‏إظهار الرسائل ذات التسميات just talking. إظهار كافة الرسائل
‏إظهار الرسائل ذات التسميات just talking. إظهار كافة الرسائل

الجمعة، 13 يناير 2012


RBS cuts 3,500 investment banking jobsT)

A branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland is pictured in London, on August 5, 2011.
A branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland is pictured in London, on August 5, 2011.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Royal Bank of Scotland is to cut an additional 3,500 jobs
  • It has already announced 2,000 investment banking job cuts as it shrinks its risky operations
  • The investment bank will have 13,400 staff within a year, down from the end of September 2011 number of nearly 19,000
(Financial Times) -- Royal Bank of Scotland is to cut an additional 3,500 jobs as the state-controlled bank rapidly shrinks its investment banking activities in response to the worsening economic outlook and wide ranging reforms of the banking sector due to take effect before the end of the decade.
Stephen Hester, chief executive, on Thursday outlined plans to restructure RBS' wholesaling or investment banking operations into two divisions and withdraw from activities such as cash equity broking and merger and acquisition advisory work that were aggressively expanded by former disgraced chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin.
Risk weighted assets, under Basel III regulatory definitions, will be shrunk to £150bn from £225bn under the restruring plan.
The bank will continue to operate in the fixed income and debt raising markets where it has a strong position but reduce its dependence on wholesale funding markets which have frozen up in the last three years.
Since taking over in 2009, Mr Hester has shrunk RBS's balance sheet by £600bn following the disastrous acquisition of Dutch bank ABN Amro in 2008 by Sir Fred, which forced the bank to seek a government bail-out.
It has already announced 2,000 investment banking job cuts as part of Mr Hester's attempts to shrink the highly profitable but risky operations and focus on lending to corporate and institutional clients.
The investment bank, which will be restructured into a markets division and an international banking unit, will have 13,400 staff within a year, down from the end of September 2011 number of nearly 19,000.
However, people close to the bank have said that the staff numbers could fall to below below 10,000 in a worse case scenario.
The two business units will target a return on allocated equity exceeding the cost of capital, currently estimated at 12 per cent, in the medium term.
The unprofitable cash equities, corporate broking, equity capital markets, and mergers and acquisitions businesses will be closed or sold.
"Our goal from these changes is to be more focused for customers, more conservatively funded, more efficient and with better, more stable returns for shareholders overall," Mr Hester said in a statement.
The investment bank has been RBS's growth engine in the last three years, producing an average return on equity of 19 per cent, but Mr Hester made clear on Thursday the bank had to respond to the challenges thrown up by the current economic crisis.
But pressure mounted on the bank just before Christmas, when George Osborne, chancellor, said the bank, which is 83 per cent-owned by the government, should "scale back [its] risky activities".
The government has also accepted proposals from the Vickers commission, which was set up following the financial crisis and recommended splitting investment banking activities and retail banking operations in the UK's leading banks by 2019.
Shares in RBS were 9 per cent higher at 23.75p in morning London trading.

U.S. acts against Chinese oil trader


The U.S. is taking action against three firms in Asia over oil deals with Iran.
The U.S. is taking action against three firms in Asia over oil deals with Iran.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • U.S. has slapped sanctions on three firms including a major Chinese oil trader
  • US State Department said penalties would be imposed on China's Zhuhai Zhenrong
(CNN) -- The US has slapped sanctions on three firms including a major Chinese oil trader for selling refined oil products to Iran, just days after US Treasury secretary Tim Geithner travelled to Beijing to press for Chinese support on Iran sanctions.
The US State Department announced late Thursday night that penalties would be imposed on China's Zhuhai Zhenrong, the Singapore-based oil trader Kuo oil, and the UAE-based independent oil trader FAL.
While the measures are unlikely to have a big immediate impact on these three companies, they send a strong warning signal to energy companies working in Iran at a time when the US has been canvassing Asian countries for more support in isolating Tehran.
The US State Department called the sanctions against the three firms an "important" step in convincing Iran to change its behaviour, and highlighted the "potential connection between Iran's revenues derived from its energy sector and the funding of its proliferation [of] sensitive nuclear activities."
A spokesperson for Zhuhai Zhenrong said the company had not sold gasoline to Iran. "We've never exported a barrel, not even a wee bit of refined fuel to Iran," said Zheng Mei, director of the public affairs department.
According to the statement, the three firms violated US restrictions on supplying Iran with refined oil products that were passed in 2010. "Under the sanctions imposed today, all three companies are barred from receiving US export licenses, US Export Import Bank financing, and loans over $10m from US financial institutions," the US State Department said.
Importing refined oil products like petrol and diesel is crucial for Iran's economy because the country doesn't have sufficient refining infrastructure to process enough of its own crude into products.
China is the biggest buyer of Iran's crude oil and, according to the US State Department, is also a significant source of gasoline for Iran, but Chinese companies have until now avoided sanctions from the US.
China supported the most recent United Nations sanctions resolution on Iran in 2010, and some analysts believe that in exchange for that support the US may have turned a blind eye to Chinese companies which may have violated US laws. Last year the US placed sanctions on seven companies for selling refined oil products to Iran, but none of those were Chinese.
Zhuhai Zhenrong is a state-owned oil trader based in Southern China. The company has a special mandate from the State Council to do crude trades that offset military trade debt with Middle Eastern countries, according to their website.
Ms Zheng, the spokesperson for Zhenrong, said the company would continue buying Iranian crude. "Zhuhai Zhenrong's trade with Iran is carried out under the two governments. The trade accords with international law and Chinese laws and regulations," she said.
"What we've signed with Iran are long-term contracts and we import around 12m tonnes of crude from Iran each year," Ms Zheng said. "We've never exported gasoline to Iran. This is out of thin air! "
The US State Department said Zhuhai Zhenrong is Iran's largest supplier of refined oil products, brokering sales of gasoline worth more than $500m between July 2010 and January 2011.
The sanctions are likely to have little immediate impact on Zhenrong because the company does very little, if any, business in the US.
Additional reporting by Gwen Chen in Beijing

The zero lower bound in our minds


PRIOR to the crisis, there was a general (if tenuous) accord among macroeconomists of many different stripes, that the Federal Reserve could and would act to stabilise the economy when necessary. Then, in December of 2008, the Fed hit the zero lower bound, when it dropped its target for the federal funds rate to between 0% and 0.25%, where it has sat ever since. At the time, the unemployment rate was 7.3%. It eventually peaked at 10% about a year later, and it has come down, very slowly and fitfully, to just 8.5% since then. For fully three years, America has been a zero lower bound world.
During that time, economists have been working very hard to figure out what the implications of the zero lower bound are for macroeconomic policy and unemployment. Are we stuck, or what? 
At a session this morning, I saw a few presentations on the topic. There was a general agreement among them on the nature of the zero lower bound problem and the liquidity trap. There are two different kinds of people in the economy: savers and borrowers. The borrowers borrowed heavily until the shock of the crisis changed the nature of their borrowing constraint and forced them to rapidly deleverage. Without an increase in demand elsewhere, the high rates of saving of the borrowers will plunge the economy into a deep recession. Normally, the real rate of interest should adjust downward until the savers cut their desired saving enough to offset the increase in desired saving of the borrowers; that is, they spend more to make up for the others furiously trying to pay off their bills. But in some cases, the extent of the deleveraging by borrowers may be great enough to drive the market-clearing real interest rate into negative territory. Since the Fed can't cut rates below zero, savers don't spend enough, there is excess saving, and the economy is stuck with high unemployment.
What then? Paul Krugman, who presented a paper in the session with Gauti Eggertsson, noted that fiscal policy was likely to prove effective in such a situation. The government could borrow from those wishing to save more and provide the economy with needed additional demand. At the zero lower bound, government spending doesn't generate crowding out of other investment activities via higher interest rates, so policy is even more effective than usual. And so on. There are other potential solutions, as well; one presenter noted that "unconventional fiscal policy" could replicate an ideal monetary policy through a combination of tax changes—a consumption tax scheduled to rise over time alongside a tax on labour that would decline over time.
But Stanford economist Robert Hall really nailed the crux of the question, so far as I was concerned. At the AEA meetings a year ago in Denver, I listened to Mr Hall speak a few times on this issue and point out that with the market-clearing interest rate below zero the economy was stuck with high unemployment. At the time, I wondered why, if that were true, that the answer wasn't simply a higher rate of inflation, which could combine with a zero nominal interest rate to move the real interest rate below zero.
This time around, Mr Hall addressed the point head on. He noted that in a liquidity trap, the real rate of interest was simply equal to the negative inflation rate. In other words, if the Fed's nominal rate is at 0% and the inflation rate is 2%, then the real rate of interest is -2%. If a -3% real interest rate is necessary to clear the economy, then all that's needed is a higher rate of inflation—3% rather than 2%. Mr Hall noted that this was an important point because potentially the Fed could have an enormously helpful impact on the economy simply by raising inflation just a little. And here's where things got topsy-turvy. Mr Hall argued that:
  1. A little more inflation would have a hugely beneficial impact on labour markets,
  2. And a reasonable central bank would therefore generate more inflation,
  3. And the Federal Reserve as currently constituted is, in his estimation, very reasonable; therefore
  4. The Federal Reserve must not be able to influence the inflation rate.
Now, perhaps there was a political economy subtext to this argument; if so, I missed it. Rather, he seemed to be saying (as others, like Peter Diamond, have intimated) that at the zero lower bound it is simply beyond the Fed's capacity to raise inflation expectations. Now admittedly I haven't done a rigorous analysis, but it seems clear to me that the Fed has been successful at using unconventional policies to reverse falling inflation expectations. Why is Mr Hall—why are so many economists—willing to conclude that the Fed is helpless rather than just excessively cautious? I don't get it; it seems to me that very smart economists have all but concluded that the Fed's unwillingness to allow inflation to rise is the primary cause of sustained, high unemployment. And yet...this is not the message resounding through macro sessions. Instead, there are interesting but perhaps irrelevant attempts to model the funny dynamics of a macro challenge that actually boils down to the political economy constraints (or intellectual constraints) facing the central bank. Let's focus our attention on that, for heaven's sake.

الأربعاء، 11 يناير 2012

Gold, God and forgiveness

 Gold, God and forgiveness


DO BANKERS inevitably go to hell? What many people today merely hope will come to pass was for Christians in the early 1400s a matter of faith. After all, the Bible, like the Koran, was explicit in its condemnation of lending money at interest, the basis of most banking operations. So in many parts of Christendom moneylending was left to Jews. In several northern cities of medieval Italy, however, ingenious Christians started to find ways round the banking ban. Their contrivances, though legal, were not popular with the church, which held that usurers, by charging for the duration of a loan, were not trading in goods but in time, and this was God’s.
The prospect of an eternity of hellfire was particularly acute in Florence, since it was here that the foundations of modern banking were being laid. As it happened, Florence was also witnessing the first stirrings of an extraordinary flowering of the arts. Before long guilt-ridden bankers were commissioning great works of religious art in the hope that they might after death escape the damnation that the scriptures foretold. In this way were the birth of the international financial industry and that of the Renaissance intimately connected.

 

The connection might perhaps be reduced to a single word, whether patronage, or atonement, or Medici. A
longer, and far more pleasurable, elaboration can be found in text, pictures and objects at the Palazzo Strozzi in Florence, where an exhibition devoted to “Money and Beauty” continues into 2012. Subtitled “Bankers, Botticelli and the Bonfire of the Vanities”, it explores the motives of Florence’s bankers in their artistic commissions; the reactions of churchmen to rich Florentines’ displays of luxury and wealth; and the effects of both penitential patronage and ecclesiastical reproach on the works of art that, throughout the 1400s, or Quattrocento, tumbled forth from Florence like coins from a slot machine.
In the background of the exhibition are the Medici, the wool-traders turned bankers who held sway over the Florentine republic in its golden age under Lorenzo the Magnificent, and who produced popes and queens and Tuscan grand dukes until the last of the dynasty died in 1737. Their grip was interrupted by the invasion of Charles VIII of France in 1494, which brought in its wake the brief rule of Girolamo Savonarola, the austere Dominican friar from Ferrara who berated the Florentines for their luxuries, gambling, carnivals, and particularly their wanton paintings, which made “the Virgin Mary look like a harlot”. He called for children to spy upon their parents, prostitutes to be chastised, sodomites burned alive and irreligious frivolities prohibited. Hence the great Bonfires of the Vanities in the Piazza della Signoria in 1497 and 1498, when countless works of art, as well as cards, books and dresses, went up in flames.
Sandro Botticelli, a central figure, was not one of the artists who flung their paintings onto the fires, but he nevertheless fell under Savonarola’s spell, as his later works clearly show. Gone, in these, were the sensuous depictions of idealised beauty seen in his early paintings, such as the “Birth of Venus”. Now Botticelli’s figures were more likely to bear agonised expressions of intense piety, as in “Madonna and Child with the Young St John”.
In between came works like “The Calumny” (pictured above). This shows Midas on his throne, receiving the counsels of Ignorance and Suspicion, with a hooded Envy clasping the hand of Calumny, who in turn, with Deception and Fraud attending, is dragging the unidentified victim by the hair, while Penitence turns hopefully towards stark-naked Truth. Though not overtly religious, the sentiment is morally correct and therefore Savonarola-suitable, as is the turbulent mood, so far removed from the sumptuous lyricism of Botticelli’s earlier, mythological works. When those were made, as the chronicler Giorgio Vasari noted over half a century later, he worked happily for many Florentine families painting “very nude women”.
“Money and Beauty” was proposed in 2006, just after the birth of the foundation that runs the Palazzo Strozzi, a 15th-century building in the middle of Florence built by mercantile rivals of the Medici. Five years of incubation, however, have only improved the show’s timeliness, allowing reflections not just on the role of bankers in general but even on some familiar banking terms whose origins are Tuscan. The most notable may be “risk”, which derives from Tuscan rischio, the amount considered necessary to cover costs when lending money, ie, a euphemism for interest. Another is “florin”. First coined in Florence, florins circulated widely in Europe for centuries—in Britain until 1971—and may yet perhaps make a post-euro return.
It is not just its timing, though, that makes this show so successful. Its themes, and the abundance of artefacts and paintings on which the curators could draw, allow every point to be illustrated with a wonderful work of art: a panel commissioned by the mint; an altar painting showing Filippo Strozzi, who paid for it, almost as prominently as the entire Holy Family; keys, locks, letters of exchange; an account book pointing to the perils of sovereign default (three banks had gone bust when Edward III of England reneged on large loans); a codex containing the sumptuary laws that forbade flashy clothes and ostentatious funerals. (Even Fra Angelico—see next story—so pious he could not paint a crucifix without tears running down his cheeks, chose to depict the Virgin’s obsequies in the manner of an unashamedly opulent 15th-century Florentine funeral.)
The images are merciless. Miserly bishops are shown being whipped with their own moneybags; St Anthony causes a usurer’s heart to be found in a strongbox; a moneylender meets the figure of Death. Balancing these are numberless images of devotional scenes, the Nativity, the Madonna and other religious figures. And also shown are the events with which Lorenzo’s magnificent era ended: Charles VIII’s entry into Florence, Savonarola preaching against luxuries in a city that derived so much wealth from making them, and the fundamentalist friar’s own execution in the very square in which the Bonfires of the Vanities had been held. This is the visual telling of a tale of beauty and bloodshed, lucre and licentiousness, morality, hypocrisy and propitiation.
The telling is not all the work of the Quattrocento. The exhibits benefit enormously from the commentaries of two curators, Ludovica Sebregondi, a specialist in the religious art of the Renaissance, and Tim Parks, a British novelist and author of “Medici Money” (2005). While one puts the exhibits in their art-historical context, the other explains the social and wider significance. With different styles, and sometimes conflicting views, they add considerably to the pleasure of the show.
And should today’s bankers take heed? Though usury has long since lost its power to inspire any penitential effort among Christians, modern moneylenders are accused of other sins: Pope Benedict calls for “moral renewal” in Italy and the Church of England agonises about the godlessness of the City of London. Yet most bankers seem to dread damnation in the hereafter as little as censure in the here and now. Too bad. Without the fear of God, they are unlikely to pay for a new Renaissance.

 

الثلاثاء، 10 يناير 2012

Reimagining the future


THAT city will, in the course of time, become the granary of the world, the emporium of commerce, the seat of manufactures, the focus of great monied operations,” predicted DeWitt Clinton, governor of New York in 1824. He was speaking about the effects of the Erie Canal, which connected the Great Lakes to the Hudson River. Originally derided as “Clinton’s folly”, the canal helped to open up the west, allowing New York to benefit enormously from an explosion of trade. Within 15 years of the opening, New York was the busiest port in America, moving more than Boston, Baltimore and New Orleans combined. The plan to open an applied sciences university campus in New York City, reckons Seth Pinsky, who heads New York’s Economic Development Corporation, is an “Erie Canal moment”.
The city’s embrace of high-tech has already begun. Tech clusters have emerged in Manhattan’s Flatiron District and Brooklyn’s Dumbo, home to firms like STELLAService and Etsy. Venture-capital firms and angel investors have been looking at New York more seriously than they once did. Henry Blodget, of Business Insider, notes “the financing ecosystem has also gotten very well developed, from late-stage private equity right down to angel investing.” Some $1.2 billion was invested by venture-capital firms in New York in 2010. The Big Apple even overtook Massachusetts in venture-capital funding for internet and tech start-ups, making it second only to Silicon Valley. And in the third quarter of last year, it surpassed it in venture capital in all categories. Between 2005 and 2010 employment in New York’s high-tech sector grew by nearly 30%. Google alone has about 1,200 engineers in the city.
Much of this growth has been organic, but there has been some help from City Hall. Since 2002 the city has set up more than 40 projects to help the biotech sector and helped create a network of incubators supporting start-ups in that area. It also established a $22m municipal entrepreneurial fund, the first of its kind outside Silicon Valley. A year ago Michael Bloomberg, a tech entrepreneur before he became New York’s mayor, called on universities to pitch plans to develop and operate a new tech campus in New York in exchange for access to city-owned land and up to $100m in public money.
New York received seven proposals from 17 top institutions, including Stanford University which did so much to create Silicon Valley. Almost 6,000 companies, including Google, Hewlett-Packard and LinkedIn, trace their beginnings to Stanford. But Stanford withdrew from the competition last month, days before the mayor announced the winning proposal, which came from Cornell, an Ivy League university, and its partner Technion, an Israeli technology institute. The latter is considered to be one of the driving forces in Israel’s tech industry. It helped turn Israel from a country of orchards to one of semiconductors. Some 4,000 start-up companies are located around its campus.
The two bodies have plans to build a $2 billion 2m square feet (610,000 square metres) campus on Roosevelt Island, one subway stop from mid-town. Cornell and Technion hope to have a temporary facility up and running as soon as this autumn and complete their permanent home by 2017. The bid had huge support from Cornell alumni, including a $350m gift from Charles Feeney, who made his fortune through the Duty Free Shopping Group. That is one of the largest donations in the history of American higher education.
According to the city’s analysis, over the next 30 years the campus will generate more than $7.5 billion in economic activity, with 600 companies spinning out of the new school directly; these are projected to create 30,000 jobs. Some 20,000 construction jobs will also be created, not to mention about $1.4 billion in extra tax revenue. And it should help quench the never-ending demand for qualified engineers. The mayor has not ruled out naming additional winners. And some of the losing plans will go forward regardless. So New York could soon have several applied sciences campuses. Look out, Silicon Valley.

Behind every cloud, another cloud

A decade ago, Britain came through the dotcom bust with barely a scratch, thanks to a consumer-credit boom and deficit-financed public spending. Those days of easy credit are long gone: consumers are paying down their debts and government finances are deep in the red. The economy’s best hope lies with export demand, but this is growing scarce. The economic outlook for America, Britain’s biggest single-country export market, looks dark. The euro zone, where half of Britain’s exports go, is at risk of imploding.

In September the IMF cut its forecast for Britain’s GDP growth in 2012 to a sluggish 1.6%. Even that may soon look too optimistic; the Economist Intelligence Unit, a sister company of The Economist, expects 0.7% (see “The world in figures”). It seems far likelier that the economy will disappoint than offer a pleasant surprise. The British policy brass feels vindicated for its wariness about the single European currency but scepticism will be no protection against the fallout from the euro’s troubles. Britain is the one big country outside the currency zone that is heavily exposed to euro trouble through its trade and financial links.
The continuing crisis in Europe will have implications for Britain’s deficit-cutting plans. The logic behind the government’s fiscal austerity is that the bond market’s ire can turn quickly from errant euro-zone countries to others (such as Britain) that have large budget deficits. But as Europe’s woes deepen, the harm done by sticking rigidly to the fiscal plan is likely to prove greater than any damage done by deviating from it.
That is in part because money pulled from the euro zone’s trouble-spots has to go somewhere. Some of it will end up in British government bonds, which will look among the soundest of the rich-country credits (admittedly not a healthy peer group). Meanwhile, a dearth of export orders for British companies will push the government to adopt measures in support of the economy. Deep cuts in the state’s day-to-day running costs, including reductions in welfare benefits, will go ahead as planned. But the Treasury will find itself having to finance new capital projects to make up for a shortfall in aggregate demand.
The economy will be lucky to avoid at least one quarter of contraction during 2012. The unemployment rate will be stuck above 8%, the highest rate since the mid-1990s. But two factors militate against a deep downturn.
First, businesses anxious about the economic outlook and fearful of a renewed tightening of credit conditions tend to trim their stocks, postpone planned investment and stop hiring new employees. But this tendency to conserve cash will be limited in the coming months because many British companies have already been piling up rainy-day money. The excess of corporate income over spending has risen above 4% of GDP. That offers a degree of protection against savage cuts in stocks, investment and jobs.
Easy does it
A second helpful factor is the prospect of lower inflation. It is set to fall steadily from a peak of 5% to around 2% by the end of 2012, as vat and energy-price increases drop out of the annual rate (see chart). That will bring some relief to hard-pressed consumers, who suffered a large fall in real income during 2011. Lower inflation will also make it easier for the Bank of England to justify a more aggressive dose of “quantitative easing” (QE)—boosting the money supply by buying government bonds. Because investors will be increasingly reluctant to finance commercial banks, amid worries about their exposure to the euro zone’s sovereign-debt problems, the Bank of England will find itself compelled (with Treasury backing) to buy long-term bonds issued by banks as part of its QE programme.
The pound is set to fall further against the dollar
London will look a cheap holiday destination for Americans next summer but a lot of Europeans are likely to stay at home. The pound is set to fall further against the dollar in the early months of 2012, in part because of Britain’s exposure to the euro zone but also because the dollar rises against other currencies when the world is in trouble. At the low point for the global economy in March 2009, the pound fell to $1.38. It could easily fall as far again in 2012 given how fearful investors are likely to become.
Only the euro looks more vulnerable to a fall. But it will not be much comfort for Britons that some other European economies will be in even worse shape than their own.

الأحد، 29 مايو 2011

My Bucket lists

1. Finish Law and pass the bar in 2013
2. Learn Spanish
3. Study and Live Abroad (at least 3 months)
4. Get married to Patrick Lacsamana
5. Have a child
6. Travel Alone
7. Go to Europe and see at least 7 countries
8. Conquer my fear of heights
9. Win an online contest
10. Write a book and get it published
11. Travel with friends (WHERE NO PARENT IS ALLOWED)
12. To see a Hollywood Star
13. Talk to Avril Lavigne
14. Interview a Senator or the President
15. Experience Winter in another country
16. See Harry Potter Theme Park
17. To experience regression and know my past life
18. Change someone’s life by helping others
19. Help children who are abused
20. Travel for free (Not paid by my parents)
21. Make 1000 visitors for a day in any of my blog
22. Be a part of a stage play
23. Visit New York and meet new people there
24. To have my own house with a remarkable name
25. Buy my own car
26. Learn Mandarin
27. To give a trip to Africa as a gift to my mom and dad
28. Buy my boyfriend a plane ticket
29. To have an international trip with my boyfriend alone
30. Tour in the Caribbean
31. Visit St Jude’s shrine
32. Learn the world's most kept secrets
33. Climb the Eiffel Tower
34. See the Louvre