How to go fishing and catch fish in the new Harvest Moon the Winds of Anthos? What do you have to do if you want to unlock the fishing rod and how can you improve the fishing rod? In the new farming game from Natsume you can of course also unlock a fishing rod and use it to catch different fish. Not only can you sell the fish, but you also need them for some quests, among other things. In this short guide we will show you how to get the fishing rod and how to improve it as the game progresses.
Get a fishing rod and catch fish
The fishing rod is unlocked after the introduction as part of a quest from Eugene, who is standing in front of the restaurant. In addition to the old fishing rod, you also get normal bait at level 1. You can now use the fishing rod to catch the sardines required for the quest. In order to catch fish with a fishing rod, you must now proceed as follows.
Look for shade in the water and cast the fishing rod using the B button (Nintendo Switch). After a short while the fish bites and you have to press the B button again.
After the fish has bitten, you must always press the left analog stick in the opposite direction from the fish’s swimming direction. As soon as the fish is resting, you can reel it in using the B button. Do not reel in the rod while the fish is trying to escape, as this will use up a lot of stamina. If you don’t manage to catch the fish before your stamina runs out, the fish escapes.
Improve fishing rod
In addition to the fishing ability, which increases over time as you fish, you can also unlock even better fishing rods. To improve the fishing rod, you have to complete the story in Lilikale. As part of the quests, you have to bring Kaimana, among other things, 3 silver and 1 gold in order to get the expert fishing rod. The next fishing upgrade is the Master Fishing Rod and then comes the Legendary Fishing Fishing Rod.
This article is still under construction. More information will follow shortly.
The judge of the National Court José Luis Calama has proposed trying the former president of Banco Popular Ángel Ron, twelve other directors and the consulting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for crimes of fraud against investors and accounting falsehood in the 2016 capital increase to which The investors came in “deceived”, since the financial statements of that year and 2015 “did not reflect the true image of the balance sheet or the assets”.
The head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 4 agrees to the provisional file for former president Emilio Saracho as he had not had any intervention in the violations of the accounting regulations, but, on the contrary, says the judge, he took measures to check and evaluate the bank balance sheet.
It should be remembered that the case began in October 2017, four months after the bank was resolved by the Single Resolution Board (JUR), making it one of the longest instructions of the National Court.
The 178-page resolution considers it proven that on May 25, 2016, the Board of Directors of Banco Popular, chaired by Ángel Ron, decided to carry out and execute the capital increase agreed upon at the General Shareholders’ Meeting on April 11. . Prior to that meeting, a call for the Board’s Audit Committee took place that same day, whose second item on the agenda was “the approval of a favorable report for the capital increase.”
The resolution indicates that the Audit Commission issued a report favorable to the expansion, without having any detailed written study that could be the subject of debate. The external auditors of PricewaterhouseCoopers were present at that meeting, and they did not warn the members of said commission of any problem in the bank’s accounts (annual-2015- and quarterly-2016-) in view of the capital increase.
Regarding the capital increase brochure, the order explains, “consciously altered financial information is offered (which hid enormous provision deficits from investors) taken from the annual accounts for 2015 (audited by PwC) and the financial statements. as of March 31, 2016 (with limited report from said auditor).” Had the provisions not reflected in the balance sheets of Banco Popular – as of 12/31/2015 and 03/31/2016 – been reflected in them, the instructor adds, “the accounting result of the profit and loss account would have shown at least 2,500 million losses, instead of the profits declared” by the entity, apart from substantially altering numerous ratios of the accounts, which are used by investors for their financial analysis.
The magistrate emphasizes that PwC did not record any qualifications in its audit report on the 2015 annual accounts, nor in the interim financial statements as of March 31, 2016.
Instructions prohibited to the commercial network
Regarding the marketing of the capital increase, the magistrate reports that veiled instructions were given to the commercial network, by order of the CEO Francisco Gómez, in order to finance the purchase of shares for many clients, despite the fact that it was expressly prohibited. in the Risk Policies Manual of Banco Popular. The amount financed, he adds, was not subtracted from the regulatory capital that affected the bank, which is why a distorted figure was offered to the market.
The order also refers to the Thesan structure, consisting of the creation of companies in Luxembourg with the sole purpose of channeling BP credits to these companies with the aim of subsequently transferring those loans to certain Popular borrowers, in order to avoid that they were classified as doubtful credits and, therefore, avoid the provision of hundreds of millions of provisions. The hidden provision deficit in BP’s 2015 annual accounts remained during the 2016 interim financial statements and was only partially corrected, it says, in the 2016 annual accounts.
Crimes of fraud against investors and accounting falsehood
The judge explains that the crime of swindling investors could have been committed through the capital increase that Banco Popular marketed in 2016. He points out that he has no doubt that the investors who came to subscribe to said increase were deceived, since The consolidated annual accounts of the financial entity for the year 2015 and the financial statements for the first quarter of 2016 did not reflect the true image of the balance sheet or equity of said Entity. These accounts, according to the magistrate, hid a significant deficit in provisions.
Calama describes the bank’s operation, which consisted of refinancing a relevant part of large borrowers in a situation of non-payment of installments, granting them terms that avoided their formal default or using instrumental corporate structures based in Luxembourg in order to maintain viable loans that in reality were doubtful
The magistrate indicates that if the doubtful credits had been correctly classified, Popular would have exceeded 2,500 million in accounting losses, a figure that is accredited “only taking into account the deficits detected in the two OSI inspections and computing the Thesan deficit.”
PwC Conscious Collaboration
According to the judge, the conscious collaboration of the external auditor (PwC) contributed to this situation since it did not record any reservations in its audit report of the annual accounts of Banco Popular for the year 2015 or in the limited report regarding the financial reports of the first quarter of 2016.
The head of the Court of Instruction Four also attributes to those investigated a crime of accounting falsehood perpetrated successively in the annual accounts of 2015, in the interim financial statements of 2016 and in the annual accounts of this last year.
No responsibility of supervisors
Calama explains that the actions of the supervisors (CNMV/BdE/BCE) have been left outside the walls of the investigation, since from the beginning of the criminal investigation this was established since it is not up to the judicial body to determine whether the supervision system worked correctly or not. and adds that other areas will have to consider whether or not they lived up to their important institutional mission.
Regarding the possible civil liability of Banco Santander, the judge explains that the operative part of the order does not mention this possibility and that, as suggested by the Criminal Chamber, it will be at the time of issuing the order to open the trial. orally when addressing this issue.
