The Saudi Aramco IPO: What You Need to Know

11/09/201928 Comments

After years of teasing, the moment has finally arrived: Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (hereinafter dubbed “MbS” or “the Clown Prince”) has announced the Saudi government’s intention to float a stake in Saudi Aramco.

As you no doubt already know (because you watch New World Next Week every week, right?), the world’s largest oil company is set to go (partially) public in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) that will offer shares of the company on the Tadawul—Saudi Arabia’s domestic stock exchange—in December.

While this may seem like just another over-hyped economic non-event, the bigger truth is that it isn’t an economic event at all. It’s a geopolitical event that will determine Saudi Arabia’s role in the coming New (Technocratic) World Order; it’s a financial event that reflects the perilous state of the global monetary order; and, if it doesn’t go well, it’s an event that threatens to collapse the Saudi government itself.

So get your pen and paper ready. Here’s everything you need to know about the Saudi Aramco IPO but didn’t know to ask.

Get the inside skinny on the Aramco IPO and what it means for the coming shakedown of the global monetary order in this week’s edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber. Also, stick around for James’ recommended reading, viewing and listening.

For full access to the subscriber newsletter and to support this website, please become a member.

For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.

Existing Users Log In
   

Filed in: Newsletter
Tagged with:

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mkey says:

    From wikipedia:

    Saudi Arabia
    Country in the Middle East
    Description
    Saudi Arabia is a desert country encompassing most of the Arabian Peninsula, with Red Sea and Persian (Arabian) Gulf coastlines. Known as the birthplace of Islam, it’s home to the religion’s 2 most sacred mosques: Masjid al-Haram, in Mecca, destination of the annual Hajj pilgrimage, and Medina’s Masjid an-Nabawi, burial site of the prophet Muhammad. Riyadh, the capital, is a skyscraper-filled metropolis.
    Capital: Riyadh
    Population: 32.94 million (2017) World Bank
    King: Salman of Saudi Arabia
    Currency: Saudi riyal
    Did you know: Saudi Arabia has the highest military expenditure per capita (2,013.3 USD$) in the world.

    32.94m * 2,013.3 > 50b. An easy way to kill the deficit right there.

    • phreedomphile says:

      Another rarely discussed factoid, mkey, is Saudi Arabia spearheaded the creation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) regional governance system which was decades in the pipeline with quasi regional units already forming. The GCC is modeled after the EU to include “harmonization” of laws, cultural practices, blended economies, a common currency, and all the other ugly ‘bells and whistles’ found in the EU system and soon to be EEU, NAU, etc. (if TPTB get their way).

      BTW, Yemen was on the fast track to merge into the GCC and then that process derailed when the Houthis kicked out global elite lapdog President Hadi. Thus the war in Yemen to bring that nation back into the fold for regional assimilation.

      • mkey says:

        That is very much intersting, I bet James mentiomed it already but that information didn’t sink in until now. It will be very interesting to see where will that conflict be railroaded next since this example seems to show drones can shift the odds a bit in the old asyimmetrical warfare.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Backstory of Saudi Arabia with GRAPHICS of clans, plus VIDEOS
      “Game of Thrones – The Recent Saudi Coup” – 2016
      http://911blogger.com/news/2016-05-31/game-thrones-recent-saudi-coup

  2. phreedomphile says:

    I believe the “purge” meme is strictly theatrical and is being done to pacify angry Saudi citizens frustrated with the austerity that swept in as Vision 2030 (UN Agenda 2030) was introduced which came with pay cuts and several new taxes. In addition, there has been a culture shock as the Saudis are swamped with liberalization of cultural norms paired with the rapid adoption of Orwellian surveillance systems (as is the case for the entire GCC). It’s been reported that when they learned their golden goose Aramco would be privatized there was quite a bit of strong push back and criticism which is now no doubt censored.

    Keep in mind there is a MASSIVE privatization push taking place in EVERY nation, including supposed outliers such as Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Russia, etc. That’s because privatization is a cornerstone of UN 2030 and global Technocracy. Privatization of Rosneft, PDVSA (via back doors), and Petrobras floated next (Electrobras already made the shift). All resources, industries, and various types of infrastructure are being captured.

    A few years ago I read some Saudis were in a panic at the 2008 Bangkok UN Greenhouse Gas conference because they realized ‘the global plan’ was to drastically curtail fossil fuel use by 2030 and how would they survive economically? They wanted reassurances they would be given economic assistance. So it seems we’re all floating on the same Technotronic Era Titanic.

    • mkey says:

      I’m not sure the plan is to dramatically kill fossil fuel usage just to make it so expensive that the poor can’t afford it so they die prematurely while the middle class becomes the new poor class.

      With all the parties that will be erupting all over the place, I’m sure private jets will make up the difference for what’s left over from soon to be frozen poor people.

  3. Duck says:

    My understanding is that the Saudi’s have kept US fracking uneconomic in real terms by keeping their oil cheep, so if they have a big blow up in Saudi the US will manage to survive without grinding to a TOTAL halt… but Europe will end up using Russian gas I would think
    Also the Saudi’s spent huge amount of their money has been funding Wahhabi style islam in Europe so they have already fired a pretty nasty bolt at the west even if they go the way of the rest of the middle east and leave Iran and Israel as the big players in the mid east.
    On the other hand if the petro dollar goes pop the US will no longer be able to keep giving Israel free money, support and protection so maybe they will want us to have that war to crush their enemies for them now while we can still do so.
    I wonder if Saudi arabia is going to be reduced to a piece rather then a player in global politics. I cant imagine that anyone but the higest level bankers could hope to do better after the petro dollar… deep state military types will not be better off …. maybe they will fight each other over the outcome

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      U.S. Oil and Gas Fracking
      Duck, you are correct that OPEC was attempting to hinder the fracking industry at one time by trying to keep oil prices lower for longer to bankrupt frackers.

      Part of the situation is that frackers can bring a well online quickly if oil prices are high enough.
      Roughly, depending upon the well, it takes about $60 a barrel WTI crude to start to see profits in a fracked oil well, if the depletion is not too rapid. (The pumped rate of outflow oil diminishes rapidly in a fracked well.)

      Natural gas is also a big product from fracked wells. In my opinion, natural gas will be a larger global player in the coming decade.

      But the U.S. Fracking Industry hype was a propaganda money-making HOAX in my opinion.
      Aubrey McClendon, with untold amounts of borrowed money, spent more than a decade pushing the propaganda hype about fracking.
      Perhaps Aubrey McClendon was ” remote controlled automobile suicided” following Federal indictments which possibly might implicate other big players if he were to testify… https://www.corbettreport.com/driverless/#comment-53170

      In recent years, many articles and also the author Bethany McLean, have exposed the fracking hoax. Fracking is just not as viable as it was once portrayed.

      Currently, massive sums of borrowed loan money are in jeopardy of default by those oil fracking companies who have not gone bankrupt. Their stock prices are suffering as a result. Many frackers are in a big pickle.

  4. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Eradicating corruption among mid- and low-level public servants in Saudi Arabia
    Many Saudi Arabian nationals are employed with cushy government jobs, while ‘imported’ foreign workers perform the more demanding menial jobs.

    September 1, 2019 – Reuters
    New Saudi anti-corruption chief to target public servants
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-corruption/new-saudi-anti-corruption-chief-to-target-public-servants-idUSKCN1VM10X

    EXCERPTS
    RIYADH (Reuters) – The new head of Saudi Arabia’s anti-corruption commission said he plans to go after graft by ordinary government employees, following a high-profile campaign two years ago that netted princes, ministers and top businessmen.

    Members of the kingdom’s economic and political elite were detained for months at Riyadh’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel in a crackdown in 2017 that unsettled some foreign investors Riyadh needs to diversify its economy. Critics said it amounted to a power play and shakedown of the crown prince’s political rivals.

    Mazen al-Khamous told Saudi-owned Al Arabiya TV after his appointment on Friday that he had been directed to focus on ending bureaucratic corruption in the world’s top oil exporter and follow up with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on a monthly basis.

    “After the country largely rid itself of the big heads of corruption, I convey a stern warning from the crown prince, who instructed me that the coming period will be to eradicate corruption among mid- and low-level public servants,” he said.

    Saudi Arabia’s royal court said in January it was winding down a 15-month anti-corruption campaign after summoning nearly 400 people and recovering more than $106 billion through settlements with dozens of them.

    That initial sweep netted cousins of the crown prince, such as billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and National Guard minister Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, as well as ousted economy minister Adel Fakieh, former royal court chief Khalid al-Tuwaijri, and top businessmen Waleed al-Ibrahim, Saleh Kamel and Bakr bin Laden.

    Prince Mohammed has defended the anti-corruption campaign, calling it “shock therapy”, as he tries to overhaul the Arab world’s largest economy and transform Saudi society.

  5. mik says:

    Recommended Viewing “Commie Lunacy”

    What the hack is this think-trash of otherwise clever Larkin doing here???
    I see no good reason beside getting me stuff for dissecting.

    Larken gives an excellent example how framing a debate brings predictable results. His is brilliant with simplifying but this time he oversimplified himself.

    Sure, a Two-Human-World gives exactly what he wants, he is not exploring, he rejects the notion that some more people might be added to his universe. He is constructing, he only wants to find things that support his thesis.
    The only thing one could question in his universe is the split of the catch, fifty-fifty he proposes. Fairness of this split depends on circumstances, lets say abundance of fish, some fish is hard to catch…
    I guess he is not a proponent of intellectual property, that would complicate things further.

    I’m not sure whether fairness is also a commie-thing, in his universe of course. Because in our universe (homo sapiens) fairness is hardwired into our brain. People have very strong emotional responses when playing Ultimatum Game.

    The biggest mistake he makes is extrapolating results from his universe to the real world.

    Size matters, no matter what you have been told. Good example is physics (quantum, general relativity), computer science also knows the problem of scalability, in mathematics you have np-problems.

    Regarding property, there is a huge difference between my property and property of Bill Gates. My gives me the power to Live, his gives him the power to Concur.
    Any elaboration needed?

    Why is Larken so passionate about this?
    I believe he needs property to be sacrosanct although it is just a social construct, like the state, that on the other hand he successfully managed to dethrone.

    Look at his life philosophy motto and there is a word Self-ownership.
    For me everything is clear then.
    Just don’t know why he is not using Freedom instead.

    • mkey says:

      Have you even watched the video?

      • mik says:

        Yes.
        You think I missed something?
        Please, show me.

        • mkey says:

          I don’t think you missed anything, quite the opposite, you have overblown the point of the video by a gross margin. It’s a very simple excercise there’s no need to introduce Bill Gates into it. On that island Bill Gates would be the guy clenching to a stick in a cave, cowering to the point of exhaustion. At least in my view.

          • mik says:

            Overblown, simple exercise… Really???

            You should watch the video again.
            Larken tries to prove commies are inconsistent, incapable of passing the simplest thought experiment. At 20:25 he says “..their philosophy is just stupid, it is based entirely on envy…”. Envy???
            From this point to the end of video he is preaching like a demagogue.

            He is generalizing his thought experiment, this is beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore I didn’t go out of the domain you are saying.

            Bill Gates comes as an excellent example, I believe people here on CR are well aware of his misdids (Concurs I said). It looks to me you have hard times when I transposed the problem to large scale and is similar like commies struggling with small scale.

            Actually, it’s very sad that Larken and commies don’t realize they are discussing different aspects of property, the topic is just so “toxic” they don’t get it.

            What about detoxicating the topic property?

            It’s not so hard, I’ve changed camps, now I’m somewhere in between.

            • mkey says:

              I tried again to make some sense out of your post, it doesn’t look like I’m getting there.

              Sure, a Two-Human-World gives exactly what he wants
              In reality, it does not, because the people he’s debating (debate is a way too strong word in this context) with don’t give straight answers. So no, he didn’t get what he wanted.

              he rejects the notion that some more people might be added to his universe.
              Because it dilutes the argument. Two random people with entering into voluntary exchange involving goods and services.

              I’m not sure whether fairness is also a commie-thing, in his universe of course.
              Does he mention fairness in the video? Or is he simply not exploring sufficiently?

              The biggest mistake he makes is extrapolating results from his universe to the real world.
              People enter in mostly voluntary contracts and dealings every day, all over the globe.

              My gives me the power to Live, his gives him the power to Concur.
              I don’t know what Concur or power to Concur is. Being capitalized, I’m assuming it’s an organization of some sort.

              I believe he needs property to be sacrosanct although it is just a social construct,
              So, yay or nay on the voluntary exchange?

              • mik says:

                Mkey,

                First, you are not discussing in good faith and that is bad in itself. You are taking my words out of context. You don’t try to disprove me, you talk about different things. I’ll show.

                Looks like you are abandoning your first thesis (out of domain).

                “I tried again to make some sense out of your post…”.
                Are you trying to make impression I’m loony? Low blow.

                “I don’t know what Concur or power to Concur is. Being capitalized, I’m assuming it’s an organization of some sort.”

                Why didn’t you ask me whether power to Live is an organization?
                Yes, I made a typo, it should be Conquer or Conquest. This is really strange idea and I understand you couldn’t get it.

                “…(debate is a way too strong word in this context)….”
                Yes, it’s framed, it’s best described by the term Sales Funnel. He mostly gets want he wanted, watch video. He is skilled debater, he imposed his terms of “debate” and didn’t allow introducing more people into his debate-domain, because this would dilute his argument, as you pointed out. But does this make him right?

                “Does he mention fairness in the video?”

                No. But did I mentioned it out of context?
                Something you did here:

                The biggest mistake he makes is extrapolating results from his universe to the real world.
                People enter in mostly voluntary contracts and dealings every day, all over the globe.”

                What am I talking about after the quoted sentence?
                About scalability. Again you take my words out of my context and put it to your context, better said mission, that is to steer debate from property to voluntary exchange.

                “I believe he needs property to be sacrosanct although it is just a social construct,
                So, yay or nay on the voluntary exchange?”

                Hey man, what kind of disrespectful question is this? Are you millennial?
                How is it related to the quote? Did you see the context where quoted sentence appeared? No, because you just have a mission to steer conversation towards voluntary exchange.

                Yes, you can talk about voluntary exchange because Larken did, so it is in the domain.
                But I’m talking about property that is in domain by the same standard and I want to talk about it especially because Larken was outright nasty with his final words.

                If you want to disprove me you will have to come to my terrain and not play “voluntary exchange shell game” with me. It might impress or give illusion to someone, not me.

              • mkey says:

                OK, so the bow made by the bow guy is not his to use? And the shelter made by the shelter guy is not his to lease? I bet those guys would beg to differ.

                You could of course try to make some sense so that people engaging don’t have to spend 15 decyphering three sentences. If you wish to take this as a low blow, feel free.

                The constructed example talks about two guys on an island, you inroduce Bill Gates and IP into it.

                I’m literally just trying to understand your point and how it relates to the video in question.

                Btw, you may need to get off your horse to make a cogent argument.

              • mik says:

                That’s hilarious, what a looser and liar you are.

                Yes, I made a mistake (Concur) and I could write more clearly at the beginning.

                But, my “sin” is nothing compared to your malicious writing. You are pretending to try to understand, but you literally didn’t make any effort. You had a problem with my first comment, but you are incapable to disprove anything I wrote, incapable to actually say what bothers you, beside that that I introduced some new things. You behave like Larkins’ commies. GPT-2 would do better job than you. Pathetic.
                Your last scribbling is brilliant example of psychological projection, concretely:

                “Btw, you may need to get off your horse to make a cogent argument.”

                I bookmarked this comments thread, might be useful in future.

              • mkey says:

                I invite you to make your point cogent and understandable. It’s not up to your interlocutor to decypher your drivel. There are only so many hours in a day and I don’t have time for sorry people who rely on pathetic personal insults.

                You don’t have an argument, you just want to argue.

              • mik says:

                It’s not enough to you.

                “I invite you to make your point cogent and understandable. It’s not up to your interlocutor to decypher your drivel.”

                Certainly is up to my interlocutor and you obviously are not the one, to read everything I wrote. You didn’t.

                Proof:

                First you complained what is the need for Bill Gates. Very close is the word Concur, that don’t fits there, but you didn’t notice and it’s capitalized. So much about your reading and real honest interest in discussion.

                Later you realized a mistake and go back and see how you pointed this out. Would an honest person interested in discussion and understanding indicate a mistake the way you do?

                “You don’t have an argument, you just want to argue.”

                Many times above I showed you don’t have argument against what I’ve said, and you resort to deceit, taking my words out of context, to kind of bully-debating, forcing your way instead of, lets say, cooperating towards better understanding and insight.

                Me want to argue…
                Some more projection….. come on, mkey.
                You push it towards unproductivity.

                It’s obvious who is who here.
                You can’t hide behind yours kind of refinement.

              • mkey says:

                OK, I’ll try with the 6 year old test.

                The point I got from Larken’s video is that some people have an issue with accepting that free human beings have the natural right, regardless of the collective, to deal with others and in doing so they may use their materialistic earthly possessions, something they may have scavenged or repurposed or maybe even stolen from others to make their own by simple means of being there to claim these goods and, if necessity arises, defend it with their lives.

                What did you get from it?

              • mik says:

                Much much more Larken said in his video beside what you wrote. So, you are just partly right.

                The rest of Larken’s expose is summarized as follows:
                1. commies are inconsistent, they actually recognize property rights, all in all they don’t have a case
                2. distinction between personal and private property makes no sense, except to be used for nefarious purposes.

                My objections to Larken are regarding these two things.

                p.s. However this exchange will end, I got an insight.

                Majority of debates between left-leaning and right-leaning (can’t find better words) is each side talking about different things. Of course that goes nowhere.

                But there is something more.

                Hume’s guillotine, Terminal goals
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEUO6pjwFOo

              • mkey says:

                1. I don’t know abot “commies” in general, but these guys he was engaging certainly weren’t consistent, at least following the logic of the excercise.

                2. Can you point me to a timestamp of the video where this conclusion is reached? What’s the object of private property in this example?

              • mik says:

                1. Yes, those commies were not the brightest bulbs in the box. But we won’t judge the whole communist/socialist idea looking on them, won’t we? Instead we should look to Marx (he was also abused at the end of the video), I think.
                Here is the the link to video with some actual quotes from Marx.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o

                You would be surprised with Marx, but I doubt you will watch.

                2. I already gave timestamp 20:25, last minute.
                You should watch last three minutes and you will see generalization (19:30) I talked about.

                “What’s the object of private property in this example?”
                I don’t know what are you asking.

  6. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I believe that the Saudi Aramco IPO will be a disaster.

    MBS sits in an Ivory Tower while dreaming boyhood dreams.
    His mind is not in the real world.
    He has worn The Ring too long with his authoritarian style. No matter how many lashes he gives towards the initial valuation of Saudi Aramco, I feel it will end up with a Gollum form.

    I don’t even care what the initial valuation comes in at in order to determine a share price. If Saudi Aramco ever ends up on exchanges around the world, I will bet good money that folks will short it big time.
    As I see it, Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul stock exchange is probably the safest place for MBS to keep the stock price under control. Good luck to any mega-rich Saudi who wants to sell his shares.
    And “share buy backs” by Aramco…Geez!

    This ought to be one wild ride.

  7. Ukdavec says:

    9/11 secrets were motive for murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

    “Khashoggi was killed not because he was a dissident, but because of his contact with us,” said James Kreindler, a prominent New York attorney who represents thousands of 9/11 family members and survivors who are suing Saudi Arabia.

    https://www.floridabulldog.org/2019/11/attorney-9-11-secrets-motive-for-murder-of-journalist-jamal-khashoggi/

  8. Corbett says:

    UPDATE: The 658-page prospectus has been released!

    https://www.saudiaramco.com/-/media/images/investors/saudi-aramco-prospectus-cma-en.pdf

    …but it doesn’t include basic details like the number of individual shares that will be offered, the price, or the date of the listing.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/aramcos-658-page-prospectus-fails-answer-2-trillion-question

    Happy reading!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top