Pakistan&#39;s government plans to seize control of charities and financial assets linked to Islamist leader Hafiz Saeed, who Washington has designated a terrorist, according to officials and documents.

Pakistan&#39;s civilian government detailed its plans in a secret order to various provincial and federal government departments on December&nbsp;19, three officials who attended one of several high-level meeting discussing the crackdown told.

Marked &quot;secret&quot;, a December 19 document from the finance ministry directed law enforcement and governments in Pakistan&#39;s five provinces to submit an action plan by December 28 for a &quot;takeover&quot; of Saeed&#39;s two charities, Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation.&nbsp;

The United States has labelled JuD and FIF &quot;terrorist fronts&quot; for Lashkar-e-Taiba (&quot;Army of the Pure&quot; or LeT), a group Saeed founded in 1987 and which Washington and India blame for the 2008 attacks in Mumbai that killed 166 people.

Saeed has repeatedly denied involvement in the Mumbai attacks and a Pakistani court saw insufficient evidence to convict him. The LeT could not be reached for comment.&nbsp;

The December 19th document, which refers to &quot;Financial Action Task Force (FATF) issues&quot;, names only Saeed&#39;s two charities and &quot;actions to be taken&quot; against them

The FATF, which is an international body that combats money laundering and terrorist financing, has warned Pakistan it faces inclusion on a watch list for failing to crack down on financing terrorism.

Asked about a crackdown on JuD and FIF, Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal, who co-chaired one of the meetings on the plan, responded only generally, saying he has ordered authorities &quot;to choke the fundraising of all proscribed outfits in Pakistan&quot;.

In a written reply, he also said Pakistan wasn&#39;t taking action under US&nbsp;pressure. &quot;We&#39;re not pleasing anyone. We&#39;re working as a responsible nation to fulfil our obligations to our people and the international community.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp;

Spokesmen for the JuD and FIF both said they could not comment until they receive official notifications of the government&#39;s plans. &quot;We don&rsquo;t have any intimation about any crackdown so far,&quot; FIF spokesman Salman Shahid told Reuters. &quot;No one has asked us about our work or assets.&quot; &nbsp;

&nbsp;Saeed could not be reached for comment. He has frequently denied having ties to militants and says the charitable organisations he founded and controls have no terrorist ties. He says he promotes an Islamic-oriented government through doing good works.

&nbsp; 
First major move&nbsp;

If the government follows through with the plan, it would mark the first time Pakistan has made a major move against Saeed&#39;s network, which includes 300 seminaries and schools, hospitals, a publishing house and ambulance services. The JuD and FIF alone have about 50,000 volunteers and hundreds of other paid workers, according to two counter-terrorism officials.

Participants at the meeting raised the possibility that the government&#39;s failure to act against the charities could lead to U.N. sanctions, one of the three officials said. A U.N. Security Council team is due to visit Pakistan in late January to review progress against UN-designated &quot;terrorist&quot; groups.

&quot;Any adverse comments or action suggested by the team can have far-reaching implications for Pakistan,&quot; the official said.

The December&nbsp;19th document gave few details about how the state would take over Saeed&#39;s charities, pending the plans submitted by the provincial governments. It did say it would involve government entities taking over ambulance services and accounting for other vehicles used by the charities.

It says law enforcement agencies will coordinate with Pakistan&#39;s intelligence agencies to identify the assets of the two charities and examine how they raise money.

The document also directs that the name of JuD&#39;s 200-acre headquarters, Markaz-e-Taiba, near the eastern city of Lahore be changed to something else &quot;to make it known that the Government of &quot;Punjab (province) solely manages and operates the Markaz(headquarters)&quot;.

&nbsp;The move to seize the charities could spark some concern from the powerful military, which has proposed plans to steer Saeed and the JuD into mainstream politics. The military did not respond to a request for comment.

In August, JuD officials formed a new political party, the Milli Muslim League, and backed candidates who fared relatively strongly in two key parliamentary by-elections.

The JuD publicly disavows armed militancy inside Pakistan, but offers vocal support for the cause of rebel fighters in Indian-administered Kashmir and has called for Pakistan to retake Kashmir. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan have fought two wars over the disputed region.

Washington, which has offered a $10 million reward for information leading to Saeed&#39;s conviction over the Mumbai attacks, warned Islamabad of repercussions after a Pakistani court in late November released him from house arrest.

Punjab&#39;s provincial government had put Saeed under house arrest for 10 months this year for violating anti-terrorism laws.

Asked about a crackdown on JuD and FIF, Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal, who co-chaired one of the meetings on the plan, responded only generally, saying he has ordered authorities "to choke the fundraising of all proscribed outfits in Pakistan"

Pakistan's government plans to seize control of charities and financial assets linked to Islamist leader Hafiz Saeed, who Washington has designated a terrorist, according to officials and documents. Pakistan's civilian government detailed its plans in a secret order to various provincial and federal government departments on December 19, three officials who attended one of several high-level meeting discussing the crackdown told. Marked "secret", a December 19 document from the finance ministry directed law enforcement and governments in Pakistan's five provinces to submit an action plan by December 28 for a "takeover" of Saeed's two charities, Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation. The United States has labelled JuD and FIF "terrorist fronts" for Lashkar-e-Taiba ("Army of the Pure" or LeT), a group Saeed founded in 1987 and which Washington and India blame for the 2008 attacks in Mumbai that killed 166 people. Saeed has repeatedly denied involvement in the Mumbai attacks and a Pakistani court saw insufficient evidence to convict him. The LeT could not be reached for comment. The December 19th document, which refers to "Financial Action Task Force (FATF) issues", names only Saeed's two charities and "actions to be taken" against them The FATF, which is an international body that combats money laundering and terrorist financing, has warned Pakistan it faces inclusion on a watch list for failing to crack down on financing terrorism. Asked about a crackdown on JuD and FIF, Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal, who co-chaired one of the meetings on the plan, responded only generally, saying he has ordered authorities "to choke the fundraising of all proscribed outfits in Pakistan". In a written reply, he also said Pakistan wasn't taking action under US pressure. "We're not pleasing anyone. We're working as a responsible nation to fulfil our obligations to our people and the international community." Spokesmen for the JuD and FIF both said they could not comment until they receive official notifications of the government's plans. "We don’t have any intimation about any crackdown so far," FIF spokesman Salman Shahid told Reuters. "No one has asked us about our work or assets." Saeed could not be reached for comment. He has frequently denied having ties to militants and says the charitable organisations he founded and controls have no terrorist ties. He says he promotes an Islamic-oriented government through doing good works. First major move If the government follows through with the plan, it would mark the first time Pakistan has made a major move against Saeed's network, which includes 300 seminaries and schools, hospitals, a publishing house and ambulance services. The JuD and FIF alone have about 50,000 volunteers and hundreds of other paid workers, according to two counter-terrorism officials. Participants at the meeting raised the possibility that the government's failure to act against the charities could lead to U.N. sanctions, one of the three officials said. A U.N. Security Council team is due to visit Pakistan in late January to review progress against UN-designated "terrorist" groups. "Any adverse comments or action suggested by the team can have far-reaching implications for Pakistan," the official said. The December 19th document gave few details about how the state would take over Saeed's charities, pending the plans submitted by the provincial governments. It did say it would involve government entities taking over ambulance services and accounting for other vehicles used by the charities. It says law enforcement agencies will coordinate with Pakistan's intelligence agencies to identify the assets of the two charities and examine how they raise money. The document also directs that the name of JuD's 200-acre headquarters, Markaz-e-Taiba, near the eastern city of Lahore be changed to something else "to make it known that the Government of "Punjab (province) solely manages and operates the Markaz(headquarters)". The move to seize the charities could spark some concern from the powerful military, which has proposed plans to steer Saeed and the JuD into mainstream politics. The military did not respond to a request for comment. In August, JuD officials formed a new political party, the Milli Muslim League, and backed candidates who fared relatively strongly in two key parliamentary by-elections. The JuD publicly disavows armed militancy inside Pakistan, but offers vocal support for the cause of rebel fighters in Indian-administered Kashmir and has called for Pakistan to retake Kashmir. Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan have fought two wars over the disputed region. Washington, which has offered a $10 million reward for information leading to Saeed's conviction over the Mumbai attacks, warned Islamabad of repercussions after a Pakistani court in late November released him from house arrest. Punjab's provincial government had put Saeed under house arrest for 10 months this year for violating anti-terrorism laws.

Pakistan plans takeover of charities linked to Hafiz Saeed

Authors: Larisa Yarovaya and Brian Lucey*

In the last year, the price of Bitcoin has increased from less than US$800 to more than US$12,000. This huge spike in value has many asking if it is a bubble or if the high price today is here to stay.

Finance defines a bubble as a situation where the price of an asset diverges systematically from its fundamentals. Investment mogul Jack Bogle says there is nothing to support Bitcoin, and the head of JP MorganChase, Jamie Dimon has called it a fraud &ldquo;worse than tulip bulbs&rdquo;.

Like any asset, Bitcoin has some fundamental value, even if only a hope value, or a value arising from scarcity. So there are reasons to hold it. But our research does show that it is experiencing a bubble right now.

Together with Shaen Corbet at Dublin City University, we took as the fundamentals of Bitcoin elements of the technology that underpins it (and other cryptocurrencies). We looked at measures, which represent the key theoretical and computational components of how cyrptocurrencies are priced.

New Bitcoin is created by a process of mining units called blocks. Bitcoin is built on blockchain technology &ndash; a digital ledger of transactions &ndash; which enables the currency to be traded independently from any central banking system, without risk of fake or duplicate Bitcoins being used. Instead of having a bank verify pending transactions (a &ldquo;block&rdquo;), miners check them and, if approved, the block is cryptographically added to the ever-expanding ledger.

So the first measure we examined relates to mining difficulty. It calculates how difficult it is to find a new block relative to the past. As per the Bitcoin Protocol, the number of Bitcoin is capped at 21m (there are currently 16.7m in circulation). This means that as more people mine for Bitcoin and more blocks are created, each block is, all things being equal, worth less than the previous block.

The second measure we looked at relates to the &ldquo;hash rate&rdquo;. This is the speed at which a computer operates when mining. To successfully mine Bitcoin, you must come up with a 64-digit hexadecimal number (called a &ldquo;hash&rdquo;), which is less than or equal to the target hash. The faster you can do this, the better chance you have of finding the next block and receiving payment. 
The third measurement was &ldquo;block size&rdquo;. This relates to how large the chain is at any given time, with larger chains taking longer to mine than shorter ones.

And lastly we looked at the volume of transactions conducted. Any asset, in particular any currency, which is more widely used will be more valuable than one which is used less frequently.

In our study, we examined data from Bitcoin&rsquo;s early days &ndash; from July 2010 to November 2017. The price of one Bitcoin did not rise above US$1 until April 16, 2011, then to US$10 on June 3, 2011 and US$100 on April 2, 2013. Since then the price rise has clearly been exceptional.

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="450" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" scrolling="no" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mygLM/1/" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="100%"></iframe>

<figure class="align-center zoomable">
We then applied an accepted method that is used to detect and date stamp bubbles after they burst. In essence, this involves identifying the existence of an explosive component in a series. As the series, here the price of bitcoin, &ldquo;explodes&rdquo;, it runs the risk, like any explosion, of flying apart.

A possibly counter-intuitive result of this approach is that if a fundamental driver and the price of an asset both show an explosive component, we might not conclude a bubble is present. A bubble is when something deviates from its fundamental value. If the fundamental value is itself growing explosively then the price would also.

Think of dividends on a stock. If, somehow, these were to grow at an explosive rate we might expect to see the price do the same. While unsustainable, this is not technically a bubble. To overcome this, we then date stamp a bubble as being present when the price shows an explosive component and the underlying fundamentals do not.

Here are the results of the analysis:

<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197566/original/file-20171204-4062-195jztn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197566/original/file-20171204-4062-195jztn.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" /></a>

<figcaption>The Bitcoin Bubbles.Authors own calculations</figcaption>
</figure>

&nbsp;

The orange lines denote when the price is showing explosive behaviour. We also see a period where the hash rate was growing explosively &ndash; the blue columns in late 2013 and early 2014. This is also an indication of a price bubble, which went on to burst.

So there are clear points where bubbles are visible &ndash; including now. The price of Bitcoin at present shows explosive behaviour in the absence of anything similar in its fundamentals. We see the price moving upwards in a manner that is not related to the technical underpinnings. It is a clear bubble.

A weakness of these tests and indeed all bubble identification tests is that they take place after the bubble has burst. Even this test, which can be redone as swiftly as new data arrives, is such. Bubbles by their nature grow in a compound manner &ndash; so even a day or two delay in addressing the situation can make a bubble significantly worse.

What is not yet available is an accurate advanced warning bubble indicator. In its absence, this approach may be the best. Unfortunately, we cannot use this approach to determine the extent of the bubble. There is no well-accepted model that suggests a &ldquo;fair&rdquo; value for Bitcoin. But whatever that level is, it is almost certain that, at present, it is well below where we are now.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-bitcoin-bubble-how-we-know-it-will-burst-88511" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

*Brian Lucey:&nbsp;Professor of International Finance and Commodities, Trinity College Dublin

(Disclaimer: Both authors write here in a personal capacity).

An analysis of Bitcoin's fundamentals shows how much of a bubble its price has inflated to

Authors: Larisa Yarovaya and Brian Lucey* In the last year, the price of Bitcoin has increased from less than US$800 to more than US$12,000. This huge spike in value has many asking if it is a bubble or if the high price today is here to stay. Finance defines a bubble as a situation where the price of an asset diverges systematically from its fundamentals. Investment mogul Jack Bogle says there is nothing to support Bitcoin, and the head of JP MorganChase, Jamie Dimon has called it a fraud “worse than tulip bulbs”. Like any asset, Bitcoin has some fundamental value, even if only a hope value, or a value arising from scarcity. So there are reasons to hold it. But our research does show that it is experiencing a bubble right now. Together with Shaen Corbet at Dublin City University, we took as the fundamentals of Bitcoin elements of the technology that underpins it (and other cryptocurrencies). We looked at measures, which represent the key theoretical and computational components of how cyrptocurrencies are priced. New Bitcoin is created by a process of mining units called blocks. Bitcoin is built on blockchain technology – a digital ledger of transactions – which enables the currency to be traded independently from any central banking system, without risk of fake or duplicate Bitcoins being used. Instead of having a bank verify pending transactions (a “block”), miners check them and, if approved, the block is cryptographically added to the ever-expanding ledger. So the first measure we examined relates to mining difficulty. It calculates how difficult it is to find a new block relative to the past. As per the Bitcoin Protocol, the number of Bitcoin is capped at 21m (there are currently 16.7m in circulation). This means that as more people mine for Bitcoin and more blocks are created, each block is, all things being equal, worth less than the previous block. The second measure we looked at relates to the “hash rate”. This is the speed at which a computer operates when mining. To successfully mine Bitcoin, you must come up with a 64-digit hexadecimal number (called a “hash”), which is less than or equal to the target hash. The faster you can do this, the better chance you have of finding the next block and receiving payment. The third measurement was “block size”. This relates to how large the chain is at any given time, with larger chains taking longer to mine than shorter ones. And lastly we looked at the volume of transactions conducted. Any asset, in particular any currency, which is more widely used will be more valuable than one which is used less frequently. In our study, we examined data from Bitcoin’s early days – from July 2010 to November 2017. The price of one Bitcoin did not rise above US$1 until April 16, 2011, then to US$10 on June 3, 2011 and US$100 on April 2, 2013. Since then the price rise has clearly been exceptional. We then applied an accepted method that is used to detect and date stamp bubbles after they burst. In essence, this involves identifying the existence of an explosive component in a series. As the series, here the price of bitcoin, “explodes”, it runs the risk, like any explosion, of flying apart. A possibly counter-intuitive result of this approach is that if a fundamental driver and the price of an asset both show an explosive component, we might not conclude a bubble is present. A bubble is when something deviates from its fundamental value. If the fundamental value is itself growing explosively then the price would also. Think of dividends on a stock. If, somehow, these were to grow at an explosive rate we might expect to see the price do the same. While unsustainable, this is not technically a bubble. To overcome this, we then date stamp a bubble as being present when the price shows an explosive component and the underlying fundamentals do not. Here are the results of the analysis: The Bitcoin Bubbles.Authors own calculations The orange lines denote when the price is showing explosive behaviour. We also see a period where the hash rate was growing explosively – the blue columns in late 2013 and early 2014. This is also an indication of a price bubble, which went on to burst. So there are clear points where bubbles are visible – including now. The price of Bitcoin at present shows explosive behaviour in the absence of anything similar in its fundamentals. We see the price moving upwards in a manner that is not related to the technical underpinnings. It is a clear bubble. A weakness of these tests and indeed all bubble identification tests is that they take place after the bubble has burst. Even this test, which can be redone as swiftly as new data arrives, is such. Bubbles by their nature grow in a compound manner – so even a day or two delay in addressing the situation can make a bubble significantly worse. What is not yet available is an accurate advanced warning bubble indicator. In its absence, this approach may be the best. Unfortunately, we cannot use this approach to determine the extent of the bubble. There is no well-accepted model that suggests a “fair” value for Bitcoin. But whatever that level is, it is almost certain that, at present, it is well below where we are now. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. *Brian Lucey: Professor of International Finance and Commodities, Trinity College Dublin (Disclaimer: Both authors write here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: The Bitcoin bubble ? how we know it will burst

financial-assets

Financial Assets, News on Financial Assets, stories on Financial Assets, articles on Financial Assets, Financial Assets stories at Wion, Financial Assets news, Financial Assets latest news