Sources:
Economist: Sudan, Old and New: Bloody Omens
NYT: Amid Fighting, South Sudan Plans New Capital
NYT: Former Territory Inciting Violence at Border, Sudan Tells the UN
NYT: Sudan Attacks Disputed Border State
Washington Post: Assistant Peacekeeping Chief says Sudan Government, Rebel Forced Pulling out of Abyei
The world’s newest country, South Sudan, is only two months old and is already facing a host of problems. Continuing armed conflict in border regions, a tenuous oil agreement with Sudan, and internal conflicts all pose significant threats to the young nation’s development. The new government must address these threats to establish an environment where economic activity can flourish.
Though South Sudan is now officially independent, armed conflict in the Blue Nile State, a region along the disputed border between Sudan and South Sudan, has not yet fully subsided. The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLMN) has refused to stop fighting after it fought for South Sudan’s independence only to end up on the wrong side of the new border. The rebel group is currently fighting the Sudanese government for control of the Abyei region, a stretch of land located in the Blue Nile State.
While the South Sudanese government denies any involvement with the rebels, the Sudanese government insists that the rebels are too well armed and trained not to have external help. The Sudanese government insists that it has evidence that links the South Sudanese government to the rebels. With this alleged proof, the Sudanese government has lodged a complaint with the United Nations Security Council against the South Sudanese government for violating the countries’ peace treaties..
The countries’ most important short-term economic project is an agreement to pump South Sudan’s oil to the Red Sea through a pipeline that would go through Sudan. The South Sudanese government has already threatened to end the agreement and build its own pipeline in response to Sudan’s accusations regarding its support of the SPLMN. Such a move would be disastrous for Sudan as it would deprive the country of billions of dollars in transit fees that it desperately needs to help rebuild after years of civil war.
South Sudan also must address internal conflicts in its southern state of Jonglei. Violent conflicts between two ethnic groups, the Murle and the Lou Nuer, have escalated of late. The Murle recently killed six hundred Lou Nuer after a dispute over cattle raids. The Lou Nuer had previously killed four hundred Murle and taken twenty five thousand cattle, which young men of both ethnic groups use for marriage dowries. The central government has struggled to stop the violence as poor infrastructure prevents authorities from reaching the rural area in time to prevent the disputes from turning deadly. Even when law enforcement authorities arrive, they are often ill-equipped to counter the large, violent crowds they encounter.
South Sudan must address these and other issues to ensure economic growth and political stability. Foreign investors are not likely to invest in a country they fear will be unable to protect their investments from armed conflicts. South Sudan must also find a way to profit from its oil wealth and use the revenue to build infrastructure and create new economic opportunities for its citizens. Creating stability after the long civil war will be difficult, but it is the only way for South Sudan to reach its potential.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Uncertainty in the U.S. Employment Situation Continues
Sources:
NYT: Bank of America Confirms Plans to Eliminate 30,000 Jobs
NYT: Bigger Economic Role For Washington
U.S. Dept. of Labor: Employment Situation Summary
U.S. Postal Service: News Release
WSJ: GOP Balks At Taxes TO Finance Jobs Plan
WSJ: Post Office History For Sale
Since 2007, Congress has passed three stimulus bills aimed at reviving the ailing economy: a $158 billion tax cut package in 2008, a $787 billion stimulus plan in 2009 and a tax cut and unemployment fund extension plan in 2010. While these packages have forestalled major job cuts, none of these measures have been successful in appreciably reducing the unemployment rate, which remains persistently high at 9.1%. In response, President Obama unveiled a $447 billion job creation bill that was quickly met by partisan opposition and more job losses.
Several major U.S. employers recently announced plans to layoff significant numbers of workers. Bank of America announced a plan to cut 30,000 jobs over the next “few years” as part of a $5 billion cost savings initiative. After cutting 30,000 jobs in 2010, the U.S. Postal Service eliminated an additional 7,500 positions last month in an effort to chip away at its $9 billion debt. The book retailer Borders cut 10,700 jobs and pharmaceutical giant Merck eliminated 13,000 positions. Even the U.S. Army has had to cut back—earlier this year it announced plans to eliminate 8,700 positions.
The continuing economic slowdown has forced companies to search for creative ways to save money while trying to preserve as many jobs as possible. For example, the U.S. Postal Service is redefining large aspects of its business model. It is reducing its overhead expenses by selling its real estate in favor of operating out of third-party retail locations like grocery stores and pharmacies. Similarly, Bank of America views its short-term workforce reductions as necessary to ensuring long term-growth and workforce stability.
President Obama’s plan calls for the creation of new jobs and a reordering of fiscal priorities to help get the U.S. economy back on track. During periods of high unemployment the demand for consumer goods and services declines as fewer people have extra money to spend, production slows due to the decreased demand, and businesses ultimately lose money, which forces them to cut jobs to save money and reinforce the negative economic cycle. President Obama believes that the government can break the cycle by spending money to spur consumption and thereby force companies to increase production, which theoretically requires those companies to hire new workers who become new consumers that spend money and establish a positive cycle of growth. Economists estimate that President Obama’s plan could add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs per month over the next year to lower the unemployment rate by a full point. Opposition to Obama’s plan is rooted in the belief that the government has already tried similar stimulus measures with little success. Notwithstanding the partisan political debate over Obama’s Job Act, many economists believe that stimulus packages and further intervention from the Federal Reserve are ultimately necessary to prevent the economy from falling back into a recession.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
China in Win-Win Position as Europe Nears Collapse
Sources:
Bloomberg Businessweek: China must Avoid Lending to ‘Troubled Nations, Yu Yongding Says
Business Insider: What China Really Hopes to Get in Exchange for a European Bailout
The Telegraph: China Warns Eurozone Leaders ‘Get Your House in Order’
Voice of America: China Renews Calls For Western Governments to Cut Deficits
The urgent need of a growing number of European countries has put China in a position to gain financially and politically. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and National Development and Reform Commission Vice Chairman Zhang Xiaogiang recently stated that China is open to buying bonds from European nations facing sovereign debt crises including Italy, Spain, Greece, and Portugal. Zhang believes that increased global coordination is necessary to prevent the global economy from sinking into a second recession. Nevertheless, China urged the U.S., Europe, and Japan to address their debt and deficit problems instead of relying on China to bail them out.
Each day Europe looks closer to needing external financial support. Greece is nearing default. French banks have invested heavily in Greece, meaning if Greece defaults, France’s banks will face catastrophic losses. Ireland, Portugal, Italy, and Spain are all facing debt crises thanks, in part, to their close financial ties with Greece and each other. Without corrective action, the debt crisis is likely to spread to other European countries. A large scale European default would devastate Europe’s trade partners, specifically China, which is one of the EU’s largest trading partners. China can help Europe avoid such a doomsday scenario by buying bonds from countries in need, thereby providing them with the cash they need to continue to pay their debts.
Though helping Europe during its economic struggles is China’s main objective, China itself could benefit economically from buying European bonds. China’s economy has grown by an average of nine percent per year since 2008 in the face of a global recession. Growth is good, but some economists believe that China is growing too quickly. By buying European bonds, China could slow its domestic growth by investing its excess capital (money) overseas instead of using it to push domestic growth. Slowing growth would relieve some of the inflationary pressure that threatens China’s entire economy by making its exports more expensive and, therefore, less competitive globally. The shift could delay China’s goal of transitioning from an export-based economy to a more sustainable economy based on domestic consumption, but only temporarily.
Buying European bonds may also help increase China’s exports by opening new markets. In return for its support of Europe, China wants the European Union (EU) to recognize China as a “market economy” immediately. Currently, China is classified as a “non-market economy” under the World Trade Organization’s definition, which has significant trade and legal implications under WTO rules. The WTO defines market economies as economies in which prices are determined by the forces of supply and demand. Because the EU does not recognize China as a market economy, WTO rules allow EU countries to place tariffs on Chinese goods, nearly doubling the cost of those goods and making them less competitive in the EU. The tariffs allow the EU to protect its own industries that would not otherwise be able to compete with China’s low production costs. The WTO will require all member countries to recognize China as a market economy by 2016, so the EU’s refusal would only serve to delay the inevitable. However, if the EU agrees to China’s demand, the cost of China’s exports to the EU would fall overnight, likely resulting in increased export revenue. With such large potential benefits, it is easy to understand why China is open to the idea of helping Europe.
Germany Makes Contingency Plans in Case of Greek Default
Sources:
Guardian: Greece on Verge of Default as Doubt Grows Over €8bn Bailout
NYT: German Leader Faces Key Choices on Rescuing Euro
Spiegel: Germany Plans for Possible Greek Default
This week, German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schauble, gave Greece a loud and clear message that it needs to be more aggressive in implementing its program of spending cuts and tax increases if it wishes to avoid a default. Schauble stated that unless Greece follows through with the austerity measures, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Commission, and European Central Bank (ECB) may refuse to release the sixth €8 billion installment of their joint rescue package. Without the aid, Greece will not be able to make interest payments on its outstanding bonds and will, therefore, default.
In view of a possible Greek default, German officials are preparing plans to limit the resulting damage. If Greece defaults on its debts, the ECB, other European Union countries and banks, insurance companies, and financial institutions throughout Europe that have lent money to Greece will suffer large losses. The primary goal of the German plan is to protect the Eurozone from such a large disruption.
The German plan has two major aspects. First, it calls for the use of “preventive” credit lines, whereby the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) would loan funds to financially weak countries, such as Italy or Spain, in the even that private investors stop lending to those countries after a Greek default. Those countries would then use the money to pay their own debts to avoid defaulting themselves. The second aspect is to have someone (the details are not yet finalized as to whom) provide cash injections to banks to help cover any losses they may face. Taken together, the two instruments would protect both countries and their banking sectors from the spillover effects of the default.
Furthermore, the German plan would make it possible for Greek banks to receive aid even after creditors stop giving money to the Greek government. Without special aid, the Greek banking sector would suffer significantly if the government defaults on its debts, because the banks hold a large portion of Greece’s bonds (its debt). This if of major concern because, as the global financial crisis showed, banks are deeply interconnected across national borders. Thus, allowing Greece’s major banks to fail would risk dragging down other banks across the Eurozone, putting additional strain on an already weak region.
Guardian: Greece on Verge of Default as Doubt Grows Over €8bn Bailout
NYT: German Leader Faces Key Choices on Rescuing Euro
Spiegel: Germany Plans for Possible Greek Default
This week, German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schauble, gave Greece a loud and clear message that it needs to be more aggressive in implementing its program of spending cuts and tax increases if it wishes to avoid a default. Schauble stated that unless Greece follows through with the austerity measures, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Commission, and European Central Bank (ECB) may refuse to release the sixth €8 billion installment of their joint rescue package. Without the aid, Greece will not be able to make interest payments on its outstanding bonds and will, therefore, default.
In view of a possible Greek default, German officials are preparing plans to limit the resulting damage. If Greece defaults on its debts, the ECB, other European Union countries and banks, insurance companies, and financial institutions throughout Europe that have lent money to Greece will suffer large losses. The primary goal of the German plan is to protect the Eurozone from such a large disruption.
The German plan has two major aspects. First, it calls for the use of “preventive” credit lines, whereby the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) would loan funds to financially weak countries, such as Italy or Spain, in the even that private investors stop lending to those countries after a Greek default. Those countries would then use the money to pay their own debts to avoid defaulting themselves. The second aspect is to have someone (the details are not yet finalized as to whom) provide cash injections to banks to help cover any losses they may face. Taken together, the two instruments would protect both countries and their banking sectors from the spillover effects of the default.
Furthermore, the German plan would make it possible for Greek banks to receive aid even after creditors stop giving money to the Greek government. Without special aid, the Greek banking sector would suffer significantly if the government defaults on its debts, because the banks hold a large portion of Greece’s bonds (its debt). This if of major concern because, as the global financial crisis showed, banks are deeply interconnected across national borders. Thus, allowing Greece’s major banks to fail would risk dragging down other banks across the Eurozone, putting additional strain on an already weak region.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Spain’s Economic Woes Lead to Historic Reforms
Sources:
Economist: The Golden Amendment
Economist: Spain’s Economy: A balancing Act
El País: Congress Passes Constitutional Reform on Deficit in Historic Vote
Time: Spain Caps Its Debt
CIA World Factbook: Spain’s Economy
Last Wednesday, Spanish lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment (referred to as the “golden rule”) aimed at placing a cap on the country’s future deficits. The legislation came in response to statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy who jointly demanded that all Eurozone countries who wish to receive bailouts pass such “golden rules,” though Spain is only the second country to do so (Germany is the other). Although Spain has not yet needed a bailout, the global financial crisis hit the country’s economy hard. Currently the country has an unemployment rate of 20.89% and a budget deficit of 9.2% of its gross domestic product (GDP)-- more than three-times the Euro-zone limit.
The Spanish Senate approved the amendment just eight days after the lower house first started debating the rule. Such urgency was meant to send a strong message to the world that Spain would not need a bailout. The “golden rule” does not set a specific target cap on the country’s future deficits, but merely requires the legislature to pass a law setting what the actual deficit cap will be. An accompanying law, set to take effect by June 30, 2012, will set the actual deficit cap at 0.4% of annual GDP starting in the year 2020. Under the constitutional change, every level of the government – national, regional, and municipal – must limit its budget deficit to the set cap, except following natural disasters, recessions, or other extraordinary emergencies. Even in those situations, the lower house of parliament must approve any additional deficit. The constitutional reform also requires Spain to reduce its total accumulated debt, the results of many years of deficits, to within the European Union limit of 60% of GDP. The “golden rule” amendment will become part of Spain’s constitution unless 10 percent of either house of parliament votes to hold a referendum on it in the next 15 days.
It is difficult to predict how the amendment will affect the country in the short-run since it will not take effect until 2020. Spain’s finance minister, Elena Salgado, stated that, in the mean time, the government will continue working towards its goal of reducing the deficit to 6% of GDP by the end of this year, and to 4.4% of GDP by the end of 2012. With experts predicting the Spanish economy will grow by only 1.3% this year, it will be difficult for Spain to meet these targets, but Spain has no other choice if it wishes to avoid economic ruin.
Economist: The Golden Amendment
Economist: Spain’s Economy: A balancing Act
El País: Congress Passes Constitutional Reform on Deficit in Historic Vote
Time: Spain Caps Its Debt
CIA World Factbook: Spain’s Economy
Last Wednesday, Spanish lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment (referred to as the “golden rule”) aimed at placing a cap on the country’s future deficits. The legislation came in response to statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy who jointly demanded that all Eurozone countries who wish to receive bailouts pass such “golden rules,” though Spain is only the second country to do so (Germany is the other). Although Spain has not yet needed a bailout, the global financial crisis hit the country’s economy hard. Currently the country has an unemployment rate of 20.89% and a budget deficit of 9.2% of its gross domestic product (GDP)-- more than three-times the Euro-zone limit.
The Spanish Senate approved the amendment just eight days after the lower house first started debating the rule. Such urgency was meant to send a strong message to the world that Spain would not need a bailout. The “golden rule” does not set a specific target cap on the country’s future deficits, but merely requires the legislature to pass a law setting what the actual deficit cap will be. An accompanying law, set to take effect by June 30, 2012, will set the actual deficit cap at 0.4% of annual GDP starting in the year 2020. Under the constitutional change, every level of the government – national, regional, and municipal – must limit its budget deficit to the set cap, except following natural disasters, recessions, or other extraordinary emergencies. Even in those situations, the lower house of parliament must approve any additional deficit. The constitutional reform also requires Spain to reduce its total accumulated debt, the results of many years of deficits, to within the European Union limit of 60% of GDP. The “golden rule” amendment will become part of Spain’s constitution unless 10 percent of either house of parliament votes to hold a referendum on it in the next 15 days.
It is difficult to predict how the amendment will affect the country in the short-run since it will not take effect until 2020. Spain’s finance minister, Elena Salgado, stated that, in the mean time, the government will continue working towards its goal of reducing the deficit to 6% of GDP by the end of this year, and to 4.4% of GDP by the end of 2012. With experts predicting the Spanish economy will grow by only 1.3% this year, it will be difficult for Spain to meet these targets, but Spain has no other choice if it wishes to avoid economic ruin.
The Cost of Educational Reform in Chile
Sources:
El Chileno: A partir de hoy a las 10 horas: Reunión del ejecutivo con estudiantes
FT: Business Braced for Chile Tax Rise
MercoPress: Chilean Students Will Assess Piñera Road Map for Education Reform Before Next Meeting
The Nation: Demanding Economic and Educational Reform in Chile
Santiago Times: Chilean Students Set to Reject Government’s Proposed Working Groups
For over three months, Chilean president Sebastián Piñera has stood firm against students, educators, and parents seeking university-level educational reform in Chile. Although Chile has the highest per capita income in Latin America, it also has the most uneven socioeconomic distribution thanks, in part, to its dysfunctional private educational system. Because of the high cost of private education and high interest rates on education loans, many Chileans have been unable to afford an education, and others who have pursued their education have had to take on enormous amounts of debt. Even those students who can pay for a private education are not necessarily getting their money’s worth. The quality of Chile’s educational system is low, due partly to corrupt school administrators at direct-grant schools (private institutions that receive some state funding) pocketing and misusing state funds. To address these disparities in access and quality, protestors are demanding that the state provide “free and equal quality education for all.”
President Piñera’s approval rating has steadily declined as he has continued his resistance to educational reform. Just last week, he finally agreed to hold talks with the student protestors, a move some observers speculate was motivated by a desire to improve his popularity for the upcoming election cycle. President Piñera has offered to increase grants and decrease the interest rate on student loans to help students pay the costs of private universities, but he has adamantly refused to provide free education for all Chileans. Commentators have observed that President Piñera is a free-market conservative who believes that the government should not interfere in relations between buyers and sellers. He does not view education as a right to which all Chileans are entitled, but rather as a good that private vendors sell to those who can afford to pay the price.
In all likelihood, President Piñera will compromise by proposing initiatives that support a “mixed” educational system of public and private institutions. However, financing public education would require a redistribution of resources, including potentially investing profits from direct-grant schools into public education. The government fears that such redistribution would encourage waste as it fears that state-funded institutions are more likely to misuse public funds than are private institutions.
In addition to redistributing current profits, the Chilean government must also find new sources of revenue to pay for any new educational programs. New taxes are the most obvious potential source for funds, but the Chilean mining industry (the nation’s largest industry) worries that it will bear the brunt of the cost. After last year’s increase in mining royalties, mining companies currently pay about $11 billion in taxes, which is a quarter of the government’s total revenue. However, Chile still taxes mining companies at a lower rate than many other countries. Neighboring Peru, for example, imposed a new mining royalty last month that will add an additional $1.1 billion in costs to mining companies each year. Mining companies in Chile hope to avoid a similar fate.
Student activists and other concerned citizens feel that President Piñera’s proposed measures do not go far enough to remedy educational disparity in Chile. Therefore, student leaders have openly rejected the president’s offer to work together with the government to achieve reform. Critics believe that without more input from students and educators, governmental reform will preserve the inequalities of privatized education in Chile and continue to encourage profiteering by direct-grant schools. Despite President Piñera’s attempt to address the students’ concerns, his efforts may be too little, too late as far as his own re-election is concerned. Unless President Piñera and the activists agree on educational reform, educational disparity in Chile will continue to affect its development.
El Chileno: A partir de hoy a las 10 horas: Reunión del ejecutivo con estudiantes
FT: Business Braced for Chile Tax Rise
MercoPress: Chilean Students Will Assess Piñera Road Map for Education Reform Before Next Meeting
The Nation: Demanding Economic and Educational Reform in Chile
Santiago Times: Chilean Students Set to Reject Government’s Proposed Working Groups
For over three months, Chilean president Sebastián Piñera has stood firm against students, educators, and parents seeking university-level educational reform in Chile. Although Chile has the highest per capita income in Latin America, it also has the most uneven socioeconomic distribution thanks, in part, to its dysfunctional private educational system. Because of the high cost of private education and high interest rates on education loans, many Chileans have been unable to afford an education, and others who have pursued their education have had to take on enormous amounts of debt. Even those students who can pay for a private education are not necessarily getting their money’s worth. The quality of Chile’s educational system is low, due partly to corrupt school administrators at direct-grant schools (private institutions that receive some state funding) pocketing and misusing state funds. To address these disparities in access and quality, protestors are demanding that the state provide “free and equal quality education for all.”
President Piñera’s approval rating has steadily declined as he has continued his resistance to educational reform. Just last week, he finally agreed to hold talks with the student protestors, a move some observers speculate was motivated by a desire to improve his popularity for the upcoming election cycle. President Piñera has offered to increase grants and decrease the interest rate on student loans to help students pay the costs of private universities, but he has adamantly refused to provide free education for all Chileans. Commentators have observed that President Piñera is a free-market conservative who believes that the government should not interfere in relations between buyers and sellers. He does not view education as a right to which all Chileans are entitled, but rather as a good that private vendors sell to those who can afford to pay the price.
In all likelihood, President Piñera will compromise by proposing initiatives that support a “mixed” educational system of public and private institutions. However, financing public education would require a redistribution of resources, including potentially investing profits from direct-grant schools into public education. The government fears that such redistribution would encourage waste as it fears that state-funded institutions are more likely to misuse public funds than are private institutions.
In addition to redistributing current profits, the Chilean government must also find new sources of revenue to pay for any new educational programs. New taxes are the most obvious potential source for funds, but the Chilean mining industry (the nation’s largest industry) worries that it will bear the brunt of the cost. After last year’s increase in mining royalties, mining companies currently pay about $11 billion in taxes, which is a quarter of the government’s total revenue. However, Chile still taxes mining companies at a lower rate than many other countries. Neighboring Peru, for example, imposed a new mining royalty last month that will add an additional $1.1 billion in costs to mining companies each year. Mining companies in Chile hope to avoid a similar fate.
Student activists and other concerned citizens feel that President Piñera’s proposed measures do not go far enough to remedy educational disparity in Chile. Therefore, student leaders have openly rejected the president’s offer to work together with the government to achieve reform. Critics believe that without more input from students and educators, governmental reform will preserve the inequalities of privatized education in Chile and continue to encourage profiteering by direct-grant schools. Despite President Piñera’s attempt to address the students’ concerns, his efforts may be too little, too late as far as his own re-election is concerned. Unless President Piñera and the activists agree on educational reform, educational disparity in Chile will continue to affect its development.
New Japanese Prime Minister Faces Daunting Task Taking on Japan's Financial Recovery
Sources:
SMH.com: Japan’s Mr. Ordinary’s Time to Shine
In August, Japan elected Yoshihiko Noda as its sixth different prime minister in five years. Noda faces the difficult task of lowering the value of the nation’s currency, the yen, and addressing a host of other issues, such as political unrest and earthquake recovery. The yen has appreciated four percent in the last three months. Noda, a former finance minister, must intervene to reduce the value of the yen to prevent it from having a negative effect on Japan’s export. An overly strong currency makes Japanese goods more expensive for other countries to buy. Those other countries are, therefore, likely to find cheaper suppliers of the same goods elsewhere, which leads to a decrease in the total goods Japan exports. Because Japan’s economy depends heavily on revenues from exports, any decrease in exports has a large, negative effect on the country’s entire economy.
For Prime Minister Noda, controlling the value of the yen will not be easy. During his time as finance minister, Noda unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the yen from appreciating by selling the yen on international markets. Leaders from around the world are anxiously waiting to see if Noda can solve Japan’s problems, as Japan’s economy, the third largest economy globally, affects regional and global economic networks.
The yen’s value is not Japan’s only economic problem. Japan’s economy has suffered in the aftermath of the massive earthquake and tsunami that hit this past March. Noda, therefore, must also continue reconstruction efforts, while at the same time attempting to reduce Japan’s already large public debt. Japan’s debt is currently 200% of its gross domestic product, the highest percentage of any country. This means that simply making interest payments on the debt consumes a large portion of Japan’s budget. Japan’s aging population will also put a growing strain on the country’s debt. In the coming years, more and more Japanese citizens will retire and, therefore, will stop contributing as much to the government in taxes, while drawing more money from the government in the form of retirement and healthcare benefits.
Noda must address all of these problems while operating in a political system that is in disarray. Previous prime ministers have not lasted long in the post, as they failed to deliver the changes the electorate demands. In spite of the electorate’s agreement that the country needs to change course, the two political parties have been unable to compromise as infighting within each party has grown. Such infighting may greatly inhibit Noda’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, Noda can be sure that his own tenure will be short if he fails to offer effective solutions to Japan’s problems.
Famine in Somalia
Sources:
BBC: Somalia Famine: U.N. Warns of 750,000 Deaths
Economist: Chronicle of a Famine Foretold
Economist: Famine and Fighting
FT: Somali Militants Reject Famine Claim
FT: Somalia Famine Puts Spotlight on Country's Misrule
FT: U.N. Declares Famine in Rebel-Held Somalia
NYT: Somalia
NYT: U.N. Officials Say Famine is Widening in Somalia
For the last several months, Somalia has been suffering from an extreme famine. The United Nations (UN) issued a statement last week stating that the famine has spread to a sixth region. The UN has warned that the famine could spread to put 750,000 lives at risk. Tens of thousands of Somalis have died in the last two months as the famine has spread due to a continuing drought. The UN declares famine in a region when thirty percent of children in the region are malnourished, twenty percent of the population is without food, and two of every ten thousand adults, or four of every ten thousand children, die each day.
Experts say that the drought plaguing Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia is not the only cause of the famine, though it has played a large role as Somalia’s agricultural production has fallen by seventy-five percent. The central government collapsed in 1991, and no effective government has come to power since. This political upheaval has contributed to many economic crises, including the current famine. In addition, the lack of a centralized police power has led many farmers to abandon their trade as thieves increasingly take crops before the farmers can sell them for a profit. Foreign producers are also wary of sending goods to Somalia as the fear of having pirates seize a shipment has made doing business with Somalia too risky for many to handle.
Another side effect of Somalia’s lack of a central government—and major contributor to the famine—has been that al-Shabaab (a militant Islamic group with connections to al-Qaeda that the U.S. government characterizes as a terrorist organization) has taken-over Southern Somalia. Al-Shabaab has banned most foreign organizations from providing aid in the territories it controls. The group claims that the UN and United States are exaggerating the extent of the famine as propaganda to turn Somalis against the Islamic government. Even without the ban, many aid-giving countries are hesitant to send supplies for fear that al-Shabaab would use them for its own purposes, perhaps even to commit terrorist acts.
Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also hesitant to send personnel to Somalia. Al-Shabaab has been responsible for several kidnappings and deaths of NGO workers. A group of aid organizations that is still dedicated to helping Somalis have stated that it needs $300 million to be able to provide any significant relief. Because it does not appear likely that $300 million dollars will flow into Somalia any time soon, the Somali people may be left to die. Only time will tell if either nature or human politics will change in time to prevent more unnecessary deaths.
BBC: Somalia Famine: U.N. Warns of 750,000 Deaths
Economist: Chronicle of a Famine Foretold
Economist: Famine and Fighting
FT: Somali Militants Reject Famine Claim
FT: Somalia Famine Puts Spotlight on Country's Misrule
FT: U.N. Declares Famine in Rebel-Held Somalia
NYT: Somalia
NYT: U.N. Officials Say Famine is Widening in Somalia
For the last several months, Somalia has been suffering from an extreme famine. The United Nations (UN) issued a statement last week stating that the famine has spread to a sixth region. The UN has warned that the famine could spread to put 750,000 lives at risk. Tens of thousands of Somalis have died in the last two months as the famine has spread due to a continuing drought. The UN declares famine in a region when thirty percent of children in the region are malnourished, twenty percent of the population is without food, and two of every ten thousand adults, or four of every ten thousand children, die each day.
Experts say that the drought plaguing Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia is not the only cause of the famine, though it has played a large role as Somalia’s agricultural production has fallen by seventy-five percent. The central government collapsed in 1991, and no effective government has come to power since. This political upheaval has contributed to many economic crises, including the current famine. In addition, the lack of a centralized police power has led many farmers to abandon their trade as thieves increasingly take crops before the farmers can sell them for a profit. Foreign producers are also wary of sending goods to Somalia as the fear of having pirates seize a shipment has made doing business with Somalia too risky for many to handle.
Another side effect of Somalia’s lack of a central government—and major contributor to the famine—has been that al-Shabaab (a militant Islamic group with connections to al-Qaeda that the U.S. government characterizes as a terrorist organization) has taken-over Southern Somalia. Al-Shabaab has banned most foreign organizations from providing aid in the territories it controls. The group claims that the UN and United States are exaggerating the extent of the famine as propaganda to turn Somalis against the Islamic government. Even without the ban, many aid-giving countries are hesitant to send supplies for fear that al-Shabaab would use them for its own purposes, perhaps even to commit terrorist acts.
Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are also hesitant to send personnel to Somalia. Al-Shabaab has been responsible for several kidnappings and deaths of NGO workers. A group of aid organizations that is still dedicated to helping Somalis have stated that it needs $300 million to be able to provide any significant relief. Because it does not appear likely that $300 million dollars will flow into Somalia any time soon, the Somali people may be left to die. Only time will tell if either nature or human politics will change in time to prevent more unnecessary deaths.
U.S. Sues Big Banks Over $196 Billion in High-Risk Home Loans
Sources:
Fannie Mae
Federal Housing Financial Agency
FT: Banks Sued Over Mortgage Deals
Freddie Mac
NYT: Federal Regulators Sue Big Banks Over Mortgages
WSJ: U.S. Sues Big Banks Over Home Mortgages
Last Friday, the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) filed lawsuits against 17 of the world’s largest banks, alleging that they failed to disclose the high-risk nature of some of the home loans contained in $196 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) they sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The U.S. Congress established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (known as government-sponsored entities, or GSEs) to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing market. As the largest source of home financing in the U.S., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play an integral role in ensuring that the average American can secure a home loan.
Although Fannie and Freddie do not lend money directly to homeowners, they are the largest purchasers of home loans from banks and other financial institutions that create the mortgages. Thus, they are able to influence what loans the banks issue based on what loans they (Fannie and Freddie) will purchase. The GSEs “securitize” many of the loans they purchase by bundling several loans together and selling them as one financial instrument called a mortgage-backed security or MBS. They also purchased MBSs from banks.
The FHFA lawsuits accuse the banks of making “materially false statements” about how risky the home loans were that the banks securitized and sold to the GSEs to mislead the GSEs into buying these unsafe investments. After the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market in 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were left holding billions of dollars of home loans and MBSs that became worthless as homeowners defaulted at an unprecedented pace. Since then, the U.S. Treasury has spent $141 billion taxpayer dollars keeping the GSEs afloat as part of an ongoing effort to stimulate the U.S. housing market. Since 2008, the FHFA has been responsible for overseeing the preservation and conservation of Fannie’s and Freddie’s assets on behalf of U.S. taxpayers. The FHFA filed the lawsuit in keeping with this role.
The controversial lawsuits are the most sweeping governmental action aimed at holding the banks accountable for their role in the financial crisis. In their defense, the banks point to Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s formidable roles as “major players” in the mortgage market as they purchased, packaged and sold billions of dollars worth of mortgage securities. In July of 2008, just prior to the U.S. government taking control of Fannie and Freddie, the portfolios each GSE held were worth $758 and $798 billion respectively. The banks claim that Fannie and Freddie were, therefore, shrewd and sophisticated market participants with detailed knowledge of the home loans and securities they purchased. Because Fannie and Freddie knew so much about the home mortgage business, the banks argue, the government should not blame the banks for the GSEs’ investing mistakes.
The banks claim that, even if they are at fault, the lawsuits will do more harm than good. After spending the past three years rebalancing their business to address the massive losses they suffered during the financial crisis, the banks fear that the lawsuit creates enormous potential liabilities and uncertainty that threaten their stability. Of the seventeen banks named in the lawsuit, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse Holdings USA, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold $10 billion or more each in MBSs containing questionable home loans to Fannie and Freddie. J.P. Morgan Chase and Royal Bank of Scotland Group sold over $30 billion each, and the beleaguered Bank of America’s total exceeds $57 billion due to its acquisitions of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch/First Franklin Financial. Although the lawsuit does not specify how much the government hopes to recoup in damages, prior settlements of similar lawsuits indicate that the government could recoup twenty percent (nearly $40 billion) of the total securities sold to the GSEs.
Government critics point to high U.S. unemployment rates, the declining stock market, including the rapid devaluation of bank stocks since the lawsuits were filed, and broad consumer concerns as an indication that the timing and potential consequences of the lawsuit could be bad news for the economy. Bank critics claim that the U.S. government needs to hold the banks accountable for their past reckless practices to prevent future misdeeds. Irrespective of the merits of the lawsuits, the litigation may take years and cost the banks and taxpayers millions of dollars in legal expenses. Most of the banks were in settlement negotiations with the regulators prior to the filing of the lawsuits and observers expect those negotiations to continue.
Fannie Mae
Federal Housing Financial Agency
FT: Banks Sued Over Mortgage Deals
Freddie Mac
NYT: Federal Regulators Sue Big Banks Over Mortgages
WSJ: U.S. Sues Big Banks Over Home Mortgages
Last Friday, the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) filed lawsuits against 17 of the world’s largest banks, alleging that they failed to disclose the high-risk nature of some of the home loans contained in $196 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) they sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The U.S. Congress established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (known as government-sponsored entities, or GSEs) to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing market. As the largest source of home financing in the U.S., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play an integral role in ensuring that the average American can secure a home loan.
Although Fannie and Freddie do not lend money directly to homeowners, they are the largest purchasers of home loans from banks and other financial institutions that create the mortgages. Thus, they are able to influence what loans the banks issue based on what loans they (Fannie and Freddie) will purchase. The GSEs “securitize” many of the loans they purchase by bundling several loans together and selling them as one financial instrument called a mortgage-backed security or MBS. They also purchased MBSs from banks.
The FHFA lawsuits accuse the banks of making “materially false statements” about how risky the home loans were that the banks securitized and sold to the GSEs to mislead the GSEs into buying these unsafe investments. After the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market in 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were left holding billions of dollars of home loans and MBSs that became worthless as homeowners defaulted at an unprecedented pace. Since then, the U.S. Treasury has spent $141 billion taxpayer dollars keeping the GSEs afloat as part of an ongoing effort to stimulate the U.S. housing market. Since 2008, the FHFA has been responsible for overseeing the preservation and conservation of Fannie’s and Freddie’s assets on behalf of U.S. taxpayers. The FHFA filed the lawsuit in keeping with this role.
The controversial lawsuits are the most sweeping governmental action aimed at holding the banks accountable for their role in the financial crisis. In their defense, the banks point to Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s formidable roles as “major players” in the mortgage market as they purchased, packaged and sold billions of dollars worth of mortgage securities. In July of 2008, just prior to the U.S. government taking control of Fannie and Freddie, the portfolios each GSE held were worth $758 and $798 billion respectively. The banks claim that Fannie and Freddie were, therefore, shrewd and sophisticated market participants with detailed knowledge of the home loans and securities they purchased. Because Fannie and Freddie knew so much about the home mortgage business, the banks argue, the government should not blame the banks for the GSEs’ investing mistakes.
The banks claim that, even if they are at fault, the lawsuits will do more harm than good. After spending the past three years rebalancing their business to address the massive losses they suffered during the financial crisis, the banks fear that the lawsuit creates enormous potential liabilities and uncertainty that threaten their stability. Of the seventeen banks named in the lawsuit, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse Holdings USA, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold $10 billion or more each in MBSs containing questionable home loans to Fannie and Freddie. J.P. Morgan Chase and Royal Bank of Scotland Group sold over $30 billion each, and the beleaguered Bank of America’s total exceeds $57 billion due to its acquisitions of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch/First Franklin Financial. Although the lawsuit does not specify how much the government hopes to recoup in damages, prior settlements of similar lawsuits indicate that the government could recoup twenty percent (nearly $40 billion) of the total securities sold to the GSEs.
Government critics point to high U.S. unemployment rates, the declining stock market, including the rapid devaluation of bank stocks since the lawsuits were filed, and broad consumer concerns as an indication that the timing and potential consequences of the lawsuit could be bad news for the economy. Bank critics claim that the U.S. government needs to hold the banks accountable for their past reckless practices to prevent future misdeeds. Irrespective of the merits of the lawsuits, the litigation may take years and cost the banks and taxpayers millions of dollars in legal expenses. Most of the banks were in settlement negotiations with the regulators prior to the filing of the lawsuits and observers expect those negotiations to continue.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
IMF Lowers its Prediction for Debt-ridden Ireland's Economic Growth
Sources:
Belfast Telegraph: Noonan Plays Down Budget Fears
Bloomberg: IMF to Cut Irish Growth Forecasts as Outlook Worsens for Trading Partners
The Independent: Enda Kenny Elected Taoiseach
Irish Times: IMF Says Irish Economy to Grow
Reuters UK: IMF Cuts Irish Outlook, Urges More Asset Sales
WSJ: IMF Urges Flexibility for Ireland
Although the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts Ireland’s economy to grow in 2011 for the first time in three years, it lowered its prediction for Ireland’s 2011 growth from 0.6% to 0.4%, and 2012 growth from 1.9% to 1.5%. This unwelcome news is due, in part, to the weakening economies of Ireland’s main trading partners (the Eurozone countries, United States, and United Kingdom), but also to fears that Ireland may suffer negative side effects if Greece has to restructure its debt.
The IMF has been monitoring Ireland since November 2010, when a banking crisis compelled Ireland to ask the IMF and the European Union (EU) for assistance. In exchange for an €85 billion ($114 billion) bailout, Ireland agreed to recapitalize its banks and introduce government austerity measures (a mix of spending cuts and higher taxes). These measures were aimed at reducing Ireland’s budget deficit to less than 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2015.
There have been significant political and economic changes in Ireland since the EU/IMF bailout. In a March 2011 election, Prime Minister Brian Cowen of the Fianna Fail party lost his position to a coalition government led by Enda Kenny of the Fine Gael party. Prime Minister Kenny has continued Ireland’s austerity programs and the IMF reports that Ireland is on target to meet the fund’s 2011 deficit target of 10.5% of GDP. In July, Ireland’s progress in implementing austerity measures led Eurozone leaders to cut the interest rate Ireland pays on its bailout loans. Furthermore, Ireland has seen a rise in its exports (and, therefore, its export revenue), although the IMF cautions the increased exports could be temporary due to recent declines in new export orders.
Even with lower deficits, higher growth rates, and increased exports, the IMF warns that Ireland and the Eurozone still need to do more to restore investors’ confidence in Ireland. The IMF suggests Ireland consider selling €5 billion in assets to raise more funds (potentially the country’s stakes in the airline Aer Lingus and several energy firms), and recommends that Eurozone leaders consider making the European Financial Stabilization Fund (EFSF) more flexible to address future financial risks.
Despite the IMF’s and Eurozone’s attempts to rescue Ireland from its debt crisis, Ireland’s low economic growth and large, persisting deficit are still daunting problems. Finance Minister Michael Noonan recently admitted that future deficit-reductions may require “rather difficult policy decisions.” For a Prime Minister attempting to fix a struggling economy while promising no new taxes or cuts to social welfare programs, these will be difficult policy decisions indeed.
Belfast Telegraph: Noonan Plays Down Budget Fears
Bloomberg: IMF to Cut Irish Growth Forecasts as Outlook Worsens for Trading Partners
The Independent: Enda Kenny Elected Taoiseach
Irish Times: IMF Says Irish Economy to Grow
Reuters UK: IMF Cuts Irish Outlook, Urges More Asset Sales
WSJ: IMF Urges Flexibility for Ireland
Although the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts Ireland’s economy to grow in 2011 for the first time in three years, it lowered its prediction for Ireland’s 2011 growth from 0.6% to 0.4%, and 2012 growth from 1.9% to 1.5%. This unwelcome news is due, in part, to the weakening economies of Ireland’s main trading partners (the Eurozone countries, United States, and United Kingdom), but also to fears that Ireland may suffer negative side effects if Greece has to restructure its debt.
The IMF has been monitoring Ireland since November 2010, when a banking crisis compelled Ireland to ask the IMF and the European Union (EU) for assistance. In exchange for an €85 billion ($114 billion) bailout, Ireland agreed to recapitalize its banks and introduce government austerity measures (a mix of spending cuts and higher taxes). These measures were aimed at reducing Ireland’s budget deficit to less than 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2015.
There have been significant political and economic changes in Ireland since the EU/IMF bailout. In a March 2011 election, Prime Minister Brian Cowen of the Fianna Fail party lost his position to a coalition government led by Enda Kenny of the Fine Gael party. Prime Minister Kenny has continued Ireland’s austerity programs and the IMF reports that Ireland is on target to meet the fund’s 2011 deficit target of 10.5% of GDP. In July, Ireland’s progress in implementing austerity measures led Eurozone leaders to cut the interest rate Ireland pays on its bailout loans. Furthermore, Ireland has seen a rise in its exports (and, therefore, its export revenue), although the IMF cautions the increased exports could be temporary due to recent declines in new export orders.
Even with lower deficits, higher growth rates, and increased exports, the IMF warns that Ireland and the Eurozone still need to do more to restore investors’ confidence in Ireland. The IMF suggests Ireland consider selling €5 billion in assets to raise more funds (potentially the country’s stakes in the airline Aer Lingus and several energy firms), and recommends that Eurozone leaders consider making the European Financial Stabilization Fund (EFSF) more flexible to address future financial risks.
Despite the IMF’s and Eurozone’s attempts to rescue Ireland from its debt crisis, Ireland’s low economic growth and large, persisting deficit are still daunting problems. Finance Minister Michael Noonan recently admitted that future deficit-reductions may require “rather difficult policy decisions.” For a Prime Minister attempting to fix a struggling economy while promising no new taxes or cuts to social welfare programs, these will be difficult policy decisions indeed.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
Gold Miners' Strike in South Africa
Sources:
BBC: South Africa's Gold Miners Begin Strike Over Pay
Bloomberg: Mine Nationalization in South Africa is a Concern
Financial Times: South African Gold Miners Strike
Financial Times: Strikes Spread in South Africa's Mining Sector
Main & Guardian: Talks Aim to End SA Coal, Gold Sector
MarketWatch: Miners End South Africa Gold Strikes with Wage Deal
South Africa, Africa’s largest economy, has recently faced a series of strikes in its mining sector. In late July, gold miners began a strike after the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) rejected an offer of a seven to nine percent wage increase from mining companies, including AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, and Harmony. Though the national inflation rate is around five percent, the NUM had been asking for a fourteen percent increase in wages. The NUM justified the high demand by arguing that workers should have “something to show” for the dangerous work they do.
Strikes have plagued South Africa’s mining sector lately, with coal and diamond miners staging separate strikes as well. While admitting that workers deserve decent wages to support themselves and their families, mining companies are concerned about their own ability to compete globally. Increased labor costs, along with rising energy prices, and threats of nationalization have dented the mining sector’s profits in recent months by increasing production costs and scaring off investors. However, mining companies understand that retaining an already-trained workforce is important to maintaining high productivity levels. Large wage increases could, therefore, be in the companies’ best interests in the long run.
Many observers believe the root cause of the strikes is much deeper than a simple desire for higher wages in the face of a higher cost-of-living. Some believe that mounting frustrations about social and economic inequality are pushing the working class to demand a larger share of national wealth. Racial undertones accentuate South Africa’s inequality. Only seventeen years removed from government-approved segregation, whites still own most mines, while the vast majority of mine workers are black.
After almost a month of striking, the NUM and the gold-mining companies reached a two-year agreement to get the miners back to work. The agreement includes an eight percent increase each year. The NUM also successfully lobbied for a provision guaranteeing it the right to re-negotiate a higher wage increase if the rate of inflation rises. Economists estimate that the gold miners’ strike alone resulted in $200 million in lost revenue for the mining sector, which will likely have a negative impact on South African economic growth for the year. South Africa can only hope that such costly strikes become less common as it continues to develop.
BBC: South Africa's Gold Miners Begin Strike Over Pay
Bloomberg: Mine Nationalization in South Africa is a Concern
Financial Times: South African Gold Miners Strike
Financial Times: Strikes Spread in South Africa's Mining Sector
Main & Guardian: Talks Aim to End SA Coal, Gold Sector
MarketWatch: Miners End South Africa Gold Strikes with Wage Deal
South Africa, Africa’s largest economy, has recently faced a series of strikes in its mining sector. In late July, gold miners began a strike after the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) rejected an offer of a seven to nine percent wage increase from mining companies, including AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, and Harmony. Though the national inflation rate is around five percent, the NUM had been asking for a fourteen percent increase in wages. The NUM justified the high demand by arguing that workers should have “something to show” for the dangerous work they do.
Strikes have plagued South Africa’s mining sector lately, with coal and diamond miners staging separate strikes as well. While admitting that workers deserve decent wages to support themselves and their families, mining companies are concerned about their own ability to compete globally. Increased labor costs, along with rising energy prices, and threats of nationalization have dented the mining sector’s profits in recent months by increasing production costs and scaring off investors. However, mining companies understand that retaining an already-trained workforce is important to maintaining high productivity levels. Large wage increases could, therefore, be in the companies’ best interests in the long run.
Many observers believe the root cause of the strikes is much deeper than a simple desire for higher wages in the face of a higher cost-of-living. Some believe that mounting frustrations about social and economic inequality are pushing the working class to demand a larger share of national wealth. Racial undertones accentuate South Africa’s inequality. Only seventeen years removed from government-approved segregation, whites still own most mines, while the vast majority of mine workers are black.
After almost a month of striking, the NUM and the gold-mining companies reached a two-year agreement to get the miners back to work. The agreement includes an eight percent increase each year. The NUM also successfully lobbied for a provision guaranteeing it the right to re-negotiate a higher wage increase if the rate of inflation rises. Economists estimate that the gold miners’ strike alone resulted in $200 million in lost revenue for the mining sector, which will likely have a negative impact on South African economic growth for the year. South Africa can only hope that such costly strikes become less common as it continues to develop.
Europe’s Necessary Steps Towards Economic Recovery
Sources:
FT: Lagarde Capital Call Surprises Regulators
FT: Lagarde’s Ugly Truth on Debt
IMF: “Global Risks Are Rising, But There Is a Path to Recovery”: Remarks by Christine Lagarde at Jackson Hole
WSJ: Central Bankers Worry Economy Still in Peril
Last week, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde, called on European governments to take action to remove the cloud of uncertainty hovering over the region’s governments and financial institutions as it struggles to recover from the global financial crisis. In an effort to promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth, Ms. Lagarde proposed a three-step plan she believes will restore confidence in the European Union and put it on the road to recovery.
According to Lagarde, the first step is to lower government debts to sustainable levels. Containing growing costs for government programs, such as pensions and healthcare, is key to ensuring that governments will not have to continue adding to their debt to pay for such programs. Reducing spending on programs that already exist also helps free up money that governments can use in the short-run to support jobs and growth. Lagarde insisted, however, that cutting spending alone will not be enough to stabilize government debt in the region. European countries must also find a way to raise more money. She encouraged the European Central Bank (ECB) and Eurozone countries to continue their financial support of the countries in crisis.
The second step to sustainable growth is to strengthen Europe’s financial institutions. To do so, banks need to raise more capital (i.e., cash), which will enable them to increase lending to spur economic activity and survive any further losses they may incur. According to Lagarde, banks should seek capital from private sources first, and only seek public funding if absolutely necessary. If the use of public funds is unavoidable, Largarde suggested that the European Financial Stability Fund or another European-wide funding mechanism could make direct capital injections into the region’s weakest banks.
The last step of Lagarde’s vision for Europe’s economic recovery is to develop a common vision for the European Union’s future. The current crisis has exposed serious flaws in the architecture of the European Union that threaten the entire integration project. Therefore, it is important for European leaders to agree on how to prevent and address economic downturns in the future. Failure to do so could expose the EU to a repeat of the problems it is currently facing.
FT: Lagarde Capital Call Surprises Regulators
FT: Lagarde’s Ugly Truth on Debt
IMF: “Global Risks Are Rising, But There Is a Path to Recovery”: Remarks by Christine Lagarde at Jackson Hole
WSJ: Central Bankers Worry Economy Still in Peril
Last week, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde, called on European governments to take action to remove the cloud of uncertainty hovering over the region’s governments and financial institutions as it struggles to recover from the global financial crisis. In an effort to promote strong, sustainable, and balanced growth, Ms. Lagarde proposed a three-step plan she believes will restore confidence in the European Union and put it on the road to recovery.
According to Lagarde, the first step is to lower government debts to sustainable levels. Containing growing costs for government programs, such as pensions and healthcare, is key to ensuring that governments will not have to continue adding to their debt to pay for such programs. Reducing spending on programs that already exist also helps free up money that governments can use in the short-run to support jobs and growth. Lagarde insisted, however, that cutting spending alone will not be enough to stabilize government debt in the region. European countries must also find a way to raise more money. She encouraged the European Central Bank (ECB) and Eurozone countries to continue their financial support of the countries in crisis.
The second step to sustainable growth is to strengthen Europe’s financial institutions. To do so, banks need to raise more capital (i.e., cash), which will enable them to increase lending to spur economic activity and survive any further losses they may incur. According to Lagarde, banks should seek capital from private sources first, and only seek public funding if absolutely necessary. If the use of public funds is unavoidable, Largarde suggested that the European Financial Stability Fund or another European-wide funding mechanism could make direct capital injections into the region’s weakest banks.
The last step of Lagarde’s vision for Europe’s economic recovery is to develop a common vision for the European Union’s future. The current crisis has exposed serious flaws in the architecture of the European Union that threaten the entire integration project. Therefore, it is important for European leaders to agree on how to prevent and address economic downturns in the future. Failure to do so could expose the EU to a repeat of the problems it is currently facing.
Friday, September 02, 2011
Understanding the Second Greek Bailout and the Effect of Finland’s Cash Demand
The Australian: Fresh Fears of Greek Default as Finns Hold Out in Collateral Dispute
Bloomberg: Finland is Negotiating Greek Collateral Model, Demands Remain ‘Absolute’
Ekathimerini: Barroso Sees Progress Over Collateral Deal Row
FT: Greco-Finnish Deal Reopens Bail-Out Debate
Helsinki Times: Finland’s Demands for Greek Collateral Cause Fear and Confusion
WSJ: Rescue Fund Hits Snags in Germany and Finland
In May of 2010, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and several members of the European Union (EU) provided Greece with approximately €110 billion ($150 billion) to prevent Greece from defaulting on its debt. This first bailout was intended to satisfy Greece’s financial obligations while the country implemented measures to reduce the country’s debt and improve the country’s long-term financial stability. Unfortunately, the first bailout failed to solve the country’s debt problems, forcing EU countries and the IMF to provide Greece with another €109 billion bailout.
Finland is among the countries providing funds for the second Greek bailout. Because of voter backlash against bailouts, Finland demanded that Greece provide it with cash as collateral for any funds it contributes to the bailout. The collateral would serve to offset Finland’s potential losses if Greece fails to repay the bailout money. To satisfy Finland’s demands, the two countries reached an agreement under which Greece will provide Finland approximately €500 million ($680 million.) cash as collateral. In return, Finland will contribute approximately €1.5 billion ($2.05 billion) to the bailout.
Greece’s agreement with Finland has spurred criticism from other EU countries. Austria and the Netherlands (which, like Finland, have AAA credit ratings—the highest possible) are now demanding collateral before they will supply additional bailout funds to Greece. Other EU countries are concerned that these collateral demands will force Greece to use large portions of its bailout money as collateral instead of using the funds to address its debt. The idea that some, but not all, EU countries could demand collateral is also counter to the basic EU principle of equal treatment of member nations.
The IMF also opposes Finland’s collateral demand. The IMF currently enjoys status of preferred creditor, which ensures that borrowing countries will repay IMF loans before paying other creditors. If Greece were to default on its loans, the collateral Finland holds would allow it to recoup its losses before the IMF.
Despite the small uproar, Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen is adamant that Finland will not drop its demand for collateral and believes the other countries will approve the deal soon, a sentiment the president of the European Commission (the executive body of the EU) shares. If other EU countries do not approve of the deal, Finland may refuse to participate in a bailout, jeopardizing the entire Greek rescue effort. With no bailout, Greece may have no other choice than to default on its debt, which could have disastrous effects on the entire global economy.
Banks Reach Deal with New York Regulators to End Controversial Mortgage Lending Practices
Sources:
Economist: A Call to Arms
IMF: "Global Risks Are Rising, But There is a Path to Recovery;" Remarks at Jackson Hole
Miami Herald: Goldman to Stop Controversial Mortgage Practices
SEC: SEC Addressing Misconduct That Led To Or Arose From the Financial Crisis
WSJ: Banks, State Reach a Deal
Last week, IMF Managing Director Christine LaGarde issued a global call to action for a “broad rebalancing of fiscal priorities.” LaGarde specifically challenged the U.S. to take aggressive action to deal with the ongoing foreclosure crisis. New York regulators and three financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, reached a deal this week that appears to be a timely response and offers far reaching regulatory implications.
Prior to LaGarde’s call, the U.S. had already implemented various measures at the state and federal levels to address the spiraling housing market and reduce the foreclosure rate. Such programs generally focused on lowering homeowner’s interest rates, reducing the overall amount homeowners owe on their mortgages, and extending payment options. So far, none of these measures have been successful in fixing the housing market’s troubles. The New York agreement is the latest attempt at finding a solution.
Major U.S. banks, including Goldman Sachs and the five largest U.S. mortgage banks (J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial) are facing regulatory inquiries regarding allegedly improper mortgage procedures they used prior to and after the financial crisis. This week’s agreement with Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs and two smaller mortgage banks sets an example for addressing these procedures. The deal requires the financial firms involved to reduce mortgage payments for some homeowners, put an end to the so-called “robo-signing” of mortgage documents (illegally signing documents without having a qualified employee review them first), and conduct internal reviews of all previously processed loans to identify additional instances of robo-signing. The banks will have to reinstate or compensate borrowers whose property the banks improperly foreclosed through robo-signing.
The agreement promises to have far reaching implications as New York regulators are responsible for supervising nearly two-thirds of all U.S. mortgage servicing firms--many of which face allegations similar to those lodged against Goldman Sachs. The clear message of the agreement is that regulators will hold banks accountable for their actions and do what is necessary to help those who suffered as a result of the illegal mortgage practices.
Economist: A Call to Arms
IMF: "Global Risks Are Rising, But There is a Path to Recovery;" Remarks at Jackson Hole
Miami Herald: Goldman to Stop Controversial Mortgage Practices
SEC: SEC Addressing Misconduct That Led To Or Arose From the Financial Crisis
WSJ: Banks, State Reach a Deal
Last week, IMF Managing Director Christine LaGarde issued a global call to action for a “broad rebalancing of fiscal priorities.” LaGarde specifically challenged the U.S. to take aggressive action to deal with the ongoing foreclosure crisis. New York regulators and three financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, reached a deal this week that appears to be a timely response and offers far reaching regulatory implications.
Prior to LaGarde’s call, the U.S. had already implemented various measures at the state and federal levels to address the spiraling housing market and reduce the foreclosure rate. Such programs generally focused on lowering homeowner’s interest rates, reducing the overall amount homeowners owe on their mortgages, and extending payment options. So far, none of these measures have been successful in fixing the housing market’s troubles. The New York agreement is the latest attempt at finding a solution.
Major U.S. banks, including Goldman Sachs and the five largest U.S. mortgage banks (J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial) are facing regulatory inquiries regarding allegedly improper mortgage procedures they used prior to and after the financial crisis. This week’s agreement with Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs and two smaller mortgage banks sets an example for addressing these procedures. The deal requires the financial firms involved to reduce mortgage payments for some homeowners, put an end to the so-called “robo-signing” of mortgage documents (illegally signing documents without having a qualified employee review them first), and conduct internal reviews of all previously processed loans to identify additional instances of robo-signing. The banks will have to reinstate or compensate borrowers whose property the banks improperly foreclosed through robo-signing.
The agreement promises to have far reaching implications as New York regulators are responsible for supervising nearly two-thirds of all U.S. mortgage servicing firms--many of which face allegations similar to those lodged against Goldman Sachs. The clear message of the agreement is that regulators will hold banks accountable for their actions and do what is necessary to help those who suffered as a result of the illegal mortgage practices.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Venezuela Moves to Return Gold Reserves Home
Sources:
Bloomberg: Chavez Emptying Bank of England Vault as Venezuela Brings Back Gold Hoard
Bloomberg: Chavez Preparing Government Takeover on Venezuela’s Gold Mining Industry
FT: Venezuela to Nationalize Gold Industry
WSJ: Venezuela Moves to Take Over Gold Sector
Earlier this month, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced a plan to return the country’s gold reserves to Venezuela. The price of gold has skyrocketed in the last few years in the wake of the global financial crisis, thereby increasing the commodity’s importance in global finance as a haven in rough economic times. Venezuela is the 15th-largest holder of gold in the world, with approximately two-thirds of its international savings held in the form of gold. Currently, however, 211 of Venezuela’s 364 tons of gold—approximately $11 billion worth—are stored in institutions located abroad in global economic centers such as London and New York.
President Chavez decided to bring Venezuelan gold “home” as a way to ensure its security. The Venezuelan Finance Minister clarified that recent events like the weakening of the U.S. dollar, the U.S. government’s near-default on its debt obligations, and the European sovereign debt crisis have exposed instability in the developed world that makes Venezuela’s savings safer elsewhere.
President Chavez claims that he wants to defend Venezuela’s assets from those whom he believes might take Venezuelan wealth for their own purposes, including the U.S. and U.K. In addition to returning some of the gold to Venezuela, the government will also send some to emerging markets, such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China, that it views as more friendly to its government.
In a parallel move, President Chavez also decided to nationalize the gold mining industry, which further increases the government’s control over the gold supply. Nationalization has been common in Venezuela during Chavez’s term as president, so the decision came as no surprise to many observers. However, unlike its sizeable oil industry (infamously nationalized early in Chavez’s presidency), Venezuela is not among the top gold producers in the world, producing only 100,000 ounces of gold per year. Furthermore, legal production of gold pales in comparison to the approximately 400,000 ounces illegal miners extract each year. Although Chavez cites this extensive illegal mining as a pretext for the nationalization, critics see foreign mining companies as targets as well. The Venezuelan government does have a history of intervening in foreign gold-mining operations. In February of this year, for instance, it terminated a Canadian company’s contract to develop one of Latin America’s largest gold deposits located in the southeastern part of the country. Many of these foreign companies are now seeking redress from the Venezuelan government through international arbitration.
Skeptics of the two moves believe that Chavez’s intentions go beyond mere security concerns. Moving gold to “allied” countries may be an attempt to prevent the U.S. or U.K. governments from seizing the gold to satisfy foreign investors if and when they succeed on claims against Venezuela in international arbitration. It may also be an attempt to improve economic ties with emerging economies as the Venezuelan economy continues to struggle. However, some experts believe Chavez’s decision may leave the country even more economically vulnerable than it already is. The lack of transparency resulting from Venezuela’s relocation and increased control of its gold reserves (essentially its savings) will make it difficult for outsiders to know the state of Venezuela’s finances. If investors come to believe that investing in Venezuela is even more risky than it already is, they will demand more protection for their investment in the form of a higher interest rate on Venezuelan bonds, or they might refuse to invest in Venezuela entirely. Rising interest rates would increase Venezuela’s borrowing costs and, therefore, its already large debt. Increased debt would cause more investor uncertainty, which would further damage the Venezuelan economy. As a result of this economic reality, Chavez’s decision may do more harm than good.
Bloomberg: Chavez Emptying Bank of England Vault as Venezuela Brings Back Gold Hoard
Bloomberg: Chavez Preparing Government Takeover on Venezuela’s Gold Mining Industry
FT: Venezuela to Nationalize Gold Industry
WSJ: Venezuela Moves to Take Over Gold Sector
Earlier this month, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced a plan to return the country’s gold reserves to Venezuela. The price of gold has skyrocketed in the last few years in the wake of the global financial crisis, thereby increasing the commodity’s importance in global finance as a haven in rough economic times. Venezuela is the 15th-largest holder of gold in the world, with approximately two-thirds of its international savings held in the form of gold. Currently, however, 211 of Venezuela’s 364 tons of gold—approximately $11 billion worth—are stored in institutions located abroad in global economic centers such as London and New York.
President Chavez decided to bring Venezuelan gold “home” as a way to ensure its security. The Venezuelan Finance Minister clarified that recent events like the weakening of the U.S. dollar, the U.S. government’s near-default on its debt obligations, and the European sovereign debt crisis have exposed instability in the developed world that makes Venezuela’s savings safer elsewhere.
President Chavez claims that he wants to defend Venezuela’s assets from those whom he believes might take Venezuelan wealth for their own purposes, including the U.S. and U.K. In addition to returning some of the gold to Venezuela, the government will also send some to emerging markets, such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China, that it views as more friendly to its government.
In a parallel move, President Chavez also decided to nationalize the gold mining industry, which further increases the government’s control over the gold supply. Nationalization has been common in Venezuela during Chavez’s term as president, so the decision came as no surprise to many observers. However, unlike its sizeable oil industry (infamously nationalized early in Chavez’s presidency), Venezuela is not among the top gold producers in the world, producing only 100,000 ounces of gold per year. Furthermore, legal production of gold pales in comparison to the approximately 400,000 ounces illegal miners extract each year. Although Chavez cites this extensive illegal mining as a pretext for the nationalization, critics see foreign mining companies as targets as well. The Venezuelan government does have a history of intervening in foreign gold-mining operations. In February of this year, for instance, it terminated a Canadian company’s contract to develop one of Latin America’s largest gold deposits located in the southeastern part of the country. Many of these foreign companies are now seeking redress from the Venezuelan government through international arbitration.
Skeptics of the two moves believe that Chavez’s intentions go beyond mere security concerns. Moving gold to “allied” countries may be an attempt to prevent the U.S. or U.K. governments from seizing the gold to satisfy foreign investors if and when they succeed on claims against Venezuela in international arbitration. It may also be an attempt to improve economic ties with emerging economies as the Venezuelan economy continues to struggle. However, some experts believe Chavez’s decision may leave the country even more economically vulnerable than it already is. The lack of transparency resulting from Venezuela’s relocation and increased control of its gold reserves (essentially its savings) will make it difficult for outsiders to know the state of Venezuela’s finances. If investors come to believe that investing in Venezuela is even more risky than it already is, they will demand more protection for their investment in the form of a higher interest rate on Venezuelan bonds, or they might refuse to invest in Venezuela entirely. Rising interest rates would increase Venezuela’s borrowing costs and, therefore, its already large debt. Increased debt would cause more investor uncertainty, which would further damage the Venezuelan economy. As a result of this economic reality, Chavez’s decision may do more harm than good.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Results of the 2011 EU Stress Test Released
Sources:
FT: EU Stress Test Pass Rate Under Fire
WSJ: Few Banks Fail EU Exams
Economist: Europe’s Stress Test: Disease and Cure
The European Banking Authority (EBA) recently released the results of the 2011 EU-wide stress test. While analysts expected that fifteen to twenty banks would fail the test, only eight banks out of ninety banks from twenty-one countries failed to meet a minimum standard—a core Tier-1 capital ratio (a measure of a bank's strength to absorb losses) of 5 percent—after enduring the test’s worst-case scenarios. A German bank, Helaba, also failed the test, but the bank did not allow the EBA to release its test results. ATE, a Greek bank, was the worst performing bank with a core Tier-1 capital ratio of minus 0.8 percent.
Investors and analysts claim that the test was not tough enough and failed to restore confidence in Europe’s financial markets. In particular, the test’s worst-case scenario did not include the chance of a Greek default. EBA officials also agree that the test was not rigorous enough in part due to “conflicting political pressures” from banks and governments. However, the EBA officials defend the test, saying that the test is still valuable because investors and analysts now have access to data about banks’ exposures to sovereign assets, including Greek debt. Also, Andrea Enria, chairman of the EBA, said that that the test had been “a catalyst for pressure to raise capital.” Over the four months from the end of December to the end of April, banks raised around €100 billion of additional capital.
The EBA formally recommended that national regulators should require eight banks that failed the test to raise fresh capital (€2.5 billion) by the end of this year. Also, sixteen additional banks that barely passed the test with the ratios of between 5 and 6 percent need to improve their capital position by April 2012. Spain was the worst performing nation. Among those twenty-four failing or nearly failing banks, twelve are Spanish, including Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo, which will be required to raise additional capital of €947 million. If these banks cannot raise the capital, their national governments may have to provide assistance to them. The EBA will publish two reports on the progress those banks make in February and July next year.
FT: EU Stress Test Pass Rate Under Fire
WSJ: Few Banks Fail EU Exams
Economist: Europe’s Stress Test: Disease and Cure
The European Banking Authority (EBA) recently released the results of the 2011 EU-wide stress test. While analysts expected that fifteen to twenty banks would fail the test, only eight banks out of ninety banks from twenty-one countries failed to meet a minimum standard—a core Tier-1 capital ratio (a measure of a bank's strength to absorb losses) of 5 percent—after enduring the test’s worst-case scenarios. A German bank, Helaba, also failed the test, but the bank did not allow the EBA to release its test results. ATE, a Greek bank, was the worst performing bank with a core Tier-1 capital ratio of minus 0.8 percent.
Investors and analysts claim that the test was not tough enough and failed to restore confidence in Europe’s financial markets. In particular, the test’s worst-case scenario did not include the chance of a Greek default. EBA officials also agree that the test was not rigorous enough in part due to “conflicting political pressures” from banks and governments. However, the EBA officials defend the test, saying that the test is still valuable because investors and analysts now have access to data about banks’ exposures to sovereign assets, including Greek debt. Also, Andrea Enria, chairman of the EBA, said that that the test had been “a catalyst for pressure to raise capital.” Over the four months from the end of December to the end of April, banks raised around €100 billion of additional capital.
The EBA formally recommended that national regulators should require eight banks that failed the test to raise fresh capital (€2.5 billion) by the end of this year. Also, sixteen additional banks that barely passed the test with the ratios of between 5 and 6 percent need to improve their capital position by April 2012. Spain was the worst performing nation. Among those twenty-four failing or nearly failing banks, twelve are Spanish, including Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo, which will be required to raise additional capital of €947 million. If these banks cannot raise the capital, their national governments may have to provide assistance to them. The EBA will publish two reports on the progress those banks make in February and July next year.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
America’s Debt Crisis
Sources:
Economist: America's Debt: Shame on Them
GuardianMedia:U.S. Budget Ceiling Standoff
WSJ:Obama Backs New Senate Debt Plan ; Gridlock for Debt Talks
Earlier this month, United States President Barack Obama announced his support for a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan revealed by a group of six Republic and Democratic Senators. The proposal comes as the latest effort on the part of the President to shrink the deficit and strike a deal on the government’s debt ceiling of $14.29 trillion by August 2. Raising the debt ceiling is an urgent matter, as treasury officials have warned that the government will not be able to pay all of its bills by August 2 without an increase in the debt limit by then.
Among the government’s financial obligations that will be affected are Social Security benefits, military pensions, contractor payments and interest on its debt. Similarly, the United States faces a possible down grading of its triple-A rating by all three major credit rating firms if the President and Congress do not reach an agreement to increase the debt ceiling. This possible rating downgrade is especially troublesome as a lower rating could increase borrowing costs for the government, households and businesses.
Under the United States separation of powers system, Congress is in charge of the spending power and as such it is the branch of government that must authorize any extension of the debt ceiling. Currently, there are a variety of different plans that Congress is considering. The front runner among these plans is the so-called “Gang of Six” Plan, named after the six Republican and Democratic senators who proposed it. Under this plan, the country’s deficit would be cut by $3.7 trillion over 10 years. The deficit reduction would come from spending cuts (74%) and new taxes (26%). It would impose spending cuts and caps in the cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other programs. Also, the plan would make big changes to the tax code by lowering personal and corporate tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, and reducing many deductions and tax breaks.
Other proposed plans include the McConnell/Reid “Plan B” which would allow the president to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion in three steps through 2012 and the House GOP’s “Cut, Cap, Balance” plan under which spending would be cut by $2.4 trillion over ten years and a statutory spending cap with a constitutional amendment for the president to submit a balanced budget each year would be required.
Economist: America's Debt: Shame on Them
GuardianMedia:U.S. Budget Ceiling Standoff
WSJ:Obama Backs New Senate Debt Plan ; Gridlock for Debt Talks
Earlier this month, United States President Barack Obama announced his support for a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan revealed by a group of six Republic and Democratic Senators. The proposal comes as the latest effort on the part of the President to shrink the deficit and strike a deal on the government’s debt ceiling of $14.29 trillion by August 2. Raising the debt ceiling is an urgent matter, as treasury officials have warned that the government will not be able to pay all of its bills by August 2 without an increase in the debt limit by then.
Among the government’s financial obligations that will be affected are Social Security benefits, military pensions, contractor payments and interest on its debt. Similarly, the United States faces a possible down grading of its triple-A rating by all three major credit rating firms if the President and Congress do not reach an agreement to increase the debt ceiling. This possible rating downgrade is especially troublesome as a lower rating could increase borrowing costs for the government, households and businesses.
Under the United States separation of powers system, Congress is in charge of the spending power and as such it is the branch of government that must authorize any extension of the debt ceiling. Currently, there are a variety of different plans that Congress is considering. The front runner among these plans is the so-called “Gang of Six” Plan, named after the six Republican and Democratic senators who proposed it. Under this plan, the country’s deficit would be cut by $3.7 trillion over 10 years. The deficit reduction would come from spending cuts (74%) and new taxes (26%). It would impose spending cuts and caps in the cost-of-living increases for Social Security and other programs. Also, the plan would make big changes to the tax code by lowering personal and corporate tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, and reducing many deductions and tax breaks.
Other proposed plans include the McConnell/Reid “Plan B” which would allow the president to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion in three steps through 2012 and the House GOP’s “Cut, Cap, Balance” plan under which spending would be cut by $2.4 trillion over ten years and a statutory spending cap with a constitutional amendment for the president to submit a balanced budget each year would be required.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
CFTC Adopts New Manipulation Standard
Sources:
FT: US Derivatives Watchdog Gets More Firepower
NYT: Regulators Finalize New Derivatives Rules
WSJ: CFTC Expands Its Power to Pursue Fraud, Manipulation
Last week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency charged with regulating derivatives, finalized the first five new derivatives regulations required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. One of those rules will give more power to CFTC lawyers to pursue manipulation in derivatives and commodity markets. Under the new regulation, CFTC lawyers only need to prove that traders acted “recklessly.” Previously, however, CFTC lawyers had to prove that traders had the specific intent and the ability to distort market prices and that their actions in fact distorted the prices of derivatives or commodities. Under the former standard, the CFTC prevailed only once at trial in the past thirty-five years.
Under the new regulation, the CFTC is also expected to pursue insider trading cases. Its new manipulation regulation is based on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s insider trading regulation which also makes illegal for traders to trade using “material nonpublic” information. According to Gregory Mocek, a former CFTC Director of Enforcement, the CFTC will bring enforcement actions against large commodity producers who make trades using their knowledge about supply and demand in the markets without informing counterparties of such non-public information.
Some criticize that the new manipulation standard is “too broad” and difficult to enforce. "The lack of clarity on how the broad new standards in the final rules will be applied has the potential to chill legitimate trading and reduce market liquidity," said John M. Damgard, the president of the Futures Industry Association. Scott O’Malia, a Republican Commissioner on the CFTC also expressed concerns that the new standard is vague and may add “confusion to the markets.”
In addition to the manipulation standard, the CFTC also approved another regulation that requires hedge funds and large traders to submit daily reports about their derivatives trading. The CFTC still has to finalize over 40 new derivatives regulations and will not meet the July 16 deadline. The new regulation will apply to commodity futures as well as the over-the-counter swaps markets.
FT: US Derivatives Watchdog Gets More Firepower
NYT: Regulators Finalize New Derivatives Rules
WSJ: CFTC Expands Its Power to Pursue Fraud, Manipulation
Last week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency charged with regulating derivatives, finalized the first five new derivatives regulations required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. One of those rules will give more power to CFTC lawyers to pursue manipulation in derivatives and commodity markets. Under the new regulation, CFTC lawyers only need to prove that traders acted “recklessly.” Previously, however, CFTC lawyers had to prove that traders had the specific intent and the ability to distort market prices and that their actions in fact distorted the prices of derivatives or commodities. Under the former standard, the CFTC prevailed only once at trial in the past thirty-five years.
Under the new regulation, the CFTC is also expected to pursue insider trading cases. Its new manipulation regulation is based on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s insider trading regulation which also makes illegal for traders to trade using “material nonpublic” information. According to Gregory Mocek, a former CFTC Director of Enforcement, the CFTC will bring enforcement actions against large commodity producers who make trades using their knowledge about supply and demand in the markets without informing counterparties of such non-public information.
Some criticize that the new manipulation standard is “too broad” and difficult to enforce. "The lack of clarity on how the broad new standards in the final rules will be applied has the potential to chill legitimate trading and reduce market liquidity," said John M. Damgard, the president of the Futures Industry Association. Scott O’Malia, a Republican Commissioner on the CFTC also expressed concerns that the new standard is vague and may add “confusion to the markets.”
In addition to the manipulation standard, the CFTC also approved another regulation that requires hedge funds and large traders to submit daily reports about their derivatives trading. The CFTC still has to finalize over 40 new derivatives regulations and will not meet the July 16 deadline. The new regulation will apply to commodity futures as well as the over-the-counter swaps markets.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Argentina’s Crisis Can Shed Light into Greece’s Future
Sources:
WSJ: Argentine Episode is Little Comfort for Greece
IMF: IMF Executive Board Completes Fourth Review Under Stand-By Arrangement for Greece
World FactBook: Argentina's Economy
Last week the International Monetary Fund (IMF) completed its fourth review under the Stand-by Arrangement for Greece. This review allows for the immediate disbursement of €3.2 billion to the country, making the IMF’s total disbursements nearly €17.4 billion. Although Greece’s economic adjustment program has continued to make some progress and a return to positive economic growth is expected by the middle of 2012, the economy is extremely fragile and fiscal adjustments are to come in the future. Over the past ten years, there has been a wave of financial crises all throughout the world. But perhaps the one that resembles the most to that of Greece is the collapse of Argentina’s economy in 2001.
There are strong parallels between Argentina and Greece. Both countries have overvalued their currencies, suffered from undisciplined fiscal policies, and taken advantage of apparent stability, in order to take on a lot of debt. For instance, in 2001, Argentina’s economy was in a very similar predicament as that of Greece. It was crushed by debt and its exports crippled due to an overvalued peso. This caused the country to default on its foreign debt and put an end to the currency’s 1-to-1 peg to the U.S. Dollar. The economy bottomed out that year, with real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 18 percent smaller than in 1998 and almost 60 percent of Argentineans under the poverty line. Nonetheless, after the devaluation of the peso and the default on its debt, Argentina‘s economy experienced exponential growth in the years to follow.
However, Greece’s economic recovery may not come as easy as Argentina’s did. This in part because the solutions used by Argentina to combat the crisis may not work for Greece’s economic troubles. One of the main issues is Greece’s deep integration into the European Union, which makes it extremely difficult for the country to renege on its debts or devalue its currency the way Argentina did. Another factor to consider is that even if Greece’s debt payments were eliminated, the country would still have a budget deficit equal to about three times the size of Argentina’s in 2001. Lastly, one of the reasons why Argentina was able to emerge from its economic crisis so quickly is because of its strong farming sector which allowed the country to exploit the weak peso by exporting to the world. However, Greece does not count with a strong farming sector which is going to make it even more difficult for the country’s economy to recover.
WSJ: Argentine Episode is Little Comfort for Greece
IMF: IMF Executive Board Completes Fourth Review Under Stand-By Arrangement for Greece
World FactBook: Argentina's Economy
Last week the International Monetary Fund (IMF) completed its fourth review under the Stand-by Arrangement for Greece. This review allows for the immediate disbursement of €3.2 billion to the country, making the IMF’s total disbursements nearly €17.4 billion. Although Greece’s economic adjustment program has continued to make some progress and a return to positive economic growth is expected by the middle of 2012, the economy is extremely fragile and fiscal adjustments are to come in the future. Over the past ten years, there has been a wave of financial crises all throughout the world. But perhaps the one that resembles the most to that of Greece is the collapse of Argentina’s economy in 2001.
There are strong parallels between Argentina and Greece. Both countries have overvalued their currencies, suffered from undisciplined fiscal policies, and taken advantage of apparent stability, in order to take on a lot of debt. For instance, in 2001, Argentina’s economy was in a very similar predicament as that of Greece. It was crushed by debt and its exports crippled due to an overvalued peso. This caused the country to default on its foreign debt and put an end to the currency’s 1-to-1 peg to the U.S. Dollar. The economy bottomed out that year, with real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 18 percent smaller than in 1998 and almost 60 percent of Argentineans under the poverty line. Nonetheless, after the devaluation of the peso and the default on its debt, Argentina‘s economy experienced exponential growth in the years to follow.
However, Greece’s economic recovery may not come as easy as Argentina’s did. This in part because the solutions used by Argentina to combat the crisis may not work for Greece’s economic troubles. One of the main issues is Greece’s deep integration into the European Union, which makes it extremely difficult for the country to renege on its debts or devalue its currency the way Argentina did. Another factor to consider is that even if Greece’s debt payments were eliminated, the country would still have a budget deficit equal to about three times the size of Argentina’s in 2001. Lastly, one of the reasons why Argentina was able to emerge from its economic crisis so quickly is because of its strong farming sector which allowed the country to exploit the weak peso by exporting to the world. However, Greece does not count with a strong farming sector which is going to make it even more difficult for the country’s economy to recover.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Uruguay’s Economic Recovery through Innovative Policies
Sources:
World Bank - Country Partnership Strategy for the Republic of Uruguay
World Bank - Uruguay: From Crisis to Opportunity
U.S. Dept of State - Uruguay's Economy
Uruguay has come a long way since 2002, when it faced one of the steepest economic and financial crises to hit the country in a decade. The Argentine withdrawals from Uruguayan banks and the devaluation of Brazil’s currency caused Uruguayan goods to become less competitive. All these factors, along with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, led to massive amounts of borrowing from international institutions and financial instability in the country. However, despite the severity of the crisis, Uruguay’s economy has bounced back, in large part due to the aid of the World Bank.
According to a recent World Bank report, Uruguay has proven very successful in its implementation of the Bank’s initiatives to bolster economic and social recovery. Poverty rates have decreased, the national debt reduced, and the health care system underwent significant reforms. In addition, the Bank also helped Uruguay to eliminate foot and mouth disease, boosting the country’s image as a reliable beef exporter.
The reforms proposed by the World Bank included structural changes and short-term stabilization policies as a way to shield the country from external economic shocks. These policies included strengthening the financial sector through a flexible menu of lending and non-lending services, developing local capital markets through innovation and infrastructure, and finally, cutting the external debt and reducing the role of the US dollar in the local economy. The Bank also sought to provide financial and technical support to Uruguay by providing loans in local currency and lowering the cost of financing.
Supported by the Bank’s program, Uruguay’s economy achieved a 6.6 percent growth on average from 2004 to 2008 and poverty declined by nearly 39 percent over the last 8 years. Public debt had decreased from 79.3 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2005 to 60 percent in 2009. Also, with the aid of the Bank-financed Non-Transmittable Diseases Project, Uruguay was able to restructure its health system in order to include more accessible primary care services to the population.
World Bank - Country Partnership Strategy for the Republic of Uruguay
World Bank - Uruguay: From Crisis to Opportunity
U.S. Dept of State - Uruguay's Economy
Uruguay has come a long way since 2002, when it faced one of the steepest economic and financial crises to hit the country in a decade. The Argentine withdrawals from Uruguayan banks and the devaluation of Brazil’s currency caused Uruguayan goods to become less competitive. All these factors, along with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, led to massive amounts of borrowing from international institutions and financial instability in the country. However, despite the severity of the crisis, Uruguay’s economy has bounced back, in large part due to the aid of the World Bank.
According to a recent World Bank report, Uruguay has proven very successful in its implementation of the Bank’s initiatives to bolster economic and social recovery. Poverty rates have decreased, the national debt reduced, and the health care system underwent significant reforms. In addition, the Bank also helped Uruguay to eliminate foot and mouth disease, boosting the country’s image as a reliable beef exporter.
The reforms proposed by the World Bank included structural changes and short-term stabilization policies as a way to shield the country from external economic shocks. These policies included strengthening the financial sector through a flexible menu of lending and non-lending services, developing local capital markets through innovation and infrastructure, and finally, cutting the external debt and reducing the role of the US dollar in the local economy. The Bank also sought to provide financial and technical support to Uruguay by providing loans in local currency and lowering the cost of financing.
Supported by the Bank’s program, Uruguay’s economy achieved a 6.6 percent growth on average from 2004 to 2008 and poverty declined by nearly 39 percent over the last 8 years. Public debt had decreased from 79.3 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2005 to 60 percent in 2009. Also, with the aid of the Bank-financed Non-Transmittable Diseases Project, Uruguay was able to restructure its health system in order to include more accessible primary care services to the population.
Bank of Moscow to Receive the Largest Bailout in Russia
Sources:
FT: Bank of Moscow Rescued With $14bn State Bail-out
WSJ: Russia Gives Bank $14 Billion Bailout
NYT: Regulators Provide $14 Billion Bailout for Bank of Moscow
Bank of Moscow, the fifth largest bank in Russia, will receive the largest bank bailout ($14.5 billion) in Russia’s history. The bailout was necessary due to the problem loans extended to the bank's former management. VTB, another Russian bank that acquired a 46.5 percent stake in Bank of Moscow last February, recently found that the size of the problem loans amounted to 250 billion rubles ($9 billion), representing almost 30 percent of the bank’s assets. Sixty percent of the problem loans were “very bad” and were made without any collateral. According to Russia’s central bank, Bank of Moscow will receive 295 billion rubles from the Deposit Insurance Agency at 0.5 percent. Additionally, VTB will provide 100 billion rubles as well.
This bailout raises questions about the quality of regulation and supervision in Russian banking. Indeed, banks in Russia have not been considered transparent, and problem loans have been rising after the recent financial crisis as regulators have not actively responded to regulate such problems. Still, the huge size of bailout (almost 50 percent of the bank’s total assets) for a quasi-sovereign bank surprised investors. “If this kind of thing happens at such an important institution, it’s an amber light that the entire Russian banking system has to be finally cleaned up,” said Tim Ash, emerging markets economist at Royal Bank of Scotland.
Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin asked for criminal investigations, accusing the bank’s former chief executive Andrei Borodin, closely connected to an ousted mayor Yury Luzhkov, of practicing “fraudulent lending.” Investors question why VTB was not able to find the bank’s problem loans prior to its purchase of such a large share of the bank. VTB’s chief executive Andrei Kostin said that the bank’s management had not provided the bank’s actual loan book and former mayor Luzhkov “prevented anyone from asking unwelcome questions.”
FT: Bank of Moscow Rescued With $14bn State Bail-out
WSJ: Russia Gives Bank $14 Billion Bailout
NYT: Regulators Provide $14 Billion Bailout for Bank of Moscow
Bank of Moscow, the fifth largest bank in Russia, will receive the largest bank bailout ($14.5 billion) in Russia’s history. The bailout was necessary due to the problem loans extended to the bank's former management. VTB, another Russian bank that acquired a 46.5 percent stake in Bank of Moscow last February, recently found that the size of the problem loans amounted to 250 billion rubles ($9 billion), representing almost 30 percent of the bank’s assets. Sixty percent of the problem loans were “very bad” and were made without any collateral. According to Russia’s central bank, Bank of Moscow will receive 295 billion rubles from the Deposit Insurance Agency at 0.5 percent. Additionally, VTB will provide 100 billion rubles as well.
This bailout raises questions about the quality of regulation and supervision in Russian banking. Indeed, banks in Russia have not been considered transparent, and problem loans have been rising after the recent financial crisis as regulators have not actively responded to regulate such problems. Still, the huge size of bailout (almost 50 percent of the bank’s total assets) for a quasi-sovereign bank surprised investors. “If this kind of thing happens at such an important institution, it’s an amber light that the entire Russian banking system has to be finally cleaned up,” said Tim Ash, emerging markets economist at Royal Bank of Scotland.
Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin asked for criminal investigations, accusing the bank’s former chief executive Andrei Borodin, closely connected to an ousted mayor Yury Luzhkov, of practicing “fraudulent lending.” Investors question why VTB was not able to find the bank’s problem loans prior to its purchase of such a large share of the bank. VTB’s chief executive Andrei Kostin said that the bank’s management had not provided the bank’s actual loan book and former mayor Luzhkov “prevented anyone from asking unwelcome questions.”
Sunday, June 26, 2011
South Florida’s Global Trade Expands
Sources:
The Miami Herald: South Florida's Global Impact Expands ; Brazil's Importance to South Florida's Economy ; Trade Through South Florida Ports Sets Records
The Business Journal: South Florida Global Trade Poised to Hit $100B
World City: U.S. Trade Tops $3 Trillion in 2010
The area of South Florida is not just known for its great beaches and tourist destinations, but it is also one of the main entrances into the United States for imports from Latin America and the world. South Florida is unique among the nation's customs districts in that about 60 percent of its total trade ($95.38 billion) is driven by exports, as compared to the national U.S. exports to imports ratio of 40 percent to exports and 60 percent to imports. The strength of South Florida’s export-driven economy illustrates the region's role in supplying the market demands of Latin America and the Caribbean.
The area’s top exports include aircrafts, precious scrap metal, cellular phones and equipment, and computers and computer parts. Its top imports include gold, non-crude oil, cellular phone equipment, and computer parts. In addition, $366 million worth of live crustaceans and $691 million worth of fresh-cut flowers came in through ports of South Florida.
The Miami Customs District, which includes airports and seaports from Palm Beach to Key West, set a record among customs districts for the greatest total trade, which reached $95.38 billion last year. Of this, exports totaled $58.8 billion and imports amounted to $36.6 billion. The trade total in this region is now well on its way to surpass, for the first time this year, the $100 billion figure. The area will be only the 11th Customs District in the country to do so.
The majority of the goods exported by South Florida are sent to countries in Latin America. In 2010, the area exported $11.9 billion to Brazil, $4.1 billion to Colombia, $4.07 billion to Venezuela, and significant amounts to other Latin American countries such as Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Chile and Mexico. South Florida also exports to European countries significantly, it exported $4.99 billion worth of goods to Switzerland in 2010.
Among South Florida’s top trading partners, Brazil is by far at the top of the list. In 2010, Florida’s export trade with Brazil increased by 27 percent from the previous year, to a record of $14.4 billion. Similarly, the area imported $1.47 billion from Brazil. This increase in trade is due to a 7.5 percent economic growth and the increasing consumer demand that Brazil is currently facing. Also, Brazilian tourists spend more money in South Florida than in any other part of the country. Thirty-five percent of real estate buyers in downtown Miami are Brazilians.
Likewise, many Asian companies are directly investing in South Florida. For instance, Hong Kong’s Swire Group recently announced a new construction project, Brickell CitiCentre, in downtown Miami, valued at $700 million. Genting Group, a Malaysian company, also plans to build a $3 billion resort called World Miami. These investments are expected to bring in more visitors and increase South Florida’s global trade as additional goods will be imported to satisfy the visitors’ demands.
The Miami Herald: South Florida's Global Impact Expands ; Brazil's Importance to South Florida's Economy ; Trade Through South Florida Ports Sets Records
The Business Journal: South Florida Global Trade Poised to Hit $100B
World City: U.S. Trade Tops $3 Trillion in 2010
The area of South Florida is not just known for its great beaches and tourist destinations, but it is also one of the main entrances into the United States for imports from Latin America and the world. South Florida is unique among the nation's customs districts in that about 60 percent of its total trade ($95.38 billion) is driven by exports, as compared to the national U.S. exports to imports ratio of 40 percent to exports and 60 percent to imports. The strength of South Florida’s export-driven economy illustrates the region's role in supplying the market demands of Latin America and the Caribbean.
The area’s top exports include aircrafts, precious scrap metal, cellular phones and equipment, and computers and computer parts. Its top imports include gold, non-crude oil, cellular phone equipment, and computer parts. In addition, $366 million worth of live crustaceans and $691 million worth of fresh-cut flowers came in through ports of South Florida.
The Miami Customs District, which includes airports and seaports from Palm Beach to Key West, set a record among customs districts for the greatest total trade, which reached $95.38 billion last year. Of this, exports totaled $58.8 billion and imports amounted to $36.6 billion. The trade total in this region is now well on its way to surpass, for the first time this year, the $100 billion figure. The area will be only the 11th Customs District in the country to do so.
The majority of the goods exported by South Florida are sent to countries in Latin America. In 2010, the area exported $11.9 billion to Brazil, $4.1 billion to Colombia, $4.07 billion to Venezuela, and significant amounts to other Latin American countries such as Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Chile and Mexico. South Florida also exports to European countries significantly, it exported $4.99 billion worth of goods to Switzerland in 2010.
Among South Florida’s top trading partners, Brazil is by far at the top of the list. In 2010, Florida’s export trade with Brazil increased by 27 percent from the previous year, to a record of $14.4 billion. Similarly, the area imported $1.47 billion from Brazil. This increase in trade is due to a 7.5 percent economic growth and the increasing consumer demand that Brazil is currently facing. Also, Brazilian tourists spend more money in South Florida than in any other part of the country. Thirty-five percent of real estate buyers in downtown Miami are Brazilians.
Likewise, many Asian companies are directly investing in South Florida. For instance, Hong Kong’s Swire Group recently announced a new construction project, Brickell CitiCentre, in downtown Miami, valued at $700 million. Genting Group, a Malaysian company, also plans to build a $3 billion resort called World Miami. These investments are expected to bring in more visitors and increase South Florida’s global trade as additional goods will be imported to satisfy the visitors’ demands.
Financial Uncertainty Continues in Greece
Sources:
Since joining the eurozone in 2001, Greece has faced numerous financial difficulties. However, it was not until the global financial crisis struck in 2008 that the seriousness and magnitude of Greece's financial troubles was revealed. As of January 2011, all three credit-rating agencies had reduced Greek debt to junk status. Today, even though Greece has received €110 billion in bailout money from the EU and the IMF, economists around the world are predicting that Greece will inevitably default on its loans.
Although its national debt is currently 160% of its GDP, not everyone sees Greek default as inevitable. The Greek government has been scrambling to find ways to raise more money in order to avoid a default and to get a second bailout from the EU and IMF. Last Friday, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and the Greek parliament agreed to additional, and highly contested, spending cuts in order to meet the targets necessary in order to receive bailout money. However, to keep meeting these targets set by the EU and IMF, Greece still has to raise €600 million by the end of the year.
If Greece goes into default, the effects will spread far beyond Greece's boarders. Economists predict that a Greek default could also lead to default in Portugal and Ireland, two other eurozone countries who received large emergency loans following the 2008 financial crisis. Further, the risk of Greek default has lead to tension throughout the eurozone and has increased the instability of the euro itself. Germany, the nation that has most successfully weathered the economic downturn, is getting more and more infuriated by additional requests to lend money to Greece and other eurozone nations. Greek citizens are not happy with the deal they have been given from the EU and the IMF either, as protests continue amid the government putting into effect further austerity measures in an attempt to secure additional loans. Although widespread devastation could spread across much of Europe and the world if Greece defaults, leaders at the EU and IMF have been slow to agree to any solutions to address Greece's continued struggles.
The Economist: Greece and the Euro Crisis: Playing with Greek Fire
Since joining the eurozone in 2001, Greece has faced numerous financial difficulties. However, it was not until the global financial crisis struck in 2008 that the seriousness and magnitude of Greece's financial troubles was revealed. As of January 2011, all three credit-rating agencies had reduced Greek debt to junk status. Today, even though Greece has received €110 billion in bailout money from the EU and the IMF, economists around the world are predicting that Greece will inevitably default on its loans.
Although its national debt is currently 160% of its GDP, not everyone sees Greek default as inevitable. The Greek government has been scrambling to find ways to raise more money in order to avoid a default and to get a second bailout from the EU and IMF. Last Friday, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and the Greek parliament agreed to additional, and highly contested, spending cuts in order to meet the targets necessary in order to receive bailout money. However, to keep meeting these targets set by the EU and IMF, Greece still has to raise €600 million by the end of the year.
If Greece goes into default, the effects will spread far beyond Greece's boarders. Economists predict that a Greek default could also lead to default in Portugal and Ireland, two other eurozone countries who received large emergency loans following the 2008 financial crisis. Further, the risk of Greek default has lead to tension throughout the eurozone and has increased the instability of the euro itself. Germany, the nation that has most successfully weathered the economic downturn, is getting more and more infuriated by additional requests to lend money to Greece and other eurozone nations. Greek citizens are not happy with the deal they have been given from the EU and the IMF either, as protests continue amid the government putting into effect further austerity measures in an attempt to secure additional loans. Although widespread devastation could spread across much of Europe and the world if Greece defaults, leaders at the EU and IMF have been slow to agree to any solutions to address Greece's continued struggles.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
U.S. Economy Shows Slow Recovery
Sources:
FT: Bernanke signals no new round of easing
FT: Wall Street Dips on Bernanke Speech
FRB: Speech by Bernanke on U.S Economic Outlook
On Tuesday, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, announced that the economy of the United States is showing a slower than expected economic growth so far this year. In his speech, Mr. Bernanke stated that aggregate output, which is the sum of all the national income, increased at an annual rate of only 1.8% in the first quarter. The hamper in economic activity is partly due to the disruptions in the chain of supply caused by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Many goods that the United States imports from Japan such as cars and electronic goods were not produced and shipped due to the catastrophe. This disruption caused some U.S. companies to not receive their supplies for large amounts of time and thus significantly affected the production of these companies. Therefore, the decrease in national income is partly due to the fact that the U.S. market had less products to sell.
Another important factor in determining the speed of economic growth is the ability and readiness of households to spend. According to Bernanke, even though household incomes have increased due to a better job market, consumers have been cautious in spending due to the increase in food and energy prices, declining home values, restrictive credit markets, and a still-high level of unemployment.
Furthermore, another explanation for the slow growth of the economy is the fact that the real estate industry remains unstable. Although home prices and mortgage rates are at a historical low, many potential buyers are unable to purchase new homes due to strict loan guidelines that do not allow these buyers to qualify for home loans. Lenders have tightened up their lending practices, in part, because of the losses suffered during the subprime-mortgage crisis. These new guidelines are making it harder for some borrowers to obtain financing to purchase new homes. Also, house prices have fallen drastically. Many home owners cannot sell their homes for the price they initially paid and therefore are reluctant to sell.
Likewise, constraints on the demand for housing along with a large inventory of foreclosed properties has resulted in extremely low levels of constructions of new homes. The constructions industry plays a vital role in the growth of the economy because with each new construction project comes more employment opportunities. Construction also leads to the sale of more goods, products, and materials necessary to build. Thus, when there is no demand for new construction, the economy suffers as all these benefits that flow from constructions suddenly come to an end.
FT: Bernanke signals no new round of easing
FT: Wall Street Dips on Bernanke Speech
FRB: Speech by Bernanke on U.S Economic Outlook
On Tuesday, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, announced that the economy of the United States is showing a slower than expected economic growth so far this year. In his speech, Mr. Bernanke stated that aggregate output, which is the sum of all the national income, increased at an annual rate of only 1.8% in the first quarter. The hamper in economic activity is partly due to the disruptions in the chain of supply caused by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Many goods that the United States imports from Japan such as cars and electronic goods were not produced and shipped due to the catastrophe. This disruption caused some U.S. companies to not receive their supplies for large amounts of time and thus significantly affected the production of these companies. Therefore, the decrease in national income is partly due to the fact that the U.S. market had less products to sell.
Another important factor in determining the speed of economic growth is the ability and readiness of households to spend. According to Bernanke, even though household incomes have increased due to a better job market, consumers have been cautious in spending due to the increase in food and energy prices, declining home values, restrictive credit markets, and a still-high level of unemployment.
Furthermore, another explanation for the slow growth of the economy is the fact that the real estate industry remains unstable. Although home prices and mortgage rates are at a historical low, many potential buyers are unable to purchase new homes due to strict loan guidelines that do not allow these buyers to qualify for home loans. Lenders have tightened up their lending practices, in part, because of the losses suffered during the subprime-mortgage crisis. These new guidelines are making it harder for some borrowers to obtain financing to purchase new homes. Also, house prices have fallen drastically. Many home owners cannot sell their homes for the price they initially paid and therefore are reluctant to sell.
Likewise, constraints on the demand for housing along with a large inventory of foreclosed properties has resulted in extremely low levels of constructions of new homes. The constructions industry plays a vital role in the growth of the economy because with each new construction project comes more employment opportunities. Construction also leads to the sale of more goods, products, and materials necessary to build. Thus, when there is no demand for new construction, the economy suffers as all these benefits that flow from constructions suddenly come to an end.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
China Emerges as Latin America’s Biggest Trade Partner
Sources:
FT: New Trade Routes: Latin America
FT: China demand drives road and rail traffic
China Daily: China to Increase Trade with Latin America
Over the past decade, Latin America has been hard at work focusing on infrastructure and promoting trade with some of the world’s fastest growing economies in an effort to shed the image of financial instability that marked the region in the 1990s. Fortunately, the effort has paid off as poverty is diminishing in many Latin America countries and the middle class is increasing, all largely in part due to the vast expansion of commodity-based trade.
One of Latin America’s biggest trade partners is China. The fast growth of the Chinese economy has increased demand for many Latin America commodities such as Argentine soya, Brazilian iron ore, Chilean copper, and Peruvian gold. Trade between Latin America and China has increased tremendously in the past ten years. For instance, in 1999, trade between the two regions totaled $8 billion. However, by 2009, this total had increased by sixteen times to $130 billion.
The Chinese government is especially supportive of the trade partnership as it encourages more Chinese businesses to invest in Brazil, Peru, and other Latin American countries in an effort to induce these countries to export more goods to China. Likewise, China has also signed free trade agreements with Chile, Peru, and Costa Rica, and is the largest importer of goods and services from Brazil and Chile. Out of all the Latin American countries, Brazil is by far the largest trading partner China has in the region. In 2010, the value of trade between the two countries increased by 47.5% from the year before, totaling $62.5 billion.
The main commodities China imports from Latin American countries include agricultural products, minerals, copper, and other raw materials. In turn, China exports electronic goods, machinery, garments, and shoes to Latin America. Equally important is that Latin America has become the second-largest destination for much of Chinese direct investment. Although, the majority of this investment goes only to certain countries such as Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Mexico, and Argentina, the investment of Chinese companies is increasingly creating many business opportunities all throughout the Latin America region.
FT: New Trade Routes: Latin America
FT: China demand drives road and rail traffic
China Daily: China to Increase Trade with Latin America
Over the past decade, Latin America has been hard at work focusing on infrastructure and promoting trade with some of the world’s fastest growing economies in an effort to shed the image of financial instability that marked the region in the 1990s. Fortunately, the effort has paid off as poverty is diminishing in many Latin America countries and the middle class is increasing, all largely in part due to the vast expansion of commodity-based trade.
One of Latin America’s biggest trade partners is China. The fast growth of the Chinese economy has increased demand for many Latin America commodities such as Argentine soya, Brazilian iron ore, Chilean copper, and Peruvian gold. Trade between Latin America and China has increased tremendously in the past ten years. For instance, in 1999, trade between the two regions totaled $8 billion. However, by 2009, this total had increased by sixteen times to $130 billion.
The Chinese government is especially supportive of the trade partnership as it encourages more Chinese businesses to invest in Brazil, Peru, and other Latin American countries in an effort to induce these countries to export more goods to China. Likewise, China has also signed free trade agreements with Chile, Peru, and Costa Rica, and is the largest importer of goods and services from Brazil and Chile. Out of all the Latin American countries, Brazil is by far the largest trading partner China has in the region. In 2010, the value of trade between the two countries increased by 47.5% from the year before, totaling $62.5 billion.
The main commodities China imports from Latin American countries include agricultural products, minerals, copper, and other raw materials. In turn, China exports electronic goods, machinery, garments, and shoes to Latin America. Equally important is that Latin America has become the second-largest destination for much of Chinese direct investment. Although, the majority of this investment goes only to certain countries such as Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, Mexico, and Argentina, the investment of Chinese companies is increasingly creating many business opportunities all throughout the Latin America region.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Banks in Hong Kong Told To Conduct Stress Tests
Sources:
Bloomberg: Hong Kong Banks Told To Hold Stress Tests Assuming $89 Billion In Outflows
ChinaDaily: HKAB: Banks May Slow Credit Growth
FT: Hong Kong Tests Banks’ Ability To Survive Outflows
Market Watch: Hong Kong Banks Asked to Conduct Stress Tests
Hong Kong banks will conduct another stress test to see whether they could withstand capital outflows of HK$650 billion ($83.52 billion) in customer deposits. Since late 2008, the amount of deposits in Hong Kong banks has grown rapidly by HK$1.38 trillion ($177 billion). As liquidity is tightening and the United States may soon raise interest rates, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the de facto central bank, requested banks to test whether they could survive if customers withdrew half of such new deposits in six to twelve months. “When the US ends its quantitative easing, monetary policy and global liquidity will tighten, and this may cause more fund outflows in Hong Kong,” said Paul Lee, an analyst at Haitong International Group.
The request for stress tests reflects the HKMA’s concerns about the health of Hong Kong banks as banks have rapidly expanded lending. Loans have grown by 30 percent from January to March this year. The loan growth has also driven the loan-to-deposit ratio up from 71 percent to 81.7 percent in a year since early 2010. In the case of smaller banks, the loan-to-deposit ratio has grown up to 90 to 100 percent. High interest rates in mainland China has contributed to the loan growth in Hong Kong banks as more Chinese firms have borrowed loans from Hong Kong banks at lower interest rates. The central bank in China has increased interest rates four times since last October in an attempt to control inflation and reduce loan growth. It also has raised reserve requirements eight times during the same period.
It is notable that recently, the portions of renminbi deposits and loans in US dollars in Hong Kong banks have surged, reflecting the expectation that the value of the renminbi will likely go up against the US dollar in the future. During the last two quarters, renminbi deposits have increased three times up to 452 billion yuan ($69 billion). Loans in foreign currency, mostly in US dollars, have increased by 54 percent during the first quarter this year.
The HKMA will receive the test results from banks in a month. While some predict that banks that fail the test will reduce lending, others say that the test results will not immediately change banks’ lending policy as the bank’s “risk management policy, regulatory requirements and the cost of capital of different banks” determines the banks' lending criteria.
Bloomberg: Hong Kong Banks Told To Hold Stress Tests Assuming $89 Billion In Outflows
ChinaDaily: HKAB: Banks May Slow Credit Growth
FT: Hong Kong Tests Banks’ Ability To Survive Outflows
Market Watch: Hong Kong Banks Asked to Conduct Stress Tests
Hong Kong banks will conduct another stress test to see whether they could withstand capital outflows of HK$650 billion ($83.52 billion) in customer deposits. Since late 2008, the amount of deposits in Hong Kong banks has grown rapidly by HK$1.38 trillion ($177 billion). As liquidity is tightening and the United States may soon raise interest rates, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the de facto central bank, requested banks to test whether they could survive if customers withdrew half of such new deposits in six to twelve months. “When the US ends its quantitative easing, monetary policy and global liquidity will tighten, and this may cause more fund outflows in Hong Kong,” said Paul Lee, an analyst at Haitong International Group.
The request for stress tests reflects the HKMA’s concerns about the health of Hong Kong banks as banks have rapidly expanded lending. Loans have grown by 30 percent from January to March this year. The loan growth has also driven the loan-to-deposit ratio up from 71 percent to 81.7 percent in a year since early 2010. In the case of smaller banks, the loan-to-deposit ratio has grown up to 90 to 100 percent. High interest rates in mainland China has contributed to the loan growth in Hong Kong banks as more Chinese firms have borrowed loans from Hong Kong banks at lower interest rates. The central bank in China has increased interest rates four times since last October in an attempt to control inflation and reduce loan growth. It also has raised reserve requirements eight times during the same period.
It is notable that recently, the portions of renminbi deposits and loans in US dollars in Hong Kong banks have surged, reflecting the expectation that the value of the renminbi will likely go up against the US dollar in the future. During the last two quarters, renminbi deposits have increased three times up to 452 billion yuan ($69 billion). Loans in foreign currency, mostly in US dollars, have increased by 54 percent during the first quarter this year.
The HKMA will receive the test results from banks in a month. While some predict that banks that fail the test will reduce lending, others say that the test results will not immediately change banks’ lending policy as the bank’s “risk management policy, regulatory requirements and the cost of capital of different banks” determines the banks' lending criteria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)