Connect with us

Municipal Water and Wastewater Treatment Equipment Market Size to Increase by USD 16.02 Billion from 2021 to 2026| Technavio

Municipal Water and Wastewater Treatment Equipment Market Size to Increase by USD 16.02 Billion from 2021 to 2026| Technavio
PR Newswire
NEW YORK, May 23, 2022

NEW YORK, May 23, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Technavio categorizes the municipal water and was…

Published

on

Municipal Water and Wastewater Treatment Equipment Market Size to Increase by USD 16.02 Billion from 2021 to 2026| Technavio

PR Newswire

NEW YORK, May 23, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Technavio categorizes the municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market as a part of the global utility market. The municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market research report provides valuable insights on the post-COVID-19 impact on the market, which will help companies evaluate their business approaches. 

Municipal Water and Wastewater Treatment Equipment Market: Key Drivers

The increase in demand for reclaimed water is driving the municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market. The significant increase in population has led to growing pressure on natural water resources. Also, the increase in demand for organic foods and naturally grown grains is leading to the higher requirement of water for irrigation. An assessment published by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in October 2021 presents the current state of water stress in Europe with an aim to focus on managing water availability risks under the impacts of climate change. 

View market report outlook to learn more about factors influencing the market.

Municipal Water and Wastewater Treatment Equipment Market: Key Trends

The introduction of advanced membrane technologies is expected to positively impact the municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market during the forecast period.  Membrane water treatment technology gained popularity and became affordable over the last three decades. These technologies are used for ultra-purification of the water. Based on the pore sizes, the technology is classified into microfiltration membrane (MF), reverse osmosis membrane (RO), microfiltration membrane (MF), ultrafiltration membrane (UF), and nanofiltration membrane (NF). The fabricated nanoporous membranes are used to remove various water pollutants, including metallic ions, salt, biological substrates, nanoparticles, and organic chemicals. 

Vendor Insights

The report identifies the following as the dominant vendors in the market:

  • 3M Corp.
  • Aquatech International LLC
  • Chembond Chemicals Ltd.
  • Culligan International Co.
  • Danaher Corp.
  • Ecolab Inc.
  • Evoqua Water Technologies LLC
  • General Electric Co.
  • Kuraray Co. Ltd.
  • Kurita Water Industries Ltd.
  • Mott MacDonald
  • Pentair Plc
  • SUEZ WTS USA Inc.
  • The Dow Chemical Co.
  • Thermax Ltd.
  • Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
  • Toray Industries Inc.
  • Veolia Environnement Group
  • WABAG Group
  • Xylem Inc.

Product Insights and News

The municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market forecast report offers in-depth insights into key vendor profiles. The profiles include information on the production, sustainability, and prospects of the leading companies. For instance, 3M Corp., a leading vendor, offers membrane modules for ultrafiltration which are used to remove turbidity, suspended solids, and pathogens in order to improve the effluent quality of wastewater, thus can be reused in various applications. The company also offers industrial abrasives and finishing for metalworking applications, closure systems for personal hygiene products, autobody repair solutions, masking, and packaging materials.

Learn more about the vendors in the market as you download your sample copy

APAC's Contribution to Municipal Water and Wastewater Treatment Equipment Market

The increased demand for water for drinking as well as water for domestic usage due to urbanization and rapid population growth is expected to facilitate the municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market growth in APAC over the forecast period. The region is expected to contribute to 37% of market growth as countries such as China and Japan are the key markets for municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market. Market growth in APAC will be faster than the growth of the market in other regions.

Download your sample copy and know more about the market contribution in APAC

Municipal Water and Wastewater Treatment Equipment Market Scope

Report Coverage

Details

Page number

120

Base year

2021

Forecast period

2022-2026

Growth momentum & CAGR

Accelerate at a CAGR of 4.84%

Market growth 2022-2026

$ 16.02 billion

Market structure

Fragmented

YoY growth (%)

4.25

Regional analysis

APAC, North America, Europe, Middle East and Africa, and South America

Performing market contribution

APAC at 49%

Key consumer countries

US, China, Japan, France, and Brazil

Competitive landscape

Leading companies, Competitive strategies, Consumer engagement scope

Key companies profiled

3M Corp., Aquatech International LLC, Chembond Chemicals Ltd., Culligan International Co., Danaher Corp., Ecolab Inc., Evoqua Water Technologies LLC, General Electric Co., Kuraray Co. Ltd., Kurita Water Industries Ltd., Mott MacDonald, Pentair Plc, SUEZ WTS USA Inc., The Dow Chemical Co., Thermax Ltd., Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Toray Industries Inc., Veolia Environnement Group, WABAG Group, and Xylem Inc.

Market dynamics

Parent market analysis, Market growth inducers and obstacles, Fast-growing and slow-growing segment analysis, COVID 19 impact and recovery analysis and future consumer dynamics, Market condition analysis for forecast period

Customization purview

If our report has not included the data that you are looking for, you can reach out to our analysts and get segments customized.

Get your report sample copy to unlock scope and parent market analysis insights

Market Segmentation

The municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market is divided by application into wastewater treatment segment and water treatment segment. The municipal water and wastewater treatment segment is expected to be the major contributor to the market. Wastewater needs to be treated for its usage for residential and industrial purposes as it contains several dissolved toxin oxides and hazardous elements.

Key Highlights

  • CAGR of the market during the forecast period 2022-2026
  • Comprehensive details of factors that will challenge the growth of municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market vendors
  • Accurate predictions on upcoming trends and changes in consumer behavior
  • Detailed information on factors that will drive municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market growth during the next five years
  • Precise estimation of the municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment market size and its contribution to the parent market
  • The growth of the municipal water and wastewater treatment equipment industry across APAC, North America, Europe, Middle East and Africa, and South America

Related Reports:

Rainwater Harvesting Systems Market by End-user and Geography - Forecast and Analysis 2022-2026 Download your sample

Produced Water Treatment Market by Application and Geography - Forecast and Analysis 2021-2025 Download your sample

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary

  • 1.1 Market overview
    • Exhibit 01: Executive Summary – Chart on Market Overview
    • Exhibit 02: Executive Summary – Data Table on Market Overview
    • Exhibit 03: Executive Summary – Chart on Global Market Characteristics
    • Exhibit 04: Executive Summary – Chart on Market by Geography
    • Exhibit 05: Executive Summary – Chart on Market Segmentation by Application
    • Exhibit 06: Executive Summary – Chart on Incremental Growth
    • Exhibit 07: Executive Summary – Data Table on Incremental Growth
    • Exhibit 08: Executive Summary – Chart on Vendor Market Positioning

2 Market Landscape

  • 2.1 Market ecosystem
    • Exhibit 09: Parent market
    • Exhibit 10: Market Characteristics

3 Market Sizing

  • 3.1 Market definition
    • Exhibit 11: Offerings of vendors included in the market definition
  • 3.2 Market segment analysis
    • Exhibit 12: Market segments
  • 3.3 Market size 2021
  • 3.4 Market outlook: Forecast for 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 13: Chart on Global - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 14: Data Table on Global - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 15: Chart on Global Market: Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 16: Data Table on Global Market: Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)

4 Five Forces Analysis

  • 4.1 Five forces summary
    • Exhibit 17: Five forces analysis - Comparison between2021 and 2026
  • 4.2 Bargaining power of buyers
    • Exhibit 18: Chart on Bargaining power of buyers – Impact of key factors 2021 and 2026
  • 4.3 Bargaining power of suppliers
    • Exhibit 19: Bargaining power of suppliers – Impact of key factors in 2021 and 2026
  • 4.4 Threat of new entrants
    • Exhibit 20: Threat of new entrants – Impact of key factors in 2021 and 2026
  • 4.5 Threat of substitutes
    • Exhibit 21: Threat of substitutes – Impact of key factors in 2021 and 2026
  • 4.6 Threat of rivalry
    • Exhibit 22: Threat of rivalry – Impact of key factors in 2021 and 2026
  • 4.7 Market condition
    • Exhibit 23: Chart on Market condition - Five forces 2021 and 2026

5 Market Segmentation by Application

  • 5.1 Market segments
    • Exhibit 24: Chart on Application - Market share 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 25: Data Table on Application - Market share 2021-2026 (%)
  • 5.2 Comparison by Application
    • Exhibit 26: Chart on Comparison by Application
    • Exhibit 27: Data Table on Comparison by Application
  • 5.3 Wastewater treatment - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 28: Chart on Wastewater treatment - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 29: Data Table on Wastewater treatment - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 30: Chart on Wastewater treatment - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 31: Data Table on Wastewater treatment - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 5.4 Water treatment - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 32: Chart on Water treatment - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 33: Data Table on Water treatment - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 34: Chart on Water treatment - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 35: Data Table on Water treatment - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 5.5 Market opportunity by Application
    • Exhibit 36: Market opportunity by Application ($ million)

6 Customer Landscape

  • 6.1 Customer landscape overview
    • Exhibit 37: Analysis of price sensitivity, lifecycle, customer purchase basket, adoption rates, and purchase criteria

7 Geographic Landscape

  • 7.1 Geographic segmentation
    • Exhibit 38: Chart on Market share by geography 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 39: Data Table on Market share by geography 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.2 Geographic comparison
    • Exhibit 40: Chart on Geographic comparison
    • Exhibit 41: Data Table on Geographic comparison
  • 7.3 APAC - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 42: Chart on APAC - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 43: Data Table on APAC - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 44: Chart on APAC - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 45: Data Table on APAC - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.4 North America - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 46: Chart on North America - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 47: Data Table on North America - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 48: Chart on North America - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 49: Data Table on North America - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.5 Europe - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 50: Chart on Europe - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 51: Data Table on Europe - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 52: Chart on Europe - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 53: Data Table on Europe - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.6 Middle East and Africa - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 54: Chart on Middle East and Africa - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 55: Data Table on Middle East and Africa - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 56: Chart on Middle East and Africa - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 57: Data Table on Middle East and Africa - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.7 South America - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 58: Chart on South America - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 59: Data Table on South America - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 60: Chart on South America - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 61: Data Table on South America - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.8 China - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 62: Chart on China - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 63: Data Table on China - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 64: Chart on China - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 65: Data Table on China - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.9 US - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 66: Chart on US - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 67: Data Table on US - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 68: Chart on US - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 69: Data Table on US - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.10 Japan - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 70: Chart on Japan - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 71: Data Table on Japan - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 72: Chart on Japan - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 73: Data Table on Japan - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.11 France - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 74: Chart on France - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 75: Data Table on France - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 76: Chart on France - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 77: Data Table on France - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.12 Brazil - Market size and forecast 2021-2026
    • Exhibit 78: Chart on Brazil - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 79: Data Table on Brazil - Market size and forecast 2021-2026 ($ million)
    • Exhibit 80: Chart on Brazil - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
    • Exhibit 81: Data Table on Brazil - Year-over-year growth 2021-2026 (%)
  • 7.13 Market opportunity by geography
    • Exhibit 82: Market opportunity by geography ($ million)

8 Drivers, Challenges, and Trends

  • 8.1 Market drivers
  • 8.2 Market challenges
  • 8.3 Impact of drivers and challenges
    • Exhibit 83: Impact of drivers and challenges in 2021 and 2026
  • 8.4 Market trends

9 Vendor Landscape

  • 9.1 Overview
  • 9.2 Vendor landscape
    • Exhibit 84: Overview on Criticality of inputs and Factors of differentiation
  • 9.3 Landscape disruption
    • Exhibit 85: Overview on factors of disruption
  • 9.4 Industry risks
    • Exhibit 86: Impact of key risks on business

10 Vendor Analysis

  • 10.1 Vendors covered
    • Exhibit 87: Vendors covered
  • 10.2 Market positioning of vendors
    • Exhibit 88: Matrix on vendor position and classification
  • 10.3 3M Corp.
    • Exhibit 89: 3M Corp. - Overview
    • Exhibit 90: 3M Corp. - Business segments
    • Exhibit 91: 3M Corp. - Key news
    • Exhibit 92: 3M Corp. - Key offerings
    • Exhibit 93: 3M Corp. - Segment focus
  • 10.4 Aquatech International LLC
    • Exhibit 94: Aquatech International LLC - Overview
    • Exhibit 95: Aquatech International LLC - Product / Service
    • Exhibit 96: Aquatech International LLC - Key offerings
  • 10.5 Ecolab Inc.
    • Exhibit 97: Ecolab Inc. - Overview
    • Exhibit 98: Ecolab Inc. - Business segments
    • Exhibit 99: Ecolab Inc. - Key news
    • Exhibit 100: Ecolab Inc. - Key offerings
    • Exhibit 101: Ecolab Inc. - Segment focus
  • 10.6 Evoqua Water Technologies LLC
    • Exhibit 102: Evoqua Water Technologies LLC - Overview
    • Exhibit 103: Evoqua Water Technologies LLC - Business segments
    • Exhibit 104: Evoqua Water Technologies LLC - Key news
    • Exhibit 105: Evoqua Water Technologies LLC - Key offerings
    • Exhibit 106: Evoqua Water Technologies LLC - Segment focus
  • 10.7 General Electric Co.
    • Exhibit 107: General Electric Co. - Overview
    • Exhibit 108: General Electric Co. - Business segments
    • Exhibit 109: General Electric Co. - Key news
    • Exhibit 110: General Electric Co. - Key offerings
    • Exhibit 111: General Electric Co. - Segment focus
  • 10.8 Pentair Plc
    • Exhibit 112: Pentair Plc - Overview
    • Exhibit 113: Pentair Plc - Business segments
    • Exhibit 114: Pentair Plc - Key news
    • Exhibit 115: Pentair Plc - Key offerings
    • Exhibit 116: Pentair Plc - Segment focus
  • 10.9 SUEZ WTS USA Inc.
    • Exhibit 117: SUEZ WTS USA Inc. - Overview
    • Exhibit 118: SUEZ WTS USA Inc. - Product / Service
    • Exhibit 119: SUEZ WTS USA Inc. - Key offerings
  • 10.10 The Dow Chemical Co.
    • Exhibit 120: The Dow Chemical Co. - Overview
    • Exhibit 121: The Dow Chemical Co. - Business segments
    • Exhibit 122: The Dow Chemical Co. - Key offerings
    • Exhibit 123: The Dow Chemical Co. - Segment focus
  • 10.11 Veolia Environnement Group
    • Exhibit 124: Veolia Environnement Group - Overview
    • Exhibit 125: Veolia Environnement Group - Business segments
    • Exhibit 126: Veolia Environnement Group - Key offerings
    • Exhibit 127: Veolia Environnement Group - Segment focus
  • 10.12 Xylem Inc.
    • Exhibit 128: Xylem Inc. - Overview
    • Exhibit 129: Xylem Inc. - Business segments
    • Exhibit 130: Xylem Inc. - Key offerings
    • Exhibit 131: Xylem Inc. - Segment focus

11 Appendix

  • 11.1 Scope of the report
  • 11.2 Inclusions and exclusions checklist
    • Exhibit 132: Inclusions checklist
    • Exhibit 133: Exclusions checklist
  • 11.3 Currency conversion rates for US$
    • Exhibit 134: Currency conversion rates for US$
  • 11.4 Research methodology
    • Exhibit 135: Research methodology
    • Exhibit 136: Validation techniques employed for market sizing
    • Exhibit 137: Information sources
  • 11.5 List of abbreviations
    • Exhibit 138: List of abbreviations

About Us
Technavio is a leading global technology research and advisory company. Their research and analysis focus on emerging market trends and provide actionable insights to help businesses identify market opportunities and develop effective strategies to optimize their market positions. With over 500 specialized analysts, Technavio's report library and its client base consist of enterprises of all sizes, including more than 100 Fortune 500 companies. This growing client base relies on Technavio's comprehensive coverage, extensive research, and actionable market insights to identify opportunities in existing and potential markets and assess their competitive positions within changing market scenarios.

Contact
Technavio Research
Jesse Maida
Media & Marketing Executive
US: +1 844 364 1100
UK: +44 203 893 3200
Email:media@technavio.com
Website: www.technavio.com/

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/municipal-water-and-wastewater-treatment-equipment-market-size-to-increase-by-usd-16-02-billion-from-2021-to-2026-technavio-301552011.html

SOURCE Technavio

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Analysts issue unexpected crude oil price forecast after surge

Here’s what a key investment firm says about the commodity.

Published

on

Oil is an asset defined by volatility.

U.S. crude prices stood above $60 a barrel in January 2020, just as the covid pandemic began. Three months later, prices briefly went negative, as the pandemic crushed demand.

By June 2022 the price rebounded all the way to $120, as fiscal and monetary stimulus boosted the economy. The price fell back to $80 in September 2022. Since then, it has bounced between about $65 and $90.

Over the past two months, the price has climbed 15% to $82 as of March 20.

Oil prices often trade in a roller-coaster fashion.

Bullish factors for oil prices

The move stems partly from indications that economic growth this year will be stronger than analysts expected.

Related: The Fed rate decision won't surprise markets. What happens next might

Vanguard has just raised its estimate for 2024 U.S. GDP growth to 2% from 0.5%.

Meanwhile, China’s factory output and retail sales exceeded forecasts in January and February. That could boost oil demand in the country, the world's No. 1 oil importer.

Also, drone strokes from Ukraine have knocked out some of Russia’s oil refinery capacity. Ukraine has hit at least nine major refineries this year, erasing an estimated 11% of Russia’s production capacity, according to Bloomberg.

“Russia is a gas station with an army, and we intend on destroying that gas station,” Francisco Serra-Martins, chief executive of drone manufacturer Terminal Autonomy, told the news service. Gasoline, of course, is one of the products made at refineries.

Speaking of gas, the recent surge of oil prices has sent it higher as well. The average national price for regular gas totaled $3.52 per gallon Wednesday, up 7% from a month ago, according to the American Automobile Association. And we’re nearing the peak driving season.

Another bullish factor for oil: Iraq said Monday that it’s cutting oil exports by 130,000 barrels per day in coming months. Iraq produced much more oil in January and February than its OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) target.

Citigroup’s oil-price forecast

Yet, not everyone is bullish on oil going forward. Citigroup analysts see prices falling through next year, Dow Jones’s Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) reports.

More Economic Analysis:

The analysts note that supply is at risk in Israel, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela. But Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Russia could easily make up any shortfall.

Moreover, output should also rise this year and next in the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Guyana, the analysts said. Meanwhile, global demand growth will decelerate, amid increased electric vehicle use and economic weakness.

Regarding refineries, the analysts see strong gains in capacity and capacity upgrades this year.

What if Donald Trump is elected president again? That “would likely be bearish for oil and gas," as Trump's policies could boost trade tension, crimping demand, they said.

The analysts made predictions for European oil prices, the world’s benchmark, which sat Wednesday at $86.

They forecast a 9% slide in the second quarter to $78, then a decline to $74 in the third quarter and $70 in the fourth quarter.

Next year should see a descent to $65 in the first quarter, $60 in the second and third, and finally $55 in the fourth, Citi said. That would leave the price 36% below current levels.

U.S. crude prices will trade $4 below European prices from the second quarter this year until the end of 2025, the analysts maintain.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

How The Democrats Plan To Steal The Election

How The Democrats Plan To Steal The Election

Authored by Llewellyn Rockwell via LewRockwell.com,

Biden and Trump have clinched the nominations…

Published

on

How The Democrats Plan To Steal The Election

Authored by Llewellyn Rockwell via LewRockwell.com,

Biden and Trump have clinched the nominations of their parties for President. Everybody is gearing up for a battle between them for the election in November. It’s obvious that Biden is “cognitively impaired.” In blunter language, “brain-dead”. Partisans of Trump are gearing up for a decisive victory.

But what if this battle is a sham? What if Biden’s elite gang of neo-con controllers won’t let Biden lose?

How can they stop him from losing? Simple. If it looks like he’s losing, the elite forces will create enough fake ballots to ensure victory. Our corrupt courts won’t stop them. They have done this before, and they will do it again, if they have to.

I said the Democrats have done this before.

The great Dr. Ron Paul explains one way they did this in 2020. The elite covered up a scandal that could have wrecked Biden’s chances:

“Move over Watergate. On or around Oct. 17, 2020, then-senior Biden campaign official Antony Blinken called up former acting CIA director Mike Morell to ask a favor: he needed high-ranking former US intelligence community officials to lie to the American people to save Biden’s lagging campaign from a massive brewing scandal.

The problem was that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, had abandoned his laptop at a repair shop and the explosive contents of the computer were leaking out. The details of the Biden family’s apparent corruption and the debauchery of the former vice-president’s son were being reported by the New York Post, and with the election less than a month away, the Biden campaign needed to kill the story.

So, according to newly-released transcripts of Morell’s testimony before the House judiciary Committee, Blinken “triggered” Morell to put together a letter for some 50 senior intelligence officials to sign – using their high-level government titles – to claim that the laptop story “had all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.”

In short, at the Biden campaign’s direction Morell launched a covert operation against the American people to undermine the integrity of the 2020 election. A letter signed by dozens of the highest-ranking former CIA, DIA, and NSA officials would surely carry enough weight to bury the Biden laptop story. It worked. Social media outlets prevented any reporting on the laptop from being posted and the mainstream media could easily ignore the story as it was merely “Russian propaganda.”

Asked recently by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) why he agreed to draft the false sign-on letter, Morell testified that he wanted to “help Vice President Biden … because I wanted him to win the election.”

Morell also likely expected to be named by President Biden to head up the CIA when it came time to call in favors.

The Democrats and the mainstream media have relentlessly pushed the lie that the ruckus inside the US Capitol on Jan. 6th 2021 was a move by President Trump to overthrow the election results. Hundreds of “trespassers” were arrested and held in solitary confinement without trial to bolster the false narrative that a conspiracy to steal the election was taking place.

It turns out that there really was a conspiracy to steal the election, but it was opposite of what was reported. Just as the Steele Dossier was a Democratic Party covert action to plant the lie that the Russians were pulling strings for Trump, the “Russian disinformation campaign” letter was a lie to deflect scrutiny of the Biden family’s possible corruption in the final days of the campaign.

Did the Biden campaign’s disinformation campaign help rig the election in his favor? Polls suggest that Biden would not have been elected had the American electorate been informed about what was on Hunter Biden’s laptop. So yes, they cheated in the election.

The Democrats and the mainstream media are still at it, however. Now they are trying to kill the story of how they killed the story of the Biden laptop. This is a scandal that would once upon a time have ended in resignation, impeachment, and/or plenty of jail time. If they successfully bury this story, I hate to say it but there is no more rule of law in what has become the American banana republic.” See here.

But the main way the election can be rigged is by fraudulent “voting.” It’s much easier to do this with digital scanning of votes than with old-fashioned ballot boxes.

Dr. Naomi Wolf explains how electronic voting machines make it easier to steal elections:

“People could steal elections in this ‘analog’ technology of paper and locked ballot boxes, of course, by destroying or hiding votes, or by bribing voters, a la Tammany Hall, or by other forms of wrongdoing, so security and chain of custody, as well as anti-corruption scrutiny, were always needed in guaranteeing accurate election counts. But there was no reason, with analog physical processing of votes, to query the tradition of the secret ballot.

Before the digital scanning of votes, you could not hack a wooden ballot box; and you could not set an algorithm to misread a pile of paper ballots. So, at the end of the day, one way or another, you were counting physical documents.

Those days are gone, obviously, and in many districts there are digital systems reading ballots.” See here.

This isn’t the first time the Left has stolen an election. It happened in the 2020 presidential election too. Ron Unz offers his usual cogent analysis:

“There does seem to be considerable circumstantial evidence of widespread ballot fraud by Democratic Party forces, hardly surprising given the apocalyptic manner in which so many of their leaders had characterized the threat of a Trump reelection. After all, if they sincerely believed that a Trump victory would be catastrophic for America why would they not use every possible means, fair and foul alike, to save our country from that dire fate?

In particular, several of the major swing-states contain large cities—Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Atlanta—that are both totally controlled by the Democratic Party and also notoriously corrupt, and various eye-witnesses have suggested that the huge anti-Trump margins they provided may have been heavily ‘padded’ to ensure the candidate’s defeat.” See here.

In a program aired right after Biden’s pitiful State of the Union speech, the great Tucker Carlson pointed out that Biden’s “Justice” Department has already confessed that it plans to rig the election. It will do this by banning voter ID laws as “racist.” This permits an unlimited number of fake votes:

“If Joe Biden is so good at politics, why is he losing to Donald Trump, who the rest of us were assured was a retarded racist who no normal person would vote for? But now Joe Biden is getting stomped by Donald Trump, but he’s also at the same time good at politics? Right.

Again, they can’t win, but they’re not giving up. So what does that tell you? Well, they’re going to steal the election. We know they’re going to steal the election because they’re now saying so out loud. Here is the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement officer of this country in Selma, Alabama, just the other day.

[Now Carlson quotes the Attorney General, Merrick Garland:]

“The right to vote is still under attack, and that is why the Justice Department is fighting back. That is why one of the first things I did when I came into office was to double the size of the voting section of the Civil Rights Division. That is why we are challenging efforts by states and jurisdictions to implement discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes and voter ID requirements. That is why we are working to block the adoption of discriminatory redistricting plans that dilute the vote of Black voters and other voters of color.

[Carlson then comments on Garland:]

“Did you catch that? Of course, you’re a racist. That’s always the takeaway. But consider the details of what the Attorney General of the United States just said. Mail-in balloting, drop boxes, voter ID requirements. The chief law enforcement officer of the United States Government is telling you that it’s immoral, in fact racist, in fact illegal to ask people for their IDs when they vote to verify they are who they say they are. What is that? Well, no one ever talks about this, but the justification for it is that somehow people of color, Black people, don’t have state-issued IDs. Somehow they’re living in a country where you can do virtually nothing without proving your identity with a government-issued ID without government-issued IDs. They can’t fly on planes, they can’t have checking accounts, they can’t have any interaction with the government, state, local, or federal. They can’t stay in hotels. They can’t have credit cards. Because someone without a state-issued ID can’t do any of those things.

But what’s so interesting is these same people, very much including the Attorney General and the administration he serves, is working to eliminate cash, to make this a cashless society. Have you been to a stadium event recently? No cash accepted. You have to have a credit card. In order to get a credit card you need a state-issued ID, and somehow that’s not racist. But it is racist to ask people to prove their identity when they choose the next President of the United States. That doesn’t make any sense at all. That’s a lie. It’s an easily provable lie, and anyone telling that lie is advocating for mass voter fraud, which the Attorney General is. There’s no other way to read it. So you should know that. You live in a country where the Attorney General is abetting, in fact calling for voter fraud, and that’s the only chance they have to get their guy re-elected.” See here.

Because of absentee ballots, the voting can be spread out over a long period of time. This makes voting fraud much easier. Mollie Hemingway has done a lot of research on this topic:

“In the 2020 presidential election, for the first time ever, partisan groups were allowed—on a widespread basis—to cross the bright red line separating government officials who administer elections from political operatives who work to win them. It is important to understand how this happened in order to prevent it in the future.

Months after the election, Time magazine published a triumphant story of how the election was won by “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”  Written by Molly Ball, a journalist with close ties to Democratic leaders, it told a cheerful story of a “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes,” the “result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.”

A major part of this “conspiracy” to “save the 2020 election” was to use COVID as a pretext to maximize absentee and early voting. This effort was enormously successful. Nearly half of voters ended up voting by mail, and another quarter voted early. It was, Ball wrote, “practically a revolution in how people vote.” Another major part was to raise an army of progressive activists to administer the election at the ground level.

Here, one billionaire in particular took a leading role: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg’s help to Democrats is well known when it comes to censoring their political opponents in the name of preventing “misinformation.” Less well known is the fact that he directly funded liberal groups running partisan get-out-the-vote operations. In fact, he helped those groups infiltrate election offices in key swing states by doling out large grants to crucial districts.

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an organization led by Zuckerberg’s wife Priscilla, gave more than $400 million to nonprofit groups involved in “securing” the 2020 election. Most of those funds—colloquially called “Zuckerbucks”—were funneled through the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), a voter outreach organization founded by Tiana Epps-Johnson, Whitney May, and Donny Bridges. All three had previously worked on activism relating to election rules for the New Organizing Institute, once described by The Washington Post as “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry.”

Flush with $350 million in Zuckerbucks, the CTCL proceeded to disburse large grants to election officials and local governments across the country. These disbursements were billed publicly as “COVID-19 response grants,” ostensibly to help municipalities acquire protective gear for poll workers or otherwise help protect election officials and volunteers against the virus. In practice, relatively little money was spent for this. Here, as in other cases, COVID simply provided cover.

According to the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), Georgia received more than $31 million in Zuckerbucks, one of the highest amounts in the country. The three Georgia counties that received the most money spent only 1.3 percent of it on personal protective equipment. The rest was spent on salaries, laptops, vehicle rentals, attorney fees for public records requests, mail-in balloting, and other measures that allowed elections offices to hire activists to work the election. Not all Georgia counties received CTCL funding. And of those that did, Trump-voting counties received an average of $1.91 per registered voter, compared to $7.13 per registered voter in Biden-voting counties.

The FGA looked at this funding another way, too. Trump won Georgia by more than five points in 2016. He lost it by three-tenths of a point in 2020. On average, as a share of the two-party vote, most counties moved Democratic by less than one percentage point in that time. Counties that didn’t receive Zuckerbucks showed hardly any movement, but counties that did moved an average of 2.3 percentage points Democratic. In counties that did not receive Zuckerbucks, “roughly half saw an increase in Democrat votes that offset the increase in Republican votes, while roughly half saw the opposite trend.” In counties that did receive Zuckerbucks, by contrast, three quarters “saw a significant uptick in Democrat votes that offset any upward change in Republican votes,” including highly populated Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, and DeKalb counties.

Of all the 2020 battleground states, it is probably in Wisconsin where the most has been brought to light about how Zuckerbucks worked.

CTCL distributed $6.3 million to the Wisconsin cities of Racine, Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee, and Kenosha—purportedly to ensure that voting could take place “in accordance with prevailing [anti-COVID] public health requirements.”

Wisconsin law says voting is a right, but that “voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse; to prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election.” Wisconsin law also says that elections are to be run by clerks or other government officials. But the five cities that received Zuckerbucks outsourced much of their election operation to private liberal groups, in one case so extensively that a sidelined government official quit in frustration.

This was by design. Cities that received grants were not allowed to use the money to fund outside help unless CTCL specifically approved their plans in writing. CTCL kept tight control of how money was spent, and it had an abundance of “partners” to help with anything the cities needed.

Some government officials were willing to do whatever CTCL recommended. “As far as I’m concerned I am taking all of my cues from CTCL and work with those you recommend,” Celestine Jeffreys, the chief of staff to Democratic Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich, wrote in an email. CTCL not only had plenty of recommendations, but made available a “network of current and former election administrators and election experts” to scale up “your vote by mail processes” and “ensure forms, envelopes, and other materials are understood and completed correctly by voters.”

Power the Polls, a liberal group recruiting poll workers, promised to help with ballot curing. The liberal Mikva Challenge worked to recruit high school-age poll workers. And the left-wing Brennan Center offered help with “election integrity,” including “post-election audits” and “cybersecurity.”

The Center for Civic Design, an election administration policy organization that frequently partners with groups such as liberal billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund, designed absentee ballots and voting instructions, often working directly with an election commission to design envelopes and create advertising and targeting campaigns. The Elections Group, also linked to the Democracy Fund, provided technical assistance in handling drop boxes and conducted voter outreach. The communications director for the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, an organization that advocates sweeping changes to the elections process, ran a conference call to help Green Bay develop Spanish-language radio ads and geofencing to target voters in a predefined area.

Digital Response, a nonprofit launched in 2020, offered to “bring voters an updated elections website,” “run a website health check,” “set up communications channels,” “bring poll worker application and management online,” “track and respond to polling location wait times,” “set up voter support and email response tools,” “bring vote-by-mail applications online,” “process incoming [vote-by-mail] applications,” and help with “ballot curing process tooling and voter notification.”

The National Vote at Home Institute was presented as a “technical assistance partner” that could “support outreach around absentee voting,” provide and oversee voting machines, consult on methods to cure absentee ballots, and even assume the duty of curing ballots.

A few weeks after the five Wisconsin cities received their grants, CTCL emailed Claire Woodall-Vogg, the executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission, to offer “an experienced elections staffer that could potentially embed with your staff in Milwaukee in a matter of days.” The staffer leading Wisconsin’s portion of the National Vote at Home Institute was an out-of-state Democratic activist named Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein. As soon as he met with Woodall-Vogg, he asked for contacts in other cities and at the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Spitzer-Rubenstein would eventually take over much of Green Bay’s election planning from the official charged with running the election, Green Bay Clerk Kris Teske. This made Teske so unhappy that she took Family and Medical Leave prior to the election and quit shortly thereafter.

Emails from Spitzer-Rubenstein show the extent to which he was managing the election process. To one government official he wrote, “By Monday, I’ll have our edits on the absentee voting instructions. We’re pushing Quickbase to get their system up and running and I’ll keep you updated. I’ll revise the planning tool to accurately reflect the process. I’ll create a flowchart for the vote-by-mail processing that we will be able to share with both inspectors and also observers.”

Once early voting started, Woodall-Vogg would provide Spitzer-Rubenstein with daily updates on the numbers of absentee ballots returned and still outstanding in each ward­­—prized information for a political operative.

Amazingly, Spitzer-Rubenstein even asked for direct access to the Milwaukee Election Commission’s voter database:

“Would you or someone else on your team be able to do a screen-share so we can see the process for an export?” he wrote.

“Do you know if WisVote has an [application programming interface] or anything similar so that it can connect with other software apps? That would be the holy grail.”

Even for Woodall-Vogg, that was too much.

“While I completely understand and appreciate the assistance that is trying to be provided,” she replied, “I am definitely not comfortable having a non-staff member involved in the function of our voter database, much less recording it.”

When these emails were released in 2021, they stunned Wisconsin observers. “What exactly was the National Vote at Home Institute doing with its daily reports? Was it making sure that people were actually voting from home by going door-to-door to collect ballots from voters who had not yet turned theirs in? Was this data sharing a condition of the CTCL grant? And who was really running Milwaukee’s election?” asked Dan O’Donnell, whose election analysis appeared at Wisconsin’s conservative MacIver Institute.

Kris Teske, the sidelined Green Bay city clerk—in whose office Wisconsin law actually places the responsibility to conduct elections—had of course seen what was happening early on. “I just don’t know where the Clerk’s Office fits in anymore,” she wrote in early July. By August, she was worried about legal exposure: “I don’t understand how people who don’t have the knowledge of the process can tell us how to manage the election,” she wrote on August 28.

Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich simply handed over Teske’s authority to agents from outside groups and gave them leadership roles in collecting absentee ballots, fixing ballots that would otherwise be voided for failure to follow the law, and even supervising the counting of ballots. “The grant mentors would like to meet with you to discuss, further, the ballot curing process. Please let them know when you’re available,” Genrich’s chief of staff told Teske.

Spitzer-Rubenstein explained that the National Vote at Home Institute had done the same for other cities in Wisconsin. “We have a process map that we’ve worked out with Milwaukee for their process. We can also adapt the letter we’re sending out with rejected absentee ballots along with a call script alerting voters. (We can also get people to make the calls, too, so you don’t need to worry about it.)”

Other emails show that Spitzer-Rubenstein had keys to the central counting facility and access to all the machines before election night. His name was on contracts with the hotel hosting the ballot counting.

Sandy Juno, who was clerk of Brown County, where Green Bay is located, later testified about the problems in a legislative hearing. “He was advising them on things. He was touching the ballots. He had access to see how the votes were counted,” Juno said of Spitzer-Rubenstein. Others testified that he was giving orders to poll workers and seemed to be the person running the election night count operation.

“I would really like to think that when we talk about security of elections, we’re talking about more than just the security of the internet,” Juno said. “You know, it has to be security of the physical location, where you’re not giving a third party keys to where you have your election equipment.”

Juno noted that there were irregularities in the counting, too, with no consistency between the various tables. Some had absentee ballots face-up, so anyone could see how they were marked. Poll workers were seen reviewing ballots not just to see that they’d been appropriately checked by the clerk, but “reviewing how they were marked.” And poll workers fixing ballots used the same color pens as the ones ballots had been filled out in, contrary to established procedures designed to make sure observers could differentiate between voters’ marks and poll workers’ marks.

The plan by Democratic strategists to bring activist groups into election offices worked in part because no legislature had ever imagined that a nonprofit could take over so many election offices so easily.

“If it can happen to Green Bay, Wisconsin, sweet little old Green Bay, Wisconsin, these people can coordinate any place,” said Janel Brandtjen, a state representative in Wisconsin.

She was right. What happened in Green Bay happened in Democrat-run cities and counties across the country. Four hundred million Zuckerbucks were distributed with strings attached. Officials were required to work with “partner organizations” to massively expand mail-in voting and staff their election operations with partisan activists. The plan was genius. And because no one ever imagined that the election system could be privatized in this way, there were no laws to prevent it.

"Such laws should now be a priority.” See here.

Let’s do everything we can to publicize the steal. That way, we have a chance to prevent it.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/20/2024 - 19:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Analyst revamps MicroStrategy stock price target after Bitcoin buy

Here’s what could happen to MicroStrategy shares next.

Published

on

How does Michael Saylor feel about bitcoin? We'll let him tell you in his own words.

"Bitcoin is a swarm of cyberhornets serving the goddess of wisdom, feeding on the fire of truth, exponentially growing ever smarter, faster, and stronger behind a wall of encrypted energy," the executive chairman and co-founder of MicroStrategy  (MSTR)  once said.

Too subtle? Still not sure how the former CEO of the software intelligence company feels about the world's largest cryptocurrency? 

Maybe this will help.

"Bitcoin is a bank in cyberspace, run by incorruptible software, offering a global, affordable, simple and secure savings account to billions of people that don't have the option or desire to run their own hedge fund," Saylor said.

Okay, so the guy really likes bitcoin. And on March 19, the first day of spring, MicroStrategy took a bigger bite out of bitcoin when the company said it had bought 9,245 bitcoins for $623 million between March 11 and March 18.

MicroStrategy said it a completed a $603.75 million convertible debt offering — its second in a week — to raise money to buy bitcoin.

The company now holds about $13.5 billion of bitcoin, which adds up to more than 1% of the 21 million bitcoin that will ever exist, according to CoinDesk.

An analyst adjusts his price target for MicroStrategy

shutterstock

Committed to developing bitcoin network

MicroStrategy said in a regulatory filing that it had paid roughly $7.53 billion for its bitcoin stash, an average of $35,160 per coin.

The company's stock fell on Tuesday, while bitcoin posted its biggest single-day loss since November 2022. MicroStrategy was off slightly to $1,416 at last check on Wednesday and bitcoin was up 2.3% to $63.607.

Related: Analyst unveils Nvidia stock price 'line in the sand'

Phong Le, MicroStrategy’s president and CEO, told analysts during the company’s Feb. 6 fourth-quarter-earnings call that "we remain highly committed to our bitcoin strategy with a long-term focus.."

"We consider MicroStrategy to be the world's first bitcoin development company," he said. "We are a publicly traded operating company committed to the continued development of the bitcoin network through activities in the financial markets, advocacy, and technology innovation."

MicroStrategy earned $4.96 a share in the quarter, beating the FactSet consensus of a loss of 64 cents, and light years beyond the year-ago loss of $21.93 a share.

Revenue totaled $124.5 million, compared with FactSet's call for $133 million and the year-earlier tally of $132.6 million.

During the call, Saylor told analysts that "2024 is the year of birth of bitcoin as an institutional-grade asset class."

MicroStrategy, he said, completed the first 15 years of the bitcoin life cycle, back when it was largely unregulated and misunderstood. 

"The next 15 years, I would expect, will be a regulated, institutional, high-growth period of bitcoin, very, very different in many ways from the last 15 years," Saylor said.

Crypto's dark days

"Bitcoin itself is performing well for a number of reasons, but one reason is because it represents the digital transformation of capital," he added.

Of course, life with bitcoin wasn't always sunshine and roses. 

More Wall Street Analysts:

We take you back now to those less-than-thrilling days yesteryear, when covid-19 was on the rampage and the price of bitcoin fell 30% from March 8 to March 12 2020.

By the end of 2021, bitcoin had fallen nearly 30%. And 2023 saw the cryptocurrency sector wracked with bankruptcy and scandal, with the likes of FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried being convicted of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. 

SBF, as he has been known, is scheduled to be sentenced in Manhattan federal court on March 28. He faces a long stretch.

But bitcoin rose about 160% in 2023 and hit a record $73,750 on March 14.

Saylor recently said that his high hopes for bitcoin this year stemmed largely from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approving spot bitcoin ETFs and the upcoming bitcoin halving, where when bitcoin's mining reward is split in half.

MicroStrategy is the first bitcoin development company, Saylor told analysts, but perhaps not for long. 

"We've published our playbook, and we're showing other companies how to do it," he said.

TD Cowen analyst Lance Vitanza cited MicroStrategy's latest bitcoin acquisition when he adjusted his price target for the company's shares on March 20.

The analyst cut the investment firm's price target on MicroStrategy to $1,450 from $1,560 and affirmed an outperform rating on the shares. 

He says the shares remain an attractive vehicle for investors looking to gain bitcoin exposure.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending