA, and not doing business with Nike (which company also does enthusiastic business with the genocide-committing People’s Republic of China, so here’s an additional reason for not doing business with Nike).

 

H/t Not the Bee