G7 finance ministers prepare for emergency talks today - Sydney Morning Herald
Finance chiefs of the Group of Seven leading industrialized powers will hold emergency talks on the euro zone debt crisis on Tuesday in a sign of heightened global alarm about strains in the 17-nation European currency area.
With Greece, Ireland and Portugal all under international bailout programmes, financial markets are anxious about the risks from a seething Spanish banking crisis and a June 17 Greek general election that may lead to Athens leaving the euro zone.
Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said ministers and central bankers of the United States, Canada, Japan, Britain, Germany, France and Italy would hold a special conference call, raising pressure on the Europeans to act.
"The real concern right now is Europe of course - the weakness in some of the banks in Europe, the fact they're undercapitalised, the fact the other European countries in the euro zone have not taken sufficient action yet to address those issues of undercapitalisation of banks and building an adequate firewall," Flaherty told reporters.
The disclosure of the normally confidential teleconference came as European Union paymaster Germany said it was up to Spain, the latest euro zone country in the markets' firing line, to decide if it needed financial assistance, after media reports that Berlin was pressing Madrid to request aid.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and leaders of her centre-right coalition said in a joint statement: "All the instruments are available to guarantee the safety of banks in the euro zone."
They effectively ruled out Spanish calls to allow euro zone rescue funds to lend money directly to recapitalise Spanish banks, which are weighed down with bad property debts, without the government having to take a bailout programme.
Berlin is pressing reluctant euro zone partners, including close ally France, to agree to give up more fiscal sovereignty as part of a closer European fiscal union.
A G7 source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said there were concerns about the risk of a bank run in Spain, which is struggling to recapitalise nationalised lender Bankia and smaller banks stricken by the collapse of a property bubble.
"There's a heightened sense of alarm over developments in Europe, particularly in Spain," the source told Reuters. "There is concern on whether there will be a bank run in Spain that could have repercussions beyond the euro zone."
Spain test
Spain's borrowing costs have soared to around 6.6 per cent for 10-year bonds with the risk premium over safe haven German Bunds reaching a euro era record. Madrid plans to issue 1-2 billion euros in 10-year debt on Thursday in a key market test.
The G7 source said the United States, the current G7 chair, was unwilling to allow International Monetary Fund money to be used to support the euro zone, so there was little prospect of the global community acting as one to contain the crisis.
A senior Brazilian government official said the euro zone crisis would also be a central focus of this month's G20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico.
"We insist in our position that European countries with enough space to stimulate the economy, even via fiscal stimulus (not many that can do that), should do it now," said the official, referring mostly to Germany.
The euro climbed and safe haven US and German bonds eased off last week's record low yields as speculation mounted that authorities will act to keep the euro zone intact and overcome the debt crisis.
EU leaders hold their next regular summit on June 28-29 and their chairman, Herman Van Rompuy, said on Monday he would put forward a roadmap to design a plan for closer economic union in the euro area by the end of this year.
He said he would present "the main building blocks for this deepened economic and monetary union" at the summit, including banking integration involving proposals on "supervision, on deposit insurance and on resolution".
Germany, keen to limit liabilities for its taxpayers as the biggest contributor to euro zone rescue funds, has so far rejected proposals for a banking union with a joint deposit guarantee and a common resolution fund for failing banks.
Officials say such measures can come only at the end of a drive to closer fiscal union.
Greek exit eyed
China, another major G20 power, has instructed key agencies including the central bank to come up with plans to deal with potential economic risks of a Greek withdrawal from the euro zone, three sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters.
"It's very urgent," one source said. "The government has asked every department to analyse measures to cope with a Greek exit from the euro zone and make their own suggestions as soon as possible."
The plans may include measures to keep the yuan currency stable, increase checks on cross-border capital flows and stepping up policies to stabilise the domestic economy, the sources said.
Euro zone officials have sought to persuade Beijing, which has vast foreign currency reserves mostly in US Treasury bonds, to back the euro zone, its main trading partner, by buying troubled countries' bonds or investing in a proposed trust fund. But Chinese officials have been reticent, concerned at the risks and mindful of Chinese public criticism.
In one ray of light for the euro zone, Portugal's international lenders said on Monday its year-old bailout programme was on track, offering strong support for Lisbon as it seeks to avoid following Greece into a second rescue package.
Finance Minister Vitor Gaspar said he would stick to the programme after getting a thumbs-up in the latest inspection review by the European Union and IMF, and that the lenders would recommend payment of the next 4.1 billion euro ($4.9 billion) tranche from the rescue fund.
Three leading Portuguese banks said they would draw on funds provided under the country's 78 billion euro ($93 billion) bailout to meet tough new capital requirements as they struggle with the country's debt crisis.
Reuters
MONEY MARKETS-Funding cost rises on Europe worries - Reuters UK
Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
NYSE and AMEX quotes delayed by at least 20 minutes. Nasdaq delayed by at least 15 minutes. For a complete list of exchanges and delays, please click here.
Big Money: Stuffing The Ballot Box? - NPR News
You wouldn't think politicians would have any trouble raising enough money these days. The presidential race is expected to be a billion-dollar affair, and spending records have been shattered at the congressional level.
But many candidates are being outgunned by superPACs and other outside groups with nearly unlimited funds at their disposal. Those dollars have swayed primaries in states such as Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina and Ohio. More than $500,000 in superPAC cash from a 21-year-old college student helped decide the winner of a contested GOP primary last week in Kentucky.
With billionaires dashing off multimillion-dollar checks to superPACs, political scientists and some politicians themselves are worried that candidates have become mere bystanders in their own campaigns.
"Those on the ballot are much more of an afterthought than they ever were before," says Jon Erpenbach, a Democratic state senator in Wisconsin. "In some cases, candidates don't even matter."
Is The System Broken?
All of this has triggered debate about whether it makes sense to have a system in which campaign finance limits apply mainly to political parties and candidates. Opinion on how best to fix the problem remains split roughly along party lines.
An increasing number of Republicans want to close what they consider the opposite of a loophole, saying it makes no sense to handcuff candidates when money is otherwise flowing so freely.
"The problem is the limits," Tennessee GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander said at a recent Rules Committee hearing. "These new superPACs exist because of the contribution limits we've placed upon parties and candidates. Get rid of the limits on contributions, and superPACs will go away."
So, You Want To Create A SuperPAC? Fill In The Blanks
Comedian Stephen Colbert got permission from the Federal Election Commission last summer to launch his super political action committee.
Comedian Stephen Colbert got permission from the Federal Election Commission last summer to launch his super political action committee.
There are 450 superPACs currently registered with the Federal Election Commission. If you want to create your own superPAC, you have to fill out two forms. And it's really, really easy.
First comes the "Statement of Organization," FEC Form 1. Every PAC must file this within 10 days of raising or spending more than $1,000 on a federal election. And crucially, it's where you provide the FEC with the name of your committee.
Choosing a name is one of the main ways you can define your superPAC's purpose. And many of these names appear to have tongue planted firmly in cheek — see comedian Stephen Colbert's superPAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Other names already in use: "Bears for a Bearable Tomorrow" and the "Peeps PAC," which raised more than $1,000 in a two-and-a-half month period.
At least 11 existing superPACs, in fact, use the word "tomorrow," and several use it more than once, including Colbert's group and "Cats for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow." Another popular word choice is "future." It's used by 18 superPACs, including the pro-Romney group, Restore Our Future. Other top choices are "action," "America" and "super." But none can measure up to the superPACs' superword: "liberty," used by 71 registered groups in all.
OK, so once you've filled out Form 1 listing the name of your superPAC, your treasurer and your custodian of records, there's only one more thing the FEC needs from you. It's a letter that officially defines your group as a superPAC and announces your intent to "raise funds in unlimited amounts" and not coordinate with a party or candidate. There's even an FEC-approved template that provides you with fill-in-the-blank spaces for your committee name, the date and the treasurer's signature.
— Padmananda Rama
Abolishing those limits would only open the door to outright influence peddling, according to those who advocate keeping the rules in place.
"To suggest that the solution to the problem is for candidates to raise the money themselves would just double down the possibilities for corruption," says Josh Orton, political director of Progressives United, a liberal political action committee that favors campaign finance limits. "Can you imagine the kind of conversations that could happen if we lifted the restrictions on corporations giving to candidates themselves?"
Newt Gingrich, who was targeted by pro-Mitt Romney superPAC ads before ending his presidential bid, says he favors a system in which individuals give directly to campaigns instead of superPACs.
"We would be better off with a system that says any American can donate any personal amount of income after personal taxes as long as they report it online that night, and they give it to the candidate," Gingrich said Thursday. "And then the candidates would have to be responsible for the advertising. You would have a cleaner, more positive, healthier system."
Individuals are limited to donations of $2,500 per candidate per election, which means they can contribute that amount for both primary and general election campaigns. Limits on gifts to parties are higher; for instance, an individual may give a national party $30,800 per year and a state party $10,000.
The limits on what outside groups can spend on campaigns have largely been eroded since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010. That decision has been hailed — and derided — for ushering in a new era of campaign finance law. But it was an earlier Supreme Court decision, in Buckley v. Valeo, that made it hard to make campaign finance restrictions stick.
That case found that money in politics is protected as equivalent to free speech. Ever since the 1976 Buckley decision, money has been like water, finding its way into the political system through new means, regardless of what restrictions have been enacted.
Here Today, But Maybe Not Tomorrow
"Right now, you have the worst of all worlds — unlimited contributions to third-party entities, with some, but certainly not instant, disclosure," says Trey Grayson, a former Republican secretary of state from Kentucky who now directs the Harvard University Institute of Politics.
Grayson says he'd rather see money put in the hands of candidates and parties, who are more accountable to voters than campaign committees that may disappear after the election.
Currently, messages from candidates themselves in a contested race are likely to make up only a "small sliver" of total campaign advertising, says Ed Goeas, a Republican consultant who favors lifting limits while requiring disclosure of donors.
Great Moments In Campaign Finance
2012: SuperPACs become a primary feature of presidential campaigns in both the Republican primary and general election.
2010: The Supreme Court strikes down the ban on direct corporate spending in campaigns in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, while the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that contribution limits for independent groups violate the Constitution.
2002: Congress enacts the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, which bans so-called soft money fundraising by political parties and federal officeholders and candidates.
1996: Soft money, unlimited funds raised by parties for voter turnout and education efforts, emerges as a major component of the year's presidential race.
1976: In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upholds limits on contributions but strikes down limits on campaign spending.
1974: After Watergate, the Federal Election Campaign Act is amended to limit spending and contributions to campaigns. The law also creates the Federal Election Commission.
— Alan Greenblatt
"Money is now at the end that's furthest away from the candidates and furthest away from the parties," Goeas says. "The money is with these other groups that are having more impact on the campaign than the campaign itself."
SuperPACs are not supposed to coordinate their messages or strategies with candidates, but many campaign finance advocates concede the line often gets blurry.
Still, they say erasing the line entirely would do great damage to the political system. Having politicians directly receive large or unlimited funds from entities they might regulate would be a surefire recipe for corruption, they say.
"We're in pretty bad shape right now, but there are still some lines," says Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center. "By funneling large amounts of money to politicians, what you would actually have is just more candidates elected who are beholden to a small elite."
Genie May Be Out Of The Bottle
Supporters of such limits point to possible models to stem the tide of money. Public financing systems in Maine and Arizona, as well as one being bandied about in New York State, for example, give politicians incentive to raise small amounts of money from constituents.
Earlier this month, Connecticut's Legislature passed a bill that would require corporations to be more transparent about their election spending. It's not clear whether Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy will sign it, due to concerns about its constitutionality.
And next month, the Supreme Court may decide to take up a Montana case that would determine whether corporations can be banned from contributing to state-level campaigns. But unless there's a change in the court's voting makeup or proclivities, it's unlikely any restrictions will remain in place to prevent large funds from pouring into campaigns in one form or another.
In a speech Wednesday, former Justice John Paul Stevens, who dissented in the Citizens United case, suggested the court would at some point have to revisit the logic of the 2010 decision. The court concluded that corporate donations amount to protected free speech but did not address whether the same holds true for foreign corporations. "It will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection of some nonvoters than to that of other nonvoters," Stevens said.
Even those who would seek to level the playing field by allowing candidates and parties to raise more money directly believe that the genie may already be out of the bottle. Many rich donors have come to like superPACs, which allow them to control their own messages.
"I do think the current system will get worse until we have significant reforms," says Nick Nyhart, president of the Public Campaign Action Fund, which favors fundraising limits.
"As bad as things are in 2012, they will continue to get worse in 2014 and 2016 unless we have some change," Nyhart says. "The current system cannot hold.
Finance Services Leaders Appeal for Limited Government Aid to Fight Cyber Attacks - PC Advisor
A group of industry experts representing the financial services industry, an increasingly popular target for cyber criminals, on Friday appealed to members of a House subcommittee for limited government action to help banks and other institutions protect themselves and their customers from the growing breadth and sophistication of online attacks.
Their wish list includes policy changes to facilitate greater sharing of threat information among public- and private-sector entities, stricter law enforcement in the United States and abroad, and a more holistic approach to the policing the Internet ecosystem.
Banks and other financial services firms already have sophisticated cybersecurity mechanisms in place, of course, but even state-of-the-art perimeter defenses can't guard against every threat vector, according to Michele Cantley, senior vice president and chief information security officer with Regions Bank, who testified at Friday's hearing on behalf of the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center. That group counts more than 4,400 members, accounting for the majority of the U.S. financial services sector.
"[C]orporate account takeover attempts cannot be stopped solely by the financial institutions," Cantley said. "All participants in the Internet ecosystem have roles to play. Banks, for instance, have no direct control over the end customers' computers, nor can banks control what emails bank customers open or what websites they visit prior to accessing their online systems."
Cantley concurred with other witnesses in their appeal for removing legal and compliance barriers to sharing threat information, an issue addressed by a bill that recently won approval in the House and awaits consideration in the Senate, where it faces an uphill climb amid competing cybersecurity legislation in an election season. Though they expressed some reservations about privacy and confidentiality concerns in the bill, the witnesses said they broadly supported the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.
But Cantley also told lawmakers that financial firms and others across the public and private sectors need to do more to educate users about safe computing, training them to detect the warning signs of phishing attacks, malware and other threats. Additionally, Cantley suggested that lawmakers could pursue legislation that would give Internet service providers more flexibility to filter out traffic carrying malicious content so that fewer threats would ever make to unsuspecting users' desktops.
Those appeals came with the predictable caveat that industry groups would resist initiatives to impose more prescriptive regulations that would oversee their cybersecurity efforts on a technical level.
Friday's hearing comes amid rising concerns about vulnerabilities not only to individuals transacting with financial institutions, but to the corporate networks themselves. After all, as the notorious outlaw Willie Sutton is said to have quipped when asked why he robbed banks, "That's where the money is," recalled Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises.
"Unfortunately, just as there have been many and numerous instances of identity theft out there, where individuals have credit cards stolen or accounts looted, there has also been a significant rise in corporate account takeovers as well," Garrett said.
But there is an important distinction between the garden-variety denial-of-service attacks perpetrated by hacker collectives such as Anonymous that can knock a site off line—grabbing headlines in the process—and the attacks that can infiltrate the inner walls of critical digital infrastructure such as financial trading platforms or top-secret nuclear systems, said Mark Graff, chief information security officer at NASDAQ OMX.
Graff, who only joined NASDAQ in April, has spent more than two decades in information security, including a recent stint overseeing the defenses at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where nuclear secrets were among the more sensitive assets under his guard.
"I changed industries, but most of the challenges and many of the adversaries remain the same," said Graff, who stressed the need for tiered security that isolates mission-critical assets behind additional firewalls or in distinct network zones, keeping them away from the Internet.
"One key message in both institutions is the isolation of critical systems from the Internet at large. While many of the services we deliver to customers worldwide are housed on Internet-facing Web services, our trading and market systems are safely tucked away behind several layers of carefully arranged barriers," he said. "This is an important distinction to remember, and we should all keep this in mind when you hear about denial-of-service attacks against one institution or another. Any troublemaker can run up to the front door of a house and ring the doorbell over and over again, and that's what most denial-of-service attacks amount to."
Graff said that those attacks, while they might temporarily block consumers from accessing certain websites, are typically nothing more than an act of "vandalism," hardly a sign that anyone has gained entry to the house, by his metaphor.
But even in seeking to remove the sensationalism from the often breathless media coverage of cyber attacks, Graff acknowledged that the threats are very real.
"Effectively, all of the systems represented at this table," he said, "they're all under attack all the time at some level, in contrast to the situation just a few years ago. Today Internet attacks are a little bit like weather. We have a little bit more rain or a little less rain. Sometimes there's a hurricane that comes at us, but generally speaking they're all under attack."
In addition to a more fluid information-sharing framework—a point on which nearly all observers agree— Graff argued that corporate systems could achieve a higher degree of stability if hardware manufacturers and software producers did a better job of building security in at the time of production.
Additionally, he suggested that lawmakers and government officials could dramatically improve the nation's security posture if they took steps to shore up the supply chain for parts that tech companies import from overseas, citing concerns that compromised hardware could provide hostile foreign actors, including those working at the behest of their government, with an entry point into critical U.S. systems.
"The supply chain problem, the threats of supply chain attack, are really, I think, perhaps the knottiest problem, the most serious issue that faces us, and the one that would be most susceptible to help from government," Graff said. "I think it's one where the U.S. government really could make the biggest assistance."
Kenneth Corbin is a Washington, D.C.-based writer who covers government and regulatory issues for CIO.com.
Follow everything from CIO.com on Twitter @CIOonline, on Facebook, and on Google +.
Read more about government in CIO's Government Drilldown.
JPMorgan's Other Messy Problem: MF Global's Missing Money - Forbes
As the nation’s largest bank by assets JPMorgan Chase is bound to have its share of legal troubles but recently it’s been party to some of the ugliest accusations.
The most recent of JPM’s legal troubles are related to its massive trading loss of more than $2 billion. The loss has resulted in a number of lawsuits filed by employees and shareholders; even a probe by the FBI.
Today though a more complex legal issue resurfaced for JPMorgan. The trustee for the failed brokerage firm MF Global released a 285-page report about that firm’s bankruptcy, and it isn’t pretty. James Giddens says the former CEO, Jon Corzine, along with his executives may face legal claims for breach of fiduciary duty when they used customer money to fund a growing liquidity crisis.
To date, there is roughly $1.6 billion in missing client money at MF Global.
What does any of that have to do with JPMorgan Chase? It served as MF Global’s clearing bank. In fact, it was the agent for approximately $5.7 billion in securities lending transactions for MF Global, and in the final days of MF Global it was the recipient of some client money, according to the trustee’s report.
JPMorgan has not replied to a request for comment about today’s report.
In one instance in October MFGlobal was short on money in its JPMorgan accounts in London, according to the trustee. JPM’s Donna Dellosso, a ChiefRisk Officer Managing Director at JPM, had called MF Global CEO Jon Corzine about the overdraft issue. That same day on October 28, Corzine instructed MFGlobal’s Edith O’Brien, the brokerage’s former assistant treasurer to wire JPM money to clear the overdraft. She did with the following two transfers:
- a wire of $200 million from the JPM Customer Trust Account to the Treasury House Account
- and a wire of $175 million from the Treasury House Account to a account at JPM London
Later that day Dellosso followed up with her team at JPM to confirm that the money had been received. She learned that the initial $200 million was transferred from the JPM Customer Trust Account. From the report:
A JPM employee reportedly told Ms. Dellosso that movement of monies from a customer segregated account to a house account was not an uncommon practice for MFGI.95 Ms. Dellosso informed Mr. Zubrow that MFGI had in fact made the transfers to cover the overdraft, but that the funding for the transfer came from a Customer Segregated account.
Dellosso and her team reacted by reaching out to Corzine again this time asking him to offer written confirmation that the money it had transferred represented its own funds and thus that it was entitled to withdraw them pursuant to CFTC Rule 1.23. In other words, that the money being sent to JPMorgan did not belong to MF Global clients.
That’s when Laurie Ferber, the General Counsel at MF Global gets involved. MF Global said it was hesitant to sign the letter confirming that the funds belonged to MF Global because was it was “overly broad in that it referred to all transfers that had ever been made out of these accounts, which…would have necessitated a time-consuming administrative burden to review all such transactions.”
After much back in forth between JPM’s team and MF Global’s counsel the latter did not sign the letter. The report says:
JPM did not at any time receive a signed version of the letter, and there appear to have been no further discussions regarding the letter. Mr. Klejna advises that on Saturday evening Ms. O’Brien refused to sign the letter, even as narrowed, but indicated that she felt the transfers were appropriate based on an excess in the Customer Segregated accounts. The Trustee’s professionals have been unable to discern any basis for this alleged statement.
The problem is obviously that JPM never got the confirmation but took in the wire transfer any way.
Gidden,s whose job it is to recover as much as the customer money as possible, says JPM is cooperating with his investigation. To date, JPM has returned approximately $89.2 million in customer property and $518.4 million in non-segregated unallocated MF Global assets.
But that doesn’t mean JPM is in the clear. If talks with JPM stall then it will be in for a lawsuit. From the report: In the event these discussions do not result in an agreement, the Trustee, if appropriate, will commence litigation.
Untapped growth prospects lure PE firms to non-banking finance companies - Economic Times
Over the past year, the Reserve Bank of India has been tightening its grip over NBFCs. Some of the measures it has taken include advising banks to cut exposure to gold finance companies to 7.5% from 10% in six months and introduction of securitisation rules that discourage direct bilateral sales of loans to banks.
In addition, the regulator is likely to come up with a host of regulations for the sector in the next couple of months. The RBI is expected to issue draft guidelines based on Usha Thorat Committee recommendation this month.
The committee had recommended a higher capital adequacy norm and asset classification and provisioning norms similar to those for banks. To add to the woes of the NBFCs, another committee headed by MV Nair has recommended that bank loans to them be stripped of the priority sector tag.
As per RBI norms, banks need to direct 40% of their loans to agriculture and other mandated areas that are together known as priority sectors, limiting banks' exposure to NBFCs to 5%.
However, despite the regulatory clampdown, the sector holds good potential for return. Sequoia Capital got five-fold returns on exiting from Kerala-based NBFC Manappuram General Finance & Leasing in just three years. In early 2007, Sequoia had invested $14 million (about 75 crore) in the firm for nearly 14% stake. In 2010, Sequoia sold its entire stake for $70 million (about 380 crore) in the open market.
"It is a capital-intensive business. Capital-adequacy requirement has gone up from 12% to 15%," said V Lakshmi Narasimhan, CFO of Magma Fincorp. "Private equity players are investing in NBFCs that are present in niche segments and have good governance. Long-term story is attractive." Private equity firms like KKR and IFC had invested in Magma Fincorp in June, 2011.
Thakkar of FIDC adds: "Once the final guidelines of the Usha Thorat Committee and Nair Committee are in place, this sector will see more interest."
According to I Unnikrishnan, managing director of Kerala-based gold finance company Manappuram Finance, NBFCs raise funds through debt depending upon the management's comfort. "We need to have minimum capital in terms of equity. Raising funds through PE or debt is a function of how comfortable the management is," says Unnikrishnan.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee favours 25 per cent cut in states taxes on petrol - Economic Times
Speaking at the day-long meeting of the Congress Working Committee (CWC), he justified the high price of petrol because of the overall international price of crude.
He said the states needed to also do their bit on reduction of petrol price.
Corruption and price rise were the most important issues during the discussion at the CWC.
KPCC President Ramesh Chennithala attacked the petroleum companies for raising the petrol prices, especially at a time when Kerala was witnessing a bye election, that put the party in trouble.
He wanted the government to take back the power to decide oil prices.
No comments:
Post a Comment