Connect with us


FOREX-Euro increases 0.5% from the dollar before ECB.




LONDON, March 9 (Reuters) – The euro and other European currencies surrounded up on Wednesday forward with this week’s central bank conference and supported by studies that the European Union discussed mutual connect issuance to finance energy and defense spending.

After pressing a 22-month low on Monday, moving to around $1.0806, the euro rose 0.5% on the afternoon to $1.0946, served by a report citing unnamed officials that said the European Union was discussing mutually connected issuance. EUR=EBS

Sterling GBP=D3 rose 0.3% from the dollar to $1.3134.

“European currencies have been below major demands for the past couple of months, and many of these valuations have started to check expanded,” said Linda Foley, head of FX Technique at Rabobank in London.

“Yesterday’s news that the EU is contemplating issuing debt to finance energy and defense paying underpinned the euro and served to induce the higher tone in euro and European currencies,” she added.


But analysts also said the euro is impossible to rise significantly while there is so significantly be worried about the conflict in Ukraine spreading.

Different European currencies such as Poland’s zloty EURPLN= and Hungary’s forint EURHUF= rebounded from the euro’s history levels, equally supported by their central banks’ sharp curiosity charge hikes on Tuesday.

The European Key Bank matches on Thursday, but money markets estimated policymakers to delay charge hikes till late in the year amid the specter of stagflation.

The U.S. dollar =USD against a holder of currencies such as the euro was 0.35% lower at 98.764, just below a 22-month top moved on Monday.

Analysts said objectives for a Federal Reserve charge walk and haven need to be proposed the U.S. dollar can impossible stop trying an excessive amount of ground.


In the meantime, the commodity is expected to master the FX trades, ING analysts said.

Fighting in Ukraine has not abated, and fat costs are hiking again on news of a U.S. bar on Russian fat imports. MKTS/GLOB

Some commodity currencies such as Australian AUD=D3 and kiwi dollar NZD=D3 – eased from new peaks amid doubts war-driven surges in energy, cereals and materials could crimp long-term demand. AUD/

“Market players may move their view from ‘get Australian dollars since commodity costs are high’ to ‘promote Australian dollars since high commodity rates will cause need destruction,” said Commonwealth Bank of Australia strategist Carol Kong.

Cryptocurrencies rose on speculation that Bright Home may soften its combative approach to electronic assets. Bitcoin BTC=BTSP was last up 9.5% at $42,165 and ether ETH=BTSP was up 7.2% to $2,763.


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Can Community Finance Advance Racial Equity? It Takes an Ecosystem.




Steven Brown, Michael Neil, Ellen Seidman, and Shena Ashley. The report shows that the commitments to equity in racial relations made by foundations and corporate sponsors between June 2020 to December 2021 amounted to around $215 billion, with over 50% of the amount being allocated toward “community development activities and investments” (6). Community financial institutions for development (CDFIs) are the top beneficiaries of the funds. The authors further add to the optimism that the pledge’s fulfillment is “either on time or ahead of schedule” (6).

However, there are still a lot of questions to be answered, including what happens to the money to where it’s needed, and will the pledge be last? As was the case in the past few years following the initial push to fund race equity in the aftermath of the murder of Michael Brown, will racial equity philanthropy stall out when another issue triggers it? Following Trump’s election as president Donald Trump as president in 2016, philanthropic advisor Will Cordery noted that many foundations stopped funding Black-led group movements.

What will happen this time around? According to Theodos and his coauthors write in their report, businesses and philanthropy aren’t only dependent on funds; if they want a “new era in racial equity” to be a reality, companies and generosity have to change their ways of working.

How Are Racial Equity Commitments Structured?

In the case of corporate announcements, doubt about the magnitude of statements is justified. In the past, an article in NPQ on Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) commitments by banks pointed out commitment announcements are typically much more excellent, often by five times the amount of money committed. For instance, Jesse Van Tol, the CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), stated that the $384 billion of agreements with 14 banks the NCRC helped negotiate produced “$70-80 billion in a net new activity.” Indeed, this isn’t anything to laugh at, but it’s significantly smaller than the $384 billion.


Do you think the same dynamics are at work in the latest round of racial equity pledges? The simple answer is: yes, it does.

Of the announced $215 billion commitments, more than $200 billion was sourced directly from private companies, with financial institutions and banks accounting for more than half of the sum (16). Foundation commitments were estimated to total $12.6 billion. The promises from corporations are more significant and often have obligations to repay. For instance, from the $49.5 billion in commitments to corporate clients made by the country’s top 50 public companies — the amount of $200 billion is calculated based on more than a hundred thousand businesses–the Washington Post found that $45.2 billion (91.3 percent) was loans or investments and just a bit more than $4.2 billion as grants.

Another cautionary note from the Urban Institute: as CRA pledges, commitments to equity in racial and ethnic diversity “represent a mix of some new funding and some repurposed or refined targeting, delivery, and execution of existing products and activities” (6).

In the end, corporate press releases can be misleading. But, the grants can be successful when combined with loan commitments, access to banking credit, target acquisition, growth capital, and impact investments. The most important question is: how effective will they prove to be?

Using Racial Equity Funding to Retool Community Finance

In their report, the authors examine what I call”the paradox” of community financing. Even though CDFIs have seen rapid growth with impressive figures, they’re only an insignificant fraction of the global financial system. CDFI assets totaled $266 billion by 2020, which is a staggering increase from the previous low of four billion as of the middle 1990s. However, it’s less than 1% of the estimated $27.7 trillion of bank assets. Inciting research done by the lead author Theodos, the report highlights the community finance gap that remains and notes that “between 2011 and 2015, 27 percent of US counties saw no CDFI lending activity, and half of all counties saw annual CDFI lending activity that amounted to less than $7 for every person earning below 200 percent of the federal poverty level” (9).


Presumably, with massive US commitments to CDFIs as of 2020, the gaps are less pronounced. However, the authors point out that more money alone will not be enough for the effective advancement of the cause of racial equity. Theodos and his coauthors present eleven areas in which changes to practice, not only increases in dollars, are required. To summarise, the modifications include:

A more significant portion of the assistance for CDFIs must come from operational service (equity and grants) instead of low-interest loans.

When loans are offered to CDFIs, they need not to be limited to low-interest rates but also be extended for longer durations of time, with terms of at least ten years.

Finance technology investment is not just about technology hardware but also technical assistance in training staff to utilize it.

Anti-gentrification capacity must be increased–specifically, this means policy support for land banks and community land trusts that facilitate long-term community control over land use.


Non-profit organizations that promote the direct community ownership of property, whether residential or commercial use, require support.

It is crucial to include the voices of the community in financial decision-making.

The government-owned enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have trillions of real estate loans. They can be leveraged “to serve better the parts of the market where they lag–small loans, manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and climate resiliency among them” (11).

CDFI dollars can go further when Fannie and Freddie take over CDFI loans for “non-housing, mission-based community development loans.”

New insurance products that are backed by “mission-financed insurance companies” are required to allow BIPOC communities to build property and increase the size of their holdings. As NPQ has observed, many heirs’ properties–land held in common by heirs have frequently slowed access to capital. Black Land Justice advocates and other allies have urged the Federal Government to provide an array of grants as well as technical assistance, insurance, and loans to overcome this.

Subsidies that promote small and home-based business owners in BIPOC communities must be targeted differently, mainly through down-payment assistance and small business grants to enable more commercially-oriented loans.


CRA rules that, as Dedrick Asante-Muhammad of NCRC has advised, require to be revised to precisely measure “how these regulations affect communities and people of color” (12).

The Road Ahead

According to Theodos and coauthors, it is essential to simultaneously tackle the business and finance side to achieve economic growth in the community. Do not do either, and the system will fail to evolve. They say that “a absence of demand for capital does not mean that there isn’t a need for capital however it indicates the inability of communities to take on the investment communities have missed out on. This capacity has to be built” (7).

In the final part, Theodos and his team provide additional warnings. One is to steer clear of the temptation to fund large, easy projects that can meet numerical “racial equity commitment” targets; however, do not prioritize riskier investment opportunities that have more significant impact. The second option is to change the metrics to ensure that the equity impact measures align with the long-term time horizons required by the research. Another is not to be afraid of acknowledging the investment size necessary to be made, which they estimate to be between $500 million to $1 billion for each neighborhood. This is “comparable in scale to the Marshall Plan that provided US aid for economic redevelopment in Western Europe following World War II” (14). The authors also advocate for new standards within charity and business, including “transforming workplace culture, shifting power dynamics, and diversifying staff, especially leadership, and supplier composition.” However, in the absence of internal change, they warn that “external commitments to equity will likely falter” (15).

In their conclusion, they acknowledge that we are beginning to be a new era; yet, although a paradigm shift is possible, many obstacles stand in the way of achieving it. In the past, Lisa Mensah, CEO of Opportunity Finance Network, a trade association for CDFIs, stated to NPQ that CDFIs need to “go deep” to meet their purpose. She made it towards CDFI financiers that they could be able to go deeper “if they have the funds to go deep,” an assertion that Theodos and his coauthors agree with. The authors state that the 2020 commitments and 2021 present “a chance to reimagine how the private sector can and should invest in communities as a vehicle for greater racial equity” (15). As they say, the extent to which this opportunity is seized is not certain.

Continue Reading


Explanation of what the law states regarding the presidential record.




WASHINGTON (AP) —Reports of an eight-hour gap between official documents of the then-President’s telephone calls during the day of the revolt last year within the U.S. Capitol raise new questions regarding the accuracy (or lack of the president’s record-keeping.

The panel investigating this Jan. 6th, 2021 protest has found an inconsistency in the records that extends from 11 a.m. until around 7 p.m. the day of the incident and includes White House calls, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Trump did not make any comments on Tuesday. However, the focus on the issue is centered around an additional legal and political snag for the Republican former president — the discovery in the last calendar year of fifteen boxes that contained classified documents from his White House tenure, from his Mar-a-Lago vacation house in Florida.

An examination of how the law treats the presidential record:



The law of 1978 requires the preservation of White House documents as property of the U.S. government.

The law was enacted following the Watergate scandal, where the secret recordings that president Richard Nixon had considered destroying had a significant impact. The tapes revealed Nixon attempted to conceal the fraudulent burglary at the Democratic National Committee headquarters. He resigned instead of facing impeachment and exile from office.


The law could require the keeping of texts, emails, and phone records regardless of the device used to send the communications, according to the historian of the presidential administration, Lindsay Chervinsky.

The issue is that there is no mechanism to enforce the law. This, in essence, relies on the trust of Presidents and their staff to oversee their record-keeping.

“It does require a certain element of good faith and sort of an honor system, and when that crumbles, you can see the limitations,” Chervinsky stated.


However, it is clear that the January. The 6-based committee will be examining the gaps as it tries to find out what Trump’s communication was before and during the uprising that followed the protests of Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent Congress from declaring Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.

House investigators are examining the possibility that Trump communicated during this period through other means such as personal cellphones or different types of communication, like a phone handed to Trump by an adviser.


In a nutshell, yes. When it was discovered that Trump had brought boxes of classified documents on his visit to Mar-a-Lago, House lawmakers opened an investigation. In addition, the National Archives and Records Administration reported that they had asked for the Justice Department to look into the issue.

In response to questions about the issue, attorney general Merrick Garland has stated his Justice Department will do what it does every time review both the legal and factual aspects “and take it from there.”

Continue Reading


The legal right to work at your home? Here’s the law.




Do you have the legally valid right to be able to work at your home? Do you have the right to insist on working during the week full-time at the same pay? What if your employer isn’t willing to? This blog examines what UK law states regarding your rights to work flexible hours and the actual situations that many employers and employees face

After removing coronavirus restrictions throughout the UK and Europe, there is no need for those who can work from home. The last two years have proved to many that they can perform their work equally well at home and enjoy a better time-to-work balance. A YouGov survey conducted at the close of January showed the following: 71% of workers prefer working at home, and 58% reported feeling more productive doing so. Although some employers have been accommodating, however, some, including Goldman Sachs, have insisted that employees return to work and make the commute. Are they in their right to demand this?

The legal right

It is important to note that the law presently does not grant a basis for working from home or to enjoy other forms of flexible work–unless the contract of employment states the contrary. There is only one right to ask to work flexible hours and request that the employer consider the demand “reasonably.” It’s nothing beyond that. Employers must, however, demonstrate that they’ve looked at the request reasonably. Simply dismissing the appeal without reason could not be legal.

The request

The right to request a change is only available to those who have worked for 26 weeks. They are only allowed to submit one request within twelve months. This does not only allow working from home but also other modifications in the agreement, including the hours, timings, and workplace.


The request must be submitted in writing, detailing the reason for the change and the date the employee would like this to be implemented. The application must state what impact the modification has on the employer’s business and how the effect will be addressed.

The response of the employer

The sole obligation is required to review requests fairly. Employers are only allowed to refuse any of the eight grounds outlined in the law. They are the burden of extra costs adversely affecting the ability to meet demand from customers as well as the inability to organize the work of existing staff members as well as the failure of attracting more staff; the adverse influence on performance; negative impact on performance absence of work during a time when an employee is planning to work and the planned modifications to the structure of the company

The employer must make an informed decision and inform the employee within three months (or longer by agreement).

If the application is approved, it is permanent, and the employee would need to wait for 12 months before they can apply for a new one unless the employer has agreed to the contrary.

If the employer disagrees

If the request is denied, The employer can permit employees to appeal internally. The appeal must be considered within three months or until an extension has been negotiated by the employer and employee


If the request isn’t granted, the employee may make a complaint before an arbitration tribunal in three months.

The tribunal cannot investigate the merits and shortcomings of the decision. It must only determine if the employer adhered to this procedure moderately or if the reason provided for the decision was not among the reasons mentioned or based on false facts. Suppose the tribunal determines that the claim is supported. In that case, it can issue an order to the employer to reconsider its request and award the employee compensation up to 8 weeks’ of capped salary. It is not able to force the employer to approve the request.

Employees should not be discriminated against by their employer or dismissed simply because they applied. If they do affect, they may complain about it to a tribunal within three months and seek compensation for unfair dismissal (and unlike the majority of unfair dismissal cases, the claimant does not need to be employed for a minimum of two years to be eligible for a claim)

Instead of proceeding to the tribunal, parties may consider having an arbitrator take on the case following ACAS arbitration. ACAS arbitrator scheme. (Note this: ACAS has also released guidelines for flexible work.)

The commercial reality

Before the outbreak was discovered, companies found that flexible working arrangements allowed employees to keep skilled workers, cut down on the cost of recruitment, reduce absenteeism, and respond more quickly to changes in market conditions. Since then, the forces of the market have increased these concerns. A recent survey conducted worldwide discovered that as high as 72% of workers would leave when they are not happy with their workplace regulations.


Therefore, there is strength in the numbers. Many employers will find that if they don’t comply with the requests that they are not able to comply, they could lose valuable staff members, and this could be an issue of law; instead, it’s a matter of the market. As we look ahead to the best ways to retain employees, employers are looking at working from home and a four-day workweek and reduced hours with no reduction in salary. There is a trial in the UK, and some other countries, like Belgium and Belgium, are working on giving this an official option. Goldman Sachs may find that it is increasingly a lone wolf.

The law is becoming more outdated, though it may be able to catch up. The government is currently conducting a consultation on changing the standard for flexible work options and whether to change it to a “day one” right so that one doesn’t have to be an employee for 26 weeks to make an application. The current law grants only one due to request. However, the reality of business favors employees, regardless of what the law states.

Continue Reading