Young Turks vehemently denounced offensive remarks by US politicians at an elected politician who happens to be a muslim, Zohran Mamdani.  Their appalling outbursts focus on his religion rather than his politics, exposing them to be not fit for office.  Watch the TYT video here

The offensive politicians TYT denounced are
Marjorie Taylor Greene: See the image below posted by of the Statue of Liberty covered in dress worn by some muslim women.   MTG in her remarks said she was fearful of American women having to wear such clothing.  This is, she said, her biggest concern for women of America - that they will be forced to cover their bodies, all because of one man (Mamdani) who has just been elected in New York and who happens to be a muslim.

Kirsten Gillibrand.  See her image below.  She maligned Madani and even when corrected by the presenter, continued to malign him.  Watch TYT's presenter get very heated and worked-up over Gillibrand and her hateful and false characterisation of Mamdani.  Watch this video discussing her shocking and false that maligned Mamdani.

Andy Ogles.  See below to read what Ogles said of Mamdani.

It is a disgusting fact of American politics that politicians have such low standards of conduct.  He is going to face a deluge of such attacks and I sincerely hope he survives them and goes on to do good for the people of NY.

I sent the email below to a charity, as I was curious about how they managed their currency risk.  Horner did not reply, but I was told "we will be back in touch as soon as possible.", however, more than two weeks later and still waiting for an answer.

..................................
Hello Ms Horner

I came across your organisation (Lendwithcare, LWC) through your advert on a tube on London Underground.

I've been on LWC's website and read about how its lending process works at a high level and I have read its Terms of Use, but I'm still curious about its currency activities:

1. how it manages loan-related currency trading and risk management,
2. how much it gained and how much lenders lost through currency movements, 
3. whether it undertakes currency hedging,
4. who its partner is for executing currency conversions, and 
5. who it uses use to make currency transfers to its MFIs.

LWC's lending process sounds quite involved and quite complex as a result of multiple currencies involved and multiple intermediaries sitting between between Lenders and Entrepreneurs.

(Another layer of complexity relates to the fees and interest charged and distributed between the Entrepreneuer, the MFI, and LWC.  That layer is not of interest to me on this occasion).

My background is corporate treasury management and I've written articles on various aspects of corporate finance.  I'm based in London.

It might be interesting to write an article on how you deal with currencies and associated risks.

Not sure who would deal with my enquiry at LWC or whether it's one for Care Intnl UK. I had a look at Intnl's accounts and saw your organisation described in Note 20 as a Peer to Peer lending relationship.  Nothing, however, on currency management or income from favourable currency movements, which is odd given it is such a central part of your lending process.  I can't see any financial accounts for LWC.

P Singh

I received an email from Retail Charity Bonds (RCB) about an offer to buy bonds relating to the charity, Belong.  Belong provides shelter and care services to people.

Neither provides a telephone number for retail investors to contact them for information, but RCB does provide contact details if you're either a borrower or a prof investor.  RCB's favouritism for speaking only to certain kinds of people is distasteful.  Belong is not helping ordinary folk by only allowing online enquiries and insisting enquirers state a location.  The locations listed on its form, from which I had to choose one, were irrelevant so I ended up selecting one from the list and telling them it was used only to enable me to send the form.

I sent my online enquiry and asked the Belong FD why his charity was prepaying its 4.5% bond due Jun 2026 with a bond paying 7.5% due 2030.  Paying the additional interest of £1,500,000 on £50,000,0000 of debt makes no sense to me.  The prepayment sounded suspicious to me so I wanted an answer.  Not sure they'll bother to reply or if they do, they'll provide an honest and straight answer.

One plausible reason for raising funds ahead of the legal maturity date might be to avoid the liquidity risk if there are no investors in Jun 2026 to refinance the maturing bonds.  Starting a year early gives Belong time to find punters, but paying £1.5m for avoiding refinancing risk is far too high a price to pay.

No point asking RCB for an answer as they don't provide contact details and in their bond prospectus they tell readers to speak to their financial adviser if they have any queries, i.e., "don't bother us with your queries".

The new bond also offers an additional £100,000 capital gain - probably as a sweetener to persuade existing bondholders to tender their 4.5% bonds and to buy the more expensive ones on offer, and to persuade new investors to subscribe.  Existing investors get favourable treatment when allocating who gets how much of the new bonds on offer as the amount to be raised is limited.

The new bonds are unsecured in terms of assets of Belong, i.e., no properties or guarantees.  The bonds are secured on the right of RCB under its loan to Belong.  In other words, bond holders rely on RCB for payment and RCB relies on Belong for payment.  RCB sits in the middle and takes a fee.  Various distributors share half of the 0.5% fee paid by Belong to RCB for distributing the bonds, i.e., for finding retail and institutional investors.  On £50m, that 0.5% equates to £250,000, or £50,000 per annum for a 5-year bond.

I wanted to know how much RCB was earning in their loan to Belong, i.e., was their interest rate higher than the 7.5%pa rate they paid on their bonds?  According to the Prospectus, the rates are identical, so no mark-up by RCB.