markets

Fed To Keep Rates ‘Exceptionally Low’ For Minimum Of Two Years

August 9, 2011

Admitting that the growth of the economy has been “considerably slower” than expected, the Federal Reserve announced it will keep the federal funds rate “exceptionally low” until the middle of 2013 at a minimum, according to a release . From AP: WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve says it will likely keep interest rates at record lows for the next two years after acknowledging that the economy is weaker than it had thought with increasing risks. The Fed announced that it expects to keep its key interest rate near zero through mid-2013. It has been at that record low since December 2008. The Fed had previously only said that it would keep it low for “an extended period.” The more explicit time frame is aimed at calming nervous investors, giving them a clearer picture of how long they will be able to obtain ultra-cheap credit. From the Federal Reserve’s release , emphasis is that of The Huffington Post: Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that economic growth so far this year has been considerably slower than the Committee had expected . Indicators suggest a deterioration in overall labor market conditions in recent months, and the unemployment rate has moved up. Household spending has flattened out, investment in nonresidential structures is still weak, and the housing sector remains depressed. However, business investment in equipment and software continues to expand . Temporary factors, including the damping effect of higher food and energy prices on consumer purchasing power and spending as well as supply chain disruptions associated with the tragic events in Japan, appear to account for only some of the recent weakness in economic activity. Inflation picked up earlier in the year, mainly reflecting higher prices for some commodities and imported goods, as well as the supply chain disruptions. More recently, inflation has moderated as prices of energy and some commodities have declined from their earlier peaks. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable. … To promote the ongoing economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent. The Committee currently anticipates that economic conditions–including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run–are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013 . The Committee also will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. The Committee will regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate. This is a developing story.

Read the full article →

Mark Zupan: How to Create Jobs: Lessons From Switzerland

August 9, 2011

Every June, we travel to Switzerland for the graduation of our Rochester-Bern Executive MBA program. What was apparent on last month’s trip was how much the market-based approach Switzerland has taken in dealing with the macroeconomic downturn of 2007-2009 is outperforming the government-stimulus policy adopted by the United States. In economic terms, we could learn a lot from our 16th largest trading partner (more important than India and Italy and seventh largest in services, ahead of France at eight). Both Switzerland and the United States were hard hit by the financial meltdown that began in 2007. For example, Swiss banking giants UBS and Credit Suisse reported record multi-billion dollar losses. Unlike their American counterparts, Swiss policymakers did not enact a general stimulus package. Also, the Swiss were more willing to have financial institutions — their employees and shareholders — learn some painful lessons. The government left job creation in the hands of entrepreneurs. The results: Switzerland has a 2.9 percent unemployment rate versus 9.2 percent in our own country. One encounters an upbeat, prosperous tone when traveling there and the biggest worry by corporate executives centers on finding enough good candidates for open jobs. In addition, the Swiss annual inflation rate is lower than ours (0.6 percent versus 3.2 percent). Innovative products ranging from pharmaceuticals and instant espresso capsules from Nestle are driving an export boom and helping the Swiss maintain a positive balance of trade, contrasted with our trade deficit of $50.2 billion in May. Switzerland also has been one of the few countries in the world running a government budget surplus since 2007 (2 percent of GDP in 2009 and 0.3 percent in 2010) while the United States has been racking up record deficits (6.4 percent of GDP in 2010) and is on the verge of hitting another debt ceiling in August. The effects of our loose money policies are evident as soon as one hits the Zurich airport currency exchange booth. Last June, one dollar could be traded for 1.05 Swiss francs (and nearly 1.2 francs in 2007). This June, one dollar fetched only 0.83 Swiss francs — a dramatic reflection of the dollar’s weakness during twelve months. It is also apparent how pro-business employment policies are driving job creation in Switzerland. In contrast to more restrictive immigration policies and TARP legislation that made it harder for U.S. firms borrowing money from the federal government to hire international candidates, the Swiss have not increased their barriers to drawing top talent wherever it hails from in the world in recent years. The U.S. embassy attaché who spoke at our graduation pointed out how corporate tax rates and labor laws are contributing to Switzerland’s success. She noted how Archer Daniels Midland relocated its European headquarters with the primary attractions being the relatively lower corporate tax rates (8.5 percent versus 35 percent in the United States and similarly higher levels in other Continental European locations) and at-will hiring laws in Switzerland. If anything, Switzerland is emulating the historical private-sector employment law practices that led to U.S. prosperity since World War II ended. Those laws promoted more jobs by limiting the legal hold existing employees have on their current jobs. By contrast, U.S. policymakers now seem intent on encouraging the more restrictive, private-sector employment law practices that have limited Continental European job growth over the past half century. Witness the NLRB challenge to Boeing for its proposed new plant that would employ thousands in the more business-friendly state of South Carolina. While Switzerland is a tiny country with only 8 million people, its impact is greatly disproportionate to its size. Cumulative U.S. direct foreign investment in Switzerland totals $150 billion, an amount greater than U.S. direct foreign investment in China, India, Brazil, and Russia combined. Swiss investment in the U.S. is even larger, nearly $200 billion, and Swiss firms employ 400,000 people in the U.S. Much more important than the trade numbers, however, is the economic lesson that the Swiss can teach us at the present time. As Adam Smith first observed 235 years ago, job creation and the wealth of nations are most effectively promoted by economic systems that provide individuals the liberty to pursue their economic dreams rather than through centralized government control. The market-based approach has been a hallmark of our own nation for much of its history. Yet, we seem to have lost our way as of late. We now find ourselves at an important cross-roads regarding whether we will seek to deal with our jobs and debt dilemmas through enlarging or reducing the role government plays in our society. The best approach is evident to anyone who has recently been to Switzerland.

Read the full article →

Small Business Optimism Continues To Decline Amidst Uncertainty

August 9, 2011

Amidst anemic consumer spending and national uncertainty over the fate of the debt ceiling, small-business optimism declined for the fifth straight month in July , as independent business owners acknowledged that they don’t expect the economy to improve any time soon. Small-business owners cited “economic conditions” and “political climate” as reasons for their relative pessimism, likely a reference to the gridlock over the federal deficit that consumed Washington in July. The drop in the Small Business Optimism Index , a monthly report published by the National Federation of Independent Business, mirrors a nationwide atmosphere of trepidation that has also resulted in shrinking consumer confidence and massive sell-offs on Wall Street. The Index fell 0.9 points in July, dropping to a level of 89.9, according to a release Tuesday from the NFIB. Pessimists outnumbered optimists on a number of scores. There were more small-business owners predicting the economy would be worse six months from now, for example, than those saying it would be better. Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist at the NFIB, said in a statement that it might be time to “begin referring to the ‘Small-Business Pessimism Index’ from now on.” On the whole, small-business owners were also more likely to predict their sales would be lower over the next three months, and that it would become harder to get credit. While 10 percent of respondents said they planned to increase their workforce in the next three months, another 11 percent said they planned to eliminate jobs. The survey results suggested that Main Street feels constrained by its relationship with the government. While “poor sales” were the single most-cited problem in the survey, “taxes” and “government regulations and red tape” came in second and third, respectively. In addition, when asked about the single most important problem they faced, respondents were twice as likely to name regulation as inflation, insurance, or competition from big business. Last week, the NFIB launched Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations , an initiative aimed at taking regulatory pressure off independent businesses. The campaign has attracted representatives of businesses in six states. Other economic factors are contributing to the difficult climate for independent business owners. Weak GDP , sluggish housing and stubbornly high unemployment , as well as market panic following a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating by Standard & Poor’s, have Americans worried that the country could be pointed toward a double-dip recession. The debt-ceiling negotiations in Washington, which stretched throughout the month of July before resolving with an August 2 deal, had an especially detrimental impact on small-business sentiment. Caught between a government unable to agree on the best way to expand the economy, and nervous consumers reluctant to make discretionary purchases, small business owners are feeling the squeeze as much as anyone.

Read the full article →

Jason Alderman: Dealing With Debt Collectors

August 8, 2011

If you’ve ever fallen far behind on paying your bills, you know what it’s like to dread whenever the phone rings: What if it’s another bill collector? Ignoring the call — like ignoring a toothache — is never a good idea, however. Sooner or later, you’re going to have to deal with the situation. According to Gail Cunningham, spokesperson for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC), “Our 2011 Financial Literacy Survey found that most people — 68 percent — pay their bills on time. However, 28 percent said they experience difficulty making timely bill payments.” Ideally, you should contact your lender as soon as you realize you may have difficulty paying a bill. They would much rather work out a repayment plan than enter the costly and time-consuming collections process. But, if that ship has already sailed, here are a few precautions you can take to protect your interests: You have certain rights whenever dealing with debt collectors. For example, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , collectors cannot harass you by: Using abusive language or threatening violence or arrest. Calling before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Falsely representing themselves as attorneys or government employees if they are not. Threatening to sue you if they do not in fact intend to file a lawsuit. Contacting you at work if you tell them your employer disapproves. Contacting others, except to verify where you live and work. Revealing to others that you owe money. If a collection agency contacts you initially by phone, they must send you a written notice within five days telling you how much you owe, the name of the creditor owed and how to file a dispute if you don’t agree. Once contacted, you should: Get the names of all persons calling and their agency, its address and phone and fax numbers. Take detailed notes of all conversations, correspondence and pre-recorded calls, noting names, dates and times. You may also want to consider recording the conversations, but be sure to get their consent if required by law in your state. You may request that all subsequent contact be handled by mail. Send this request — and all further correspondence — by certified mail, return receipt requested. Request that all conversations be followed-up in writing. Document any false, misleading or harassing statements and include them in your correspondence. Ask for full details about any debts the collector claims you owe, including dates, amounts, lender’s name, etc. Instruct that you be the only person contacted, unless you wish an attorney to be involved. Retain all records indefinitely in case of future disputes. Have all agreed-to repayment plan terms verified in writing, including promises to remove or adjust reports to your credit history. If you feel you’ve been targeted in error, tell the collection agency — in writing — that it has the wrong party and to stop contacting you. If they can’t provide proof, by law they must cease collection efforts. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for identity thieves to run up debt in someone else’s name and to have those unpaid debts eventually go into collection. That’s why it’s important to check your credit reports regularly and to report any errors or mistaken transactions immediately. You can order one free credit report a year from each of the three main credit bureaus. (Order through the government-authorized AnnualCreditReport.com ; otherwise you’ll pay a small fee.) A few other tips: By not responding to a debt collector you risk triggering a lawsuit, which, if lost could result in garnishment of your wages or other actions. There’s no time limit on contacting you about a debt. Some debts are sold to other collectors even after being properly disputed. So keep all records indefinitely in case the debt ever resurfaces and you need to dispute it again. If you settle with a debt collector for less than what you originally owed, this “forgiven debt” may be considered taxable income by the IRS. Don’t pay bills you don’t owe just to make the collector go away; that’s considered acknowledgement that you are responsible. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse’s Debt Collection Practices: When Hardball Tactics Go Too Far offers great tips on navigating the debt-collection process, including your privacy rights, sample letters and where to turn for help. The Federal Trade Commission also provides a helpful Guide for Consumers . And finally, if you want to learn more about the potential advantages — and pitfalls — of working with a debt settlement company to pay off your debt, read my previous blog, Feds Strengthen Debt Settlement Rules . This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered legal, tax or financial advice. It’s always a good idea to consult a legal, tax or financial advisor for specific information on how certain laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation. Follow Jason Alderman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/PracticalMoney

Read the full article →

Judith Barr: Recession Regression? Not Again!

August 8, 2011

Sept. 15, 2008, Ugly Monday, the market fell 500 points. Last week it crashed again. The media says the market’s being driven by fear. It certainly is! Some of the fear is about what’s going to happen tomorrow and the next day. But the fear driving the market isn’t what people imagine, and it preceded current market turmoil, and the 2008 recession, by a long time. Not only that, it’ll be here even after the market chaos has calmed and we’re on seemingly solid financial ground again, nationally and internationally. For many, if not most, that fear exists all the time — perhaps unconsciously. It’s not going away any time soon. It’s not going away by itself. And it’s not going away as a result of things we do on the practical level in the outer world: cutting spending back, selling assets, protecting savings, finding another job, cashing in an IRA, buying lottery tickets. These may seem to help for the moment, but none will make the core fear disappear. In my three-plus decades as a psychotherapist, I’ve repeatedly witnessed that people’s relationships with money, at the root, are based on thoughts, feelings and decisions they made about money as children, and, even more than that, on what money symbolized for the child. I’ve also witnessed people under stress repeatedly regressing to a child’s thoughts, feelings and perceptions, even though they’re unaware of it. It happens in all of us, whether we realize it or not, whether we deny or know it. To summarize: under stress, we regress to children. The roots of our money relationships are those of someone regressed. In a financial crisis, we are profoundly regressed and don’t know it, even if we aren’t completely regressed, don’t act on the regression, or act on the regression blatantly or subtly! Most importantly, whatever we do from the regressed place inside us — conscious or unconscious, blatant or subtle — impacts us enormously, individually and communally. Imagine someone you thought was an adult, maybe even a sophisticated, successful businessman who “had it all together.” Imagine that the market just dropped 500 points, his holdings are deeply affected, and he finds out during an important negotiation that isn’t going his way. Imagine this 6-foot, 200-pound CEO throwing the proposal that’s been made to him into the air, letting the papers fall, picking up his own proposal, crumpling it, shooting it into the trash like a basketball, and storming out, slamming the door behind him! What you might see is an adult acting in a most inappropriate way. (Or you might even want to do the same thing.) What’s really happening is that the mask of grownup is dissolving to reveal a frightened little boy. If you asked him what he’s afraid of, you might hear, “Whaddya think? I’m losing all my money.” What he’s really saying is, “My worst fear’s coming true: I’ll never have enough.” If you asked him why that was his worst fear, you might hear him say, “We never had enough money when I was a kid.” Or, on a deeper level, “We always had more than enough, but I knew it was ’cause my dad was so smart, and I’d never be able to do that.” But what he’s really expressing is what he truly never had enough of, beneath the money. What the money came to symbolize for him. What got transferred onto the money. “What I really never had enough of was Mom’s love.” Or “What I really never had enough of was connection with Dad.” Or “What I never ever had enough of was my family seeing who I really was instead of who they wanted me to be.” As a therapist, I’d explore with him what he revealed to me as deeply as he could go, helping him step-by-step heal his relationship with money, and his mother, father or family (where he might not even know it was wounded), and tease apart his relationship with money from that with his family. This is a brief revelation of the essence of our relationships with money. The crux: Nothing we do with money could be truly sustainable individually or communally without working with the underlying relationship with money. This is complex and deep, but definitely resolvable, healable, transformable. This is the hope! We each have our own version of young relationship with money calling out to be healed in this financial crisis. We each impact our world with our current relationship with money, and have the power to help heal our world by doing our own inner work with money and what it really means to us. Just imagine the effect on you, our nation’s economy, our world! © Judith Barr, 2011

Read the full article →

Max Rudolph: Are You Being Paid for the Risk in Money Markets?

August 5, 2011

The markets are at a tipping point. With Quantitative Easing 2 at its end, European debt markets in turmoil, volatile equity markets, and disappointing job reports, there is much uncertainty in the world today. If government interventions work, markets would soon see an upswing and this period will be, in hindsight, considered a buying opportunity. On the other hand, sovereign debt is troubled and correlations seem high. Will reported problems in countries like Greece and Portugal carry over into the rest of the European Union, emerging markets and the United States? If so, the world is in a much worse position today than it was in 2008. Fiscal and monetary tools have been used up. What is left to try? Will market players be forced to idly sit by and let the system clear this time? The Dodd-Frank bill was supposed to address these risks and make it less likely that we would enter another financial cataclysm. Much of the actual regulation has yet to be enacted, and is being watered down by pressure from the financial industry. One issue in particular that has not been adequately addressed is transparency. When issues with AIG arose and reverberated throughout the markets, the main driver was the company’s exposure to credit default swaps. However, because the swaps were not held in any of AIG’s insurance subsidiaries, independent observers were not able to ascertain their inherent riskiness and sound the alarm. At the time, the only means of information was self-reported mark-to-market accounting, now known to many as “mark-to-fantasy” accounting, thanks to the incentives provided to the reporting entity. To ensure another AIG catastrophe doesn’t threaten to topple the markets, and the market makers within them, reporting needs a much higher degree of transparency. Money market mutual funds are at a unique point in their history. They are considered low risk, and provide low returns. Investments are generally short-term in nature, with some assets invested with greater risk to boost returns. When short-term rates are extremely low, as they are today, these funds are reported to be taking more risk with their capital, so they don’t “break the buck.” But the risks they have accepted make it much more likely that they will eventually lose capital. There are reports that money market funds have accepted both direct and indirect exposure to European sovereign debt; they could be holding the debt directly, and indirectly could be writing credit default swaps on this debt or investing in banks that have done this. The bottom line is that these transactions are not transparent and could result in money markets becoming a much riskier asset class than ever before. This could easily lead to a run on the bank for money market funds. With returns less than 0.1 percent, investors should think long and hard about whether the returns for this asset class are worth the risks. How many Chief Investment Officers have someone on their staff whose job it is to poke holes in investment ideas? Having a “skeptic” on staff (or bringing someone in from the outside) can provide a firm with a competitive advantage by identifying potential adverse events that have a high probability of happening, and developing strategies to mitigate accompanying risk. Actuaries, with deep financial knowledge and training on investment topics including present value, capital markets and contingent events, along with expertise in risk management, would be a natural fit for this role. Most companies, and financial advisors, are so engulfed by current events that they manage from momentum. The team that has dedicated resources and members considering alternative scenarios, and prepares for them, will add value by lowering risk and increasing returns.

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: The Republicans’ Double-Dip, and What Must Be Done

August 5, 2011

John Boehner said Tuesday the Republicans got “90 percent of what we wanted” from the budget deal. So presumably he and his colleagues are willing to take responsibility for some 450 points of Thursday’s mammoth 513-point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. I’m being a bit facetious — but only a bit. It’s always dangerous to read too much into one day’s move in the stock market. Yet the stock sell-off — not just today’s, but that of the last days — cannot be easily dismissed. It marks Wall Street’s largest losing streak since 2008. Republicans repeatedly assured the nation that once the debt-limit deal was done — capping spending, cutting the budget deficit, and getting “90 percent” of what they wanted — the economy would bounce back. Just the opposite seems to be happening. Call it the Republican’s double-dip recession. Wall Street investors aren’t ideologues. They don’t obsess about budget deficits ten years from now, or the size of the government. One day doesn’t make a trend, but a giant sell-off like this is motivated by hard, cold realities. Here are the two hard, cold realities investors are most worried about: First, the economy looks like it’s dead in the water. The Commerce Department reports almost no growth in the first half of the year. And job growth is just about at a standstill. Far fewer jobs were generated in May and June than necessary just to keep up with the growth in the potential labor force — meaning the employment picture is actually worsening. Investors fear Friday’s jobs report for July will show more of the same. Secondly, investors now know the federal government’s hands are tied. The original stimulus is over; the Fed’s “quantitative easing” is over. This week’s deal over the debt ceiling cinches it. The market is now on its own — without enough rocket power get out of the continuing gravitational pull of the Great Recession. Now that the deal is done, Obama and the Democrats will have a much harder time passing anything close to the stimulus necessary to breach the gap between what consumers (who are 70 percent of the economy) are willing to spend and what the economy can produce at or near full-employment. Not incidentally, the Commerce Department’s revised data for what happened to the economy in 2008 and 2009 shows the drop to have been far greater than had been supposed. The economy plunged 8.9 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 — the steepest quarterly decline in more than half a century. And in 2009 household buying declined almost 2 percent (compared with a previous estimate of 1.2 percent). That’s the biggest contraction in almost sixty years. This means the original stimulus should have been much larger in order to offset the drop. With cash-starved state and local governments simultaneously scaling back their own spending, the federal stimulus needed to be even bigger. So much for Republican claims that the original stimulus “didn’t work.” Of course it didn’t, given the size of the slide. It was never a debt crisis. The debt crisis was manufactured. It’s been a jobs, wages, and growth crisis all along. And that reality has finally caught up with us. Now that we’re slouching toward a double-dip recession, the only hope is voters will tell their members of Congress — who are now on recess back home — to stop obsessing about future budget deficits and get to work on the real crisis of unemployment, falling wages, and no growth. We need a bold jobs bill to restart the economy. Eliminate payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income for two years. Recreate the WPA and the Civilian Conservation Corps. The federal government should lend money to cash-strapped states and local governments. Give employers tax credits for net new jobs. Amend the bankruptcy laws to allow distressed homeowners to declare bankruptcy on their primary residence. Extend unemployment insurance. Provide partial unemployment benefits to people who have lost part-time jobs. Start an infrastructure bank. And more. The jobs bill should be number one on the nation’s agenda. It should have been all along. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Stocks Jump On News Of Debt Ceiling Deal

August 1, 2011

SINGAPORE (Kevin Plumberg) – Equities rose while gold and the yen dropped on Monday, with investors cutting safety trades after Washington reached a last minute deal to escape default, though the top U.S. credit rating could still be downgraded. After a tense weekend in which rival plans to lift the U.S. borrowing limit were shot down in Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama said leaders from both parties reached a deal to cut the budget deficit by $1 trillion over 10 years, with additional saving possible. U.S. S&P 500 stock futures bounced 1.4 percent and futures on U.S. Treasuries — which have maintained their haven status despite being at the eye of the debt ceiling impasse — slid . Investors were still on guard though since the plan, which will come to a vote in Congress on Monday, may not necessarily satisfy Standard & Poor’s enough to keep the U.S. triple-A debt rating. “There was concern that if you had this extreme tail event — if the U.S. did default — that positions would have to be cut and financial markets would be thrown into turmoil, so they sold off on that risk,” Steven Englander, head of G10 currency strategy, told Reuters Insider. “Now that the risk is down, the risky assets are rallying but the dollar still doesn’t look that attractive.” Japan’s Nikkei share average rose in line with U.S. futures, up 1.7 percent as investors bought back technology-related shares. The MSCI index of Asia Pacific stocks outside Japan was up 0.9 percent after falling for the past two sessions, led by commodity-related shares. The U.S. dollar index , which measures its value against a basket of six other major currencies, was largely unchanged on the day. The euro weighs heavily in the basket, and so the index reflected deep-seated fears about the fiscal unsustainability for both the United States and the euro zone. The dollar shot up against the yen, up 0.7 percent to 78.00 yen , which slid broadly as safe haven trades were closed out. Traders in Asia had been keeping a close eye on the yen, since the dollar dropped below 77 yen to a four-month low of 76.70 yen on Friday, raising fears of yen-selling intervention by Japanese authorities. U.S. Treasury debt futures fell in electronic trading. The 10-year Treasury futures were down 10/32 to 125 12/32, and in the cash market, the benchmark 10-year yield rose five basis points to 2.84 percent . Oil futures also rose. U.S. crude rose $1.29 to $96.99 a barrel, while Brent crude gained $1.18 cents to $117.92. Gold prices tumbled 1 percent to $1,609.89 an ounce, down from a record high of $1,632.30 . Many investors believe focus will shift to the likelihood of a rating downgrade now. “I think it’s an almost foregone conclusion that there is going to be a downgrade at some point.” said Peter Kenny, managing director in institutional sales at Knight Capital Group in Jersey City, New Jersey. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Greece’s Dismal Economy Leaves Some Feeling They’ve Lost ‘Quality As A People’

July 29, 2011

A sovereign debt crisis has left Greece with riots and the worst credit rating in the world. And day-to-day life outside the capital can be equally dismal. Some Greeks living near the ruins of Athens’ ancient rival city Sparta feel they are paying the price for the choices made by politicians in the capital, BBC World reports. Small business owners across multiple industries say they are barely surviving even though the government’s latest round of austerity measures has yet to take effect. From pastry chefs to orange farmers to luxury furniture salesman, times are tough and the outlook does not look good — that’s if you’re lucky enough to even have a job with unemployment ratings rising 40 percent in March. And maybe worse, the joblessness casts a pessimistic malaise even over the most qualified of Greek citizens. “You lose your quality as a people, as a citizen,” one business school graduate who was forced to move back in with his parents after losing his job in Athens told BBC World. “Because you can’t offer [anything] in the community, you can’t offer [anything] for yourself, for your family.”

Read the full article →

Goldman Traders Quit As Big Bonuses Dry Up

July 28, 2011

NEW YORK, July 28 (Lauren Tara LaCapra) – More than a dozen traders have quit Goldman Sachs Group Inc’s (GS.N) North American government bonds and derivatives trading desk in New York in recent months as the bank takes fewer risks and big bonuses for ambitious traders dry up. Goldman has been handing out promotions and better pay to its salespeople, rather than the traders who manage the bank’s inventory of securities and derivatives, people familiar with the bank’s operations said. The changes reflect Goldman’s shift toward client trading and away from making money by betting for its own account, those sources said. Weak trading in general has compounded Goldman’s difficulties as it struggles to earn profits from clients without the help of its market bets, analysts said. It makes sense for Goldman management to reward sales staff over traders these days, said Susquehanna Financial Group analyst David Hilder. “The client franchise is paramount,” said Hilder. “You need sales people to deal with and talk to the clients. Over the long term, that’s more important than a few guys trading bonds.” Among the recent departures is Brian Mooney, an interest-rate derivatives trader who spent 22 years at Goldman before joining Bank of America Corp’s (BAC.N) Merrill Lynch this week, according to three sources who know about the move. Mooney’s exit follows that of Glenn Hadden, the former head of Goldman’s U.S. Treasury bond trading desk, who left last year to run Morgan Stanley’s (MS.N) global rates trading group in January. At least nine other traders from the rates desk have left for jobs at competitors this year, including UBS AG (UBSN.VX), Nomura Holdings Inc (8604.T), Jefferies Group Inc (JEF.N) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), or hedge funds like Stark Investments near Milwaukee. Among their ranks were more junior traders, some of whom were seen as rising stars at Goldman. Goldman has been laying off traders since March, but there has also been a flood of voluntary exits that began late last year and continued through the second quarter, sources said. Colin Corgan, a respected partner on the rates desk, retired in late 2010. In March, Craig Reynolds, a former top interest-rate swaps trader at Goldman, left to become head of Bank of America-Merrill Lynch’s North American interest-rate trading desk. Some traders that have left the bank said they fear Goldman may turn into just another investment bank, and they wanted to leave while it was still seen as prestigious on Wall Street. “Working for Goldman is no longer different than working for anybody else,” said one former Goldman trader who left this year. “At the same time, if you have Goldman on your resume, that’s still a premium. People are monetizing the Goldman premium now because two years from now you won’t be able to.” “Goldman Sachs is totally committed to the interest rate products business,” said spokesman Michael DuVally. The bank is staffed appropriately for the business, he added. SPECTER OF THE VOLCKER RULE Goldman’s North American rates-trading desk handles some of the most actively traded markets in the world, including U.S. Treasury bonds and U.S. dollar interest-rate swaps. The desk is to some degree shielded from a financial reform provision called the Volcker rule that will prevent banks from gambling on market direction. The rule is not in effect yet, but even once it is implemented, banks will still be allowed to take proprietary positions in the Treasury market and hedge against risk using related derivatives. Nonetheless, traders who left Goldman’s rates desk complained they were hamstrung by aggressive risk managers who limited position sizes and second-guessed trades. They also said they were being asked to take on more responsibilities with less pay as Goldman tries to cut costs. In announcing quarterly results last week, Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said Goldman plans to lay off about 1,000 people this year to reduce expenses by $1.2 billion and may slash employee pay if business doesn’t pick up. The rates-trading desk is among the largest in Goldman’s enormous fixed income, currency and commodities trading business, known as FICC. Over the last six quarters, FICC trading has suffered as clients pulled back from the market. Goldman detailed a 53 percent decline in second-quarter FICC revenue last week. Revenue there has dropped by 46 percent, on average, in each of the past four quarters. Goldman does not break out rates trading numbers, but said revenue there dropped “significantly.” Goldman’s client business has gained traction in some rates-trading areas — for example, the bank boosted market share in U.S. Treasury trading this year to 12.2 percent from 10.7 percent, according to a Greenwich Associates survey. Yet higher market share does not always amount to better profits, Greenwich said. Narrowing bid-ask spreads, increasing use of electronic trading and competition for big institutional clients’ business are pressuring rates-trading profits. “The market’s shift in emphasis from structured products to rates products has already reduced the profitability of fixed income for sell-side firms,” said Greenwich Associates consultant Woody Canaday. (Editing by Dan Wilchins and Robert MacMillan) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Dr. Sasha Galbraith: The Debate Continues: Do You Prefer Superstar Individuals or Effective Teams?

July 26, 2011

The blogosphere has been all abuzz lately over whether the super-smart individual contributor is better than a great team. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, was quoted in a New York Times article saying, “Someone who is exceptional in their role is not just a little better than someone who is pretty good. They are 100 times better.” This prompted Bill Taylor, co-founder of Fast Company , to argue in a recent HBR blog that superstar individuals are overrated. How paradoxical since Bill heads up a magazine that encourages people to build their own brand and standout among the crowd. Taylor’s post sparked a down and dirty discussion over the relative value of a stellar software engineer, for example, versus 1,000 mediocre engineers. It also prompted a rebuttal from Jeff Stibel who argued he would take the stellar engineer any day over a mediocre team, and that there’s a reason why CEOs of giant corporations are paid so handsomely. What I found most interesting, however, was that it was men who posted the majority of the comments in response to these two blogs and a follow-on post by Taylor. The discussion is a living example of the point that men — or certainly many of these men — are indeed from Mars: combative, argumentative and desperately wanting to establish their own dominance in the pecking order. The whole argument is a little bizarre. The use of teams versus individual contributors is completely dependent on the nature of the work. If the work can be done singularly and efficiently by a talented individual, then why set up a team? But if the work is dependent on a number of people playing their part on a larger stage and ensuring that other disparate groups are in on the final product, then you want to assemble the best team. Let’s look at this from a female perspective. All of the women entrepreneurs I’ve studied embrace teamwork and absolutely depend on it to run their organizations. But more importantly, they know that in order to ignite the creative spark that gets teams to produce value, they must build a culture and value system that treats the individual with respect. This means not blindly applying rules to all in an equal, unbending and algorithmic fashion. It means focusing on removing barriers to effective communication. It means recognizing people have lives outside of work and allowing them the flexibility to manage both worlds — often one in the context of the other. It means expecting each person to produce results above and beyond what he or she thinks is possible. It means creating an organization that respects and celebrates differences in people and leveraging those differences to achieve a superior product or service. It means hiring primarily for “cultural fit” rather than skills, which can be trained. And it means being the humble, emotionally intelligent leader who is not afraid to get her or his hands dirty in the trenches. So what does women’s penchant for teamwork boil down to from a performance perspective? A growing body of research indicates that when there is a critical mass of women in the senior management team, companies are more profitable , share prices are higher , R+D teams are more innovative and new ventures are less likely to fail . Moreover, an article in the June edition of Harvard Business Review summarized research indicating a team’s collective intelligence rises when more women are included. But if you’re still considering hiring that star, you might want to think again. Boris Groysberg , Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, found that male stars who were hired away by another firm suffered nearly a one percent performance drop after moving. In contrast, female stars experienced a modest performance boost at their new firm. However, entire teams that were hired away intact experienced no performance decline. As the research shows, here’s yet another reason to bank on women — whether it’s the superstars or female-populated teams.

Read the full article →

How The U.S. Debt Literally Stacks Up (GRAPHIC)

July 26, 2011

In former President Bill Clinton’s first-ever State of the Union address, he announced that if America’s debt were stacked in thousand dollar bills, it would “reach 267 miles” into space. Today, the U.S. debt is $14.3 trillion and the government is currently embroiled in a fierce debate over whether to raise the allowed borrowing amount further. Stacked and bundled into one-hundred dollar bills, the national debt would be as wide and long as two football fields and as high as the Statue of Liberty, reports graphic design artist Oto Godfrey . On his website, WTFnoway.com , Mr. Godfrey shows how the U.S. debt will literally stack up when compared to some of our greatest engineering wonders and machines. Click on any of the pictures below to go directly to the site: Ten Thousand dollars: One Millions Dollars: One Hundred MIllion Dollars: One Billion Dollars: One Trillion Dollars: One Trillion Dollars (Again): 15 Trillion Dollars: 114.5 Trillion Dollars:

Read the full article →

Debt Talks Break Up After 50 Minutes

July 23, 2011

WASHINGTON — A tense White House meeting on the expiring debt limit broke up after less than an hour today, with the president and leaders of Congress agreeing only that it was urgent to find a path forward this weekend, a source familiar with the meeting said. Staffers were set to work through the weekend, in hopes of crafting a compromise that could avert the United States beginning to default on its debt starting Aug. 2. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement soon after the session that Obama wanted assurances that Congress would not let the nation become delinquent. “The president wanted to know that there was a plan for preventing national default,” McConnell said. “The bipartisan leadership in Congress is committed to working on new legislation that will prevent default while substantially reducing Washington spending.” The remarks hinted that leaders may be narrowing in on the plan McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had been working on, which would hand authority to the president to raise the debt ceiling in three stages, paired with spending cuts totaling about $1.5 trillion. One obstacle to following that path is the president’s desire for a larger package — a so-called grand bargain — that would at least last through the election season. Another is that many House Republicans do not like the McConnell plan. Obama might have to back down, and enough Tea Party Republicans would have to conclude that default is worse than a smaller, though still large, cut. The print pool report from the start of Saturday’s meeting suggested it began extremely tense, but TV reporters who lingered just a little longer said President Obama broke the ice with a joke about golf . “I think everybody agrees it’s too hot to play golf today,” Obama told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), referring to their recent golf summit, which also did not lead to a breakthrough on debt negotiations.

Read the full article →

15 Corporate Earnings That Will Rule The Summer Markets

July 7, 2011

24/7 Wall St. is probably not alone in noticing that there were very few earnings warnings issued by the major companies that dictate market trends going into the end of June. That and some recovering economic trends and lower commodity prices have all contributed to a feeling that the woes of Europe, as well as the woes of Japan and the tightening of China, are not quite as strong of headwinds that will easily kill the bull market.

Read the full article →

Moisés Naím: Malthus, Marx, and Markets

July 7, 2011

I’ve just got back from China. Like most other regular visitors, I am amazed at the lightning speed of the changes in that country. My last visit was not that long ago and yet this time I noticed further enormous changes. This is what happens when a giant economy grows by 10 percent every year. I visited China for the first time in 1978, when its economic reforms were just being introduced. Cars were rare and the streets were packed with swarms of cyclists, all dressed in a uniform of either navy or olive green. Today those same streets are lined with skyscrapers with the world’s boldest architecture, crammed with cars, and people are dressed in every color and style imaginable. On my first trip, China’s economy was only 40 percent of that of the Soviet Union. Today it is four times larger. While it remains to be seen how sustainable China’s economic boom ultimately is, some of its consequences will endure. The most fundamental change is that millions of Chinese have escaped poverty, thus joining a middle class that while much poorer than in Europe or the United States, has for the first time the means to consume more food, medicine, electricity, cell phones, or toys. While an economic crisis or a slowdown will shrink it, it will not wipe it out completely. This is not a China-only phenomenon: the expansion of the middle-class in fast-growing poor countries is a global trend . India, Turkey, Vietnam, and Brazil are just a few in a long list of nations that now have a middle class larger than ever before. But will the ascent of the new middle class come with unbearable environmental and social pressures? There are three ways to answer this question. The first was offered by Thomas Malthus. In 1798 he argued that if the population grows faster than food production, inevitably famine, disease, and wars will “rebalance” the situation. A 1972 book titled The Limits to Growth predicted that oil would be exhausted by 1992 and a major Malthusian catastrophe would occur around 2000. Obviously, Malthus and his followers underestimate the impact of new technologies. The green revolution in agriculture, for example, meant that grain production in poor countries doubled in just 20 years. In general, more food per capita is produced today than ever before and more technologies enable the exploitation of natural resources that until recently were inaccessible. The second answer is that the problem is not about production but distribution. A minority consumes far too much and the majority of the world consumes too little. For example, the United States, with only 4.6 percent of the world’s population, consumes 25 percent of the yearly global energy output. Each German uses nearly nine times more energy than every Indian, and 30 times more than a Bangladeshi. From this perspective, Marx was right: consumption should be more equitably distributed and the state has to intervene to ensure that this happens. The third is a market-based response: prices and incentives will solve the problem. If there are shortages, prices go up and consumption is thus forced to go down as less people can afford the same quantities as they did when prices were lower. Moreover, higher prices create incentives to both be more efficient and to invent technologies that enable more production at a lower cost. If the price of oil continues to rise, wind, sun, and sea can compete with hydrocarbons for the generation of energy . If cotton prices go up, more farmers will be stimulated to plant more cotton. This, in fact is already taking place and in many areas we have witnessed almost miraculous growth of supply. And new technologies are creating more efficient and environmentally friendly manufacturing processes. The problem, however, is that market adjustments are brutal and are a threat to the poorest consumers for whom any decrease in consumption (forced by higher prices) means going hungry. Neither does it solve the problem of global market failures: the oceans are deteriorating at an unprecedented rate due to overfishing and their indiscriminate and largely unregulated exploitation. And we know what is happening with the CO2 emissions warming up the planet. Markets alone will not solve these problems. Neither Malthus nor Marx nor the market give us adequate answers to the difficult questions posed by the explosive growth of countries like China, the expansion of the middle-class in many of them, and the resulting increase in global consumption. Technological responses stimulated by the market may be too late to avoid serious social and environmental damage. Excessive state intervention to correct inequalities can end up fatally distorting markets and stifling the innovations we badly need. And, without state intervention, market failures may make the planet unlivable. Rigid ideological attachments will not help us find the solutions. We must draw on all the ideas, invent new ones, and give free rein to pragmatism and experimentation. In the past, humans managed to find solutions to unprecedented problems. There is no reason to assume that we will not be able do it again. Moisés Naím is a senior associate in the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He tweets at @moisesnaim.

Read the full article →

Citi: Greek Situation Could Be ‘Tough To Constrain’ In Europe

June 20, 2011

ST PETERSBURG (Ekaterina Golubkova and Kiryl Sukhotski) – Greece’s debt crisis may be contagious and poses one of the biggest risks to global financial markets alongside Middle East uprisings, Citigroup’s Chief Risk Officer told Reuters. Greece, on the verge of a debt default following Portuguese and Irish bailouts, is being pressured by European finance ministers to introduce harsh austerity measures before they agree to 12 billion euros ($17 billion) in emergency loans. “In Europe, you have to think about whether there will be contagion beyond (Greece),” Brian Leach, told Reuters Insider Television in an interview on the sidelines of the International Economic Forum in St Petersburg. “I think it will be tough to constrain (the debt crisis) to Greece, (but) other countries have made remarkable progress,” he added. Another significant market risk comes from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Leach said. “The regime changes that are taking place (in MENA) are quite significant. Depending on where those regime changes take place you could imagine a very different world,” he said. Socio-political unrest, which spread across some Middle East and North African countries this year, has pushed up global commodity prices, with crude prices rising more than 22 percent since January. Leach sees no further threat from the issues that caused the 2008-09 financial crisis, but instead sees new problems emerging. “There will always be a new problem on the horizon… So as we all are trying to address whether this is MENA, whether it is the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, whether it is the domestic U.S. debt crisis (…), each of us has to adjust our books to adjust to the new horizons. I think the old ones have been addressed,” he said. Citi’s lending strategy was revised a couple years ago to adjust to changing markets and tougher regulation. Despite all these risks, Citi continues to lend and will not compromise its lending standards, Leach said. (Writing by Nastassia Astrasheuskaya, editing by John Bowker and David Cowell) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Daniel Dicker: Breaking the Wall Street Oil Blockade to Recovery

June 18, 2011

It’s so simple, a child of four could understand — but too difficult for Wall Street to get: High oil and high gas prices are BAD for consumers and business alike and bad for a struggling recovering economy. Simple, right? No one needs an economics degree to understand that energy is the single most important input cost to more than 50% of manufacturing — to processing food, for refrigeration, to making drugs and plastics and of course to all manner of transport; trains, planes, trucks. For you and me, we can’t spend money with retailers that has already gone into our tanks to get us to work, or to heat our homes. Heck, we can’t even keep the money we’re spending on oil in this country, as it bleeds at a rate of $300 billion a year out of the US and into OPEC hands. It’s simple, and intuitive: Oil and the economy are at odds — high oil prices equal a sluggish recovery, with less consumer spending, reduced hiring and slowed growth. Low oil prices free up capital for investment and jobs, for purchasing vacations and flat screens, for increased profits and optimistic forecasts. But that’s not how it works on Wall Street. Because of the investor and trading connections between oil and other asset classes, (that I describe in my book ) , the correlation between oil and stocks — the best indicator of economic health — has been impossibly locked together for the last several years. How stupid. We fight like crazy to avoid a depression, pour more than a trillion dollars into stimulus, bail out banks to ensure that credit will continue to flow, take on more debt than we’ve ever seen before and when finally we see some good results of increasing profits or some small unemployment improvements, we run into the oil wall. Because oil has not so quietly been taking this recovery trip with us, eating the flesh of the recovery incentives, low interest rates and stimulus money and ratcheting up to bubblicious and economy destroying levels, reaching almost $120 a barrel in May. Whoops, time to stop our recovery — energy costs are too high now, almost all economists agree, people are buckling under the strain of $4 a gallon gas, corporate profit margins are getting eaten up, and domestic growth projections are revised downwards from 4%, to 3% to 2 1/2%. People talk about double-dip recessions and unemployment stop improving. And guess what? The stock market goes down, losing most of its hard earned gains for the year. And what are the economists saying is the silver lining in all this? That’s right, as the markets fall, oil falls with it, giving the slim hope that maybe we can get this high price anchor off from around our necks, if only to start this silly game over again. Crazy, right? Who doesn’t see how crazy this is? This Push-me Pullyu Doctor Doolittle beast of oil is just killing us. We’ve got to stop it. My friend Jim Cramer suggested today that not everything deserves to be traded. He mentions oil in a passing way, but I’ll do it much more directly: If we don’t break this Wall Street blockade that oil trading has placed in front of our road to recovery, we’ll just never get there. My hope is fading. The CFTC, charged with trying to fix some of this, has been stopped in its tracks from regulatory action, is in fact fighting for its life with deep budget cuts being proposed at a time when its mandate and responsibilities are greater than ever. All while one of the biggest roadblocks to economic recovery and success is so simple to see. So easy, a child of four could see it — while Wall Street clearly can’t.

Read the full article →

As Greek Default Becomes Increasingly Likely, Investors Flee to Safer Investments

June 16, 2011

Stock prices around the world have fallen sharply in response to the growing likelihood that the Greek government could default on its debt and plunge the European economy into a recession, endangering the euro and infecting the global economy. Greek stocks plummeted Thursday, dragging down stocks across Europe. Greece’s ASE index declined 2.8 percent Thursday, and the Stoxx Europe 600 index closed down 0.5 percent. Meanwhile, the value of the euro fell to a record low , and the yield on bonds of more indebted European countries rose, according to Bloomberg and Reuters. Markets far outside of Europe reacted negatively to the news. Latin American currencies fell against the dollar, since the dollar generally is viewed as a safe investment during uncertain times. In Asia, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index fell 1.7 percent Thursday, Japan’s Nikkei Stock Average ended down 1.7 percent, and Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 fell 1.9 percent, according to Dow Jones Newswires . U.S. stock market shares fell sharply on Wednesday, though the fall softened on Thursday as investors viewed the United States as an increasingly safer gamble than Europe. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 63 points on Thursday after tumbling more than 200 points, or 1.5 percent, Wednesday. U.S. banks have minimized their exposure to the Greek debt crisis during the past year, according to Reuters , and the value of the dollar has risen substantially against the euro. Overall, investors have been moving away from stocks into less risky investments , such as the dollar. With Greece locked in a political crisis over whether to impose new budget cuts, investors increasingly are betting that the country will default. The cost of insuring a Greek default has reached an all-time high , as investors wager that Greece does not have the political will to agree on debt reduction measures in time to qualify for another round of bailouts from the European Union. If that happens, Greece likely would default by mid-July . After failing to establish a unity government to address Greece’s debt crisis, George Papandreou, the prime minister of Greece, offered to step aside as long as the center-right opposition party could agree to a new bailout plan to Greece, which it still opposes. The Socialist Party, which he leads, has become increasingly fractured as the Parliament and Greece remain similarly divided. Adding to the sense of turmoil, the ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service threatened on Wednesday to downgrade the rating of major French banks because of their exposure to Greek debt: a move that could cause a crisis in confidence across Europe. French bank shares have fallen in response. In the only sliver of good news from Europe, the European Union said it would be willing to give Greece an emergency $17 billion bailout by early July so that Greece does not run out of cash right away to pay its creditors. Greece’s political crisis has raised questions about whether the euro, and the European Union with it, can survive. If Greece defaults, it could cripple market confidence like the collapse of Lehman Brothers did in the fall of 2008. A Greek default would cause interest rates to escalate, which in turn could pressure European countries with larger debt burdens into default, send European banks into failure, freeze lending, dry up the cycle of buying and producing that keeps people employed and put the European Union in danger of dissolving. As a result, many investors around the world are hedging their bets and selling their stocks. A default by the Greek government would start a negative chain reaction forcing lenders to suffer serious losses, according to the Associated Press , and it would scare away lenders “for a very long time,” European Central Bank Governing Council member Christian Noyer said on Wednesday. Michael T. Darda, chief economist at the investment research firm MKM Partners, wrote in a report today that as interest rates spike, Greece is becoming more likely to default, an event that would make it much more likely for Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain to declare bankruptcy as interest rates rise even higher. Defaults in Spain and Italy then would trigger a credit crisis, causing major European banks to fail, and contracts written insuring against European countries’ defaults would endanger the financial institutions that wrote the insurance. Bank runs could ripple across European Union, as frightened investors rush to cash both their stocks and bank deposits, causing banks to fail and stock values to fall. The value of the euro would decline. “If deposits begin to flee and a ‘bank run’ ensues, it will be difficult for the ECB to stop,” Darda wrote, emphasizing that the European Central Bank’s current policy to decrease the supply of cash in the economy, in order to prevent the possibility of inflation, “makes no sense” in the current crisis. If enough countries and banks fail as a result of a European bank run, the euro itself would be in danger of dissolving — and the European Union with it. If Europe enters another recession, it would weigh down to some extent on the global economy, since Europeans would be buying fewer imports, producing fewer exports, hiring fewer people, inventing fewer technological breakthroughs and lending less. Such a contraction could spread to the United States and around the world.

Read the full article →

U.S. Hotel Transaction Volume Rises

June 14, 2011

Year-over-year hospitality sector sales prices accelerated for the sixth consecutive quarter in 1Q11, according to

Read the full article →

Can Democrats And Republicans Make A Deal On The Debt Ceiling?

June 5, 2011

WASHINGTON — The threat of a first-ever default by the federal government is pushing President Barack Obama and Republicans toward a sweeping agreement to cut government spending and increase the Treasury’s borrowing authority. Yet a perennial partisan struggle over Medicare drives them apart. Remarkably, the two sides seem determined to pursue both accord and discord simultaneously, sparing the still-wobbling economy from threatened calamity while preserving Medicare as a political issue in the 2012 elections. “I’m willing. I’m ready. It is time to have the conversation” about deficit cuts and the debt limit, said House Speaker John Boehner, urging Obama to become personally involved. “It is time to play large ball, not small ball.” But a few days later, House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California said, “I could never support any arrangement that reduced benefits for Medicare. Absolutely not,” she told CBS’ “Face The Nation,” emphasizing a position she and other Democrats had laid out at their own meeting with Obama. Given the sheer size of Medicare, nearly $500 billion a year, any deal on reducing future deficits is likely to include savings from the program, if not the benefit cuts many Democrats oppose. But if any Republican thought that the White House and congressional Democrats might agree to even a temporary cease-fire on Medicare, they may want to reconsider. Boehner, R-Ohio, and fellow House Republicans had scarcely left a White House meeting with Obama on Wednesday when presidential press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that Obama “doesn’t believe that we need to end Medicare as we know it, to dismantle the program as it currently exists, in order to achieve significant deficit reduction.” Within seconds, he said the Republican plan for Medicare “puts too much of the burden of deficit reduction on the shoulders of seniors, of low- income children and the disabled. And the president just feels that that’s unacceptable.” A few moments later, Carney hit a trifecta of sorts, calling the Republican plan “premium support or privatization or voucherization.” None of these can be considered terms of endearment, politically, particularly not by Republicans. They say their Medicare plan, developed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is designed to save the program from bankruptcy and preserve it for future generations. In the meeting the president hosted for rank-and-file Republicans, Ryan and Obama clashed. The congressman told Obama it was not leadership to demagogue a good-faith attempt to save Medicare, when it is clear the program is headed for bankruptcy, according to several participants in the session. Obama replied it wasn’t leadership to shift billions in costs from the federal government to states and individuals who can’t afford it. Ryan responded that wasn’t what his plan did, explained it in some detail and drew an ovation from fellow Republicans. The plan retains Medicare in its present form for current beneficiaries and those age 55 and older. For anyone younger, Medicare would consist of a government-mandated package of benefits, purchased on the open market from private insurers. Federal funds would help defray the costs for beneficiaries. Polls and recent events such as the unexpected loss of a House seat in upstate New York and criticism from GOP president contender Newt Gingrich make clear that the Republican plan is not favorable political terrain for the party. They are on far safer turf, they concede, when they stress that job creation is their top goal and spending cuts the surest way to achieve it. Even some House Democrats who once talked of wanting to allow more government borrowing without taking steps to rein in future spending voted against legislation last week to do precisely that. Republicans presented the bill as something Obama had asked for, but the House Democrats’ second-in-command, Rep, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, called it a “demagogic vote” designed to render his rank and file vulnerable to campaign attack ads. His comments underscore how much the Republicans have succeeded in casting the political debate since they were sworn into office in January and took control of the House. If anything, the announcement from Moody’s Investors Services that it might downgrade the U.S. debt, followed by a report showing an increase in unemployment, helped Republicans who are eager to put the Medicare debate aside. “If we don’t get our fiscal house in order, the markets will do it for us,” Boehner said Friday. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner put it slightly differently after meeting with first-term House members, most of them Republicans who are determined to cut spending. “I’m confident two things are going to happen this summer,” he said. “One is we’re going to avoid a default crisis, and we’re going to reach agreement on our long-term fiscal plan.” ___ EDITOR’S NOTE – David Espo covers Congress for The Associated Press.

Read the full article →

Gold Looking for Direction Amid Polarized Financial Markets

June 4, 2011

Gold Looking for Direction Amid Polarized Financial Markets

Read the full article →

Concern dominates the markets as the US Jobs report might trail projections…

June 3, 2011

Concern dominates the markets as the US Jobs report might trail projections…

Read the full article →

FOREX TREND MONITOR: Markets Turn Spotlight on US Jobs Report

June 1, 2011

FOREX TREND MONITOR: Markets Turn Spotlight on US Jobs Report

Read the full article →

Risk Appetite Flows Back Into Markets Following Holiday Trade

May 31, 2011

Risk Appetite Flows Back Into Markets Following Holiday Trade

Read the full article →

No More Bailouts For Ireland, Though

May 30, 2011

DUBLIN (Carmel Crimmins) – Ireland’s government moved on Monday to quash speculation it would be forced to seek a second EU-IMF bailout and said it would make a tentative return to international debt markets in the final quarter of next year. Dublin is trying to distance itself from the woes of euro zone struggler Greece, which is trying to avoid a potentially devastating default and seems certain to require a second bailout to plug a looming funding gap. Finance Minister Michael Noonan categorically ruled out Dublin requiring a top-up to its 85 billion-euro rescue package, seeking to limit the fallout from a cabinet colleague’s warning over the weekend that another bailout may be needed. “There is no question of a bailout package having to be brought in next year,” Noonan told state broadcaster RTE. “We have sufficient money from the IMF and European institutions to carry the country forward in all eventualities and the program runs until the end of 2013.” “A second bailout doesn’t arise because of that.” Noonan said Dublin would test market sentiment for Irish debt in the final quarter of 2012 after a two-year hiatus. “We won’t be fully back in the markets but we hope that the NTMA (debt management agency) will be able to raise some private funds in the market in the last quarter of next year.” Many economists have come round to the view that some sort of further aid and restructuring of its debt is likely to be inevitable to allow Greece to deal with a debt burden of more than 150 percent of its annual national output. Ireland’s debt is expected to peak lower than that but still top 120 percent of GDP in 2013 and Irish bond yields have sky-rocketed as Greece’s debt crisis deepened, reflecting market concerns it may face a similar fate. The Irish central bank said investors needed further reassurance that its EU-IMF program was on track. “Market spreads on Irish government paper have moved in the wrong direction since the program started… markets probably need more time to see persistent adherence of the program,” Governor Patrick Honohan told national broadcaster RTE. “Continued adherence to the path is the way to get back to the markets,” he said. ‘A BIG ASK’ Analysts said even with a clean EU-IMF report card, Dublin faced an uphill challenge. “We currently have 5 year paper trading at 12 percent, 10 year paper trading at 11. Clearly if this is where we are next year Ireland is not going to capital markets. I think yields have to get into single digits and heading south,” said Padhraic Garvey, rate strategist at ING. “It’s a big ask. It’s not impossible, but it’s a big ask.” The average interest rate Ireland is paying on its EU and IMF loans is estimated at 5.8 percent. Of the 85 billion euros bailout, some 17.5 billion euros is from existing state borrowing and cash balances and 35 billion euros is earmarked to shore up the banks. Ireland and its creditors are hoping that only 19 billion euros of that 35 billion will have to be channeled into the banks and the IMF has said that whatever is left over could be used by the state if there is a delay in returning to markets. Dublin is currently forecasting a deficit in 2013 of 12 billion euros. Brian Devine, economist with NCB Stockbrokers, said he still believed Ireland would have to tap the ESM, the EU’s permanent rescue fund, in 2013. “I don’t see how things are going to clear sufficiently for it to be otherwise,” he said. “The government will dip their toes first by issuing treasury bills but that will be to provide some short-term liquidity and gradually work our way back into the market.” Tapping the ESM might require some restructuring of privately held sovereign debt. Reflecting that medium-term risk, Ireland’s two-year and five-year paper are yielding around 12 percent, more than its 10-year bonds on the secondary market. Irish officials have insisted that their economy is on a growth trajectory, unlike Greece, but Honohan said there was no guarantee that Ireland would recover this year. “Nobody can be absolutely sure that there will be growth this year — our forecast is that there will be some growth in GDP this year but the margin of error is sufficiently small that nobody can be sure that it will actually be positive,” he told RTE. “It’s only in 2012 that we can forecast the return to what we would like to see as solid growth.” (Additional reporting by Padraic Halpin and Conor Humphries; editing by Patrick Graham) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Coldwell Banker Commercial NRT: Jason Toll | Florida Real Estate …

May 30, 2011

… built small bay warehouses and invested in existing industrial projects through equity partnership . Toll, who has over 13 years of experience in the real estate industry and is a graduate of the University of Central …

Read the full article →

With US and UK Markets Closed, Euro Gives Back Some Gains in Quiet Trading Day

May 30, 2011

With US and UK Markets Closed, Euro Gives Back Some Gains in Quiet Trading Day

Read the full article →

Video: Panjwani Sees `Silver Lining’ in China’s Energy Shortage

May 27, 2011

May 27 (Bloomberg) — Rajesh Panjwani, an analyst at CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets in Hong Kong, talks about China’s energy shortage and its potential impact on the nation’s economy. Coal prices may climb to the highest level in almost three years as China’s worst drought in half a century depletes hydroelectricity supplies, prompting utilities to burn more fossil fuels amid a nationwide power squeeze. Panjwani speaks with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move Asia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Job Growth Continues for Ninth Consecutive Month

May 27, 2011

Retail, professional and business services, and hospitality added jobs in April, contributing to an overall increase of 244,000 jobs last month. read more

Read the full article →

Kiwi’s Run in Question as Markets Weigh Risk Tolerance

May 27, 2011

Kiwi’s Run in Question as Markets Weigh Risk Tolerance

Read the full article →

Disclosure Of Secret Fed Lending Raises Eyebrows

May 26, 2011

In the midst of the global financial crisis in 2008, the Federal Reserve lent Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Royal Bank of Scotland at least $30 billion each at interest rates as low as 0.01 percent with no public disclosure of the details, Bloomberg News reported on Thursday. The latest revelations about the covert infusions of credit provided by the Fed to some of the world’s largest banks has amplified accusations that the central bank is a power unto itself, operating according to its own devices and in the interest of major financial institutions — and beyond accountability to taxpayers. “It just points out that this was about secrecy to protect banks basically from embarrassment from transparency, which is not supposed to be what the Fed’s about,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, in Washington. “That is the fundamental problem with the Fed,” Baker added. “They’re supposed to be an agency of the government, not an agency of the banks. But reflexively, there they are protecting the banks, again and again and again.” Some experts say that the Fed acted properly to withhold details of the transactions, asserting the broader financial system might well have been spooked had it been known to what degree the central bank was propping up major lenders. “Releasing data closer to the time of the crisis could have had an adverse impact on some firms,” said Ernest Patrikis, a partner at the law firm White & Case and a former chief operating officer of the New York Fed. “There’s a difference between a crisis and a period of time after a crisis, in terms of impact.” That was the Fed’s logic, as it handed out nearly free cash to major banks and other institutions while withholding from public view the names of the recipients, the dollar figures and the terms of the loans. But in recent months, the Fed has been forced by Congress and by a Supreme Court decision — in a case originally filed by Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News — to release the details of its so-called emergency lending programs. The Fed undertook those programs throughout 2008, accelerating its lending that fall in the aftermath of the collapse of the investment banking giant Lehman Brothers. In December, under orders from Congress, the Fed released a trove of documents that name the recipients of $3.3 trillion in aid intended to curb damage from the developing financial crisis. The documents describe a variety of Fed special lending facilities, including one program in which nine firms, five of them foreign, were able to borrow $5 billion for 28 days at the extremely low interest rate of 0.0078 percent, The Huffington Post reported. In late March, the Fed released information about its primary lending facility — the so-called discount window — which had provided ultra-cheap cash during the height of the crisis to a range of firms. During the week in October 2008 when borrowing under the program peaked, foreign banks received more than 70 percent of the $110.7 billion that the Fed lent out, Bloomberg News reported. Arab Banking Corp., a $28 billion lender now majority-owned by Libya’s central bank, got at least $3.2 billion that autumn, The Huffington Post reported . In 2008, Bloomberg News asked for Fed records under the Freedom of Information Act, but the Fed resisted. Revealing the names of borrowers could cause “substantial competitive harm” to those institutions because they could be perceived as weak, the Fed argued in a court filing. “[B]ecause Reserve Banks are the ‘lenders of last resort,’ the fact that an institution is borrowing at the [discount window], if publicly disclosed, can fuel market speculation and rumors that the entity’s liquidity strains stem from a financial problem at the institution that is not publicly known,” reads a May 2009 statement the Fed filed in a New York district court. The case went to the Supreme Court, which rejected an attempt by a banking industry group to block the Fed’s disclosure. So, for the first time since the Fed’s discount window began lending in 1914, the central bank in late March released the identities of its primary facility’s borrowers. The latest details came via an investigation published Thursday by Bloomberg News , which reported that Goldman and other financial institutions borrowed additional tens of billions from the Fed’s primary source of credit. A spokesman for the New York Fed, which administered the emergency lending program, said the Bloomberg article merely added the names of the banks that received the loans to previous public disclosures about the existence of the transactions. “The establishment and execution” of the program “were clearly communicated to the public,” the spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement. “On March 7, 2008, the New York Fed announced through a public statement its intent to conduct these open market operations. Further, the aggregate results of each auction were immediately posted on the New York Fed’s web site.” But the statement the spokesman referenced, written in highly technical language, does not name any recipients and indeed reads like a blanket assertion of lending authority. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has often said the Fed should be a more transparent institution. Last month, the chairman spoke to reporters at the first press conference after a committee meeting in the central bank’s history. “I personally have always been a big believer in providing as much information as you can to help the public understand what you’re doing, to help the markets understand what you’re doing, and to be accountable to the public for what you’re doing,” Bernanke said during the conference. But Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, pointed to the latest disclosures about the extent of the Fed’s covert operations as a sign that the institution has yet to live up to the standard its chairman has publicly laid out. “People want the information, whether it’s loan-level data or data on a security or on an issuer. Whatever it is, they want it,” Whalen said. “But you still have the Fed, because they’re such a reactionary organization, resisting this.” Chris Kirkham contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Jared Bernstein: Cut and Grow? I Say No

May 25, 2011

Neil Irwin’s Washington Post piece this AM provides a useful review of the different ways economists and politicians are thinking about the short-term impact of spending cuts on growth and jobs. I’ve been pretty aghast to hear claims that large cuts would immediately generate job growth (and Irwin should have at least quoted someone with that view in the piece) when the opposite is almost surely the case. You can make this a lot more complicated, but when you’re as far below capacity as we are — when so many people are unemployed, e.g. — it’s really quite simple arithmetic. Government spending feeds right into GDP growth and cuts subtract from it. Now, when you’re at full capacity, it’s different. At that point you’re pouring water into a glass that’s already full so you’re just wasting water. And you’re going to need some paper towels to clean it up (that’s inflation in this example — sorry, it’s early and I’m only partially caffeinated). But with GDP growth just around trend (positive but not all that strong) factories with capacity to spare, and 20+ million un- or underemployed, there’s space in the glass. In fact, if you look at the GDP or employment accounts, it’s clear that state spending contractions are a real drag on growth and jobs right now. (Maybe I’ll try to post some graphs on this later.) If I ran the country and had my druthers and wasn’t constrained by today’s budget politics (yes, that’s a lot of ‘ifs’), I’d do another round state fiscal relief. The story the “cut-now-and-grow” lobby wants to tell depends not on arithmetic, but on what Krugman calls the confidence fairy (she’s good) and the crowding-out troll (he’s bad). In a tight budget environment like today’s, politicians love the fairy because she provides free stimulus. And since she’s a fantasy, you can attribute anything you want to her: “confidence in the markets depends on [your favorite budget cut here]!!” Then there’s the notion that high public spending levels are crowding out private borrowing. Again, not a plausible story with excess capacity, the Fed funds rate at zero, and companies sitting on cash that they could invest with if they saw good reasons to do so. One final beef with this story. Irwin cites economist Kevin Hassett at the end of the piece suggesting that cutting government benefits to individuals would be more stimulative than cutting government infrastructure. Besides being backwards — the question is what would hurt growth least, not which “…cuts would be more beneficial” — the evidence I’ve seen, like Table 11 here , shows infrastructure in the middle of the pack in terms of stimulative impact, less than some of the major benefit programs like unemployment insurance of food stamps. And here’s something else on infrastructure, from someone who’s spent part of a career tracking its impact: compared to the other spending programs that get resources to folks who need it and will spend it quickly, it’s slow. Remember, at the heart of this argument is policy measures that would generate “immediate relief,” something a lot of people in this economy could use right now. I’m all for infrastructure investment — it’s a key input to our economic productivity, security, and living standards. But compared to spending on individuals, its stimulative impact usually occurs in the medium term, not right away. This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein’s On The Economy blog.

Read the full article →

CBRE arranges $8.2M retail center loan – Finance & Commerce

May 24, 2011

CB Richard Ellis' Minneapolis Capital Markets Debt and Equity Finance group recently arranged an $8.2 million loan to refinance the Brookdale Corner Shopping Center at 3245 County Road 10 in Brooklyn Center . …

Read the full article →

UK Plans World’s First State-Backed Green Investment Bank

May 23, 2011

LONDON — The British government outlined plans for the world’s first state-backed green investment bank on Monday – a key plank of its pledge to transition the country into a low-carbon economy. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the bank will open for business next April and will likely focus initially on investing in areas such as offshore wind, waste and non-domestic energy efficiency. The bank will be capitalized with an initial 3 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) from the Treasury coffers but will be given independence from the Treasury and will be able to borrow in the capital markets and from the private sector from April 2015. Clegg said he expects the bank to have injected some 15 billion pounds into the green economy within four years. “The bank is intended to bridge the gap between venture capital and the green economy, provide the finance for low-carbon infrastructure and lay the foundation for long-term, balanced growth,” said Clegg, the leader of the junior Liberal Democrats party in the Conservative-led coalition government. “The green investment bank will go from an idea to a flow of investment in under two years, and quickly grow into an independent investing, and then borrowing, institution,” he added, noting it was an “an extraordinary political commitment” at a time the government is axing billions of dollars of spending to cut heavy national debt. Clegg said the global market for low-carbon and environmental goods and services was worth 3.2 trillion pounds in 2008/09, and is forecast to continue to show strong growth. Many countries around the world have a development bank, but Britain will be first to have a national bank dedicated to the green economy. The plans announced by Clegg make some key concessions for critics who had feared the bank would be too tightly controlled by the Treasury, which had argued for the bank to be allowed only to borrow from the government. Campaigners argued that if the bank was not allowed to borrow from the capital markets, it would be unable to deliver the necessary investment in low-carbon technology. Clegg said the bank will have full operational independence “as soon as possible.” And it will have borrowing powers from April 2015 as long as targets for reducing government debt have been met. Greenpeace executive director John Sauven welcomed the government’s commitment to the bank’s independence, but said that it will be “hamstrung from the outset by keeping the restriction on borrowing powers until at least 2015.” John Cridland, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said the bank must deliver certainty for investors if it is to generate the scale and pace of investment needed to shift the UK to a low-carbon economy. Cridland, who has forecast that 450 billion pounds of investment is needed by 2025 to bring green jobs and opportunities to Britain, warned the bank “won’t work if it needs the Treasury’s permission to blow its nose.” “The bank needs to be able to get into the markets itself and do what it’s intended to do,” he added.

Read the full article →

FX Headlines: Aussie, Euro Plummet as Markets Shift to Risk Aversion

May 23, 2011

FX Headlines: Aussie, Euro Plummet as Markets Shift to Risk Aversion

Read the full article →

Video: Shah Says Barnes & Noble Worth More Than $17 a Share

May 20, 2011

May 20 (Bloomberg) — Sachin Shah, a special situations and merger arbitrage strategist at Capstone Global Markets LLC, talks about Liberty Media Corp.’s buyout offer for Barnes & Noble Inc. John Malone’s Liberty Media offered $17 a share for the bookstore chain, a 20 percent premium to yesterday’s closing price, Barnes & Noble said in a statement. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Republicans Question Debt Armageddon Warnings On Debt

May 19, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Would it really be such a big deal if the United States couldn’t pay its bills? As Washington searches for a budget deal that would give lawmakers political cover to sign off on further borrowing, some Republicans are questioning the Obama administration’s warnings of fiscal Armageddon if Congress does not raise the federal government’s debt limit in a timely manner. Their stance suggests the battle over taxes and spending could last well beyond the early August deadline set by the administration, forcing the government to make difficult choices about which bills to pay on time. The United States reached the legal limits of its borrowing authority on Monday, and the Treasury Department has urged Congress to increase the $14.29 trillion ceiling before August 2, when it predicts it will exhaust other methods for paying its obligations. Failure to act could bring on a second recession and roil markets worldwide, Treasury officials have said. But as Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, push for deep spending cuts as the price of any debt-ceiling hike, many of them say Wall Street would understand if Washington didn’t get a deal done by then. “The markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for the collapse,” House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said in Richmond, according to the Washington Post. “I think the markets are looking to see that there is real reform.” Because the government is taking in more than enough tax revenue to service its outstanding debt, the argument goes, the Treasury Department would be able to service its debt even if it ran out of money to pay all of its obligations. Some argue that investors might not be upset even if the government missed a few bond payments. “Failure to raise the debt limit for an extended period of time would be disruptive,” U.S. Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, said at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “It’s very important that we also remember that this is not a catastrophic default. A disruptive series of events is not the same as a catastrophe.” Toomey said the debt limit would have to be raised eventually and challenged the administration to tell investors that it will make debt service a priority in the meantime. DIFFICULT CHOICES The Obama administration is taking the talk seriously. Administration officials on Wednesday handed out a stack of letters dating back to the 1980s, warning of the dire consequences of putting off a debt-limit increase. A senior administration official questioned whether bond buyers would continue to pay low rates for government debt while the country was breaking leases on buildings and railroads and deciding what would go unpaid. “Who’s buying our debt in those auctions while we are defaulting on other obligations?” the official said. “The slippery slope of deciding every day what you would pay and what you wouldn’t pay is an impossible exercise.” Treasury would face some difficult choices if the ceiling were not raised by the time it runs out of financing options. The government is projected to collect enough taxes to cover about 60 percent of its expenses this year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That could easily cover the projected $213 billion in interest costs but would still leave the government far short of the money it needed to pay for everything else — from wars to student loans. Toomey’s view is catching on with other Republicans. The head of a group of 174 conservative lawmakers in the House said on Monday that failure to raise the debt ceiling would not bring on a default but only force Congress to prioritize its spending. “The only thing forcing a default would be Treasury Secretary Geithner allowing such a catastrophe to take place,” said Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. Fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller told the Wall Street Journal he was more worried that Washington would fail to reach a long-term budget deal to keep debt under control than the prospect of a few days of missed bond payments. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on Tuesday that Druckenmiller’s comments “captured our feeling pretty well” and echoed sentiments he heard from others. “If a bond holder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four, what is more important (is) that you’re putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on,” Ryan said on CNBC. Dan Ripp, an analyst with securities firm Bradley Woods, said bond markets would likely remain calm if the Treasury Department was forced to issue IOUs to federal employees or cut back on Medicare payments to doctors as long as it continued to make its debt payments. But the country’s credit rating could permanently suffer if Treasury was forced to miss bond payments as it would blemish a perfect repayment record that goes back more than 200 years. “When you have a perfect record and then it’s not perfect, you can’t go back to perfect again,” Ripp said. (Additional reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Caren Bohan, Paul Simao and Todd Eastham) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

White House: No Alternative To Raising Debt Ceiling

May 18, 2011

WASHINGTON — The White House said on Wednesday that there is no “Plan B” if Congress does not vote to increase the debt limit by August. The debt limit, which is currently set at $14.29 trillion, was reached on Monday, but Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress the government can continue to pay its debts until about Aug. 2 by using “extraordinary measures.” If Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by then, there is no plan in place for dealing with the resulting defaults, a senior administration official said in a briefing with reporters. “There is no alternative to raising the debt limit. It has to be raised,” the official, who spoke to the reporters on background, said. “There’s really no way around it.” The White House is pushing back against a few Republicans — including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) — who hinted this week the government could default on its debts for a short time in pursuit of a broader deal to cut the deficit. Republicans have overall agreed that the debt ceiling needs to be raised but have said they will not vote to raise the ceiling unless it is paired with major spending cuts and long-term debt reduction. But some fear that talks to reach that deal, which are being facilitated by Vice President Joe Biden, will last beyond the Aug. 2 deadline for increasing the debt limit. A few Republicans have said extending talks beyond that deadline could be done without serious harm to the markets as long as a deal was eventually reached to raise the debt ceiling. Toomey, speaking on Wednesday at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, pointed to a weekend interview in the Wall Street Journal with investor Stanley Druckenmiller, who said he would accept late payments on U.S. debts if it meant overall progress on the long-term deficit. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who is representing Senate Republicans in the White House debt limit talks, also referenced the editorial when speaking with reporters on Tuesday. Ryan made a similar remark Tuesday, telling CNBC the investors he speaks to would be willing to accept late payments “for a day or two or three or four.” The White House firmly rejected such an idea in the Wednesday briefing, saying even short-term default would harm the government’s credit and its reputation in the markets. “That’s not a plan; that’s default,” the official said. As lawmakers continue to push for a deal on the debt, the Treasury will continue to function by taking steps to “buy head room” within the current deficit, said a senior administration official. Earlier this month, the Treasury stopped providing State and Local Government Series Treasury securities, which help state and local governments to manage their debt. After reaching the debt limit Monday, the Treasury began using additional measures to avoid default. Geithner declared a “debt issuance suspension period” on Monday to borrow from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. The fund will be made whole after the debt limit increase is enacted, according to law. The Treasury will continue some business as usual, including maintaining its auction schedule to issue new bonds. The administration rejected the idea of selling off assets to buy time for the debt ceiling deal, arguing it would amount to a “fire sale” where assets would likely be sold for less than their true value. “The idea of dumping gold on the market would be extremely damaging,” a senior official said, while another official added that most assets do not have enough value to buy the government much time. Despite rhetoric over raising the debt ceiling by some lawmakers, Geithner is confident the debt limit will eventually be increased, an official said. “They always seem extremely challenging, but they seem to get there,” an official said.

Read the full article →

Bringing Solar Energy To The Masses

May 16, 2011

The California-based solar leasing firm Sungevity announced a deal on Monday with home improvement giant Lowe’s that could make obtaining a personalized estimate for installing solar panels a push-button affair at Lowe’s outlets. The deal gives Lowe’s just under a 20 percent stake in Sungevity, according to a solar industry source, though neither company would discuss specific dollar figures. Under the agreement, scheduled to launch in 30 Lowe’s stores in California in July, customers will be able to access kiosks equipped with Sugevity’s iQuote system , a Web-based application that allows homeowners to simply enter their address and receive a firm installation estimate within 24 hours, eliminating the expense of an on-site visit. The system combines aerial and satellite image analysis with research by Sungevity engineers at the company’s Oakland headquarters to assess the geometry of a home’s rooftop, its disposition to the sun at different times of day and year and any potential occlusions presented by nearby vegetation or built objects. In addition to an installation estimate, customers can also get a visual rendering of their home with solar panels installed. And if interested parties provide information on typical power usage, such as an account number or past electric bills, the iQuote system can estimate potential savings expected from using the equipment. The iQuote system can already be used online , and the company’s founder, Danny Kennedy, estimated that roughly 25,000 users had taken it for a test drive, though only about 1,500 of those had been converted to sales. The deal with Lowe’s, Kennedy said, could help Sungevity — a petite player in the solar leasing market compared to bigger players like SolarCity of San Mateo, Calif., or San Francisco-based SunRun, which raised $200 million in financing earlier this month — significantly expand its reach. “This will help us to get in front of thousands more customers, in front of middle America,” Kennedy told The Huffington Post. “We’ll be taking it to the ‘burbs, as it were.” Despite tough economic times and often uncertain economic incentives, a number of analyses predict a boom year for solar power in 2011. A report published in December by IDC Energy Insights, a market research firm based in Framingham, Mass., estimated following a healthy 2010, the solar market in North America could well see two gigawatts of solar power installations this year. Jay Holman, the report’s lead analyst, told The Huffington Post that those numbers had been revised somewhat, but that 2011 was still expected to bring in 1.6 gigawatts of new solar installations, roughly double the 2010 total. Part of the reason for America’s interest in solar energy may be a decline in the robust incentives the once drew a deluge of equipment and installations to the European market, particularly countries like Germany, the Czech Republic and Italy, Holman said. Those countries have begun to scale back their subsidies, forcing companies to look to other markets. Meanwhile, federal tax incentives, including a 30 percent tax cash grant extended through the end of 2011, have helped keep solar alive. Several states have healthy incentives in place as well, including the eight states where the Sungevity/Lowes deal will eventually be rolled out: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Holman also said solar leasing companies like Sugevity, SunRun and Solar City, which retain ownership of the equipment while reducing or, in many cases, eliminating the up-front installation costs, also help drive the expansion of solar power. “Obviously, we’re obsessed with being customer-focused,” said Kennedy. “We hope that this deal will make going solar as easy as shopping for light bulbs.”

Read the full article →

U.S. Apartment Rent Growth Continues in 1Q11

May 16, 2011

Effective rents in the U.S. read more

Read the full article →

Irene Aldridge: Is Quant Investing Taking Over Commodity Markets?

May 12, 2011

Last week, prices of several commodities declined abruptly: silver lost over a quarter of its value from April 29 to May 5, while oil plunged nearly 10% over the same period of time. The immediate question on the minds of many investors was whether the commodity run was over. And while the Federal Reserve has indicated that that they will deliver a soft landing to QE2, instead of an abrupt end that would have sparked inflation and sent commodities soaring, the signals of the Fed were by no means thought to have such profound impact on prices. Instead, as this note shows, the sudden drop in commodity prices is consistent with quantitative research and may show that commodities are now chiefly traded using quant analysis. Specifically, according to the quantitative factor analysis, many commodities tend to consistently outperform the S&P 500 in April, and underperform the index in May and June. Silver, in particular, tends to deliver high April returns in excess of S&P 500. Adjusted for macro risk, Silver averages 4.8% return in excess of S&P 500 in April with 96% statistical confidence. The risk-adjusted return of Silver then drops to statistically-insignificant -0.2% in May, followed by a -1.2% underperformance in June (the latter with just 68% probability). Similarly, Oil tends to deliver positive returns relative to the S&P 500 in April, but to underperform the index in May, and particularly in June. In fact, in average June, oil delivers 2.5% less than S&P 500 with 97% statistical confidence! Such expectations certainly reduce the outlook for Oil and could sufficient trigger for the drop in prices. In comparison, Gold, which like Silver significantly outperforms S&P 500 in April, keeps steady in May, on average earning a positive if statistically insignificant 0.3% over the S&P 500. Yet, like many other commodities Gold also tends to perform poorly in June, coming 2.2% shy of S&P 500 with 87% confidence, potentially explaining its performance. Other commodities, like Natural Gas, also follow a similar quantitative pattern. The bleak quantitative outlook for May and June may have prompted enough investors to sell off their silver holding at the end of April. The latest activity in the commodity space may just serve as an indication that quantitative trading may have taken over commodity investing and is now the dominant force behind the markets.

Read the full article →

Otaviano Canuto: South-South Trade Is the Answer

May 11, 2011

Istanbul is now at the center of the development action. In this splendorous city — where West and East converge — leaders from all over the globe have gotten together this week to assess the development results and challenges of the world’s poorest countries. One of the goals of the 4th United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries is to reduce the number of these nations from the current 48 to 24 over the next decade. And one of the things we can do to ensure this is to increase trade and South-South trade in particular. Some skeptics point out that the over-dependence of low-income countries on commodities and natural resources has limited their economic prospects. Or that it was precisely through trade and financial integration that the 2008 financial crisis was transmitted to many emerging markets, while poorer and less integrated economies remained isolated from the worst of the crisis. But the reality is that in the recovery from the crisis, trade is becoming a powerful engine for economic opportunity. And not in the traditional way. South-South trade is becoming increasingly important. World Bank data shows that while demand in developed countries remains stagnant, trade among developing nations is growing. Between 1996 and 2006, South-South trade tripled and nearly half of imports to low- and middle-income countries now come from other countries like them. China is leading much of the recovery. While the OECD , a group of the wealthy nations, still accounts for most imports, its share has dropped from 69 percent to 59 percent in only eight years. China’s share, on the other hand, has increased from eight to 14 percent. The least developed countries can benefit from the South-South trend because countries like China, India, Brazil and other leading emerging economies are becoming new markets for their products. Beyond volume, poor countries often face significant non-price barriers to breaking into markets in high income countries — like meeting technical standards — so the barriers to entry to developing countries may be lower. And even if traditional barriers tend to be higher in the South than in the North, lowering these would provide an incredible boost to the exports of the least developed countries. In addition, South-South trade can promote diversification, which is key to offset the over-reliance on natural resource exports that many of the poorest countries face. But no matter what they do — whether they continue exporting to high income countries or diversify their exports by finding new markets in the South — the least developed countries need to reduce their trade costs. How? By improving trade logistics — the capacity to efficiently move goods and connect manufacturers and consumers with international markets–and trade facilitation, which goes from better infrastructure (like in ports and transportation corridors) to faster border agencies. It might sound daunting but it is possible. Development agencies like the World Bank are increasing their work on Aid for Trade and trade facilitation. High income countries have a lot to do too. In addition to keeping their markets open to the exports of poor countries, they should help pay for the infrastructure and other trade facilitation improvements in the South. If everyone recognizes that trade increases are at the core of the economic recovery from the global crisis, the benefits will also be global. This blog was originally posted on the World Bank Institute Growth and Crisis website .

Read the full article →

Sen. Carl Levin: Time to Fight Conflicts of Interest on Wall Street

May 11, 2011

Something strange has happened to our financial system over the past years. We have always prided ourselves on having well-supervised financial markets and sophisticated financial institutions. Yet despite the preeminent role of the U.S. financial and capital markets, we have in recent years seen a significant and worrisome increase in conflicts of interests in the world of financial intermediaries and advisers, when their own economic interests and benefits increasingly clash with those of their clients, whose interests the intermediaries and advisers are paid handsomely to represent. Unfortunately, we have allowed these conflicts of interest to compromise the integrity of these very markets and to contaminate so many of the commercial relationships that form the core of our financial system — to the point that many parties and participants in these markets have come to accept a financial universe riddled with conflicts of interest as business as usual. To those who believe that financial markets can only survive and prosper in transparent, ethical and fair conditions, the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest indicates a serious and potentially fatal flaw in our economy. It is high time for us to address and correct this serious problem in the interest of reestablishing thriving financial markets that serve the legitimate capital raising and investment needs of its participants. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair and of which Senator Tom Coburn is the ranking Republican, spent over two years investigating the factors and causes that have contributed to our financial crisis and recently released a 639-page bipartisan report (available at levin.senate.gov ). In the course of four hearings and the review of countless documents and pieces of correspondence, we uncovered stunning evidence of rampant and blatant conflicts of interest. Time and again, we learned how financial professionals who were supposed to look out for their clients’ interests violated those very interests and instead chose to enrich themselves. Some of the structures we exposed were as impressive in their complexity as they were repulsive in their breach of the clients’ trust. There are countless examples, such as investment vehicles set up to contain highly dubious assets sold with aggressive sales tactics to clients, while the financial institution that selected the poor assets made huge profits by secretly betting against these very assets with short positions. In one case, a $2 billion security called Hudson was marketed by Goldman Sachs to clients with promotional materials representing that the firm’s interest was aligned with the security, when in fact Goldman had secretly held the short position, which resulted in Goldman enriching itself at its clients’ expense when the security tanked. When questioned about the obvious conflicts of interest, evidenced further by internal correspondence within the financial institutions describing the assets as worthless, financial industry representatives regularly claim that their clients are sophisticated investors and assume risks with open or semi-open eyes. This industry-wide retort to accusations of obviously bad and disloyal behavior is very troublesome. It seeks to establish that conflicts of interest are a necessary byproduct of complex financial transactions and that they can always be cured by means of disclosure to the client in the form of so-called risk factors or investment considerations, which most often tend to be grossly inadequate, vague, out of context and meaningless. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act finally puts to rest the myth of conflicts of interest as perhaps an unfortunate but nevertheless unavoidable part of our financial system, and gives a forceful mandate to our regulators to use their broad powers in order to clean the Augean stables that our financial and capital markets have become. In clear provisions, the law tackles these disgraceful practices that jeopardize our markets’ integrity and long-term viability. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and I successfully argued for explicit provisions in Dodd-Frank prohibiting conflicts of interest and granting necessary powers to the regulators to implement the prohibitions. Together with other Senate colleagues, we were determined to send a clear signal that this gross violation of ethical standards and this colossal betrayal of clients’ trust is intolerable. Conflicts of interest are at the very core of abusive and fraudulent practices that are dangerous to effective and high-performing markets. Many existing prohibitions of dishonest or manipulative acts in the financial and capital markets are based on the same need to prevent and sanction unethical behavior. The Dodd-Frank Act has finally taken a major legislative step in addressing these appalling practices with the urgency they deserve. The financial crisis has shattered the financial security of countless Americans, many of whom have tragically lost their life savings and are facing desperate fears and anxieties about their economic survival and their children’s future. We all witnessed what happens when financial institutions entrusted with maintaining the safety and soundness of the markets fall short in their commercial and ethical duties, and we all received painful reminders that some people with the opportunity to enrich themselves will behave badly when they are not regulated and supervised. Putting an end to this supervisory and regulatory vacuum, and making an unequivocal commitment to go after conflicts of interest, is not regulatory overreaching, as some have claimed. It is a critical and long overdue step toward economic healing and healthy financial markets. The cops on the Wall Street beat must take the mandate we gave them in the Dodd-Frank Act seriously and implement it forcefully to end these conflicts of interest.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Don’t Believe the Mea Culpa of Your Broker

May 11, 2011

In my blog last week , I took financial pundit, James Altucher, to task for confidently predicting the Dow would reach 20,000, while advising investors to avoid buying stocks. I noted that neither Mr. Altucher, nor anyone else, can predict the direction of the markets and suggested his advice about avoiding stocks was hopelessly off the mark. I don’t mean to single out Mr. Altucher. He was doing what most self-styled experts and virtually all brokers do every day: Pretend they have an expertise that doesn’t exist to inflate their self-importance. This issue would not merit more discussion but for Mr. Altucher’s creative defense to the points I made in my blog. He scrupulously avoided dealing with the merits and justified his conduct by asserting that he is simply trying “to help people.” He further noted that “[W]e’re all just trying to do our best, support our families, and all covet the freedom we work for.” I don’t understand how pretending to have predictive powers you don’t have “helps investors.” It may support your family, but so do a lot of other activities that don’t require misleading your audience. Every day brokers advise their clients to purchase actively managed funds (where the fund manager attempts to beat a designated benchmark), or to buy individual stocks or bonds, or “alternative investments”. Many also attempt to predict the direction of the markets, moving their clients in and out of stocks in response to the news du jour. They are also simply trying to support their families. Many will tell you they are motivated by a desire to “help investors.” Some are aware of the overwhelming data that discredits these activities as being harmful to the returns of their clients. They ignore it because it’s in their economic interest to do so. Others are too lazy to review the data or just don’t care about giving academically based, sound advice, because that conduct would be discouraged by the brokerage firms that employ them. As for coveting “the freedom we work for”, I am not trying to muzzle Mr. Altucher or his colleagues. I value his First Amendment rights and would vigorously protect him and others from any infringement of those rights. However, I believe it is important for investors to hear the other side of the story, which may act to balance the steady drumbeat of musings freely expressed by emperors with no clothes. There is an intelligent way to invest. It begins by recognizing there are no gurus with magic wands or psychic abilities. It ends by embracing capitalism and capturing global returns for a given level of risk. Maybe your broker really does care when his advice costs you your retirement savings. But how is his belated mea culpa going to pay your mortgage? I see the consequences of their actions every day. I don’t want you to become another victim of their conduct. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Champagne And Easy Money: The Web’s Young Stars Confront Another Bubble

May 10, 2011

Peter Thiel looked on in awe. The billionaire early investor in Facebook and co-founder of PayPal, Thiel had spent countless hours in close quarters with young entrepreneurs. But he’d never traveled through the Caribbean on a 14-story cruise ship with 1,000 of them. For three days in April just off the coast of Miami, the ship served as the venue for this year’s Summit Series , an invite-only business conference that draws some of the world’s most successful Internet startup founders. The yacht, the flowing champagne and the brand-name speakers were all part of Summit’s three-year-old business model: convene an elite group of young entrepreneurs, add investors, philanthropists, alcohol and a few celebrities and see what happens. This year’s gathering was the largest Summit yet — perhaps a sign of the times. For an elite class of tech entrepreneurs, including many who danced and drank on the cruise, there is no recession, no unemployment crisis. But, as waves of cash flow into Internet startups, there is talk of a sequel to the late ’90s dot-com bubble . “Markets are defined by greed and fear. We are in the greed mode right now,” declared Fred Wilson, a top New York City venture capitalist, in a blog post late last month. “This is a time to raise money and sock it away for a rainy day.” Startups are heeding Wilson’s advice. Thus far, 2011 has been the venture capital industry’s best annual fundraising start since 2001, as deep-pocketed backers aimed funds at hot late-stage technology companies, such as Facebook, Twitter and Zynga. Facebook’s value rose 58 percent during the first quarter to $65 billion, according to research firm Nyppex, while Zynga’s climbed 80 percent to $8 billion. As U.S. venture capitalists raised $7 billion during the first quarter of 2011, Internet firms snatched up $2.3 billion in funds, according to research firm CB insights. Those totals were up 76 percent and 46 percent, respectively, from the first quarter of 2010. Across the globe, more than $5 billion flowed into young web companies in the first four months of 2011, Reuters reported . The result has been something of a mad dash to raise startup funds — any funds. At the Summit Series, attendees could hardly throw a business card without hitting the founder of an Internet company that had raised millions in recent months. Take Travis Kalanick, a Summit-goer who founded Uber , an on-demand car service that uses mobile apps. In February, less than eight months after its launch, Uber rounded up nearly $12 million from investors at a $60 million valuation. Kalanick said Uber has more than 10 investors with a long line of suitors eager to snap up shares. Aaron Batalion, co-founder of the daily deals site LivingSocial , also had something to toast at this year’s Summit. Four days before the conference, and less than four months after landing a $175 million investment, Living Social raised $400 million at a whopping $3 billion dollar valuation. The cash rolling in at many young Internet companies has been a welcome, if frothy, development: In 2009, venture capital investments fell to a 12-year low , according to a report by National Venture Capital Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers. “During the downturn, good companies just couldn’t get funding,” said John Frankel, a partner at ff Venture Capital. “But the pendulum has quickly swung back.” In 2010, venture capital investments rose for the first time in three years, to $21.8 billion. Frankel and other investors say that in recent months they’ve seen valuations for early-stage web startups jump to two or three times the level of the previous three years. “You’ve got a whole group of investors who missed out on Groupon and Facebook and really don’t want to miss out on the next big deal,” Ben Lerer, founder of the online men’s lifestyle network Thrillist and a partner at Lerer Ventures, told an audience at Bloomberg’s Empowered Entrepreneur conference in April. “There’s a lot of money out there,” Lerer added. (Lerer is the son of Ken Lerer, a cofounder of The Huffington Post.) Wall Street, too, has raced to get in on the flood of attention on Internet startups. Rather than waiting for high-flying tech companies like Facebook, Zynga or Twitter to go public, banks are piling into the private secondary markets in an attempt to cash in. (Aboard the Summit Series’ 14-story yacht) In January, Goldman Sachs invested $450 million in Facebook in a deal that valued the social network at $50 billion. Last week, Reuters reported that a group of Facebook shareholders is trying to offload $1 billion worth of shares on the private secondary market. The sale would value the social-networking giant at more than $70 billion. In February, JPMorgan Chase raised $1.22 billion for its Digital Growth Fund to invest exclusively in later-stage tech companies. The bank quickly purchased a 10 percent stake in Twitter, valuing the company at $4.5 billion. Companies that are selling stock through secondary markets are getting the economic benefits of going public without increasing disclosure, said Jim Anderson, the head of Silicon Valley Bank’s software, Internet and e-commerce division. “Valuations are just indicators,” Anderson added. For many web companies, he warned, “there’s real uncertainty about the revenue model.” The red-hot market for private company shares has drawn the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission and led critics to call it a “shadow market” where investors are being kept in the dark about the companies they are buying into. Even as employees or VCs use secondary markets like SecondMarket or SharesPost to sell their stock, the companies themselves are not required by law to disclose detailed financial information. Historically, employees and early investors at successful tech startups were left holding valuable stock they couldn’t unload until an IPO or an acquisition. But secondary markets, their proponents say, free up capital by allowing employees and early investors at private tech companies to unload their stock before a public offering. At least some of this new cash is circulating back into the startup world. Armed with the expertise, money and interest, tech entrepreneurs-turned-investors are assisting and financing the current generation of startup founders. Some do it because investing in startups is more appealing than leaving cash in the bank or putting it in the stock market; some do it simply to stay plugged into the startup world. “You now have a wave of entrepreneurs who have founded companies, sold their stock, and are using the money to either start another company or reinvest in other startups,” said Frankel, the venture capitalist. THE SUMMIT COLLECTIVE “The Roots are about to take center stage for their final performance of the Summit Series,” blared a voice over the ship’s intercom. Moments later, crowds poured out onto the pool deck as a neon laser-light show pulsated across the boat’s stern. Three days of hyperactive networking mixed with champagne, extreme ocean sports and TED-style speeches by industry titans like Richard Branson and Google executive Jared Cohen had worn attendees down. But the celebration continued on through the night. Not until 6 a.m., when boat security ordered the crowds to disperse, did attendees finally return to their rooms. Summit’s final morning wasn’t the only time the ship’s security intervened in the festivities. Earlier in the trip, two tipsy attendees were detained and subsequently fined after jumping off the boat into the ocean. (The jump, a premeditated dare, did not result in any injuries.) For many, Summit felt more like a spring break getaway with friends than a business conference. Weeks before the jaunt, participants connected with friends and colleagues online using Summit’s private social network, dubbed “The Collective.” On the ship, they sported lanyards that carried their name and company and were provided with small plastic “e-toys” to swap virtual business cards. Yet many didn’t need identification. Attendees already knew fellow “Summiteers” from previous conferences or through business dealings. Summit’s collective is a microcosm for the startup world: a group of young, smart, mostly white males hailing from the East or West Coast who are intimately connected to the investment community either through exclusive social networks, late nights spent boozing at invite-only gatherings — or because they are active investors themselves. “I don’t remember seeing so many 27-year-old angel investors running around,” said one Summit attendee, who also noted that many attendees blurred the line between startup founders and startup investors. Though data on individual investors, also known as “angel investors,” is scarce, it is widely believed that the total number of angels and amount of angel investments has grown substantially in the past five years. (A panel at this year’s Summit Series) Part of the reason is individuals now have access to a wide array of resources that didn’t exist five years ago to learn the trade and to access deals, such as AngelList, an online networking service that matches entrepreneurs with investors. “The result is better and more reliable investors which is a huge benefit to entrepreneurs,” said James Geshwiler, founding chairman of CommonAngels, a Boston-based network of investors. And for the “in crowd” of entrepreneurs at Summit, there’s no shortage of opportunities. “It’s very different than it was a few years ago,” said Robby Walker, co-founder of Greplin, an Internet search tool that lets users search across their Facebook, LinkedIn and other personal Web services. “A few years ago, when you raised a Series A, investors did due diligence and lawyers got in involved. Now you do a convertible note over lunch.” Greplin raised $4 million during its first round of financing, or Series A, in February and now boasts a distinguished group of angels including Bret Taylor, the former CTO of Facebook; Paul Buchheit, co-founder of FriendFreed; and Christina Brodbeck, a design lead at YouTube. As cash piles up and today’s top entrepreneurs become pickier about whom they take money from, a new class system for investors is emerging. “We’re not just looking for money, we’re looking for someone to offer advice, networks and relationships,” said one tech entrepreneur at the Summit Series who spoke on the condition of anonymity. But, to some, stories of soaring valuations and seamless funding rounds are reminiscent of the late 1990s, when cash flooded the markets and set off a dot-com craze. That bubble burst in 2000, littering the tech field with failed companies and heavy losses. Yet many analysts say there are notable differences between the late-’90s boom and today’s Internet investment environment. For one, venture capital firms are investing considerably less capital than they were during the boom. Ben Horowitz, co-founder and general partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, crunched the numbers and found that venture capital firms had invested $200 billion between 1998 and 2000. More dollars were invested in that single 3-year period than in total over the prior 18 years. Between 2008 and 2010, venture capital firms invested $90 billion, which is less than half the 1998-2000 level. “I remember 1999,” said email service ccLoop founder Michael Wolfe, who was previously the vice president of engineering at Kana , a web-based communications firm that went public in 1999 at a multibillion-dollar valuation. “Today’s valuations may be 20, 30 or 50 percent too high, but they’re nothing compared to the valuations we saw during the late-’90s bubble.” Those valuations, according to Wolfe, were around 10 times what they should have been. Horwitz and Wolfe are part of a growing chorus of analysts who view the current surge as more of a boom than a bubble. “I’m bullish on the fundamental’s of today’s Web startups,” said Wolfe. Internet businesses, he points out, can be built with substantially less capital than in the ’90s because technology costs have dropped precipitously, enabling entrepreneurs to develop products and bring them to market quicker and with fewer resources. During the late-’90s boom, investors placed bets on capital-intensive Internet companies that burned through cash quickly and took years to turn a profit. Some analysts also claim that today’s tech investors are a different, more discerning breed. “In the ’90s grandmas were investing in startups,” said Walker, Greplin’s founder. “Today it is trained professionals and people with intimate knowledge of the space backing these companies.” Valuations for most late-’90s dot-com rockets generally didn’t soar until after companies went public, after which money from the masses piled in. This exposed ordinary investors — the day-traders and giddy optimists -– to risk as they rushed to the public markets to buy up tech stocks, some technology investors say. Today, valuations for the hottest technology companies are soaring well before initial public offerings. These companies are waiting longer to go public, which keeps average investors from buying shares — U.S. securities law prohibits investments by individual investors who have less than $1 million in assets (or below $200,000 in annual income). “It’s not your cab driver buying shares in today’s tech startups. It’s fairly smart, sophisticated individuals. These private markets are restricted to people who are generally not foolish with their money,” said John Frankel. But this doesn’t mean there’s not a bubble. Supposedly sophisticated investors can be just as susceptible to frenzies as the general public. After all, paid professionals fueled the most recent housing bubble. But if there is a tech bubble today, presumably the average Joe won’t be directly affected when it bursts, some analysts believe. Bubble detractors also say that high valuations for today’s hottest Internet companies are not inflated because the market opportunity for digital media has become so large. Today, about one in three people are online, or roughly two billion global users, according to data from Internet World Stats , compared to 1999, when less than five percent of the global population used the Internet. Flush with cash and in the crosscurrents of several seemingly game-changing trends , the startup world is confident that tomorrow’s billion-dollar businesses are being built today. Thiel, in his keynote on the second day of the summit, offered some advice to an audience filled with entrepreneurs and investors. “One of the most important things Facebook did was never sell the company,” he said. That is the mantra echoing through the startup world right now: Don’t sell and stay private so you can maintain control of your company’s vision. If Summit’s attendees and the investors that floated in their wake are any indication, the world of soaring valuations, million-dollar funding rounds and lofty entrepreneurial hopes will, for now, remain invite-only. Disclosure: The reporter’s brother was involved in the creation of the Summit Series. He has not played a role in its organization since 2009.

Read the full article →

Georges Ugeux: Is Europe About to Collapse? Not if It Restructures Sovereign Debt

May 9, 2011

Recent news from the European side of the Atlantic is not good. With €270 ($400) billion in bailout plans for three relatively small European countries (Greece, Ireland and Portugal), more than half the resources of the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF), the easy task is done. The rescue of Portugal was announced last week and included severe measures that will put the country in recession for most of the next three years. As a precondition for this action, the IMF and the European Union required an approval by both the majority and the opposition. The Parliament approved it. The Greek situation remains the most worrying . With 2-year yields at 25%, Greek sovereign bonds are worse than junk. Standard & Poor’s just downgraded Greece from BB to B, making the situation even worse. Two main challenges lie ahead. The first one is the relative fragility of Spain. The restructuring of the banking sector is aiming at the second-tier institutions, mostly the Cajas de Ahorros (local savings banks). It should be manageable since Spain did not enter the financial crisis with an excessive sovereign debt level. A meaningful bailout of Spain, if it were to happen, would exhaust the EFSF’s intervention capability and require a substantial increase to its publicly announced €750 ($1,150) billion. While Italy has some fragility within its banking sector (mostly the Cassa Popolare di Milano) it might avoid such a treatment. A bailout of Italy would have to be six times as big as Greece’s. It would purely and simply create a collapse of the European financial system. The second one is the social element: so far, despite demonstrations on the street, the austerity measures have started to be put in place. Surprisingly, the trade unions, after violently expressing their opposition to the austerity measures that were aiming at the workers and pensioners, eventually surrendered to the obvious. That support, however, is fragile. There is a non-insignificant risk of European social unrest that could rise to the level of some of the Middle Eastern unrest. Those two fronts are therefore as essential as they are delicate to handle. The freedom of maneuver is limited. There is, however, something that is not quite right in the European bailout. It is the refusal by the European Governments, the European Central Bank and the countries concerned to even envisage a restructuring of their sovereign debt. Ever since the IMF started helping countries in difficulty to face similar situations, restructuring of the sovereign debt was on top of the agenda. Why would Europe not go through the same exercise? The answer lies in the immense power of European banks on their national Governments. Some of them have balance sheets representing a multiple of their country’s GDP while the largest U.S. bank only reach a fraction. Most financing in Europe goes through the bank balance sheets. Since banks are important holders of European sovereign debt, including those of the countries in crisis, a restructuring of the debt would require them to take a write-off on their core holdings of these bonds. So far, they hold those securities at… their nominal value. This will be accepted by Europe for its “banking stress tests” and therefore, they will be meaningless. Restructuring is also a way to share the pain with the public at large. This is where the social fear, the limits of the EFSF and the structural banking fragility meet. Without an immediate restructuring of sovereign debt of the ailing countries, the European bailouts will only be the burden of their citizens and crush consumers and growth. Without a serious debt restructuring, all Europe is doing is buying time and worsening the problem. It is now at the mercy of any confidence crisis that could erupt in the markets as it did last Friday when the absurd notion of Greece leaving the Euro erupted. Europe is on a tightrope. It can explode at any moment. European Governments and authorities know it. They are consciously running the risk of their own collapse, and a world crisis as a consequence.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: China Tells U.S. to Mind Our Own Business — And We Should

May 7, 2011

China’s Vice Finance Minister lectured US administration officials about our debt and told us to mind our own business when it comes to China’s currency manipulation. It is about time the United States started minding our own business by taking steps to protect our business and bring manufacturing and jobs back home. Leading up to next week’s US-China Strategic And Economic Dialogue , China’s Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao butted into our business and told the US we should reduce our debt. He also told us to keep out of their business and not bother them about their currency manipulation. In the story ” China Paying ‘Close Attention’ to U.S. Debate on Increasing Debt Ceiling ,” Bloomberg News reports, “We are paying close attention to the domestic discussion in the U.S. on debt and deficits,” Zhu told reporters in Beijing today. “We hope the U.S. can take effective measures toward fiscal reorganization just as President Obama suggested.” [. . .] Zhu also said that currency policy is the “sovereign right” of every country. China says currency manipulation is their “sovereign right.” They say we should mind our own business. But they insist that “free trade” means America does not have a right to mind our own business and protect our own workers, companies and jobs. It’s Time To Mind Our Own Business It is time to finally mind our business and take action. For decades the United States has refused to mind our business by pursuing “free trade” policies that allow other countries to engage in all kinds of trade schemes, while we just sit back and let them. Our leaders have not protected American workers, companies and jobs, instead sending them out of the country. We are told that the resulting “low prices” at Wal-Mart justify letting manufacturing move out of the country. It is time for us to mind our business, and engage in our own sovereign duty to protect American companies, workers and jobs from the trade manipulations and schemes others engage in. It is time to hold countries like China and Germany accountable for the damage done to our businesses by their mercantilist trade policies. Trade barriers, currency manipulation, even outright extortion – demanding that our companies transfer proprietary technologies and processes if they want to do business selling into other countries — has cost us factory after factory, job after job and company after company. As an example of how this has worked, in 2008 George Bush made the following argument for a trade treaty with Columbia, In other words, the current situation is one-sided. Our markets are open to Colombia products, but barriers exist to make it harder to sell American products in Colombia. I think it makes sense to remedy this situation. President Bush wasn’t saying he was going to do something about the one-sided arrangement and hold Colombia accountable, he was saying that since we just let Colombia do this to us, therefore we need to reward them with a free-trade treaty that gus American jobs even more! But why not just mind our business and stop it? All we really have to do is tell Colombia we are going to do what they do, until they stop doing that, start paying workers a decent wage and protecting their safety and rights. Why China Really Cares The fearmeisters say China is concerned that we might not meet our debt obligations. This is not at all what China is concerned about. China holds $1.15 trillion in Treasuries, accumulated as they sell goods to us, and don’t let us sell goods to them . What they are concerned about is that our currency might drop, which will help bring factories and jobs back to America. From the Bloomberg story, “Reduced U.S. fiscal spending may lead to a higher possibility of the U.S. dollar appreciation, therefore it helps China to maintain the value of the U.S. debt it holds,” said Li Jun, a Shanghai-based strategist at Central China Securities Holdings. Their concern about our debt is really just about keeping their currency low, which gives goods made in China a huge price advantage in world markets. Let Trade Be Trade It is time to mind our business and mind our businesses. It is time to take action on mercantilism and currency manipulation. It is time to stop China and others from flooding our markets with goods made without the wage, safety and environmental protections that democracy provides. Let trade be trade. Trade is supposed to be about trading . It is not supposed to just be a scheme to drive wages and living standards down by packing up factories and moving them across borders. It is not supposed to be “take a pay cut and a cut in benefits or we’ll move your job.” It is not supposed to be “well, we have something called globalization now so everyone should expect to be poorer and poorer every year.” Trade is supposed to be we buy what they make and they use the money we pay them to buy things we make. And then we use the money they paid us to buy things made there. And then they use the money we paid them to buy things made here. It is supposed to go on like that, and everyone does better and better. Better and better, not poorer and poorer. It really is time to mind our own business and tell countries that can’t sell to us until they meet our conditions. Which is just what they do to us. This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

US- Markets relieved at big US jobs bounce

May 7, 2011

US- Markets relieved at big US jobs bounce

Read the full article →

New Zealand Dollar Likely to Follow Stock Markets Lower

May 7, 2011

New Zealand Dollar Likely to Follow Stock Markets Lower

Read the full article →