US Economy in Adverse Case of FED.?

The Financial Development Report 2012

Latest FOMC Minutes

World Economic Forum ' Transparency for Inclusive Governance'

Alan Greenspan ' Fiscal Cliff is Painful '

Friday, September 30, 2011

OIL/Euro Sink, rating firms leaked, FED's Twist

OIL and Euro sink at the close of the Quarter 


 The New York Federal Reserve Bank of New York said Friday that it would begin Treasury purchases and sales on Monday as part of the program dubbed "Operation Twist" announced by policy makers earlier this month. 
The Fed will buy long-term debt on Monday, Tuesday and Friday and inflation-linked debt on Wednesday. 
It will sell one-year debt on Thursday, the Fed said on its schedule posted on its web site














Rating Firms the Leaking Jar..?


In a report issued Friday on the performance of the big ratings firms, the Securities and Exchange Commission said that despite changes to their operations, it still "identified concerns" at all of them. Among the problems, the SEC said, are "apparent failures in some instances to follow ratings methodologies and procedures [and] to make timely and accurate disclosures. It also criticized the firms for not being able to "establish effective internal control structures for the rating process and to adequately manage conflicts of interest." SEC staff looked at 10 of the biggest operators in the industry, including Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's.


US Economy in recession .


The U.S. economy is headed for a new recession that government intervention cannot prevent, the Economic Cycle Research Institute said Friday. "Cyclical weakness is spreading widely from economic indicator to indicator in telltale recessionary fashion," ECRI said in a published report. The ECRI's Weekly Leading Index (WLI) growth indicator, reported Friday, showed economic growth at negative 7.2% for the week ended Sept. 23, continuing a trend that began in August. U.S. economic strength has been declining since May, according to the WLI.

Fitch, S&P downgrade New Zealand's credit rating


New Zealand's credit rating has been downgraded by two of the three major ratings agencies amid increased global concern over high debt burdens in developed nations.
Fitch and Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded New Zealand from an AA+ rating to AA.
In the past, New Zealand has enjoyed strong sovereign credit ratings due to relatively low levels of government borrowing that offset worries about the country's high private debt. But the ratings agencies have become less sanguine after an earthquake and weak economic growth strained the government's finances.
The agencies are taking a harder line on any form of debt in the wake of the global financial crisis. Countries such as Ireland, which was forced to bail out banks after the global recession, have demonstrated how private debt can easily become a problem for the government.
The downgrade weighed on the New Zealand dollar. It was trading late Friday at $0.7639, down from $0.77 the previous day. It was worth as much as $0.88 two months ago.
In its review, Fitch said New Zealand's high level of external debt is "an outlier" among comparable developed nations, a situation which is likely to continue given that the current account deficit is projected to increase. A current account deficit typically shows that a country is spending more than it earns and relying on borrowing to make up the gap.
Standard & Poor's cited increased spending by the government following February's earthquake that killed 181 people and devastated the center of Christchurch, New Zealand's second biggest city.
According to S&P, negative factors include the country's high levels of household and agricultural debt, its reliance on commodities for income, and an aging population.
"Rising savings will be an important component for keeping the country's current account deficit in check," said S&P analyst Kyran Curry.
New Zealand has a poor track record of personal savings, something that recent governments have attempted to address with a voluntary retirement contribution scheme called KiwiSaver. The latest downgrade will likely increase pressure on the government to make the scheme compulsory.
New Zealand's finance minister Bill English defended the country's economic performance. In a statement, he said the government has been attempting to reduce foreign debt, which remains the country's "biggest economic vulnerability."
"New Zealand's private savings have started to increase and as a result we have started to reduce our total external debt," English said. "But it still remains high."
International liabilities have decreased from 86 percent of GDP two years ago to 70 percent of GDP in the year ending June, according to English.
In its review, Fitch pointed to some positive features of the New Zealand economy, which it listed as moderate public debt, fiscal prudence, and strong public institutions.

NSE India derivatives roll over report Sept-October 2011

<
NSE India Rollover report sep-oct 2011
View more documents from Atul Baride

Thursday, September 29, 2011

RBI raises bond issuance by Rs 52782 crs Yields rockets


Issuance Calendar for Marketable Dated Securities for October-March 2011-12

It has been decided to continue with the practice of releasing indicative calendar for issuance of Government of India dated securities, enabling institutional and retail investors to plan their investment efficiently and at the same time, providing transparency and stability to the Government securities market. Keeping in view the shortfall in other financing items, it has been decided to increase the Government market borrowing through dated securities provided in the Union Budget 2011-12 by ` 52,872 crore. The market borrowing through dated securities during the second half (i.e. October-March 2011-12) would be ` 2,20,000 crore, instead of `1,67,128 crore. Accordingly, the following indicative calendar for issuance of Government of India dated securities for the second half of the fiscal year 2011-12 (October 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012) is being issued in consultation with the Government of India.
Calendar for Issuance of Government of India Dated Securities
(October 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012)
Sr. No.
Week of Auction
Amount in`Crore
Security-wise allocation
1
October 3-7, 201115,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
iv) 20 Years & Above for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
2
October 10-14, 201113,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for 3,000-4,000 cr.
3
October 24-28, 201115,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
iv) 20 Years & Above for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
4
October 31-November 4, 201113,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
5
November 7-11, 201113,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 20 Years & Above for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
6
November 14-18, 201113,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
7
November 21-25, 201113,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 20 Years & Above for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
8
November 28-December 2, 201113,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
9
December 5-9, 201113,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 20 Years & Above for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
10
December 19-23, 201112,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 4,000-5,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
11
January 2-6, 201215,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
iv) 20 Years & Above for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
12
January 9-13, 201212,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
13
January 23-27, 201212,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 20 Years & Above for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
14
January 30-February 3, 201212,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
15
February 6-10, 201212,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for 4,000-5,000 cr.
iii) 20 Years & Above for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
16
February 13-17, 201212,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 5,000-6,000 cr.
iii) 15-19 Years for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
17
February 20-24, 201212,000i) 5-9 Years for ` 3,000-4,000 cr.
ii) 10-14 Years for ` 4,000-5,000 cr.
iii) 20 Years & Above for ` 2,000-3,000 cr.
As hitherto, all the auctions covered by the calendar will have the facility of non-competitive bidding scheme under which five per cent of the notified amount will be reserved for the specified retail investors.
As in the past, the Government of India/ Reserve Bank will continue to have the flexibility to bring about modifications in the above calendar in terms of notified amount, issuance period, maturities, etc. and to issue different types of instruments depending upon the requirement of the Government of India, evolving market conditions and other relevant factors after giving due notice.
J. D. Desai
Assistant Manager
Press Release : 2011-2012/500

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

NMDC, India Result by Indian Steel Minister


Steel Minister Reviews the Performance of NMDC
The Union Steel Minister Shri Beni Prasad Verma has reviewed the performance of NMDC Ltd., a Navratna PSU under Ministry of Steel for the first quarter (April-June), 2011-12 here today. The CMD of NMDC Shri Rana Som briefed the Minister about the performance of the company during the first quarter of 2011-12 and highlighted its achievements against the MoU targets for the year quarter.

The Minister expressed satisfaction over the performance of the company in the first quarter of the financial year 2011-12. He was informed that the Company has embarked upon expansion and diversification plans in India and abroad. However, the Minister stressed that the upcoming projects of NMDC in India and abroad specially its 3 MTPA Integrated Steel Plant at Nagarnar, Chhattisgarh, its 1.2 MTPA Pellet Plant in Donimalali, development of Deposit – 11B Mine in Bailadila Sector, Chhattisgarh and Kumaraswamy Mine in Karnataka needs to be completed as per schedule.

The Minister also appreciated the R&D efforts of the Company for converting the low grade iron ores such as BHJ and BHQ into value added products.

The Company has been consistently showing excellent results. During the year 2010-11, the production of iron ore was 25.16 million tonnes as compared to 23.80 million tonnes during previous year showing a growth of about 6%. Sales Turnover of the company during 2010-11 was Rs. 11367.42 crores against Rs. 6229.54 crores during the previous year, registering an increase of about 82%. The company earned profit before tax of Rs. 9727.17 crores during 2010-11 as compared to Rs. 5207.32 crores during previous year and profit after tax during 2010-11 was Rs. 6499.22 crores as compared to Rs. 3447.26 crores during previous year.

The performance has further improved during the first quarter of 2011-12. During the period April – June, 2011, the production of iron ore was 6.07 million tonnes as compared to 5.76 million tonnes in the corresponding period of previous year showing a growth of 5%. The turnover during first quarter of 2011-12 was Rs. 2782.61 crores in comparison to Rs. 2517.99 crores during the first quarter of 2010-11. The profit before tax during Q1 of 2011-12 was Rs. 2662.69 crores in comparison to Rs. 2249.22 crores of the first quarter of 2010-11.

***

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

US home sales fall, Wait Bernanke's discourse

August new home sales dropped 2.3% to 295,000. It was in line with consensus expectations and comes after July was upwardly revised to a 302,000 unit pace (was 298,000). The Northeast fell 13.6% to a 19,000-unit pace, likely from Hurricane Irene distortions. However, the South and the West also declined, down 2.4% and 6.3%, respectively. The Midwest had an 8.2% gain to 53,000, the third monthly gain. Total sales are up 6.1% over last August, with the Midwest up 65.5% year over year and the South up 9.3%. The Northeast and the West are down 36.7% and 10.6%, respectively. The months' supply of unsold homes on the market edged up to 6.6 months, near the 6.5-month rate in July and the historic averages of 5.5 to 6 months. The median sales price fell 8.7% in August over last year to $209,100. The report came in about as expected, to likely have a small effect on markets today.


Ben Bernanke Chairman FOMC is to deliver speech tommarow and Would add to Juices of the Fomc meet


Chocolate to the Diabetic :


While, Germans are calling EFSF as the ' Chocolate to Diabetic' and the Greece despise towards the Germans is on Rise. French Leaders are intense in Defacing the EFSF and is the Campaign Issue 

Silver's Spring the Board Chart of 24 hours

Monday, September 26, 2011

Friday, September 23, 2011

Pranav Mukherjee Pokes many Q's for G-20


ntervention of FM at the G20 Finance Ministers’ and Central Bank Governors’ Dinner Meeting
Following is the text of the intervention of union Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee  at the G20 Finance Ministers’ and Central Bank Governors’ dinner meeting
                “Thank you for the opportunity to give a brief on the progress in the Mutual Assessment Process. Since we have had a detailed presentation by my Canadian colleague, Jim Flaherty, I will limit my briefing to raise some important issues to guide our discussion today.
                Firstit is worth considering whether we are giving excessive weightage to the balance and sustainable elements of the Framework, and too little to strong growth. The question of growth is particularly relevant at this juncture, when the recent developments in the global economy are cause for serious concern. The Framework exercise was initiated on the assumption that the global economy was recovering reasonably well from the economic and financial crisis, and hence the G 20 needed to turn its attention to medium to long-term issues. Rebalancing global demand would make growth more sustainable, and even stronger, going forward, especially if there has been permanent demand destruction in some parts of the global economy. However, our medium term action plan for Cannes may not seem credible unless it addresses short-term growth and stability concerns as well. For instance, how credible would commitments for medium term consolidation look if we are seen embarking on a fresh round of stimulus? Several structural reforms to boost productivity could also have an adverse impact on short-term growth. The Cannes Action Plan, therefore, may have to link the medium term to the short-term as well.

                Second, Growth also needs to be made more broad based and especially strengthened in developing countries in general. The Framework exercise therefore needs to focus more sharply on the development aspect. In this respect, I would like to underscore the suggestion made by our Prime Minister at the Seoul Summit that global imbalances should be leveraged to address developmental imbalances. If we need to add demand to the global economy to offset the moderation of demand by industrialized countries as they contract final output, perhaps a good way of doing this is to expand infrastructure investment in developing economies. Many developing countries have developed the capacity to grow rapidly but are constrained by poor infrastructure. Financing infrastructure development in these economies could contribute to sustainable global growth.
                Third, the focus of the Framework on systemically important economies derived from the fact that global crises in the past, including the recent one, emanated from large economies. However, as we work to redefine elements of the MAP process in the G 20 countries we are faced with a new crisis arising from imbalances in relatively small economies in the periphery of the Euro Zone which has spread to countries which were well outside the periphery. This is because, given the highly interconnected nature of financial markets, large imbalances even in a small economy in a large currency union can destabilize global markets.
                The issue arises whether, in trying to anticipate threats to the global economy, we should expand our agenda to consider the nature of the stresses in the Euro Zone and policy options for handling them. The need for doing so arises because of the highly interconnected nature of the world and to the potentially destabilizing role that expectations in financial markets can play. If expectations were always determined by what we call “macroeconomic fundamentals” – essentially the imbalance indicators identified in the MAP process – it would be one thing. However, expectations can change suddenly and when they do countries that are otherwise seen as solvent can suddenly appear insolvent. Given the importance of the Euro Zone for global financial markets it is necessary to consider whether the MAP should include some surveillance of the Euro Zone. 

                Fourth, we need to take stock of whether we have made substantial progress since the Toronto Summit when our leaders agreed on policy options for groups of countries, i.e. for advanced surplus, advanced deficit, emerging surplus, emerging deficit and resource rich economies. While it was not spelt out which country fell in what group, each G 20 country knew to what category it belonged, and the broad direction in which it needed to move.
                Since then, what we have done is to first come out with a set of multiple indicators of measuring imbalances, on the basis of which we have identified seven countries that are seen to have “exceptionally large” imbalances and which are systemically important. The G 20 countries, including all the systemically important ones, have presented their national projections on major indicators. The IMF has compiled these projections and given us a comparison between what they imply and what the IMF thinks is feasible based on their global models. They have concluded that the improvements in imbalances projected by the individual G 20 countries are consistent with an overall view of the world economy which is over optimistic. If that optimism now seems excessive we need to know what changes would be needed in individual country projections.
                Fifth, there appear to be some difficulties involved in making forward looking commitments. The MAP national policy template submissions of G20 member countries indicate that there is a broad congruence of ideas and recommendations for directing the future course of policy coordination, including on the need to focus on seven systemically important economies. Member countries recognize the need for further cooperation to achieve the goals of strong, sustainable and balanced growth as committed by our Leaders. The Framework Working Group deliberations have also underscored the need for countries to be more ambitious in their commitments. Countries have made forward looking projections in their templates, but these are not commitments, and are subject to periodic updates like all macro-economic models. The commitments are contained in the written part of the template and are in the form of objectives and policy changes. How commitments can be measurable is an issue.

                There are three related issues here. Firstly, some commitments asked for are outcomes over which governments do not have full control, such as fiscal deficits and current account imbalances. They control only specific policies, such as tax rates and expenditure, which may influence but not fully determine final outcomes which are the result of a complex interplay of several variables. It is important to distinguish between ‘outcome’ variables and ‘control’ variables in making prescriptions.  Secondly, countries may be only willing to commit only what they have already made public so far. Are countries in a position to make measurable, forward looking commitments beyond what is approved by their national Parliaments? Thirdly, is there a danger of such measurable commitments leading to naming and shaming, that could be acrimonious and divisive, something that the G 20 has so far avoided? The Framework makes clear what each country is expected to do, and the extent to which this ultimately feeds into domestic policies is subject to periodic mutual assessment. How and in what manner, and should we, and can we, be more ambitious and move beyond the current path?
                I know I have raised more questions than provided answers. The questions are, I think, relevant and important. I now look forward to colleagues providing the answers. ”
DSM/SS/GN

India initiate a drab BRIC statement

BRICS Finance Ministers’ Joint Communiqué Issued at the end of Meeting in WashingtonFollowing is the text of the BRICS Finance Ministers’ Joint Communique issued at the end of the meeting in Washington, yesterday:

“We, the BRICS Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, met on September 22, 2011 in Washington DC, USA, amid growing concern regarding the state of the global economy.

While BRICS countries recovered quickly from the 2008-09 global financial crisis, some of us have been subject to inflationary pressures and growth prospects of all our countries have been dampened by global market instability. In advanced countries, the build up of sovereign debt and concerns regarding medium to long-term plans of fiscal adjustment are creating an uncertain environment for global growth. Also, excessive liquidity from aggressive policy actions taken by central banks to stabilize their domestic economies has been spilling over into emerging market economies, fostering excessive volatility in capital flows and commodity prices.

The immediate problem at hand is to get growth back on track in developed countries. In this context we welcome the recent fiscal package announced by USA as well as the decisions taken by Euro area countries to address financial tensions, notably by making the EFSF flexible. It is critical for advanced economies to adopt responsible macroeconomic and financial policies, avoid creating excessive global liquidity and undertake structural reforms to lift growth create jobs and reduce imbalances.

The current situation requires decisive actions. We are taking necessary steps to secure economic growth, maintain financial stability and contain inflation. We are also determined to speed up structural reform to sustain strong growth which would advance development and poverty reduction at home and benefit global growth and rebalancing. The contribution of BRICS countries and other emerging market economies to global growth is rising and will increase further. However, global rebalancing will take time and its impact may not be felt sufficiently in the short-term. We will also work to intensify trade and investment flows among our countries to build upon our synergies.

The BRICS are open to consider making additional efforts in working with other countries and International Financial Institutions in order to address the present challenges to global financial stability, depending on individual country circumstances.

We are concerned with the slow pace of quota and governance reforms in the IMF. The implementation of the 2010 reform is lagging. We must also move ahead with the comprehensive review of the quota formula by January 2013 and the completion of the next review of quotas by January 2014. This is needed to increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Fund. We reiterate our support for measures to protect the voice and representation of the IMF’s poorest members. We call on the IMF to make its surveillance more integrated and evenhanded.

Multilateral Development Banks are considered by developing countries as important partners in helping them meet their long term development finance needs. In the current global economic environment, the Banks need to mobilize more resources to increase their assistance to low income and other developing countries including finding ways of expanding their lending capacity, so that development finance is not neglected.

In the face of a slowdown of global economic growth, it is necessary to maintain international policy co-operation and co-ordination. We remain committed to work with the international community, including making contributions to the G20 Cannes Action Plan consistent with national policy frameworks to ensure strong, sustainable and balanced growth. We shall work together in searching for a coordinated solution to the current challenges as we did in 2008-09.”

DSM/SS/GN
(Release ID :76189)

All Eyes on Europe--- All Facets Covered

Mark Kiesel 

  • Germany and other strong sovereign balance sheet nations in Europe have to make a choice: continue to provide financial assistance to countries with more debt and assist in helping to restructure the debt of some European peripheral countries, or potentially move forward with a smaller, stronger group of countries - or at the extreme walk away from the Euro and the European Union all together.
  • Without bold and coordinated action from European policymakers and the ECB, we can expect financial markets remain on edge; causing volatility to remain elevated until equity capital is injected into weaker European banks and permanent term financing is provided to those solvent European peripheral sovereign countries.
  • We believe investors should wait to see whether policymakers can be effective in formulating a coordinated and credible solution for Europe before taking on more risk. In the near term, we favor focus on maintaining higher-than-normal cash balances, investments in areas with strong fundamentals and balance sheets and staying defensive in non-cyclical sectors as well as in investments senior in the capital structure.

  • ​The question on everyone’s mind these days is whether policymakers can contain the European sovereign debt crisis. Europe has roughly the same amount of government debt as a percentage of GDP as the United States. However, the magnitude of Europe’s total debt is not the issue in our opinion, it is the distribution. Germany has a lower, sustainable debt level whereas some peripheral European countries do not, particularly at current interest rates. As part of Europe’s entire Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), participating countries don’t have the benefit of an independent currency and monetary policy. This means countries with higher debt lack the ability to devalue their currencies in an attempt to improve exports. Monetary policy is also set for the EMU by the European Central Bank (ECB), which limits options for peripheral countries needing more accommodative policies. For many peripheral European countries these factors are major headwinds to growth which means to stay competitive these countries must move forward with structural reform. Yet, significant fiscal austerity and reform may prove so challenging that a few of the most leveraged European peripheral countries, like Greece, may have to restructure and leave the Euro in order to restore competitiveness and debt sustainability. Ultimately, Germany and Europe’s other strong sovereign balance sheet nations will have to make a choice: continue to provide financial assistance to countries with more debt and assist in helping restructure the debt of some European peripheral countries in order to keep the EMU intact, or potentially move forward with a smaller, stronger group of countries – or at the extreme even walk away from the Euro and the European Union.The importance of the European sovereign debt crisis should not be underestimated. Simply put, Europe remains a main driver of “animal spirits” and volatility (see Figure 1) in financial markets and can significantly shape the outlook for the global economy. The risks associated with the sovereign debt crisis are significant. What was initially perceived as a liquidity crisis is increasingly becoming a solvency crisis for a growing list of European countries. Timing is critical as financial markets appear to be moving faster than policymakers’ ability to come up with a credible solution. 
As interest rates increase on higher-debt European countries in the south, debt sustainability will be increasingly tested. The fact that financial markets are effectively marking-to-market European government bonds and interest rates in real time means the European financial crisis is spreading quickly into their banking system since many banks have large exposure to European sovereign debt. While central banks have provided liquidity support so banks can get short-term funding, a fiscal and growth solution is needed to restore confidence in vulnerable European sovereign balance sheets as well as in numerous European banks (see Figure 2), which increasingly appear under-capitalized and exposed to deteriorating sovereign credits.

    Balance sheets not engaging
    The longer policymakers wait, the more likely Europe’s financial crisis will deteriorate. And, all eyes are on Europe now for good reason because the risk of a global liquidity trap has increased as many healthy balance sheets around the world are also refusing to engage. Multinational companies which have low leverage and high cash balances aren’t aggressively spending and hiring due to an uncertain outlook. Emerging market sovereign balance sheets have yet to commit to provide significant financial assistance to Europe as these nations want to see a united Europe and clarity from policymakers, mainly from the German government, given the country’s leading role in shaping policy for the region. While the healthiest sovereign balance sheets in Europe have the ability to help, many appear to lack the will. As an example, many Germans want to see more austerity, significant deficit reduction and structural change in peripheral countries before they increase financial support beyond current commitments. Yet, too much deleveraging at once could throw Europe into a severe recession which would have significant negative implications for the global economy.
    On the policy front, a wait-and-see or “conditional love” approach to solving the European crisis will not be effective in our opinion given that the asset sides of European banks’ balance sheets are being marked-to-market in real time by financial market participants who seem to increasingly fear the unknown and refuse to take heightened levels of risk. We believe European policymakers should take several actions to help restore confidence in markets. 
    First, policymakers should make clear which European sovereigns will be backed unconditionally through explicit guarantees and assist those sovereigns whose debt will ultimately be restructured. 
    Second, the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) should be converted into an equity funding vehicle which can reequitize banks and provide term financing to solvent European sovereigns at interest rates which allow for sustainable debt service. 
    Third, while many European peripheral countries will likely need to embrace significant budget cuts and challenging austerity measures, policy leaders should balance higher taxes and spending cuts with pro-growth structural reform which promotes privatization and allows for workers to remain productive and employed longer given the need to increase retirement ages.
    Fourth, a few of the highest debt European peripheral countries deemed to be insolvent may have to exit the EMU and Euro currency in order to restore debt sustainability and competitiveness. Finally, the ECB should ease monetary policy and stand more aggressively behind solvent European sovereigns by acting decisively as a lender of last resort.
    Without bold and coordinated action from European policymakers and the ECB, we can expect financial markets to remain on edge; causing volatility to remain elevated until equity capital is injected into weaker European banks and permanent term financing is provided to those solvent European peripheral sovereign countries. In the meantime, we expect the global banking system and other balance sheets around the world will continue to hoard cash. Without a unified Europe and a bold plan of action, we face the risk of a global “paradox of thrift” where balance sheets won’t engage and credit creation will remain restricted without stronger fiscal commitments. This ultimately puts Germany and the other northern European countries in the driver’s seat in influencing whether or not the EMU will remain together or break apart. Yet, the longer Europe’s crisis lingers the more likely we could experience a disorderly outcome.

    Global growth slowing

    The timing of the European sovereign debt crisis could not be worse as global economic growth is already slowing in both the developed and developing world. In developed economies, fiscal policy may be less able to offset a deleveraging private sector as government debt has reached a high enough level in many developed countries that fiscal stimulus is simply not an option. In the U.S., total federal, state and local government debt has increased from 53% of GDP in the 2nd quarter of 2008 to 81% today (see Figure 3). While some may argue the U.S. still has some near-term ability to stimulate fiscally, growing political opposition to deficit spending and political gridlock, combined with the need to reduce longer-term deficits, suggest that going Keynesian in a major way is increasingly unlikely. Given these conditions, fiscal policy in many regions of the developed world is becoming a less viable option.
    In addition to constraints on the fiscal side, monetary policy is also becoming less effective in the developed world due to what many believe has become a liquidity trap, particularly in the U.S. As an example, multi-national companies in the U.S. continue to focus on hoarding cash (see Figure 4) and rebuilding balance sheets while consumers increase savings, pay down debt and remain extremely pessimistic (see Figure 5). With companies concerned about an uncertain outlook in Europe as well as a delevering consumer in the developed world, the outlook for hiring and capital spending will likely remain challenging. As such, we believe monetary expansion is less effective in developed economies that lack aggregate demand and animal spirits. Simply put, many balance sheets in the developed world are refusing to engage due to an uncertain outlook. Overall, we expect real economic growth in developed economies to approach stall speed or zero over the next year due to weak consumer and investment spending as well as governments transitioning into a headwind to economic growth because of their stretched public sector balance sheets.
    In the emerging markets, countries such as China, which went Keynesian in 2009 through an enormous fiscal stimulus program targeting infrastructure, now appear focused on a longer-term transition toward domestic consumption in order to prepare their economies for more balanced growth and stability over a secular horizon. In addition, policymakers want to keep inflation under control. As such, Keynesian fiscal stimulus on a global scale appears less likely in emerging markets. In fact, emerging market leaders appear hesitant to put their sovereign balance sheets at risk in providing financial support to Europe without more clarity and certainty. While countries in emerging markets have significantly less public and private sector debt (see Figure 6) than in the developed world, their economies will likely be negatively impacted by weaker growth in developed economies. While a weaker global growth outlook could lead to more monetary stimulus in emerging market economies, we expect real economic growth to slow in the emerging markets to a level of roughly 4–4 ½% (with the large economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and Mexico expected to grow at a combined 5–5 ½% real rate) over the next year due to weaker export and investment growth.
      
    Investing in an uncertain world 

    European sovereign concerns, an increasingly fragile European banking system and slowing global economic growth suggest investors should consider a more defensive and conservative approach. Balance sheets around the globe are watching whether European leaders have the ability and willingness to restore confidence in both European sovereign balance sheets as well as in European banks.
    We believe investors should wait to see whether policymakers can be effective in formulating a coordinated and credible solution for Europe before taking on more risk. The ECB and other central banks are helping to inject liquidity into the system, which is providing near-term support for European banks. Nevertheless, banks generally remain extremely hesitant to lend to one another (see Figure 7). In addition, without a fiscal solution, the capital needs of European banks will likely remain unresolved as investors will watch the prices and yields on European government bonds, a major holding on bank balance sheets, adjust in real time.
    The uncertainty caused by the lack of clarity surrounding whether or not European peripheral government debt is “money good” or not will keep investors on the sidelines. European governments with significant debt levels as well as European banks with exposure to weaker European sovereigns are increasingly likely to be cut off from the capital markets until a credible and decisive fiscal solution evolves. This will likely negatively impact the flow of credit in the private sector by tightening credit availability and raising borrowing costs in an economy which is already fragile. 

    What to do?

    In the near term, we believe a higher-than-normal cash balance focus and favoring select investments in areas where fundamentals remain healthy to be attractive. Specifically, we believe investments in the following select areas deserve consideration:
    • The equities and debt in select multinational companies with strong balance sheets
    • Emerging market equities and sovereigns, and corporates where growth remains supportive
    • Bank loans (see Figure 8) and senior secured debt with significant asset coverage
    • U.S. bank debt (senior) given strengthening capital and balance sheets (see Figure 9)
    • High quality municipal bonds in states with strong balance sheets and in essential services such as water and sewer, power and airports
    • Hard assets and resources with favorable demand and supply dynamics


     
    Despite an uncertain global macro environment, we are finding some opportunities in the above sectors where we feel valuations are compelling. We believe investments in these areas have the potential to increase a portfolio’s yield by owning what PIMCO refers to as “safe spread.” In an environment where the 10-year U.S. Treasury is yielding less than 2%, we are finding that select credit investments with strong fundamentals can potentially increase those yields while maintaining a defensive posture. The above areas are specific sectors where we believe growth and balance sheets are strong, credit fundamentals are stable-to-improving and valuations are compelling.
    Given a slower growth outlook, we favor BB-rated credits in the high yield market as opposed to CCC-rated and highly levered companies. In addition, we believe credit risk should be taken at the top of the capital structure as well as in non-cyclical, defensive sectors. Our credit analysis is focused on stress testing companies and investments in a slower global growth environment where the risk of recession has increased. In addition, our research is focused on a company’s sources and uses of cash, debt maturity profiles and cash flow analysis. We believe less leveraged companies with high cash balances and low near-term funding needs should perform well. We favor U.S. credit within the developed markets, particularly relative to European credit (see Figure 10) as their corporate credit trades too tight relative to the sovereign. Emerging markets are favored over developed markets given stronger balance sheets and a healthier growth outlook.
    All eyes on Europe

    Given slowing global economic growth and significant uncertainty surrounding the European sovereign debt crisis, we believe it is wise to take a conservative and defensive stance. For many reasons previously discussed, both public and private sector balance sheets are not engaging and are instead taking a wait-and-see approach. High public sector debt in many developed economies has led to a lack of will to go more Keynesian. Importantly, this isn’t just a public sector issue. Healthy balance sheets which appear to have the ability to stimulate are currently not engaging. As evidence, many companies are hoarding cash, which we believe is increasing the risk of a global “paradox of thrift” where higher saving and lower spending suggest a more challenging outlook for global economic growth. This dilemma, combined with what many have described in the U.S. as a liquidity trap, further explains why fiscal and monetary policy have become less effective in the developed world where the private sector lacks animal spirits and continues to delever.
    The lack of policy coordination and a unified front in Europe combined with increasingly stretched sovereign balance sheets in the developed world are proving to be significant challenges for the global economy. It also suggests politics may increasingly influence outcomes, financial markets and the economic outlook. In our opinion, the effectiveness of policymakers should also be questioned given that fiscal and monetary stabilizers appear to have become less useful in a world which continues to lack confidence and faces significant uncertainty, particularly in developed economies where aggregate sovereign debt levels remain elevated and where fiscal stimulus is becoming less viable.
    The combination of political, economic and policy implementation risks all argue for maintaining a conservative, defensive approach. We believe investing in a world of heightened uncertainty means maintaining higher cash balances than normal, focusing investments in areas with strong fundamentals and balance sheets and staying defensive in non-cyclical sectors as well as in investments senior in the capital structure. When looking to increase risk, we will remain patient and continue to focus on Europe for signals as to whether or not European policymakers can establish a united front, act decisively and deliver on a bold, sizeable and coordinated solution to the European sovereign debt crisis. In the meantime we focus on select investments where fundamentals remain supportive; such as equity and debt in select multinational companies, emerging market equity, sovereign and corporate debt, bank loans and senior secured debt, U.S. bank debt at the top of the capital structure, high quality municipal bonds and hard assets and resources with favorable demand and supply dynamics.
    Mark Kiesel

    Managing Director
    23 September 2011

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Leading Indicators shows the weakest rise


 The economy will likely expand this fall at a weak pace, but the risks are rising of another recession, a private research group says.
The Conference Board said Thursday that its index of leading economic indicators rose 0.3 percent in August, the fourth consecutive increase.
Still, the improvement in August wasn’t broad-based and mostly stemmed from an improvement in financial conditions, such as low interest rates.
“There is growing risk that sustained weak confidence could put downward pressure on demand and business activity, causing the economy to potentially dip into recession,” said Ken Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board. “While the chance of that happening remains below 50-50, the odds have certainly increased in recent months.”
Only four of the 10 measures that the Conference Board uses to compile its index showed improvement in August. Two were related to financial conditions. Building permits also rose.

The IMF’s Lagarde ‘ downside risks’ are high

The Entrenched Inflation Numerical Down to 8.84%


Indian weekly Food Inflation Data for the week ended September 10, 2011 was out today. The inflation showed the numerical mop down to 8.75 % of about. This rise in Inflation is on the back of Last Years ' Inflation Explosion' of 16%+, and hence shows only numerical value than any applause  

It was in last year when the Government of India's Advisor Mr Basu was supportive the inflation by Saying ' Sometimes it is Essential to Have some degree of Inflation and was hopeful of Inflation to come down soon' Mr. Ahuliwalia seconded it. R.B. I tugged the line with its ' Baby Steps' theory. Readers may well remember the ' Onion Explosion' , followed thereafter. It seems Mr Basu, who is from Foreign University not only is inexperienced to Indian Society, it seems ' Big Talking ' Economist, who did not recognise that, In India Inflation is hardly an answer to the economic progress of the country. Had Some Bold steps been initiated then, the India's sustaining power could have been saved. It seems, all Mr Basu wants to promote the Western + China model into India's economic structure and now with experimenting with changing the Indian distribution System of Farm Products, Namely F.D.I in Indian Retail.

The Entrenchment of Inflation and India's Growth Story is not only a Number Crunching Exercise, but it is the on the ground growth of the working Indians. The experimented Budget and playing with Inflation has Put Indian growth Story to a Toss. The presumptions and Complacency along with total mis- management has put the Indian Rupee to the throes of 50 against Dollar. It seem that, the government has yet to awaken to the economic call of the current time. It is expecting sell of Indian Companies to the FII's and garner some hard cash. The Tax projections are Considering the Higher Growth rate and is not envisaging the ' Slow down ' With many sectors like Auto, Air lines, Housing debasing and as Inflation with high Interest rates tightening, unless Indian government cuts it's over bulging expenses or stokes the unaccounted money to source the Cash, the Dream soon may turn into a nightmare....

The Inflation date details are here to see the Number Crunching Exercise ....
Wholesale Price Indices for Primary Articles and Fuel & Power in India (Base: 2004-05 = 100) Review for the week ended 10th September, 2011 (19 Bhadrapada, 1933 Saka)
               
The WPI for the week ended 10th September, 2011 in respect of ‘Primary Articles’ and ‘Fuel & Power’ is given below:

PRIMARY ARTICLES (Weight 20.12%) 
The index for this major group declined by 0.1 percent to 201.9 (Provisional) from 202.0 (Provisional) for the previous week.

The annual rate of inflation, calculated on point to point basis, stood at 12.17 percent (Provisional) for the week ended 10/09/2011 (over 11/09/2010) as compared to 13.04 percent (Provisional) for the previous week (ended 03/09/2011). 

The groups and items for which the index showed variations during the week are as follows:-

The index for 'Food Articles' group rose by 0.2 percent to 195.7 (Provisional) from 195.4  (Provisional) for the previous week due to higher prices of poultry chicken (8%), fish-marine (6%), gram and urad (2% each) and egg, tea, barley, fish-inland, arhar and moong (1% each). However, the prices of maize (4%), jowar and fruits & vegetables (2% each) and bajraragi and wheat (1% each) declined.

The index for 'Non-Food Articles' group rose by 0.1 percent to 185.4 (Provisional) from 185.2  (Provisional) for the previous week due to higher prices of raw cotton (4%), raw jute (2%) and raw silk,      gingelly seed, soyabean, copra (coconut) and groundnut seed (1% each). However, the prices of      flowers (16%), castor seed (5%) and linseed and gaur seed (1% each) declined.

The index for 'Minerals' group declined by 1.4 percent to 306.3 (Provisional) from 310.8 (Provisional) for the previous week due to lower prices of crude petroleum (3%).

FUEL & POWER (Weight 14.91%)

The index for this major group rose by 0.8 percent to 168.2 (Provisional) from 166.8 (Provisional) for the previous week due to higher prices of electricity (industry) (7%), electricity (agricultural) (6%),      electricity (domestic) (4%) and electricity (commercial) and electricity (railway traction) (3% each).

The annual rate of inflation, calculated on point to point basis, stood at 13.96 percent (Provisional) for the week ended 10/09/2011 (over 11/09/2010) as compared to 13.01 percent (Provisional) for the previous week (ended 03/09/2011). 

Build up inflation over the week, financial year end and over the year is given in Annexure-I for some important items. Trend of rate of inflation during last six weeks is also given for some important items in Annexure II.

Next date of press release: 29/09/2011 for the week ending 17/09/2011
This press release is available at our home page http://eaindustry.nic.in

Commodities/Major Groups/Groups/Sub-Groups
Weight
WPI Sep 10, 2011
Latest week over week
Build up from end March
Year on year
52 week Average

2010-11
2011-12
2010-11
2011-12
2010-11
2011-12
Primary Articles
20.12
201.9
0.73
-0.05
8.04
7.17
17.65
12.17
14.79
Food Articles
14.34
195.7
0.73
0.15
9.37
9.27
16.30
8.84
11.16
Cereals
3.37
176.6
0.18
-0.67
2.29
2.97
7.00
4.13
4.11
Rice
1.79
173.3
0.30
-0.06
2.15
3.90
5.71
4.02
3.72
Wheat
1.12
168.1
0.00
-0.71
0.99
-1.47
9.02
-2.72
-0.40
Pulses
0.72
198.1
-2.50
1.43
-2.50
4.59
3.06
1.49
-6.80
Vegetables
1.74
211.7
4.37
-0.38
45.57
47.63
12.25
12.13
13.56
Potato
0.20
159.4
5.90
-0.56
37.49
48.56
-46.09
13.78
-20.96
Onion
0.18
246.5
8.70
-1.99
21.94
46.12
7.48
28.92
40.59
Fruits
2.11
176.5
1.35
-2.75
3.23
-5.26
11.52
17.67
22.00
Milk
3.24
194.6
-0.17
0.15
3.40
11.84
23.55
10.38
11.82
Egg, Meat & Fish
2.41
216.6
0.20
3.34
13.26
9.73
29.29
9.28
14.03
Non-Food Articles
4.26
185.4
1.02
0.11
4.85
-3.29
18.72
17.42
23.72
Fibres
0.88
228.3
-0.79
3.40
16.39
-20.45
31.84
29.13
54.42
Oil Seeds
1.78
162.2
0.58
0.37
2.50
7.49
4.27
16.44
9.38
Minerals
1.52
306.3
0.00
-1.45
5.09
14.89
25.79
25.84
24.09
Fuel & Power
14.91
168.2
0.00
0.84
5.35
6.52
11.48
13.96
11.99
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
0.91
147.3
0.00
0.00
14.99
14.27
15.30
14.27
14.11
Petrol
1.09
172.4
0.00
0.00
8.62
8.70
15.33
23.23
23.41
High Speed Diesel Oil
4.67
167.8
0.00
0.00
6.15
9.24
14.64
9.32
10.36
Commodities/Major Groups/Groups/Sub-Groups
Weight (%)
Rate of Inflation for the week ending
10-Sep-11
03-Sep-11
27-Aug-11
20-Aug-11
13-Aug-11
06-Aug-11
Primary Articles
20.12
12.17
13.04
13.34
12.93
12.40
11.64
Food Articles
14.34
8.84
9.47
9.55
10.05
9.80
9.03
Cereals
3.37
4.13
5.02
5.45
4.64
5.22
6.23
Rice
1.79
4.02
4.39
4.65
4.40
6.02
5.58
Wheat
1.12
-2.72
-2.03
-1.04
-2.52
-2.80
0.59
Pulses
0.72
1.49
-2.45
-1.56
-4.16
-5.56
-5.63
Vegetables
1.74
12.13
17.47
22.42
15.78
6.52
2.59
Potato
0.20
13.78
21.16
13.38
13.31
16.39
7.22
Onion
0.18
28.92
42.98
42.03
57.01
44.42
37.62
Fruits
2.11
17.67
22.64
16.57
21.58
27.01
26.46
Milk
3.24
10.38
10.02
9.12
9.22
9.51
9.76
Egg, Meat & Fish
2.41
9.28
5.97
7.26
12.62
13.37
9.93
Non-Food Articles
4.26
17.42
18.49
19.88
17.19
17.80
16.07
Fibres
0.88
29.13
23.91
38.60
37.66
37.18
34.32
Oil Seeds
1.78
16.44
16.68
17.43
15.43
15.91
16.47
Minerals
1.52
25.84
27.69
27.48
24.42
20.69
21.25
Fuel & Power
14.91
13.96
13.01
12.55
12.55
13.13
13.13
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
0.92
14.27
14.27
15.28
14.58
14.58
14.58
Petrol
1.09
23.23
23.23
23.23
23.23
23.23
23.23
High Speed Diesel Oil
4.67
9.32
9.32
9.32
9.32
9.32
9.32