Eternal "bull". Legendary investor Mark Mobius: “In two years, Europe will come out of the crisis. Who made Strelkov out of Girkin and why? And why were he and Boroday removed from Novorossiya?

Who made Strelkov out of Girkin and why? And why he and Boroday were removed from Novorossiya.

Background of Strelkov and Boroday, as a mirror of the big game Igor Ivanovich Strelkov (Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin, 12/17/1970) - born and raised in Moscow, is interested in military reconstruction and the history of the White movement. Graduated from the Moscow State Institute of History and Archives. He took part in military operations in Transnistria, Bosnia and Chechnya. In the late 90s, together with Borodai, he worked as a correspondent for the newspaper “Zavtra”, in 2011 he was a correspondent for “ANNA-NEWS” in Abkhazia. At a press conference on July 10, 2014, Strelkov said that he was an FSB colonel who retired on March 31, 2013. Alexander Yurievich Boroday (07/25/1972) - born and raised in Moscow, graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. He took part as part of one of the combat groups in the events of September-October 1993 in Moscow on the side of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR; at a press conference on July 10, 2014, he stated that he fought in Transnistria. Since the mid-90s, he has been published in the newspaper “Zavtra”, engaged in PR and political consulting. At the start of the war in Novorossiya, he was a PR consultant and headed the Internet television channel “Den TV”. The first common feature is that they were both born and raised in Moscow, receiving a liberal arts education, and were in no way connected with Donbass, but nevertheless found themselves at the head of the DPR. At a press conference on July 10, 2014, Strelkov and Borodaya stated that they met in 1996 at the apartment of a mutual friend. The second thing they have in common is that Strelkov and Borodai are long-time friends, having known each other since 1996. Strelkov and Borodai have repeatedly declared their radical white views: Strelkov: “A boor is just a weapon... scary and rusty, but nothing more. The hand that controls this weapon is hidden behind the scenes. Russia perished because Ham was carefully nurtured and released, explaining to him that he was the “salt of the earth” and “has the right.” I have repeatedly signed my respect for the Russian Corps in Yugoslavia. In my deep conviction, Bolshevik power remains in Russia to this day. Yes, she has mutated almost beyond recognition. Yes, the formal ideology of this government has changed its sign to the exact opposite. But it remains unchanged at its core: in its anti-Russian, anti-patriotic, anti-religious orientation. In its ranks are direct descendants of the very people who made the revolution of the 17th. They just repainted it, but didn’t change the essence. Having abandoned the ideology that prevented them from getting rich and enjoying material wealth, they remained in power. In 1991 there was a coup. The counter-revolution has not yet taken place. You can vote for anyone in these elections - they don’t decide anything. There is a new fight ahead. It will cost the country a lot, but it is better to burn than to rot. About a year ago, enraged by hopelessness, I ran through the likely sponsors of the “patriotic project” - in particular, Mr. Yuryev (one of the sponsors of the “Russia Project”, contacted him through Mishka Leontyev - we know him from Chechnya) - all to no avail - he listened and “swore eternal allegiance to Putin.” I talked to someone else - the same result. Literally before the New Year, I met with Mishka on a private occasion - he was babbling in a drunken delirium about the fact that “in a year and a half, the government will be lying on the ground and there will be no one to raise it.” He is better known as a yap, but such a statement from this “faithful Putin” is still alarming. Some of my friends are involved in the “Ukrainian project” and are trying to turn it into something more realistic than the stupid “cutting” of money allocated for this by the Old Square (for which this project, in fact, was invented, to unfortunately). I don’t really believe it, but still, if you try hard enough, the “Transnistrian option” is possible - what do you think? In Russia, it seems, not a damn thing can be done now - there is no conflict, no catalyst (the Caucasus does not count - “distraction to a false object”), everything is tightly controlled. And keep in mind, just in case, that I can gather a dozen or two “veterans” with real experience and the willingness to “risk everything” at “hour X.” For reference, the Russian Corps in Yugoslavia are White Guards who went to serve Hitler, and cruelly suppressed the anti-fascist resistance of the Serbs. The Russian Corps in Yugoslavia was part of the Wehrmacht and the ROA. Having cursed the revolution of 1917 and signed his respect for the Nazi punitive forces, Strelkov declares that the current government is de facto Bolsheviks. Also very significant is Strelkov’s statement about his personal acquaintance with Yuriev, to whom he offered to organize an anti-Putin “movement”, declaring his readiness to take direct part in it. These statements are especially valuable because they were made by Strelkov as a semi-anonymous and unknown reenactor on the forum, and not as a well-promoted public figure. “TASS-Analytics”: “But, on the other hand, among some of our citizens there is an interest in General Vlasov...” Boroday: “Yes, there are some patriots who are actively interested in collaborationists and view the Second World War as a continuation of the civil war. After all, a considerable number of Soviet citizens turned their rifles against Soviet power. We are talking not only about General Vlasov, but also about such phenomena as the Lokot Republic, the Kaminsky division and others. These are the ideals of some patriots. And here they, of course, enter into confrontation with the Stalinist patriots.” Borodai on February 21, 2014 (i.e., at the culmination of the bloody Euromaidan) directly calls the Vlasovites and other collaborators patriots and condemns the anti-fascist pathos of the Anti-Maidan, de facto declaring that In Ukraine there was a confrontation between the opposition and the authorities, and not a fascist rebellion. The third common feature is radical white sentiments and sympathy for the Vlasovites. At the end of May, “Strelkov’s correspondence” (whose mail seemed to have been broken) is published, where Strelkov himself writes: “Dismissed to the reserve due to staff reduction with the rank of colonel. I am applying for a pension. Since the spring I have been working as the head of the security service at the Marshal-Capital company under Konstantin Malofeev” - such stuffing is always a problematic source, and we would not even refer to them if not for several circumstances: Firstly, the invoice given in the correspondence is partly coincides with Strelkov's statements: he says that he was an FSB colonel and resigned on March 31, and the correspondence says that he is an FSB colonel who was dismissed in the spring. But even this circumstance would not have been enough for serious consideration of this information if other public confirmations had not appeared. Secondly, the famous Orthodox oligarch Malofeev, in an interview with Forbes, denying the fact that Strelkov works as the head of his security service, states the following: “This may be true. And in Kyiv, and in Simferopol, and in Sevastopol, many volunteers were engaged in guarding the Gifts, and Girkin could have been among them. Ensuring safety during this event was very important to us." Those. we can confidently say that Strelkov provided security (of course as a volunteer) at Malofeev’s events. In the same interview, Malofeev says the following about Borodai: “Alexander Borodai, indeed, before his appointment to his current position, was my PR consultant, we have been working with him for about three years. He led a number of projects related to the activities of both “Marshal” and the St. Basil the Great Foundation. I want to wish him good luck in his future work, but, of course, in his new status he will not be able to continue advising me on PR. It’s a shame, because he was an excellent specialist, in my opinion, one of the best in Russia. He was not a consultant in a personal capacity, but represented his company, with which the contract was not terminated and with which, I think, I will continue to work, but, in any case, not with Alexander. .. I only know that they [Boroday and Strelkov] are friends.” Thus, a fourth common feature is formed in the Strelkov-Boroday plot - Malofeev, whose figure requires additional consideration. Konstantin Malofeev - founder of the Marshal Capital investment group, the largest minority shareholder and member of the board of directors of Rostelecom, chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Vasily the Great Fund, began his career in the Renaissance Capital company under Boris Jordan. Malofeev is often called an “Orthodox raider”, see more about this here. Here is what journalist Oleg Kashin writes about Malofeev (in general, Kashin praises Strelkov very much): “All my interlocutors described Malofeev himself in the same way - yes, he is sincerely and seriously obsessed with spirituality, sovereignty, military history, he has a huge library of historical literature, even in in the nineties, he was an active Orthodox figure in St. Petersburg, communicated with the late Metropolitan John (Snychev), who in those years had a reputation as an open fascist (the Metropolitan’s closest ally Konstantin Dushenov served in prison under Article 282 of “extremist” article), and after the death of the Metropolitan Malofeev withdrew from church affairs, became friends with Alexander Dugin, then with someone else, and by the beginning of the tenth years, parallel to his career as a professional minority shareholder, he turned into the brightest representative of the social group “Orthodox businessmen” - according to people familiar with him, there may be there are questions about how he makes his money, but no questions about how he spends it - churches, schools, historical research, and so on. A person who is ready to spend any money to make Russia look like the one “that we lost” and about which the website “Sputnik and Pogrom” likes to write... an acquaintance from the Right Sector said that one of the sponsors of the leader’s election campaign this organization of Dmitry Yarosh became a major Russian businessman Konstantin Malofeev" An important detail - Kashin wrote this text following the results of his business trip to Crimea, where he went on behalf of Sputnik and Pogrom (Prosvirnin claimed that Kashin worked for him for free, the expenses were only for road payment). Alexander Dugin is also a symbolic figure for the process in the DPR; a series of articles with a rich texture have been written about this: one, two, three. We will just briefly remind you that the occult fascist Dugin, discussing the topic “Russian patriots are close to turning away from Putin”: - Does not hide his views at all, we quote: “Fascism interests us from the spiritual, idealistic side, as an ideology that tries through conversion to the national factor to overcome class confrontation in society"; - Is a member of the “Black Order of the SS”; - Closely connected with Gubarev (Dugin’s man Alexander Proselkov is Gubarev’s adviser + Dugin opened his office in his apartment); - Creates something that is difficult to describe in words (watch the video on the links above); - And, what interests us especially, he participates in international congresses of the Black International, which are organized and financed by the same Malofeev. In June, a congress of the “new right”, organized and financed by Malofeev, took place in Vienna, which the Italian “La Repubblica” called the congress of the “Black International” (which is essentially true). Dugin took part in this congress and, we repeat once again, the organization and financing of the congress of the “Black International” was carried out by Malofeev. Dugin later stated that Strelkov, Borodai and Malofeev worked in tandem in the Donbass: “At the level of big business among Orthodox tycoons close to Putin, one of the important figures who from the very beginning took a strictly patriotic position was Konstantin Malofeev, previously known more with his connections with the Orthodox Church and charitable projects (Basily the Great Foundation)... He and his close friends and colleagues Igor Strelkov and Alexander Borodai took an active part in the Crimean events... This explains both Strelkov and Borodai, polite people in Slavyansk and the very themes of Orthodoxy, Russian identity and Eurasian geopolitics, which dominated the Donetsk Revolution. Malofeev turned out to be, although shadowy, a key figure in the continuation of the Russian Spring... Malofeev’s mandate for Novorossiya was revoked.” Thus, Dugin directly states that Borodai, Strelkov and Malofeev are part of the same team (close friends, colleagues, etc.). And that the shadowy but key figure of this team is Malofeev, who had a mandate from the Kremlin to work in Donbass. With this, Dugin explains the appearance of Strelkov and Borodai in the DPR and the creation of a corresponding ideological construct (which Dugin describes very slyly). “Sputnik and Pogrom” (Prosvirnin) de facto became Strelkov’s main PR people, all these “300StrelkovtsevSlavyanograd”, etc. they did: i.e. It is important that “Sputnik and Pogrom” (SiP) not only heroized Strelkov on its website in every possible way, it became a content generator in the spirit of “300 Strelkovites”, which spread very widely on the Runet. Before the start of the anti-fascist resistance of Novorossiya, the SiP in the same spirit glorified the Euromaidan and called for a repeat of it in Moscow: Moreover, the editor-in-chief of Sputnik and Pogrom, Prosvirnin, wanted a repetition of the Euromaidan in Moscow precisely in a Nazi vein, we quote his article dated January 21, 2014: “Error The Russian ultra-right is that they, having placed themselves above general civil political activity, began to wait for some other, new protest, which would be led personally by the rebel Adolf Hitler - and then tens of thousands of domestic Nazis would not disdain to get into line. The Ukrainians did not wait for the resurrection of Hitler (although 14/88 on the billboards indicates unambiguous sympathy), but instead simply crushed the protest under themselves with brute force, as the real Hitler would have done. Ukrainian fascists, Ukrainian Nazis, Ukrainian nationalists at the decisive hour behaved like real Hitlerites, without pretentiousness... literally turning the course of Ukrainian history. Russian fascists, Nazis and nationalists turned out to be theoretical Hitlerites, in order to argue about racial theory - yes, but in order to drag Nemtsov off the stage and occupy it himself - no. In the spirit of postmodernism reigning in our country, official political radicals turned out to be absolutely non-radical. Is a Russian Right Sector possible? Our country is full of many right-wing and ultra-right organizations; football fans alone could form a separate assault division. Plus numerous “Russian runs”, plus semi-legal groups to fight migrants and drug dealers, plus Tesak’s children, plus the remnants of RNE and DPNI, plus Cossack and Orthodox organizations (especially those subordinate to the ROCOR), plus ultra-radical neo-pagan terror groups, all kinds of Unions of Officers ( after Kvachkov, those looking at power are known as) and countless sports clubs, clubs and tournaments with a right-wing and ultra-right slant. It’s not that the Right Sector - an entire Right Front can be formed, and after Manezhka, the Russian right-wingers have experience in informal coordination and organization of rallies, gatherings and non-public fights wall to wall. EVERYTHING IS". After Bandera's government. coup, Prosvirnin began to curse Ukraine (precisely Ukraine and the Ukrainians, not the Banderaites) and in every possible way imposed the idea of abandoning the anti-fascist spirit of resistance to Novorossiya, more about this here. Prosvirnin calls the resistance of Novorossiya the “Russian Beast” (article published on May 24, 2014): “the text is based on the work of Michael Kellogg... Russian White emigrants largely contributed to the radicalization of Nazism and shifting its focus to anti-Semitism. That burning, insane hatred of the Bolsheviks simply could not have been born in the relatively hothouse conditions of Germany; it was brought from the burning fields of the Russian Civil War. Nazism, in a way, can be seen as a bacteria carrier of the virus of sacred Russian madness, the madness of people who have lost everything, scorched by the fire of the underworld and dried up by the thirst for revenge. And on June 22, this revenge, this ressentiment, which fed the hearts of the White Guards who became Nazi ideologists, oozing in the veins of the NTS members who signed up for the first line troops, seething under the skin of the peasants and workers who would later go to Dirlewanger - this crazy, black, all-crushing irrational revenge broke out. .. It goes without saying that very soon the fight against the Bolsheviks resulted in a fight with the Russian people, a war not with the state apparatus of the USSR, but with the population, the German war machine, drunk with blood, buried itself in mountains of corpses, in a war of extermination with the largest white people in the world . A war she couldn't win. But first, the Russian Beast broke free for a moment, and it was during these short days that Stalin fled to his dacha, where he drank terribly, drank uncontrollably... Two things prompted me to write this post: attempts to use the text about June 22 to organize an information campaign against us and (more importantly) the persistent feeling that the Beast is awakening again. This time - in the scorched steppes of Donbass” This is how Prosvirnin describes the actions of this “Russian beast” in his article “That Endless Summer Day”: “We celebrate June 22 as the Day of Remembrance and Sorrow. I don't think this is a day of remembrance and mourning. This is the DAY OF REVENGE... On June 22, 1941, White Europe returned to Russia. The sky darkened with planes. The ground shook from the tanks. The trees shook with laughter - hundreds, thousands of ranks of the Russian Imperial Army, who volunteered to join the Wehrmacht, SS or created their own units, laughed. The White Russians were returning to the Red Soviets. Without pity. Without mercy. Without sentiment. Without a glimmer of sympathy. The party card, the treasured Little Book of Omnipotence, a symbol of belonging to the highest Soviet race, suddenly turned into a mark of the doomed, in which the sentence was written. All party members were slaughtered. Collaborated with party members. Vaguely similar to party members. There was no mercy for anyone. 70-year-old career tsarist officers voluntarily enlisted in the regiments as privates, just to get to the communist throat. The Soviet bastard, who had grinned for the previous 20 years, felt cold, bony fingers on her throat. Russian fingers. For the Germans, it was a war for world domination and what have you. For the Russians it was a war of extermination. Complete. Final. So that there is not even a memory left of the Reds. The famous Dirlewanger Sonderkommando, the most monstrous and brutal unit of the entire War, at some points consisted of 40% Russians. Fascist punitive forces. With Ryazan faces. They cut him, burned him alive and laughed. They drank the Death of the Reds and could not get drunk, thirst burned and burned them, drove them from mountain of corpses to mountain, from mountain to mountain, from mountain to mountain. From meat to meat. And there was always little meat... the Russian would grab his red throat with his cold, dead hand right then, in the summer of ’41. 22nd of June. On the Day of Vengeance” Prosvirnin de facto declares that the resistance of Novorossiya is Vlasovites and glorifies them as Vlasovites, casually declaring that Nazism is the product of “sacred Russian madness” (and that Russian ideologists are guilty of the Holocaust, i.e. The Germans were “propagandaized” by the Russians, but they themselves did not plan anything like that). By the way, it is extremely symbolic that such statements (being widely publicized) did not cause a minimally intelligible reaction from the media promoting Strelkov, which, on the contrary, fiercely stood up for Prosvirnin (“don’t you dare criticize Prosvirnin for Nazism, he sent a whole toy drone to Slavyansk !"). After all this, Strelkov officially declares gratitude to Prosvirnin and, causing a wave of indignation, explains that the Vlasov singer of Novorossiya Prosvirnin is not an enemy, we quote: “In connection with the resonance in the information environment caused by my gratitude to the Sputnik and Pogrom organization, I want to say, that it doesn’t matter to me who to thank, be it monarchists, anarchists, and so on, the main thing is that they provide real assistance to Slavyansk and are not enemies.” Having received such a mandate from Strelkov, Prosvirnin said on the air of Dozhd that the formation of Novorossiya would destroy Russia ( remember his statement: “the possible collapse of the Russian Federation from reunification is not a danger, but a BONUS”), and Strelkov will carry out an armed coup, establishing the power of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy in Russia: “He [Strelkov] will extend the front to the entire Novorossiya, after which Russia will have to transform. .. The RSFSR [meaning the Russian Federation] will begin to disintegrate itself under the influence of this national attraction... I don’t think that anyone for Putin will fight against Strelkov, I think if Strelkov goes to Moscow, then all formations will automatically switch to his side” “If Strelkov had been given the opportunity to rebuild Russia, then we would have had a constitutional monarchy... The Winsors, of course, are the only more or less normal monarchy in the modern world... Michael of Kent for the kingdom!” In fact, Prosvirnin carried out a very crude provocation to break ties between the resistance of Novorossiya and Russia, i.e. worked to drain Novorossiya. But this also remained without any clear reaction from the media company promoting Strelkov; no one even condemned Prosvirnin (remember that Strelkov has an assistant for working with the media, Druz, not to mention a huge number of media outlets; this demarche on Dozhd "who did not even comment). The figure of the aforementioned Boris Jordan, with whom Malofeev began his career, is very significant. Without being able to discuss it in detail in this article, we briefly inform you that Boris Jordan is the founder of the Renaissance Capital company and the Sputnik investment group. Boris Jordan's father and grandfather served in the punitive Russian Corps in Yugoslavia (in respect of which Strelkov repeatedly signed). Subsequently, Jordan's family emigrated to the USA, where he was born. Yordan Alexey Borisovich In 1999, Yordan established the Fund for Assistance to Cadet Corps named after his grandfather Alexey Yordan, who fought in parts of the Verkhmat. One of the donors of which is Sputnik. Every year the fund helps more than 60 cadet corps throughout Russia. The “St. Basil the Great Fund” is also extremely interesting, the founder and chairman of the board of trustees of which is headed by Malofeev. The general director of the fund is Zurab Chavchavadze. Who speaks about Strelkov and Boroday in the following way: “I personally know Igor Strelkov, and I’ve known Sasha Boroday from the cradle, as they say. We were very close friends with his father Yuri Methodievich Borodai, a major philosopher, Doctor of Science. I have known Sasha from an early age, I watched him grow up with emotion... It was Borodai who introduced me to his closest friend Igor Strelkov, with whom fate made friends during the Chechen war... We talked a lot with Igor [Strelkov, approx. friend], together with Konstantin Malofeev, explained our positions, since we had to cooperate when Strelkov joined our structure even before the Crimean events, when he came to work at our Basil the Great Foundation. He immediately aroused the sympathy of both me and Konstantin, with whom we immediately exchanged our impressions. We had an interesting conversation with him and found a lot in common. It turned out that Strelkov is a monarchist, and Konstantin Malofeev and I are convinced monarchists, as they say, with experience. I have known Konstantin for a very long time, since I conveyed to him, a fifteen-year-old boy, the answer to his letter to Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich. I was then an active participant in the monarchist movement. And against the backdrop of all the quarrels and squabbles in the monarchist environment, the sincere and pure position of young Kostya simply won me over. I understand that he is a real monarchist. In a word, for me Kostya is a dear person. And so we say together with him: what an amazing person Igor Strelkov is!” The fifth common feature is Chavchavadze, a very elite representative of the white emigration, directly connected with Malofeev and other elitists we are considering in the context of Strelkov and Borodai. Zurab Chavchavadze directly states that Strelkov worked in “our structures”, i.e. on Malofeev, Chavchavadze and others. Consideration of the large figure of the White emigrant Zurab Chavchavadze will require work disproportionately larger than the modest Borodai-Strelkov connection, so we will limit ourselves to only a few striking facts (bright strokes). Zurab Chavchavadze became one of the signatories of the “Open Letter” addressed to Putin, Medvedev, Pivovarov, Lavrov, Svanidze, Sobyanin, Patriarch Kirill, Kasparov, etc. More details about this are written here - “66, or Ultimatum to Putin”, the essence of the letter in 2 quotes: “liberate Red Square from the cemetery where Stalin and other accomplices of Lenin are located. Urns with the ashes of military generals should be buried in a memorial cemetery near Mytishchi... In our opinion, it is necessary to burn Lenin’s body in the Crematorium, pack the ashes in a steel cylinder and lower it into the deep depression of the Pacific Ocean. If you bury him at the Volkovskoye cemetery in St. Petersburg, then dissatisfied citizens could blow up Lenin’s grave, damaging nearby graves... On October 26–28, 2012, the World Congress of Compatriots took place in St. Petersburg. Russian President V.V. Putin addressed a letter of welcome to the Congress and called on foreign compatriots to take part in the development of the Russian economy through the introduction of new technologies and investments. But such requests will not be fulfilled without removing Lenin from the Mausoleum and liquidating the cemetery on Red Square.” It is difficult to imagine a more crude and presumptuous blackmail of the President of Russia, but we will not comment on the desire to wipe his feet on Victory (they even wanted to throw out the ashes of military generals from Red Square) in detail, because everything is extremely obvious. Strelkov spoke on this issue on the forum-antikvariat.ru forum (where he is known by the nickname Kotych) on February 24, 2011: “The mummy should be burned in the crematorium. Load the cannon with ashes and fire to the west.” A relative of Zurab Chavchavadze, Georgiy Nikolaevich Chavchavadze, was an officer of the ROA (Wehrmacht), i.e. Vlasovite. The “Basily the Great Foundation” was one of the key creators (sponsors) of the “National Parents Association” (NPA), which in 2013, from the standpoint of supposedly orthodox Orthodoxy, lobbied for the introduction of juvenile justice in Russia; more about this here. The Basil the Great Foundation works closely with the American organization World Congress of Families, connecting through it to very right-wing American circles. It is very symbolic that the curator for Russia at the World Congress of Families is the open and very well-known ecumenist Janice Crouse. The same story highlights the connection of the subject we are considering with the American Enterprise Institute (and this is very, very serious), more about this here. Executive Director of the NRA Komov stated that the National Parents Association relies on the support of the Vasily the Great Foundation and such major business players as Evgeny Yuryev. The sixth common feature is Yuryev, whom Strelkov wrote about his close acquaintance with. Borodaya, as a PR specialist for the “St. Basil the Great Foundation”, is most likely not a complete stranger to Yuryev, who finances this fund. Not to mention the fairly close connection between Yuryev and Malofeev. Malofeev’s longtime acquaintance and business partner, Evgeny Yuryev, is the creator of the Aton business structure, which, together with the international largest structure Franklin Templetone Investment, created the Templeton structure. This is the same Yuryev with whom Strelkov writes about his personal acquaintance, calling the founder of Templeton: “probable sponsors of the “patriotic project.” Franklin Templetone Investment is a huge investment corporation, one of the largest in the world. It specializes primarily in investments in developing countries. Moreover, it makes these investments in such a way that they yield up to 600 percent per year [i.e. we are talking about robbery]. According to official reports: “As of May 31, 2012, Franklin Templeton Investments had $683 billion in assets under management.” Franklin Templetone Investment's activities in Eastern Europe (and primarily in Russia) are led by Mark Mobius. An investment strategy that allows you to earn 600% per annum is described by Mark Mobius as follows: “You need to buy shares when there is blood on the streets... Even if this blood is yours.” Franklin Templetone is today one of the most active investors in the Ukrainian market, actively acquiring various assets, in particular, Franklin Templetone bought 40% of Ukraine's government debt, which must be repaid by 2017. Those. Franklin Templetone Investment is in no way interested in the collapse of the investment object, while a very strong, but temporary destabilization only benefits it (assets can be bought for next to nothing). The coming of the Strelkov-Boroday combination to formal power in the DPR could hardly have happened without close contacts with the Kremlin; we must pay tribute to Boroday, who speaks more than frankly about this connection: “Without exaggeration, Surkov is our man in the Kremlin.” Even the media are already reporting that it is Sukov who oversees Ukraine in the Kremlin. We quote Borodai once again: “Surkov is our man in the Kremlin” - de facto, this is a direct admission that in the Kremlin, the DPR leadership team is supervised by Surkov. Thus, the following picture emerges: 1) Strelkov and Borodai are long-time friends with similar views, within the framework of which they are ready to sign their respect for the Vlasovites and call them patriots of Russia; 2) Having nothing to do with Donbass, old friends Boroday and Strelkov find themselves at the head of the DPR; 3) They close in on Malofeev and other people with radical white, de facto Vlasov views, whose parents fought as part of the ROA-Wehrmacht against the USSR; 4) These people consistently advocated not just for the “removal of Lenin” (which is not alien to normal, Nevlasov whites), but also for the rejection of Victory (symbolized by the demand for the removal of the ashes of the Victory generals from Red Square). Those. de facto, it was about total de-Sovietization, which the West persistently demands. 5) And then, from an Orthodox position, they lobbied for the introduction of juvenile justice (JJ), which again is a requirement of the West (and such a combination of demands to dismantle Victory and introduce JJ is not accidental). YU's lobbying line highlights the very serious connections of the subject we are considering with the far right and extremely elite American circles from the American Enterprise Institute; 6) The same Malofeev is the organizer of the international congress of the “Black International”; 7) According to Boroday, Surkov is the curator of the DPR leadership in the Kremlin; 8) The openly provocative and 100% Vlasov “Sputnik and Pogrom,” which calls the militia “the reincarnation of Vlasovites,” is the main promoter of Strelkov’s PR, receiving gratitude from him and, according to information from Kashin, who collaborated with Prosvirnin, funding from Malofeev; 9) The Strelkov-Boroday connection literally goes one step further to the largest international structure, Franklin Templetone Investment, which is engaged in robbery of emerging markets and owns 40% of Ukraine’s public debt, which is not at all interested in the collapse of Ukraine (in which case their multibillion-dollar investments will burn). P.S. Boris Jordan, in an interview with Expert (No. 1, 01/29/2001), very accurately and frankly described the game that Vlasov’s enemy is playing in Novorossiya: “what my grandfather was unable to do with arms in his hands in the ranks of the White movement [Wehrmacht], I did it through privatization.” As a conclusion, we want to say only one thing: the Vlasovites cannot truly fight with the Banderaites, they are of the same blood.

Moebius, Ph.D., is a manager of funds focused on emerging markets and chairman of the executive committee of Templeton Emerging Markets Group, which he joined in 1987. He currently leads the Templeton research group. According to Asiamoney magazine, Moebius entered the “Top 100 most powerful and influential people” in 2006.

Joseph Mark Moebius was born into a family with German and Puerto Rican roots on August 17, 1936, in Hempstead, New York. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1964. Mark also studied at the University of Wisconsin, the University of New Mexico and Kyoto University in Japan.

Having taken the position of president

After starting the Templeton Emerging Markets Fund in 1987, Mobius combined his knowledge of new international markets with Sir John Templeton's "disciplined trader" to take investing to a new level. Templeton became the first global investment management organization available to Americans, and Mobius took responsibility for opening

first branch in Hong Kong. Today, Mark is responsible for managing 50 closed-end and open-end mutual funds around the world.

National citizenship, Moebius eventually renounced American citizenship and exercised his right to be called a German citizen.

He has conducted seminars several times, including for the Asian Development Bank in 2002, and became one of the motivational speakers of the London Speaker Bureau. As a recognized specialist in emerging markets, Mobius often participates in television projects covering financial issues, including for such channels and television networks as CNBC, MSNBC and CNN. During his career he gave thousands of int

interviewed and written hundreds of articles.

Having devoted nearly 40 years to the study of emerging markets, Mark has received numerous awards and honors, including being named one of Bloomberg Markets' 50 Most Influential People in 2011. He was also named one of the "Top 10 Investment Managers of the 20th Century" by the Carson Group in 1999. Even before that

Over the years of work, various humorous nicknames have stuck to Mobius. He has been called the “Pied Piper of Emerging Markets,” “The Elder of Emerging Markets,” the world’s “Globe Trotter,” and “Yul Brynner of Wall Street.” The last comparison with the "king of the balds", the American

film artist Brynner, appeared against the backdrop of the constant feature in the image of Mobius, his bald head.

In 2007, a comic book about the life of Mobius, “Mark Mobius – An Illustrated Biography of the Father of Emerging Markets Funds” was published. The comic is available in English, Chinese, Korean, Indonesian, Thai and Japanese.

One of the most famous investors in emerging markets, executive president of Templeton Emerging Markets Group Mark Mobius has always spoken well of Russia. About a year ago, he said that Russia is one of the most promising economies among the BRIC countries. Now the tone has changed a little. Following other financial gurus who discussed whether Russia should be excluded from BRIC and who spoke about the decline in investor interest in our country, Mobius today criticizes Russia. Investor interest is indeed declining. According to MICEX-RTS statistics, the share of foreigners in trading volume on the Russian exchange today is at the level of 25%, whereas before the crisis it was about 35%. And the number of non-resident clients on the stock exchange fell by 30% in 2011, to 3,000. Mobius spoke about the reasons for this, the prospects for the European and BRIC markets, new markets and his investment rules in an interview with Forbes.

— You assess Europe’s chances of recovery as very good. Why?

“I think that in two years Europe will emerge from this crisis much stronger than it was before, both economically and politically. The Eurozone is very young and has not yet had to deal with many problems. For example, how to reconcile a common currency and independent fiscal policies in each country. These challenges are solvable, and when they are accomplished, the continent's economies will be much stronger. I also think that for Russia the recovery of Europe is very important, because in the future their close integration is completely inevitable. Their economies are complementary, Russia has so many resources, and strategically it will strive specifically for Europe.

— Will the world economy really move towards focusing on real, rather than financial assets, like?

— I don’t completely agree with this statement. No economy can operate without a developed financial system, and as the economy grows, it will grow very quickly. How else can you find capital to develop the real sector? In particular, the Russian [financial system] has a very bright future because you have a lot of smart people. Ultimately, this is the most important thing for the development of the financial market. Once the legal system gets in order, the financial system will begin to grow at tremendous speed, because there are a lot of qualified people.

— Financiers say that today the developing BRIC countries are no longer what they were before, that they are unable to pull the world economy out of recession. Do you share this opinion?

— I think it’s too early to write off BRIC. These are four very large economies, including two countries that are home to 20% of the world's population. These people are not going anywhere. At least for this reason it is difficult to be a pessimist about BRIC.

— You feel good about the prospects of China and Russia - countries with a large share of state participation in the economy. How effective is the growing role of the state from a macroeconomic and financial point of view?

— The presence of the state in the economy is not at all the main Russian problem. Russia needs to do something about its law enforcement system, which spoils the investment climate and prevents small and medium-sized businesses from developing. Until change occurs in this area, you will not reach your potential. State participation should be reduced, but if you arrange privatization now, you will not get a normal price for your assets - due to problems with the police and courts.

— Half of the growth of Russian GDP is provided by growing oil revenues, half by growing consumption due to them. Do you still believe in Russia in its current state?

“This is already a problem, and a very serious problem.” Even the government seems to understand this and is taking steps to turn the tide.

— In its economic policy, Russia is out of phase with the whole world. Everyone is stimulating the economy: accelerating inflation, spending reserves, lowering rates. In Russia, everything is the other way around - a high level of reserves, a downward trend in inflation and rising rates. Is this dissonance good or bad? What is he talking about?

“I think it’s good that the government behaves in a disciplined manner. The key to Russia's growth is stimulating the private sector, especially small and medium-sized businesses. I repeat again that the most necessary thing is a transparent system of law enforcement and compliance with laws so that no one can seize funds or business from the owners. We need massive police reform.

— The least developed markets, in particular African countries, are among the most promising, from your point of view. What determines the attractiveness of this region today?

- It's simple. Of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the past five years, nine were frontier economies and six were in Africa. But there are many reasons to believe in the continent's rapid growth. First, local economies are growing from a very low base. Secondly, there are 1 billion people living on the continent, and they all need something to eat and drink. In addition, Africa benefits greatly from the technological leap - it happens in other places, but in Africa it simply transfers countries from one era to another.

Which countries and regions are now the most interesting from an investment point of view? Why?

If we talk about Asia, this is primarily Vietnam and Indonesia. We have always had a very high opinion of the Thai market. In Central Asia, this is Kazakhstan - due to its large mineral reserves. In North Africa, we definitely need to pay attention to Egypt, despite all the unrest that is currently happening there.

— What do you think about the prospects of India as a new economic giant capable of replacing China in this role?

- In any case, I think that India will grow quickly. Whether the local economy will be larger than the Chinese one is not a near future.

— What do you think about investing in gold? Forecast, is it worth buying?

— Gold is a good investment because it replaces money in many ways. At least that's what many people think. So you need to buy gold, although I am by no means saying that you should invest all your money in it.

— How to choose stocks in today’s difficult times, what are the three rules of Mark Mobius?

- They are simple. First, always look at the people behind a particular company. Try to understand how they would behave in that different situation. Second, invest only in growing companies or those that have clear growth potential. And, of course, the company must have good reporting.

— You have been investing in developing countries all your life. What will you do when you run out of little-known countries for investors? Where to look for new ideas?

—The good news is that investment opportunities in young markets will not end for a very long time, at least for many decades. Developing countries will continue to rise and eventually become developed - so much the better for all of us.

Experienced investor. Templeton Emerging Markets Group Executive President Mark Mobius has been with Franklin Templeton Investments since 1987. He currently has $50.9 billion in assets under management. Mobius, who has been buying Russian shares since 1994, was one of the first foreign investors in our country. In 1996, his company created the Templeton mutual fund here, which was sold in 2002. Mobius explained then that the timing of entering the Russian collective investment market was chosen poorly. However, the investment fund continued to invest in the Russian economy. From 2002 to 2004 and from 2010 to the present, Mobius has been on the board of directors of Lukoil.

I first heard the name Mark Mobius in a rather piquant context of a private conversation: look, my friend said, what kind of character is wandering around the world - either a stock market hero or a swindler! The reader guesses that I am not able to pass by the word “scam” indifferently, so I immediately plunged into the biography of the eminent investor.

My first impression from what I read was: what kind of swindler is he? A real stock market hero. A worthy entrepreneur, a cult investor, an exemplary liberal and generally a humanist. Having got to the details of Mark Mobius’s business activity, I, however, doubted: no, it still looks like he’s a swindler... In the end, however, I calmed down: thank God, he’s not a swindler! Not a hero, of course, but clearly a man on serious work. Responsibly carries out the work assigned to him.

The main task that I set for myself when I sat down to write this article was not to highlight yet another phony investment tip from the arsenal of Mark Mobius, but to teach readers to soberly evaluate speeches and statements, to teach them to recognize the intention hidden behind the plume of optimistic slogans, which is in the mouths of people like Mark Mobius almost never has the slightest relation to reality. Not because Mark Mobius is evil or bad, but because his position does not allow him to tell the truth. The work is like this, nothing can be done: employees of investment companies at the level of our character are free to disclose only what is on the agenda handed down from above, which in nine cases out of ten does not coincide with the personal investment plans of ordinary investors.

In short, if I can teach readers to filter all this globalist “bazaar” coming from the mouth of Mobius and others like him, I will consider my mission accomplished.

Guru - information

Let's start with the main thing - with the role of Mark Mobius in modern social mythology. If you open any biographical source - from Wikipedia to brief information presented on investment forums and portals, then you will not find any purely human information about Mark Mobius. Who were his parents, who is his wife, does he have children, what moral, ethical or emotional qualities does this person, outstanding in all respects, have - none of this exists. And there are only meager lines of a career biography, which fits in a couple of paragraphs, and a long list of awards and regalia: “Best investment trust manager” in such and such a year, “Best closed-end fund manager” in another year, 139th out of the 500 best managers on one list, 218th on another, etc.

Why does this happen? Because business in general and stock trading in particular belong to the most mythologized areas of human activity. I would even say, to the religious spheres. That is why it is not manifestations of personality that are important, but attributes worthy of worship and religious adoration. Hence such a disproportionate number of all kinds of “gurus”, “teachers”, “high priests” and “apostles” in trading and business (I won’t list them: they are already on everyone’s lips). Without these attributes of deification and adoration, neither business nor trading in modern forms could exist. In the stated context, Mark Mobius occupies the niche of “the absolute indisputable guru” in all matters relating to investing in emerging markets. It's funny sometimes to read the rational motivation for deification. In Mobius's case, it's inspiring: Mark understands emerging markets better than anyone because he's been in them the longest. Already 40 years old!

Seniority

Given the mythological nature of Mark Mobius, studying his “official” biography is pointless. Only in terms of establishing time guidelines: he was born in 1936 in Brooklyn into a family of Jews who fled from Germany. He studied at Boston University at the Faculty of Arts (he was very fond of theatrical productions since childhood), then switched to the Faculty of Communications and Telecommunications. After Boston, he continued his education at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where in 1964 he earned a PhD in economics and politics.

Immediately after college, Mobius went to South Korea and Thailand to collect information for the American Institute for Research. Don't rush to find out about this pretentious and pointless-sounding establishment on Wikipedia - you still won't find anything. It seems that the national encyclopedia was so at a loss, wondering what could be written meaningfully about the institute, that in the end it gave up. And really, what can you write if everything is already said on the organization’s website: “Founded in 1946 (they would write directly: timed to coincide with Churchill’s Fulton speech. - Author’s note), non-profit... independent... objective... the world’s largest center for behavioral and social research... 1,500 employees.” It takes a special degree of obscurity not to guess that we are talking about one of the key intelligence centers of the Atlantic civilization. (Look, at first it seemed to me that nothing meaningful could be extracted from the official biography of Mobius!)

The next stage of life is Hong Kong and service at Monsanto. I refer those to whom the name of this company does not mean anything to my research. "The Feeding Hand of the Beast" Here I will limit myself to a single remark: in the second half of the 1960s, when Mobius got a job at Monsanto, the company was mainly engaged in the production of Agent Orange, which the US Air Force sprayed over Vietnam.

In 1970, Mark Mobius set off on a free voyage: he created the consulting firm Mobius Inc. in Hong Kong, where it existed quietly and inconspicuously for ten years. No trading and no investing. So, just tips and recommendations. In 1980, Mobius left private practice and again went to work - in the private London firm Vickers da Costa, about which only what is known is that nothing is known. Formally, since 1984, the company has been considered a division of Citicorp, but the status of Vickers da Costa is not shown anywhere: “key executives - no information”, “board of directors - no information”, “executive committees - no information”, well, etc. Look for yourself, maybe you will have better luck than me.

In parallel with Vickers da Costa, Mobius served as president of Taiwan's largest asset management company, International Investment Trust, from 1983 to 1986. All this, however, is just a prelude. Mobius's main biography began in 1987, when an expert with 23 years of experience was invited to head one of the newly created investment funds of the Templeton group - Templeton Global Emerging Markets Fund. The creation of the fund was timed to coincide with the policy of economic integration (read “gaining control over”) third world countries, which was taken in the mid-1980s and formulated in the manifesto of the IFC (International Financial Corporation), one of the key (along with the IMF) instruments of financial pressure of Atlanticism.

Rothschild money

Before we move directly to the analysis of the mythology of “investing in emerging markets,” let me make a short comment that sheds light on the natural (and not mythologized) reason for the success of the investment activities of the Templeton Global Emerging Markets Fund. It must be said that in the first five years of its existence, the fund, under the strict leadership of Mark Mobius, did not show any results. And this is understandable: there are few funds to manage, investment markets are new, and inertia is high.

Everything changed in 1992, when the company of Sir John Marks Templeton, the legendary pioneer of mutual funds and just a good person, went under the wing (well, or was absorbed) by the New York (by origin) investment giant Franklin Resources, created in 1947 by Rupert Johnson . Until 1988, Franklin Resources also did not shine in scale, but a magical star rose, and the Johnson family had the great honor of “buying” a modest office called L. F. Rothschild Fund Management Company.

The “takeover” turned out to be notable: in 1982, Franklin Resources managed $2 billion, and in 1989 - already $40 billion! It must be understood that the missing $38 billion was given to the absorber by the humble Rothschild foundation (one of many). In fact, there are no contradictions in the deal: mimicry under false roofs is a long-standing tradition of the glorious family of British knights. Readers who find this practice implausible are referred to the history of the emergence of the Morgan empire, who in exactly the same way “absorbed” one of the Rothschild businesses in the 19th century (see. "The Garden of Converging Paths" ).

In short, after the unification of the Templeton, Johnson (and Rothschild) empires, Mark Mobius had almost unlimited funds for experimentation in emerging markets. What he did with particular zeal: from the $14 billion entrusted to the Templeton Global Emerging Markets Fund, after the crisis of the so-called Asian Tigers (see. "No water in the tap" ) 1998 only $10 billion remained.

This is the time to talk about the “outstanding profitability” of Mark Mobius’s investment activities, which, in fact, is used to promote his goroidal mythology. In the Russian press I even came across some particularly idiotic figures, for example: “Mark Mobius has been involved in risky investing for more than 20 years, and during this time the assets under his management have grown 150 times.” We won’t even discuss such nonsense. Let's limit ourselves to dry statistics. The reader can independently familiarize himself at www.franklintempleton.co.uk/ft/ppssPage with the achievements of all Templeton investment funds, one way or another connected with emerging markets. Returns range from -13.9% since inception (a three-year loss for the Smaller Companies Fund) to 615% (a 19-year gain for the Bond Fund), which, as you understand, is nowhere near “150 times.”

Moreover, the achievements of investment funds managed by Mark Mobius for the most part do not even surpass the data of the industry index, and this, you see, is a very alarming indicator (see chart).

The Templeton Global Emerging Markets Fund's performance over the past six years has lagged the MSCI Emerging Markets Index by more than 60%. However, all this is insignificant, although it is obvious that Mobius’s result is far from not only a guru, but also from a market genius. In the end, Bernard Medoff demonstrated a stable 10–13% per year for 48 years (!), while successfully passing all conceivable and unimaginable checks of third-party organizations. You yourself know how his achievements ended (and if you don’t know, then read"Barium porridge").

I cite all these inexpressive statistics not at all in order to encroach on the authority of Mark Mobius. God forbid! It is only important for me to convey to the reader the idea that financial achievements are, to put it mildly, not the main prerogative of the activities of this talented person. And if not money, then what? I have not the slightest doubt that in all third world countries (including Russia, of course) Mark Mobius is pursuing the same goal as the people and organizations who appointed him (from the IMF to the IFC to the Beldelberg Club and the American Institute of Research) , - to achieve total integration of emerging markets into a single financial system, which is, of course, under strict control from the center of power (a concept, as you might guess, that has ideological rather than geographic coordinates).

Maestro's sayings

That this is the case is evidenced by the countless slips of the tongue that even such a talented employee as Mark Mobius makes. There's nothing you can do about it: errare humanum est. I will list only the brightest and key ones.

Mobius professes the theory of a “level playing field”, which he applies exclusively to third world countries: “Globalization means that you have a level playing field and you allow the most talented people to rise to the very top.” What does this mean? Poor guy who grew up on the streets of an emerging market country (in to modern politically correct Volapuk means the same underdeveloped third world), gets the opportunity to get to the very top and improve his chances. Why? Because he is a workaholic. He's hungry. He wants more. And with a high probability he will become a world leader. He will advance to the very top. But, relatively speaking, he needs to be released from the cage. Today, most of these countries have created structures that prevent the “guy on the street” from rising to the top.

Behind the tongue-tiedness (Mobius' signature style) lies the greatest of all conceivable and inconceivable demagoguery. Do you think Mobius doesn’t understand that the picture he described is a distilled lie that has not had and does not have confirmation in history? I beg you: a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology does not understand such things?! He understands everything perfectly well, but without batting an eye he issues such manifestos, since they clearly coincide with the agenda given to him. Mobius, pedaling the fairy tale about the “guy on the street,” fights a very specific enemy - the closedness of financial and economic structures in traditional societies (in third world countries, almost everyone is like that).

Let's say an Indian creates a company that he manages himself and then passes it on to his sons. The management is ineffective, the results are not impressive, but they can be improved. What does Mobius offer? Open up to the world! Let us, good managers, into your closed companies, and we will hire local talented “guys from the streets” instead of the sons of the founding father.

Yah?! Indeed? What kind of children's consciousness is this performance designed for? Mobius knows full well that it is not the “guy on the street” who runs a globalized business, but the one who holds a controlling stake. It is for him that the fight is going on. Open your own business, and we will buy it, and then everyone will be better off. The problem, however, is that even if the management of a globalized company is entrusted to some mythical “Indian on the street,” he will protect and assert the interests not of the local community, not of the Indian people and not of India, but of his new masters. And these owners have only one interest: to achieve maximum production efficiency (read - “the maximum productivity of labor multiplied by the minimum cost of paying for this labor”) and quickly withdraw net capital from the country. To the homeland of capital - it’s so natural!

Do you think I'm exaggerating? God forbid! I quote another saying by Mark Mobius: “Eastern Europe has especially many advantages. There is a very educated, very well trained population, and at the same time very low labor rates” - that is, ideal slaves, whatever.

Another “strong point” of Mobius is the fight against IPOs in emerging markets. In his opinion, IPOs are draining the market, driving down index prices and drawing away investments from blue chips. This is very bad for Mobius and his mutual funds, because his portfolio in the regional market is depreciating and it is becoming more and more difficult to withdraw capital from the country with the planned return. The fact that an IPO is fabulous and chic for the development of national economies naturally does not concern Mobius much.

It is no coincidence that Mark Mobius actively opposes the so-called strategic investors who open their assembly shops and factories in third world countries. Mobius reproaches strategists for allegedly depriving local managers of bread: they install their own managers everywhere, trying to control everyone and everything, and impose their own ideas about product quality. Another thing is portfolio investors (like Mobius himself): they do not interfere in local affairs, do not interfere with management, but just buy shares, becoming passive partners. Then, at the price peak, portfolio investors dump shares and withdraw capital from the country, transferring it to other, more profitable markets.

Tenderness with beads

I admit, such hypocrisy takes my breath away! A person says things that are obvious and transparent, like glass. At least for any thinking individual who sees a little further than his own nose and his needs. Or are they not transparent? Not obvious? Reading the Russian press about Mark Mobius, one is struck by the aboriginal pathos that permeates every line: ah, he flew in on his own jet, ah, a brilliant investor, ah, a guru of emerging markets, ah, today in Hong Kong, and tomorrow in Moscow, ah, he’s going to invest in Russia as much as $20 billion... Some kind of pathological concussion with a ring in the nose and affection with glass beads. When will you learn, young and unfamiliar tribe, to look a little deeper than the surface itself?!

The very basis of Mark Mobius's campaign to attract Western investment capital to emerging markets is fundamentally hypocritical. The main attraction of these eccentric markets, he says, is the high yield: 9% in third world countries versus 3-4% in Western Europe and America. Personally, it is completely unclear to me who this demagoguery is intended for. Mark Mobius knows better than anyone (as a man who lost $4 billion of other people's money in one year) that paying for this extra interest is an increased risk, and often increased beyond the limits of what is acceptable. So what, pray tell, is attractive about these investments? And most importantly, what is the point of leaving a familiar, well-regulated and highly standardized market, which is also endowed with a high corporate culture (which, according to Mobius, is so tragically lacking in emerging markets)?

After all, in the old markets of America and Europe there is literally a sea of investment instruments that grade profitability depending on risk. Invest for your health in some futures, or options, or thousands of other exotic derivatives such as CDS, and get 1000% profit in a week (unless, of course, your investment instruments completely depreciate). Likewise, in developing markets, a coup or nationalization can happen at any moment (and they happen all the time!). Don't like the horrors of futures trading? For God's sake: invest in armor-piercing Treasuries or corporate bonds with a AAA rating - even on them, the cumulative return over ten years will be no less than what the Mobius fund demonstrated in emerging markets.

But no - Mark Mobius persistently calls to the East. Why did it happen? Because that’s his agenda.

Let us summarize our thoughts. Who is Mark Mobius? Great guru? Investment genius? A swindler and profanator? Neither the first, nor the second, nor the third. Mark Mobius is a talented traveling salesman and salesman. Seller of a product called "emerging markets". Like all traveling salesmen in the hot spots of the planet, Mark Mobius still does a little sewing. And what he sews is none of our business!

Since becoming president of the Templeton Emerging Markets Fund in 1987, Moebius combined his knowledge of new international markets and Sir John Templeton's "disciplined trader" to take investing to a new level. Templeton became the first global investment management organization available to Americans, and Mobius took responsibility for opening the first branch in Hong Kong. Today, Mark is responsible for managing 50 closed-end and open-end mutual funds around the world.

Prior to joining Templeton, Mobius worked for Vickers-da-Costa, an international securities firm, and later served as President of the International Investment Trust Company in Taipei, Taiwan. Born in America and holding American citizenship, Mobius eventually renounced American citizenship and exercised his right to be called a German citizen.

Moebius was a key figure in the creation of international policies for emerging markets. In 1999, he was selected to join the World Bank's Global Forum on Corporate Governance. He was also a speaker for the World Bank in 1999, has conducted several seminars, including for the Asian Development Bank in 2002, and became one of the motivational speakers for the London Speaker Bureau. As a recognized specialist in emerging markets, Mobius often participates in television projects covering financial issues, including for such channels and television networks as CNBC, MSNBC and CNN. Over the course of his career, he has given thousands of interviews and written hundreds of articles.

Over the years of work, various humorous nicknames have stuck to Mobius. He has been called the “Pied Piper of Emerging Markets,” “The Elder of Emerging Markets,” the world’s “Globe Trotter,” and “Yul Brynner of Wall Street.” The latest comparison with the “king of the bald men,” the American film artist Brynner, appeared against the backdrop of an invariable feature in the image of Moebius, his bald head.