L'attenzione del mondo economico USA la scorsa settimana è stata monopolizzata da due avvenimenti di natura differente.
Il primo è stato lo sfogo in diretta televisiva di Rick Santelli sulla CNBC, that many have already dubbed as "the outburst of the year." Santelli from Chicago Stock Exchange, has launched a series of lively analysis of the plan announced by the Obama administration, designed to help borrowers in trouble, highlighting how it ultimately reduces to a forced withdrawal of money from the pockets of responsible persons, who have not thrown in bold investments during the years of the housing bubble, to bring them into the hands of individuals who have proved just as cautious and judicious.
At the end of his outburst Santelli, has announced its intention to organize a "tea party" in Chicago during the summer. An explicit incitement to rebellion against the government.
When an American speaks of "tea party" does not refer to a village fair with some tasting tea included, but Boston Tea Party of 1773, during which, as an extreme act of rebellion against the English Crown, the exasperated people said the attack on the ships of the East India Company, discharge into the sea carrying the load of tea. The explosion
Live Santelli has made the rounds of blogs and social networks, entering with arrogance even in traditional media circuit. So was the echo that it has produced, even to force the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs in responding to this. Gibbs has done, discrediting Santelli: advising him to drink decaffeinated coffee and a good reputation as it become clear, by the sentences handed down by it his ignorance about the law in question. In fact
Santelli is absolutely right. Even if someone can be considered an indispensable help with public money those who take out mortgages they can no longer pay, the nature of the transaction does not change. This is a huge redistribution of money taken in sensible people - who should instead be rewarded for his foresight - and given to those cicadas who preferred to risk, often lying about their financial condition, to buy homes beyond their reach. The other
event of some significance was the affair which involved Allen Stanford, a Texan billionaire cricket fans accused by the SEC to have organized a gigantic Ponzi scheme 8 billion dollars. Stanford last week has literally disappeared, forcing the bailiffs to turn up and down the U.S. territory to be able to notify him of the charges. Eventually he was caught in Virginia, but it all worked out without any arrests, that left several people puzzled. To thicken the mystery, there has been a voice that would give Stanford a direct contact with Mexican drug lords and the discovery that the financial authorities tenessero eye on for some time, the Texan billionaire, but at the moment of action have been blocked by another U.S. government agency.
Dennis Kuchinich, USA and parliamentary candidate in the recent primary for the Democrats, decided get to the bottom of the matter , explicitly asking the SEC to disclose the name of the agency would have interposed between you and Stanford. The whole story seems to take on shades of film: a billionaire, a giant Ponzi scheme, Mexican drug lords, government agencies (CIA? FBI?) Acting with ulterior motives are clear. I would not be surprised to read a morning newspaper that Stanford was found dangling from a rope under the Bridge of monks blacks.
These two events, media very tasty, have overshadowed the ongoing conflict between the U.S. and Switzerland, which he sees as an object of contention UBS. This last Wednesday, had chosen to adapt to the requirements of the IRS (the Internal Revenue Service USA), requests that involve the payment by UBS, with $ 780 million in fines and surrender to the competent authorities of names of 250 customers of U.S. citizen accused of having used the Swiss bank to evade taxes. To put a spoke in the wheel in this agreement have occurred to the Swiss authorities, concerned about the impact that the breach of banking secrecy might have on the main industry del paese. L'UBS si trova ora in una terribile situazione. Può decidere di infrangere la legge USA rifiutandosi di consegnare i nomi richiesti all'IRS e rischiando così, il ritiro della licenza per operare sul territorio americano o può decidere di violare le leggi Svizzere accentandone le inevitabili ripercussioni.
I rappresentanti del colosso bancario sono arrivati a minacciare/supplicare le autorità americane dicendo: se insistete su questa linea saremo costretti a chiudere i battenti.
Nel frattempo il partito di maggioranza Svizzero, l'SVP ha già minacciato una serie di ritorsioni nei confronti degli USA, in caso rifiutino di bloccare la loro crociata anti evasori. Alcune delle proposte prevedono: il ritiro delle riserve auree depositate in america, il blocco di ogni fondo proveniente dagli USA, il rifiuto di rappresentare gli Stati Uniti in quelle nazioni in cui essi non hanno una sede diplomatica al contrario della Svizzera (come accade a volte).
Personalmente spero che la spunti l'IRS ed i nomi vengano resi pubblici. Del resto, la pretesa Svizzera di proteggere gli evas... pardon, i propri clienti, non si inquadra particolarmente bene neppure con le dichiarazioni uscite a Berlino, dalla riunione preparatoria del G20 ed in particolar modo con quelle del ministro delle finanze inglese Allister Darling:
I Leader del G20 se la sono anche presa con gli Hedge Funds ed i paradisi fiscali affermando di avere allo studio delle proposte per la loro regolamentazione.
Sarebbe anche ora.
Sono curioso di vedere come la prenderanno gli inglesi, che han fatto della city di Londra il veicolo preferenziale di certe entità (come gli Hedge Funds), anche grazie ad una serie di paradisi fiscali che ricadono sotto il controllo della corona (Cayman ed Isole Vergini ad esempio).
Un argomento che a Berlino non è stato affrontato neppure superficialmente - se si esclude un generico appello a raddoppiare funds available to the IMF - is the situation in Eastern Europe. The Government of Latvia is just collapsed as a direct result of the precarious financial situation of the country. The Polish currency has given some signs of recovery after the country's central bank announced an intent to intervene in the interest rate (probably Wednesday). Goldman Sachs said it had closed the lower position on the Polish and czech currency, in an announcement that sounds like translated: "We expect the situation in Eastern Europe will continue to worsen, though the current and future WordShuffle cards in the game. Since it is no longer bet on falling as shoot a corpse, there call out. "
Great volatility then, but few see a real horizon stabilization block east.
In all this mess, the ECB seems to literally not know how to get on . Trinchet did understand different ways of not being willing to act further on rates. Series measures of "quantitative easing" at the same time, are not easy to take in Europe. As you said Yves Mersch, a member of the board of the ECB at the end of January, The European Central Bank could also consider buying bonds of individual states, "but what exactly?." Another board member, George Provopoulos, 16 February showed that none all'interno della BCE avesse, a quella data, discusso della possibilità di acquistare i bond sul mercato secondario (quindi non direttamente dagli stati), cosa che secondo molti sarebbe nelle piene facoltà della banca centrale Europea.
Juergen Micheles, capo economista alla Citigroup di Londra ha riassunto bene la situazione alla BCE dicendo: "Il problema è che essi stessi non sanno esattamente cosa dovranno fare in futuro".
A quanto pare, oltre alle autorità politiche anche quelle economiche della UE non sanno bene come comportarsi. Al momento, del resto, gran parte dell'attenzione dei singoli stati rischia di venir pienamente assorbita dai problemi interni. La Germania ha da poco approvato una legge che consente la nazionalizzazione delle banche, il tutto in vista di una probabile nazionalizzazione della Hypo. In Inghilterra Gordon Brown starebbe per tentare il tutto per tutto secondo il Telegraph. Martedì il primo ministro Inglese dovrebbe annunciare l'istituzione di una "bad bank" da 500 miliardi di sterline che si faccia carico della spazzatura in pancia alle banche. Il futuro di Brown e del suo partito sono già compromessi. L'eventuale fallimento di questa ennesima scommessa rischierebbe di essere il colpo di grazia, consacrando la fine di entrambi e lasciando un unica via percorribile all'Inghilterra: la completa nazionalizzazione degli istituti bancari.
Nazionalizzazione che si rivelerebbe estremamente costosa. Alcuni analisti governativi have recently reclassified the RBS and Lloyd as public corporations, making increased the country's public debt of 1.5 trillion pounds, taking it suddenly, the significant level of 150% of GDP. It would almost want to wait for British politicians shouting from outside parliament and the cue: "PIGS who is now". Easy retaliation aside, it is clear the reason behind the almost unanimous revulsion for politicians, especially the Anglo-Saxons, have towards the end of nationalization while every economist of note the calls in a loud voice (Krugman, Roubini, Stiglitz, Wolf, etc. Rogoff ).
Who, would be forced to explain a sudden doubling of public debt to the people.
Another man who speaks explicitly of nationalization is Paul Volcker. Economic Advisor to Obama, Volcker that echoed the Soros, has raised the possibility last week that the current crisis proves worse than the Great Depression . One of the measures that would impose Volcker, provides for the separation of banks depending on the features. In other words, the second Volcker, banks should do the banks: lend money to businesses, provide silent, etc., instead of launching into speculations with mysterious financial instruments. If they had the intention should nevertheless must break into two separate institutions: one that makes a commercial bank and another in a position to speculate freely without being able to count on any government support in case of problems. Volker essentially invoke the re-establishment of the Glass Steagall Act, which provided 30 years of similar measures and that was abolished in the late 90's from such a Larry Summers (head of the National Economic Council Geithner and godfather of the 'Current Treasury Secretary). Unfortunately
Volcker's ideas appear to be in the minority within the Obama administration. Geithner and Summers are the masters and not to deny their past, bankers and lobbyists, are doing everything to save their old buddies and marginalize Volcker. Chris Dodd, U.S. Senator and head of the committee del senato su banche, edilizia e questioni urbane ha dichiarato qualche giorno fa che la nazionalizzazione di alcune banche potrebbe essere inevitabile per un breve periodo. Il governo USA è dovuto subito correre ai ripari smentendo indirettamente Dodd e affermando che: "mantenere le banche private sia la corretta via da seguire".
A questo proposito vi consiglio di leggere un interessante post di Yves Smith, la quale alla fine di un lungo ragionamento arriva a concludere: la nazionalizzazione delle banche è il minore dei mali. Operazioni come quella della "bad bank" di Gordon Brown sono molto costose, non fanno chiarezza sui bilanci degli istituti e garantisco poco controllo sull'utilizzo che the banking system will make the money received. Although as a result of nationalization, the states would see a temporary rocketing its debt, through it, it could quickly clean up balance sheets, throw light on the condition of the various banks and be assured that public money does not end completely sucked in by those potholes blacks that some of them have become.
Fast action and clarity is what the market would need.
Instead we continue to keep alive the zombie without decisive action on the problem. A good example is Citi. Apparently the moribund giant, is in discussions with politicians about the possibility that il governo, in un disperato tentativo di ricapitalizzare l'istituto, arrivi a farsi carico del 40% delle sue quote azionarie . Il tutto dovrebbe avvenire attraverso la conversione delle azioni privilegiate in azioni normali, in concomitanza con un aumento di capitale da parte di Citi, attraverso un offerta pubblica di azioni, fermo restando una quota pari al 40% in mano del governo. Si tratterebbe quindi di una semi nazionalizzazione, un ennesima farsa che spero verrà rigettata da Obama.
Che le nazionalizzassero una volta per tutte e la facessero finita.
Mentre i politici tentennano incerti sul da farsi, l'economia non sta certo ferma ad aspettarli.
Mario Draghi ha lanciato un suo personale warning:
Even Dragons finally noticed it. As I said in the forecast beginning of the year in September and October we will begin to really realize how heavy the crisis. Tremonti security flaunts its part, also of strong ' approval by the European Commission of its "bond Tremonti." It is € 10 billion that the state is willing to grant to Italian banks, in exchange for bonds whose returns vary depending on the duration of the latter. The main suspects in the exploitation of this option are obviously Unicredit and Intesa. especially the first, given the high exposure that it holds against the countries of Eastern Europe. When asked to regard, the head dell'Unicredit Alessandro Profumo said:
Tornando infine agli Stati Uniti, Hilary Clinton, nuovo ministro degli esteri ha effettuato la scorsa settimana la sua prima visita di stato, scegliendo come meta la Cina. Dopo una lunga chiacchierata con i politici del paese, interrogata da un giornalista riguardo all'acquisto da parte del paese asiatico dei buoni del tesoro americani, la Clinton è arrivata quasi a supplicare i Cinesi di continuare a farne incetta. I politici del paese avevano già detto pubblicamente di non aver intenzione di modificare la propria politica about it, but it is just to be become a problem for the U.S.. China in recent times seems to have a single objective with regard to its investment in pieces of paper: security. The Asian country has steadily snubbed all the products that are perceived as risky, to focus on short-term debt of the United States. At the expense has been the long-term U.S. debt securities and the two GSEs: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac The latter in particular would suffer for a flight mass of investors. How
said Hideo Shimomura, head of investment at the Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Asset Management Co, the risk that there would be investing in the GSEs, would too big without an explicit guarantee of the U.S. government. In essence, the market, from China is pushing for nationalization of the GSEs clear. Do not you trust more half measures. We'll see how the U.S. will react. In case there is a formal (informally already are) the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie, it would be the largest such event ever occurred since the war on (as far as I know anyway).
For the moment, therefore, China would be willing to support the U.S. public debt and the rest as he said a Chinese economist at a conference in the U.S.: we hate you, but we have no choice. The change in the composition of the purchases, however, shows a distinct lack of trust from the Chinese on the future of the U.S. economy.
addition to avoiding risky products, China is also trying to secure a steady supply of raw materials for the near future. The Chinalco, the Chinese aluminum giant, has acquired Australia's Rio Tinto, the third global mining company and it seems that the China Investment Corporation and China Shenhua Energy want to do the same with another mining company in the country, Fortescue Metals. Acquisitions in this aggression has caused several complaints from the Australian population, but faced with the collapse of global demand for raw materials, these companies appear to have few options available in addition to selling to the highest bidder.
The big one though, the Eastern country has done by signing an agreement with Russia by 25 billion dollars in exchange for a steady supply of oil. A wedding is almost inevitable for economic reasons and geographical proximity. As the Financial Times wrote: "China has what Russia wants: the masses of dollars. Russia has what China wants: power." A similar agreement for 10 billion dollars was signed with Brazil's Petrobras.
Ultimately, the Chinese are making low-cost shopping around the planet, while the U.S. pledged to give money to those institutions of its zombies, begging at the same time - through a political che porta lo stesso cognome di un tizio che con la Cina faceva la voce grossa - il paese orientale perché continui ad acquistare buoni del tesoro statunitensi.
"Karma is a bitch!" direbbero in inglese.
Non che la Cina stia bene, per carità. Tutt'altro, ma i cinesi almeno hanno a disposizione del denaro vero e lo stanno usando con un minimo di giudizio.
Intanto negli ultimi giorni, alcuni analisti sembrano aver tratto conforto dal fatto che l'est Europa non sia ancora collassato e dal dato positivo sull'inflazione americana - +0,4% nell'ultimo mese - che di positivo non ha nulla in realtà (i dati sulle materie prime e sui semilavorati indicano deflazione. In sostanza le aziende stanno aumentando il final price of products in an attempt to increase their margins, the exact opposite of what happened last summer while galloping inflation), as if they felt that the absence of a significant collapse is proof of the strength of the economic system and effectiveness of certain government actions.
seems to me that things are moving, and much faster than it appears at first sight. The events of recent weeks are like so many "small" earthquakes, and I doubt they are settling. The impression is of a great chaos. Calm on the surface, because of the lack of a traumatic event can catalyze, but deep down hatching something a little funny. In the middle ad esso si muovono politici ed economisti che sembrano non comprendere, quanto questa apparente calma possa essere ingannevole e fuorviante.
Si danno appuntamento per decidere il da farsi con comodo, ad Aprile durante il G20, con il rischio che finisca come l'ultimo G20 che venne ribattezzato: "la riunione che stabilì un'altra riunione". Quando agiscono invece, adottano delle misure che non posso che definire insufficienti, come la "bad bank" di Gordon Brown.
Mi auguro seriamente che questo caos sia molto più calmo di quel che penso e che tutto il tempo che sembrano perdere i suddetti politici porti loro consiglio.
In caso contrario...beh, meglio non pensarci.
Il primo è stato lo sfogo in diretta televisiva di Rick Santelli sulla CNBC, that many have already dubbed as "the outburst of the year." Santelli from Chicago Stock Exchange, has launched a series of lively analysis of the plan announced by the Obama administration, designed to help borrowers in trouble, highlighting how it ultimately reduces to a forced withdrawal of money from the pockets of responsible persons, who have not thrown in bold investments during the years of the housing bubble, to bring them into the hands of individuals who have proved just as cautious and judicious.
At the end of his outburst Santelli, has announced its intention to organize a "tea party" in Chicago during the summer. An explicit incitement to rebellion against the government.
When an American speaks of "tea party" does not refer to a village fair with some tasting tea included, but Boston Tea Party of 1773, during which, as an extreme act of rebellion against the English Crown, the exasperated people said the attack on the ships of the East India Company, discharge into the sea carrying the load of tea. The explosion
Live Santelli has made the rounds of blogs and social networks, entering with arrogance even in traditional media circuit. So was the echo that it has produced, even to force the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs in responding to this. Gibbs has done, discrediting Santelli: advising him to drink decaffeinated coffee and a good reputation as it become clear, by the sentences handed down by it his ignorance about the law in question. In fact
Santelli is absolutely right. Even if someone can be considered an indispensable help with public money those who take out mortgages they can no longer pay, the nature of the transaction does not change. This is a huge redistribution of money taken in sensible people - who should instead be rewarded for his foresight - and given to those cicadas who preferred to risk, often lying about their financial condition, to buy homes beyond their reach. The other
event of some significance was the affair which involved Allen Stanford, a Texan billionaire cricket fans accused by the SEC to have organized a gigantic Ponzi scheme 8 billion dollars. Stanford last week has literally disappeared, forcing the bailiffs to turn up and down the U.S. territory to be able to notify him of the charges. Eventually he was caught in Virginia, but it all worked out without any arrests, that left several people puzzled. To thicken the mystery, there has been a voice that would give Stanford a direct contact with Mexican drug lords and the discovery that the financial authorities tenessero eye on for some time, the Texan billionaire, but at the moment of action have been blocked by another U.S. government agency.
Dennis Kuchinich, USA and parliamentary candidate in the recent primary for the Democrats, decided get to the bottom of the matter , explicitly asking the SEC to disclose the name of the agency would have interposed between you and Stanford. The whole story seems to take on shades of film: a billionaire, a giant Ponzi scheme, Mexican drug lords, government agencies (CIA? FBI?) Acting with ulterior motives are clear. I would not be surprised to read a morning newspaper that Stanford was found dangling from a rope under the Bridge of monks blacks.
These two events, media very tasty, have overshadowed the ongoing conflict between the U.S. and Switzerland, which he sees as an object of contention UBS. This last Wednesday, had chosen to adapt to the requirements of the IRS (the Internal Revenue Service USA), requests that involve the payment by UBS, with $ 780 million in fines and surrender to the competent authorities of names of 250 customers of U.S. citizen accused of having used the Swiss bank to evade taxes. To put a spoke in the wheel in this agreement have occurred to the Swiss authorities, concerned about the impact that the breach of banking secrecy might have on the main industry del paese. L'UBS si trova ora in una terribile situazione. Può decidere di infrangere la legge USA rifiutandosi di consegnare i nomi richiesti all'IRS e rischiando così, il ritiro della licenza per operare sul territorio americano o può decidere di violare le leggi Svizzere accentandone le inevitabili ripercussioni.
I rappresentanti del colosso bancario sono arrivati a minacciare/supplicare le autorità americane dicendo: se insistete su questa linea saremo costretti a chiudere i battenti.
Nel frattempo il partito di maggioranza Svizzero, l'SVP ha già minacciato una serie di ritorsioni nei confronti degli USA, in caso rifiutino di bloccare la loro crociata anti evasori. Alcune delle proposte prevedono: il ritiro delle riserve auree depositate in america, il blocco di ogni fondo proveniente dagli USA, il rifiuto di rappresentare gli Stati Uniti in quelle nazioni in cui essi non hanno una sede diplomatica al contrario della Svizzera (come accade a volte).
Personalmente spero che la spunti l'IRS ed i nomi vengano resi pubblici. Del resto, la pretesa Svizzera di proteggere gli evas... pardon, i propri clienti, non si inquadra particolarmente bene neppure con le dichiarazioni uscite a Berlino, dalla riunione preparatoria del G20 ed in particolar modo con quelle del ministro delle finanze inglese Allister Darling:
Il ministro delle Finanze britannico Alistair Darling, ha attaccato il segreto bancario degli istituti svizzeri, sottolineando che non si può più tollerare l'evasione fiscale, in un intervento pubblicato oggi dall'edizione domenicale di The Observer.Darling ha sottolineato che le autorità elvetiche dovrebbero riformare le leggi fiscali e bancarie del paese per allinearsi a quelle in vigore in Europa. "Penso sia importante che ci sia la trasparenza. Nessuno sa cosa accade. Non va bene, infatti la metà dei problemi derivano dal fatto che non si sa cosa succede", ha dichiarato il ministro, citato dal quotidiano.
"E' una delle cose che la Svizzera deve regolamentare. Se intende fare parte della comunità internazionale, dovrà essere aperta", ha proseguito. "Il segreto che premette alle persone di proteggere la loro fortuna senza pagare tasse come dovrebbero, non si può più tollerare", ha insistito Darling.
I Leader del G20 se la sono anche presa con gli Hedge Funds ed i paradisi fiscali affermando di avere allo studio delle proposte per la loro regolamentazione.
Sarebbe anche ora.
Sono curioso di vedere come la prenderanno gli inglesi, che han fatto della city di Londra il veicolo preferenziale di certe entità (come gli Hedge Funds), anche grazie ad una serie di paradisi fiscali che ricadono sotto il controllo della corona (Cayman ed Isole Vergini ad esempio).
Un argomento che a Berlino non è stato affrontato neppure superficialmente - se si esclude un generico appello a raddoppiare funds available to the IMF - is the situation in Eastern Europe. The Government of Latvia is just collapsed as a direct result of the precarious financial situation of the country. The Polish currency has given some signs of recovery after the country's central bank announced an intent to intervene in the interest rate (probably Wednesday). Goldman Sachs said it had closed the lower position on the Polish and czech currency, in an announcement that sounds like translated: "We expect the situation in Eastern Europe will continue to worsen, though the current and future WordShuffle cards in the game. Since it is no longer bet on falling as shoot a corpse, there call out. "
Great volatility then, but few see a real horizon stabilization block east.
In all this mess, the ECB seems to literally not know how to get on . Trinchet did understand different ways of not being willing to act further on rates. Series measures of "quantitative easing" at the same time, are not easy to take in Europe. As you said Yves Mersch, a member of the board of the ECB at the end of January, The European Central Bank could also consider buying bonds of individual states, "but what exactly?." Another board member, George Provopoulos, 16 February showed that none all'interno della BCE avesse, a quella data, discusso della possibilità di acquistare i bond sul mercato secondario (quindi non direttamente dagli stati), cosa che secondo molti sarebbe nelle piene facoltà della banca centrale Europea.
Juergen Micheles, capo economista alla Citigroup di Londra ha riassunto bene la situazione alla BCE dicendo: "Il problema è che essi stessi non sanno esattamente cosa dovranno fare in futuro".
A quanto pare, oltre alle autorità politiche anche quelle economiche della UE non sanno bene come comportarsi. Al momento, del resto, gran parte dell'attenzione dei singoli stati rischia di venir pienamente assorbita dai problemi interni. La Germania ha da poco approvato una legge che consente la nazionalizzazione delle banche, il tutto in vista di una probabile nazionalizzazione della Hypo. In Inghilterra Gordon Brown starebbe per tentare il tutto per tutto secondo il Telegraph. Martedì il primo ministro Inglese dovrebbe annunciare l'istituzione di una "bad bank" da 500 miliardi di sterline che si faccia carico della spazzatura in pancia alle banche. Il futuro di Brown e del suo partito sono già compromessi. L'eventuale fallimento di questa ennesima scommessa rischierebbe di essere il colpo di grazia, consacrando la fine di entrambi e lasciando un unica via percorribile all'Inghilterra: la completa nazionalizzazione degli istituti bancari.
Nazionalizzazione che si rivelerebbe estremamente costosa. Alcuni analisti governativi have recently reclassified the RBS and Lloyd as public corporations, making increased the country's public debt of 1.5 trillion pounds, taking it suddenly, the significant level of 150% of GDP. It would almost want to wait for British politicians shouting from outside parliament and the cue: "PIGS who is now". Easy retaliation aside, it is clear the reason behind the almost unanimous revulsion for politicians, especially the Anglo-Saxons, have towards the end of nationalization while every economist of note the calls in a loud voice (Krugman, Roubini, Stiglitz, Wolf, etc. Rogoff ).
Who, would be forced to explain a sudden doubling of public debt to the people.
Another man who speaks explicitly of nationalization is Paul Volcker. Economic Advisor to Obama, Volcker that echoed the Soros, has raised the possibility last week that the current crisis proves worse than the Great Depression . One of the measures that would impose Volcker, provides for the separation of banks depending on the features. In other words, the second Volcker, banks should do the banks: lend money to businesses, provide silent, etc., instead of launching into speculations with mysterious financial instruments. If they had the intention should nevertheless must break into two separate institutions: one that makes a commercial bank and another in a position to speculate freely without being able to count on any government support in case of problems. Volker essentially invoke the re-establishment of the Glass Steagall Act, which provided 30 years of similar measures and that was abolished in the late 90's from such a Larry Summers (head of the National Economic Council Geithner and godfather of the 'Current Treasury Secretary). Unfortunately
Volcker's ideas appear to be in the minority within the Obama administration. Geithner and Summers are the masters and not to deny their past, bankers and lobbyists, are doing everything to save their old buddies and marginalize Volcker. Chris Dodd, U.S. Senator and head of the committee del senato su banche, edilizia e questioni urbane ha dichiarato qualche giorno fa che la nazionalizzazione di alcune banche potrebbe essere inevitabile per un breve periodo. Il governo USA è dovuto subito correre ai ripari smentendo indirettamente Dodd e affermando che: "mantenere le banche private sia la corretta via da seguire".
A questo proposito vi consiglio di leggere un interessante post di Yves Smith, la quale alla fine di un lungo ragionamento arriva a concludere: la nazionalizzazione delle banche è il minore dei mali. Operazioni come quella della "bad bank" di Gordon Brown sono molto costose, non fanno chiarezza sui bilanci degli istituti e garantisco poco controllo sull'utilizzo che the banking system will make the money received. Although as a result of nationalization, the states would see a temporary rocketing its debt, through it, it could quickly clean up balance sheets, throw light on the condition of the various banks and be assured that public money does not end completely sucked in by those potholes blacks that some of them have become.
Fast action and clarity is what the market would need.
Instead we continue to keep alive the zombie without decisive action on the problem. A good example is Citi. Apparently the moribund giant, is in discussions with politicians about the possibility that il governo, in un disperato tentativo di ricapitalizzare l'istituto, arrivi a farsi carico del 40% delle sue quote azionarie . Il tutto dovrebbe avvenire attraverso la conversione delle azioni privilegiate in azioni normali, in concomitanza con un aumento di capitale da parte di Citi, attraverso un offerta pubblica di azioni, fermo restando una quota pari al 40% in mano del governo. Si tratterebbe quindi di una semi nazionalizzazione, un ennesima farsa che spero verrà rigettata da Obama.
Che le nazionalizzassero una volta per tutte e la facessero finita.
Mentre i politici tentennano incerti sul da farsi, l'economia non sta certo ferma ad aspettarli.
Mario Draghi ha lanciato un suo personale warning:
The effects on employment are not yet fully known, the indicators available for more recent months prejudge deteriorated markedly. "" The fall in demand could hit with particular intensity in the weaker and less protected, the temporary workers, young people, families with low incomes. "
on alert in the number of Bank of Italy comes a remote replication Tremonti. What a conference in Aspen says that" the government has long maintained that the terms could and should issue: a few days ago we signed an important agreement with the Regions on social safety nets, we believe we have seen the phenomena in time and managed to have them in the best way. "
Even Dragons finally noticed it. As I said in the forecast beginning of the year in September and October we will begin to really realize how heavy the crisis. Tremonti security flaunts its part, also of strong ' approval by the European Commission of its "bond Tremonti." It is € 10 billion that the state is willing to grant to Italian banks, in exchange for bonds whose returns vary depending on the duration of the latter. The main suspects in the exploitation of this option are obviously Unicredit and Intesa. especially the first, given the high exposure that it holds against the countries of Eastern Europe. When asked to regard, the head dell'Unicredit Alessandro Profumo said:
I 'Tremonti bond' "is an opportunity." So said, the day after the go-ahead from the European Commission, is the CEO of Unicredit, Alessandro Profumo. "For the government is a bell'investimento. For us - Profumo said on the sidelines of Forex - is insurance. It must however be seen as an 'salvabanche' but are used to provide capital to grow the jobs."Tanti giri di parole, ma salvo miracoli, l'Unicredit finirà col ricorrere a questi bond.
Asked whether UniCredit intends to use these tools, Profumo replied: "We must look to the composition of our group. We have a significant risk group at Bank Austria. We must valutare l'intervento dell'Austria e poi dove c'è un rischio percepito...".
Tornando infine agli Stati Uniti, Hilary Clinton, nuovo ministro degli esteri ha effettuato la scorsa settimana la sua prima visita di stato, scegliendo come meta la Cina. Dopo una lunga chiacchierata con i politici del paese, interrogata da un giornalista riguardo all'acquisto da parte del paese asiatico dei buoni del tesoro americani, la Clinton è arrivata quasi a supplicare i Cinesi di continuare a farne incetta. I politici del paese avevano già detto pubblicamente di non aver intenzione di modificare la propria politica about it, but it is just to be become a problem for the U.S.. China in recent times seems to have a single objective with regard to its investment in pieces of paper: security. The Asian country has steadily snubbed all the products that are perceived as risky, to focus on short-term debt of the United States. At the expense has been the long-term U.S. debt securities and the two GSEs: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac The latter in particular would suffer for a flight mass of investors. How
said Hideo Shimomura, head of investment at the Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Asset Management Co, the risk that there would be investing in the GSEs, would too big without an explicit guarantee of the U.S. government. In essence, the market, from China is pushing for nationalization of the GSEs clear. Do not you trust more half measures. We'll see how the U.S. will react. In case there is a formal (informally already are) the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie, it would be the largest such event ever occurred since the war on (as far as I know anyway).
For the moment, therefore, China would be willing to support the U.S. public debt and the rest as he said a Chinese economist at a conference in the U.S.: we hate you, but we have no choice. The change in the composition of the purchases, however, shows a distinct lack of trust from the Chinese on the future of the U.S. economy.
addition to avoiding risky products, China is also trying to secure a steady supply of raw materials for the near future. The Chinalco, the Chinese aluminum giant, has acquired Australia's Rio Tinto, the third global mining company and it seems that the China Investment Corporation and China Shenhua Energy want to do the same with another mining company in the country, Fortescue Metals. Acquisitions in this aggression has caused several complaints from the Australian population, but faced with the collapse of global demand for raw materials, these companies appear to have few options available in addition to selling to the highest bidder.
The big one though, the Eastern country has done by signing an agreement with Russia by 25 billion dollars in exchange for a steady supply of oil. A wedding is almost inevitable for economic reasons and geographical proximity. As the Financial Times wrote: "China has what Russia wants: the masses of dollars. Russia has what China wants: power." A similar agreement for 10 billion dollars was signed with Brazil's Petrobras.
Ultimately, the Chinese are making low-cost shopping around the planet, while the U.S. pledged to give money to those institutions of its zombies, begging at the same time - through a political che porta lo stesso cognome di un tizio che con la Cina faceva la voce grossa - il paese orientale perché continui ad acquistare buoni del tesoro statunitensi.
"Karma is a bitch!" direbbero in inglese.
Non che la Cina stia bene, per carità. Tutt'altro, ma i cinesi almeno hanno a disposizione del denaro vero e lo stanno usando con un minimo di giudizio.
Intanto negli ultimi giorni, alcuni analisti sembrano aver tratto conforto dal fatto che l'est Europa non sia ancora collassato e dal dato positivo sull'inflazione americana - +0,4% nell'ultimo mese - che di positivo non ha nulla in realtà (i dati sulle materie prime e sui semilavorati indicano deflazione. In sostanza le aziende stanno aumentando il final price of products in an attempt to increase their margins, the exact opposite of what happened last summer while galloping inflation), as if they felt that the absence of a significant collapse is proof of the strength of the economic system and effectiveness of certain government actions.
seems to me that things are moving, and much faster than it appears at first sight. The events of recent weeks are like so many "small" earthquakes, and I doubt they are settling. The impression is of a great chaos. Calm on the surface, because of the lack of a traumatic event can catalyze, but deep down hatching something a little funny. In the middle ad esso si muovono politici ed economisti che sembrano non comprendere, quanto questa apparente calma possa essere ingannevole e fuorviante.
Si danno appuntamento per decidere il da farsi con comodo, ad Aprile durante il G20, con il rischio che finisca come l'ultimo G20 che venne ribattezzato: "la riunione che stabilì un'altra riunione". Quando agiscono invece, adottano delle misure che non posso che definire insufficienti, come la "bad bank" di Gordon Brown.
Mi auguro seriamente che questo caos sia molto più calmo di quel che penso e che tutto il tempo che sembrano perdere i suddetti politici porti loro consiglio.
In caso contrario...beh, meglio non pensarci.
0 comments:
Post a Comment