why?

online poker

Monday, November 29, 2010

Euro falls after Irish Republic 85bn euro bail-out

The euro has been falling against the dollar

The euro has fallen against the dollar as markets opened a day after European ministers agreed a bail-out for the Irish Republic.
On Sunday, ministers reached agreement over a bail-out worth about 85bn euros ($113bn; £72bn).
On Monday, the euro fell 0.8% to $1.3136, its lowest since 21 September.

And Irish, Spanish and Portuguese bond yields remained stubbornly high, indicating the market is not convinced European debt problems have gone away.
Meanwhile, major European markets were also lower in midday trade.
Greek debt Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen had called the 85bn euros package the "best available deal for Ireland", but opposition politicians had their doubts.
"This is a hugely disappointing result for the country. It's hard to imagine how this deal could have been much worse," said Fine Gael finance spokesman Michael Noonan.
"People are right to feel frightened, and worried about the future, when our own government has sold out the country on such lousy terms."
Also on Monday, the European Commission said the Irish Republic, which will have the biggest budget gap in the EU of 32% this year because of the cost of supporting its banking sector, will reduce the shortfall to 10.3% next year and cut it further to 9.1% in 2012.
However, for 2011 it has kept its forecast unchanged at 1.5%, down from 1.7% for 2010.
At the same time, eurozone finance ministers have opened the way to a six-year extension to 2021 in the repayment period for a European Union and International Monetary Fund loan to Greece.
It would mean an increase in the interest rate charged to Greece, but the rate would not exceed the 5.8% rate the Republic of Ireland is paying for its bail-out.
Bank shares up At midday in London, European stocks were down slightly in the wake of the deal, with London's FTSE down 0.28% at 5,652, Frankfurt's Dax down by 0.4% at 6,818 and Paris's Cac 40 down by 0.6% to 3,705.

Euro v US Dollar

Last Updated at 29 Nov 2010, 15:40 GMT *Chart shows local time EUR:USD intraday chart
                €1                        buys                         change %
                      1.3098   -0.01 -1.08
But Irish bank shares rose, with Allied Irish Banks up 7.58% and Bank of Ireland up 18.35%.
The high rates of return on the government bonds means some market doubt may remain about the bail-out.
"Bond prices have not reacted to the news, so this is not in any way a 'in one leap they were free' type of deal," said the BBC's business editor Robert Peston.
And the cost of insuring Portuguese and Spanish debt against default rose to a record high on Monday.
But Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble attacked market speculation over the financial woes of Portugal as "irrational".
At the same time he praised the rescue deal for the Irish Republic.
"The speculation on the international financial markets can barely be explained rationally," he told German radio station Deutschlandfunk.
Countries are put under pressure, leading to "fear effects," he said, adding "the markets can make a lot of money in this way."
And French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said the bail-out was "sufficient" and that "irrational" markets were not correctly pricing the sovereign debt situation in Europe.
"The amount [of the bail-out] is sufficient because that will keep Ireland afloat for three years," she told RTL radio.
'Best available deal' France and Germany have also said the Republic of Ireland bail-out should draw a line under its debt crisis.
And they have expressed confidence in Portugal's ability to correct its finances and avoid needing outside help.
An average interest rate of 5.8% will be payable on the loans, above the 5.2% currently paid by Greece for its bail-out.
Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said it was the "best available deal for Ireland".
It provides "vital time and space to successfully and conclusively address the problems we've been dealing with since the financial crisis began", he said.
He also said the country would take 10bn euros immediately to boost the capital reserves of its state-backed banks.
Another 25bn would remain in reserve, earmarked for the banks.
The Irish government has also said that interest payments on all state debt will account for more than 20% of tax revenues in 2014.
The deal does not require the Republic to change its low 12.5% corporation tax.
'Appalling' But as part of the bail-out, the Irish government will have to make an unexpected contribution of 17.5bn euros towards the 85bn euros total.
Dublin is poised to use its national pension fund and other cash reserves to achieve this.
Opposition parties Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Fein have attacked this, and other elements, of the bail-out.
Main opposition party Fine Gael called the agreement "appalling", saying the 5.8% annual interest rate on the loan was unaffordable.




bbc.co

Saturday, November 27, 2010

What's in Amazon's Box?

What's in Amazon's Box? Instant Gratification

 

Customers love Prime, Amazon's two-day shipping program. Now rivals such as Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and J.C. Penney are copying it


Ruth Tinsley made two momentous changes to her life in the last year. In December she had identical twin girls. A few weeks later she signed up for Amazon.com's free shipping service, Amazon Prime, which guarantees delivery of products within two days for an annual fee of $79. The combination of those two events turned the graphic designer from Birmingham, Ala., into an Amazon loyalist who now buys software, jewelry, and birthday gifts on the site. Her 2010 Amazon total heading into the holidays: 150 individual items, up from 82 in all of 2009. "Now if I see or hear about a product somewhere else, I'll always check first to see if Amazon has it," Tinsley says.
Amazon Prime may be the most ingenious and effective customer loyalty program in all of e-commerce, if not retail in general. It converts casual shoppers like Tinsley, who gorge on the gratification of having purchases reliably appear two days after they order, into Amazon addicts. Analysts describe Prime as one of the main factors driving Amazon's stock price—up 296 percent in the last two years—and the main reason Amazon's sales grew 30 percent during the recession while other retailers flailed. At the same time, Prime has proven exceedingly difficult for rivals to copy: It allows Amazon to exploit its wide selection, low prices, network of third-party merchants, and finely tuned distribution system, while also keying off that faintly irrational human need to maximize the benefits of a club you have already paid to join.
Now six years after the program's creation, rivals, both online and off, have sensed the increasing threat posed by Prime and are rushing to try to respond. Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), Best Buy (BBY), Target (TGT), and J.C. Penney (JCP) have recently unveiled free shipping promotions for the holidays, turning the fall shopping season into a race to see who can go furthest in lowering shipping costs. In August, eBay announced its first rewards program, eBay Bucks, which gives shoppers 2 percent back on items purchased on the auction site using PayPal. Last month a consortium of more than 20 retailers, including Barnes & Noble, Sports Authority, and Toys 'R' Us, banded together with their own copycat $79, two-day shipping program, ShopRunner, which applies to products across their Web sites. "As Amazon added more merchandising categories to Prime, retailers started feeling the pain," says Fiona Dias, executive vice-president at GSI Commerce (GSIC), which administers the ShopRunner service. "They have finally come to understand that Amazon is an existential threat and that Prime is the fuel of the engine."
Amazon relentlessly promotes Prime in press releases and on its home page, and this year started offering free Prime trials to students and parents. The company declines to disclose specifics about the program, though analysts estimate it has more than 4 million members in the U.S., a small slice of Amazon's 121 million active buyers worldwide. Analysts say Prime members increase their purchases on the site by about 150 percent after they join and may be responsible for as much as 20 percent of Amazon's overall sales in the U.S. The company's executives acknowledge only that the program gets people to buy more—and more kinds of items—on the site. "In all my years here, I don't remember anything that has been as successful at getting customers to shop in new product lines," says Robbie Schwietzer, vice-president of Amazon Prime and an eight-year veteran of the company.
Prime came to life in late 2004, the result of a years-long search at Amazon for the right loyalty program. An Amazon software engineer named Charlie Ward first suggested the idea of a free shipping service via a suggestion box feature on Amazon's internal Web site, according to Ward's colleagues at the time. Bing Gordon, an Amazon board member and venture capitalist, says he came up with the "Prime" name, while other executives, including Chief Executive Jeffrey P. Bezos himself, devised the free two-day shipping offer, which exploited Amazon's ability to accelerate the handling of individual items in its distribution centers.
According to several former employees who participated in the program's creation, Bezos commissioned Prime in December 2004 at an unusual Saturday meeting in the boathouse behind his home in Medina, Wash. At the meeting, he told the small team of employees they could commandeer other company engineers and resources, and instructed them to ready Prime for a rollout in time for the company's fourth-quarter earnings report in January, less than two months away. The program is a "big idea," Bezos told the group that day in the boathouse, according to people who were there, and one that would help the company further capture the devotion of its best customers.
Bezos met with the group three times a week during that span. When the team members said they could not make the deadline, Bezos, eager to take advantage of the free publicity from earnings announcements, delayed the report by a week. One challenge was selecting the annual fee for the service; there were no clear financial models because no one knew how many customers would join or how it would affect their purchasing habits. The team ultimately went with $79 mainly because it's a prime number. "It was never about the $79 dollars. It was really about changing people's mentality so they wouldn't shop anywhere else," says Vijay Ravindran, who worked on the Prime team and is now chief digital officer for The Washington Post. After the launch, Prime broke even in just three months, not the two years the team had originally forecast. The results "blew us away," says Jeff Holden, who led the team and now runs Pelago, a startup that makes a mobile phone game called Whrll.
Amazon now offers Prime in the continental U.S, Britain, Germany, France, and Japan, and Schwietzer says the company is moving toward guaranteeing Prime shipments within a day instead of two days. Analysts are divided on whether the free shipping offers from Wal-Mart and others will affect Prime. Some point to the fact that these offers will expire after Christmas and do not guarantee two-day delivery, and say consumers will find Prime the better deal. Others, like Gene Munster at Piper Jaffray (PJC), think shoppers will think twice about paying that $79, at least for now. "Free shipping does undermine Prime," Munster says. "Wal-Mart made every person in America a Prime user overnight."
Another debate among Amazon analysts and customers is whether Prime is actually worth the money. Many members swear by the service and evangelize about it—Ruth Tinsley says she has gotten several friends to join. Others question whether Prime is really a good deal, since Amazon usually offers free shipping when customers buy more than $25 worth of items at a single time. The company now reliably ships to certain parts of the country such as New York and San Francisco within a few days and at no extra charge.
"I don't think it's a bargain at all," says Kit Yarrow, a professor of psychology and marketing at Golden Gate University who recently got a free Prime trial and cancelled it after a month. "Really what people are paying for is immediate gratification."

Don Draper's Revenge

Illustration by Joe Magee

Everyone is waiting for Omnicom, Interpublic, WPP, and Publicis to fade away. But these lumbering advertising behemoths have advantages over smaller, cutting-edge firms.

John Seifert, the chairman of Ogilvy & Mather North America, shakes his head. It drives him crazy, he explains, when people portray contemporary New York admen as sushi-munching, Scotch-slurping dinosaurs, far removed from the concerns of digitally connected consumers and out of touch with a changing industry. It happens a lot.
It's the second day of Advertising Week, the industry's bender of panels, parties, and awards shows, held every fall in Manhattan. Seifert is sitting on a short stage, in a dim room with low ceilings at TimesCenter's The Hall, not far from Times Square. Rows of conventioneers in foldout chairs are watching the event, entitled "Inside a Big Dumb Agency."
Joining Seifert on stage are two colleagues from Ogilvy & Mather—a full-service global agency that is owned by the WPP Group (WPPGY), the behemoth holding company, which has some 100,000 employees in a constellation of agencies around the world. The Ogilvy executives are taking turns calmly responding to belittling inquiries from critics—"How many Twitter followers do each of you have?" one asks pointedly—questioning the relevance of a large, traditional agency in an age when low-to-the-ground, hand-to-hand grappling with consumers, tweet by tweet, is all the rage.
Isn't it amusing, one critic asks, that Big Dumb Agency managers, while enjoying "working dinners" at the swank Japanese restaurant Nobu, brainstorm how to sell cornflakes to single moms in Mississippi?
"I don't know how many of us are sitting at Nobu anymore drinking really expensive wine and talking to clients about things that we know nothing about," says Seifert.
At Seifert's feet rests a copy of Confessions of an Advertising Man, the seminal 1963 book by David Ogilvy, the firm's charismatic founder and one of the giants of Madison Avenue's heyday. Ogilvy drove a Rolls Royce. He wore a cape. He entertained clients at his château in France. He did not follow mouse clicks. By comparison, today's New York admen look more henpecked than cocksure.
From the stage, Lars Bastholm, Ogilvy's chief creative officer for New York, says that growing up in Copenhagen, he always dreamed of someday partaking in the Madison Avenue decadence. "This is wildly disappointing," he says. "I was looking forward to those dinners at Nobu."
"If any dumb agency is sitting here thinking life is wonderful," says Seifert, a few minutes later, "I'd be shocked."

The global recession roiled ad agencies of all sizes, but the current climate seems particularly fraught—emotionally and psychically—for the Madison Avenue giants. New York ad executives find themselves navigating a lean world where the flat 15 percent commission (and all the indulgences that came with it) has long since disappeared. Penny-pinching procurement officers now tightly monitor client expenditures, driving down fees; tiny startup interactive agencies moonwalk through award shows, egged on by an adoring press; and California-based search engines and social media newcomers are gobbling up large chunks of market share, selling ads one by one.
Again and again, the executives on stage assure the members of the audience that they get it. The Internet is important. Digital matters. And so they are carefully, painfully reconfiguring their workforces to take advantage of the changing landscape.
The crowd seems skeptical. A young man stands up and reports that he recently saw a list of top agencies around the world, including Ogilvy, that don't have their websites available on mobile devices, including the iPad and the iPhone. "So with the growing importance of those devices," he asks, "why aren't you guys practicing what you preach?"
Bastholm says that he too saw the gotcha list. But the problem highlighted therein, he says, turned out to pertain to a tiny slice of Ogilvy's website. It was easily fixed. "That list was done with a little bit of malice," says Bastholm. "Those lists are always done with a little bit of making a point in mind, rather than actually being entirely true."
Nearby rests a discarded copy of a glossy trade publication, featuring a front-page image of Don Draper, the protagonist of AMC's scripted drama Mad Men, which is set in the world of Madison Avenue in the 1960s. "Advertising Week," reads the pull quote, "the second-best recruitment tool for the industry behind Don Draper."
In Mad Men, Draper is a lusty, brilliant, troubled creative director conquering Madison Avenue thanks to his emotional insights into the subconscious motivations of consumers. Along the way, the archetypal Ideas Man seduces everything in his path: department-store heiresses. Bra manufacturers. Kodak (EK) executives. Secretaries. He is an unapologetic hustler. When a belittling beatnik asks him how he sleeps at night, Draper responds: "On a bed made of money."
Mad Men landed in American living rooms at a time of rising anxiety for creative types in New York advertising, with the balance of power in the industry feeling like it might be forever shifting to Silicon Valley. In 2007, the year of the series' debut, Google (GOOG) generated more than $16.5 billion in revenue, largely from advertising created entirely without creative directors. It brought in $23.6 billion in 2009. The Mad Men fantasy offered a counterpoint to a connected world where analytics and mathematical marketing promised at long last to erase the mystery from advertising, and a lot of the profits.
Nick Law, the chief creative officer in North America for the interactive ad agency R/GA, is standing on stage at another Advertising Week event, delivering a lecture entitled "Designing an Agency for the Digital Age." Law, dressed in a snug, black V-neck T-shirt, clicks a button and an image appears on the screen behind him. He tells the audience that the hieroglyphics in the picture represent the old model of advertising: A chess piece + a lightbulb x a TV-shaped box = an exclamation point. Law translates the simple equation: "Strategy + creativity x mass media = ambiguous results," he says.
The dig at the traditional agency model scores a chuckle from the crowd. Law clicks the button again. A new formula appears on the screen. This one, he says, represents the new model of advertising in the Digital Age. It has a bunch more variables and looks like the precocious love child of the quadratic equation and the Rosetta Stone.
"It's basically something like: Collaboration + data + strategy plus creativity x media neutrality times efficient production = measurable results," says Law. "Of course it's purposely complicated because we want to pretend like it's a lot more difficult than it actually is," he says. In one clever illustration, he has managed both to send up the bewildering pretension of the forward-looking digital agencies and to embody them perfectly.
Law goes on to explain that the old model of advertising is no longer working. The modern digital world has seen a multiplication of contexts, he says, from e-mail to search engines to blogs to social media networks and on and on. Companies can no longer simply wait for a potential consumer to sit down in front of the TV and then interrupt them with a message. The upshot for clients, he says, is that mass marketing no longer reliably delivers increased sales. That means that old-style agencies have little to offer.
Furthermore, if mass marketing no longer works, then micromarketing to niche behaviors and interests must be the answer. That is what has led to the proliferation in recent years of little ad shops, instantly recognizable by their professed disdain for traditional—and profitable—mass marketing, and their penchant for wacky names: LeapFrog (LF), GeniusRocket, Big Spaceship, glue isobar, Blue Barracuda.

The key, according to the new paradigm, is to create interactive brand experiences that recognize and enhance consumers' online behavior. If hard-core joggers are using the Internet to log the mileage of their daily runs with their iPods, agencies should build a sponsored home for them online where they can track their data, visualize their progress, and plunk down serious coin for premium running shoes. That was the basic idea behind R/GA's interactive campaign on behalf of Nike (NKE) +.
All of this will be undertaken by "digital natives" with the Web in their DNA. Only the small, nimble shops will be able to navigate this fractal universe of endlessly proliferating media. The big guys with their lumbering overseers at the holding companies are not only dumb, they are also as good as dead.
It all sounds great, at least to the technorati. The only problem is, it's not remotely true.
"All these little companies with fun names," says David Lubars, "we've kicked their butts." Lubars is chairman and chief creative officer of Omnicom's (OMC) BBDO North America, an 82-year-old Madison Avenue agency with more than 17,000 employees. On a recent Friday afternoon, Lubars was sitting in his Midtown Manhattan office. He gestured at BBDO's 2010 Webby award for best ad agency of the year, which was resting a few feet away from his electric guitar, tuned to imitate Keith Richards' ringing sound.
"Americans like a story of the big guys getting taken down," says Lubars. "But that doesn't mean that's what is actually happening."
After a couple of years of slumping fortunes, the Big Four advertising agency holding companies—Omnicom, the WPP Group, Interpublic (IPG), and Publicis—are bouncing back. In October they reported their quarterly earnings. Across the board, revenues were up. Omnicom brought in $2.9 billion, an increase of 5.5 percent over 2009, including a jump of 8.4 percent in North America. Revenues are once again approaching the lofty levels of 2007. Looking at trends over, say, a decade-long period reveals little evidence of secular decline. The layoffs of the past two years are over. All of the Big Four are hiring, prompting columnist Jim Edwards to write a recent post on BNET with the headline: "Help Wanted: Madison Avenue Is Hiring Like Crazy and Bonuses Are on the Rise."
Last year, according to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Internet advertising revenues amounted to $22.7 billion, of which 35 percent was spent on display advertising. In the third quarter of 2010, according to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, online ads reached a record $6.4 billion, up 17 percent from a year earlier. The market is expected to continue to grow.
That's a lot, but it's still a long way from the amount spent on traditional advertising. Based on the revenue opportunities available, agencies would be negligent to devote all of their time to digital platforms. To wit: During 2009, the Big Four combined brought in $16.71 billion in revenue in the U.S., according to Advertising Age, more than double the $8 billion spent on digital display advertising in U.S. in the same year, across all companies.
Lubars, dressed in jeans and a black long-sleeve shirt, pops a highlight reel into his office DVD player. For the next 15 minutes he shows off some of the agency's recent work: an AT&T (T) banner ad in which World Cup fans could use their Web cameras to play a soccer game on screen; a 30-second Snickers TV spot starring Betty White and Abe Vigoda; and a multimedia campaign for HBO that included the strategic installation of outdoor multiscreen storytelling cubes in New York and Philadelphia.
"We're doing leading-edge technological breakthrough things," says Lubars. "At the same time, we're winning the best spot for the Super Bowl."
Prior to joining BBDO, Lubars was president of Fallon Worldwide, a Minneapolis-based agency owned by Publicis. He spent the first two decades of his career working in traditional media. In 2001, while trying to figure out how to get potential BMW customers to spend more time on the company's website, Lubars came up with the idea for The Hire—a series of eight short films directed by the likes of Ang Lee and Tony Scott, starring Clive Owen. The campaign grew into a monster hit and won Lubars seemingly every major award in the industry. As a result, he has little patience for the idea that veterans of TV and print campaigns are genetically incapable of making a dent in new media.
Not that old agencies sometimes aren't a tad sclerotic. When Lubars joined BBDO five years ago he found a traditional agency curiously eyeing the changes sweeping through the business."Forget about new kinds of media," says Lubars. "They didn't do old types of media. They didn't do print. It was essentially a film production house. They made these shiny, expensive films—which was a great thing to do in that era."
In the intervening years, Lubars has overseen a high-profile transformation of the agency. "It used to be a company with a big fat middle," he says. "Now it's a skinny middle with a lot of young people and just a few managers. We're trying new things. And we're bringing in people who come from different backgrounds—technologists, designers, artists—who come together and create this new, interesting gumbo."
"The last 24 months have been unbelievably painful in our industry," says Ogilvy & Mather's Seifert. "The fact is, what you don't read about in the blogs, is that we let 391 people go. But we also hired 270 new people. We transferred another 300 people between different parts of the company. All of that was designed to meet the changing requirements of our business."
Seifert says that in addition to reconfiguring their workforce, Ogilvy is happy to learn from the small digital shops—and hire away their top talent. "We have more shared ventures going on with young startup agencies right now than we've ever had," he says.
And over time, many of those nimble startup shops end up in the same position as their supposedly ham-fisted forefathers, becoming a part of the big companies they are pretending to outfox. The global holding companies continue to tinker with the mix of services in their portfolios and aren't shy about using their resources to acquire little artist colonies to plug holes in their offerings. In November, Omnicom (OMC) bought the British design and communications agency The Core. In May, WPP purchased Brazilian interactive agencies Midia Digital and i-Cherry. The same month, Interpublic bought Cubocc, a Brazilian digital shop, its indie cred codified for posterity by a neon office sign: "Cubocc, the Monster Whatever Hotshop."
Lubars is also gobbling up talent. In addition to stockpiling search engine optimizers, social media strategists, and Web developers, he continues to add creative digital talent. Right now, the Swedes are the hottest thing in the industry. In February, Lubars hired Mathias Appelblad, a former interactive creative director at the Swedish agency Forsman & Bodenfors, to become BBDO's director of innovation.
"He has dominated the digital world in creativity," says Lubars. "Now he's here. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to jack it up that much more. We're adding guys that come from some of these small background places. They come here to paint on a bigger canvas—where it's actually part of the culture, rather than some side dribble."
Lubars doesn't want to defend all the big agencies, just the good ones. He says he'd be happy to watch some of the mediocre giants someday disappear. But writing off the whole lot of them, he says, is naive—like dismissing an entire genre of music. "Oh, you don't like pop music?" he says. "What does that mean? You don't like ABBA? Or you don't like the Beatles? Some of it is great. Some of it is disposable."
The little hot shops, says Lubars, who are thumping their chests and declaring the end of mass marketing and the death of the Big Dumb Agencies, do so as a business posture, an attitude for journalists, and a sales pitch to clients. "They don't believe a word of it," he says.
What he sees instead is an evolution, firms heading to the same place from different directions. Technologically able marketers are trying to scale up into full-service agencies; and full-service agencies are mastering the new channels and a world with 6 billion individual markets. "They're racing to figure out what an idea is," says Lubars. "We're racing towards technology. It's easier to pick up the technology. That's why we got there first....They are desperate to take down the agencies that are doing it now."
At the same time, the big agencies are busy integrating their technologists into all aspects of their operations, and hungrily circling the interactive market, plotting to swallow more share in the years to come.
"A lot of the people who are working in smaller shops and kind of lobbing stones at large agencies like this miscategorize us as being people who are in love with doing the TV commercial," says Matt Donovan, managing partner of McCann Erickson, New York. "We're not. We're in love with creativity that moves that big business problem into the positive results column. More and more companies are finding that the big agencies have retooled and do understand this change. We are paid by businesses to outsmart others. That's what we're here to do."
Prior to joining McCann Erickson, Donovan worked at Euro RSCG 4D, an interactive agency. "Back in '97 and '98 when I started in digital," he says, "all the talk was that agencies were going to die. I had a wise CEO who had been in the ad business before television, and he said, 'That's exactly what we thought when television came along.' What you really have to do is engage with this stuff, learn it, and you'll be in fine shape. That's part of the belief of this company. It's been around for a hundred years."
"We are learning from some of the smaller digital shops that are out there," he adds. "I think what they're worried about is when a big agency like this one acts on this and gets it right."
All of the big agencies are working on multiple fronts to integrate their technology teams more deeply into every aspect of the creative process. The days of digital silos inside agencies are long gone. In October, McCann Erickson moved Mark Fallows from London to New York to serve as the agency's director of creative technology. "The mistake that a lot of traditional agencies made in the past was that they just hired some digital people, put them in the corner, and said, 'When we have the ideas we'll come to you and you can build some digital,' " says Fallows. "That's not how it works anymore."
In the darkest moments of 2009, with ad budgets withering away amid the global recession, the age-old despair of the creatives was at fever pitch and the din of the futurists at a near-deafening roar. But as the global ad market continues to thaw, the descendants of Madison Avenue not only are alive but are looking as well positioned as anybody to capitalize on the digital market moving forward.
"We're getting calls all the time now from clients and new business prospects who have gone and worked with alternative, New Age agencies that are now saying we want to come back and talk to you," says Ogilvy's Seifert. "If you believe our critics and the pundits, you'd say, 'Well, these big dumb agencies are built on hubris; they're in Madison Avenue towers; they lack the nimbleness to thrive,' " says Thom Gruhler, president of McCann Erickson, New York. "It's the most ridiculous notion you've ever heard in your life."
Lubars says that rather than filling seasoned admen with dread, the technological explosion has rejuvenated their interest in the game. "I got to be honest—at my age, now, if it were still just TV, and print, and radio, I'd probably be really bored," says the 52-year-old Lubars. "I've done this for 25 years, and what? I just keep doing it? Now every day there are not just new ideas, but new technologies to distribute. It's fun for us. There are all these new things you can do now that you couldn't do last year."
"It's gray and messy right now," he says. "I find that chaos and lack of definition liberating. I think any really good creative person would."


businessweek

Friday, November 26, 2010

Energy firms facing price review

26 November 2010 Last updated at 23:28
 Ofgem is to investigate recent energy price rises as it says they have significantly widened suppliers' profit margins.




The watchdog said that the net profit margin of £65 per typical customer in September was now £90, a 38% rise.
The calculations take into account price rises announced by three of the "big six" suppliers in recent weeks.
Energy UK, which represents the major energy suppliers, said it had "nothing to hide" during a review.
Ofgem will review the domestic energy market to see if more action is needed to protect consumers.
A previous investigation of the market in October 2008 found no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour in the sector.
Review The work will be completed by March 2011, and will study the "effectiveness of the retail market".
The regulator said it was asking if "companies are playing it straight with consumers" after the latest figures showed a 38% rise in profit margins from the typical dual-fuel customer in the last three months.
"The energy retail market can only be fully effective if consumers have confidence that the market is transparent and easy to take part in," said Ofgem chief executive Alistair Buchanan.
"So we will go beyond our usual quarterly reports on prices and do a comprehensive review of the retail market and our recent reforms from the consumers' perspective.
"Greater transparency in the market is good for consumers, investors and for the energy industry as a whole."
Last week, Scottish Power said its customers' electricity bills would rise by an average of 8.9% while prices for gas customers would increase by an average of 2%.
This came after Scottish and Southern Energy said it would put up its domestic gas tariffs by 9.4% at the start of December.
British Gas customers also face a 7% rise in gas and electricity bills this winter.
EDF Energy said that it would freeze prices for domestic customers over the winter.
Competition? The review will not immediately make any change to customers' bills.
Fuel costs graph
However it was understandable that consumers be reassured that companies were not "lining their pockets", Mr Buchanan told the BBC.
Ofgem had the power to make some changes to the way companies operated, he added.
But they could also ask for more legislative support from the government or go to the Competition Commission.
Adam Scorer, of watchdog Consumer Focus, said that there was no cartel among the big energy suppliers.
"What the Ofgem review will not show is that the CEOs [chief executives] of the six major suppliers are huddling around a park bench with a calculator," he said.
The problem was the structure of the market, he said, that prevented it being competitive, and it was impossible for a new entrant into the sector to challenge the major suppliers' dominance.
"They do not feel the hot breath of competition on their necks," he said.
But Energy UK, which represents the major suppliers, said that energy pricing was a complex business.
"The energy companies have been working closely with Ofgem for some time to implement an array of reforms that should bring significant benefits to customers," said Christine McGourty, director of Energy UK.
"We welcome this review as an opportunity to explain energy pricing. We have nothing to hide and believe in transparency in this complex marketplace.
"The review is the latest in a long line of investigations into the energy market in recent years and no previous investigation has found anything to concern the competition authorities.
"Ofgem's own analysis of profits across the sector shows that energy supply businesses have operated at a loss for many years of the last decade."
The spokesman added that the latest profit margin will be eroded as wholesale prices rise.
A spokesman for British Gas said it expected margins in the second half of 2010 to be an average of 3% to 4% on residential energy sales, arguing that Ofgem's figures did not take account of the "growing impact" of energy efficiency on customers' bills.

Jose Manuel Barroso has dismissed reports that Portugal is next in line for a financial rescue package.


European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has dismissed reports that Portugal is next in line for a financial rescue package.
 
Mr Barroso said the reports were "absolutely false, completely false". The Portuguese government has made similar denials.
Speculation that Portugal would follow the Irish Republic in asking for help has been rising this week.
Portugal approved its 2011 budget on Friday, which aims to cut its debts.
Prime Minister Jose Socrates said his country had "all the conditions" in place to finance itself on the markets, and that he expected the budget's approval to restore market confidence.
'No alternative'
The budget seeks to cut the country's deficit from 7.3% of economic output this year to 4.6% in 2011.
Under the measures in the budget, public spending will be cut and VAT increased to a maximum rate of 23%.
Mr Socrates said the country had "no alternative at all" to cutting its budget. "We must make this effort," he said.
His Spanish counterpart Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has also moved to dismiss speculation that his country may be forced to seek EU aid.
He said he ruled out "absolutely" any bail-out of Spain.
"I am not delivering a message of confidence just because I want to, but because of concrete facts," he said.
Under pressure
The euro has fallen sharply on fears that the problems experienced by the Irish Republic could spread to other countries in the eurozone.
The euro fell one cent against the dollar to $1.3244 on Friday. It has now fallen by almost four cents, or 3%, this week.
A report in the Financial Times Deutschland suggested that some eurozone countries and the European Central Bank were putting pressure on Portugal to ask for financial assistance.
However, the Portuguese government said the reports were "completely false".
'Obscure comments'
Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has also dismissed reports, and comments from the country's own central bank head, that the European Union's bail-out fund could be increased.
He called such reports "completely over the top" and said there were no plans to commit more money to the fund.
"At the moment we have a rather nervous situation because there is an incredible amount of speculation, with completely obscure comments suddenly taking on meaning and unsettling markets," he said.
On Thursday, German central bank boss Axel Weber said the bail-out fund could be increased in size by a further 100bn euros ($134bn, £85bn) if needed. It currently stands at 440bn euros.
Budget cuts
This week's fall in the euro was triggered by the Irish Republic's request for financial assistance last weekend.
It is currently negotiating with the European Union (EU) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) over a rescue package expected to amount to 85bn euros.
The Republic will be the second eurozone economy to be rescued, after Greece was granted a 110bn-euro bail-out over the summer.
In order to tackle its high budget deficit, and meet conditions of any loan package, the Irish government unveiled a tough recovery plan on Wednesday, designed to save 15bn euros over the next four years.
Investor confidence
However, there are doubts about whether the measures will be passed when parliament votes on the budget next month.
And the Irish government suffered a blow when its majority in parliament was cut to just two after it was confirmed that Sinn Fein had won the Donegal by-election.
Also on Friday, ratings agency Standard & Poor's downgraded some of the Republic's top banks.
It downgraded Anglo Irish Bank by six notches, and Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks by one notch.
The proposed cuts and the impending EU/IMF bail-out have failed to calm investors' fears that the Irish debt crisis could spread to other countries with high budget deficits, particularly Portugal and Spain.
As well as a weakening euro, government bond yields in the Republic, Portugal and Spain have risen this week, and edged higher again on Friday.
Increasing bond yields reflect waning confidence in a government's ability to repay its debts.


Thursday, November 25, 2010

Google's Buying Your Startup.

Google's M&A chief has to persuade founders to stick around, often with financial incentives and the promise of expanded roles                                                                                                                                                         













By Douglas MacMillan
You'd think David Lawee has it easy. He's the mergers-and-acquisitions chief for Google (GOOG), a company with $33.4 billion in cash and a willingness to spend it. The search giant's pay is good and its perks are legendary, so persuading scrappy startups to sell for multimillion-dollar sums should be a cinch. But Google's stock is past its days of heady growth, and hotter rivals like Facebook are making deals of their own, so Lawee still has to work hard. Entrepreneurs want to know: Why sell to Google? And why stick around once the check clears?
Google has stepped up its dealmaking this year, spending $1.6 billion on more than 20 companies through September. In an interview earlier this month, Lawee said he sees "more large opportunities" for purchases on the order of YouTube and DoubleClick, Google's two largest deals. Google now is in talks to acquire social shopping site Groupon in a deal that could be the search company's most expensive acquisition ever, say two people with knowledge of the matter.
As it makes deals, Google is seeking more than just advanced technology. The company also hopes to add to its ranks seasoned entrepreneurs who can be molded into star executives. Recently, some of those would-be stars have blinked out. Omar Hamoui, founder of mobile-ad startup AdMob, left Google in late October, just five months after the roughly $700 million purchase of his company was completed. YouTube founder Chad Hurley and Lars Rasmussen, whose Where 2 Technologies was acquired in 2004 and became the basis for Google Maps, both announced their departures in the past month. (Hamoui, Hurley, and Rasmussen all were unavailable or declined to comment for this story.) Rasmussen told the Sydney Morning Herald in November that "it can be very challenging to be working in a company the size of Google."
Lawee says such high-profile departures are not indicative of Google's track record. Two-thirds of the founders of startups acquired by Google remain with the company, he says. Joshua Schachter, a serial entrepreneur who sold a company to Yahoo! (YHOO) in 2005 and then worked at Google until June of this year, says the search company's retention rate compares favorably with that of many of its competitors. "Elsewhere, I've seen that entrepreneurs tend to bail because the things that drive [them] are at odds with the way companies are run," he says.
Google also faces a challenge in winning over founders in the first place. Competitors like Facebook and Apple (AAPL) are in acquisitive moods as well. The social networking site has made eight deals so far in 2010. Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs said in October that he's reserving his company's $51 billion in cash and investments for "one or more very strategic opportunities [that] may come along."
In inking deals, it helps that Google's chief negotiator doesn't look like a suit. At 44, Lawee is lean and youthful, and often arrives at meetings with a backpack. He is an entrepreneur himself and co-founded gaming site Xfire, which Viacom bought in 2006, the year after Lawee joined Google. "He's got this laid-back style that says, 'I like you, you like me—one way or another, we're going to work this out,'" says Anthony McCusker, an attorney at Goodwin Procter who represented AdMob during its negotiations with Google.
One of Lawee's pitches to potential acquirees is that they'll make a bigger impact on the world at Google than they could as an independent startup. "It's not financial retentions" that keep entrepreneurs at Google, he says. "They are motivated to change the world."
Google gives some of its acquirees elevated roles that go far beyond overseeing the products they created. Jonathan Sposato, who has sold two companies to Google—Phatbits, a publishing tool, in 2005 and Picnik, an easy-to-use photo editor, in July of this year—became product manager for the photos group after his latest sale. The new position put him in control of Picasa, a Google photo site used by more than 1.6 million people. The entrepreneur says that played a big part in his decision to sell Picnik to Google. The mission became "make the photo experience be better than it is today'" rather than a narrow focus on a single product, he says.
Google also promises founders room to take risks, says Noam Lovinsky, who sold video publishing tool Episodic to Google in April. When Episodic launched as a small startup in 2009, Lovinsky wanted to focus on building a simple-to-use tool that let professional video producers upload and track the performance of clips. Instead, he found himself too focused on paying the bills. "There were a lot of things we had to wait on doing because we had to fund our road map," he says. At Google he "can worry about revenue at the right time to worry about revenue," he says. Whether that freedom helps persuade Groupon to agree to a sale is still an open question.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Ireland Shows Supply-Side Shortcomings

The rapid declawing of the debt-ridden Celtic Tiger should spell the demise of supply-side economics—especially for Congress


The declawing of the Celtic Tiger should spell the demise of supply-side economics for the U.S. Congress, says Chris Farrell

By Chris Farrell

It may be the most famous dinner in economic history. Arthur Laffer was a professor at the University of Chicago. In December 1974 he dined at the Two Continents Restaurant in Washington, D.C., with Donald Rumsfeld, chief of staff to President Ford; Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld's deputy; and Jude Wanniski, associate editor at The Wall Street Journal. According to Wanniski, Laffer grabbed a napkin and pen and sketched out the Laffer Curve, illustrating the trade-off between tax rates and tax revenues. In a few more years the tax-cut philosophy dubbed supply-side economics would dominate fiscal policy under President Ronald Reagan.
The global darling of supply-side economics was Ireland. The island nation was a European backwater for decades, a poor, depressed nation best known for its millions emigrating and for Guinness Stout. But in the 1980s and 1990s, Ireland started cutting taxes, and in the 1990s and 2000s it was growing at a phenomenal rate. The top marginal tax rate on personal income went from 65 percent in 1984 to 42 percent by 2000. More importantly, the corporate tax rate was cut in stages from 50 percent in 1986 to 12.5 percent by 2003. Ireland posted an average growth rate of more than 7 percent a year from 1997 to 2007, the quickest pace among the 30-plus members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Ireland was the Celtic Tiger, the Irish Miracle.
When the current U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, was MP for Tatton and Shadow Chancellor, he penned an op-ed in the Times of London in 2006. Osborne called on Britain to learn how to run an economy from Ireland. "In Britain, the Left have us stuck debating a false choice," he wrote. "They suggest you have to choose between lower taxes and public services. Yet in Ireland they have doubled spending on public services in the past decade while reducing taxes and shrinking the State's share of national income." Two years later, supply-siders Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Peter J. Tanous wrote in their book, The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy—If We Let It Happen: "The greatest supply-side economic success story of recent times (other than the Reagan Revolution) is the Irish Economic Miracle."

On Second Thought

Oops. By now, everyone in the global economy is aware that the Celtic Tiger has been declawed and the Irish Miracle a mirage. Ireland is an economic and financial disaster with a government budget deficit for 2010—including the cost of bailing out its banks—at 32 percent of gross domestic product. The nation's embattled government under Prime Minister Brian Cowen is negotiating the terms of a bailout from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
The significance of Ireland for public policy goes far beyond the tragedy of the nation. Ireland should signal the death knell of the lets-welcome-all-tax-cuts and the-market-will-take-care-of-the-rest recipe of supply-side economics that gained political prominence starting in the 1970s. Ireland is also a warning to those in Congress who believe cutting taxes and deregulating financial services is the path back to prosperity.
Yes, the logic behind supply-side economics is simple and persuasive. Lower tax rates give entrepreneurs, management, and workers an incentive to expand business, invest more, and log additional hours by raising the after-tax rate of return. In Ireland's case, the economy benefited from its close proximity to Europe and the U.K., which made it easy for the low corporate tax rate to attract foreign capital. "Everyone agrees that there are benefits to lower tax rates," says Daniel Shaviro, tax professor at New York University law school. Adds Varadarajan V. Chari, professor of economics at the University of Minnesota: "By offering very favorable tax treatment, it could attract a lot of capital relative to the size of the country."
But the gains didn't materialize just from becoming a supply-side tax haven. Ireland devoted large resources to turn its education system into a world-class one. Its intellectual property laws and research and development incentives encouraged technological innovation. Similarly, although supply-siders sing the economic praises of the Reagan tax cuts, the effect is exaggerated (and Reagan raised taxes in 1982, '83, and '84). Far more important was Paul Volcker and the tough monetary policy he initiated that set a three-decade cycle of disinflation in motion. So were Michael Milken, Henry Kravis, T. Boone Pickens, and other finance buccaneers of the era. Technological innovation flourished, too, especially with corporate America's embrace of the personal computer in the '80s and the Internet in the '90s.

Two-Edged Sword

Problem is, incentives can also work against you. "Where they failed is also where the U.S. and the U.K. failed," says Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C. "They believed the market would take care of itself, and that isn't true. The banks have been poorly regulated." Adds Chari: "The supply-siders are right to emphasize incentives, but I don't see why they don't see that incentives can work in socially perverse ways."
Certainly, that's what happened in Ireland. Regulators were nowhere to be found during the real estate-centered credit bubble. The Irish Central Bank did not have a history of independence from government and after joining the euro zone contented itself with gathering statistics and issuing currency, according to Morgan Kelly, economist at University College, Dublin. (Kelly's paper, "The Irish Credit Bubble," can be read here.) The banking industry also captured government. Kelly notes that politicians and financiers knew each other well in the small nation. The employment boom generated by bank lending—especially in the construction industry—generated a "natural alliance of interests among politicians, developers, and banks," he writes.
When it comes to generating economic growth, there's no simple blueprint (just ask the Obama Administration). Tax incentives matter. But supply-side economics has deteriorated into a mantra in which cuts are needed all the time to keep the economy growing. But there is no free lunch. Tax cuts coupled with a deregulated financial sector is a recipe for disaster. Ireland is paying the price. Let's hope Congress remembers Ireland as it debates fiscal policy.
Farrell is contributing economics editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. You can also hear him on American Public Media's nationally syndicated finance program, Marketplace Money, as well as on public radio's business program Marketplace. His Sound Money column appears on

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Ireland confirms EU financial rescue deal

21 November 2010 Last updated at 20:58 GMT
Mr Cowen appealed for solidarity from the Irish people
 
 The Republic of Ireland and the EU have agreed a financial rescue package, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen has confirmed.
 
 The Taoiseach said the amount and terms would be negotiated in the coming days with the EU and the IMF.
 
 Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said the amount would be less than 100bn euros (£85bn; $136bn).
 
 Mr Cowen said the government would be publishing a four-year budget plan that would restructure the banking industry. EU Finance Commissioner Olli Rehn, speaking in Brussels, said the loans would be provided to Ireland over a three-year period.
Reuters news agency quoted senior EU sources as saying the loans would total 80-90bn euros.
Mr Cowen said the Irish Republic's banks would be made smaller, as part of a restructuring of the banking industry.
The other part of the bail-out package would help to reduce the government's budget deficit to a target of 3% of GDP by 2014, Mr Lenihan said.
Solidarity appeal The global financial crisis has dealt the Irish Republic a hard blow.
Once known as the Celtic Tiger for its strong economic growth - helped by low corporate tax rates - a property bubble burst leaving the country's banks with huge liabilities and pushing up the cost of borrowing for them and the government.
Announcing the bail-out, Mr Cowen appealed for solidarity.
"To the Irish people I say simply this: We should not underestimate the scale of our economic problems, but we must have faith in our ability as a people to recover and prosper once more.
"The task of rebuilding our economy falls to our own efforts as a people," he told a news conference following a cabinet meeting on the rescue plan.
"That is where the focus of our efforts must turn over coming weeks, beginning with the four-year plan and then the budget. And now we need to show the solidarity in our own country that our neighbours have shown to us at this time."

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Ben Bernanke hits back at Fed critics

Mr Bernanke has found himself surprisingly isolated after widespread criticism of quantitative easing
US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has criticised countries like China that run large trade surpluses.


"Currency undervaluation by surplus countries is inhibiting needed international adjustment," he said in a speech to the European Central Bank
He said that by buying dollars, these countries were hurting the US recovery and the global economy with it.
He also defended the Fed's policy of "quantitative easing", which has been criticised by China and Germany.
Defending QE
China, Germany and others have attacked the Federal Reserve in recent weeks for its decision to purchase another $600bn of US government debt in a bid to stimulate the US economy.
They say that the policy will unfairly devalue the dollar in currency markets, and that this could lead to inflation and asset bubbles elsewhere in the world.
The Chinese also argued the Fed had failed to take account of its responsibility for protecting the value of the dollar as a global reserve currency.
In his speech, Mr Bernanke defended the policy as the right response to falling inflation and high unemployment in the US.
He also said it was a natural extension of monetary policy, given that interest rates were near zero and could not be cut further.
On the attack
But Mr Bernanke went further than this, hitting back against his critics.


  UK £ | USA $ | Eurozone € | Travel money
  United States Dollar - Chinese Renminbi



$1 buys
change
%
52 wk-h
52 wk-l
Chinese Renminbi
6.64450
0.00000

0.00

6.83750 6.62900


He said that their policy of accumulating dollar reserves in order to weaken their currencies and help maintain a trade surplus would hurt the recovery in industrial economies, and this in turn could harm the entire global economy.
"For large, systemically important countries with persistent current account surpluses, the pursuit of export-led growth cannot ultimately succeed if the implications of that strategy for global growth and stability are not taken into account," he said.
He spoke of a two-speed recovery, in which developing economies like China and India had rapidly bounced back, while industrialised countries like the US, Europe and Japan were growing much more slowly and suffered from high unemployment.
"Because a strong expansion in the emerging market economies will ultimately depend on a recovery in the more advanced economies, this pattern of two-speed growth might very well be resolved in favour of slow growth," he said.
Collateral damage He also said the currency interventions by countries like China had other iniquitous effects.
He said it was unfair on other countries that allowed their currencies to appreciate, as they would be forced to bear the brunt of the economic adjustment.
Countries such as Brazil and South Africa have already complained that they have been put in exactly this position by the "currency war" between the US and China.
Mr Bernanke also warned that by refusing to let their currencies appreciate, countries like China would be forced to take other measures to stop risky inflows of speculative money, and to cool rising inflation.
On the same day of his speech, China announced a half-point rise in the percentage of cash its banks must hold in reserve - a measure designed to slow down a recent jump in inflation to 4.4%.
China has also taken measures in recent months to tighten up capital controls - designed to stop people speculating on the value of the Chinese currency.


bbc.co

Drop Russia & Add Indonesia:The BRIC Debate?

Detractors say Russia's inability to develop into a mature economy merits the country's removal from the BRIC group 

By Roben Farzad

Goodbye BRIC, hello BIIC?
In 2001, three years after Russia's ruble collapsed, Goldman Sachs (GS) named the country a member of the BRICs—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—the emerging markets it said would be four of the most dominant economies by 2050. Over the next several years, BRIC-fixated investors piled into Russia as its resource economy thrived in the era of fast-rising oil prices. The BRIC concept still asserts its power. Investors in the $48 billion iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund (EEM), for example, have nearly half their money weighted in BRIC stocks.
For plenty of money managers and economists, however, the Russo euphoria is all but gone. From Nouriel Roubini to Morgan Stanley, they are calling either for Russia to be ousted from the BRICs altogether in favor of Indonesia or, at the least, for Indonesia to join the other four. They are put off by the policymaking drift in the Kremlin, Russia's demographic atrophy, and endemic corruption. Indonesia's fiscal prudence, economic growth—6 percent this year, according to the International Monetary Fund—and strengthening social and political institutions have far more appeal. Twice-elected President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has directed funding toward schools and health care, and Indonesia's coffers are full enough to put the onetime IMF bailout case on the brink of an investment-grade credit rating.
Russia, for its part, cannot seem to escape the investor-unfriendly headlines. Sweden's Ikea has leased diesel generators to circumvent Russian bureaucrats who allegedly demanded bribes to provide electricity to the chain's stores. Then the Swedish retailer revealed that the Ikea executives in charge of leasing the generators were taking bribes, too. Petro oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been in jail on fraud charges since 2003: His supporters say the charges were trumped up to give the Kremlin an excuse to seize his company. (The government denies this; Khodorkovsky is on trial for fresh charges.) William Browder, chief executive officer of Hermitage Capital Management, once Russia's top foreign investor, was banned from the country in 2006 for tax evasion: He says his company was grabbed by criminals who pulled off the tax scam. "Russia is just not a good place to put your money," says Richard Shaw, managing principal of QVM Group, a South Glastonbury (Conn.) investment advisory.
Shaw says he avoids putting clients in Russian stocks and funds, and steers clear of BRIC-linked investments because of their Russia exposure. He would rather own Indonesian exchange-traded funds: "While Indonesia isn't a paragon of virtue, it's better, especially to participate in the Asian boom." Although some investors want BIIC to replace BRIC, Shaw votes for BICI (pronounced BEE-chee): "It's catchy—kind of sounds like an Italian purse."
Indonesia, the world's fourth-most-populous country and largest Muslim democracy, has corruption, too. In part, that's a legacy of the Suharto dictatorship that ended in 1998. Yet Tom Lydon, president of Global Trends Investments, says the Asian nation has more going for it than Russia. "Beyond natural resources, it is supported by improving domestic consumption, and anticorruption efforts appear to be working." Indonesia has sentenced several politicians and former ministers for corruption. In its latest Global Competitiveness Report, the World Economic Forum ranked Indonesia 44th out of 139 countries—up from No. 54 the prior year. (Russia came in at No. 63.)
While Morgan Stanley (MS) has called for Indonesia to join the BRICs—Goldman has called the country a "Next-11" nation, in a runner-up list of sorts—economist Nouriel Roubini of New York University has argued that Indonesia should replace Russia in the bloc. "From an American perspective," he wrote last year in a column, "Indonesia is an attractive alternative to Russia, which has vied with Venezuela for leadership of the 'America in decline' cheering section."
The iShares ETF allocates just 2.6 percent of its money to Indonesia. That will change, say Indonesia backers; 12 years after its financial crisis the archipelago is China's third-largest trading partner, foreign investment has more than tripled since 2004, and gross domestic product is growing faster than Russia's. While Russia's Micex index has fallen 22 percent from its December 2007 peak, the Jakarta Composite Index is approaching an all-time high. Russia's market fortunes have fallen so low that some investors are taking a second look, especially since Russian corporate profits have been robust. "Russia really stands out as being cheap and attractive," says Maarten-Jan Bakkum, an emerging-market equity strategist at ING Investment Management in The Hague.
Indonesia's supporters say that over the long haul the Asia nation has the edge. More than half of the population is under 30, while aging Russia faces a paucity of productive labor. The Kremlin may have to commit increasing sums to care for the elderly, says Wijayanto, managing director of the Paramadina Public Policy Institute in Jakarta. "Indonesia," he says, "has the potential to become a key global player."

 

businessweek