This is classic.

Related posts:

• Jon Stewart: His Gaffe-in is great comic relief
• Quote of the Day: Jim Bunning
• Jon Stewart takes on Fox News
• Wassup 2008
• The experience canard

The Canadian daily National Post has a good piece out today that highlights how the ‘Buy American’ provision is being seen in Canada.  Many see it as an affront that America could and would favor domestic firms over those of its largest trading partner and next-door neighbor despite the North American Free Trade Agreement.

For the second time in six months, pipe fittings in California are being ripped from the ground because they were stamped "Made in Canada," a move manufacturing companies say hurts both sides of the border.

Cambridge Brass Inc., a Canadian brass fittings manufacturer, discovered Thursday that it stands to lose more than $1.5- million in this most recent fallout from the Buy American protectionist measure.

Greg Bell, vice-president of sales and marketing for the Cambridge, Ont., company, received a call Thursday from the City of Sacramento, where the parts were being fitted into the public water system. He was told his product was no longer acceptable because it was not made in the United States.

"It’s disheartening. (The city) wants American-made products and there’s nothing I can do about it," Mr. Bell said. "Business is tough enough these days without having to deal with these roadblocks."

Anything already in the ground will have to be ripped back up at Cambridge Brass’s expense, Mr. Bell said. Between the costs of losing the project, pulling up the pipes and legal fees, he estimates his company stands to lose money in the seven-figure range.

Cambridge Brass has been based in southern Ontario for more than a century and has survived two world wars and the Great Depression, but Buy American may be what finally causes the company to bid farewell to the province.

Mr. Bell said losing a major project like this would mean more layoffs for the already suffering company.

It has already lost a supply distributor in Maine, and it has had to lay off half of its own employees in Cambridge – from a workforce of 140 it is now down to 77 – since the introduction of Buy American policies this year.

And if these protectionist measures continue, he said, the company will likely be forced to move its manufacturing to the United States in order to stay in business.

America seems clueless at how protectionist policies build rage that politicians abroad must quell or heed through retaliation. It’s as if only American politicians want to protect jobs.

It bears repeating because some people don’t get it: it’s not the act of protectionism itself which is so damaging, it is the retaliation and escalation that results.

"The government has got to stand up and propose some serious retaliation," said John Hayward, president of Hayward Gordon Ltd., noting the Halton Hills, Ont.-based industrial-pump manufacturing company has been barred from bidding on U.S. products. He said he has had to switch manufacturing from three Canadian plants to U.S. sites in order to stay in business, a survival decision that has resulted in local layoffs.

Read the full account below.

Source

‘Buy American horror stories’ building – National Post

Related posts:

• ‘Buy American’ will translate into a 21st century Smoot-Hawley
• Canada is furious about U.S. protectonism
• China launches retaliatory investigation into U.S auto subsidies
• The absurdities of ‘Buy American’
• China: we “will take steps to protect the interests of our domestic industries”

Of the five, United Commercial is pretty darn big ($11.2 billion in assets)

United Commercial Bank
San Francisco, CA

As of October 23, 2009, United Commercial Bank had total assets of $11.2 billion and total deposits of approximately $7.5 billion. East West Bank paid the FDIC a premium of 1.1 percent for the right to assume all of the deposits of United Commercial Bank. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, East West Bank agreed to purchase approximately $10.2 billion in assets of the failed bank. As part of the purchase and assumption agreement, the FDIC transferred to East West Bank all qualified financial contracts to which United Commercial Bank was a party and those contracts remain in full force and effect.

The FDIC and East West Bank entered into a loss-share transaction on approximately $7.7 billion of United Commercial Bank’s assets.

Gateway Bank of St. Louis
St. Louis, MO

As of September 25, 2009, Gateway Bank of St. Louis had total assets of $27.7 million and total deposits of approximately $27.9 million. Central Bank of Kansas City did not pay the FDIC a premium for the deposits of Gateway Bank of St. Louis. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, Central Bank of Kansas City agreed to purchase essentially all of the assets.

Prosperan Bank
Oakdale, MN

As of August 31, 2009, Prosperan Bank had total assets of $199.5 million and total deposits of approximately $175.6 million. Alerus Financial, N.A. will pay the FDIC a premium of 1.02 percent to assume all of the deposits of Prosperan Bank. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, Alerus Financial, N.A. agreed to purchase approximately $173.9 million of the failed bank’s assets.

The FDIC and Alerus Financial, N.A. entered into a loss-share transaction on approximately $173.9 million of Prosperan Bank’s assets

Home Federal Savings Bank
Detroit, MI

As of September 24, 2009, Home Federal Savings Bank had total assets of $14.9 million and total deposits of approximately $12.8 million. Liberty Bank and Trust Company did not pay a premium to assume all of the deposits of Home Federal Savings Bank. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, Liberty Bank and Trust Company agreed to purchase essentially all of the assets.

United Security Bank
Sparta, GA

As of September 14, 2009, United Security Bank had total assets of $157 million and total deposits of approximately $150 million. Ameris Bank will pay the FDIC a premium of 0.36 percent to assume all of the deposits of United Security Bank. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of the failed bank, Ameris Bank agreed to purchase essentially all of the assets.

The FDIC and Ameris Bank entered into a loss-share transaction on approximately $123 million of United Security Bank’s assets.

Related posts:

• Seven banks seized by FDIC
• Five banks seized in FDIC Friday night special
• FDIC Friday Night Special: San Joaquin Bank, Bakersfield, California
• FDIC moves in at Great Basin Bank
• FDIC shuts down Haven Trust and Sanderson State

China on Friday accused the US of protectionist and biased trade policies less than a week before president Barack Obama’s first visit to Beijing.

In a stinging rebuke to Washington, China’s commerce ministry promised to take measures to protect its domestic industry after the US slapped anti-dumping duties on $2.6bn of Chinese steel pipe imports. The duties are part of a growing roster of trade conflicts between the two countries, despite a high-level meeting last week in China aimed at reducing tensions.

“China resolutely opposes such protectionist practices and will take steps to protect the interests of our domestic industries,” Yao Jian, ministry spokesman, said on its website.

I see this coming to a head.  More here.

Related posts:

• China launches retaliatory investigation into U.S auto subsidies
• China: reflation play spells trouble for rest of the world
• China issues bonds to “promote the RMB in neighbouring countries”
• Beijing starts a ‘Buy China’ policy
• Free trade is dead: victim of a poor economy

In my recent post about the capture of the Obama Administration by the financial services lobby, I said it was irrelevant whether they were deliberately looking to line the pockets of the banking industry. This is an important point as you decide whether to donate campaign money, how or whether to vote, and who to elect to office in all the upcoming elections.

In our democracy, the ballot box is where you get to act as jury. Campaign contributions is where you get to be the judge. You can convict any incumbent politician of misusing public trust and yielding to monied special interests by withholding your money and voting the individual out of office.

So when you make these decisions, always keep this in mind:

To convict, you don’t need to prove intent, you just need to prove motive.

Related posts:

• An interactive guide to subprime spending on Capitol Hill
• Public anger at Wall Street begins to boil over
• SNL skewers Barack Obama
• Climate Findings Were Distorted, Probe Finds
• German chancellor chastises US for easy money

While I see the job numbers as pretty much what was expected, the data do make clear that we are seeing a major jobless recovery. David Rosenberg has a piece out today that goes right to the heart of the issue:

All we can say is that if the overwhelming consensus is correct that the recession is behind us, then what we have on our hands is the mother of all jobless recoveries and whatever economic growth is being squeezed into the system comes courtesy of the most dramatic intervention by the government in recorded history, including the New Deal 1930s era. President Obama is now running fiscal deficits that would have made FDR blush.

But while Uncle Sam can try and stimulate spending on autos and housing and even mortgage credit via the myriad of policy measures that have been undertaken, the return to job creation is as elusive as ever. It is hard to fathom that, according to the White House estimates earlier this year, the stimulus was supposed to help cap the unemployment rate at 8.5%. Here we are today with both an unemployment rate and a fiscal deficit-to-GDP ratio both north of 10%. While real GDP did manage to rebound at a 3.5% annual rate in Q3 — stagnant if not for the government incursion — those dual 10%-plus figures cited in the previous sentence highlight the fact that GDP is not the only barometer of a nation’s economic health.

TODAY’S HEADLINE PAYROLL PRINT CONTAINED TROUBLING SIGNPOSTS
While the government can try to induce people to spend, no recovery can be sustained without a resumption in job growth and October’s employment data contained some troubling signposts.

While the -190,000 headline nonfarm payroll print was not that far off the consensus, and while there were upward revisions to the prior two months (of over 90,000), the major problem is that the Establishment Survey, at this time, is missing a very important part of the story, which is the strain that the small business sector continues to face. Small businesses have less cash on the balance sheet, less access to credit and less exposure to overseas growth dynamics compared to large companies. The Establishment Survey (nonfarm payrolls), has a “large company” bias that the companion Household Survey does not have. If you look at the historical record, you will find that at true turning points in the economic cycle, the Household Survey leads the Establishment Survey. This has always been the case heading into expansions and into recessions.

My interpretation of this is threefold:

• The headline data understate the severity of the problem because of “large company” bias and a low labor force participation rate. In reality the U-6 number of 17.5% is more reflective of the state of the economy – and that is a depressionary number.
• To the degree you expect the recovery to continue, labor force participation rates should be increasing, not decreasing. In my previous post, I failed to point this out, leading to the conclusion I saw the data as a net positive. I see the data as a net wash – as it was in line with expectations. However, when discouraged workers come back into the labor force, we are going to see a much higher headline unemployment rate.
• Given the fact that unemployment is pointing to depression but we are in a recovery, you should conclude that this recovery will fade once government stimulus is removed.

Lunch with Dave — U.S. Payrolls: 10-Plus (PDF, registration free but required) – David Rosenberg, Gluskin Sheff

Related posts:

• The weak employment situation summary for June 2009
• Payroll data mixed despite the bullish headline job loss figure
• Comprehensive unemployment rate is 17.5%
• U.S. employment data in line with estimates
• Payrolls fall by 159,000 in U.S.

Related posts:

• Links: 2009-07-06
• Links: 2009-10-23
• Links: 2009-03-16 – blogger edition
• News from around the web: 2009-10-10
• Links: 2009-03-05

The Obama Administration is captured. To understand why it has acted as it has, one doesn’t have to take the view that its efforts to save the banking industry were a deliberate attempt to line bankers’ pockets by transferring money from taxpayers to the banking industry. One need merely read the last post I wrote on this topic.

In their wildly optimistic view, the banking industry is solvent and always has been. All that was needed to ‘solve’ than banking crisis was a lot of liquidity, government backstops and, most importantly, time. This blinkered view sees a looting of taxpayer money to bailout the banking industry as necessary to save banks whose credit is the ‘lifeblood of our economy.’

They are wrong. The banks did not need to bailed out. The banking industry industry needed to made solvent again. There is a big difference between those two sentences (banks versus banking industry and liquidity versus solvency) that goes to the core of the captured and politically damaging world view we have seen on display by the Obama Administration.

Change you can believe in

Think back some 18 months when Senator Obama was in a horse race with Hillary Clinton to see who would go up against John McCain in the Presidential election. If you asked any reasonable individual who had the least experience and the thinnest political resume of the three, he or she would have said Barack Obama. If Americans wanted someone long on inside-the-beltway experience, they would have chosen John McCain – or, at a minimum, Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama.

So, Barack Obama did not best both Hillary Clinton and John McCain and get to the White House because Americans felt him more qualified for the job.  Rather, Americans believed the U.S. was on the wrong path and wanted a qualified person to lead the country who would also change course. They believed that person was Barack Obama.

And when it came to the economy, the presence of two men, Paul Volcker and Warren Buffett, born some 80 years ago, gave one the sense that, despite Barack Obama’s perceived relative youth or inexperience, he had the ablest of wise old men who would be his and our counsel in resolving this crisis.

Bailing out the banks

So when Barack Obama took office, it came as a rude awakening for many that he chose to bail out the too big to fail institutions with little or no strings attached, allowing them to later make record profits and pay record bonuses, while the economy was in a deep slump and ordinary Americans were being bankrupted and losing their jobs and homes at record rates. This was not change you can believe in.

What could or should the Obama Administration have done?

If you had listened to the chatter inside the beltway early this year, you would realize that Obama’s team believed it was not politically feasible to ‘nationalize’ Citigroup or Bank of America and force top executives to resign as was done at RBS, Bradford and Bingley or Northern Rock in the UK. This was a blinkered view which can only be described as captured (if not outright disingenuous).  We need look no further than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to see that nationalization was an option.

But this is not the kind of solution we needed.  What we needed was a solution by the Administration to take prompt corrective action in seizing bankrupt institutions, dismissing management, punishing any misdeeds and setting up a timetable to sell off the institution’s assets. That is change you can believe in.

I laid this out fairly comprehensively in February in my post “America needs a pre-privatization plan.” So I am not going to cover that ground here except to quote the key relevant passage in that post:

To my mind, there are three ways to deal with an insolvent financial institution:

• Bankruptcy. Allow the  institution to collapse (like Lehman Brothers)
• Nationalization. Seize the assets of that institution and nationalize it (like Northern Rock, AIG, or Fannie Mae)
• Bailout. Inject capital into the institution in order to allow it breathing room until it can meet capital adequacy levels.

As you can see, governments have tried all three solutions.  However, there are vast differences between the three.

The bailout solution is the most ‘anti-free market’ choice and seems to be the favored solution of governments everywhere.  It props up organizations, giving them an unfair advantage at the expense of other more prudent institutions.  It also acts as a subsidy, which favors domestic institutions over foreign rivals.  Bailouts increase moral hazard by rewarding risky and reckless lending practices.  And they are often the result of crony capitalism due to the power of the financial services lobby. There are many other problems with bailouts. All around, bailouts are a poor solution.

So what we have here is a case of crony capitalism and kleptocracy, plain and simple – whether by design or not is immaterial. And the American people are on to this. That is why people are resistant to other changes this Administration has put forth.

Don’t let the media’s spin fool you: Washington insiders are on to this too. Politicians in Congress realize that Obama’s bailouts have cost him political capital  and they are challenging his policy agenda as a result. This is why the health care bill, which Obama wanted passed before the summer recess, may not see the light of day before year’s end.

Are we home safe?

I would advise the Obama Administration not to run any victory laps about having slayed the beast. The lingering effects of crisis are still there. The Fed’s liquidity is still liquid. Impaired assets are still impaired. And zombie banks are still zombies. As I indicated in my depression piece:

In reality, the problems of high debt levels in the private sector and an undercapitalized financial system are still lurking, waiting for the government to withdraw its economic support to become realized.

Since I covered this ground in that article, I will leave you to read my further thoughts there. What I want to turn to now is the ‘why.’

The Cheney-Rumsfeld replay

Now, I am not writing off Barack Obama’s presidency. I do worry he still could see a recessionary relapse which would cause him to seem more Herbert Hoover than Franklin Roosevelt.  But, despite his Nobel Prize, it is much to early to know what his legacy will be.

Nonetheless, I believe he has wasted a lot of political capital and this will make ushering through a meaningful legislative agenda very difficult.

Why did Obama throw it all away?

Here’s my answer: I call it the Cheney-Rumsfeld replay.

When historians look back at the Bush 42 presidency, it will be defined by 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While George W. Bush was politically pre-disposed to the Neo-con world view, it was really advice from Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld which made Afghanistan and Iraq possible. George W. Bush was famously not well-versed in foreign affairs, having almost never travelled abroad.  He was completely dependent on Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to make foreign policy (although he could have listened more to Colin Powell, his actual Secretary of State; again it goes to predisposition).

So, I see George W. Bush’s presidency as having been defined by foreign policy and the War on Terror and, by extension, on Rumsfeld and Cheney.

Fast-forward to Barack Obama’s presidency and you have an almost identical situation, this time with the economy instead of foreign policy and Tim Geithner and Larry Summers instead of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

But, as with George W. Bush, it goes to pre-disposition. Paul Volcker was a critical member of the Obama 2008 campaign. He also was a key member of Obama’s economic policy team. But, he has been speaking a very discordant message that is not in sync with team Obama. So, as with Bush and his marginalization of Powell, one has to believe Barack Obama has chosen to side with Geithner and Summers over Volcker. Why anyone would do so given Volcker’s experience is beyond my comprehension.

The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that Barack Obama shares the blinkered and captured view of his policy makers and that this is why he has decided to go down this chosen path. And when it comes to Obama’s other ‘change’ decisions on the Guantanamo closure, torture, rendition, state secrets, and health care, the same logic also applies.

Is this change we can believe in? I will leave that for you to decide.

Related posts:

• The wildly optimistic view of Treasury’s handling of the crisis
• Greenspan: “If they’re too big to fail, they’re too big”
• My take on the latest Citigroup bailout
• Bush Administration turns the TARP over to Obama
• The 3 a.m. moment – McCain blows it

The employment market is pretty grim. We’re talking a double digit unemployment rate – and that’s just the base rate. The comprehensive unemployment rate is now 17.5% in the US.  This is a fact not lost on our politicians. Today, Barack Obama signed a bill that extends unemployment benefits and home buyer tax credits. But,, let’s parse the data to get a real read of what’s happening.

The household survey

The unemployment rate is based on a household survey. Basically, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) asks a bunch of people, “do you have a job?  No? Are you looking? By asking enough different people these questions, the BLS can produce a statistic to represent the nationwide unemployment rate. That number is currently 10.2% – or 15.7 million of a labor force of 154.0 million in a population of 236.6 working age folks.

The two things to note are the rate 10.2% and the participation rate, now 65.1%, the lowest in 23 years. What this is telling us is that the actual toll of joblessness is much higher than 10.2% because a lot of people have given up looking for jobs.

The numbers above are all seasonally-adjusted. So, the true picture could be somewhat better because without adjustments the number of unemployed is actually 14.5 million, 9.5% of the active labor force and down from 15.2 million in August. Either way, it’s still a grim picture.

I actually like to watch year-on-year data as an indicator of directionality.  On this front, the report is looking much better. The increase in the number of unemployed is down from a peak of 6.0 million (6.2 million unadjusted) to 5.5 million (5.1 million unadjusted). So the year-on-year rate increase is now 3.6%, down from 3.9% in June.  Again, these numbers are grim (the peak y-o-y change was 1.8% in 2001, for example). But the direction of change is now down.

The establishment survey

This is where the BLS gets non-farm payrolls (NFPs), the number of job losses per month. Non-Farm Payrolls (130.8 million) are now at their lowest level since March 2004 (also 130.8 million). And if one goes back to the period before the previous recession, NFPs were 132.5 million in February 2001. That means we have lost 1.7 million jobs over a nine-year time frame. This is an ugly data point.

The silver lining here is that both unadjusted data and y-o-y changes are better. NFPs are now 132.0 million unadjusted and that is up 1 million from 2 months ago. year-on-year changes are now falling. Translation: the labor market is still grim, but the worst is over.

My read of the data is this: There were no big surprises. I expected losses of 200,000 based on the ADP number and the jobless claims numbers.  Yes, there was a jump in the unemployment rate, but jump was misleading because of a falloff in the labor participation rate. On the whole, the employment market is weak, but it is not deteriorating. Can we sustain a recovery even so? Probably.

Related posts:

• Payroll data mixed despite the bullish headline job loss figure
• U.S. loses 533,000 jobs, unemployment rate up to 6.7%
• The weak employment situation summary for June 2009
• 651,000 jobs lost but unemployment rate at 8.1% in U.S.
• Unemployment rate to 9.7%, 216,000 jobs lost

Average weekly hours a record low of 33.0. Stock futures now down. The household survey says we have lost 1.3 million jobs in three months. 17.5% U-6 unemployment. Median duration of unemployment is now 18.7 weeks from 15.4 just 3 months ago – ugly.

Here is an excerpt from the release (bolding added).

The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses over the month were in construction, manufacturing, and retail trade.

Household Survey Data

In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent, the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (10.7 percent) and whites (9.5 percent) rose in October. The jobless rates for adult women (8.1 percent), teenagers (27.6 percent), blacks (15.7 percent), and Hispanics (13.1 percent) were little changed over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 7.5 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed over the month at 5.6 million. In October, 35.6 percent of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. (See table A-9.)

The civilian labor force participation rate was little changed over the month
at 65.1 percent. The employment-population ratio continued to decline in October, falling to 58.5 percent. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons working part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in October at 9.3 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

More info coming shortly.

Related posts:

• 467,000 jobs lost in the U.S. in June 2009
• 651,000 jobs lost but unemployment rate at 8.1% in U.S.
• U.S. loses 533,000 jobs, unemployment rate up to 6.7%
• Unemployment rate climbs to 9.4%
• U.S. unemployment rate 7.2%, 524,000 jobs lost

I was reading Kid Dynamite’s account of the recent Treasury – Finance Blogger meeting after having read a bunch of others (see them all in Abnormal Returns’ Nov 4th links). And I was struck by his characterization of the thinking at Treasury in regards to the financial crisis. I want to highlight two points and ask the question: didn’t the Treasury plan work as designed?

I will try not to editorialize and let you draw your own conclusions based on my (hopefully neutral) narrative of their goals.

Here is point #1 I want to highlight:

The first point that caught my ear was the description of the stress tests as having been designed to restore a level of confidence in the banking system.   The STO mentioned that the focus was now on reducing the footprint of economic intervention cautiously, quickly and prudently…

a number of STO’s present in the room, who quickly banded together to clarify that no one knew the results of the stress tests before they happened, and that they were designed to restore confidence by identifying the levels of capital needed by the banks, and requiring them to raise such capital.  I said that if they wanted to restore confidence, they should require banks to mark assets to market, and depict the true financial situation.

As I read it, Treasury wanted to show that it had a credible plan to identify any capital shortfalls amongst our biggest banks and to take corrective action.  Their belief is this would restore confidence.

Here is point #2 to highlight – why the need for secrecy:

I [Kid Dynamite] mentioned that the problem was that even if we had a "Counterparty Risk Czar" who somehow managed to magically quantify the exposures of each firm (which may be quite a difficult task in itself), we’d see the same problems we saw when the government went to give out the TARP funds. The government didn’t want to "bail out" select firms (ie, BAC and CITI) because they feared that the stigma attached to such assistance would create panic and runs on the bank – so they asked a large pool of financial institutions to take the money to hide the truly sick cows.

I read this to say that Treasury feared identifying ‘loser’ institutions would have a negative impact and cause bank runs (think Washington Mutual). therefore, they had to hide the ball, so to speak.  The same philosophy is behind the Fed’s refusal to release more information to Bloomberg on the Fed’s emergency lending counterparties.

The overall gist of the strategy was that Treasury wanted to identify the weak, give them time to grow stronger, and, in so doing, allow the panic phase to subside so that corrective action could be taken in a more normal economic environment.

Wasn’t the plan wildly successful? Blogger Accrued Interest thinks so.

Now, before you give a knee-jerk response, please read the following from a post I wrote in April called “Channeling my inner Larry Summers,” which was my attempt to read the intentions of Obama and his economic team (in the voice of Larry Summers). I think it dovetails nicely with what Kid Dynamite says were the actual goals of Treasury.

the question is how do we deal with this crisis.  The first priority must be  to forestall a deflationary spiral because that induces a dead-weight loss and extracts a cost of incalculable consequences.  The best way for government to end the spiral is to temporarily increase spending or temporarily induce more private sector spending.  Is this re-flating the bubble?  No, because deflationary forces will continue to extract a price even with these measures in place.  The key is to avoid a negative feedback loop, a spiral downward, and the easiest way for government to do this is to increase spending.

But, spending alone won’t get it done.  Ultimately, we will need to increase credit availability.  Just because people are spending more, does not mean the economy will grow.  Growth depends critically on increasing credit in line with the growth of the economy.

I am not one for nationalization of banks or other coercive, non-market based mechanisms of getting lending flowing.  The concept that nationalizing banks and re-privatizing them should be a first port of call for a government imperiled by a weak banking system is contrary to the need for limited government.  What we need to do is put a number of government-assisted programs into play — cognizant of that healthy tension between limited government and necessary government — and get credit flowing this way.

Let me enumerate some mechanisms:

• First we should try bank re-capitalization.  Our first priority must be to have an adequately-capitalized banking system. Absent that, increases in lending are impossible and the system will continue to be doubted. So that’s number one. We can do this through preferred equity so that the government is senior to common equity and receives some compensation for taxpayer money.  What’s more is it limits government interference. Remember – most of these institutions are having temporary problems.  With enough capital, they can weather the storm.  There is no need for heavy-handed government interference.
• If re-capitalization proves inadequate because of depreciated legacy assets, we will need to remove those assets from banks’ balance sheets in a way that promotes price discovery, increases asset liquidity and respects the tension between government involvement and government’s limitations. The PPIP and TALF can help achieve this.
• Moreover, by allowing financial institutions to borrow with a government guarantee, we can ease the funding liquidity constraints as well.

Ultimately, the jump start from stimulus and quantitative easing will start to kick in while all of this is ongoing. The result will be a growing economy and healthier banks. Nevertheless, we should implement some stress tests on institutions to gauge how much capital each institution would need in a worst-case scenario. Those banks faring poorest will need to take remedial action as soon as possible. However, under no circumstances should we ever imply that any individual institution is insolvent. This creates doubt and during times of stress it is not the wisdom of crowds, but the panic of crowds that is on display. Doubts about one institution are likely to have knock-on effects for others creating a systemic problem. This must be avoided at all costs.

So have Geithner and his team not avoided the pitfalls and accomplished their goals?

Related posts:

• The less optimistic view of Treasury’s handling of the crisis
• Will banks exiting TARP take back their toxic waste now?
• Bank by bank breakdown of stress test results
• Ackman and Stigliz talk Stress Tests with Charlie Rose
• GMAC has been nationalized

I have been reading press accounts of the GM decision to back out of the Opel/Vauxhall sale to the Magna/Sberbank consortium from various countries. There are a lot of different perspectives on this event in the U.S., Belgium, Spain, Germany, Russia, the U.K and elsewhere, because a lot of players are involved.

The conclusion I come to is that economic nationalism is the driving motivator behind much of what you read. To the degree, we continue to experience a soft global economy, this should be seen as a warning of how individual actors will respond in future.

Easy decision to keep Opel

GM’s decision to keep GM Europe is fairly straightforward in my view. The cars and technology in GM Europe is something General Motors never wanted to part with. They only did so because of the need to raise cash in a weak economic environment. Now, things at GM (and Ford) are looking much better and GM has exited bankruptcy. There is no desperate need to sell.

Moreover, the EU was asking GM a lot of questions about the subsidy deal they struck with the German government in order to effect the sale of Opel. Other European nations, Spain and the U.K. in particular, were livid because they suspected an unfair subsidy of German jobs over Spanish or British jobs. But, it goes far beyond those two nations as GM Europe employs 55,000 people in places like Sweden, Poland and Belgium.

We saw what happened to ING, RBS and Lloyds due to the EU’s rules on competition. One could reasonably expect a similar crack down in the auto sector. Details will emerge at some juncture, but one could conclude that GM did a cost-benefit analysis in which the wrangling with the EU weighed heavily on their decision to back out of the Magna deal.

And, in the end, should we expect the restructuring GM performs to be qualitatively any different than what Magna’s consortium would have done? They too have announced 10,000 job cuts, a figure in line with what was expected under Magna’s control. So, on the surface, this looks like a net benefit for GM, a net loss for the Magna-led group, and a wash for workers and politicians.

Enter economic nationalism

But, unfortunately, that’s not how it is likely to be seen. Let’s look at it from a German perspective.  Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel went to bat for the Magna deal, winning what was widely seen as a measure of security for German workers at a critical time during economic weakness. This bolstered her election chances. As a result, the center-left SPD has now been replaced by the Libertarian-minded FDP in a coalition reminiscent of the Helmut Kohl days. Consider this a move to the right in Germany.

Nevertheless, Merkel has stuck with her allegiance to Barack Obama. In fact, as a result of this relationship, she was the first German Chancellor in 50-odd years to deliver an address before Congress just two hours before she learned of GM’s backing out. What’s more is the U.S. Government is the majority owner of General Motors. One would think the Obama Administration had some insight into the decision-making at GM. Either the Administration didn’t know and is being recklessly hands-off in an enterprise where it has sunk tens of billions or it did know and did Angela Merkel a disservice by not informing her of what was to come well before her speech to Congress.

So, you have an American company owned by the American government backing out of a signed agreement and potentially thousands of jobs at risk. Talk of plant closures at Eisenach, Bochum (and Antwerp in Belgium) and the loss of jobs is rampant in the German press. GM Europe’s head John Smith says, "if they like the Magna plan, they will also like the GM plan." That is not an argument likely to gain sway in a period of economic uncertainty.

The Germans are livid.  German workers have gone on strike. Meanwhile, you have the UK Business Secretary Lord Mandelson warning that the division of job cuts must be ‘fair.’ And the Spanish Opel workers had just OK’ed the Magna plans two weeks ago. This is a bit of a zoo, isn’t it?

It is every nation for itself – precisely what one would expect with a shrinking economic pie and a deep downturn.

Going forward

GM has mishandled this affair quite badly I believe. At least with the Magna deal, the Germans were in the driver’s seat. Now, all of the individual European nations are angling for their say in this matter. Yes, GM had little choice given the likely scrutiny it was under via Neelie Kroes, but it certainly could have handled the political aspects of this much better.

However, now that this situation is out, it gives us a bird’s eye view into how nations respond when a division of the spoils becomes an issue.  And what we have seen does not give confidence that a coordinated approach will prevail. I take this affair as a clear indication that economic nationalism is alive and well and very much a threat to our collective well-being.

Related posts:

• German Press: Fiat to sign a deal with Opel, not Chrysler
• GM board decides to keep European Opel unit
• Germans reject Chinese offer for Opel
• GM considers keeping Opel, raising capital
• Opel and Fiat spells bankruptcy for Chrysler and GM

The Department of Labor data released this morning indicated that 512,000 people filed initial claims for unemployment insurance in the latest week.  This is down 20,000 from last week and marks the last data points we are to get on employment before tomorrows employment numbers are released.

All indications are that the number will come in around the 200,000 job loss range. Wednesday’s ADP number of –203,000 jobs is consistent with this. Stock futures rallied on the data and the Dow is up about 80 points in early trading.

Nonetheless, 512,000 weekly claims is still very high.

Source

Weekly Unemployment Claims Report – ETA Press Releases

Related posts:

• A sustainable recovery with 530,000 weekly claims?
• U.S. initial jobless claims fall 21,000 to 554,000
• Jobless Claims: 404,000
• Jobless claims stuck near 530,000, point to structurally high unemployment
• Jobless claims: 558,000 for week ended August 8

Be sure to see William Shatner’s poetic reading of Levi Johnston’s tweets below. Pretty funny.

Also see: News from around the web: 2009-07-29 where Shatner reads Palin Poetry.

Related posts:

• News from around the web: 2009-07-29
• News from around the web: 2009-10-22
• News from around the web: 2009-10-13
• News from around the web: 2009-08-03
• News Roundup: 28 Apr 2008

The Motorola Droid is the so-called iPhone killer. Is it the real deal?  Mossberg seems to think so.

See also: Motorola’s Droid Is Smart Success for Verizon Users – Walt Mossberg, WSJ

Related posts:

• Mossberg: Palm Pre to Rival iPhone
• Walt Mossberg says Apple’s new browser Safari is fast
• Walt Mossberg reviews the new iPhone
• Walter Mossberg: Top 2009 Gadgets
• Android gaining momentum on Apple’s iPhone

Why aren’t more municipal bonds being downgraded by the ratings agencies Fitch, Moody’s and S&P?  If you look at sovereign debt in revenue-constrained countries like Greece, Portugal or Ireland, the ratings agencies are issuing warnings. 

But, states and municipalities are suffering from the same revenue constraints. Tax revenues have plunged. Governments have shut down services to save cash. And they have cut staff. There are dozens of articles in the national press daily detailing the difficulties municipalities, cities and states are having.

You wouldn’t know that if you looked at the charts of some of the major municipal bond funds. Take a look at Nuveen Municipal Value Fund (NUV) for example.  It bottomed in December last year. Now, 11 months later it is up 31%. How about BlackRock’s MuniHoldings Insured Investment Fund (MFL). It bottomed in December as well. But is up over 70% since then. Pretty nice return. But, I don’t think it can last.

California’s summer struggles made it is the poster child of the distress in the finances of US states and municipalities. But, there are many states, cities and municipalities on the brink. That’s why I found the excerpt from the post “The Coming Collapse of the Municipal Bond Market” at Phillip Greenspun’s blog over at Harvard Law School interesting. Note the highlighted sections

A money manager friend showed me an interesting research report by Frederick J. Sheehan titled “Dark Vision: The Coming Collapse of the Municipal Bond Market. This is a product of weedenco.com and available only to subscribers, but I will summarize it here.

Sheehan starts off by noting that a lack of panic by the ratings and government agencies does not indicate health for a financial market. He cites the fact that the Fed did not anticipate how bad the subprime collapse was likely to be and obviously the Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s ratings were ridiculous.

Sheehan notes that “spending is rising and revenue is collapsing” for all levels of government. Pension fund losses will require governments to double their contributions to pension plans (see my blog posting on public employee pensions). Spending is rising, e.g., in New York City from an average of $65,401 in compensation per public employee in 2000 to $106,743 in 2009. The number of full-time employees in NYC grew as well, despite falling school enrollment. The number of state and local government workers grew from 4 million in 1955 to 20 million in 2008 (5x growth, against less than 2X growth in U.S. population). Those workers receive an average of 43 percent more pay and benefits than a private sector worker.

Municipalities dealt with the separation between taxes and expenses by borrowing. In the mid-1990s, states and cities were retiring as much debt as they were incurring. During the 2000s, though, they borrowed about $150 billion per year in aggregate, peaking at $215 billion in 2007 by which time $2.7 trillion in debt was outstanding, more than two years’ worth of tax receipts.

Barring some sort of miraculous boom in the economy and pension fund investment returns, state and local governments are headed for insolvency and default. This means that valuing a municipal bond becomes a matter for a legal expert rather than an accountant. Even for the legal expert, it is apparently tough to predict what will happen. Let’s start with the Wikipedia article on Chapter 9 bankruptcy: “Previous to the creation of Chapter 9 bankruptcy the only remedy when a municipality was unable to pay its creditors was for the creditors to pursue an action of mandamus, and compel the municipality to raise taxes. During the Great Depression this approach proved impossible so in 1934 the Bankruptcy Act was amended to extend to municipalities.”

Without bankruptcy protection, a city that couldn’t pay bondholders would be forced to raise taxes until it could. This happened to West Palm Beach, Florida in the Depression and property tax rates rose to 42.5 percent of assessed value. Potentially bondholders might demand that the city hand over real estate to satisfy its debts. With bankruptcy protection, it is unclear what happens. Vallejo, California went bankrupt 18 months ago and their obligations have not yet been resolved (story). If courts allow municipalities to walk away from debt they’ll have every incentive to declare bankruptcy and start afresh. There are no shareholders in a municipality to wipe out and therefore the only negative consequence of a bankruptcy filing would possibly be having to pay higher interest rates for future borrowing. If on the other hand, governments are not allowed to walk away from many of their obligations, they will simply run out of cash. Are bondholders senior to pension obligations or not? It may be up to the individual judge. This is “uncharted territory for investors” as my money manager put it (he does not buy U.S. muni bonds).

Municipal bonds are still perceived as almost risk-free by most investors and consequently offer a low yield, according to Sheehan. He points out that if the municipalities don’t default, the investor gets only a slightly better return than in Treasuries. Why take the risk if you’re not getting paid for it?

This ends my summary of Sheehan’s report. My own opinion is that the main lesson of subprime is that an investor cannot rely on the ratings agencies or the government to protect his or her interests.  The never-employed guy in Cleveland with the house in a crummy neighborhood and no down payment? The risk that he would never make a payment should have been apparent to any investor who dug underneath the asset-backed security. Similarly, an investor in muni bonds can look at the municipality. Does the state have a shrinking population, high public employee salaries, and a big pension obligation overhang from when the population was larger? They probably will eventually default. And if an insurance company was dumb enough to insure the bonds, they’ll probably be bankrupt too.

If you’re waiting until the ratings agencies give you a heads up, thinking this will happen before these problems get reflected in lower muni bond prices, you better think again.

Related posts:

• State and local government weighed down by housing
• MBIA and Ambac sued by LA
• State and local governments: budget cuts likely
• California starts issuing IOUs as bankruptcy nears
• Everyone wants in on the bailout gravy train, cities too

That’s all you need to know.

Source

FOMC statement – Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Related posts:

• The Federal Reserve bails out AIG
• No Fed cut
• The Fed leads a global rate cut by central banks
• Bloomberg wins Freedom of Information lawsuit against Fed
• Don’t underestimate the power of printing money

I was interviewed on the BBC last night about the GM/Opel/Vauxhall deal. I am waiting for video before posting any more about it.  My general feeling, however is GM’s backing out is being driven by reflation as GM no longer needs to sell Opel/Vauxhall in this economic environment. Quite frankly, I think it is a bit premature to think reflation has been successful.  But, GM has Neelie Kroes breathing down its neck.  It had to act.

• GMAC’s Mortgage Unit Loses $747M in Q309 : HousingWire

  Remind me, why are taxpayers propping them up?

• Should Jon Corzine Take Over Bank Of America? – Dealbreaker

  He IS out of a job.

• EconomPic: ISM Services Slowly Expanding

  Dichotomy with manufacturing suggests that underlying demand is weak.

• Profit `Not Satanic,’ Barclays Says, After Goldman Invokes Jesus – Bloomberg.com

  Interesting.

• Barclays Chief: Jesus Loves Bonuses – Dealbreaker

  Sure he does. Keep telling yourself that. I am NOT for capping pay, but this is not a good quote.

• Bank of Ireland losses near €1bn – Independent.ie

  More bad news in Ireland

• Top finance blogs – Prieur du Plessis

  We are in the group. And I recommend Prieur’s site very highly.

• Top earning dead celebrities 2009

  Yves Saint Laurent gets top billing. MJ is only third.

• Michael J. Panzner: Treasury Officials Meet With Financial Bloggers

  More on econobloggers at Treasury

• Curious Meeting at Treasury Department – Yves Smith

  Must read account of Treasury’s cultivation of econobloggers

• FT.com | Money Supply | The Fed and its “extended period” language

  More on the FOMC

• The Fed Thoughtfully Strokes Its Beard, Flaps Its Gums – Annaly Salvos

  Hat tip Scott. Will the Fed get rid of ‘extended period’ in its statement?

• AT&T to Verizon: “There’s a Lawsuit for That”

  Verizon is saying AT&T has terrible 3G coverage. A&T is livid.

• VIDEO: What the Military Industrial Complex Does Not Want You to Know: The History of Iran « Patrick J. Buchanan

  A historically accurate depiction of the last 56 years in Iran.

• Profile: Neelie Kroes, EU competition commissioner

  "The EU competition commissioner forcing through the radical break-up of Britain’s banking system"

• Rising factory orders bolster recovery prospects | Reuters

  More evidence of a manufacturing recovery.

• FT.com – Sony Ericsson unveils Android-powered phone

  Google is getting serious play here. Android has arrived.

• House prices rise by 1.2%, says Halifax

  Better mth to mth than Nationwide but worse yr-on-yr.

• Rolfe Winkler – Burlington…not so Buffett-like

  This analysis says Burlington Northern is not a good deal.

• Norwegian Wood – Edward Hugh

  A comprehensive overview of the Norwegian economy after the rate rise

Distraction of the Day: Defining Adultery in the Age of Alzheimer’s

Of Love and Alzheimer’s – WSJ

Related posts:

• News from around the web: 2009-10-20
• Links: 2009-05-13
• Links: 2009-03-16 – blogger edition
• Links: 2009-08-15 blogger edition
• News from around the web: 2009-10-03

I have said on a number of occasions that a sovereign nation that issues debt in its own fiat currency cannot default involuntarily.  The case most people point to as a counterfactual is Russia in 1998.  I mentioned Russia in a recent post:

Countries that have gone bust, Russia, Mexico, and Argentina were borrowing in foreign currency because of interest rate differentials. No sovereign nation which prints and issues debt in its own fiat currency can ever involuntarily be made insolvent.

I was on a trading desk that was dealing in synthetic GKOs before Russia defaulted in 1998, so I remember the incident quite clearly. Russia’s was not an involuntary default by a country which issues debt in its own fiat currency. Russia was a perfect example of a voluntary default due to huge foreign currency debt and foreign exchange reserve losses (see Wikipedia for a pretty accurate and thorough account on the events of the 1998 Russian financial crisis).

Marshall Auerback summed it up well in an email to me as we discussed this case in view of his post refuting chatter about Japan defaulting. Not the underlined words.

Russia didn’t have to default.  As a point of logic, the concept of ability to pay being inherently revenue constrained is not applicable to the issuer of a currency. Any such constraints are necessarily self-imposed (including various ‘no overdraft’ legislation in some countries for the Treasury at the Central Bank). The issuer can always make payment of its currency by crediting the appropriate account or by issuing actual paper currency if demanded by the counter party.

An extreme example is Russia in August 1998. The rouble was convertible into $US at the Russian Central Bank at the rate of 6.45 roubles per $US. The Russian government, desirous of maintaining this fixed exchange rate policy, was limited in its willingness to pay by its holdings of $US reserves, since even at very high interest rates holders of roubles desired to exchange them for $US at the Russian Central Bank. Facing declining $US reserves, and unable to obtain additional reserves in international markets, convertibility was suspended around mid August, and the Russian Central Bank has no choice but to allow the rouble to float.

All throughout this process, the Russian Government had the ability to pay in roubles. However, due to its choice of fixing the exchange rate at level above ‘market levels’ it was not, in mid August, willing to make payments in roubles. In fact, even after floating the rouble, when payment could have been made without losing reserves, the Russian Government, which included the Treasury and Central Bank, continued to be unwilling to make payments in roubles when due, both domestically and internationally. It defaulted on rouble payment by choice, as it always possessed the ability to pay simply by crediting the appropriate accounts with roubles at the Central Bank.

Why Russia made this choice is the subject of much debate. However, there is no debate over the fact that Russia had the ability to meet its notional rouble obligations but was unwilling to pay and instead chose to default.

Russia defaulted voluntarily, an event which the geniuses at Long-Term Capital Management failed to model correctly. Moreover, the immediate stress on Russia was not the rouble-denominated debt but the mountain of foreign currency obligations via an unrealistic currency peg which were draining reserves. Similar events unfolded in Argentina a few years later as their currency board crumbled and the Peso was devalued by three-quarters.

Again, the point is that a government can always make good on its own fiat currency obligations if it chooses to do so. The real question is why a country might voluntarily default on its own currency debt or involuntarily on foreign currency debt.  The answer usually has to do with taxes.  In Argentina and Russia, the government was unable to prove that its taxation policies were benefitting its citizens, creating rampant tax evasion, especially in the monied classes. Capital flight took form as many dodged taxes. Capital flight eventually turns into currency revulsion which creates the pre-conditions for depression, as Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania learned most recently.

The relationship these examples from the Baltics, Argentina and Russia have with Japan and the United States is taxes. When taxes seem unfair or excessive, the citizens evade taxes and eventually revolt; you end up with a situation like Russia circa 1998, Argentina circa 2002 or Zimbabwe circa 2007.

Related posts:

• Russia devalues currency again as foreign reserves plummet
• Latvia – the insanity continues
• The Age of the Fiat Currency: A 38-year experiment in inflation
• Argentina faces potential collapse
• Russia cuts Europe off completely from its gas

The following is a re-print of the latest monthly newsletter from Niels Jensen of Absolute Return Partners, published with the express permission of the author. Visit www.arpllp.com to learn more about Absolute Return Partners. You can reach the firm by email at info@arpllp.com.

This post on taxes and budget deficits should remind one of three recent posts here which take varying views of the fiscal position in Japan. See "Marshall Auerback’s "Japan does not demonstrate the failure of stimulus" and “The new Japan, domestic consumption, and the neo-liberal thought machine “ and my “Japan: stimulus without reform leads to a policy cul de sac.”

While I am personally no fan of supply-side economics or Arthur Laffer (actually, in full disclosure, I have to admit to being generally anti-Reagan/Thatcher as well – in large part due to a lax regulatory environment on both counts and some heinous racial politics in Reagan’s case), I do favour lower taxes as a way to stimulate the economy (through a payroll tax cut, for example).

“The only thing worse than rescuing the system would have been not to do so.”   – Martin Wolf

Welcome to the third letter in our four letter series about major trends defining the future of the world we live in. I kicked off back in September with a piece on energy supplies and last month I took a closer look at the demographic outlook. This month my focus will be on government and why our leaders need to think outside the box to solve the crisis we find ourselves in. I have found this topic particularly difficult to handle – probably because I am somewhat outside of my comfort zone. I sincerely hope you enjoy it anyway.

Let me introduce the main characters: First, the banks which are veering out of control (again!). Next, our central bankers and regulators who are doing a better job than broadly perceived; however, they lack the political support to tackle a financial system which thrives on excesses. And, just to complete the picture, we are up against a political system which is institutionally corrupt and politicians who are hopelessly narrow-minded and unable to look beyond the next election.

Less means more

Since the early 1980s, we (or at least those of us living in an Anglo-Saxon country) have lived in a world where less has carried the meaning of more. Reagan and Thatcher both genuinely believed in small government. Fundamentally, they shared the view that people respond to economic incentives, but it was not only about tax. The public sectors in both countries were slimmed down and much red tape removed. Even the City of London underwent drastic transformation – the so-called Big Bang. The economy reacted favourably in both countries and stock markets began a journey which lasted more than two decades and delivered the most powerful bull market of all times.

But, as we all know now, it ended in tears. Like children in a candy shop, we couldn’t control ourselves. Greed took over and whatever control mechanisms there were in place failed miserably when we needed them the most. It is therefore perfectly understandable that both regulators and politicians want more control. I just wish that our elected leaders would put their self-interest to the side for once and do what is right for the country. Unfortunately, that is about as likely as the sun not rising tomorrow morning.

Too big to fail or…?

Central to the discussion is the role of our banks. Are some banks really too big to fail or are they just too politically connected to fail? Following last year’s near Armageddon, most banks desperately need fresh capital and our monetary authorities – with plenty of encouragement from our Government – have created an environment which has handed banks a license to print money. In a budget constrained world, such a policy was always considered a more palatable way to re-finance the banking sector than the alternative – pumping more hard earned tax payer money into the banking system. So far so good.

Unfortunately, little seems to have been learned from the excesses of recent years. As we have seen time and again, easy money leads to carelessness, paving the way for future bubbles, and why should it be any different this time? A system where profits are privatised and losses socialised is destined to fail. It is the old moral hazard argument all over again and it encourages extreme risk taking. It is nevertheless the system which is being practised all over the world at the moment. And if politicians believe they can solve the problem by capping bonuses, they are less intelligent than even I thought.

In a recent article in the Financial Times, Willem Buiter made some interesting observations on this subject:

Will things be different during the next boom/bubble?  The next credit and asset market boom will generate massive profits and generous tax revenues.  The same phalanx of lobbyists will again descend on regulators, legislators and members of the executive branch of government.  New and exciting financial instruments – superprime lifegages perhaps – will be demonstrated by highly paid hirelings from academia to have unprecedented potential for diversifying, sharing and extinguishing risk.  It will be different from every other boom in the past.  It will be a truly sustainable euphoria – a high for humanity.  And the regulators/supervisors will be convinced, seduced, intimidated or co-opted.

Bank of England Governor Mervyn King recognises the problem:

It is important that banks in receipt of public support are not encouraged to try to earn their way out of that support by resuming the very activities that got them into trouble.

As a possible solution, King has proposed a re-introduction of the rules which used to be in place, prohibiting retail and investment banking activities under the same roof. For speaking his mind, he was publicly reprimanded by the Prime Minister, who deemed such a policy response “simplistic and out-of-date”. Perhaps I should mention that banks are amongst the largest contributors to the political parties in this country. So much for integrity.

It is time to move on

A friend of mine attended an investment conference recently, where one of the speakers was the CEO of a world famous investment bank. When the talk turned to bonuses, the CEO stated flatly that “it is time to move on” (no prizes for guessing which bank). Perhaps it is time to move on, but not in the direction he wants to go. When US tax payers were forced to cough up $185 billion last year to save AIG which in turn saved an entire industry bar Lehman Brothers, the man on the street would be forgiven for expecting a touch more humility and sensitivity from those running our banks.

I am not for one second arguing that bonuses should be regulated. It is simply the wrong way to address the problem. But society is faced with a much broader problem when bankers carry on living in their ivory towers whilst the canyon between them and the rest of society grows bigger and bigger. “Take risks and you will be amply rewarded; fail and the tax payer will bail you out” is about the only lesson they seem to have learned from the past two years. The solution? Force banks to take less risk. It is absurd that many of our banks are still levered 30, 40 and some even 50 times. With less risk, their profits in good times will be much lower (and their losses in bad times correspondingly smaller), and the reduced profits will automatically drive down bonuses.

Here in the UK, two banks (Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group) are being forced to break up their businesses. If you are too big to fail, you are too big to exist, seems to be the philosophy. However, the government deserves little or no credit for that decision. It is in fact the EU Commission which is forcing the government to take this draconian step. Who said nothing good comes out of Brussels? It is a much more constructive move than the pathetic focus on bonuses, but it doesn’t address the basic problem – banks must reduce their gearing.

The Laffer curve

Regulating banks more effectively is only half the story, though. As already alluded to, governments all over the world are faced with rising debt, threatening to bankrupt many countries. Several political leaders have already stated publicly that taxes will have to rise, but is that really the appropriate policy response to a dire fiscal outlook? Let’s turn our attention to the so-called Laffer curve. The Laffer curve simply states that there is always a revenue optimal tax rate. The Laffer curve does not provide any evidence as to what that tax rate actually is. As illustrated in chart 1 below, not surprisingly, when the tax rate is zero, the tax revenue is also zero; likewise when the tax rate is 100%. Somewhere in between, the optimal tax rate is to be found. The obvious implication of this relationship is that, over and above a certain point, the tax revenue falls once the tax rate is increased.

Behind the relationship between the tax rate and tax revenues lies the simple notion that a change in the tax rate has an arithmetic as well as an economic effect on tax revenues. The arithmetic effect of a tax hike is always positive whilst the economic effect is always negative due to the effect it has on output, employment, consumption, etc. In other words, the two effects always move in opposite directions.

  Chart 1:  The Laffer Curve

Source:

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1765.cfm

It was this basic idea which drove President Reagan to lower tax rates in 1981, yet he was by no means the first US president to do so. In the early 1920s Presidents Harding (1921-23) and Coolidge (1923-29) had reduced the top rate from a whopping 77% to 25% and, in the early 1960s, President Kennedy had also introduced massive tax cuts. The top rate had peaked at 94% (!) by the end of World War II and he brought it down to 70% (see chart 2).

Chart 2:  US Marginal Tax Rates

Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1765.cfm

Compelling evidence

So how did these tax cuts actually affect tax revenues and overall economic growth? The evidence is quite compelling (see table 1 below). During the four years prior to 1925 (the year in which the 1920s tax cuts were fully implemented, US tax revenues declined by 9.2% per year. In the following four years, tax revenues rose 0.1% per annum. The Kennedy experience was equally convincing. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax cuts, tax revenues rose by 2.6% per annum. In the following four years, revenues rose by 9.0% per year. Finally, in the Reagan years, tax revenues declined by an annual rate of 2.6% during the four years leading up to 1983, whilst revenues grew by 3.5% annually during the subsequent four year period.

Table 1:  US Tax Revenues around Major Income Tax Cuts

Source:  http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1765.cfm.

All numbers are inflation-adjusted.

Furthermore, in all three instances, economic growth accelerated following the tax cuts. For example, between 1978 and 1982, US GDP growth averaged 0.9% per year in real terms. Between 1983 and 1986, the economy grew by 4.8% in real terms, so the case in favour of tax cuts appears to be pretty compelling.

Other factors to be considered

It is not always one-way traffic, though. In his first term as President Clinton actually increased taxes in 1993 and what followed? One of the biggest economic booms of all times. Other factors impact tax revenues as well. In the case of Clinton, he presided over an economy which benefited immensely from globalisation and an IT boom, the likes of which had never been seen before.

Here in Europe, total tax revenue as a % of GDP is, on average, much higher than it is in the United States (chart 3). Whilst European growth rates have, admittedly, been modestly below US growth rates in recent years, there is no evidence to suggest that the higher tax rates have done significant damage to European growth. If that were the case, Denmark and Sweden should suffer the lowest growth rates amongst developed nations. In fact, the two Scandinavian countries have enjoyed comparatively high economic growth in recent years.

Also, corporate earnings have been as strong here in Europe as is the case in the US, and European stock markets have actually vastly outperformed the US market in recent years. So it is hard to drive the argument that lower taxes always lead to higher economic growth and stronger stock market performance. However, it is noteworthy that, in the United States, 3 major income tax cut programmes have been implemented in the last 100 years. In each and every case, tax revenues have grown, GDP growth has accelerated and there has been significant job creation. Can you ask for any more than that?

The canary in the coal mine?

One thing is sure, though. Given the rapidly rising public debt all over the OECD area, economic growth must be secured at any price. Anything else will be devastating longer term. Japan stands out as the black sheep with public debt-to-GDP reaching 218% this year. Japan has tried many things to drag itself out of the quicksand but to no avail.

Chart 3:  Total Tax Revenues as % of GDP (2006)

Source: OECD

Its stimulus programme has been very Keynesian with a multiple of public spending projects over the past couple of decades, most of which have been a terrible waste. Now, 20 years later, Japan is falling into the precise trap our economic adviser Woody Brock is warning so vehemently about. GDP growth is slow or non-existent. Debt continues to grow rapidly and sticky deflation makes an already difficult situation almost impossible to deal with.

So far, Japan has just about gotten away with it because they have had easy and cheap access to credit. But what will happen if (when) that changes? It is no longer inconceivable that Japan will default on its sovereign debt at some point over the next decade. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written an excellent piece in the Daily Telegraph recently about Japan’s predicament, which you can read here.

Woody Brock did a study earlier this year where he pointed out the danger of allowing public debt to grow much faster than GDP for an extended period of time. As is evident from chart 4, should the United States (or any other nation for that matter) fall into that trap, the implications could be very dire indeed. Think Zimbabwe. Therefore, given the large escalation of public debt, policy makers should aggressively pursue a pro-growth policy. Anything else could have fatal consequences.

Chart 4:  US Federal Debt Outlook

Source: www.sedinc.com

Cut income taxes! 

Empirical evidence suggests that recessions destroy tax revenues; tax cuts don’t. And increased tax revenues are precisely what we need to solve our fiscal crisis. It is therefore tempting to argue that now is the time for a reduction in income tax rates. Unfortunately, and true to form, our politicians will most likely do exactly the opposite. And the Swiss will be laughing all the way to the bank as more and more disenchanted people in this country flee Britain and Gordon Brown’s strait jacket to start a new life in Switzerland.

Niels C. Jensen

© 2002-2009 Absolute Return Partners LLP. All rights reserved.

This material has been prepared by Absolute Return Partners LLP ("ARP"). ARP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. It is provided for information purposes, is intended for your use only and does not constitute an invitation or offer to subscribe for or purchase any of the products or services mentioned. The information provided is not intended to provide a sufficient basis on which to make an investment decision. Information and opinions presented in this material have been obtained or derived from sources believed by ARP to be reliable, but ARP makes no representation as to their accuracy or completeness. ARP accepts no liability for any loss arising from the use of this material. The results referred to in this document are not a guide to the future performance of ARP. The value of investments can go down as well as up and the implementation of the approach described does not guarantee positive performance.  Any reference to potential asset allocation and potential returns do not represent and should not be interpreted as projections.

See other posts I have published referencing or presenting Niels’ analysis.

• The emerging markets crisis – Nov 2008
• Do BRICs (and Germans) Eat PIGS? – Feb 2009
• Europe on the ropes – Mar 2009
• The Fake Recovery - Apr 2009
• Green Shoots or Smoking Weed? – May 2009
• Make Sure You Get This One Right – Jul 2009
• The Hamster on the Wheel – Sep 2009
• A Country for Old Men and a Bit of Samba – Oct 2009

Related posts:

• Japan does not demonstrate the failure of stimulus
• Obama takes middle road on stimulus and taxes that leads nowhere
• Are US corporations feeding at the trough of low taxes?
• Japan: stimulus without reform leads to a policy cul de sac
• A note on Japan’s experiment with quantitative easing

Several notable economists prognosticated on what Japan should do to get out of their malaise in the 1990s but none of them understood the problem or the options available to the sovereign government. They all gave poor advice. The way Japan recovered after that decade of poor economic outcomes was through fiscal policy. Monetary policy had little to do with it, as Richard Koo has demonstrated in his recent book on the country.

Let’s eliminate a few misconceptions.  Japanese households do not fund the deficit.  A government default is not possible (unless Japan chooses to do it, which I suppose they could do as they are pretty clueless).We learned that interest rates do not sky-rocket and inflation does not accelerate when deficits and debt issuance are on-going and huge – quite the opposite. If the BOJ should want to increase the money supply, devotees of the money multiplier model (including numerous Nobel Prize winners) would have the BOJ purchase securities. When the BOJ buys securities reserves are added to the system. However, the money multiplier model fails to recognize that the added reserves in excess of required reserves drive the funds rate to zero, since reserve requirements do not change until the following accounting period. That forces the central bank to sell securities, i.e., drain the excess reserves just added, to maintain the funds rate above zero. If, on the other hand, the BOJ wants to decrease money supply, taking reserves out of the system when there are no excess reserves places some banks at risk of not meeting their reserve requirements. The BOJ has no choice but to add reserves back into the banking system, to keep the funds rate from going, theoretically, to infinity.

In either case, the money supply remains unchanged by the BOJ’s action. The multiplier is properly thought of as simply the ratio of the money supply to the monetary base (m = M/MB). Changes in the money supply cause changes in the monetary base, not vice versa. The money multiplier is more accurately thought of as a divisor (MB = M/m).

Their export model is dead, the Chinese are eating their lunch, so the Japanese have to switch to a domestic consumption based model.  How do you do that without spurring lots of unemployment in the absence of government spending?

It is clear to me that the neo-liberal period in Japan has devastated the security of the middle class which accounted for more than 80 per cent of the population. A person could rely on retaining full-time employment on good wages for life as long as they completed secondary school. The 1991 recession which followed the real estate collapse and poor investments by the financial sector led to the “lost decade”. The Japanese government under the neo-liberal helm of Prime Minister Koizumi started deregulating things that had previously been integral to providing this security, including cutting back government spending. See Koo’s book. His evidence is very compelling here.

Around 30 per cent of Japanese workers are employed in low-paid, casual jobs that offer no security. While Japan enjoyed stable growth this was not a problem. But the numbers of temporary workers has risen as the revered life-time employment system that generate prosperity in the Post-World War II period for the vast majority of workers has been steadily dismantled under neo-liberal urging.

I can do no better than to relay discussions I had on this point with Professor Bill Mitchell of the University of Newcastle in Australia.  Bill eloquently summarises the neo-liberal insanity which is destroying this country:

The neo-liberals are running rampant now and predicting a maelstrom. This dominance of neo-liberal thinking will be a major constraint on the new government and it is already showing a compliance to the views.

The family-first policy proposals are a sop to the intergenerational debate.

The decision to shift spending priority to welfare away from national infrastructure provision is an example. The new Prime Minister has already said he will raise taxes to “pay for” the new spending initiatives. He has also promised to cut spending on major infrastructure.

The private investment jackals who have been indulging in wasteful, inefficient yet highly profitable private equity projects in the West are poised to capitalise on this shift in Japanese sentiment. They see Yen-signs before their eyes and are on the move already.

One commentator in today’s Australian says Australia investors are “primed and ready, as Japan rebounds from the global downturn with more resilience and speed than expected …”

The upshot according to the Australian commentary (consistent for a News Limited journalist) is that there will be:

… a focus on public-private partnership projects – a new concept for Japan. They are now essential as government debt soars past double the country’s annual economic output, with public infrastructure spending totalling $7.5 trillion since 1991. And the latest central government stimulus package crowded out bond-raising opportunities for regional governments.

Infrastructure is emerging as a new “asset-class” in Japanese financial markets. We never learn!

If they really understood the fiat monetary system they could continue to provide public infrastructure and extend better safety net protection for the poor. The large deficits that the Japanese government runs is symptomatic of the huge saving desire of the domestic population. Not even the traditionally strong net export performance can offset the high saving ratio.

The saving ratio will also decline as more safety net provisions are extended to the population, who at present feel as though they have to provide for their own retirements. The introduction of a national superannuation scheme would also help.

In that sense, the deficit would fall anyway as consumption increased.

Related posts:

• Japan’s easy money policy was the trigger for the tech wreck
• Japan does not demonstrate the failure of stimulus
• Japanese opposition would avoid U.S. dollar bonds if elected
• Japan: stimulus without reform leads to a policy cul de sac
• Is Japan next on the road to quantitative easing?

Fitch, the credit rating agency, has just downgraded the sovereign debt ratings for the Republic of Ireland from AA+ to AA-.  That is two notches and is proof-positive that the ratings agencies are worried about the hole in Dublin’s finances.

If you read the Irish press this morning, it is all doom and gloom and has a lot to do with the banks and budget deficit.  It is not just about the ratings downgrades.

The EU has just released figures putting in doubt Ireland’s rosy scenario for cutting budget deficits.

The Irish Independent says:

Next month’s Budget may set the economy back further, but without it the country’s national debt could reach 100pc of output (GDP) by 2011, the EU Commission has said in a new analysis.

The Commission is forecasting a decline of 1.4pc in Irish GDP next year. But Brussels is not taking the impact of next month’s Budget into account, because the details are not yet known.

"Depending on the specific measures that are eventually implemented, a dampening effect on consumer demand cannot be excluded," the Commission says in its autumn economic forecast.

Correction

On the other hand, it says that faster correction of the economy’s problems might give more support to consumption and investment by helping confidence.

The Government’s plans include a correction of 4.3pc of GDP — around €8bn — in the Budgets for 2010 and 2011.

Unless there is a compensating boost from confidence, this could also reduce the modest 2.6pc growth forecast for 2011.

These forecasts are higher than those in the Commission’s estimates last May, but it warns of the struggle facing the Irish economy in trying to return to strong growth.

Another top headline in the Irish Independent has the OECD warning that the Irish government should not rule out nationalising banks in addition to its bad bank programme, NAMA.

The Government shouldn’t rule out temporarily nationalising the country’s banks as they may require more capital to cushion against surging bad debts, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said.

The Government is setting up the so-called bad bank that will buy €77bn of property loans from banks at a discount of 30pc. Losses on those assets may leave the lenders needing extra capital.

“Further recapitalisation may be necessary as assets are being purchased below book value,” the Paris-based OECD said in a report today. “Temporary nationalisation would have a number of drawbacks, but it should not be ruled out altogether.”

The Government has already guaranteed all deposits at banks and some of their debts, pumped €7bn into Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland and seized Anglo Irish Bank.

“Substantial” banking losses are likely to be met by the taxpayer and nationalisation should only be undertaken with the “utmost reluctance,” the OECD said.

The FT’s Stacy-Marie Ishmael has a piece out doubting the maths used in NAMA, which bolsters the OECD view that the bad bank may not be enough.

So you have a trifecta of bad news coming out of Ireland: a two-notch downgrade by a major ratings agency, a warning from the EU that the economy will be weak for sometime to come and that deficits targets will not be met, and another warning from the OECD that the banking situation in Ireland is still very grave.

Quite frankly, it is not looking good for an Irish recovery at this time without the help of the IMF. This all brings me back to my question one year ago: Is Ireland the next Iceland? They will be if the EU, IMF and Irish government do not take today’s bad news seriously and take drastic action to bolster the Irish banks, economy, and government finances.

Who said the financial crisis was over? It is not.

Related posts:

• Ireland: Next stop – IMF
• Ireland guarantees bank deposits at six banks
• Irish government unveils plan to recapitalise banks
• Ireland nationalizes Anglo Irish bank
• Is Ireland the next Iceland?

The power grab at the Federal Reserve is a topic I first broached back in February when the Federal Reserve was creating its alphabet soup of liquidity programs to pull us back from the brink of financial disaster. I was troubled about Fed policy then and I am still troubled today.

I am equally disturbed by what is happening in shift in the balance of power to the executive branch. The Obama Administration seems to be following in the footsteps of the Bush Administration and making its own power grab and Congress has only just begun to wake up to this and start to push back.

At the risk of making this post overly broad, I want to make a few general comments about how executive power in government operates before I take on the specifics of the cases at hand. Everyone who has studied political science is aware that dictators and oligarchies use crises to invoke fear that allows them to usurp power using the cloak of ‘national security’ as a Trojan horse to consolidate power.

I would argue, this is what has just happened in the U.S. post-9/11 and again after the Panic of 2008. I see these developments undermining Americans’ faith in the political process and I hope an appropriate restoration of the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution can be restored. Having made my editorial statement, let me move to the specifics.

Executive Branch power grab

In September, after Lehman Brothers failed, US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson asked for and received a blank check to disburse $700 billion to former colleagues and rivals in the financial services industry as he and his staff saw fit. In a brilliant act of cunning, Paulson had gotten approval to do anything he wanted from a gutless Congress more interested in loading the bill with sweeteners. This bill was not unlike the Patriot Act, passed after the 9/11 attacks, in that it increased the executive branch’s ability to intervene in the economy as they saw fit. I called it the Economic Patriot Act.

Originally, the Economic Patriot Act was about marking to market. However, once Gordon Brown started recapitalising Britain, Paulson made an about-face and proceeded to dispense the money in a similar fashion (albeit with much fewer strings attached than in the UK).

When the Obama Administration came to town, the modus operandi were not much different. Other support programs were forthcoming and bailouts at Citi and BofA ensued.

With the economy and banks on sounder footing and much of the money returned to taxpayers, the Obama Administration has turned to regulatory reform – and, what do you know – they are looking for a blank check again to do as they please in resolving too big to fail institutions that run into trouble. Again, as with Bush in 2002, if Congress gives the executive branch any blanket authority, it will be used and Congress will be cut out of the process. This is NOT how the American system of government is supposed to be run.

The Fed is grasping for the brass ring too

Enter the Federal Reserve. The Fed has been engaged in a policy of acting in concert with the Executive Branch in a non-arms length fashion since this crisis began. All of the liquidity programs and backstops the Fed has implemented are not just about liquidity, they are subsidies that lower the cost of capital and increase profits in the banking sector. As such, these subsidies are actually a part of America’s fiscal policy – stimulus, if you will. It is a clear no-no for the Federal Reserve to inject itself into fiscal matters. And to top it off, the Fed is refusing to be transparent about the process. Why would we make it the Systemic Risk Regulator?

Willem Buiter says it best so I will just quote him verbatim from his article, “Should central banks be quasi-fiscal actors?”:

Any action going beyond that, such as the recapitalisation of insolvent banks through quasi-fiscal subsidies, ought to be funded by the Treasury.  The central bank should be involved only as an agent of the Treasury – an expert assistant.  It should not put its own conventional or comprehensive balance sheet at risk.

The two arguments against the central bank acting as a quasi-fiscal agent are, first, that acting as a quasi-fiscal agent may impair the central bank’s ability to fulfil its macroeconomic stability mandate and, second, that it obscures responsibility and impedes accountability for what are in substance fiscal transfers.  In the US such actions subvert the Constitution, which clearly states in Section 8, Clause 1, that the power to tax and spend rests with the Congress: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”.

If, as happened in the USA on a vast scale, the central bank allows itself to be used as an off-budget and off-balance-sheet special purpose vehicle of the Treasury, and refuses to provide to the Congress some of the information essential for the quantification of the fiscal transfers it has made, the central bank not only subverts the constitution.  By attempting to hide contingent commitments and to disguise de-facto subsidies by not divulging relevant information on the terms on which the central bank has offered financial assistance, it undermines its own independence and legitimacy and impairs political accountability for the use of public funds – ‘tax payers’ money’.  It is surprising that a country whose creation folklore attributes considerable significance to the principle of ‘no taxation without representation’ would have condoned without much outcry such a blatant violation of the equally important principle of ‘no use of public funds without accountability’.  This indeed amounts to a quiet usurpation of the power of the legislature by the central bank.

Qualitative easing, or whatever you call it, must end.  With the FOMC starting its two-day meeting tomorrow, and with the Reserve Bank of Australia having already hiked twice, it will be interesting to see if the Fed retracts its “extended period” language as many of us expect. While I think it premature in regards to the robustness of the economy, the Fed needs to show it is an independent actor.

Once lost, independence will not be easily restored.

Related posts:

• Plosser: The Fed must stop qualitative easing
• Geithner testifies before Congress on financial reform
• Bush: ever the opportunist, lifts oil drilling ban
• The Federal Reserve bails out AIG
• Geithner and Summers consolidate power

When I read Ed’s recent piece “Japan: stimulus without reform leads to a policy cul de sac,” I couldn’t help but think he is wrong about Japan.

Supporting aggregate demand

The problem is taxes. In Japan, taxes are too high relative to the desire for spending and savings. Policy makers need to stop taking so many yen away from working people, so that they are able to buy all of the output which they can produce at full employment levels.  

The Japanese should have gone for domestic demand-led growth instead of export-led growth. When export growth reversed, the economy went into depression. Even Richard Koo, who has often spoken of a balance sheet recession and has the right approach on Japan, never imagined that such a thing would happen.  But it’s easy enough to resolve; simply support domestic incomes with the right tax cuts to sustain domestic demand at desired levels to sustain output and employment.

One can always sustain domestic demand by altering the fiscal balance.  In truth, it is as simple as debiting and crediting accounts on the Bank of Japan’s master yen account spread sheet.

Again, a fiscal adjustment can restore domestic demand immediately.

Savings in Japan

The savings rate in Japan is down as a consequence of falling net exports and what was until recently a falling budget deficit. The deficit trend is now reversing in a very ugly way- falling revenues and increased transfer payments.  True, private sector savings have fallen which means that Japanese policy makers have run out room for error.  I would contend that the vast scale of private savings allowed them to continue to screw up for so long by, for example:

• hiking the VAT in 1996
• introducing ‘fiscal consolidation’ in 2001 (and finally relenting in 2003 when the economy finally started to grow again, until this latest fiasco). 

Issuing one’s own fiat currency debt

But, the notion that the country is in a ‘debt trap dynamic’ as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard suggests is ludicrous.  Debt is serviced by data entries by the BOJ- debits and credits to securities accounts and transactions accounts at the BOJ. The BOJ can spend/credit accounts at will.  It’s just data entry.  Spending is not constrained by revenues (this is fiat currency, not a gold standard). In a worst case, ‘over-spending’ causes inflation. But, that happens to be what they are trying to accomplish. Getting some inflation would be considered a success.  Moreover, it can easily be reversed by tightening fiscal policy if it comes to that.

It’s really that simple.

Related posts:

• Japan: stimulus without reform leads to a policy cul de sac
• Do the personal income data demonstrate unbalanced reflation?
• Unrealized gains in wealth
• South Korea going gangbusters in contrast to UK
• Depression in Japan

The sale to Canadian auto parts maker Magna International and its partner, Russian lender Sberbank is off. With bankruptcy now behind it, General Motors now feels confident it can proceed with Opel under the GM umbrella.

From the GM press release:

Given an improving business environment for GM over the past few months, and the importance of Opel//Vauxhall to GM’s global strategy, the GM Board of Directors has decided to retain Opel and will initiate a restructuring of its European operations in earnest.

“GM will soon present its restructuring plan to Germany and other governments and hopes for its favorable consideration,” said Fritz Henderson, president and CEO. “We understand the complexity and length of this issue has been draining for all involved. However, from the outset, our goal has been to secure the best long term solution for our customers, employee, suppliers, and dealers, which is reflected in the decision reached today. This was deemed to be the most stable and least costly approach for securing Opel/Vauxhall’s long-term future.”

On a preliminary basis, the GM plan entails total restructuring expenses of about € 3 billion, significantly lower than all bids submitted as part of the investor solicitation. GM will work with all European labor unions to develop a plan for meaningful contributions to Opel’s restructuring. While Opel continues to outperform against its viability plan assumptions and immediate liquidity is stable, time is of the essence.

“While strained, the business environment in Europe has improved.” Henderson said. “At the same time, GM’s overall financial health and stability have improved significantly over the past few months, giving us confidence that the European business can be successfully restructured. We are grateful for the hard work of the German and other EU governments in navigating this difficult economic period. We’re also appreciative of the effort put forward by Magna and its partners in Russia in trying to reach an equitable agreement.”

I will be speaking about this issue in an hour’s time on the BBC. But, look at this as a result of economic reflation. GM has exited bankruptcy and feels confident enough of the future path of the economy to keep Opel instead of having to sell in a fire sale. 

The Germans are livid, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The governor of the German state of Hesse, where General Motors Co.’s Opel unit is headquartered, said Wednesday he is "concerned and at the same time annoyed that the months-long efforts to find a good solution for Opel have failed because of GM."

In a statement, Roland Koch, a confidant of German chancellor Angela Merkel, said that considering the "negative experience in recent years with GM’s corporate policy, I’m worried a lot about the future of (Opel) and its staff."

In a surprise move, GM’s board late Tuesday decided it wants to retain its core European operations after talks over a possible sale have been dragging on for months.

Koch said he expects GM to repay by Nov. 30 the bridge financing provided by the German state "so that the German tax payer doesn’t get harmed."

Remember that other EU countries came out of the woodwork saying, in effect, that the Germans had bought off GM and were being advantaged by unfair subsidies while in places like Belgium and Spain workers were suffering.

Very interesting. More after the BBC show!

Related posts:

• GM considers keeping Opel, raising capital
• Economic nationalism and GM’s decision to keep Opel and Vauxhall
• Germans reject Chinese offer for Opel
• German Press: Fiat to sign a deal with Opel, not Chrysler
• GM headed for bankruptcy