Sources
International Monetary Fund: IMF Executive Board Backs US $250 Billion SDR Allocation to Boost Global Liquidity
Reuters: IMF backs $250 bln plan to bolster members’ reserves
Unlikely SDR allocation will affect inflation
Financial Times: How the Fund can help save the world economy
On August 7, the IMF will vote on a plan to allocate $250 billion worth of special drawing rights (SDR) to bolster reserves in member countries. The allocation would improve liquidity in the IMF’s 186 member countries, and provide $100 billion for emerging economies. In order to pass, the plan requires approval from 85 percent of member countries, which it is widely expected to receive.
World financial leaders have debated such an allocation since the Group of 20 summit in April of this year. A successful allocation of this size could increase confidence in cooperative, international solutions to global recession. IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn hopes the allocation will highlight an expanded role for the IMF as it provides “significant support to its members in these difficult times.”
If the allocation garners the required support on August 7, member countries could receive their allocations, disbursed in proportion to each member’s IMF quota, as early as August 28. Countries are free to lend or exchange their SDRs for hard currency. Many developed countries, which have the largest quotas, are expected to loan or donate their SDRs to their poorer, liquidity-strained neighbors.
Some financial analysts are wary of the proposed allocation, citing concerns about increased inflationary pressure. Isabelle Mateos y Lago, an advisor in the IMF Policy and Review Department believes inflationary problems are unlikely, given the small scale of the allocation relative to the global economy. The proposed $250 billion represents only one-third of a percentage point of global gross domestic product. The IMF has emphasized however, that the allocation should not weaken member countries’ pursuit of prudent macroeconomic policies or postpone necessary policy adjustments.
Discussion
1. The SDRs will provide funds to emerging and poor countries at current, low interest rates. If interest rates should later rise, the possible long-term cost to poor countries would be significant. How should this potential interest liability affect the way developing countries chose to use their SDRs? Should they hold them or spend them?
2. A substantial amount of the allocation will go to developed countries that may not need the additional funds. Are IMF officials right in assuming that countries will donate, trade or loan the SDRs? Should the IMF consider allocating SDRs out of proportion to the IMF quotas?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Paulson Receives Bitter Reception from Lawmakers at Hearing
Sources: Washingtonpost.com: Lawmakers Blast Paulson for His Response to Crisis; Reuters.com: UPDATE 2-Lawmakers slam Paulson on BofA-Merrill deal
In a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday, House Republicans and Democrats scolded Former Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. for his response to the financial crisis. The hearing was convened as lawmakers investigate the government’s push for Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch. Although the companies arranged in September to merge minus government aid, they did not settle the deal until January when the Treasury agreed to check Bank of America’s losses on a range of problem loans, and invest $20 billion.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Bank of America chief executive Kenneth D. Lewis had previously testified to the House Committee that the bank nearly backed out of the deal. Paulson’s version of events largely corroborated the accounts of Bernanke and Lewis. After conferring with Bernanke, Paulson had warned Lewis of the possible removal of senior management if the bank abandoned the deal. Paulson further assured Lewis that the bank would receive the aid needed to proceed with the acquisition.
Republicans on the committee have argued that the government compelled Bank of America to move ahead with the deal when the company decided to walk. Democrats, on the other hand, have suggested that Lewis worked one over on the government to obtain additional financial support in threatening to drop out of the deal.
Democrats and Republicans alike have questioned the lack of public disclosure by the bank and regulators of information pertaining to the negotiations. Internal Fed documents that seem to reveal that regulatory agencies were purposefully kept in the dark have captured the attention of the committee. These agencies include the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Stability Oversight Board, an interagency team Congress created to manage the government’s handling of the financial crisis. The committee will next hear from these groups.
Discussion Questions:
1) Where should Congress draw the line of financial oversight by the government during times of crisis and times of economic strength?
2) What benefits does financial oversight during crises afford?
In a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday, House Republicans and Democrats scolded Former Treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. for his response to the financial crisis. The hearing was convened as lawmakers investigate the government’s push for Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch. Although the companies arranged in September to merge minus government aid, they did not settle the deal until January when the Treasury agreed to check Bank of America’s losses on a range of problem loans, and invest $20 billion.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Bank of America chief executive Kenneth D. Lewis had previously testified to the House Committee that the bank nearly backed out of the deal. Paulson’s version of events largely corroborated the accounts of Bernanke and Lewis. After conferring with Bernanke, Paulson had warned Lewis of the possible removal of senior management if the bank abandoned the deal. Paulson further assured Lewis that the bank would receive the aid needed to proceed with the acquisition.
Republicans on the committee have argued that the government compelled Bank of America to move ahead with the deal when the company decided to walk. Democrats, on the other hand, have suggested that Lewis worked one over on the government to obtain additional financial support in threatening to drop out of the deal.
Democrats and Republicans alike have questioned the lack of public disclosure by the bank and regulators of information pertaining to the negotiations. Internal Fed documents that seem to reveal that regulatory agencies were purposefully kept in the dark have captured the attention of the committee. These agencies include the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Stability Oversight Board, an interagency team Congress created to manage the government’s handling of the financial crisis. The committee will next hear from these groups.
Discussion Questions:
1) Where should Congress draw the line of financial oversight by the government during times of crisis and times of economic strength?
2) What benefits does financial oversight during crises afford?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
G8 pledges $20 billion for agriculture in the developing world
Sources
Reuters: G8 pledges $20 billion in farm aid to poor nations, African leaders to ask G8 to honour pledges, G8 summit pledges $20 bln to boost food output
Financial Times: G8 to commit $20 billion for food security
According to United Nations reports, the number of malnourished people worldwide will exceed 1.02 billion this year. This represents a dramatic reversal, as the current global recession erodes decades of progress in reducing malnutrition. 103 million more are predicted to suffer before the end of the economic downturn. In response to these predictions, and near the end of a summit frustrated by discord, the G8 announced a pledge of $20 billion to fight hunger in the developing world.
On July 10th, the G8 promised to deliver $20 billion over the next three years, investing in agriculture to promote food security. The pledge is smaller than past aid commitments but has the potential to effect real change, according to development experts, because of its clear focus. Jacques Diouf, director general of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, responded optimistically to the pledge, calling it “the biggest shift in strategy [he’s] seen over the past two decades.” The new strategy highlights the need to help hungry and poor people produce their own food. Emergency food aid, though necessary to help impoverished countries withstand food crises, is only part of the equation, according to Ajay Vashee, president of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers. The new G8 pledge aims to improve food security through investment in infrastructure- reaching small farmers with new seeds, irrigation technologies and farming methods to improve agricultural productivity within developing countries.
Leaders from Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa joined G8 members later in the summit for a half-day meeting, discussing food security, past aid commitments and a proposal for climate change compensation. Led by Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, the African leaders were initially positive in their response to the $20 billion pledge but asked the G8 to live up to their commitments. Some remain wary, hesitant to rely on new promises from the G8 while member countries fail to follow through on 2005 aid commitments. Nigerian Agricultural Minister Abba Ruma called the pledge “very commendable,” especially in view of the current global recession, but called for the funds to be disbursed expeditiously.
NGOs have responded to the pledge with a mixture of hope and skepticism. Many view the pledge as a potentially significant policy shift, but are wary given the G8’s track record. According to ActionAid, a British aid organization, total food aid must reach $23 billion per year by 2020 to reach the millennium development goal for world hunger reduction. The G8 pledge does not reach that goal independently, but for many it is a welcome step in the right direction.
Discussion
1. U.S. president Barack Obama, discussing the G8 pledge, said "there is no reason Africa should not be self-sufficient when it comes to food.” What are the reasons that Africa has not been self-sufficient in food production in the past?
2. Can G8 leaders responsibly pledge additional aid when some are failing to meet existing aid commitments? Does the current recession affect the likelihood that G8 countries will follow through on the pledge?
Reuters: G8 pledges $20 billion in farm aid to poor nations, African leaders to ask G8 to honour pledges, G8 summit pledges $20 bln to boost food output
Financial Times: G8 to commit $20 billion for food security
According to United Nations reports, the number of malnourished people worldwide will exceed 1.02 billion this year. This represents a dramatic reversal, as the current global recession erodes decades of progress in reducing malnutrition. 103 million more are predicted to suffer before the end of the economic downturn. In response to these predictions, and near the end of a summit frustrated by discord, the G8 announced a pledge of $20 billion to fight hunger in the developing world.
On July 10th, the G8 promised to deliver $20 billion over the next three years, investing in agriculture to promote food security. The pledge is smaller than past aid commitments but has the potential to effect real change, according to development experts, because of its clear focus. Jacques Diouf, director general of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, responded optimistically to the pledge, calling it “the biggest shift in strategy [he’s] seen over the past two decades.” The new strategy highlights the need to help hungry and poor people produce their own food. Emergency food aid, though necessary to help impoverished countries withstand food crises, is only part of the equation, according to Ajay Vashee, president of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers. The new G8 pledge aims to improve food security through investment in infrastructure- reaching small farmers with new seeds, irrigation technologies and farming methods to improve agricultural productivity within developing countries.
Leaders from Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa joined G8 members later in the summit for a half-day meeting, discussing food security, past aid commitments and a proposal for climate change compensation. Led by Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, the African leaders were initially positive in their response to the $20 billion pledge but asked the G8 to live up to their commitments. Some remain wary, hesitant to rely on new promises from the G8 while member countries fail to follow through on 2005 aid commitments. Nigerian Agricultural Minister Abba Ruma called the pledge “very commendable,” especially in view of the current global recession, but called for the funds to be disbursed expeditiously.
NGOs have responded to the pledge with a mixture of hope and skepticism. Many view the pledge as a potentially significant policy shift, but are wary given the G8’s track record. According to ActionAid, a British aid organization, total food aid must reach $23 billion per year by 2020 to reach the millennium development goal for world hunger reduction. The G8 pledge does not reach that goal independently, but for many it is a welcome step in the right direction.
Discussion
1. U.S. president Barack Obama, discussing the G8 pledge, said "there is no reason Africa should not be self-sufficient when it comes to food.” What are the reasons that Africa has not been self-sufficient in food production in the past?
2. Can G8 leaders responsibly pledge additional aid when some are failing to meet existing aid commitments? Does the current recession affect the likelihood that G8 countries will follow through on the pledge?
Monday, July 06, 2009
China Advocates Fundamental Reform of the Global Monetary System, and Works to Ease Dependence on U.S. Dollar
Sources: Businessweek.com: China Ratchets Up Pressure on the Dollar; Reuters.com: China Officials Call for Displacing Dollar, In Time
As the G8 summit in Italy approaches—the summit begins on Wednesday—China has heightened its call for the fundamental reform of the international financial system. In its push for the replacement of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency, China acknowledges that it will take time to overhaul to current system. Chinese officials maintain that the IMF unit of special drawing rights (SDRs) may provide a viable alternative to the dollar.
The dollar comprises an estimated 70 % of the $1.95 trillion China holds in official foreign exchange reserves. Accordingly, China remains cautious not to make statements which may hurt its investments.
To reduce its dependence on the dollar, China stated last week that it would permit its exporters and importers to settle international trade agreements with the renminbi. Prior to this action, companies have had to exchange renminbi for U.S. dollars or alternative currencies when settling cross-border transactions. Starting July 2, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) would invite banks to offer settlement services tied to the renminbi.
The renminbi’s projected regular appreciation next to the dollar provides the incentive for Hong Kong companies to use it in settling trade agreements. Even though China has limited the renminbi’s appreciation since July 2008 to assist exports, the mainland currency has risen 21% since 2005 when a dollar peg was cast aside. Investors are betting it will strengthen less than 1% to 6.77 per dollar in the next year. Since July 1, 2008, the central bank has maintained a range of 0.08%.
Other initiatives also aim to promote the renminbi’s regional usage. For instance, China said in May that it would endorse the issuance of renminbi bonds by locally incorporated foreign lenders.
Still, in spite of the disfavor with the dollar-centric global financial system, the IMF announced on June 30 that the portion of dollars in international foreign exchange reserves reached 65% during the first three month of 2009, rising to its highest level since 2007.
Discussion Questions:
1) What short and/or long-term effects might China's promotion of the renmindi as a regional currency have on the dollar as well as other currencies?
2) How might China's efforts fuel discussion concerning the reserve currency at the G8 summit in Italy on Wednesday?
As the G8 summit in Italy approaches—the summit begins on Wednesday—China has heightened its call for the fundamental reform of the international financial system. In its push for the replacement of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency, China acknowledges that it will take time to overhaul to current system. Chinese officials maintain that the IMF unit of special drawing rights (SDRs) may provide a viable alternative to the dollar.
The dollar comprises an estimated 70 % of the $1.95 trillion China holds in official foreign exchange reserves. Accordingly, China remains cautious not to make statements which may hurt its investments.
To reduce its dependence on the dollar, China stated last week that it would permit its exporters and importers to settle international trade agreements with the renminbi. Prior to this action, companies have had to exchange renminbi for U.S. dollars or alternative currencies when settling cross-border transactions. Starting July 2, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) would invite banks to offer settlement services tied to the renminbi.
The renminbi’s projected regular appreciation next to the dollar provides the incentive for Hong Kong companies to use it in settling trade agreements. Even though China has limited the renminbi’s appreciation since July 2008 to assist exports, the mainland currency has risen 21% since 2005 when a dollar peg was cast aside. Investors are betting it will strengthen less than 1% to 6.77 per dollar in the next year. Since July 1, 2008, the central bank has maintained a range of 0.08%.
Other initiatives also aim to promote the renminbi’s regional usage. For instance, China said in May that it would endorse the issuance of renminbi bonds by locally incorporated foreign lenders.
Still, in spite of the disfavor with the dollar-centric global financial system, the IMF announced on June 30 that the portion of dollars in international foreign exchange reserves reached 65% during the first three month of 2009, rising to its highest level since 2007.
Discussion Questions:
1) What short and/or long-term effects might China's promotion of the renmindi as a regional currency have on the dollar as well as other currencies?
2) How might China's efforts fuel discussion concerning the reserve currency at the G8 summit in Italy on Wednesday?
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Unauthorized Trading Causes a Spike in Oil Price
Sources: BBC, Can Rogue Trading Move a Market?; Reuters, Oil Brokerage PVM Names Rogue Trader Behind Oil Spike; AFP, Oil Prices Drop Further as 'Rogue' Trader Probed; BBC, Rogue Trades Cost Oil Broke $10m
Early Tuesday morning, the price of Brent North Sea Crude spiked to $73.50 a barrel when a London trader purchased the equivalent of 9 million barrels of the oil. Steve Perkins, a crude futures trader at the PVM Oil Futures brokerage, conducted this unauthorized trade, which is now under investigation by PVM as well as the Financial Services Authority. When PVM discovered the unauthorized trading, which was unusual as it took place at a time when most London traders are asleep, it unwound the futures positions at a cost of nearly $10 million.
The trade caused a spike of nearly $2 in the oil price, but this quickly reversed, and contracts for 16 million barrels of oil changed hands in a very short period of time. The early hour and relatively low levels of trading meant that one large trade could greatly affect the price of oil, but that the price could also drop quickly. The drop in price was what accounted for PVM's loss in such a short time when it sold the contracts – by Friday morning, the price had fallen to a little over $66 a barrel, due largely to loss in confidence in a U.S. recovery after the release of poor employment numbers.
Brokers at PVM are authorized to link up large banks and hedge funds as trade counterparties, but they are not allowed to take positions in the crude markets directly. Perkins' motivations are unclear, but PVM—the world's largest independent broker—is conducting a full investigation. Though technology makes it more and more difficult for brokers to engage in this sort of unauthorized speculation, enough money changes hands regularly at a large firm like PVM that it may not be picked up on immediately. In this case, the lost was relatively small, unlike rogue trading at Societé Generale or Barings.
This incident may prompt renewed calls for regulation in the area of oil speculation, which has been a priority for many since last year. Regulation would focus on the OTC and futures markets. The US, for example, would like to reduce the amount with which a single broker can legally speculate, and the UK would be likely to follow any U.S. regulatory changes. There is some disagreement on just how much speculation can really affect markets over the long-term, but activity like this is undoubtably cause for some concern.
1) Do you think that an isolated incident like this should be enough to prompt regulatory changes over oil speculation as a whole, or do you think that the market is best left alone?
2) As technology advances, how do you think speculators who want to engage in rogue trading will react? Will technology ever make unauthorized trading impossible, or will more regulatory loopholes simply open up along with financial innovation?
Early Tuesday morning, the price of Brent North Sea Crude spiked to $73.50 a barrel when a London trader purchased the equivalent of 9 million barrels of the oil. Steve Perkins, a crude futures trader at the PVM Oil Futures brokerage, conducted this unauthorized trade, which is now under investigation by PVM as well as the Financial Services Authority. When PVM discovered the unauthorized trading, which was unusual as it took place at a time when most London traders are asleep, it unwound the futures positions at a cost of nearly $10 million.
The trade caused a spike of nearly $2 in the oil price, but this quickly reversed, and contracts for 16 million barrels of oil changed hands in a very short period of time. The early hour and relatively low levels of trading meant that one large trade could greatly affect the price of oil, but that the price could also drop quickly. The drop in price was what accounted for PVM's loss in such a short time when it sold the contracts – by Friday morning, the price had fallen to a little over $66 a barrel, due largely to loss in confidence in a U.S. recovery after the release of poor employment numbers.
Brokers at PVM are authorized to link up large banks and hedge funds as trade counterparties, but they are not allowed to take positions in the crude markets directly. Perkins' motivations are unclear, but PVM—the world's largest independent broker—is conducting a full investigation. Though technology makes it more and more difficult for brokers to engage in this sort of unauthorized speculation, enough money changes hands regularly at a large firm like PVM that it may not be picked up on immediately. In this case, the lost was relatively small, unlike rogue trading at Societé Generale or Barings.
This incident may prompt renewed calls for regulation in the area of oil speculation, which has been a priority for many since last year. Regulation would focus on the OTC and futures markets. The US, for example, would like to reduce the amount with which a single broker can legally speculate, and the UK would be likely to follow any U.S. regulatory changes. There is some disagreement on just how much speculation can really affect markets over the long-term, but activity like this is undoubtably cause for some concern.
1) Do you think that an isolated incident like this should be enough to prompt regulatory changes over oil speculation as a whole, or do you think that the market is best left alone?
2) As technology advances, how do you think speculators who want to engage in rogue trading will react? Will technology ever make unauthorized trading impossible, or will more regulatory loopholes simply open up along with financial innovation?
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Rethinking Reserve Currency
The recent financial crisis highlights a need for effective management of international liquidity. The use of the dollar as an international reserve currency dates back to the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, when the U.S. was the largest international creditor and by far the largest economy in the world.
Recently, Chinese leaders and other international policymakers have become increasingly interested in transitioning to an alternative reserve currency. Critics of the dollar argue that the use of national currencies to manage a global economy is troublesome; the U.S. Federal Reserve inevitably places domestic policy goals above the needs of the international economy.
While there is no clear alternative to the dollar, Chinese officials propose the expansion of IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). Today's SDRs are based on a basket of four currencies - the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling - and they are used as a unit of account by the IMF and other international organizations. The Chinese proposal would involve expanding the SDR basket to include all large economies and establishing a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies, so the SDRs could be used more easily in international finance and trade.
Some argue that the IMF SDRs will never function effectively as reserve currency because of institutional limitations on their use. Many other national currencies simply lack the economic longevity and credibility of the dollar.
Should SDRs replace the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency?
Leave your comments below and cast your vote here, in the UICIFD poll.
Recently, Chinese leaders and other international policymakers have become increasingly interested in transitioning to an alternative reserve currency. Critics of the dollar argue that the use of national currencies to manage a global economy is troublesome; the U.S. Federal Reserve inevitably places domestic policy goals above the needs of the international economy.
While there is no clear alternative to the dollar, Chinese officials propose the expansion of IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). Today's SDRs are based on a basket of four currencies - the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling - and they are used as a unit of account by the IMF and other international organizations. The Chinese proposal would involve expanding the SDR basket to include all large economies and establishing a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies, so the SDRs could be used more easily in international finance and trade.
Some argue that the IMF SDRs will never function effectively as reserve currency because of institutional limitations on their use. Many other national currencies simply lack the economic longevity and credibility of the dollar.
Should SDRs replace the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency?
Leave your comments below and cast your vote here, in the UICIFD poll.
Nigeria allows foreign bank ownership, aims to acquire more than capital
Sources
Financial Times: Nigeria to lift ban on foreign bank takeovers,
Nigeria’s top banker to boost transparency
Reuters: Nigeria may lift ban on foreign bank ownership
Nigeria, a country of 140 million people, is Africa’s most populous nation and the continent’s second largest economy. There are 24 banks in Nigeria today, operating approximately 23 million accounts. The country’s large population and growing economy make it a massive potential market for retail banking. Large companies also view Nigeria as a desirable, strategically-located base for launching regional operations elsewhere on the continent.
For more than 30 years however, foreign acquisition of more than 5 percent of any Nigerian bank has been subject to approval by the governor of the country’s Central Bank. Foreign banks have also been prohibited from owning more than 10 percent of any Nigerian bank. These limitations date back to the 1970s, a period of strict nationalism under military rule, and have outlived their purpose, according to recently appointed Central Bank Governor Lamido Sanusi.
Recent financial turmoil has caused contraction in foreign credit lines, a stock market collapse and an overall tightening of liquidity in the Nigerian banking system. Sanusi sees increased international participation as an important step toward improving the health of the country’s banks, calling the old rules “unnecessarily restrictive.”
By opening doors to foreign banks, Governor Sanusi hopes to do more than simply shore up Nigeria’s capital base. He aims to improve the banking system’s disclosure requirements and tighten bank supervision, and he’s counting on foreign expertise to advance those goals. In the short to medium-term, Nigerian banks will undoubtedly benefit from capital influx, but exposure to the skills and management strategies of large foreign banks could reap even greater rewards in the future. During this period of recovery and potential growth, Sanusi brings an open perspective to his post as governor of Nigeria’s Central Bank. “What you want to do,” he says, “is open up all the possibilities.”
Discussion:
1. How will continued unrest in Nigeria’s oil delta impact the involvement of foreign banks in Nigeria?
2. Should the Central Bank maintain some lesser degree of control over the bank acquisitions as they occur? Are there risks that offset the sizeable benefits of foreign involvement?
Financial Times: Nigeria to lift ban on foreign bank takeovers,
Nigeria’s top banker to boost transparency
Reuters: Nigeria may lift ban on foreign bank ownership
Nigeria, a country of 140 million people, is Africa’s most populous nation and the continent’s second largest economy. There are 24 banks in Nigeria today, operating approximately 23 million accounts. The country’s large population and growing economy make it a massive potential market for retail banking. Large companies also view Nigeria as a desirable, strategically-located base for launching regional operations elsewhere on the continent.
For more than 30 years however, foreign acquisition of more than 5 percent of any Nigerian bank has been subject to approval by the governor of the country’s Central Bank. Foreign banks have also been prohibited from owning more than 10 percent of any Nigerian bank. These limitations date back to the 1970s, a period of strict nationalism under military rule, and have outlived their purpose, according to recently appointed Central Bank Governor Lamido Sanusi.
Recent financial turmoil has caused contraction in foreign credit lines, a stock market collapse and an overall tightening of liquidity in the Nigerian banking system. Sanusi sees increased international participation as an important step toward improving the health of the country’s banks, calling the old rules “unnecessarily restrictive.”
By opening doors to foreign banks, Governor Sanusi hopes to do more than simply shore up Nigeria’s capital base. He aims to improve the banking system’s disclosure requirements and tighten bank supervision, and he’s counting on foreign expertise to advance those goals. In the short to medium-term, Nigerian banks will undoubtedly benefit from capital influx, but exposure to the skills and management strategies of large foreign banks could reap even greater rewards in the future. During this period of recovery and potential growth, Sanusi brings an open perspective to his post as governor of Nigeria’s Central Bank. “What you want to do,” he says, “is open up all the possibilities.”
Discussion:
1. How will continued unrest in Nigeria’s oil delta impact the involvement of foreign banks in Nigeria?
2. Should the Central Bank maintain some lesser degree of control over the bank acquisitions as they occur? Are there risks that offset the sizeable benefits of foreign involvement?
Monday, June 29, 2009
International Finance Meeting Comes up Short for Proponents of a Greater U.N. Role in the Global Crisis
Sources: Guardian.co.uk: West Keeps U.N. At Bay on Financial Crisis; Reuters.com: NGOs Slam Results of U.N. Financial Crisis Meeting
Developing nations do not appear to have succeeded in increasing U.N. involvement in the world economy on Friday with the results a three-day international finance conference. The meeting was billed as a summit. However, no Western leaders showed up. Further, the majority of those presidents and prime ministers in attendance, amounting to less than a dozen, were from Latin America and the Caribbean. Other participants sent delegates of a lesser status. World Bank President Robert Zoellick and IMF Chief Dominique Stauss-Kahn did not attend the conference.
Miguel D’Escoto, president of the 192-nation U.N. General Assembly, called the “financial summit” to demand a reform of the global financial structure. He drafted a document that called for extensive changes to the existing system under the belief that the General Assembly should take the helm of the world economy from elite groups of rich countries. With the aim of “democratizing” global financial bodies, he demanded the abolishment of U.S. veto power at the IMF, where rich countries dominate the current voting system. Further, the conditions the IMF places on foreign-currency loans embitter some developing nations. The draft also demanded that the IMF unit of special drawing rights (SDRs), which is anchored in multiple currencies, replace the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency.
While the document received a positive response from many developing countries, its reception in Western capitals was less than warm, as officials feared that the non-legally binding document could send an unfavorable political message. The North-South negotiations, which delayed the meeting for three weeks, ultimately rendered the text a simple appeal for developing countries to have a greater voice in the IMF. This position has the support of the United States. The declaration also acknowledged the calls of many states for a more efficient system on the issue of currency reserves.
Even so, D’Escoto, declaring the meeting a success, stated that “the General Assembly…has now been established as the central forum for the discussion of the world financial and economic issues.” Other less optimistic advocates for the called-for changes considered the declaration deficient. Venezuela’s envoy, for instance, criticized the declaration’s failure to order a definite role for the United Nations to occupy in the world economy. Anti-poverty groups have also voiced disappointment in the declaration.
While the United States joined the consensus, it remains ambivalent about much of the document and is not prepared to give the U.N. a final voice in the global economy. The U.S. advanced its view on the floor that the U.N. lacked the authority to entangle itself in matters pertaining to the governance of the IMF and the World Bank. Further, even as the European Union held the meeting out as a break for developing nations, its delegates appeared more at home discussing development aid abroad than restructuring the IMF.
Discussion Questions:
1) Can the interests of rich and poor nations be reconciled? If the U.N. assumed a greater role in the global economy, what new problems might arise in relation to these competing interests?
2) How would the U.S. economy be affected if SDRs replaced the U.S. dollar as the currency reserve?
Developing nations do not appear to have succeeded in increasing U.N. involvement in the world economy on Friday with the results a three-day international finance conference. The meeting was billed as a summit. However, no Western leaders showed up. Further, the majority of those presidents and prime ministers in attendance, amounting to less than a dozen, were from Latin America and the Caribbean. Other participants sent delegates of a lesser status. World Bank President Robert Zoellick and IMF Chief Dominique Stauss-Kahn did not attend the conference.
Miguel D’Escoto, president of the 192-nation U.N. General Assembly, called the “financial summit” to demand a reform of the global financial structure. He drafted a document that called for extensive changes to the existing system under the belief that the General Assembly should take the helm of the world economy from elite groups of rich countries. With the aim of “democratizing” global financial bodies, he demanded the abolishment of U.S. veto power at the IMF, where rich countries dominate the current voting system. Further, the conditions the IMF places on foreign-currency loans embitter some developing nations. The draft also demanded that the IMF unit of special drawing rights (SDRs), which is anchored in multiple currencies, replace the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency.
While the document received a positive response from many developing countries, its reception in Western capitals was less than warm, as officials feared that the non-legally binding document could send an unfavorable political message. The North-South negotiations, which delayed the meeting for three weeks, ultimately rendered the text a simple appeal for developing countries to have a greater voice in the IMF. This position has the support of the United States. The declaration also acknowledged the calls of many states for a more efficient system on the issue of currency reserves.
Even so, D’Escoto, declaring the meeting a success, stated that “the General Assembly…has now been established as the central forum for the discussion of the world financial and economic issues.” Other less optimistic advocates for the called-for changes considered the declaration deficient. Venezuela’s envoy, for instance, criticized the declaration’s failure to order a definite role for the United Nations to occupy in the world economy. Anti-poverty groups have also voiced disappointment in the declaration.
While the United States joined the consensus, it remains ambivalent about much of the document and is not prepared to give the U.N. a final voice in the global economy. The U.S. advanced its view on the floor that the U.N. lacked the authority to entangle itself in matters pertaining to the governance of the IMF and the World Bank. Further, even as the European Union held the meeting out as a break for developing nations, its delegates appeared more at home discussing development aid abroad than restructuring the IMF.
Discussion Questions:
1) Can the interests of rich and poor nations be reconciled? If the U.N. assumed a greater role in the global economy, what new problems might arise in relation to these competing interests?
2) How would the U.S. economy be affected if SDRs replaced the U.S. dollar as the currency reserve?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Russia Faces Mixed Economic Signals
Sources: Reuters, Russia Sees Some Economic Rebound, More Rate Cuts; AP, Russia's Fiscal Hawk Reins in Currency Ambitions; Reuters, Russian Officials Send Mixed Signals on Stress Test; New York Times, Oil's Price Rise Eases Push for Reform in Russia; The Economist, BRICs, Emerging Markets, and the World Economy: Not Just Straw Men; Bloomberg, Russian Stimulus 'Delay' Means GDP to Shrink 6.8%, OECD Says; Forbes, World Bank: Russian Economy to Shrink 7.9 pct
Growth forecasts for Russia started off positive early this month, but with each new figure released the outlook seems worse and worse. Numbers released by Russian officials early in the month predicted that the economy would contract slightly less than the 6.5% forecast by the IMF in 2009, albeit with performance varying greatly across sectors and among companies. The stock market also climbed 80% in the spring after devastating performance in late 2009, leading to hopes that Russia's fate might not be so dismal after all.
The expectation was that inflation would also fall this month and that the net outflow of capital could cease. Russia could then continue the strategy of cutting interest rates in order to encourage banks to loan and focus on economic recovery. Russia has also seen some relief due to recovering oil prices, though a New York Times article suggests that this may actually be a bad thing for Russia, since economic recovery tends to halt political reforms that might otherwise.
One part of Russia's recovery strategy involves close relationships with the other BRIC countries—Brazil, India, and China. At the first BRIC summit, held in Russia, all but India agreed to start switching currency reserves from dollars to IMF bonds, decreasing dependency on the dollar. Though Finance Minister Kudrin has stopped claiming that the ruble will be the new global reserve currency, Russia does continue to push for a move away from the dollar. Kudrin recently suggested that the yuan would be the quickest possible new reserve currency, though it would probably take about ten years for China to sufficiently liberalize and make the yuan convertible.
However, despite some positive signs and the possibility of productive cooperation with other emerging economies, there are also some signs of economic and financial weakness. For example, the state of Russian banks is uncertain, with government officials sending mixed messages on whether a general stress test of the banking system occurred, or whether only some banks have been tested. It is unlikely that capital injections will be used in the future, but as many as 20% of all loans may be non-performing by 2010 and bank lending is crucial to the recovery.
Growth forecasts released this week are also significantly less optimistic than the Russian numbers. The OECD predicts a 6.8% contraction for Russia in 2009, based on the Russian government's delay in enacting a stimulus package. It cautions that the government must quickly implement reforms and also inject capital into the banks to deal with delinquent corporate loans. The OECD does, however, recognize the importance of oil price recovery and a lessening of capital outflow pressures.
The World Bank's numbers are by far the worst, with a predicted 7.9% contraction for 2009 and unemployment rate of 13%. The World Bank expects that the downward pressure from the first half of the year will overpower any significant positive impact of oil price recovery, and that poverty will rise in Russia along with the need for social spending. The World Bank is cautious in terms of forecasting how long the recovery will take in Russia, and expects 2.5% growth in 2010 as opposed to the 3.7% predicted by the OECD.
Questions:
1) Do you think that the oil price recovery can save Russia, or at least minimize the impact of the crisis and make recovery happen sooner? Do you agree with the New York Times article that the political impact of oil price recovery is bad for the country, or do you think recovery is in Russia's interest?
2) Considering the possible motivations of the Russian government, the OECD, and the World Bank in developing predictions about the Russian economic outlook, do you trust a particular institution more than the others? Do you think that Western institutions may have a tendency to downplay Russian recovery for political reasons, or conversely do you think that the Russian government is trying to put a positive spin on what is essentially a sinking ship?
3) Do you think that the crisis will lead to more dependency on Russia's part on Europe or the United States, such as was the case in the 1990s, or do you expect that Russia will pull away from these countries due to the U.S. role in the crisis and rely more heavily on BRIC countries or others? What political consequences do you expect the economic relationship between Russia and China to bring about for Europe or the United States?
Growth forecasts for Russia started off positive early this month, but with each new figure released the outlook seems worse and worse. Numbers released by Russian officials early in the month predicted that the economy would contract slightly less than the 6.5% forecast by the IMF in 2009, albeit with performance varying greatly across sectors and among companies. The stock market also climbed 80% in the spring after devastating performance in late 2009, leading to hopes that Russia's fate might not be so dismal after all.
The expectation was that inflation would also fall this month and that the net outflow of capital could cease. Russia could then continue the strategy of cutting interest rates in order to encourage banks to loan and focus on economic recovery. Russia has also seen some relief due to recovering oil prices, though a New York Times article suggests that this may actually be a bad thing for Russia, since economic recovery tends to halt political reforms that might otherwise.
One part of Russia's recovery strategy involves close relationships with the other BRIC countries—Brazil, India, and China. At the first BRIC summit, held in Russia, all but India agreed to start switching currency reserves from dollars to IMF bonds, decreasing dependency on the dollar. Though Finance Minister Kudrin has stopped claiming that the ruble will be the new global reserve currency, Russia does continue to push for a move away from the dollar. Kudrin recently suggested that the yuan would be the quickest possible new reserve currency, though it would probably take about ten years for China to sufficiently liberalize and make the yuan convertible.
However, despite some positive signs and the possibility of productive cooperation with other emerging economies, there are also some signs of economic and financial weakness. For example, the state of Russian banks is uncertain, with government officials sending mixed messages on whether a general stress test of the banking system occurred, or whether only some banks have been tested. It is unlikely that capital injections will be used in the future, but as many as 20% of all loans may be non-performing by 2010 and bank lending is crucial to the recovery.
Growth forecasts released this week are also significantly less optimistic than the Russian numbers. The OECD predicts a 6.8% contraction for Russia in 2009, based on the Russian government's delay in enacting a stimulus package. It cautions that the government must quickly implement reforms and also inject capital into the banks to deal with delinquent corporate loans. The OECD does, however, recognize the importance of oil price recovery and a lessening of capital outflow pressures.
The World Bank's numbers are by far the worst, with a predicted 7.9% contraction for 2009 and unemployment rate of 13%. The World Bank expects that the downward pressure from the first half of the year will overpower any significant positive impact of oil price recovery, and that poverty will rise in Russia along with the need for social spending. The World Bank is cautious in terms of forecasting how long the recovery will take in Russia, and expects 2.5% growth in 2010 as opposed to the 3.7% predicted by the OECD.
Questions:
1) Do you think that the oil price recovery can save Russia, or at least minimize the impact of the crisis and make recovery happen sooner? Do you agree with the New York Times article that the political impact of oil price recovery is bad for the country, or do you think recovery is in Russia's interest?
2) Considering the possible motivations of the Russian government, the OECD, and the World Bank in developing predictions about the Russian economic outlook, do you trust a particular institution more than the others? Do you think that Western institutions may have a tendency to downplay Russian recovery for political reasons, or conversely do you think that the Russian government is trying to put a positive spin on what is essentially a sinking ship?
3) Do you think that the crisis will lead to more dependency on Russia's part on Europe or the United States, such as was the case in the 1990s, or do you expect that Russia will pull away from these countries due to the U.S. role in the crisis and rely more heavily on BRIC countries or others? What political consequences do you expect the economic relationship between Russia and China to bring about for Europe or the United States?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Brazil Implements Crisis-Management Strategies
Sources: The Wall Street Journal: Brazil Inflation Remains Tame, Opens Door for July Rate Cut; Chinaview.cn: Brazil Acts Swiftly Against Financial Crisis
Brazil now finds itself in a technical recession after experiencing two consecutive quarters of falling GDP. The country’s GDP contracted 0.8 percent in the first quarter from the fourth quarter, and 3.6 percent in the fourth quarter from the third quarter. In response to the global downturn, Latin America’s largest economy promptly adjusted its economic policies.
The basic annual interest rate (Selic) of Brazil’s Central Bank, which was 13.75 percent in January, stands at 9.25 percent—the lowest since its inception in 1999—after the bank recently slashed it by a full percentage point. Further, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva signed a law in January that established a 14.2 billion reais (6.4 billion dollars) sovereign wealth fund.
Banks, automakers, airlines, and construction firms have enjoyed tax breaks. A cut in the industrialized products tax triggered a recovery of production in Brazil’s auto industry during the first quarter of 2009. Thanks to the tax break, a record 271,494 new vehicles were sold in March, 17 percent higher than the same period last year. Car sales for the first quarter of 2009 also set record numbers at 668,314 registered sales.
Brazil has also encouraged banks to lend to the agricultural sector. Farmers and agricultural enterprises are projected to receive at least 15.8 billion reais (6.79 billion dollars) in loans this year.
When central bankers meet in July, the continued signs of quite growth in consumer prices thus far in June may usher in lesser reductions in interest rates. The country’s mid-month consumer price index, or ICPA-15, rose 0.38% through mid-June. Through mid-May, this figure climbed 0.59%. Moreover, through mid-June, the 12-month IPCA-15 figure fell to 4.89 percent, as compared to 5.44 percent through mid-May. The government’s target is 4.5 percent.
The meeting next month, on the other hand, may mark the floor of the low rates as central bankers look to the future, since the effects of these rates on domestics demand will not be fully realized until 2010.
Discussion Questions:
1) What measures might the Brazilian government enact to stimulate the economy as the central bank grows more conservative? How will inflation rates in 2010 affect the decision-making process?
2) How can Brazil work with other nations to pull from the global economic slump?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Ambitious plans and lapsed commitments: challenges for development funding in wake of financial crisis
Sources
Reuters: G8 should use any stimulus easing to help Africa
Financial Times: Kenya unveils record ‘stimulus’ budget
Italy and France draw fire over aid
African bank tries to triple capital base
This year marked the end of a five-year upward trend in Kenyan economic growth. A bitter combination of drought, inflation, post-election violence, and a deepening global financial crisis ground the nation’s once accelerating growth to a halt. In response, the government has unveiled an ambitious budget that includes more than $11 billion in fiscal stimulus spending. A sizeable portion of the budget is devoted to development spending (overall, an increase of 83 percent over last year’s development budget); aimed at road improvements, irrigation, water supply and energy programs. The plan will bring Kenya’s budget deficit up to 6.6 percent of gross domestic product in the fiscal year starting in July, with national debt rising to 44.5 percent of GDP. Government leaders plan to manage the budget without increasing taxes, hoping to meet targets by reducing wasteful, non-priority government spending.
While Kenya strives to fund its own development efforts in the face of global crisis, French and Italian leaders are receiving criticism for their failure to follow through on development aid commitments. By the end of 2009, the G7 countries as a whole will have delivered only half of their 2005-2010 promise, with Italy and France responsible for 80 percent of the shortfall. Reviews of Italy’s performance are especially critical, as it has delivered only an estimated 3 percent of the increase it promised in 2005. Italy acknowledged the figures but cited financial constraints as the cause of the failure, stating that it remained “fully committed to the objectives set at Gleneagles.” While other G7 countries are still fighting to keep pace with the 2010 goals, Italy is a striking example of the financial crisis’ harmful effects on development funding.
Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank (ADB), expects African economies to be affected more deeply and to recover more slowly than the rest of the world. In remarks timed to correspond with recent G8 meeting in Italy, he called for developed economies to devote “robust and greater attention” to the challenges facing low income countries as they plan their post-crisis exit strategies. In May of 2009, the ADB announced plans to triple its capital base in response to the financial crisis. An increase on that scale will require a large boost in funds from foreign donor shareholders. The foreign donors the ADB is counting on, like the French and Italian governments failing to meet their aid commitments, may struggle to prioritize development spending in today’s economic climate. Kenyan leaders hope they’re on the right track; welcoming aid and foreign investment, but working hard domestically to push their own economy back toward an upward trajectory.
Discussion
1. Is the Kenyan budget, with the significant increase in national debt that it entails, a prudent plan for the developing nation? How would a tax increase affect the feasibility and effectiveness of the budget?
2. Jamie Drummond, co-founder and executive director of One, an anti-poverty organization, says that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi “needs to be censured by his peers” for his country’s failure to meet African aid commitments. As developed countries plan for economic recovery, to what extent should their leaders be bound by aid commitments?
Reuters: G8 should use any stimulus easing to help Africa
Financial Times: Kenya unveils record ‘stimulus’ budget
Italy and France draw fire over aid
African bank tries to triple capital base
This year marked the end of a five-year upward trend in Kenyan economic growth. A bitter combination of drought, inflation, post-election violence, and a deepening global financial crisis ground the nation’s once accelerating growth to a halt. In response, the government has unveiled an ambitious budget that includes more than $11 billion in fiscal stimulus spending. A sizeable portion of the budget is devoted to development spending (overall, an increase of 83 percent over last year’s development budget); aimed at road improvements, irrigation, water supply and energy programs. The plan will bring Kenya’s budget deficit up to 6.6 percent of gross domestic product in the fiscal year starting in July, with national debt rising to 44.5 percent of GDP. Government leaders plan to manage the budget without increasing taxes, hoping to meet targets by reducing wasteful, non-priority government spending.
While Kenya strives to fund its own development efforts in the face of global crisis, French and Italian leaders are receiving criticism for their failure to follow through on development aid commitments. By the end of 2009, the G7 countries as a whole will have delivered only half of their 2005-2010 promise, with Italy and France responsible for 80 percent of the shortfall. Reviews of Italy’s performance are especially critical, as it has delivered only an estimated 3 percent of the increase it promised in 2005. Italy acknowledged the figures but cited financial constraints as the cause of the failure, stating that it remained “fully committed to the objectives set at Gleneagles.” While other G7 countries are still fighting to keep pace with the 2010 goals, Italy is a striking example of the financial crisis’ harmful effects on development funding.
Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank (ADB), expects African economies to be affected more deeply and to recover more slowly than the rest of the world. In remarks timed to correspond with recent G8 meeting in Italy, he called for developed economies to devote “robust and greater attention” to the challenges facing low income countries as they plan their post-crisis exit strategies. In May of 2009, the ADB announced plans to triple its capital base in response to the financial crisis. An increase on that scale will require a large boost in funds from foreign donor shareholders. The foreign donors the ADB is counting on, like the French and Italian governments failing to meet their aid commitments, may struggle to prioritize development spending in today’s economic climate. Kenyan leaders hope they’re on the right track; welcoming aid and foreign investment, but working hard domestically to push their own economy back toward an upward trajectory.
Discussion
1. Is the Kenyan budget, with the significant increase in national debt that it entails, a prudent plan for the developing nation? How would a tax increase affect the feasibility and effectiveness of the budget?
2. Jamie Drummond, co-founder and executive director of One, an anti-poverty organization, says that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi “needs to be censured by his peers” for his country’s failure to meet African aid commitments. As developed countries plan for economic recovery, to what extent should their leaders be bound by aid commitments?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The G8 is Unified on Fragile Recovery, Divided over Policy Details
Sources
Bloomberg: G8 plans to reverse stimulus as rebound signs grow
Reuters: G8 says economies stabilizing, recovery uncertain
Financial Times: Measures to tackle downturn cloud G8 meeting
The Group of Eight (G8), comprised of government leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, met in Lecce Italy last weekend to discuss the current economic outlook and monetary policy priorities. The G8 leaders took a united stance on the global economy’s tentative recovery, but remain divided on multiple important issues.
The leaders of G8 member countries disagreed on the timing of economic recovery strategies. U.S. and British leaders argued for a continued emphasis on combating the recession, saying that the recovery is still too fragile for the removal of strong federal support. Canada and Germany meanwhile, insisted that the time is right to begin scaling back mammoth government spending programs, in an effort to avoid inflationary problems. The French economic minister Christine Lagarde hesitated in the middle ground, saying that France should “anticipate” the planning of exit strategies, but that it was too soon to give up the stimulus measures.
G8 leaders also discussed the rift over European stress tests. U.S. and Canadian leaders pressed for increased transparency in European banks. They believe European countries should be doing more to test their banks, and that the results should be made public. European leaders like Germany’s Peer Steinbrück, resist disclosure, citing concern for investor confidence. The vulnerability of the Euro zone’s recovery was highlighted by the release of April’s industrial production numbers. Official figures confirm a staggering 21.6 percent drop from the previous year, the steepest year-on-year decline since Euro zone records began in 1991.
IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn didn’t sugarcoat his global recovery outlook, calling the current recovery “weak” and insisting that the social effects of the crisis aren’t going to diminish anytime soon. He predicted a recovery in average growth in the beginning of 2010 and estimated the peak in unemployment for more than one year from now, in early 2011. One thing is clear after the international debate of the Italy summit: there is not a lone, correct path out of the mire. Each country will emerge from the crisis in different shape, and at a different pace. The timing and content of recovery plans will vary as widely as the economic landscapes upon which they are based.
Discussion
1. Global financial markets are interconnected. As individual nations attempt to combat the effects of recession at home, does it make sense for leaders to strategize together? What are the benefits and the shortcomings of a global approach to recovery?
2. Who is right in the European stress test debate? Are the European leaders justified in resisting disclosure? What are the potential benefits of the increased transparency?
Bloomberg: G8 plans to reverse stimulus as rebound signs grow
Reuters: G8 says economies stabilizing, recovery uncertain
Financial Times: Measures to tackle downturn cloud G8 meeting
The Group of Eight (G8), comprised of government leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, met in Lecce Italy last weekend to discuss the current economic outlook and monetary policy priorities. The G8 leaders took a united stance on the global economy’s tentative recovery, but remain divided on multiple important issues.
The leaders of G8 member countries disagreed on the timing of economic recovery strategies. U.S. and British leaders argued for a continued emphasis on combating the recession, saying that the recovery is still too fragile for the removal of strong federal support. Canada and Germany meanwhile, insisted that the time is right to begin scaling back mammoth government spending programs, in an effort to avoid inflationary problems. The French economic minister Christine Lagarde hesitated in the middle ground, saying that France should “anticipate” the planning of exit strategies, but that it was too soon to give up the stimulus measures.
G8 leaders also discussed the rift over European stress tests. U.S. and Canadian leaders pressed for increased transparency in European banks. They believe European countries should be doing more to test their banks, and that the results should be made public. European leaders like Germany’s Peer Steinbrück, resist disclosure, citing concern for investor confidence. The vulnerability of the Euro zone’s recovery was highlighted by the release of April’s industrial production numbers. Official figures confirm a staggering 21.6 percent drop from the previous year, the steepest year-on-year decline since Euro zone records began in 1991.
IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn didn’t sugarcoat his global recovery outlook, calling the current recovery “weak” and insisting that the social effects of the crisis aren’t going to diminish anytime soon. He predicted a recovery in average growth in the beginning of 2010 and estimated the peak in unemployment for more than one year from now, in early 2011. One thing is clear after the international debate of the Italy summit: there is not a lone, correct path out of the mire. Each country will emerge from the crisis in different shape, and at a different pace. The timing and content of recovery plans will vary as widely as the economic landscapes upon which they are based.
Discussion
1. Global financial markets are interconnected. As individual nations attempt to combat the effects of recession at home, does it make sense for leaders to strategize together? What are the benefits and the shortcomings of a global approach to recovery?
2. Who is right in the European stress test debate? Are the European leaders justified in resisting disclosure? What are the potential benefits of the increased transparency?
Monday, June 15, 2009
German Economy Still Contracting But With Some Signs of Recovery
Sources: BusinessWeek, German Economy to Shrink 6.2% in 2009; Bloomberg, German April Industrial Output Unexpectedly Declines
Following a poor showing for the first quarter of the 2009, the German economy continues to contract, though the contraction is expected to ease this year. Recovery in Germany is not expected to start until 2010, when the downward trend of growth should begin to reverse. The economy is expected to contract 6.2% in 2009, the most since World War II, which is a slightly higher rate than earlier expected. Though the trend should turn next year, there is still no positive growth in 2010, and it is not until 2013 that the 2008 growth level—a modest 1.3%—is expected to return.
The low point of growth for Germany should occur this summer, though unemployment should continue to rise, lagging behind other indicators. Unemployment is expected to peak in mid-2010 at 10.5%. Though one bank leader suggested that Germany is a better position to withstand the crisis and recover quickly than other countries due to its high savings rate and the lack of a real estate bubble, there are also some problems that will hamper recovery.
Exports, for example, may not be as great as they were before the crisis, which means that the German government will not be able to afford the kind of social security that its citizens are used to. Exports fell at a greater rate than expected in April, as did production, falling 1.9% in April contrary to the expectation of another 0.3% increase as occurred in March. Exports and investment drove the contraction in the first quarter, and the output in investment goods again declined the most in April. Production of consumer goods and energy, on the other hand, rose in April. In May, the contraction of manufacturing eased and business confidence increased in Germany, and there are indications that industrial output may soon bottom out.
Questions:
1) Do you expect that Germany's bad fortune will lead to the rise of another European economic power post-crisis, or do you think that the EU's economic power will fall as a result?
2) Do you think that some of the more positive indications mean that recovery may come quicker than expected, or do you expect that these are aberrations?
Following a poor showing for the first quarter of the 2009, the German economy continues to contract, though the contraction is expected to ease this year. Recovery in Germany is not expected to start until 2010, when the downward trend of growth should begin to reverse. The economy is expected to contract 6.2% in 2009, the most since World War II, which is a slightly higher rate than earlier expected. Though the trend should turn next year, there is still no positive growth in 2010, and it is not until 2013 that the 2008 growth level—a modest 1.3%—is expected to return.
The low point of growth for Germany should occur this summer, though unemployment should continue to rise, lagging behind other indicators. Unemployment is expected to peak in mid-2010 at 10.5%. Though one bank leader suggested that Germany is a better position to withstand the crisis and recover quickly than other countries due to its high savings rate and the lack of a real estate bubble, there are also some problems that will hamper recovery.
Exports, for example, may not be as great as they were before the crisis, which means that the German government will not be able to afford the kind of social security that its citizens are used to. Exports fell at a greater rate than expected in April, as did production, falling 1.9% in April contrary to the expectation of another 0.3% increase as occurred in March. Exports and investment drove the contraction in the first quarter, and the output in investment goods again declined the most in April. Production of consumer goods and energy, on the other hand, rose in April. In May, the contraction of manufacturing eased and business confidence increased in Germany, and there are indications that industrial output may soon bottom out.
Questions:
1) Do you expect that Germany's bad fortune will lead to the rise of another European economic power post-crisis, or do you think that the EU's economic power will fall as a result?
2) Do you think that some of the more positive indications mean that recovery may come quicker than expected, or do you expect that these are aberrations?
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Singapore Mitigating Effects of Global Crisis
Sources: Forbes.com: Singapore struggles, waiting for West to rebound; worldtrademag.com: Using the Financial Storm to Prosper
Singapore has fallen into the deepest recession it has seen since 1965 when it split from a brief federation with Malaysia. The island is home to 4.8 million people on 683 kilometers of land. The density of the population, as well as the lack of resources, has left it vulnerable to the changing tides of the global market.
With 185 percent of its gross domestic product in exports, the Southeast Asian city-state is more dependent on trade than any other Asian economy. Now that its leading customers—the U.S., Europe, and Japan—are bogged down in the global crisis, Singapore is feeling the effects of the financial shockwave. The IMF has forecasted that the GDP will contract more than any other Asian economy at 10 percent in 2009.
To weather the crisis, the government is working diligently to limit its impact. In an effort to retain container traffic in the port, Singapore is cutting port dues for smaller harbor vessels by 20 percent, and 10 percent for bigger, seafaring ships docking for less than 10 days in the port. These rate reductions will last for one year. To facilitate new business development in spite of the downturn, the government will also provide a 40 percent tax rebate in 2009 for industrial and commercial properties. Furthermore, Singapore has stricken goods and services taxes for certain shippers constructing new facilities for container cargo.
Boasting over $170 billion in foreign exchange reserves, the government is using the economic slump to make fresh investments. It also created the largest economic stimulus package of any Southeast Asian nation at $14 billion.
Despite the economic downturn, Singapore achieved record tonnage in 2008, having shipped some 1.6 billion gross tons. Moreover, 2008 saw a growth in retainer traffic in the port. Still, the large developed economies must pull from the current crisis for Singapore to realize a return of the booming growth it previously enjoyed. While 2009 will be difficult, the Southeast Asian city-state will most probably see traffic recover significantly in 2010.
Discussion Questions:
1) Does Singapore's heavy reliance on trade leave it entirely subject to the caprices of demand in global markets?
2) If the financial crisis is slow to pass, what additional measures might the Singapore government take to encourage investment and maintain traffic?
Singapore has fallen into the deepest recession it has seen since 1965 when it split from a brief federation with Malaysia. The island is home to 4.8 million people on 683 kilometers of land. The density of the population, as well as the lack of resources, has left it vulnerable to the changing tides of the global market.
With 185 percent of its gross domestic product in exports, the Southeast Asian city-state is more dependent on trade than any other Asian economy. Now that its leading customers—the U.S., Europe, and Japan—are bogged down in the global crisis, Singapore is feeling the effects of the financial shockwave. The IMF has forecasted that the GDP will contract more than any other Asian economy at 10 percent in 2009.
To weather the crisis, the government is working diligently to limit its impact. In an effort to retain container traffic in the port, Singapore is cutting port dues for smaller harbor vessels by 20 percent, and 10 percent for bigger, seafaring ships docking for less than 10 days in the port. These rate reductions will last for one year. To facilitate new business development in spite of the downturn, the government will also provide a 40 percent tax rebate in 2009 for industrial and commercial properties. Furthermore, Singapore has stricken goods and services taxes for certain shippers constructing new facilities for container cargo.
Boasting over $170 billion in foreign exchange reserves, the government is using the economic slump to make fresh investments. It also created the largest economic stimulus package of any Southeast Asian nation at $14 billion.
Despite the economic downturn, Singapore achieved record tonnage in 2008, having shipped some 1.6 billion gross tons. Moreover, 2008 saw a growth in retainer traffic in the port. Still, the large developed economies must pull from the current crisis for Singapore to realize a return of the booming growth it previously enjoyed. While 2009 will be difficult, the Southeast Asian city-state will most probably see traffic recover significantly in 2010.
Discussion Questions:
1) Does Singapore's heavy reliance on trade leave it entirely subject to the caprices of demand in global markets?
2) If the financial crisis is slow to pass, what additional measures might the Singapore government take to encourage investment and maintain traffic?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Economic Issues Are the Top Concern in the Iranian Election
Sources: New York Times, Candidates in Iran Split on Direction of Economy; IslamOnline, Iran: Election and Economy
As the stage is set for Iran's presidential election on Friday, Iranian voters' biggest concern is the economy. President Ahmadinejad, running for re-election, hopes to convince voters that Iran is in good shape compared with the rest of the world, and that he has done enough to improve the lot of the average Iranian. On the other hand, unemployment and inflation are rising, and according to the IMF, Iran's growth is slowing.
Much of the debate is over numbers—how to report inflation, for example. Ahmadinejad uses the year-on-year change in prices to show lower inflation than his opponents, who use the more common annualized average or projected annual rate. Opponents also are trying to focus on mismanagement of oil wealth in the years preceding the crisis, on unemployment, and on slowing overall growth. They criticize Ahmadinejad for focusing only on populist goals, rather than the need to create jobs and develop infrastructure. On the other hand, populist programs have endeared some voters to Mr. Ahmadinejad, and the numbers battle can be confusing for the average voter, with whom measures to reduce poverty and increase benefits resonate strongly.
Two of the challengers have some experience in economics, and all three have a particular focus to their economic plan. Leading challenger Mirhossein Mousavi is a former Prime Minister who brings experience to the table from his handling of the economy during the Iran-Iraq war. He is supported by those economists opposed to Ahmadinejad's policies, and he is particularly focused on unemployed youth. Mohsen Rezaei is an economist by profession who wants to bring rational economic policies to the office. Mehdi Karoubi, the second-place finisher in 2005's election, is focused on welfare and a more humane approach, including support for women who work from home. To counter these candidates' proposals, Ahmadinead's focus is on an Islamic concept of economics tied up in social justice, which served him well in the 2005 race.
Questions:
1) How important do you think social justice and programs for the poor are for a developing country in this crisis?
2) Do you think that Ahmadinejad's attempts to present the numbers in a favorable light and continue defending his economic policies is politically wise, or would it make more sense to focus on the realities of the crisis and getting through it?
As the stage is set for Iran's presidential election on Friday, Iranian voters' biggest concern is the economy. President Ahmadinejad, running for re-election, hopes to convince voters that Iran is in good shape compared with the rest of the world, and that he has done enough to improve the lot of the average Iranian. On the other hand, unemployment and inflation are rising, and according to the IMF, Iran's growth is slowing.
Much of the debate is over numbers—how to report inflation, for example. Ahmadinejad uses the year-on-year change in prices to show lower inflation than his opponents, who use the more common annualized average or projected annual rate. Opponents also are trying to focus on mismanagement of oil wealth in the years preceding the crisis, on unemployment, and on slowing overall growth. They criticize Ahmadinejad for focusing only on populist goals, rather than the need to create jobs and develop infrastructure. On the other hand, populist programs have endeared some voters to Mr. Ahmadinejad, and the numbers battle can be confusing for the average voter, with whom measures to reduce poverty and increase benefits resonate strongly.
Two of the challengers have some experience in economics, and all three have a particular focus to their economic plan. Leading challenger Mirhossein Mousavi is a former Prime Minister who brings experience to the table from his handling of the economy during the Iran-Iraq war. He is supported by those economists opposed to Ahmadinejad's policies, and he is particularly focused on unemployed youth. Mohsen Rezaei is an economist by profession who wants to bring rational economic policies to the office. Mehdi Karoubi, the second-place finisher in 2005's election, is focused on welfare and a more humane approach, including support for women who work from home. To counter these candidates' proposals, Ahmadinead's focus is on an Islamic concept of economics tied up in social justice, which served him well in the 2005 race.
Questions:
1) How important do you think social justice and programs for the poor are for a developing country in this crisis?
2) Do you think that Ahmadinejad's attempts to present the numbers in a favorable light and continue defending his economic policies is politically wise, or would it make more sense to focus on the realities of the crisis and getting through it?
Saturday, June 06, 2009
U.S. Employment Data Offers Hope amid Crisis
Sources: BusinessWeek.com: Jobs Report Is an Upside Surprise; Rueters.com: Unemployment Hits Record but Job Losses Slow; Rueters.com: Take-A-Look: World Stocks, Oil Surge After US Jobs Data
While analysts had forecasted that 550,000 jobs would be lost in May, this figure topped out at 345,000. However, the unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent, the highest since July 1983, up from 8.9 percent in April. Analysts had expected it to peak at 9.2 percent. Still, this rise was due to an increase in new entrants to the labor force, and a drop in employment rates. Last month saw an increase to the labor force of 350,000. The increase in April was only 120,000.
82,000 fewer positions were also shed during April and March than previously reported. Jobs losses in April were revised from 539,000 to 504,000, and in March from 699,000 to 652,000.
The government’s $787 billion stimulus package likely saw the dip in payrolls in construction industries up from 108,000 in April to 59,000 in May. Further, the service-providing industry, which shed 230,000 jobs in April, lost 120,000 positions last month. Health care also posted gains while government employment generally remained consistent. The rise in job losses in the manufacturing sector from 154,000 in April to 156,000 in May likely followed Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing which resulted in a string of auto plant shutdowns.
Long-term unemployment has continued to grow. 3.95 million Americans have now been unemployed for at least six months. In April, this figure was only 268,000. While jobs continue to be lost in large numbers, output may increase in the second half of the year so long as the improvement rate persists.
The better-than-expected jobs report has buttressed hopes that the worst is behind the U.S. economy. World stocks saw an increase on Friday. Bond yields also increased. Further, resource and commodity prices have escalated and the jobs data has seen oil prices reach seven-month highs.
Discussion Question:
1) How might the U.S. jobs report generate optimism about other economies?
2) In what ways will the financial crisis permanently alter the landscape of the job market in America?
While analysts had forecasted that 550,000 jobs would be lost in May, this figure topped out at 345,000. However, the unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent, the highest since July 1983, up from 8.9 percent in April. Analysts had expected it to peak at 9.2 percent. Still, this rise was due to an increase in new entrants to the labor force, and a drop in employment rates. Last month saw an increase to the labor force of 350,000. The increase in April was only 120,000.
82,000 fewer positions were also shed during April and March than previously reported. Jobs losses in April were revised from 539,000 to 504,000, and in March from 699,000 to 652,000.
The government’s $787 billion stimulus package likely saw the dip in payrolls in construction industries up from 108,000 in April to 59,000 in May. Further, the service-providing industry, which shed 230,000 jobs in April, lost 120,000 positions last month. Health care also posted gains while government employment generally remained consistent. The rise in job losses in the manufacturing sector from 154,000 in April to 156,000 in May likely followed Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing which resulted in a string of auto plant shutdowns.
Long-term unemployment has continued to grow. 3.95 million Americans have now been unemployed for at least six months. In April, this figure was only 268,000. While jobs continue to be lost in large numbers, output may increase in the second half of the year so long as the improvement rate persists.
The better-than-expected jobs report has buttressed hopes that the worst is behind the U.S. economy. World stocks saw an increase on Friday. Bond yields also increased. Further, resource and commodity prices have escalated and the jobs data has seen oil prices reach seven-month highs.
Discussion Question:
1) How might the U.S. jobs report generate optimism about other economies?
2) In what ways will the financial crisis permanently alter the landscape of the job market in America?
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Russian Forecasts Worsen; Medvedev Criticizes Finance Minister
Sources: Reuters, Russia Reserve Fund Falls as Budget Deficit Funded; The Guardian, Russian Economy to Stagnate in 2010; LA Times, President Medvedev Takes Apparent Jab at Russia's Finance Minister over Crisis Talk; AFP, Medvedev Scolds Officials for Gloomy Forecasts
Recent IMF forecasts for Russia show worsened conditions, with the GDP contracting by 6.5% in 2009, rather than 6% as predicted earlier, and zero growth expected for 2010, where the earlier forecast had predicted a modest 0.5%. The reason for the adjustment is the lack of any indication that there will be a sustained recovery soon in oil prices, paired with the fact that it is unlikely that Russia will see the same levels of foreign capital flowing into the country as before the crisis.
Russia has been dependent on its two sovereign wealth funds, bloated with money from tax on oil revenues in the months immediately preceding the crisis, and the Reserve Fund—the one of the two that allows for shorter-term investments—shrank 12% in May alone. The government was trying to cover a deficit that was originally estimated at 7.4% GDP, but which a Russian official now admits is closer to 9%. The Fund has not shrank by quite so much in dollar terms, due to the decreasing value of the dollar, but if Russia continues to draw from it there could be cause for concern.
Both the IMF and the Bank of Russia want the ruble to eventually float freely, possibly as soon as 2010, rather than in a controlled band. President Medvedev has indicated his approval for this goal by re-appointing the Bank's chairman for a third one-year term. The IMF would also like to see a gradual relaxation of monetary policy in the coming months, and a strong response to inflation.
Meanwhile, though Medvedev acknowledges that the situation in his country is "moderately negative," he notes that Russia is not the worst-off country in this crisis, and retains some optimism. He sharply criticized his Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, albeit without naming his name, for a prediction last month that recovery would be unlikely for Russia within the next ten, twenty, or even fifty years. Medvedev indicated that such a statement was only proof of poor performance on the part of the one saying it, and is insistent in focusing on what can be done rather than the bleak forecasts. GDP decline, for example, did slow on a monthly basis in April. Political instability, however, could result from high unemployment in Russia combined with its overall economic problems, and Medvedev is no doubt concerned about this possibility.
Questions:
1) Do you think that Medvedev's cautious optimism through this crisis has been misplaced? Is Kudrin going too far, or just being realistic?
2) Do you expect that this crisis will result in an electoral shake-up in Russia?
3) Do you think that it is a good idea to allow the ruble to float freely, or better for the central bank to maintain some control in the form of the band?
Recent IMF forecasts for Russia show worsened conditions, with the GDP contracting by 6.5% in 2009, rather than 6% as predicted earlier, and zero growth expected for 2010, where the earlier forecast had predicted a modest 0.5%. The reason for the adjustment is the lack of any indication that there will be a sustained recovery soon in oil prices, paired with the fact that it is unlikely that Russia will see the same levels of foreign capital flowing into the country as before the crisis.
Russia has been dependent on its two sovereign wealth funds, bloated with money from tax on oil revenues in the months immediately preceding the crisis, and the Reserve Fund—the one of the two that allows for shorter-term investments—shrank 12% in May alone. The government was trying to cover a deficit that was originally estimated at 7.4% GDP, but which a Russian official now admits is closer to 9%. The Fund has not shrank by quite so much in dollar terms, due to the decreasing value of the dollar, but if Russia continues to draw from it there could be cause for concern.
Both the IMF and the Bank of Russia want the ruble to eventually float freely, possibly as soon as 2010, rather than in a controlled band. President Medvedev has indicated his approval for this goal by re-appointing the Bank's chairman for a third one-year term. The IMF would also like to see a gradual relaxation of monetary policy in the coming months, and a strong response to inflation.
Meanwhile, though Medvedev acknowledges that the situation in his country is "moderately negative," he notes that Russia is not the worst-off country in this crisis, and retains some optimism. He sharply criticized his Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, albeit without naming his name, for a prediction last month that recovery would be unlikely for Russia within the next ten, twenty, or even fifty years. Medvedev indicated that such a statement was only proof of poor performance on the part of the one saying it, and is insistent in focusing on what can be done rather than the bleak forecasts. GDP decline, for example, did slow on a monthly basis in April. Political instability, however, could result from high unemployment in Russia combined with its overall economic problems, and Medvedev is no doubt concerned about this possibility.
Questions:
1) Do you think that Medvedev's cautious optimism through this crisis has been misplaced? Is Kudrin going too far, or just being realistic?
2) Do you expect that this crisis will result in an electoral shake-up in Russia?
3) Do you think that it is a good idea to allow the ruble to float freely, or better for the central bank to maintain some control in the form of the band?
Monday, June 01, 2009
Foreign Purchase of African Agricultural Lands: Neo-colonialism or Development Aid?
Sources
Financial Times: Tokyo Aims to Halt ‘Farmland Grabbing’, Africa Almost Giving Land Away, Says UN
FAO (UN): Land Grab or Development Opportunity (Full Report)
Wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia, China and South Korea are turning to Africa to boost their food security. Not self-sufficient in food production, these countries have acquired large tracts of farmland in African nations at extremely low prices, while making indefinite promises of local jobs and infrastructure. They intend to export virtually all of the crops grown on African soil back to their home countries, for use as either food or biofuel.
A recent report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, in conjunction with the International Institute for Environment and Development, highlights the rudimentary nature of these land agreements. The farmland contracts are conspicuously short and simple, and make little mention of host country priorities like the improvement of local infrastructure, local food security and the utilization of a local labor supply.
Many are troubled by these purchases, calling them neo-colonial land grabs. Japanese leaders in particular have stepped out in opposition to inequitable land dealings in Africa. The Japanese have articulated a commitment to responsible investing and will present an initiative at the Group of Eight Summit in July. The UN, World Bank and African Union are also addressing the problem, but officials agree that a G8-backed plan would be more powerful. The Japanese plan seeks to harmonize and promote the interests of investors and host countries while promoting greater investment in agriculture overall.
Foreign involvement in agriculture undoubtedly has the potential to benefit African nations. To do so, it must be done equitably, with terms of trade favorable to the host country. Infrastructure and technological research must be grounded in the host country for foreign agribusiness to boost local productivity.
Discussion:
1. Geopolitically, is food the new oil? Are the historical lessons of natural resource exploitation in other fields relevant to the purchase of farmland in Africa today?
2. Public outcry at foreign acquisition of local lands was one of the triggering factors in Madagascar’s recent coup d’état. What are the long-term political implications, for other nations, of such large agricultural leases?
Financial Times: Tokyo Aims to Halt ‘Farmland Grabbing’, Africa Almost Giving Land Away, Says UN
FAO (UN): Land Grab or Development Opportunity (Full Report)
Wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia, China and South Korea are turning to Africa to boost their food security. Not self-sufficient in food production, these countries have acquired large tracts of farmland in African nations at extremely low prices, while making indefinite promises of local jobs and infrastructure. They intend to export virtually all of the crops grown on African soil back to their home countries, for use as either food or biofuel.
A recent report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, in conjunction with the International Institute for Environment and Development, highlights the rudimentary nature of these land agreements. The farmland contracts are conspicuously short and simple, and make little mention of host country priorities like the improvement of local infrastructure, local food security and the utilization of a local labor supply.
Many are troubled by these purchases, calling them neo-colonial land grabs. Japanese leaders in particular have stepped out in opposition to inequitable land dealings in Africa. The Japanese have articulated a commitment to responsible investing and will present an initiative at the Group of Eight Summit in July. The UN, World Bank and African Union are also addressing the problem, but officials agree that a G8-backed plan would be more powerful. The Japanese plan seeks to harmonize and promote the interests of investors and host countries while promoting greater investment in agriculture overall.
Foreign involvement in agriculture undoubtedly has the potential to benefit African nations. To do so, it must be done equitably, with terms of trade favorable to the host country. Infrastructure and technological research must be grounded in the host country for foreign agribusiness to boost local productivity.
Discussion:
1. Geopolitically, is food the new oil? Are the historical lessons of natural resource exploitation in other fields relevant to the purchase of farmland in Africa today?
2. Public outcry at foreign acquisition of local lands was one of the triggering factors in Madagascar’s recent coup d’état. What are the long-term political implications, for other nations, of such large agricultural leases?
OPEC Countries Optimistic After Meeting
Sources: Bloomberg, OPEC Holds Production Quotas Steady, Predicting Demand Recovery; Bloomberg, Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Naimi Says Oil to Reach $75 a Barrel; Forbes, OPEC Gets Overexcited; Boston Globe, OPEC News Sends Oil to Six-Month High; Financial Times, Oil-Rich Region Faces Gas Shortfall; Financial Times, Opinion: Spending Sees Gulf Through Crisis
At a meeting in Vienna on Thursday, OPEC countries decided to maintain their oil production quota at 24.845 million barrels a day, hoping for a recovery in global demand late in the year. Despite a current oversupply in oil, representatives were concerned that reducing output would disrupt the current global recovery. Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi noted before the meeting that his goal is to keep the price of oil between $75 and $80 a barrel, and that he expects the price to rise to $75 based on rising global demand, which is in his opinion ideal for the world economy. For this reason, he recommended maintaining the output quota.
However, despite these predictions and assurances, the production quotas appear to have limited meaning when OPEC countries are regularly exceeding them. In April, despite an earlier pledge to cut production, OPEC countries actually increased their production, moving away from their targets as global prices recovered. Saudi Arabia is the only country that complied fully with the quota. Furthermore, despite demand recovery, al-Naimi noted that at present the only significant demand is coming from Asia. Low U.S. demand means oversupply—oil being produced but not exported.
After the OPEC meeting, the price rose to a six-month high, at a little over $65 over a barrel for July delivery. OPEC is hoping for the price to maintain at $60 to $70 through the end of the year. Despite al-Naimi's hopes, analysts warn that price improvement happening too quickly could jeopardize the global recovery, and that $70 to $80 oil would particularly harm the recovery of developed economies.
The problem is that recovery leads to higher demand for oil, which then quickly leads to higher prices since supplies of oil are fixed in the short-term. However, right now there is an oversupply of oil already, and if prices pass $80 analysts expect that OPEC will increase its production quota, hoping to cash in.
Despite the plummet in oil prices during the global crisis, the Middle East is a region well-placed to withstand it. It has experienced higher growth during the crisis than other oil-exporting regions, including Latin America and Eastern Europe. Though real GDP has expanded less during the crisis than in recent years, it is still expanding, and the Middle East and North Africa have been the most productive regions in the world during the global crisis.
Reasons for their ability to weather the crisis include limited exposure to toxic assets in the banking sector, limited exposure to declining exports and withdrawal of capital, timely monetary easing, the timely provision of liquidity and capital by national governments, and a high level of government spending from the reserves built up in the years of astronomical oil prices. Spending is especially crucial to the global economy, because it helps to sustain global demand and also helps poorer neighboring countries that do not export oil, because their nationals work in the exporting countries and send home remittances. Though this level of spending will create a deficit in countries that use it to escape the crisis, the size of the deficit varies.
One of the stranger problems emerging in the region is an expected future gas shortage, caused by excessive focus on oil production without attention to the need for natural gas. Quickly growing economies need gas to run, and the Arab Gulf states will be in trouble without it. Though both Qatar and Iran have their own gas supplies, there is no guarantee that they will provide gas to their neighbors, so this will be a problem to keep an eye on as recovery occurs.
Questions:
1) Do you think that the strategy of maintaining production quotas in expectation of rising demand is wise, or should OPEC countries cut production in order to address the current supply glut?
2) Do you think that these OPEC targets have any real meaning, considering individual countries' tendency to fall short, or is significant (but not total) compliance enough?
3) What do you think the global economy will look like post-recovery? Do you expect the Middle East to take a different economic role? A different political role? A different relationship with the United States?
At a meeting in Vienna on Thursday, OPEC countries decided to maintain their oil production quota at 24.845 million barrels a day, hoping for a recovery in global demand late in the year. Despite a current oversupply in oil, representatives were concerned that reducing output would disrupt the current global recovery. Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi noted before the meeting that his goal is to keep the price of oil between $75 and $80 a barrel, and that he expects the price to rise to $75 based on rising global demand, which is in his opinion ideal for the world economy. For this reason, he recommended maintaining the output quota.
However, despite these predictions and assurances, the production quotas appear to have limited meaning when OPEC countries are regularly exceeding them. In April, despite an earlier pledge to cut production, OPEC countries actually increased their production, moving away from their targets as global prices recovered. Saudi Arabia is the only country that complied fully with the quota. Furthermore, despite demand recovery, al-Naimi noted that at present the only significant demand is coming from Asia. Low U.S. demand means oversupply—oil being produced but not exported.
After the OPEC meeting, the price rose to a six-month high, at a little over $65 over a barrel for July delivery. OPEC is hoping for the price to maintain at $60 to $70 through the end of the year. Despite al-Naimi's hopes, analysts warn that price improvement happening too quickly could jeopardize the global recovery, and that $70 to $80 oil would particularly harm the recovery of developed economies.
The problem is that recovery leads to higher demand for oil, which then quickly leads to higher prices since supplies of oil are fixed in the short-term. However, right now there is an oversupply of oil already, and if prices pass $80 analysts expect that OPEC will increase its production quota, hoping to cash in.
Despite the plummet in oil prices during the global crisis, the Middle East is a region well-placed to withstand it. It has experienced higher growth during the crisis than other oil-exporting regions, including Latin America and Eastern Europe. Though real GDP has expanded less during the crisis than in recent years, it is still expanding, and the Middle East and North Africa have been the most productive regions in the world during the global crisis.
Reasons for their ability to weather the crisis include limited exposure to toxic assets in the banking sector, limited exposure to declining exports and withdrawal of capital, timely monetary easing, the timely provision of liquidity and capital by national governments, and a high level of government spending from the reserves built up in the years of astronomical oil prices. Spending is especially crucial to the global economy, because it helps to sustain global demand and also helps poorer neighboring countries that do not export oil, because their nationals work in the exporting countries and send home remittances. Though this level of spending will create a deficit in countries that use it to escape the crisis, the size of the deficit varies.
One of the stranger problems emerging in the region is an expected future gas shortage, caused by excessive focus on oil production without attention to the need for natural gas. Quickly growing economies need gas to run, and the Arab Gulf states will be in trouble without it. Though both Qatar and Iran have their own gas supplies, there is no guarantee that they will provide gas to their neighbors, so this will be a problem to keep an eye on as recovery occurs.
Questions:
1) Do you think that the strategy of maintaining production quotas in expectation of rising demand is wise, or should OPEC countries cut production in order to address the current supply glut?
2) Do you think that these OPEC targets have any real meaning, considering individual countries' tendency to fall short, or is significant (but not total) compliance enough?
3) What do you think the global economy will look like post-recovery? Do you expect the Middle East to take a different economic role? A different political role? A different relationship with the United States?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Latin American Economy on Road to Speedy Recovery
Sources: eGovmonitor.com; Fast-track Recovery from Crisis Likely for Latin America; China View; IMF: Latin America to Recover from Crisis Ahead of Rich Countries
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) stated on Wednesday that Latin America will recover more rapidly than the rich countries even though the region has not escaped the current global financial crisis unscathed. Certain economic policies Latin American countries had previously adopted better equipped them to deal with the crisis. These countries strengthened their fiscal circumstances and solidified their economic systems. In turn, the measures improved the integrity of the political base and resulted in a reduction of projected inflation rates.
As compared to prior financial crises, and other emerging economic regions, Latin America has shown itself less vulnerable to the negative consequences of the current global crisis. While the region has prevented a systemic meltdown, it cannot prevent economic deceleration.
Stimulus packages in Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Chile, as well as other countries in the region, will lessen the harmful social and economic effects of the economic decline. Countries without the ability to put incentive plans into practice will receive significant economic support from multilateral organizations. National assets should also attract foreign investors as exchange rate flexibility facilitates dynamic domestic economies.
The IMF projected contraction rate of 3.8 percent for 2009 in developed countries is worse than the 1.5 percent for Latin America. Further, in 2010, the IMF has projected a 1.5 percent growth rate for the Latin American economy.
Discussion Questions:
1) How and to what extent will the recovery of the Latin American economy affect other less resilient emerging economies?
2) As the economic development of Latin America renews, how might the region change its current economic policies?
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) stated on Wednesday that Latin America will recover more rapidly than the rich countries even though the region has not escaped the current global financial crisis unscathed. Certain economic policies Latin American countries had previously adopted better equipped them to deal with the crisis. These countries strengthened their fiscal circumstances and solidified their economic systems. In turn, the measures improved the integrity of the political base and resulted in a reduction of projected inflation rates.
As compared to prior financial crises, and other emerging economic regions, Latin America has shown itself less vulnerable to the negative consequences of the current global crisis. While the region has prevented a systemic meltdown, it cannot prevent economic deceleration.
Stimulus packages in Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Chile, as well as other countries in the region, will lessen the harmful social and economic effects of the economic decline. Countries without the ability to put incentive plans into practice will receive significant economic support from multilateral organizations. National assets should also attract foreign investors as exchange rate flexibility facilitates dynamic domestic economies.
The IMF projected contraction rate of 3.8 percent for 2009 in developed countries is worse than the 1.5 percent for Latin America. Further, in 2010, the IMF has projected a 1.5 percent growth rate for the Latin American economy.
Discussion Questions:
1) How and to what extent will the recovery of the Latin American economy affect other less resilient emerging economies?
2) As the economic development of Latin America renews, how might the region change its current economic policies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)