Tag Archives: Society/Community

Twitter Exodus Hits Teams Tasked With Regulatory, Content Issues Globally

Elon Musk’s

move to purge Twitter Inc. employees who don’t embrace his vision has led to a wave of departures among policy and safety-issue staffers around the globe, sparking questions from regulators in key jurisdictions about the site’s continued compliance efforts.

Scrutiny has been particularly close in Europe, where officials have in recent years assumed a greater role in regulating big tech companies.

Staff departures in recent days include dozens of people spread across units such as government policy, legal affairs and Twitter’s “trust and safety” division, which is responsible for functions like drafting content-moderation rules, according to current and former employees, postings on social media and emails sent to work addresses of people who had worked at Twitter that recently bounced back. They have left from hubs including Dublin, Singapore and San Francisco.

Many of the departures follow Mr. Musk’s ultimatum late last week that staffers pledge to work long hours and be “extremely hardcore” or take a buyout. Hundreds or more employees declined to commit to what Mr. Musk has called Twitter 2.0 and were locked out of company systems. That comes after layoffs in early November that cut roughly half of the company’s staff.

Twitter conducted another round of job cuts affecting engineers late Wednesday, before the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S., people familiar with the matter said. The exact scope couldn’t be immediately learned, though some of the people estimated dozens of employees were let go.

Twitter sent fired engineers an email saying their code wasn’t satisfactory and offering four weeks of severance, some of the people said. Some other engineers received an email warning them to improve their performance to keep their jobs, the people said.

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission said this week it was asking Twitter whether it still had sufficient staff to assure compliance with the European Union’s privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The company last week told the Irish data regulator that it did, but is still reviewing the impact of the staff departures, a spokesman for the Irish regulator said.

He said Twitter has appointed an interim chief data protection officer, an obligation under the GDPR, after the departure of Damien Kieran, who had served in the role but left shortly after the first round of layoffs.

In France, meanwhile, the country’s communications regulator said it sent a letter last Friday asking that Twitter explain by this week whether it has sufficient personnel on staff to moderate hate speech deemed illegal under French law—under which Twitter could face legal orders and fines.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What will be the impact on Twitter of having a reduced staff to oversee regulatory and content issues? Join the conversation below.

The staff departures come as Twitter holds talks with the EU about the bloc’s new social-media law, dubbed the Digital Services Act, which will apply tougher rules on bigger platforms like Twitter by the middle of next year.

Didier Reynders,

the EU’s justice commissioner, is slated to attend a previously scheduled meeting with Twitter executives in Ireland on Thursday. He plans to ask about the company’s ability to comply with the law and to meet its commitments on data protection and tackling online hate speech, according to an EU official familiar with the trip.

Věra Jourová, a vice president of the EU’s executive arm, said she was concerned about reports of the firing of vast amounts of Twitter staff in Europe. “European laws continue to apply to Twitter, regardless of who is the owner,” she said.

Mr. Musk has said that he would follow the laws of the countries where Twitter operates and that it “cannot become a free-for-all hellscape.”

Twitter didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Late Wednesday, Mr. Musk tweeted that the number of views of tweets he described as “hate speech” had fallen below levels seen before a spike in such views in late October.
“Congrats to the Twitter team!” Mr. Musk wrote. 

Some of the people who either departed or declined to sign on to Twitter 2.0 appear to include Sinead McSweeney, the company’s Ireland-based vice president of global policy and philanthropy, who led government relations and compliance initiatives with regulations worldwide, as well as the two remaining staffers in Twitter’s Brussels office.

Ms. McSweeney and the two Brussels employees declined to comment, but emails to their work addresses started bouncing back undeliverable in recent days according to checks by The Wall Street Journal. Four other Brussels-based employees were earlier this month told they were being laid off, according to social-media posts and people familiar with the matter.

Twenty Air Street, London, the home of Twitter’s U.K. office.



Photo:

Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Damien Viel, Twitter’s country manager for France, was also among a wave of staffers who posted publicly this week that they had left the company. He declined to comment when reached by the Journal.

At least some of the departures occurred in teams that reported to

Yoel Roth,

Twitter’s former head of trust and safety, who resigned earlier this month. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Mr. Roth said he resigned because Mr. Musk made it clear that he alone would make decisions on policy and the platform’s rules and that he had little use for those at the company who were advising him on those issues.

The team included Ilana Rosenzweig, who worked as Twitter’s senior director and head of international trust and safety. She has left the company, according to her LinkedIn profile. Based in Singapore, Ms. Rosenzweig led Twitter’s trust and safety teams across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, along with Japan and other Asia-Pacific countries, according to her profile.

“I decided not to agree to Twitter 2.0,” Keith Yet, a Twitter trust and safety worker based in Singapore, wrote on LinkedIn on Monday. Mr. Yet worked on child sexual exploitation issues and handling legal escalations from Japan and other countries, according to his LinkedIn profile. Attempts to reach Ms. Rosenzweig and Mr. Yet were unsuccessful.

The departures come amid a wave of new tech regulation, particularly in Europe. The Digital Services Act, which will by the middle of next year require tech companies like Twitter with more than 45 million users in the EU to maintain robust systems for removing content that European national governments deem to be illegal. 

The layoff announcements just keep coming. As interest rates continue to climb and earnings slump, WSJ’s Dion Rabouin explains why we can expect to see a bigger wave of layoffs in the near future. Illustration: Elizabeth Smelov

The act also requires these companies to reduce risks associated with content that regulators consider harmful or hateful. It mandates regular outside audits of the companies’ processes and threatens noncompliance fines of up to 6% of a company’s annual revenue.

Political leaders had warned that Mr. Musk’s Twitter would have to comply with EU rules. “In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules,” tweeted the EU’s commissioner for the internal market,

Thierry Breton,

hours after Mr. Musk completed his Twitter deal in late October tweeting, “the bird is free.”

A spokesman for the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, said this week that it had active contacts with the company regarding the regulation and tackling disinformation and illegal hate speech, but declined to comment on the substance of Twitter’s compliance plans.

Activists and researchers are also concerned that the departures could undermine Twitter’s ability to block state-backed information operations aimed at spreading propaganda and harassing adversaries. The wave of departures “raises questions about how Twitter will moderate tweets and comments in a professional and neutral manner,” said Patrick Poon, an activist turned scholar at Japan’s Meiji University, who analyzes free speech.

—Liza Lin, Alexa Corse and Sarah E. Needleman contributed to this article.

Write to Sam Schechner at Sam.Schechner@wsj.com, Kim Mackrael at kim.mackrael@wsj.com and Newley Purnell at newley.purnell@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Disney’s ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’ Cleared for December Release in China

Chinese authorities have notified

Walt Disney Co.

DIS -1.40%

that “Avatar: The Way Of Water” will be released in China on Dec. 16, the same day it is slated to be released globally, according to people familiar with the matter.

Executives at Disney and at movie-theater chains had been closely watching for a decision from Chinese censors on the movie, director

James Cameron

‘s sequel to the 2009 science- fiction epic. It will be distributed by Disney-owned 20th Century Studios.

“This is fantastic news for Disney, for 

James Cameron

and for the movie, because the potential box office from China is enormous,” Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore, said in an interview. “This may be the pivotal moment that indicates that ‘Way of Water’ will earn enough money to justify further installments of the Avatar franchise.”

The last seven superhero films produced by Marvel Studios, Disney’s most-profitable film studio over the past decade, haven’t received release dates in the crucial China market, denting the global box-office gross.

In July, for example, Disney cited the lack of a China release for “Thor: Love and Thunder,” the fourth solo film featuring Chris Hemsworth’s Thor character from the popular Avengers superhero team, as one reason the movie underperformed at the international box office.

Disney and other Hollywood studios have run up against Chinese censors in recent years, especially when their movies deal with sensitive political themes or when actors or directors make statements that Chinese authorities find objectionable.

Two recent Marvel films were blocked from release in China after comments that the Chinese government viewed as insulting, made by the director of one movie and a star actor of the other, were unearthed and circulated in the country.

While Disney hasn’t revealed the “Avatar” sequel’s budget, Mr. Cameron, the director, said in a recent interview in GQ magazine that the “Avatar” sequel was “the worst business case in movie history” and that it would have to be the third- or fourth-highest-grossing film in history just to break even. Disney has said that it plans to make five Avatar movies in total.

The first Avatar movie from 2009 grossed nearly $2.9 billion worldwide, with $259 million of that total coming from China, making it the highest-grossing movie of all time. It narrowly edged out Marvel’s “Avengers: Endgame” after a September 2022 rerelease of the movie added $73 million in ticket sales, according to Comscore, a box-office tracker.

It sparked a boom in multiplex construction in China, as Chinese audiences flocked to see the film in 3-D and government authorities sought to encourage consumers to spend more money in shopping centers.

Theaters saw lines for the first “Avatar” up to six hours long, and scalpers sold tickets for $100 apiece, according to

Richard Gelfond,

chief executive of the movie technology company

IMAX Corp.

In Beijing, Chinese authorities closed an IMAX theater so high- ranking party members could watch it at a private screening, he said. Before the 2009 movie, IMAX had 14 screens in China, but now has 800, with 200 more contracted to be built.

“Everything changed after ‘Avatar,’” Mr. Gelfond said. “It was really the match that lit the entire movie industry” in China.

Write to Robbie Whelan at robbie.whelan@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

GOP Gains College-Educated and Minority Voters in Slim House Pickup

In making modest gains in House seats this year, Republicans drew more support from minority and college-educated voters than in other recent elections, chipping away at important pillars of the Democratic coalition in ways that could better position the party for the next election.

Republicans narrowed the Democratic advantage among Latino voters, Black voters and white women with college degrees—important components of the Democratic voter pool—according to AP VoteCast, a large survey of midterm participants. GOP House candidates won a majority of white women in the nation’s suburbs, a swing group that helped power the Democratic Party to its House majority in 2018 and backed President Biden in 2020.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What did the results of the midterms tell you about the makeup of the GOP today? Join the conversation below.

“The numbers indicate that our party has been more successful than we previously knew in getting voters of color moving to the GOP,’’ said Neil Newhouse, a veteran pollster who led polling for several GOP presidential nominees. “Ever since I got involved in politics more than 40 years ago, that’s been a long-term goal of the party.”

The voter shifts helped Republicans win a majority of House votes nationally, preliminary results show, but weren’t strong enough to bring the party substantial gains in House seats. Republicans have so far lost a net of one seat in the Senate, with the final tally to be decided in Georgia’s runoff election next month. Still, the gain among these groups “tells me that Republicans are potentially well-positioned to win a national election, if we can replicate this,’’ Mr. Newhouse said.

House members-elect following a group photo on the Capitol steps a week after the midterm vote.



Photo:

Leah Millis/Reuters

Ruy Teixeira, a demographer at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said the shift among Latino voters was particularly noteworthy and extends a move toward the GOP that was a feature of the last two presidential elections. “They lost quite a bit among Latinos, and the swing was significant,” he said.

Many caveats apply in drawing lessons from a midterm election. Far fewer voters participate than in a presidential contest. The voter shifts detected by AP VoteCast varied widely by state and by whether an election had the potential to restrict legalized abortion. Voters’ choices this year might have been driven more by their views of former President

Donald Trump

and of candidates who copied his style of politics, than by their views of the two parties. Mr. Trump is now a declared candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024.

The AP VoteCast survey, which included more than 94,000 midterm voters nationwide, found a number of significant shifts in voter preferences:

—Latino voters favored Democratic House candidates by 17 percentage points—giving 56% support to Democrats and 39% to Republicans—a far slimmer lead than the 28-point edge that helped President Biden win in 2020 or the 34-point Democratic advantage in the last midterm elections, in 2018.

—Black voters gave 14% of their support to GOP House candidates, compared with 8% in the elections of two and four years ago.

—White women with college degrees, who had backed Democrats by 19 points in the last midterms and by 21 points in the 2020 presidential election, tipped toward Democrats by a far narrower 6 points this year.

—Republicans won an outright majority of white women in the suburbs, carrying the group by 6 percentage points. Suburban white women had backed Mr. Biden by 5 points, and Democratic House candidates in 2018 by 7 points. Female voters overall, who account for over half the electorate, favored Democrats by a single percentage point, down from 12 points and 15 points in the last two elections, respectively.

Some Democrats cautioned that little could be read into results from a midterm election with special conditions. The fate of legalized abortion was a pressing issue in some states, which helped Democratic candidates, and was less salient in others.

“I’m skeptical, because it wasn’t a national presidential election, and because you have such differences state by state,’’ said Elaine Kamarck, a veteran of the Clinton administration White House who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Analysts said that more data were needed to better understand what the variations among voter groups from state to state meant to the election outcomes. Some early clues suggest that the Latino voter shift boosted the GOP vote share in some House races, even if the shift didn’t produce a victory.

In some Latino-rich House districts in California, Democratic candidates won their elections with far smaller vote margins than the party produced two years earlier. Rep.

Norma Torres

of Southern California, for example, won by 12 points in preliminary results in a district that Mr. Biden carried by 28 points.

Republicans cut into Democratic margins in two heavily Latino House districts in South Texas. Democratic Rep.

Vicente Gonzalez

won re-election by 8 points in a district that Mr. Biden had carried by 15 points, while Republican Monica De La Cruz won in a newly created district by 9 points, which Mr. Trump had carried by 3 points.

In a third South Texas House district, Democratic Rep.

Henry Cuellar

won re-election by a larger margin than Mr. Biden won in 2020.

Carlos Odio, co-founder of Equis Research, a Democratic-aligned firm that focuses on Latino voters, said the Hispanic vote varied significantly by state.

Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D., Texas) celebrating a victory that had a slimmer margin than President Biden’s in 2020.



Photo:

Denise Cathey/Associated Press

“Florida was an unmitigated disaster for Democrats across the board. But it is especially true among Latino voters,’’ he said. Republicans won a majority of the Hispanic vote for the first time since 2006, Mr. Odio said. Republicans carried heavily Latino Miami-Dade County, the state’s largest, “something that was unthinkable in the Obama era,’’ he said.

Republicans boosted their share of voters who don’t have a four-year college degree. They also dominated among white voters in rural areas and small towns, winning a commanding 70% of those voters—producing an advantage of about 40 points—compared with leads of about 30 points two years and four years ago.

The AP VoteCast survey was conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press and Fox News.

Write to Aaron Zitner at aaron.zitner@wsj.com and Anthony DeBarros at Anthony.Debarros@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Kherson Residents Tell of Torture, Abuse During Russian Occupation

KHERSON, Ukraine—Residents of the southern city of Kherson told of torture and killing by Russian soldiers during Moscow’s nine-month occupation of the Ukrainian city, while world leaders grappled with the fallout of a missile crash in neighboring Poland during a wave of Russian strikes across Ukraine.

Russia unleashed one of the biggest barrages of the war on Tuesday, firing 96 missiles at Ukrainian cities after being forced to withdraw from Kherson last week in a major blow for Moscow.

Ukrainian air defenses shot down 77 missiles and 10 Iranian-made drones, according to the general staff of the Ukrainian armed forces.

A missile landed in a Polish village near the Ukrainian border, killing two farmworkers and raising fears of a wider conflagration.

Top North Atlantic Treaty Organization officials said Wednesday that the missile was likely a Russian-made weapon fired by a Ukrainian air-defense system, and that there was no evidence it was directed there intentionally. Polish President

Andrzej Duda

said Wednesday that Ukraine was defending itself and placed blame on Russia.

Preliminary U.S. assessments also indicated the missile that landed in Poland was from a Ukrainian air-defense system, according to two senior Western officials, while President Biden said at the G-20 summit in Indonesia that it was unlikely to have been fired from Russia.

A residential building in Kyiv that was hit by fragments of a missile during a Russian barrage on Tuesday.



Photo:

Serhii Korovayny for The Wall Street Journal

Preliminary U.S. assessments indicate the missile that landed in Poland was from a Ukrainian air-defense system.



Photo:

KACPER PEMPEL/REUTERS

Ukrainian President

Volodymyr Zelensky

blamed Russia late Tuesday, saying Russian missiles hit Poland, while the Russian government denied any responsibility for the strikes.

While investigations continued into the origin of the missile, repair crews in Ukraine were working to fix infrastructure damaged in Tuesday’s attack, which left about 10 million Ukrainians without electricity. The missiles also hit residential buildings near Kyiv’s government district and disrupted communications across the country.

The head of Ukraine’s electricity-transmission-system operator, Ukenergo, told a Ukrainian news broadcast that the coming days would be difficult, warning emergency shutdowns were necessary to stabilize the grid.

Russia has increasingly targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure as it faces setbacks on the battlefield. During their retreat from Kherson, Russian forces knocked out power, heating, water and cell reception in the city.

Meanwhile, the general staff of Ukraine’s armed forces said Russian troops were fortifying defensive lines on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River, which became the new front line in the south following the Russian withdrawal. Ukrainian forces shelled Russian positions on the eastern bank of the river and in the area of the Kinburn Spit on Tuesday, according to the southern operational command.

Less than a week since jubilant residents welcomed the return of Ukrainian troops to Kherson, residents were taking stock of the occupation.

Russians detained and abused people in Kherson during their occupation of the city, residents say.



Photo:

VALENTYN OGIRENKO/REUTERS

Vitaliy Shevchenko, 66, said Russian troops had shot his neighbor multiple times in the chest after he insulted one of them.

Mykola Makarenko said he knew from the start of the occupation he was likely to be a target. He had served in the Ukrainian army, fighting against Russian-backed forces in the east of the country in a conflict that has dragged on since 2014.

The 44-year-old said he couldn’t flee Kherson because a friend had seen his name on a list of wanted men at a Russian checkpoint. He spent the subsequent months staying with different friends, moving every few weeks and avoiding Russian checkpoints. In August, however, Russians stopped the car Mr. Makarenko was traveling in and detained him.

For the next 16 days, Mr. Makarenko said he was tortured by Russian soldiers who broke his jaw and four of his ribs, and scratched a letter Z onto his leg with a knife.

“I’m waiting to see my family,” he said. “Then I’ll rejoin the military and get vengeance.”

Following the recapture of Kherson, Mr. Zelensky said Ukrainian forces had uncovered evidence of hundreds of war crimes. The Kremlin has repeatedly dismissed such accusations.

Kherson residents gathered to receive aid in the city’s central square this week.



Photo:

Virginie NGUYEN HOANG for The Wall Street Journal

Lina Naumova, a popular TikTok blogger, said she continued to post messages like “Kherson will never be Russian” for months after the occupation began. On Aug. 23, an unmarked sedan pulled up outside her home and three Russian soldiers began searching for Ukrainian symbols and weapons.

Then they put her in the car with them. On the way, she said, they put a bag over her head. She thinks they took her to a local jail, but isn’t sure.

For 11 days, Ms. Naumova said she was held in isolation and repeatedly questioned about transactions on her bank card. The soldiers demanded to know who else published anti-Russian blogs from Kherson.

As they searched her phone, she saw a conversation she had with a Ukrainian newspaper. She grabbed the phone and quickly deleted it, she said. In response, the soldiers tied her hands behind her back, poured water on her and attached cables to her fingers, though they didn’t turn the electricity on.

They told Ms. Naumova, 67, they wouldn’t beat a woman her age, but made loud noises around her and screamed at her, before moving her to a basement. Once, a soldier slapped her, she said.

After 11 days, she was taken to a room and forced to record an apology to everyone she offended, saying she was sorry for criticizing the Russian army and that Crimea is Russia. She had to record it five times before they were satisfied, she said. Then they took her home, but kept her passport.

Write to Ian Lovett at ian.lovett@wsj.com and Isabel Coles at isabel.coles@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Marijuana May Hurt Smokers More than Cigarettes Alone

Marijuana might do more damage to smokers than cigarettes alone.

A study published Tuesday in the journal Radiology demonstrated higher rates of conditions including emphysema and airway inflammation among people who smoke marijuana than among nonsmokers and people who smoked only tobacco. Nearly half of the 56 marijuana smokers whose chest scans were reviewed for the study had mucus plugging their airways, a condition that was less common among the other 90 participants who didn’t smoke marijuana.

“There is a public perception that marijuana is safe and people think that it’s safer than cigarettes,” said Giselle Revah, a radiologist who helped conduct the study at the Ottawa Hospital in Ontario. “This study raises concerns that might not be true.”

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Should the results of this study change public policy around marijuana? Join the conversation below.

One-fifth of Canadians over 15 years old reported using marijuana in the past three months, according to a 2020 survey of some 16,000 people conducted by Canada’s national statistical office. About 18% of Americans reported using marijuana at least once in 2020 in the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Survey of Drug Use and Health, including about one in three young adults age 18 to 25. The surveys didn’t ask how marijuana was consumed. About one-fourth of people over 12 years old believed there was great harm from smoking marijuana once or twice a week, according to the survey.

Previous studies have found that marijuana is more likely than tobacco to be smoked unfiltered and that smokers tend to inhale more smoke and hold it in their lungs longer. Bong smoke contains tiny pollutants that can linger indoors for up to 12 hours, a study published in March in JAMA Network Open showed.

Among the 56 marijuana smokers in the Ottawa study, 50 also smoked tobacco. The tobacco-only smokers were patients whose chest scans were performed as part of a high-risk lung-cancer screening program that included people age 50 and above who had smoked for several years.

Marijuana’s illicit status long discouraged substantial research into the long-term effects of its use, said Albert Rizzo, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, who wasn’t involved in the study. Inhaling any heated substance can irritate airways, among other health dangers, he said.

“There could be an additive effect if you smoke cigarettes as well as marijuana,” Dr. Rizzo said.

The study authors found bronchial thickening in 64% of marijuana smokers versus 42% of tobacco-only smokers and a condition that leads to excess mucus buildup in 23% of marijuana smokers versus 6% of tobacco-only smokers.

Age-matched marijuana smokers had higher rates of emphysema (93%) than tobacco-only smokers (67%), and the emphysema, which appears in imaging as small holes in lung tissue, was more prevalent in the marijuana smokers, the study found.

Write to Julie Wernau at julie.wernau@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu Holds Slight Edge in Election Exit Polls

TEL AVIV—Former Israeli Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu

was holding on to an edge over his rivals in exit polls for Israel’s fifth election in four years, but the projections showed his lead as marginal and the outcome could change as more votes are tallied.

According to figures from an exit poll by Israel’s public broadcaster Kan, updated slightly before 1 a.m. Wednesday Israel time, Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party was projected to win 30 seats in Israel’s parliament, or Knesset. His bloc of right-wing and religious allies was projected to win 62 seats out of the 120-seat Knesset.

That gives him an advantage over Israel’s current centrist Prime Minister

Yair Lapid,

who has vowed to form a government without Mr. Netanyahu and whose Yesh Atid party was projected to have won 23 seats, according to Kan. Mr. Lapid’s bloc was projected to win 54 seats, according to the latest exit poll.

Supporters of Benjamin Netanyahu’s party on the eve of the vote displayed a banner saying ‘only Likud can.’



Photo:

menahem kahana/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Early on Wednesday morning, Mr. Netanyahu took the stage in front of a crowd of cheering supporters in Jerusalem to tell them they were “on the cusp of a very great victory.”

“We need to wait for the final results. But one thing is already clear: Our path, the Likud’s path, has proven itself,” Mr. Netanyahu said.

About 71.3% of eligible voters headed to the ballot box, the highest tally since 2015, according to Israel’s Central Elections Committee. By 6 a.m. in Israel, only about 34% of the vote had been counted, making the results fluid.

Mr. Netanyahu has promised voters he would form what would be the country’s most right-wing and religious coalition in its history. It would include an alliance of far-right and religious lawmakers proposing tough measures to quell Palestinian unrest in the West Bank and pass legislation to weaken Israel’s judiciary. The joint leader of that alliance is the far-right lawmaker

Itamar Ben-Gvir,

whose Religious Zionism party received 15 seats, according to Kan, making it the third-largest party in the Knesset.

Mr. Netanyahu has vowed to make Mr. Ben-Gvir a minister if he forms a government. Mr. Ben-Gvir is requesting control of the public-security ministry, which would give him control of the country’s police force.

Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Religious Zionism party was projected to win the third-largest number of seats.



Photo:

AMIR COHEN/REUTERS

Mr. Ben-Gvir, who was convicted in 2007 of incitement to racism and supporting a terrorist organization, was best known in Israel for defending Israelis accused of violent attacks against Palestinians in court, before rising to prominence over the past year on a law-and-order campaign. He has told voters that he hopes to make Israelis safer by deporting people who he believes undermine the Jewish state, executing terrorists and giving immunity to Israeli troops and police who shoot and kill Arabs who are seen holding stones or Molotov cocktails before they throw them.

At Mr. Ben-Gvir’s election-night party in Jerusalem, activists enthusiastically cheered the exit-poll results, dancing in circles while waving blue-and-white Israeli flags.

“It feels like Independence Day,” said Alon Hazon, 47 years old, from Holon in central Israel. “We’re ready to take our country back.”

Arab citizens of Israel have expressed fear over Mr. Ben-Gvir. Riham Abu Nar, 19, who works at a kindergarten in Jaffa, said she was voting for the Arab-led Hadash-Ta’al party to prevent Mr. Ben-Gvir from gaining power.

“Itamar is really racist,” said Ms. Abu Nar, who is an Arab citizen of Israel. “He’s obsessed with Arabs. Our lives will be in danger if he’s in government.”

Mr. Ben-Gvir has denied that he is a racist.

The Islamist Ra’am party, which broke a taboo to join the previous government, received five seats in the Kan poll, while the Arab-led alliance of Hadash-Ta’al received four seats.

Mr. Netanyahu’s apparent parliamentary majority could be lost if the Palestinian nationalist Balad party crosses the electoral threshold of 3.25% of the total vote. According to Kan’s exit poll, Balad has 3.1% of the total vote.

Prime Minister Yair Lapid leads a centrist secular party allied with right-wing, left-wing and Arab factions.



Photo:

Ariel Schalit/Associated Press

Israelis remain split over whether Mr. Netanyahu—who was the nation’s longest-serving prime minister and was ousted last year—should return to power. He is beloved by a large number of Israelis, many of whom refer to him as “the King of Israel.” But he has been unable to lead his Likud party to a decisive victory since 2015, as Israelis on both the right and left remain torn over whether he should serve as prime minister while on trial for corruption.

“Our previous good and strong governments were led by Bibi,” said Likud voter Avigayil Neuman, 28, from Jerusalem’s Rehavia neighborhood, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname.

“I’m sick of right-wing governments led by Netanyahu,” said Dana Lenzini, a teacher from Tel Aviv. She cast her vote for Mr. Lapid’s Yesh Atid party, saying he had done a fine job in the four months he has been premier.

Mr. Netanyahu’s trial on corruption charges, now over two years old, was a rallying cry for his opponents in the past but doesn’t loom as large in this election, with prosecutors suffering some courtroom setbacks. Still, the trial underscores the stakes for Mr. Netanyahu, who denies any wrongdoing. His potential coalition allies say they will pass legislation that will make him immune from prosecution. He denies that he is seeking re-election to evade the trial.

The fragmented nature of the Israeli political landscape means that parties must form coalitions to govern.



Photo:

Daniel Rolider/Getty Images

Mr. Lapid, who leads a centrist secular party but allies with right-wing, left-wing and Arab factions, has warned voters that women, LGBT Israelis and Arab citizens are all at risk of seeing their rights diminished if Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing and religious coalition are ushered into power. Mr. Lapid has cast the election as a choice over Israel’s future as a democratic state.

“I know that they’ve already declared the end of democracy a thousand times,” Mr. Lapid said Wednesday. “But this time it’s not a threat. It’s the election promise of the third-largest party in Israel and opposition leader

Benjamin Netanyahu

is entirely dependent on them.”

Aviv Bertele, 42, who runs a Hebrew language school in Tel Aviv, said he voted for the left-wing Meretz party despite being more right-wing because he wants lawmakers who can fight against people such as Mr. Ben-Gvir, whose alliance he fears could limit the rights of LGBT people and women.

“As a member of the LGBT community, and as someone who considers himself a feminist, I think we owe it to ourselves to protect ourselves from fascist forces like Itamar Ben-Gvir,” he said. “These elections are crucial to determine whether Israel will go in a liberal way or become something like Iran or Saudi Arabia.”

The result of the fifth ballot is likely to become clearer Wednesday, when Israel’s election committee will have finished the bulk of the vote tally. Under Israeli law, parties must win at least 3.25% of the vote to enter the Knesset. The fragmented nature of the Israeli political landscape means that parties must form coalitions to secure a parliamentary majority and govern. The process is likely to drag on for weeks, if not months. Analysts aren’t ruling out a sixth election.

In the coming days, Israeli President

Isaac Herzog

will choose the leader he believes has the best likelihood of assembling a governing coalition, usually that of the party that wins the most seats or receives the most recommendations to form a government by fellow lawmakers. That person has six weeks to try to cobble together a majority coalition that includes the support of smaller parties.

Write to Dov Lieber at dov.lieber@wsj.com

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What is your outlook for Israel’s election? Join the conversation below.

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Russia Moves to Pull Out of Ukraine Grain Deal After Blasts Hit Crimean Port

Russia said Saturday that it would suspend participation in the export of agricultural products from Ukrainian ports, in response to an attack on the occupied Black Sea port of Sevastopol that it blamed on the government of Ukraine.

The Defense Ministry said in a statement published on Telegram that ships of the Black Sea Fleet and civilian ships involved in ensuring the security of the so-called grain corridor had come under attack. As a result, “the Russian side suspends participation in the implementation of agreements on the export of agricultural products from Ukrainian ports,” the statement said.

The move threatens to derail the United Nations brokered deal that unblocks Ukraine’s vital grain exports through the Black Sea, which is critical to addressing a global hunger crisis and comes a day after U.N. chief

António Guterres

urged Russia and Ukraine to renew the agreement, which is officially set to expire on Nov. 19.

Officials from Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the U.N. signed the grain agreement in July, freeing millions of tons of food products that had been bottled up in the country since the Russian invasion began in February.

The agreement is one of the few diplomatic breakthroughs of the war and helped to bring the global price of wheat down to prewar levels, helping to ease a global hunger crisis that resulted in part from the conflict. Ukraine provided about 10% of the world’s wheat before Russia invaded.

If shipments of Ukrainian grain are halted, the suspension will likely drive up the global price of wheat, corn and other vital food products.

But Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that Ukraine’s armed forces used “the cover of a humanitarian corridor” to launch massive air and sea strikes and as a result Moscow “cannot guarantee the safety of civilian dry cargo ships participating in the Black Sea Initiative and suspends its implementation from today for an indefinite period.” It said appropriate instructions have been given to Russian representatives at the Joint Coordination Center in Istanbul, which controls the transportation of Ukrainian food.

A Turkish official said Turkey hasn’t been officially notified of Russia’s decision to suspend its participation in the deal. Turkish President Recep

Tayyip Erdogan

helped broker the deal.

Oleksandr Kubrakov,

Ukraine’s minister of infrastructure, said his country will continue supplying grains around the world. “The world should not be held hostage to Russia’s whims, hunger cannot be a weapon,” he said in a Tweet.

Russia’s decision to suspend it is also a major blow to Ukraine’s globally important agriculture industry, which returned to a nearly prewar level of grain exports earlier this month, largely due to the deal. Since the agreement was signed, Ukraine exported 9.2 million tons of food products through a safe corridor in the Black Sea, according to the United Nations.

Russian President

Vladimir Putin

has threatened to abandon the deal in recent months, arguing that not enough of Ukraine’s wheat was going to poorer nations and that not enough Russian food and fertilizers were being exported due to sanctions. Around one-quarter of the food shipped through the deal went to low-income countries, according to the U.N. Ukraine also has shipped wheat to crisis-stricken nations including Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen under the agreement.

Stéphane Dujarric,

a spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, on Saturday said, “We’ve seen the reports from the Russian Federation regarding the suspension of their participation in the Black Sea Grain Initiative following an attack on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. We are in touch with the Russian authorities on this matter.”

“It is vital that all parties refrain from any action that would imperil the Black Sea Grain Initiative which is a critical humanitarian effort that is clearly having a positive impact on access to food for millions of people around the world,” said Mr. Dujarric.

In Luch, a village near the Kherson front line, a resident plays with her dog in the basement where she has been living during the war.



Photo:

Virginie NGUYEN HOANG for the Wa

Volunteers distribute humanitarian aid in the village.



Photo:

Virginie NGUYEN HOANG for the Wa

When asked about how Russia’s decision would affect the operation of the grain corridor, a representative of the Joint Coordination Center referred to Mr. Dujarric’s statement.

Ukraine’s foreign minister said in a tweet, “We have warned of Russia’s plans to ruin the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Now Moscow uses a false pretext to block the grain corridor which ensures food security for millions of people. I call on all states to demand Russia to stop its hunger games and recommit to its obligations.”

A worker at a Ukrainian power plant repairs equipment damaged in a missile strike.



Photo:

sergei supinsky/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The remains of a house in the southern village of Luch, which has suffered frequent shelling.



Photo:

Virginie NGUYEN HOANG for the Wa

Ukraine President

Volodymyr Zelensky

accused Russia earlier this month of deliberately slowing the passage of vessels through the corridor, creating a backlog of more than 170 vessels waiting to transit. The corridor’s capacity is limited by the number of inspectors from Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the U.N. who must check each ship as it enters and exits the Black Sea.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Lt. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said nine aerial drones and seven maritime drones were involved in Saturday’s attack. He said the air attacks were repelled, but a sea minesweeper, the Ivan Golubets, sustained minor damage, as did some defensive infrastructure in Yuzhnaya Bay, one of the harbor bays in Sevastopol.

“You could hear explosions coming in from the sea,” said Yevgeni Babalin, a dockworker at the Port of Sevastopol. “There are fears that the Admiral Makarov was hit by an underwater drone.They shot at it from the ship and from a helicopter.”

The Admiral Makarov, a frigate, replaced the Moskva as the Black Sea Fleet’s flagship after the latter was attacked earlier this year.

A broker in Odessa who arranges cargoes from Sevastopol to the Middle East said the situation at the port was tense with residents asked to stay inside by Russian authorities.

Mikhail Razvozhayev, the Russian-installed governor of Sevastopol, wrote on his Telegram messaging channel that the attack had caused minimal damage to civilian infrastructure but city services were put on alert. He appealed to residents of the city not to publicize videos or information of the attack that could aid Ukrainian forces “to understand how the defense of our city is built.”

Ukrainian officials haven’t claimed responsibility for previous blasts in Crimea, including a drone strike on the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet in August, but rejoiced and vowed to reclaim the peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014.

Crimea has served as a rear base for Moscow’s military occupation of a swath of territory in southern Ukraine, where Kyiv’s forces are now seeking to dislodge Russian forces from part of the Kherson region.

Gen. Sergei Surovikin, the recently appointed commander of Russian troops in Ukraine, has acknowledged that the position in Kherson is challenging and that “difficult decisions” might be called for, without elaborating.

Russian-installed officials in Kherson began telling residents to leave the city earlier this month in what they said was preparation for a Ukrainian assault.

Kirill Stremousov,

deputy head of the Kherson region’s Russian-installed administration on Friday said the evacuation of civilians was complete.

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman accused the British Navy on Saturday of being responsible for sabotaging Nord Stream pipelines in late September. Western governments have found that explosions rocked Nord Stream and a parallel pair of pipelines, Nord Stream 2. Investigations are continuing. Some German officials have said they are working under the assumption that Russia was behind the blasts.

The U.K. Defense Ministry said in a tweet on Saturday: “To detract from their disastrous handling of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Ministry of Defence is resorting to peddling false claims of an epic scale. This invented story, says more about arguments going on inside the Russian Government than it does about the west.”

Write to Ann M. Simmons at ann.simmons@wsj.com, Jared Malsin at jared.malsin@wsj.com and Isabel Coles at isabel.coles@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Read original article here

Fed’s Powell sparked a 1,000-point rout in the Dow. Here’s what investors should do next.

Now might be the time to consider hiding out in short-dated Treasurys or corporate bonds and other defensive parts of the stock market.

On Friday, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell talked of a willingness to inflict “some pain” on households and businesses in an unusually blunt Jackson Hole speech that hinted at a 1970s-style inflation debacle, unless the central bank can rein in sizzling price gains running near the highest levels in four decades.

Read: Fed’s Powell says bringing down inflation will cause pain to households and businesses in Jackson Hole speech

Powell’s strident stance had strategists searching for the best possible plays that investors can make, which may include government notes, energy and financial stocks, and emerging-market assets.

The Fed chair’s willingness to essentially break parts of the U.S. economy to curb inflation “obviously benefits the front end” of the Treasury market, where rates are moving higher in conjunction with expectations for Fed rate hikes, said Daniel Tenengauzer, head of markets strategy for BNY Mellon in New York. 

To his point, the 2-year Treasury yield
TMUBMUSD02Y,
3.384%
hit its highest level since June 14 on Friday, at 3.391%, after Powell’s speech — reaching a level last seen when the S&P 500 officially entered a bear market.

Investors might consider making a play for the front end of credit markets, like commercial paper, and leveraged loans, which are floating-rate instruments — all of which take advantage of the “most clear direction in markets right now,” Tenengauzer said via phone. He’s also seeing demand for Latin American currencies and equities, considering central banks in that region are further along in their rate-hiking cycles than the Fed is and inflation is already starting to decline in countries like Brazil. 

A Fed battle cry

Powell’s speech was a moment reminiscent of Mario Draghi’s “do whatever it takes” battle cry a decade ago, when he pledged as then-president of the European Central Bank to preserve the euro during a full-blown sovereign-debt crisis in his region.

Attention now turns to next Friday’s nonfarm payroll report for August, which economists expect will show a 325,000 job gain following July’s unexpectedly red-hot 528,000 reading. Any nonfarm payrolls gain above 250,000 in August would add to the Fed’s case for further aggressive rate hikes, and even a 150,000 gain would be enough to generally keep rate hikes going, economists and investors said.

The labor market remains “out of balance” — in Powell’s words — with demand for workers outstripping supply. August’s jobs data will offer a peek into just how off kilter it still might be, which would reinforce the Fed’s No. 1 goal of bringing inflation down to 2%. Meanwhile, continued rate hikes risk tipping the U.S. economy into a recession and weakening the labor market, while narrowing the amount of time Fed officials may have to act forcefully, some say.

“It’s a really delicate balance and they’re operating in a window now because the labor market is strong and it’s pretty clear they should push as hard as they can” when it comes to higher interest rates, said Brendan Murphy, the North American head of global fixed income for Insight Investment, which manages $881 billion in assets.

“All else equal, a strong jobs market means they have to push harder, given the context of higher wages,” Murphy said via phone. “If the labor market starts to deteriorate, then the two parts of the Fed’s mandate will be at odds and it will be harder to hike aggressively if the labor market is weakening.”

Insight Investment has been underweight duration in bonds within the U.S. and other developed markets for some time, he said. The London-based firm also is taking on less interest-rate exposure, staying in yield-curve flattener trades, and selectively going overweight in European inflation markets, particularly Germany’s.

For Ben Emons, managing director of global macro strategy at Medley Global Advisors in New York, the best combination of plays that investors could take in response to Powell’s Jackson Hole speech are “to be offense in materials/energy/banks/select EM and defense in dividends/low vol stocks (think healthcare)/long the dollar.”

‘Tentative signs’

The depth of the Fed’s commitment to stand by its inflation-fighting campaign sank in on Friday: Dow industrials
DJIA,
-3.03%
sold off by 1,008.38 points for its largest decline since May, leaving it, along with the S&P 500
SPX,
-3.37%
and Nasdaq Composite
COMP,
-3.94%,
nursing weekly losses. The Treasury curve inverted more deeply, to as little as minus 41.4 basis points, as the 2-year yield rose to almost 3.4% and the 10-year rate
TMUBMUSD10Y,
3.042%
was little changed at 3.03%.

For now, both the inflation and employment sides of the Fed’s dual mandate “point to tighter policy,” according to senior U.S. economist Michael Pearce of Capital Economics. However, there are “tentative signs” the U.S. labor market is beginning to weaken, such as an increase in jobless claims relative to three and four months ago, he wrote in an email to MarketWatch. Policy makers “want to see the labor market weakening to help bring wage growth down to rates more consistent with the 2% inflation target, but not so much that it generates a deep recession.”

With an unemployment rate of 3.5% as of July, one of the lowest levels since the late 1960s, Fed officials still appear to have plenty of scope to push forward with their inflation battle. Indeed, Powell said the central bank’s “overarching” goal is to bring inflation back to its 2% target and that policy makers would stand by that task until it’s done. In addition, he said they’ll use their tools “forcefully” to bring that about, and the failure to restore price stability would involve greater pain.

Front-loading hikes

The idea that it be might be “wise” for policy makers to front-load rate hikes while they still can seems to be what’s motivating Fed officials like Neel Kashkari of the Minneapolis Fed and James Bullard of the St. Louis Fed, according to Derek Tang, an economist at Monetary Policy Analytics in Washington. 

On Thursday, Bullard told CNBC that, with the labor market strong, “it seems like a good time to get to the right neighborhood for the funds rate.” Kashkari, a former dove who’s now one of the Fed’s top hawks, said two days earlier that the central bank needs to push ahead with tighter policy until inflation is clearly moving down.

Luke Tilley, the Philadelphia-based chief economist for Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors, said the next nonfarm payroll report could come in either “high or low” and that still wouldn’t be the main factor behind Fed officials’ decision on the magnitude of rate hikes.

What really matters for the Fed is whether the labor market shows signs of loosening from its current tight conditions, Tilley said via phone. “The Fed would be perfectly fine with strong job growth as long as it means less pressure on wages, and what they want is to not have such a mismatch between supply and demand. Hiring is not the big deal, it’s the fact that there are so many job openings available for people. What they really want to see is some mix of weaker labor demand, a decline in job openings, stronger labor-force participation, and less pressure on wages.”

The week ahead

Friday’s August jobs report is the data highlight of the coming week. There are no major data releases on Monday. Tuesday brings the S&P Case-Shiller home price index for June, the August consumer confidence index, July data on job openings plus quits, and a speech by New York Fed President John Williams.

On Wednesday, Loretta Mester of the Cleveland Fed and Raphael Bostic of the Atlanta Fed speak; the Chicago manufacturing purchasing managers index is also released. The next day, weekly initial jobless claims, the S&P Global U.S. manufacturing PMI, the ISM manufacturing index, and July construction spending data are released, along with more remarks by Bostic. On Friday, July factory orders and a revision to core capital equipment orders are released.

Read original article here

Biden’s Half-Trillion-Dollar Student-Loan Forgiveness Coup

President Joe Biden announces a federal student loan relief plan that includes forgiving up to $20,000 for some borrowers and extending the payment freeze at the White House on Aug. 24.



Photo:

Bonnie Cash – Pool via CNP/Zuma Press

Well, he did it. Waving his baronial wand, President Biden on Wednesday canceled student debt for some 40 million borrowers on no authority but his own. This is easily the worst domestic decision of his Presidency and makes chumps of Congress and every American who repaid loans or didn’t go to college.

The President who never says no to the left did their bidding again with this act of executive law-making, er, breaking. The government will cancel $10,000 for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year and $20,000 for those who received Pell grants. The Administration estimates that about 27 million will be eligible for up to $20,000 in forgiveness, and some 20 million will see their balances erased.

But there’s much more. Mr. Biden is also extending loan forbearance for another four months even as unemployment among college grads is at a near record low 2%. Congress’s Cares Act deferred payments and waived interest through September 2020, but

Donald Trump

and Joe Biden have extended the pause for what will now be nearly three years.

The Administration is claiming, again, that this will be the last extension and is needed to help borrowers prepare to resume payments. But even if the Administration lets the forbearance end in December, about half of borrowers won’t have to make payments since their debt will be canceled.

Most of the rest will only make de minimis payments because Mr. Biden is also sweetening the income-based repayment plans that Barack

Obama

expanded by fiat. Borrowers currently pay only up to 10% of discretionary income each month and can discharge their remaining debt after 20 years (10 if they work in “public service”).

Democrats said these plans would reduce defaults. They haven’t. Federal student debt has ballooned because many borrowers don’t make enough to cover interest and principal payments, so their balances expand. Student debt has nearly doubled since 2011 to $1.6 trillion, though the number of borrowers has increased by only 18%.

Now Mr. Biden is cutting undergrad payments to a mere 5% of discretionary income. The government will also cover unpaid monthly interest for borrowers so their balances won’t grow even if they aren’t paying a penny. This will mask the cost to taxpayers of the Administration’s rolling loan write-off. Student-loan debt won’t appear to swell even as it does. What a fabulous accounting trick.

The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that canceling $10,000 for borrowers earning up to $125,000 will cost about $300 billion. The Pell grant addition could increase this by as much as $270 billion. The four-month freeze on payments will cost $20 billion on top of the roughly $115 billion it already has.

The payment plan revisions could eventually add hundreds of billions of dollars more. An analysis commissioned by the Trump Education Department estimated that taxpayers would lose $435 billion on federal student loans, largely because borrowers in these payment plans on average were expected to repay only half of their balances. Now they will repay even less.

Worse than the cost is the moral hazard and awful precedent this sets. Those who will pay for this write-off are the tens of millions of Americans who didn’t go to college, or repaid their debt, or skimped and saved to pay for college, or chose lower-cost schools to avoid a debt trap. This is a college graduate bailout paid for by plumbers and

FedEx

drivers.

Colleges will also capitalize by raising tuition to capture the write-off windfall. A White House fact sheet hilariously says that colleges will “have an obligation to keep prices reasonable and ensure borrowers get value for their investments, not debt they cannot afford.” Only a fool could believe colleges will do this.

***

It’s important to appreciate that there has never been an executive action of this costly magnitude in peacetime. Not Mr. Obama’s immigration amnesties, not his Clean Power Plan, not Mr. Trump’s border-wall fund diversion. Nothing comes close to this half-trillion-dollar or more executive coup.

Congress authorized none of Mr. Biden’s loan relief and appropriated no funds for it. Progressives say the Higher Education Act of 1965 lets the Education Secretary “compromise” (i.e., modify) student debt. But the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 sets very limited terms and strict procedures for such “compromise.”

Even Mr. Biden said in December 2020 it was “pretty questionable” whether he had authority to cancel debt this way. The Supreme Court recently underscored in West Virginia v. EPAthat Congress must provide clear authorization to agencies taking action on major questions. Canceling so much debt is beyond major to a mega-ultra-super question.

With the cancellation precedent, progressives will return to this vote-buying exercise every election year. The only antidote will be if Democrats conclude this gambit boomeranged politically by mobilizing an opposition coalition of Americans who are tired of being played for saps by progressives. The test arrives in November.

Journal Editorial Report: It insults the millions who paid their loans back (05/01/22). Images: Getty Images for We The 45 Million Composite: Mark Kelly

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the August 25, 2022, print edition as ‘A Half-Trillion-Dollar Executive Coup.’

Read original article here

Rising Food Prices Could Become a Business Risk, Analysts Say

Rising global food prices and shortages of grain and fertilizer stemming from the war in Ukraine could create further economic turmoil, risk analysts said. In some countries, this could trigger unrest and test the resiliency of Western companies with overseas operations in the coming months, they added.

“Food insecurity is one of our [company’s] main topics and one of the things you really have to look out for—there’s no getting away from it,” said

Srdjan Todorovic,

the head of terrorism and hostile environment solutions at

Allianz

Global Corporate & Specialty, part of Germany-based financial-services company Allianz SE. “This is absolutely a global problem.”

People can accept many kinds of scarcity, but problems obtaining food—in addition to causing hardship—have a capacity to drive rule breaking and upheaval, said

Nick Robson,

a London-based global leader of the credit specialties practice at Marsh, a subsidiary of insurance broker

Marsh & McLennan

Cos. Typically, it takes a host of factors in addition to food shortages to trigger civil unrest. Still, risk analysts say they are keeping a close eye on global food prices.

Food costs are higher now than in 2007 and 2008, when then-record prices led to protests and riots in 48 countries, according to a United Nations report.

Though food prices have dipped slightly from highs reached in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, they were still about 44% higher in July than in 2020, according to a food-price index compiled by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

“We’re seeing across the world a much higher potential exposure to civil unrest as people see their purchasing power falling quickly,” said

Jimena Blanco,

the head of the Americas research team for risk-intelligence company Verisk Maplecroft.

Fertilizer prices have reached record highs, with far-reaching consequences for farmers, agricultural yields and food prices. WSJ’s Patrick Thomas explains the reasons behind the surge and what it could mean for your wallet. Photo: Ryan Trefes

High fertilizer prices in particular have led to far-flung impacts. In Peru and Greece earlier this year, farmers took their trucks and tractors to urban centers to voice their aggravation. Sri Lankan protesters stormed the presidential palace and forced a change in administration, a move analysts have attributed in part to a ban on chemical fertilizers that shrank crop yields. The uprising in Sri Lanka was a conspicuous illustration of the volatile forces a disappointing harvest can unleash in short order.

At least 50 countries depend on Russia and Ukraine for 30% or more of their grain supplies, including many developing countries in North Africa and Asia, according to a report from Marsh. Turkey, for example, imported 78% of its wheat from Russia and Ukraine in 2020, while Brazil is the main market for Russian fertilizers, Marsh said.

Not all countries face the same risks from rising prices. Rich democracies with the resources to absorb price increases, for example, are likely to fare better. Countries at risk tend to have some commonalities: They are autocracies, they rely on imported food and they have had subsidies they can no longer afford, said Marsh’s Mr. Robson.

The widespread quantitative belt-tightening, along with the impact of Covid-19 on public treasuries, could hurt some countries’ ability to dole out the food subsidies that had staved off unrest in the past, he said.

“With authoritarian regimes, you’re going to see a high likelihood of a pattern of increased civil disobedience, which would become dramatic in some countries,” Mr. Robson said. “I do think the circumstances in the short term will be extremely difficult.”

Mr. Robson added that in the longer term—12 to 18 months—steps could be taken to increase global food production and improve the situation.

Should unrest unfold, companies operating in affected areas can take some steps to mitigate the damage. Businesses are increasingly using technology to examine their supply chains to determine how unrest might impact their operations, Verisk Maplecroft’s Ms. Blanco said.

Allianz’s Mr. Todorovic said companies should also assess where exactly they have situated their facilities in hot-spot countries, figuring out, for example, whether those operations are near targets of protest such as public squares or town halls.

More from Risk & Compliance Journal

“A lot of companies are not specific targets of social unrest,” he said. “They just happen to be in the vicinity.”

Some observers have held out hope that a brokered deal to allow for a temporary resumption in Ukraine grain shipments might alleviate some of the food-shortage problem.

The agreement allows grain to flow for only 120 days and requires logistics companies and freight forwarders to step up and take the risk of moving the product, said

Laura Burns,

the political risk product leader for the Americas at insurance broker

WTW.

“Talking with my clients in the commodity space, a lot of them are unfortunately pessimistic,” she said.

Write to Richard Vanderford at richard.vanderford@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here