A U.S. decision to cut funding for a demining program in Cambodia threatens to further worsen a feud between Phnom Penh and Washington.

On Tuesday, it emerged through local media reports the U.S. had decided to discontinue annual funding in 2018, worth about $2 million, to clear explosive remnants of war in Cambodia.

Prime Minister Hun Sen reportedly responded to the surprise decision by declaring he will stump to raise the money, according to a senior Cambodian demining official.

No public explanation has been given for the cut, and both the Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC), the final recipient of the funding, and Norwegian People’s Aid, which administer the money, say they do not know why the funding has been discontinued.

CMAC Director General Heng Ratana said he had no warning of any cut to the funding before he received notification Monday about the decision. The money covered the salaries of about 300 staffers, many of whom were deminers.

“I don’t know what the real dispute [is]. We just present the facts and we work together; they never indicated any dispute that we have had, but suddenly they cut the aid,” he said.

“But we are very lucky that the government, the head, the prime minister, granted approval that he will maintain our operation as usual so that means it has no impact on our operation,” he said, adding that funds for the rest of this year had not been affected.

The United States had a moral obligation to deal with the legacy of its bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war, he added.

Ruling Cambodian People’s Party spokesman Sok Eysan told VOA he was unaware of the cut, which seemed peculiar to him.

“I think that it’s an issue which we see that it’s not normal. So, no matter what we answer, it will still be not normal,” he said.

Norwegian People’s Aid country director Aksel Steen-Nilsen said he, too, had been unaware about the reasons for the cut.

“I mean, of course, there is a lot of rhetoric between Cambodia and the U.S. right now,” he said. “But … I don’t see any specific objective related to this because it’s the end of the grant cycle, and then of course, it’s up to the donor if they have funds and interest to continue or not.”

Steen-Nilsen said cooperation had been good thus far over the three years the grant had been running and there was no indication of any special reason it would stop.

In an email, the deputy spokesman of the U.S. embassy in Phnom Penh, David Josar, said demining remained at the top of the State Department’s assistance priorities, but he did not address the specific reason for the cut.

“We will use 2018 resources to put in place a world-class removal program targeting U.S.-origin UXO [unexploded ordnance] in eastern Cambodia,” he wrote. “UXO experts have proposed that the United States devote more attention to clearing such UXO, in addition to our support for clearing the more lethal Chinese, Vietnamese, and Soviet land mines in western Cambodia.”

Next year’s funding would be opened up to competitive bidding with requests for proposals — prepared in consultation with the Cambodian government — to be released this year, he wrote without providing any further details.

For months, Cambodia has accused the U.S. of fomenting a color revolution — a conspiracy plot it has used as the grounds to jail the country’s opposition leader, Kem Sokha, and justify moves to dissolve his party.

They have seized on the continuing impacts of unexploded ordinance left over from the U.S.’s massive illegal bombing campaign during the Vietnam war — a line of attack only bolstered by news of the cut to CMAC funding.

Carl Thayer, an emeritus professor at the Australian Defense Force Academy, said the embassy reports he had read also did not seem to be specific about the reasoning for the cut.

“So we don’t really know the reason why the funding was cut so far, and it’s sheer speculation on Hun Sen’s part and political opportunism on his part to make that linkage,” he said.

Any retaliatory action by the U.S. in response to the decimation of Cambodia’s opposition party would have been made up front, he said.

“There’s an expression, ‘between conspiracy and cock-up, you always go for conspiracy, and that seems to be what the Cambodians are doing, and until I see a better explanation, I’m saying its just a bureaucratic decision probably made in Washington and passed through without much thinking,” he said.  

Josar said the U.S. had spent more than $131 million on the remediation of explosive remnants of war in Cambodia.

In recent years, the main focus of that funding has been on U.S.-dropped unexploded ordnance left in Cambodia’s east. Some experts have complained this diverts resources away from more harmful explosive remnants in the west.

 
…

The restive Spanish region of Catalonia faces a potential $500 million financial hit in the fourth quarter as business-related travel dips following the attack in Barcelona and the uncertainty generated by the disputed independence referendum.

In an interview Monday with The Associated Press at the World Travel Market in London, Catalonia’s top tourism official Patrick Torrent said the region will likely see a 10-12 percent fall in tourist numbers during the fourth quarter, which would equate to around 450 million euros. The large bulk of that fall is related to a drop-off in business travel to events such as conventions.

Despite the anticipated fourth-quarter decline, the executive director at the Catalan Tourist Board, said Catalonia is set to see revenues this year outstrip those last year and that the expectation is that revenues will rise again next.

However, more insight will emerge at the turn of the year when the bulk of pre-reservations are made. His staff, he said, are “on alert” about the impact on the main booking season.

The worry among many economists is that deteriorating business environment in Catalonia, which has seen around 1,500 firms move their headquarters out of the region, could worsen further amid all the uncertainty. Credit ratings agency Moody’s has warned that the region’s financial recovery is being jeopardized

“Moody’s believes that the political instability will negatively affect the region’s economy, in particular foreign investor sentiment and the tourism sector, and add pressure to the region’s already weak finances,” it said last week.

The Catalan tourism industry, a key income generator in what is Spain’s richest region, has had a difficult few months. After the August attacks in Barcelona and a nearby town that saw 16 people killed, the region has been embroiled in a battle of wills with Spain over the disputed independence referendum in early October which prompted Madrid to impose direct rule and seek the arrest of members of the Catalan government, including its leader, Carles Puigdemont, who has fled to Brussels.

The impact of the attack in Barcelona on holiday travelers was short-lived, according to Torrent, and “less important” than other cities in Europe, such as Brussels or Paris.

“The perception of Barcelona and Catalonia as a safe destination has not suffered any impact,” he said, noting figures showing tourism numbers higher in September.

Torrent said he met up with Alvaro Nadal, the Spanish minister of energy, tourism and digital matters, on Monday for the first time since the triggering of Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution which imposed direct rule on Catalonia.

Torrent said the Spanish government has made no requirements upon him or his staff and that it is “business as usual” until an early Catalan regional election on Dec. 21.

“It’s not intervention. It’s more a kind of coordination,” he said. “It’s easy, it’s not complicated, with good relations without problems, at this moment.”

Before direct rule, Torrent would speak with Spanish tourism officials two or three times a month. Now, it’s that amount of times a week.

Torrent urged all participants in upcoming demonstrations in Catalonia before the election, including one this Saturday, to remain peaceful and law-abiding.

“It’s important to say that our streets are normal, our restaurants are working as usual, our destination is exactly the same situation,” Torrent said.
…

Two weeks ago the glitzy Ritz Carlton hotel in Riyadh was the site of an international conference promoting Saudi Arabia as an investment destination, with over 3,000 officials and business leaders attending.

Now the hotel is temporarily serving as a luxury prison where some of the kingdom’s political and business elite are being held in a widening crackdown on corruption that may change the way the economy works.

By detaining dozens of officials and tycoons, a new anti-corruption body headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is seeking to dismantle systems of patronage and kick-backs that have distorted the economy for decades.

But it is a risky process, because the crackdown is hurting some of the kingdom’s top private businessmen — leaders of family conglomerates who have built much of the non-oil economy over the past few decades.

Many industries could suffer if investment by these families dries up in coming months, at a time when the economy has already fallen into recession because of low oil prices and austerity policies.

New breed of companies

Meanwhile, a new breed of state-backed companies is rising to compete with the old guard; many of the new enterprises are linked to the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the kingdom’s top sovereign wealth fund. But it is not clear how smoothly the transition to these firms will happen.

“The rules of the game are changing. But they’re changing indiscriminately,” said one financial analyst in the region, declining to be named because of political sensitivities. “Even people who thought they were within the rules don’t know if they will still be within those rules tomorrow. There’s just uncertainty.”

Some private businessmen in Saudi Arabia are now trying to move their money out of the country “while they still can,” the analyst said.

For many foreigners, the most shocking aspect of the purge has been the detention of billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the flamboyant, internationally known chairman of investment firm Kingdom Holding.

But for Saudis, the names of other detainees have been equally stunning: Nasser bin Aqeel al-Tayyar, founder of the Al Tayyar Travel group; billionaire Saleh Kamel; and Bakr bin Laden, chairman of the huge Saudi Binladin construction conglomerate.

State contracts

The saga of the Binladin group underlines how the business environment is changing. Binladin and another big construction group, Saudi Oger, long enjoyed preferential access to the kingdom’s biggest projects and control over pricing as a result of their close relationships with royal patrons.

But the bottom fell out from under both companies last year, when a cash squeeze resulting from low oil prices caused the government to cancel or suspend projects and delay payments.

The firms faced multi-billion dollar debt restructurings; Binladin has laid off tens of thousands of people while Oger’s bankers say it has essentially stopped operating.

New construction company

At the same time, state oil giant Saudi Aramco is moving to set up a construction company with local and international partners to build non-oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia — potentially taking billions of dollars of business that would previously have gone to the family conglomerates.

Aramco and PIF, the sovereign fund, have also linked up with U.S. construction firm Jacobs Engineering to form a management company for strategic projects in the kingdom.

Many in the Saudi business world are celebrating the downfall of the old patronage system and the shift toward a “cleaner” business environment.

“It’s great news for the clean ones among us — 99.99 percent are ecstatic,” said one senior executive.

But others express disquiet about the possible economic fallout of the purge. Some are concerned that banks could start calling in loans to families implicated in the probe, using loan clauses that permit this in cases of legal jeopardy; this could collapse companies’ share prices.

Business deals put in limbo?

Many new business deals may be put on hold. A businessman at a foreign technology services firm told Reuters he had been considering a venture with a Saudi partner, but decided against it this week because of the partner’s ties to the detained Bakr bin Laden.

The new anti-corruption commission has broad authority to seize assets at home and abroad. Some businessmen wonder if these powers could be used to pressure firms into participating in Prince Mohammed’s economic development projects.

“It’s the old royal fiefdoms that are not in the Al Salman branch of the royal family that are now being purged,” said a Western analyst. “It’s a further centralising of political and economic power, and a seizing of the private assets that those fiefdoms have accumulated.”

 
…

A revamping of the Federal Reserve’s leadership is widening with the announcement Monday that William Dudley, president of the New York Fed and the No. 2 official on the Fed’s key interest rate panel, will retire next year.

Just last week, President Donald Trump chose Fed board member Jerome Powell to replace Janet Yellen as Fed chair in February. The post of Fed vice chair remains vacant. So do two additional seats on the Fed’s seven-member board. And a fourth seat may open as well next year.

The unusual pace of the turnover has given Trump the rare opportunity for a president to put his personal stamp on the makeup of the Fed, which operates as an independent agency. Investors are awaiting signals of how Trump’s upcoming selections might alter the Fed’s approach to interest rates and regulations.

Trump has made it known that he favors low interest rates. He has also called for a loosening of financial regulations. The Fed has played a key role in overseeing the tighter regulations that were enacted after the 2008 financial crisis, which nearly toppled the banking system.

The uncertainty surrounding the Fed’s top policymakers has been heightened by the slow pace with which the Trump administration has moved to fill openings.

To date, the administration has placed one new person on the Fed board: Randal Quarles, a veteran of the private equity industry who is thought to favor looser regulations, was confirmed as the first vice chairman for supervision. That still left three vacancies on the Fed’s board: Just as Quarles was joining the board last month, Stanley Fischer was stepping down as Fed vice chairman.

And Yellen herself could decide to leave the board when her term as chair ends on Feb. 3, even though her separate term on the board runs until 2024.

Dudley’s announcement that he plans to retire by mid-2018 also creates an opening on the committee of board members and bank presidents who set interest rate policies. Dudley’s position is particularly crucial: As head of the New York Fed, he is a permanent voting member of the Fed committee that sets interest rates.

The committee is composed of the board members and five of the 12 regional bank presidents. Unlike the New York Fed president, the other regional bank presidents vote on a rotating basis. The New York Fed president also serves as vice chairman of the rate-setting panel.

Some economists said that while financial markets have so far registered little concern about the number of key open Fed positions, that could change quickly, especially if investors begin to worry that the central bank will accelerate interest rate hikes.

“We need to get rid of this uncertainty, and until these seats are filled, there is going to be uncertainty,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist at DS Economics.

Analysts are trying to read the two decisions Trump has made — picking Powell for the top job and Quarles for the key post for banking supervision — as signs for where he might be headed. With Powell, the president opted for continuity on rates by selecting someone who for years was the lone Republican on the board but who remained a reliable vote for the gradual approach to rate hikes Yellen favored.

And in the bank supervision post, analysts say Trump might have been signaling that he wants to reverse, or at least weaken, Yellen’s backing of the reforms instituted by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law. During the campaign, Trump argued that Dodd-Frank was harming the economy by constraining back lending.

Quarles has been critical of aspects of that law. To a lesser extent, so, too, has Powell, who will be the first Fed chairman in nearly 40 years to lack a degree in economics. Powell, a lawyer by training, amassed a fortune as an investment banker at the Carlyle Group.

“With his background, Powell can be expected to work well with Wall Street and the business community in general,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University, Channel Islands.

A senior administration official indicated that one important attribute for the open positions will be a diversity of backgrounds.

“We believe the Fed will function best with a wide range of skill sets,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel decisions. This official would not give a timetable for when the administration’s next nominations for the Fed might occur.

Though Trump will choose officials to fill the openings on the board, the choice of Dudley’s replacement will fall to the board of the New York Fed. The New York Fed said a search committee had been formed to choose a successor to Dudley, who joined the New York Fed in 2007 after more than two decades at Goldman Sachs.

The announcement from the New York Fed said Dudley, 64, intended to step down in mid-2018 to ensure that his successor would be in place well before the mandatory end of Dudley’s term in January 2019.

After overseeing the New York Fed’s securities operations for two years, Dudley succeeded Timothy Geithner as its president after Geithner was tapped by President Barack Obama to become Treasury secretary in 2009.

Dudley won praise for the work he did with Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to contain the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis. Dudley supported Yellen’s cautious approach to raising the Fed’s benchmark rate and the plan the central bank has begun to gradually shrink its $4.5 trillion balance sheet, which is five times its size before the financial crisis.

The balance sheet contains $4.2 trillion in Treasurys and mortgage bonds that the Fed bought since 2008 to try to hold down long-term borrowing rates and help the economy recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s.

In a statement, Yellen praised Dudley for his “wise counsel and warm friendship throughout the years of the financial crisis and its aftermath.”
…

Chipmaker Broadcom made an unsolicited $103 billion bid for Qualcomm on Monday, setting the stage for a major takeover battle as it looks to dominate the fast-growing market for semiconductors used in mobile phones.

Qualcomm said it would review the proposal. The San Diego-based company is inclined to reject the bid as too low and fraught with risk that regulators may reject it or take too long to approve it, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

A Broadcom-Qualcomm deal would create a dominant company in the market for supplying chips used in the 1.5 billion or so smartphones expected to be sold around the world this year. It would raise the stakes for Intel Corp, which has been diversifying from its stronghold in computers into smartphone technology by supplying modem chips to Apple.

Qualcomm shareholders would get $60 in cash and $10 per share in Broadcom shares in a deal, according to Broadcom’s proposal. Including debt, the transaction is worth $130 billion.

GBH Insight analyst Daniel Ives said bullish investors were hoping for $75 to $80 per share.

“Now it’s a game of high-stakes poker for both sides,” he said.

Shares of Qualcomm, whose chips allow phones to connect to wireless data networks, traded above $70 as recently as December 2016 and topped $80 in 2014.

Qualcomm’s shares were up 2 percent at $63.09 at mid-afternoon, suggesting investors were skeptical a deal would happen.

Broadcom shares fell 0.3 after hitting a record high of $281.80.

Regulatory scrutiny

Qualcomm’s largest market is the so-called modem chips that allow phones to use mobile data plans, but it also sells connectivity chips for automobiles that handle “infotainment” systems and wireless electric vehicle charging. Qualcomm provides chips to carrier networks to deliver broadband and mobile data.

Any deal struck between the two companies would face intense regulatory scrutiny. A big hurdle would be getting regulatory approval in China, on which both Qualcomm and Broadcom rely on to make money.

China is set to look at any deal closely after U.S. regulators blocked a flurry of chip deals by Chinese firms due to security concerns, thwarting the Asian country’s attempt to become self-reliant in chip manufacturing.

Broadcom could spin out Qualcomm’s licensing arm, QTL, to get regulatory approval and funding for the deal, raising as much at $25 billion from a sale, Nomura Instinet analyst Romit Shah suggested.

Broadcom had $5.25 billion in cash and cash equivalent as of July 30. Qualcomm had $35.03 billion as of Sept. 24.

Broadcom said BofA Merrill Lynch, Citi, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley have advised it they are highly confident that they will be able to arrange the necessary debt financing for the proposed transaction.

The company has also got a commitment letter for $5 billion in financing from private equity Silver Lake Partners, an existing Broadcom investor.

Vulnerable Qualcomm

Broadcom approached Qualcomm last year to discuss a potential combination, but did not contact Qualcomm prior to unveiling its $70 per share offer Monday, according to sources.

Qualcomm is more vulnerable to a takeover now because its shares have been held down by a patent dispute with key customer Apple, as well as concerns that it may have to raise a $38 billion bid for NXP Semiconductors NV that it made last year.

Broadcom, Qualcomm and NXP together would have control over modems, Wi-Fi, GPS and near-field communications chips, a strong position that could concern customers such as Apple and Samsung Electronics because of the bargaining power such a combined company could have to raise prices. However, a combined company would also likely have a lower cost base and the flexibility to cut prices.

Broadcom said its proposal stands irrespective of whether Qualcomm’s acquisition of NXP goes through or not.

Qualcomm’s entire 10-member board is up for re-election this spring, and Broadcom could seize on the Dec. 7 nomination deadline to put forward its own slate.

Broadcom Chief Executive Hock Tan, who turned a small, scrappy chipmaker into a $100-billion company based in Singapore and the United States, told Reuters he would not rule out a proxy fight.

“We are well advised and know what our options are, and we have not eliminated any of those options,” said Tan, who has pulled off a string of deals over the past decade. “We have a very strong desire to work with Qualcomm to reach a mutually beneficial deal.”

Tan added that if Broadcom acquires Qualcomm which in turn has acquired NXP, the combined company’s net debt could be in the range of $90 billion.

Two Qualcomm directors, Anthony Vinciquerra and Mark McLaughlin, have been aligned with activist hedge fund Jana Partners LLC, which pushed for a shakeup of the company two years ago. Jeffrey Henderson, another Qualcomm board director, was added last year as a compromise candidate.

Apple, as a key customer, could pose a risk to the deal, said Karl Ackerman, an analyst at Cowen.

Tan told Reuters that Broadcom taking over Qualcomm would improve relations with Apple: “We believe we can be very constructive in resolving these issues and resetting relationships.”

Broadcom plans to move its headquarters solely to the United States, which would allow it to avoid review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which reviews foreign ownership of U.S. assets.

Broadcom’s offer represents a premium of 27.6 percent to Qualcomm’s closing price of $54.84 on Thursday, a day before media reports of a potential deal pushed up the company’s shares.
…

The Republican tax bill unveiled last week in the U.S. Congress could disrupt the global supply chains of large, multinational companies by slapping a 20-percent tax on cross-border transactions they routinely make between related business units.

European multinationals, some of which currently pay little U.S. tax on U.S. profits thanks to tax treaties and diversion of U.S. earnings to their home countries or other low-tax jurisdictions, could be especially hard hit if the proposed tax becomes law, according to some tax experts.

Others said the proposal could run afoul of international tax treaties, the World Trade Organization and other global standards that forbid the double taxation of profits if the new tax did not account for income taxes paid in other countries.

The proposed tax, tucked deep in the 429-page bill backed by President Donald Trump, caught corporate tax strategists by surprise and sent them scrambling to understand its dynamics and goals, as well as whether Congress is likely ever to vote on it.

Reuters contacted seven multinational companies and four industry groups. None would comment directly on the proposal, with most saying they were still studying the entire tax package.

The proposal is part of a broad tax reform bill unveiled by House of Representatives Republicans on Thursday, which promises to lower overall tax burdens and simplify the tax code.

Whether the proposed reforms ever become law is uncertain, with weeks and possibly months of debate and intense lobbying still ahead. The House package overall has drawn criticism for adding too much to the federal budget deficit and too heavily favoring the rich and big business.

However, the corporate tax part, experts said, included some ambitious proposals worthy of further discussion. They said the 20 percent excise tax is one such proposal targeting the abuses of so-called transfer-pricing where multinationals themselves set prices of goods, services and intellectual property rights that constantly move between their national business units.

Under global standards, those prices should resemble those available on the open market. However, if a foreign parent charges U.S. affiliates inflated price, it can reduce its U.S. tax bill and effectively shift profits to a lower-tax country, reducing the entire corporation’s overall tax costs.

Blunt instrument

“Clearly there’s a transfer-pricing issue and something should be done,” said Steven Rosenthal, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington think tank.

“I would view this 20-percent excise tax as a blunt instrument to address the problem. And the problem with blunt instruments is sometimes they hit what you want to hit, and sometimes they hit what you don’t want to hit,” said Rosenthal, former legislation counsel at Congress’s Joint Tax Committee.

Under the proposal, U.S. business units that import products, pay royalties or other tax-deductible, non-interest fees to foreign parents or affiliates in the course of doing business would either pay a 20-percent tax on these or agree to treat the amounts as income connected to their U.S. business and subject to U.S. taxes.

As proposed, the new tax rule would apply only to businesses with payments from U.S. units to foreign affiliates exceeding $100 million. The rule would not take effect until after 2018.

European companies that sell foreign-made products into the U.S. market through local distribution units could be among those most affected, said Michael Mundaca, co-director of the national tax department at the accounting firm Ernst & Young.

Such companies could end up paying tax on the transfers twice — first if they paid the excise tax in the United States and then at home where they are taxed now and where the new U.S. tax would not be accounted for without changes to bilateral tax treaties.

“That would be a structure that would at least initially be hit by the full force” of the excise tax, said Mundaca, a former U.S. Treasury Department assistant secretary for tax policy.

He said European officials would be registering concern. “I am sure they are making calls right now to their counterparts in the U.S. Treasury looking for some explanation… and making the point that this might be contrary to treaty obligations.”

Gavin Ekins, an economist at the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank, predicted that most multinationals would opt to avoid the excise tax by electing to pay U.S. corporate tax on all the profits related to products sold in the United States. Those include profits on activities conducted overseas, like manufacturing or research, which are also subject to foreign income taxes.

The U.S. corporate tax rate on those profits would drop to 20 percent from 35 percent if the House bill becomes law.

The promise of additional revenue and hopes that the new tax may entice multinationals to locate more production and jobs in the United States, may well outweigh international concerns.

The entire Republican tax package is projected to add $1.5 trillion over 10 years to the $20 trillion federal debt and the planned excise tax is among sources of new revenue needed to avoid an even bigger shortfall. It is expected to bring about $155 billion over 10 years, according to a summary of the Republican proposal distributed last week.

Still, as the tax debate heats up, foreign multinationals are likely to lobby hard against it, with domestic corporations linked to foreign affiliates possibly concerned as well.

There is also uncertainty how the new rules would work in practice.

It was unclear, for example, from the bill’s language how companies should calculate income “effectively connected” to their U.S. business, Tax Foundation’s Ekins said.

“You don’t know what profit is included when you choose ‘effectively connected income’ and don’t know the formula,” he said. “Is it just for that product line? All the income that comes in from every other company or from every other source?”

The House tax committee was scheduled to begin considering amendments to the Republican tax bill on Monday.
…

Wireless carriers Sprint and T-Mobile called off a potential merger, saying the companies couldn’t come to an agreement that would benefit customers and shareholders.

The two companies have been dancing around a possible merger for years, and were again in the news in recent weeks with talks of the two companies coming together after all. But in a joint statement Saturday, Sprint and T-Mobile said they are calling off merger negotiations for the foreseeable future.

“The prospect of combining with Sprint has been compelling for a variety of reasons, including the potential to create significant benefits for consumers and value for shareholders. However, we have been clear all along that a deal with anyone will have to result in superior long-term value for T-Mobile’s shareholders compared to our outstanding stand-alone performance and track record,” said John Legere, president and CEO of T-Mobile US, in a prepared statement.

T-Mobile and Sprint are the U.S.’ third- and fourth-largest wireless carriers, respectively, but they are significantly smaller than AT&T and Verizon, who effectively have a duopoly over U.S. wireless service. The two companies have said they hoped to find a way of merging to make the wireless market more competitive.

Sprint and its owner, the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank, have long been looking for a deal as the company has struggled to compete on its own. But Washington regulators have frowned on a possible merger. D.C. spiked AT&T’s offer to buy T-Mobile in 2011 and signaled in 2014 they would have been against Sprint doing the same thing. But with the new Trump administration, it was thought regulators might be more relaxed about a merger.

Sprint has a lot of debt and has posted a string of annual losses. The company has cut costs and made itself more attractive to customers, BTIG Research analyst Walter Piecyk says, but it hasn’t invested enough in its network and doesn’t have enough airwave rights for quality service in rural areas.

T-Mobile, meanwhile, has been on a yearslong streak adding customers. After the government nixed AT&T’s attempt to buy it in 2011, T-Mobile led the way in many consumer-friendly changes, such as ditching two-year contracts and bringing back unlimited data plans. Consumers are paying less for cellphone service, thanks to T-Mobile’s influence on the industry and the resultant price wars.

“T-Mobile does not need a merger with Sprint to succeed, but Sprint might need one to survive,” Piecyk wrote in an October research note.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump urged Saudi Arabia Saturday to list its state-owned oil company on the New York Stock Exchange when the company goes public in what is expected to be the largest-ever initial public offering in which shares of a company are sold to investors.

“Would very much appreciate Saudi Arabia doing their IPO of Aramco with the New York Stock Exchange. Important to the United States!,” Trump tweeted from Hawaii, his first stop ahead of a 13-day trip to Asia.

Saudi officials have reportedly said the government intends to list 5 percent of  the company’s shares on local and global stock exchanges in 2018 but have yet to select an overseas venue. Saudi officials have estimated the IPO will be worth about $100 billion.

The NYSE has had discussions with the Saudis about the upcoming IPO as has the London Stock Exchange. Exchanges in Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Toronto and the U.S. are also soliciting portions of the public offering.

New York-based NASDAQ, which provides technology to Saudi Arabia’s exchange, has been leveraging that relationship in an attempt to win the listing.

Trump has developed a close relationship with Saudi Arabia. During his visit there last summer, he signed a $110 billion defense agreement with Saudi King Salman.

At a $2 trillion valuation Saudi officials have projected for Aramco, selling five-percent of the company’s shares would reap $100 billion.

The public offering of shares of Aramco, the world’s largest oil producer, is part of Saudi government plans to sell state assets as a recession slows Riyadh’s effort to eliminate a budget deficit caused by low oil prices.

 
…

The recent flurry of social and economic reform coming out of Saudi Arabia has left some Saudis ecstatic, others more circumspect, and a few conservatives bewildered or even angry.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman told a crowd of investors at a conference in late October that he was merely attempting to “return Saudi Arabia to the moderate Islam that once prevailed” before the Iranian Revolution in 1979. He stressed that 70 percent of Saudis are younger than 30 and vowed “not to spend another 30 years of our lives living under extremist ideas.”

The young crown prince also proposed an ambitious plan for a new economic zone on the Red Sea near Jordan and Egypt. In April, he put forward an economic road map for the kingdom, called Vision 2030. Part of the plan calls for privatizing 5 percent of the country’s flagship petroleum company Aramco, in addition to attracting foreign investment capital.

​Too much change too fast

Clarence Rodriguez, who spent 12 years as a French foreign correspondent in Riyadh and recently wrote a book called Saudi Arabia 3.0 on the aspirations of Saudi women and young people, tells VOA that she believes Saudi Arabia “is in crisis, due to the drop in the price of petroleum,” and that it has found itself under pressure to “diversify its economy, which necessitates societal reform involving women and young people, as well.”

Rodriguez points out that the late King Abdallah, who died in 2015, started the reform movement by allowing Saudi women to run for the country’s consultative “Shoura” council and to enter the work force, becoming lawyers, bankers and salespeople.

She worries, however, that some recent moves to change the status of women have angered parts of the kingdom’s mostly conservative population. Traditionalists, she says, are “not used to such quick change” and many “are afraid, because things are moving too fast for them.”

On a recent talk show on an Arabic-language news channel, a conservative Saudi caller told the show’s host that he thinks Saudi King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman are “violating (Islamic) sharia law” with some of their recent reforms “and should go to jail.”

Saudi commentator Jamal Kashoggi tells VOA that he’s “not optimistic about the reforms,” but that he would “still like to be optimistic … since everyone will suffer if they fail.” Kashoggi worries that the reforms are “not engaging Saudi society, enough.” 

“We wish Mohammed Bin Salman well, and we need economic (and social) reform,” he said, “but, we also need to discuss (these issues). The change,” he said, “is being done in very narrow circles. (Ordinary) people are not feeling engaged.” 

Was Saudi society more moderate?

Hilal Khashan, who teaches political science at the American University of Beirut, is not convinced that Saudi society was more moderate before the Iranian Revolution in 1979. He thinks that parts of Saudi society have always had a conservative streak to them, pointing out that Wahabi conservatives killed many moderate Muslims, including the Shafa’i mufti of Mecca when they overran the city and the nearby resort city of Ta’ef in 1924.

A handful of prominent Saudi conservative clerics have been arrested since Mohammed Bin Salman replaced his cousin, Mohammed Bin Nayef, as crown prince, in June. 

“By weakening the clerical establishment and making clerics simple government workers,” Khashan said, “(Mohammed Bin Salman) will be able to give women more rights, as he is proposing.” Saudi women were allowed to drive, starting in September, and this week were given permission to attend sports matches with their families.

Khashan believes that economic considerations are a key factor in the decision to allow Saudi women to drive. 

“If 10 million women are given the right to drive in Saudi Arabia,” he said, “and if just a fraction of those women buy cars, take driving lessons or buy insurance, that would contribute to stimulating Saudi Arabia’s stagnant economy.” Allowing women to drive will also curtail the expensive practice of hiring foreign chauffeurs to drive women around.

Both Kashoggi and Khashan believe that the Saudi government will eventually prevail in its efforts to reform society. 

“Conservatives,” Kashoggi said, “have already lashed out. They’ve been lashing out since 2003. Al-Qaida, or ISIS, or the radical Wahabis … these are the extremists in Saudi Arabia … and they don’t want change. They have resisted, and will continue to resist. … The only thing stopping them is (government) security.”

Clashes with clerics

Khashan points out that in clashes with conservative clerics back in the 1960s, after King Faisal opened a school for girls in Riyadh, and when the king opened the first TV station in Riyadh in 1965, the government prevailed. 

“Whenever the state clashes with the (conservative) clerical establishment, the state emerges victorious,” he said, “and there’s no reason to believe that things will not be the same, this time.”

Jordanian analyst Shehab Makahleh is less certain about who will come out on top, however. 

“There is a kind of opposition among royal family members who are not happy (about the reforms),” he said, “and they have had a number of meetings to clarify where the country is heading in the coming five to 10 years.”

Makahleh believes that King Salman may soon abdicate in favor of Mohammed Bin Salman “in order to gain more support from the international community” for his ambitious reform program and to promote a more secular model of society.
…

A solid rebound for the job market in October as the U.S. economy added 261,000 jobs. Job gains were strong across the board, and the unemployment rate fell to 4.1 percent, its lowest level in 17 years. But, as Mil Arcega reports, American workers are not seeing any real growth in their wages.
…