SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TobagoJack who wrote (45149)1/23/2004 9:35:14 PM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
Jay, thanks to keep up with BBR while on holidays. Money is a good like any other. The more its available, the less it's worth, because people wil pay less for a good that is plenty.

I have decades of knowledge about 'financial carrousel' (making money out of inflation) in Brazil and know damn well when the govern resort to the 'guitar' (not the musical instrument but the printing press of the mint), it will love it and use it con gusto.

I can tell once government gets used to use the 'guitar' it takes ages to get rid of the habit. All those people making a bundle in the 'financial carrousel' don't want it to stop.

The company I work for just hired its CFO from Brazil. He says it's because he will handle the French easier than the Americans. I think he has a great future in the US. Knowledge of fiancial carrousel will be very much valued in the US.



To: TobagoJack who wrote (45149)1/23/2004 10:14:19 PM
From: BubbaFred  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
Why the Deficit Is No Political Bomb
Bush may be running up record red ink, but it's a matter of debate just how bad that is -- and it sure didn't play as an issue in Iowa
During the last days of his campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Representative Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) pilloried President Bush for running up the federal deficit. "We don't need a President who jawbones foreign governments about their economic policies, while he plunges us into the highest level of debt and deficit in our history," Gephardt said during a speech on Jan. 13 at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Given the stunning runup in federal spending under Bush, you'd think this would be a winning issue for the Democrats this year. Well, look what it did for Gephardt, his candidacy now a victim of a worse-than-expected performance in the Iowa caucuses. He may have a point in his overall assessment, but it did nothing to advance his candidacy.

SURPRISING SUPPORT. The soaring deficit is a trickier issue than it might seem at first glance. For one thing, any Bush rival who points to the problem better have a plan of his own for bringing the deficit under control. More important, economists disagree among themselves about just how serious of a problem a rising deficit really is. While everyone agrees that the deficit's current growth rate is unsustainable, some believe the red ink will begin to subside next year as federal spending levels off following the election and the cost of maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq drops as more authority is turned over to the Iraqis.

If the economy continues to improve and tax revenues begin to rise again, the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product will likely start to shrink. That percentage is the true barometer of how dangerous deficits really are, most economists agree.

In fairness to Bush's critics, this is hardly just a matter of political opportunism. The deficit has raised hackles across the political spectrum. The President's track record on fiscal matters has drawn sharp criticism from an unusual source: researchers Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven of the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank that has mostly aligned itself with the White House on many issues.

DOUBLE TROUBLE. They noted last August that nondefense discretionary spending rose 12.2% in 2002 and was expected to rise 12.7% in 2003. Citing that study, conservative Weblogger Andrew Sullivan has sounded the alarm over the Administration's deficit spending, warning that "the current deficits are nothing compared to what's coming." And the prospect of adding increased space exploration to the fiscal agenda practically put him in orbit.

Let's take the view from above, though. Alarm bells went off during the Reagan/Bush I Presidential era, when the deficit inched toward 5% of GDP -- widely accepted as the beginning of the red zone for deficit spending that's dangerous to the economy. The deficit peaked in 1992, at around 5% of GDP, says Standard & Poors chief economist David Wyss.

Now flash forward to today: True, the deficit more than doubled to $374 billion in 2003, up from $158 billion in 2001, according to the latest data from the U.S. Treasury. And the Congressional Budget Office expects the deficit to rise to $480 billion in 2004. That's would be "highest level of debt and deficit in our history" in nominal terms, as Gephardt rightly pointed out. But it would be only about 4% of today's GDP, Wyss points out.

BYE, BYE BOOMERS. What's more, projections for future growth are falling. Wyss originally expected the deficit to hit $500 billion in 2004. Now he see it hitting $450 billion. And thanks to an economic pickup, which will generate more tax revenue, the CBO expects the deficit to drop to $341 billion in 2005 and to $225 billion in 2006.

These projections could be wrong -- and frequently are. It's hard to know what the economy will do even a year or two in the future. The numbers assume that the rise in discretionary spending will be stopped. If the projections are wrong, the result could be a huge drag on investment and economic growth, as public debt diverts dollars from private enterprise, driving up interest rates. And some economists such as Wyss worry that the deficit will be exacerbated by the retirement of baby boomers, starting in 2010.

For now, though, forecasts that the deficit will swamp the fiscal ship of state aren't as certain as Democrats might wish. No wonder they aren't following Gephardt's lead.

businessweek.com:/print/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2004/nf20040122_5845_db076.htm?gl



To: TobagoJack who wrote (45149)1/23/2004 10:37:30 PM
From: BubbaFred  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559
 
Jay - Your thoughts on this article on concerns with China's bank bailout. Both Japan and US have done it. I think the reforms are taking place, or is it not so apparent? Nevertheless, the bigger picture is the enormous real potential including the sheer size of population (consumers and producers) combined with the thunderous energy and education system that will overwhelm any of these banking system failure paranoias - which are mere small hiccups along the way. Bank failures would only reduce efficiency of the economic growth, not slow it down.

Will China's Bank Bailout Do The Trick?

Beijing is pumping new billions into state-owned giants, but it's unclear whether that will be followed by real reforms

For two of China's Big Four state-owned banks, Chinese New Year came early. According to Chinese tradition, it's considered auspicious to receive red envelopes of hong bao, or good luck money, to kick off the lunar new year. Though the Year of the Monkey doesn't officially begin until Jan. 22, on Dec. 31 China Construction Bank and Bank of China got fat envelopes -- worth $22.5 billion each. In return they're expected to abide by another age-old New Year's tradition: getting their houses in order.

The cash injections are designed to shore up the tattered balance sheets of these banking giants in preparation for planned listings on overseas stock markets over the next two years. A third bank, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, is rumored to be in line to receive up to $40 billion later this year. "It's a drastic acceleration of banking reform," says Jun Ma, greater China economist at Deutsche Bank (DB ) in Hong Kong. "It looks like we are going to hear more news every week." Adds Hong Kong-based economist Jonathan Anderson of UBS (UBS ): "They are doing the right thing."

But are the capital infusions the first steps toward real reform and successful IPOs? Analysts say a healthy dose of skepticism is in order. For one thing, it's unclear if foreign investors will be clamoring for a piece of these turnaround stories. If other Chinese initial public offerings are a model, the banks will first be converted into joint stock companies and then a share float of about 25% would be sold overseas. What could scare off investors? Bad loans. Standard & Poor's (MHP ) estimates that total nonperforming loans in the financial sector add up to anywhere from $384 billion on the low end to as much as $864 billion. A workout of the bad debt could cost some $600 billion, experts say, which is 40% of China's $1.4 trillion gross domestic product.

The bailouts are no silver bullet. They won't do anything to reduce bad loans per se, because the new money is in the form of U.S. dollar-denominated exchange reserves from the central bank, not Chinese currency. The reserves simply make the balance sheets appear stronger so the banks can write off more loans without shrinking their capital base. While the bailouts will bring capital adequacy ratios, currently 4% to 6%, closer to the international norm of 8%, tackling bad loans will require a new level of commitment from bank management. "The money is just one component of the overhaul," says Ping Chew, S&P's director of sovereign ratings in Singapore. "More important is management and how they manage their risks."

Years of politically directed lending -- mostly to shore up money-losing state-owned enterprises -- a virtual absence of credit-risk management, and shoddy bookkeeping practices by both banks and their customers have allowed nonperforming loans to grow steadily. Agricultural Bank of China, with an official ratio of bad loans to overall loans of about 32%, is in the worst shape. At the same time, more than $1 trillion in bank savings by China's frugal citizens, attractive interest rates, and high demand for loans have ignited an explosion of new lending in recent years. As a result, operating profits at the banks are high and nonperforming loans are actually declining as a percentage of overall lending (chart). Money supply and loans both grew by about 20% in 2003. With scant evidence of any marked improvements in due diligence, however, many of the new loans may also go sour.

Because it typically takes time for problem loans to surface, it could be several years before these start to turn bad. But already concerns are growing that much of the lending is being squandered on projects that will earn low -- or no -- return. For instance, economists have been warning of plant overcapacity in the ever-expanding automobile, aluminum, and steel manufacturing industries, which are building out with the help of bank loans. But changing China's loose credit culture won't be easy. "It takes years, even generations, to change," says Citigroup Smith Barney (C ) China economist Yiping Huang.

IFFY RESULTS. And there's plenty of evidence that previous bailouts haven't forced banks to restructure themselves. In 1998 and 1999 the government created four autonomous asset-management companies and transferred some $170 billion worth of bad loans to them from the Big Four banks. It also injected $32 billion in fresh capital into the banks. At the time, this was billed by the government as the mother of all bailouts. But as S&P's Chew points out, "it didn't work as perfectly as envisioned, or the government wouldn't be putting more money in now."

Moreover, the new asset-management companies haven't had an easy time turning their bad debt into cash. At the end of 2002, they had recovered just $8.1 billion on delinquent loans with a face value of $36 billion. Part of that return came from auctions to foreign investors such as Morgan Stanley (MWD ), which snapped up $1.3 billion worth of loans for cents on the dollar at an auction in 2001 -- though it didn't actually win approval to pay for them until last July. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS ) bought $270 million worth in February, 2003. And in an auction in December, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM ) and Citigroup (C ) also bought up an unspecified amount of debt. Yet it has been slow going for these white-shoe debt collectors. Though none will disclose the profitability of its operations, an executive at one of the foreign banks admitted that "nobody is making any money in this game in China."

Still, there's reason for optimism if China's banks demonstrate they are capable of reforming overly generous lending and collection policies. In one of the most promising signs yet, a banking watchdog was created last April to oversee the transformation of the industry. The China Banking Regulatory Commission took oversight duties from People's Bank of China, thereby eliminating the conflict of interest in which the banking system's chief advocate was also its regulator. Heading up the new body is Liu Mingkang, a highly respected former head of Bank of China who oversaw the Hong Kong listing of its overseas operations. Since Liu took the helm, the CBRC has mandated stricter classification of bad loans and quarterly reporting of problem loans. "I'm very impressed," says Wei Christianson, China country manager of Credit Suisse First Boston (CSR ). "He's very seasoned and brings a wealth of experience to the job."

With Liu pushing the banks hard to clean up, they might well be able to exploit the white-hot market for China IPOs. They're also being pushed by the clock, which is fast running out on their protected status. China's commitment to the World Trade Organization to open its banking system to foreign competition by 2007 means that it's now or never for the banks to turn the page on the days when they served as mere cogs in a state-planned economy. The Year of the Monkey could well be auspicious for China's banking quartet.

By Frederik Balfour in Hong Kong
businessweek.com:/print/magazine/content/04_04/b3867133_mz035.htm?mz



To: TobagoJack who wrote (45149)1/24/2004 2:21:44 PM
From: BubbaFred  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74559
 
Newmont Mining files for $1 billion offering

Message 19728271

Selling those 40 and 37.5 puts are sure safe looting of the premiums.