fundamental

menafn.com…

Forex Fundamental Trading Forecast for Week of May 22 – 27

See the rest here:
Forex Fundamental Trading Forecast for Week of May 22 – 27

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

menafn.com…

New Zealand Dollar – US Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

Read this article:
New Zealand Dollar – US Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

US Dollar – Japanese Yen Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

May 12, 2011

US Dollar – Japanese Yen Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

Read the full article →

British Pound – US Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

May 12, 2011

British Pound – US Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

Read the full article →

Euro – US Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

May 12, 2011

Euro – US Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

Read the full article →

US Dollar – Canadian Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

May 12, 2011

US Dollar – Canadian Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

Read the full article →

US Dollar – Swiss FrancTechnical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

May 12, 2011

US Dollar – Swiss FrancTechnical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

Read the full article →

Australian Dollar – US Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

May 12, 2011

Australian Dollar – US Dollar Technical and Fundamental Forex Forecast for May

Read the full article →

EURUSD Facing Significant 1.4150 Support and Fundamental Resistance, AUDCAD Top Trade Potential

May 12, 2011

EURUSD Facing Significant 1.4150 Support and Fundamental Resistance, AUDCAD Top Trade Potential

Read the full article →

EURUSD and NZDUSD Reversals Closer than You Think, Just Waiting for Fundamental Approval

April 14, 2011

EURUSD and NZDUSD Reversals Closer than You Think, Just Waiting for Fundamental Approval

Read the full article →

FOREX: Dollar Closes its First Advance in a Week but Fundamental Drive is Still Absent

April 5, 2011

FOREX: Dollar Closes its First Advance in a Week but Fundamental Drive is Still Absent

Read the full article →

Tom Doctoroff: Consumers vs. Corporations: China’s Great Digital Divide

March 12, 2011

China’s technologically liberated consumers are ready for a digital commercial revolution. But manufacturers and their communications partners — advertising agencies, both digital and traditional, as well as media companies — are letting them down by not approaching the sector strategically. Liberation for Everyman It is difficult to overstate the impact China’s launch into cyberspace has made for Middle Kingdom’s Everyman. Today, the country boasts 500 million netizens, 150 million of whom have access to high-speed Internet; 200 million bloggers; 100 million micro-bloggers (Chinese “Twitterers”) and 800 million mobile phone users. Digital technology has been secularized. No longer used only by young urbanized hipsters, the sea change epic. Shielded by on-line anonymity, free wheeling surfers broadcast accomplishments, weigh in on current events, download porn, hook up for sex, release rage through violent video games, criticize the government (gingerly), and plug into virtual communities. True, China’s Great Digital Firewall extinguishes hints of collective protest. But Westerners overestimate the constrictive effect of 50,000 net nannies. Denizens of the People’s Republic have more opportunities to explore the world and are freer to express views than any time in history. None of this would have been possible without the Internet. For bargain-crazy consumers, the rise of e-tailers presages an era of commercial Nirvana. According to the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), in 2010, 40 million Chinese booked hotel rooms, airline tickets and holiday tours on travel websites such as C-trip. On-line activity accounted for only an 2% of total 2009 retail spending, up from 1% in 2008; however, rates in coastal cities are already much higher. Alipay, e-commerce behemoth Alibaba’s version of PayPal, has made skittish, reassurance-driven consumers more at ease conducting digital transactions. (China has historically been a “cash is king” society. But consumers are increasingly comfortable spending on-line as long as they can inspect merchandise before transactions are completed.) On-line emporiums such as Taobao have emboldened shoppers to ruthlessly compare prices, realigning the balance of power between buyer and seller. Brand Conventionality For most brands , unfortunately, the digital revolution has not been harnessed. Few have exploited on-line tools to lift profit margins. Virtual consumerism is even more commoditized than in the bricks and mortar world. (Few smart phone users are willing to actually pay money for apps.) As a rule, cyberspace has been carpet bombed with promotional cheap fixes, with zero message consistency or insight into the emotional drivers of netizens. Yes, there are exceptions. PepsiCo’s “Get on the Can” Challenge provided ego-driven youth a platform to shine, literally, by emblazoning faces on cola packages. In the process, the campaign generated 600 million hits. Ford’s “21 Day Excitement” competition employed on-line canvassing to select ten “everyday superstars” to morph from “bland to bold,” dramatizing its “Make Every Day Exciting” proposition. To promote the N-series range, Nokia’s “Bruce Lee Reborn” viral and Ovi app campaign connected surfers to an icon of Chinese masculinity. Most of the time, however, China’s digital landscape resembles a real world bazaar: noisy and clanging, promotion-happy, discount-driven, with the vast majority of on-line advertising slapped onto highly trafficked portals (e.g., Sina, Baidu, QQ) as banner ads. Required: A New Brand Building Vision The communications industry must lift its game to harness the energy released by China’s digital big bang. To do that, we need a North Star. The Brand Idea: Still Sacred. Without the unifying power of the Brand Idea, conceptual chaos erupts. For decades, advertisers’ responsibility has been to forge brand ideas that evolve, but do not fundamentally change, over time. They are rooted in insight, the fundamental motivations of consumers. Through sports shoes, we buck against societal convention to Just Do It on the basketball court. Through engagement rings, we demonstrate enduring passion because “A (DeBeers) Diamond is Forever.” Brand engagement occurs over the airwaves, in the supermarket aisle via blue tooth, through the latest iPhone app, or an on-line loyalty program. And the brand idea, the long-term relationship between consumer and product, is at the center of it all. Apple’s “Think Different,” Kit Kat’s “Have a Break,” Axe’s “Chick Magnet,” Rejoice shampoo’s “Confidence from Softness,” or Pepsi’s “New Generation Choice” is the unifying core, order’s gravitational force. The industry must acknowledge new technological experiences are never, in and of themselves, ideas. Instead, they allow consumers to engage with ideas in new ways. True, marketers are often digitally “clever.” Headlines such as “P&G turns virtual makeover app into Max Factor contest,” “Budlime launch ties into Tudou’s first drama series” and “Unilever links hot steam with warm wishes in Lipton contest” are common. But they rarely reinforce an enduring brand idea. New media titillation has led to digital promiscuity. From Passive Consumption to Active Participation. The fundamental role of the brand will not change as a result of China’s digital liberation. Indeed, as brand options multiply and media costs skyrocket, the need to minimize consumer disorientation is more urgent than ever. However, the one-to-one nature of digital expression provides opportunities to deepen and broaden involvement. “Creative ideas” can become “engagement ideas,” transforming passive exposure into active participation. Advertising agencies should no longer produce work that “interrupts.” Instead, we should “make things” – content -people want to spent time with. DeBeers “Love World,” a microsite where young men express commitment by creating a virtual world of “omnipresent” love, is the shape of things to come. So is Nike Plus, a hi-tech manifestation of the “Just Do It” spirit that enables runners to compete with athletes anytime and anywhere on the planet. Axe’s “sexy wake up call,” an app that brings the product’s “masculine irresistibility” into the bedroom, demonstrates technology’s power to reinforce a core brand proposition. Consumption of communications via digital devices – mobile phones, tablets, computers, etc. – is revolutionary because manufacturers no longer “broadcast” messages. Through a bewildering array of channels, engagement is one-to-one, between marketer and users or between users themselves. “Content” is played with, commented on, expanded upon, competed with and exchanged within “brand communities.” Corporations need to accept their ability to “control” messaging – how a product is positioned, how brands are commented on publicly – will never be the same. (A caveat: broadcast media will never be eclipsed as the primary means of defining propositions. China, a country in which consumers have relatively limited inexperience in digesting brands, requires simplicity. The 30-second television commercial, passively received, is an irreplaceable, albeit expensive, weapon in forging conceptual order. This is why international agencies and media companies operating in the PRC still earn almost all revenue from “traditional” advertising.) The Communications Industry: Change Required The digital engagement imperative presents four fundamental, and interrelated, challenges. Real Time Measurement. First, our industry must hone its ability to measure the effectiveness of digital engagement ideas. Advertising agencies will forfeit legitimacy unless we are able to track, in real time, effectiveness. Broadcast media efficiency is a question of reach and frequency; digital creative, on the other hand, is measured via “stickiness,” “virality,” “click through rates,” “conversion to purchase,” and return on investment (ROI). Any strategic planning department worth its salt must maintain a robust analytics practice. Continuous Engagement. Second, creative agencies must move away from only executing “campaigns” – discrete television and print “bursts” that announce product news – towards “continuous engagement planning.” In an era of technological liberation, there are infinite ways to connect consumers with brands and brand communities. We need to restructure operations to facilitate rapid creative response to real and virtual world developments. We must recruit “story managers” to produce “idea amplifiers,” “or “bite-sized idea sustainers” that maximize the buzz of a given engagement idea. Agencies should operate as “newsrooms,” focused on the big story but flexible enough to cut and thrust as consumer react to creative stimulus. As engagement ideas are manifested in ever-expanding forms, we must plug into a broader array of talent. From bloggers to videographers and on-line performance artists to app developers, we have no choice but to fling open windows and connect with cutting-edge creators. We will never have a monopoly on talent. Employees must survey the Brave New World and forge strategic partnerships with innovators. We must reach into the market for new alliances. We need to embrace expertise wherever it exists, lest we fade to irrelevance. Digital Mainstreaming. Third, it is time to “mainstream” digital creative. Digital is not a “department” or “specialization,” and not a discrete profit center. It is a new media, incredibly potent, just as television was in the 1950s. And creativity remains at the center of the digital ecosystem. Global agencies must integrate digital savvy – genuine technological experimentation — into each account and creative group. Yes, in the interest of a healthy bottom line, certain disciplines – e.g., analytics, technology optimization, digital production, and project management – must reside within a centralized “experience” department. But digital adventurism must permeate the entire organization. Organizational structure must reflect a commitment to media neutrality. Media Innovation. Finally, the “revenue war” between media companies and advertising agencies must end. Media shops will always excel in negotiating low rates with vendors based on volume. They also boast the administrative prowess to plan media across time and geography. But let’s call a spade a spade: the process-driven culture of traditional media companies is incompatible with idea-centric creativity. As the digital universe expands, “ideas” must increasingly “live through” media. In the post-broadcast era, ideas and how consumers experience them are inseparable. If this truth is ignored, investment will evaporate as binary clutter. Advertising agencies need the freedom to establish partnerships with, and derive revenue from, digital media owners. Development of innovative digital solutions must be a strategic imperative of all communications experts, including creative shops. Chinese Enterprises: Vast Opportunity, Structural Limitations The PRC, brand-obsessed and Internet-crazy, is ripe for a digital Great Leap Forward. The Chinese are passionate about social media, highly- developed technology platforms most brands have barely begun to exploit. Through on-line car clubs, digital baby-care communities and a hundred million micro-blogs, Middle Kingdom denizens have embraced social networks on a scale Westerns find difficult to fathom. But these burgeoning on-line communities only tangentially intersect with brands. By leveraging brand ideas, manufacturers can enlist the support of on-line opinion leaders. China is reassurance-driven market in which the importance of personal recommendations is difficult to overstate. It is time to: a) establish common cause with digital influencers to transform on-line communities into virtual brand villages, b) translate SNS affiliation into sustained dialog with individuals, c) monetize one-on-one interaction via on-line loyalty and customer relationship management (CRM) programs and d) elevate the long-term profit contribution of discrete customers. Yes, the opportunity is vast. But the road to digital Utopia will be long and winding. Digital development in the PRC is constipated. Primitive Suppliers. Suppliers are, by and large, unsophisticated. The only large “digital agencies” in China are on-line media agents; the majority place low-end banner ads and television commercials on “mass reach” websites or portals. These companies, many corrupted by rampant kickbacks, treat creative as an add-on “design service.” Revenue is based page views, not click-through. “Depth of engagement” – e.g., time spent with a digital idea – is still an abstruse concept. While investment in analytic tools has grown, few are sophisticated enough to measure or track ROI. Limited Talent. Digital conceptual craftsmanship – the expression of brand ideas through digital media – is undeveloped. Most creative leaders remain tethered to the safety of “traditional” broadcast advertising. Senior digital talent is largely “imported” from abroad. The challenge of inculcating a passion for new technology while remaining faithful to brand building fundamentals is immense. This is particularly true in conservative China, a country that prizes concrete predictability and shies away from the untested – i.e., anything that does not guarantee fixed return. Chronic Short-Termism. Even more critically, Chinese enterprises, like their agency brethren, are not structured to embrace the potential of digital brand building. Digital spending accounts for only 7% of total media activity. Television is still king. To boot, e-commerce is immature given the prevalence of on-line shopping. According to a recent study by Aquarius Asia, approximately one-third, or 142 million, of Chinese Internet users shop on-line. But most companies do not cater to the on-line market. Indeed, per Aquarius’ report, “The top 100 manufacturers of consumer goods are giving away a large share of their online potential. Three out of four major companies do not efficiently use sustainable tools like SEM (search engine marketing) or SEO (search engine optimization) to reach their target groups.” China is a market that reveres scale and volume. Its largest companies are structured, and managed, to drive low-margin sales. Some enterprises, particularly within “strategic” industries, have made progress climbing up value ladders. But few have embraced “brand equity” as the lynchpin of sustainable price premiums. Shoddy corporate governance precludes CEOs from maximizing long-term shareholder return. Panicky marketing executives defer to omnipotent sales barons who enforce short-term promotional pushes; only the most enlightened leaders reject the belief that low price is a competitive weapon. The reign of independent fiefdoms – departmental warlordism – militates against trans-category collaboration for data collection, data base management and cross selling. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) – i.e., maximizing individual customer profit contribution over time – is still an alien concept. The Middle Kingdom’s business culture, therefore, remains antithetical to bold experimentation across digital domains. …… In conclusion, Chinese consumers outpace Chinese corporations and agencies in exploring the new digital ecosystem. There are fundamental structural and cultural barriers that impede idea-centric, media-neutral advertising. Given the potential for digital engagement to redefine the relationship between consumers and brands, new media will transform the commercial and communications landscape. But, as always, progress will be agonizingly incremental.

Read the full article →

The Fundamental Winds are Starting to Gust for the FX Market

March 4, 2011

The Fundamental Winds are Starting to Gust for the FX Market

Read the full article →

Forex: Dollar Anchored to the S&P 500, But a Fundamental Reversal May Come Sooner than Expected

February 18, 2011

Forex: Dollar Anchored to the S&P 500, But a Fundamental Reversal May Come Sooner than Expected

Read the full article →

Nicholas Carroll: The Broken Covenant Between Rich and Middle Class

February 15, 2011

Henry Ford did not invent the middle class; it had been around a long time in the form of artisans and shop-keepers. Nor did Ford single-handedly drive the expansion of the American middle class; the Industrial Revolution was already doing that. What Ford did accomplish on January 5th, 1914 — when he unilaterally raised workers’ salaries from a minimum of $2.34 a day to $5 a day — was to hugely undermine the tradition of industrial worker exploitation embraced by the robber barons of the late 1800s. He had several reasons, reducing employee turnover being one of them, but the Earth-shaker was, “So they can afford to buy my cars.” Ford wanted more customers, and to get them he needed a bigger pool of Americans with discretionary income: that group called “the middle class.” To get that — in a leap of thought — he was willing to reduce worker exploitation to sell more cars. Coming from a noted union-hater, Ford’s action and reasoning crystallized a new concept in the distribution of wealth, a concept that would have lacked the same credibility coming from workers or unions. In fact it was so radical that one commentator observed even the Wobblies were momentarily stunned into silence. It wouldn’t last long. In 1929, the combination of financial fraud and folly knocked the workers back into the mud, putting a temporary end to the growth of the middle class. Whether Federal intervention or World War II (or neither) ended the Great Depression is a moot point; what WWII did do, we are assured by people who lived through it, was “pull the country together” in a way that had not been seen before or since. Out of that heady atmosphere of cooperation and technical advance came streamlined cars, air conditioning, television, a housing boom, and the GI Bill sending blue-collar workers off to college in unprecedented numbers. By the mid-1950s, Ford’s personal dream was realized, because there were a hell of a lot of Americans who could afford to buy a car. The radical idea Ford articulated had become a covenant — and there was so much new wealth that the rich hardly seemed to object that much of it was going to the growing middle class. Where the slide started is arguable. If it didn’t start with the war in Vietnam, it unquestionably did by the early 1980s, when big business received both tacit and blatant messages from Washington that they could flout Federal regulations with relative impunity. At the same time there were increases in manufacturing and wholesaling efficiency, more outsourcing of work offshore (now called “globalization”), and the probably-unexpected bonus that women entering the workforce would allow businesses to pay everyone less. The covenant was eroding, and by the mid-1980s the middle class was beginning to need two incomes per family to stay middle class. So one could point the finger at the manufacturing sector for beginning to chew away at the gains of the middle class. But it would be Big Finance that was destined to bring us to the Great Recession, leading off with the 1980s Wall Street “bonfire of the vanities,” hitting the news with the fall of Drexel Burnham , and creating the first widespread bank crisis since the Great Depression in the form of the late 1980s savings and loan crisis. With too few executives going to jail in the S&L crisis, the financial sector retained its chutzpah, and opened the road to ruin in 1999 by lobbying through the gutting of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act — a law that among other things limited the relationship between Big Finance and local banking. It is worth a brief detour here to consider the fundamental difference between producers and financial people. Producers need customers who buy goods and services. Financial people don’t, exactly; they live on taking a slice of transactions between producers and customers. One might call a mortgage a real product, but it’s not — it’s an enabler to the real transaction, the real transaction being where the producer (home builder) sells a home to the customer. Psychologically this means there is a huge gulf between producer and financier. The first produces or delivers a more-or-less real thing for real people. The latter takes a slice of the financial pie as it flies by; the psychology is all “take” and no “make.” (And local banking stands somewhere in between — not exactly producing, but providing some services of actual value such as checking accounts.) This is not to suggest that producers are without sin. A day never passes without news of tainted food, poisoned water, phony shortages, exploding cars, or carcinogenic drugs. Likewise there is no hard-and-fast line between business models. Automakers have become hugely dependent on financing. Major telephone companies and cable networks seem to focus more on selling contracts than providing service. But at the end of the day, good or bad product, sterling or shoddy service, the producer has to sell their product or service, or they go bankrupt. Further, they have a limited market to sell it to. Shoe companies with $100 sports shoes cannot sell them in the Third World; they need customers with $100 in discretionary income. Producers are also more accountable. Ford Motor Co. is by most reckoning on track towards a level of reliability that rivals Honda — but they have to sell those cars to an audience where some are old enough to remember Ford Pintos exploding into flames when rear-ended. Telcos stand tall in their arrogance towards customers, yet AT&T has become known for inferior cellular connections, and they are paying the price as customers ranging from individual consumers to Apple Computer vote with their feet. Big Finance is more fluid than producers in its “product packaging,” as Wall Street demonstrated by selling the worthless dregs of subprime mortgages (ersatz goods) not only to Deutsche Bank, but to the investment funds of small Norwegian towns. Big Finance is also more nimble. While Wall Street financiers don’t have the physical mobility of boiler-room online fraud operations, they don’t have factories tying them down either. The executive who can no longer find buyers for CDOs can freely move into selling bison ranching shares or tulip bulb futures to buyers from Kansas to Kenya. The bottom line is that by any sane person’s reckoning, the question “Who caused the Great Recession?” leads to the financial sector — and the certainty that, left to themselves, the financial sector will “do it again” — and again and again, leaving nothing of the covenant that “the rich shall allow the middle class a passably decent lifestyle.” So regardless of their individual politics, middle class Americans who want to remain middle class should make note of the fundamental difference between producers and big finance, and accept — or insist — that Big Finance once again be closely regulated at the Federal level. Because no matter how it is packaged, the combination of deregulation and lax regulation means “no rules” for Big Finance — and that doesn’t bode well for the remnants of the middle class.

Read the full article →

Nicholas Carroll: The Broken Covenant Between Rich and Middle Class

February 15, 2011

Henry Ford did not invent the middle class; it had been around a long time in the form of artisans and shop-keepers. Nor did Ford single-handedly drive the expansion of the American middle class; the Industrial Revolution was already doing that. What Ford did accomplish on January 5th, 1914 — when he unilaterally raised workers’ salaries from a minimum of $2.34 a day to $5 a day — was to hugely undermine the tradition of industrial worker exploitation embraced by the robber barons of the late 1800s. He had several reasons, reducing employee turnover being one of them, but the Earth-shaker was, “So they can afford to buy my cars.” Ford wanted more customers, and to get them he needed a bigger pool of Americans with discretionary income: that group called “the middle class.” To get that — in a leap of thought — he was willing to reduce worker exploitation to sell more cars. Coming from a noted union-hater, Ford’s action and reasoning crystallized a new concept in the distribution of wealth, a concept that would have lacked the same credibility coming from workers or unions. In fact it was so radical that one commentator observed even the Wobblies were momentarily stunned into silence. It wouldn’t last long. In 1929, the combination of financial fraud and folly knocked the workers back into the mud, putting a temporary end to the growth of the middle class. Whether Federal intervention or World War II (or neither) ended the Great Depression is a moot point; what WWII did do, we are assured by people who lived through it, was “pull the country together” in a way that had not been seen before or since. Out of that heady atmosphere of cooperation and technical advance came streamlined cars, air conditioning, television, a housing boom, and the GI Bill sending blue-collar workers off to college in unprecedented numbers. By the mid-1950s, Ford’s personal dream was realized, because there were a hell of a lot of Americans who could afford to buy a car. The radical idea Ford articulated had become a covenant — and there was so much new wealth that the rich hardly seemed to object that much of it was going to the growing middle class. Where the slide started is arguable. If it didn’t start with the war in Vietnam, it unquestionably did by the early 1980s, when big business received both tacit and blatant messages from Washington that they could flout Federal regulations with relative impunity. At the same time there were increases in manufacturing and wholesaling efficiency, more outsourcing of work offshore (now called “globalization”), and the probably-unexpected bonus that women entering the workforce would allow businesses to pay everyone less. The covenant was eroding, and by the mid-1980s the middle class was beginning to need two incomes per family to stay middle class. So one could point the finger at the manufacturing sector for beginning to chew away at the gains of the middle class. But it would be Big Finance that was destined to bring us to the Great Recession, leading off with the 1980s Wall Street “bonfire of the vanities,” hitting the news with the fall of Drexel Burnham , and creating the first widespread bank crisis since the Great Depression in the form of the late 1980s savings and loan crisis. With too few executives going to jail in the S&L crisis, the financial sector retained its chutzpah, and opened the road to ruin in 1999 by lobbying through the gutting of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act — a law that among other things limited the relationship between Big Finance and local banking. It is worth a brief detour here to consider the fundamental difference between producers and financial people. Producers need customers who buy goods and services. Financial people don’t, exactly; they live on taking a slice of transactions between producers and customers. One might call a mortgage a real product, but it’s not — it’s an enabler to the real transaction, the real transaction being where the producer (home builder) sells a home to the customer. Psychologically this means there is a huge gulf between producer and financier. The first produces or delivers a more-or-less real thing for real people. The latter takes a slice of the financial pie as it flies by; the psychology is all “take” and no “make.” (And local banking stands somewhere in between — not exactly producing, but providing some services of actual value such as checking accounts.) This is not to suggest that producers are without sin. A day never passes without news of tainted food, poisoned water, phony shortages, exploding cars, or carcinogenic drugs. Likewise there is no hard-and-fast line between business models. Automakers have become hugely dependent on financing. Major telephone companies and cable networks seem to focus more on selling contracts than providing service. But at the end of the day, good or bad product, sterling or shoddy service, the producer has to sell their product or service, or they go bankrupt. Further, they have a limited market to sell it to. Shoe companies with $100 sports shoes cannot sell them in the Third World; they need customers with $100 in discretionary income. Producers are also more accountable. Ford Motor Co. is by most reckoning on track towards a level of reliability that rivals Honda — but they have to sell those cars to an audience where some are old enough to remember Ford Pintos exploding into flames when rear-ended. Telcos stand tall in their arrogance towards customers, yet AT&T has become known for inferior cellular connections, and they are paying the price as customers ranging from individual consumers to Apple Computer vote with their feet. Big Finance is more fluid than producers in its “product packaging,” as Wall Street demonstrated by selling the worthless dregs of subprime mortgages (ersatz goods) not only to Deutsche Bank, but to the investment funds of small Norwegian towns. Big Finance is also more nimble. While Wall Street financiers don’t have the physical mobility of boiler-room online fraud operations, they don’t have factories tying them down either. The executive who can no longer find buyers for CDOs can freely move into selling bison ranching shares or tulip bulb futures to buyers from Kansas to Kenya. The bottom line is that by any sane person’s reckoning, the question “Who caused the Great Recession?” leads to the financial sector — and the certainty that, left to themselves, the financial sector will “do it again” — and again and again, leaving nothing of the covenant that “the rich shall allow the middle class a passably decent lifestyle.” So regardless of their individual politics, middle class Americans who want to remain middle class should make note of the fundamental difference between producers and big finance, and accept — or insist — that Big Finance once again be closely regulated at the Federal level. Because no matter how it is packaged, the combination of deregulation and lax regulation means “no rules” for Big Finance — and that doesn’t bode well for the remnants of the middle class.

Read the full article →

Forex Technical and Fundamental Forecasts for February

February 9, 2011

Forex Technical and Fundamental Forecasts for February

Read the full article →

Forex: Dollar Strength Requires a Fundamental Shove – Such as a Clear Risk Aversion Move

February 5, 2011

Forex: Dollar Strength Requires a Fundamental Shove – Such as a Clear Risk Aversion Move

Read the full article →

US Dollar Sees a Bounce but Fundamental Support is Lacking

February 5, 2011

US Dollar Sees a Bounce but Fundamental Support is Lacking

Read the full article →

Setting up the Fundamental Scenario for a EURUSD Reversal

January 27, 2011

Setting up the Fundamental Scenario for a EURUSD Reversal

Read the full article →

A Perfect Technical and Fundamental Scenario for a EURUSD Reversal

January 27, 2011

A Perfect Technical and Fundamental Scenario for a EURUSD Reversal

Read the full article →

Australian, Canadian Dollar Rally May Gather Pace On Fundamental Developments

January 24, 2011

Australian, Canadian Dollar Rally May Gather Pace On Fundamental Developments

Read the full article →

FOREX: Dollar Slides against Fundamental, Speculative Benchmarks as Traders Await Resolution

January 19, 2011

FOREX: Dollar Slides against Fundamental, Speculative Benchmarks as Traders Await Resolution

Read the full article →

Video: Reding Says Europeans Seek Personal Data Security: Video

December 10, 2010

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) — Viviane Reding, European Union Principal Vice President and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, discusses data security and gender equality. Reding talks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

GBP/USD Technicals Diverging From Fundamental Risks

November 23, 2010

GBP/USD Technicals Diverging From Fundamental Risks

Read the full article →

Trade EURUSD and AUDUSD Now or Wait for a Fundamental Driver?

November 11, 2010

Trade EURUSD and AUDUSD Now or Wait for a Fundamental Driver?

Read the full article →

FOREX: Dollar Crosses a Fundamental Hurdle in GDP to Focus all its Attention on Next Week’s FOMC

October 30, 2010

FOREX: Dollar Crosses a Fundamental Hurdle in GDP to Focus all its Attention on Next Week’s FOMC

Read the full article →

CoStar to Introduce the First Comprehensive Repeat Sales Index for Commercial Real Estate

July 27, 2010

CoStar announced it is launching the CoStar Commercial Repeat Sales Index (CCRSI), the first comprehensive repeat sales index for commercial real estate. The index is intended to provide consistent and timely information to help answer some of the fundamental…

Read the full article →

Forex Technical and Fundamental Forecasts for June

June 2, 2010

Forex Technical and Fundamental Forecasts for June

Read the full article →

Forex Technical and Fundamental Forecasts for June

June 2, 2010

Forex Technical and Fundamental Forecasts for June

Read the full article →

Euro, British Pound Pare Overnight Advance on Uncertainties Surrounding Fundamental Outlook

May 21, 2010

Euro, British Pound Pare Overnight Advance on Uncertainties Surrounding Fundamental Outlook

Read the full article →

Economic Fundamental Return to the U.S. Economy, While U.S. Dollar Extend Gains Vs Majors

February 23, 2010

Economic Fundamental Return to the U.S. Economy, While U.S. Dollar Extend Gains Vs Majors

Read the full article →

Matt Taibbi Blasts Wall Street Again In ‘Bailout Hustle’

February 18, 2010

In his latest salvo against Wall Street, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi argues that the recent resurgence of the banking sector is the result of nothing more than a series of Depression-Era con jobs. In Taibbi’s words, Wall Street has delivered “the best 18 months of grifting this country has ever seen.” Taibbi is certainly fond of colorful metaphors. Over the last year, he famously (or infamously) compared Goldman Sachs to a ” vampire squid .” And in ” Obama’s Big Sellout ,” he railed against the free-market beliefs and political influence of former Citigroup Chairman and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Pointing to seven decidedly old timey swindles in ” Wall Street’s Bailout Hustle ,” Taibbi is quick to blast the banks’ antics during and after the bailout. The rescue of AIG, Taibbi argues, which sent $13 billion to Goldman Sachs, was essentially a “Swoop and Squat” con — a scam that involves involves intentionally causing a car crash and bilking an insurance company. Goldman Sachs intentionally drove AIG into insolvency so that it could collect on its massive derivatives contracts, Taibbi argues: “It was a brilliant move. When a company like AIG is about to die, it isn’t supposed to hand over big hunks of assets to a single creditor like Goldman; it’s supposed to equitably distribute whatever assets it has left among all its creditors…Instead, Goldman and the other counterparties got their money out in advance — putting a torch to what was left of AIG. Fans of the movie Goodfellas will recall Henry Hill and Tommy DeVito taking the same approach to the Bamboo Lounge nightclub they’d been gouging. Roll the Ray Liotta narration: “Finally, when there’s nothing left, when you can’t borrow another buck . . . you bust the joint out. You light a match.” Throughout the piece Taibbi is more concerned with the conceptual basis of Wall Street’s windfall, rather than the subtitles and unintended consequences of programs like the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) , or the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program . Taibbi’s critics have pointed to what they say is a tendency to oversimplify, to play fast and loose with the facts and his continued focus on Goldman Sachs. In a blistering piece for The Big Money Heidi Moore assessed Taibbi’s Goldman Sachs piece as having a “lively, if incoherent, narrative.” But regardless of where you stand on Taibbi’s merits, it’s hard to poke holes in the fundamental basis for his argument in his latest piece. Throwing away the rhetorical flourishes — fans of “The Sting” won’t be disappointed with this piece — Taibbi’s larger points, that banks have been allowed to continue to make risky bets on questionable assets (“Con No. 5: The Big Mitt”), to borrow cheaply (“Con No. 2: The Dollar Store”), and to avoid adequately accounting for their assets (“Con No. 3: The Pig In The Poke”) are central to the debate on financial reform. Worse, the pre-crisis mentality on Wall Street is still pervasive, Taibbi warns. He spoke to one trader who tried to avoid buying what he believed to be worthless bonds, even as the market began swallowing them up. The trader finally relented and told Taibbi that he’d “get on the bandwagon, just so long as I know when to jump out of the car before it goes off the damn cliff!” Here’s Taibbi’s take on the trader’s behavior: “This is the very definition of bubble economics — betting on crowd behavior instead of on fundamentals. It’s old investors betting on the arrival of new ones, with the value of the underlying thing itself being irrelevant. And this behavior is being driven, no surprise, by the biggest firms on Wall Street.” Read Matt Taibbi’s entire piece here .

Read the full article →

India: Emerging trends in real estate finance

December 24, 2009

From Cityscapeintelligence.com: The global financial crisis of 2008 altered the landscape for real estate finance in India. “Return maximization” is no longer the fundamental investment strategy. Post the emergence of “risk-minimization” as a focus

Read the full article →

William Drayton: Want to Fight Climate Change? Hire Somebody

November 17, 2009

With official U. S. unemployment at 10.2% and with Congressional debate on a climate bill sputtering, last week the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on how climate legislation might help fix the economy and create jobs. At the same time, President Obama announced he would hold a White House forum next month to gather new ideas for achieving the robust job creation that has so far eluded stimulus efforts, and opponents and supporters of cap-and-trade legislation both echoed the jobs theme, saying that in the end, any US climate bill must be a jobs bill. These are promising developments that may point the way to an effective climate policy. Because with them, the crucial enabling connection between creating jobs and fighting climate change has finally entered explicitly into our politics. I say “finally” because throughout most of 2009, even as the economy hemorrhaged some 3.8 million jobs, while they were framing proposals for climate change legislation, most members of Congress and their staffs were curiously reluctant to broach the obvious jobs connection. They expressed lots of concern over the impact of regulating carbon on energy producers, coal states and carbon emitters, but very little about its impact on jobs and workers in general. (President Obama’s 2010 budget proposal was a notable exception; it plowed carbon permit revenues back into a payroll tax credit to help working families, but unfortunately that provision didn’t pass Congress) . But it’s not that surprising the jobs dimension of the climate debate has been relatively muted until recently, considering the federal government doesn’t like to be explicit about the true extent of unemployment, either. Unemployment is much worse than official statistics suggest. That official 10.2% rate represents only a fraction of the adult population that is not working; the total figure is closer to 40%. BLS statistics show that of the total non-institutionalized adult population of 235 million, only about 140 million, or about 60%, are working. Officially, there are 15 million unemployed; unofficially, the true number of unemployed is roughly five times higher. But double-digit unemployment crosses an undeniable perceptual threshold in the public’s mind. When we hit it, the political rhetoric around the climate bill shifted, and the jobs connection was finally made explicit. Acknowledged or not, it’s been clear for a long time that in order for climate legislation to pass, it must not exacerbate job loss, and that for it to make sense, it should take advantage of this once-a-century opportunity for retooling the economy to optimize job gain. In October the CBO released a study projecting a net job loss from the climate legislation bill that passed the House. It contradicted the findings of a report released by the Center for American Progress which projected a net job gain. The projections are contentious politically, hence the Senate Finance Committee hearing last week. Part of the debate is about whether a US cap and trade system could in effect create more “green” jobs than “non-green” it destroys, whether it will ultimately grow the economy or shrink it. But there is a more fundamental principle involved than whether the particular cap-and-trade mechanism in the House bill or in Senate proposals can create a certain number of jobs. At the heart of the matter is one of the most basic decisions societies make: how to manage the fundamental tradeoff between the two primary factors of production — labor utilization vs. resource consumption. The two aren’t quite a zero sum, but in general, they are substitutes for one another. The more natural resources such as energy and materials a business uses, the more labor it “saves,” and vice versa. Ideally, in a market economy the two should find an optimal balance. But for decades, through taxation and other interventions, we have pushed our thumb down hard on the scale, and tilted it steeply in favor of employing things over people. Even when U. S. joblessness is obviously deeply damaging our economy, not to mention our communities and families, we continue to define “productivity” in terms of how little labor we can use, and Wall Street can still rally on bad jobs reports. As a result our economy consumes natural resources very aggressively. At the same time, US policy actively discourages labor demand. More or less by accident, we have sent a giant “use things, not people” price signal as payroll taxes have increased from 1% to almost 40% of federal revenues over the last several generations. This raises hiring costs, lowers employment, and hands an effective subsidy to resource consumption, skewing the relative prices of labor vs. resources over 30%. The human impact of this is enormous. The potential contributions of tens of millions of people are wasted (hundreds of millions worldwide), studies show the health of sidelined workers and unemployed retirees suffers, and a whole host of social ills arises, from crime to students who see no future, with debilitating costs to individuals, business, and government. The climate impact is equally enormous. The effective subsidies favoring resource consumption and discouraging hiring mean we are burning a lot more fuel, tearing up more land and emitting a lot more carbon, than if the relative prices of labor and resources were corrected, and we produced utilizing far more people and far fewer natural resources. That’s the bad news, and it’s also the good news. It suggests that if we reverse the current price signals, we can also reverse the perverse incentives that drive joblessness and over consumption of energy and resources. We can do this by taking the tax burden off payrolls and therefore employment, and putting it instead on energy waste and resource consumption. OECD countries that have cut their payroll taxes substantially boosted employment and lost fewer jobs in the downturn than countries which didn’t, like ours. This week The Economist magazine recommended the U.S. adopt a similar policy. If we cut payroll taxes and replaced the lost revenue with levies on non-labor inputs to business, such as a non-labor Value Added Tax (VAT), carbon permit fees and/or energy taxes, we could create tens of millions of jobs and stimulate economic growth while deeply cutting natural resource use and emissions. Such tax switching is a revenue-neutral approach that involves no net increase in taxes. It also creates no bureaucracies, choosing of winners or losers, implementation delays, or risk of corruption. It is, not surprisingly, attractive to smart conservatives and liberals alike. Recent advocates range from Charles Krauthammer to Thomas Friedman, Al Gore to Richard Lugar and T. Boone Pickens. This year Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) and Rep. John Larson (D-CT) both introduced climate change bills that recycle over 90% of carbon pricing revenues into payroll tax cuts. That’s a hint of this approach’s broad appeal. It would align the relatively small contingent of committed environmentalists who want strong action on climate with the huge constituency of the tens of millions of Americans of all backgrounds who need a job and the hundreds of millions who want a stronger economy. Whereas now, climate negotiations are fractious and expectations from Copenhagen and Washington are depressingly low, such a coalition for real economic and environmental change would be unstoppable and allow us to aim higher. To fight climate change, we need concrete goals — return to 350 ppm atmospheric carbon, achieve 80% GHG reduction by 2050, hold global warming to an average of 2 degrees Celsius, etc. If we are serious about reaching them, we must add another fundamental one — create tens of millions of jobs by reorienting our economy and our tax structure towards engaging more people and using fewer things.

Read the full article →

Damien Hoffman: Ghost Towns in China Prove GDP Is a Farce

November 16, 2009

In 2008, I closely commented on the demise of Lehman Brothers and the hidden cancers on other balance sheets. At the time, the fraudulent real estate bubble found a poster child in Lehman investment McAllister Ranch: a three square mile development in which Lehman dropped a quarter billion dollars of loans … and the mega-community became a ghost town. Now, a few weeks from the modern space odyssey 2010, video is surfacing that even more costly and extravagant real estate developments in China are following the Lehman model (which was probably 486 Excel sheets built by a 24-year old working 110 hours a week). Welcome to the real, yet imaginary, city of Ordos: Ordos is a hyper modern city, full of brand new glass walled residential and commercial buildings, yet devoid of inhabitants. In its attempt to present a “growing” economy, and to “invest” its $585 billion stimulus into anything and everything, courtesy of comparable idiocy on the other side of the Pacific, China’s communist party is now ruling over ghost towns. One wonders just how many such “efficient” projects sustain China’s magical 8% growth. (Source: Zero Hedge ) So, there you have it. An entire generation has grown up and been conditioned to believe economics is the fundamental nature of reality, yet the proof continues to mount that economics is simply a wealth shifting game which does not solely enhance civilizations or lives. If the Chinese government eventually pulls a Lehman, the next chapter of history will be messy.

Read the full article →

U.K. Home Prices Post First Gain Since 2007 on Low Supply, Hometrack Says

August 30, 2009

By Brian Swint Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) — U.K. house prices rose for the first time in two years in August as a dearth of homes for sale pushed up prices in London and the southeast, Hometrack Ltd. said. The average cost of a home in England and Wales rose 0.1 percent from July to 155,800 pounds ($253,000), the London-based property research company said in an e-mailed statement today. The increase, the first since July 2007, left house prices 6.7 percent lower than a year earlier, the smallest annual decline in a year. The report adds to signs that Britain is emerging from the sharpest recession in more than six decades. The slump has pushed house prices down 12 percent since the peak in September 2007 on Hometrack’s measure. Bank of England Governor Mervyn King said this month that any recovery will be “slow.” “After seven consecutive months of rising demand, agents and surveyors now believe that prices can be pushed upwards without any detrimental impact on sales volumes,” said Richard Donnell , director of research at Hometrack. “The headline figures are being skewed by price rises that are restricted to relatively small pockets of the market suffering from a lack of housing for sale.” Prices rose in Greater London, East Anglia and the southeast of England, Hometrack said. Prices were unchanged across the other seven regions surveyed. Other reports show home values rising at a faster pace. Prices in England and Wales rose 1.7 percent in July, the most since 2004, the government said Aug. 28. House prices increased 1.6 percent in August, the fourth consecutive monthly gain and the biggest since 2006, Nationwide Building Society said last week. ‘Fundamental Obstacles’ The economy shrank 0.7 percent in the second quarter and unemployment is the highest since 1995. Banks are still restricting lending even after the Bank of England cut its key rate to a record 0.5 percent and flooded the banking system with cash by buying billions of pounds of assets with newly created money. The difference between the average two-year mortgage rate of 5.18 percent and the two-year swap rate of 3.14 percent is the widest on record, Moneyfacts Plc said last week. “Some of the fundamental obstacles to a sustainable housing market recovery still remain,” Donnell said. “Mortgage availability continues to be an issue for first-time buyers who require large deposits to access the market, while unemployment levels, set to rise further, will continue to impact buyer confidence.” To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Swint in London at bswint@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Stiglitz Says U.S. Facing `Very Slow’ Recovery as State of Banks Unknown

August 5, 2009

By Vivien Lou Chen and Carol Massar Aug. 5 (Bloomberg) — Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said he expects a “very slow recovery” in the U.S. economy and that a replacement for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S

Read the full article →

Asian Stocks Fluctuate as Commodities Producers Gain, Carmakers Decline

August 4, 2009

By Jonathan Burgos and Susan Li Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) — Asian stocks fluctuated as commodities producers climbed on higher oil and metal prices, while Japanese makers of cars and motorcycles fell after Yamaha Motor Co

Read the full article →

Mortgage-Bond Rally May End as Home-Price Reality Sets In, Barclays Says

August 3, 2009

By Jody Shenn Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) — Investors should be “cautious” about buying U.S. home-loan bonds because a rally stoked by cash “spilling in from the sidelines” may fizzle within months, according to Barclays Capital Inc. That’s partly because the housing slump hasn’t eased as much as suggested by home-price data, analysts at the bank including Ajay Rajadhyaksha and Glenn Boyd wrote in a July 31 report

Read the full article →