why?

online poker

Saturday, December 17, 2011

US Airways Coach Fliers Fare Worst in Hassle Rankings

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Coach passengers on AMR Corp.’s American Airlines and US Airways Group Inc. jets have the greatest risk of hassles such as late or canceled flights, packed planes and higher fees.
Those two carriers and United Airlines, a predecessor of United Continental Holdings Inc., fared the worst in a Bloomberg Rankings analysis of operating performance and service charges. Southwest Airlines Co., which doesn’t have fees to check bags, and Frontier Airlines posted the highest scores.
The analysis covered expenses such as luggage charges and rebooking fees as well as operating data like scrubbed flights and the percentage of filled seats. Cancellations are up in 2011 after East Coast storms and a new U.S. rule to end long tarmac waiting times, and a cut in flights means fewer empty seats.
“Airlines are really beginning to fill airplanes like they never have before, and Americans don’t deal well with a lack of personal space,” said Charles Leocha, director of Consumer Travel Alliance, a Washington-based nonprofit group. “That and the complexity of fees have led to the degrading of the flying experience.”
The list evaluated the largest 10 U.S. carriers, as identified by passenger traffic on domestic flights. Regional airlines such as American’s American Eagle and Delta Air Lines Inc.’s Comair were excluded.
Lowest Scores
Southwest is the biggest discount airline and ranked second on the list for U.S. traffic, while Indianapolis-based Republic Airways Holdings Inc.’s Frontier was the smallest in the group. On a scale of one to 100, with 100 the best score, Dallas-based Southwest and Frontier logged 73.2 and 61.6 points.
The lowest scores were 31.2 for American, whose parent AMR is now in bankruptcy; 32.5 for US Airways; and 33.6 for United. All three have hubs subject to winter tie-ups, with American and United flying from Chicago and New York and US Airways from Philadelphia.
The cancellation rate for the 10 carriers Bloomberg ranked was 1.56 percent for the year ended in September, compared with 1.13 percent for the same period in 2006.
United was evaluated separately from Continental Airlines Inc., its 2010 merger partner in forming United Continental, because the airlines didn’t win U.S. approval to fly as one carrier until Nov. 30. Also assessed separately were Southwest and its May 2011 acquisition, AirTran Holdings Inc.
Many travelers are exempt from the fees covered in the Bloomberg rankings, because airlines often waive the costs for passengers with elite frequent-flier status, first- and business-class tickets, or certain co-branded credit cards.
Few Bag Fees
On American, only 25 percent of domestic passengers pay a checked-bag fee, said Tim Smith, a spokesman for the Fort Worth, Texas-based airline.
American’s performance also has improved in recent years, with “more than half” of its disruptions due to circumstances outside its control such as weather or air-traffic delays, Smith said.
US Airways’ on-time performance rose 21 percent from 2007 to 2010, while baggage handling improved by 70 percent and customer satisfaction jumped 51 percent, Michelle Mohr, a spokeswoman for the Tempe, Arizona-based carrier, said in an e- mail. The figures were based on the airline’s own data.
A pilot work slowdown that hurt results earlier this year has been corrected, placing US Airways’ operational performance on par or ahead of peers most months this year, she said.
Seat cutbacks since 2008 have in effect erased a decade of growth, according to Airlines for America, a Washington-based trade group. That has dragged industry capacity relative to U.S. Gross Domestic Product to the lowest level since 1979, according to data compiled by the trade group. American and Delta are among the airlines expecting more cuts in 2012.
--Editors: Ed Dufner, James Langford
To contact the reporters on this story: Alex McIntyre in New York at amcintyre10@bloomberg.net. Mary Jane Credeur in Atlanta at mcredeur@bloomberg.net.
 By Alex McIntyre and Mary Jane Credeur


 

Obama signs key bill to...


The unusual Saturday vote caps off a year of bitter partisan budget battles on Capitol Hill  
US President Barack Obama has signed into law a spending bill, averting an impending shutdown of federal government services.




The bill, worth nearly $1tn (£645bn), was earlier passed by the Senate and had already been backed by the House of Representatives.
Government agencies including those for defence and labour faced shutdown this weekend without the legislation.
It follows Senate approval of a two-month extension to a payroll tax break.
That bill also forces President Obama to make a decision on a controversial oil pipeline early next year.
It is expected to go before the Republican-dominated House for a vote on Monday.
Passage of these two pieces of legislation would end a year of bitter partisan budget battles on Capitol Hill.
The spending bill funds a wide range of government agencies for the rest of the fiscal year - until September 2012.
The vote to continue the payroll tax break for about 160 million American workers also means millions of unemployed Americans will continue to receive emergency welfare benefits.
The bill stops the 4.2% tax rate from jumping to 6.2% for those workers on 1 January.
Economists have warned that a failure to keep the tax cut would hurt a fragile US economic recovery.
But in exchange, President Obama must make a decision in February on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada's oil sands to refineries in Texas.
Mr Obama had threatened to veto the project and wanted to delay a decision on it past the 2012 election.
In remarks after the Senate vote, Mr Obama said he expected Congress to extend the payroll tax break for the rest of 2012 when it reconvened in January.
Allowing it to lapse would be "inexcusable", he said.

bbc.co 

Monday, November 21, 2011

Cairo after bloody weekend

Clashes have again erupted in the Egyptian capital as security forces continue their efforts to clear Cairo's Tahrir Square of protesters.
At least 33 people are reported to have died since the violence began on Saturday with hundreds more injured.
Protesters fear the interim military government is trying to retain its grip on power.
Culture Minister Emad Abu Ghazi has resigned in protest at the government's handling of the demonstrators.
On Monday, 25 Egyptian political parties also called for the ministers of information and the interior to be sacked over the violence.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, led by Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, is charged with overseeing the country's transition to democracy after three decades of autocratic rule under ousted President Hosni Mubarak.
Calls for Field Marshal Tantawi's resignation could be heard during the weekend's protests.
It is the longest continuous protest since President Mubarak stepped down in February and casts a shadow over elections due to start next week.
Large crowds were again seen streaming into Tahrir Square on Monday - defying the military's attempts to keep them away from the place that was the symbolic heart of demonstrations against Mr Mubarak.
TV footage showed tear gas being fired into the protesters, while fire bombs and chunks of concrete were reportedly being lobbed back at the police.
The BBC's Lyse Doucet in Cairo tweeted that medical students joined the protest on Monday with a banner calling for power to be handed over by April 2012.
As daylight faded, even more people were filling Tahrir Square, she added.
The clashes followed fierce fighting on Sunday. Violence also took place in other cities over the weekend, including Alexandria, Suez and Aswan.
Morgue officials said on Monday that the death toll was now at least 33. Some 1,750 people were also injured.
Fresh demands
Amr Moussa, former secretary-general of the Arab League and now a presidential candidate in Egypt, told the BBC World Service that the use of force against the protesters could not be justified.
"The way the police deals with the protesters... we're all against this kind of violence and this treatment of the people," he said.
He said the military council needed to end the uncertainty surrounding parliamentary and presidential elections.
Earlier, Culture Minister Emad Abu Ghazi resigned in protest at the government's handling of events in Tahrir Square, Egypt's official Mena news agency said.

“Start Quote

The military promised they would hand over power within six months. Ten months have gone by and they still haven't done it. We feel deceived”
Protester
The BBC's Yolande Knell in Cairo says the demands of the protesters have changed over the course of the weekend. Crowds initially urged the military to set a date for the handover of power, but now they want the military leaders to resign immediately.
"The military promised that they would hand over power within six months," one protester said. "Now 10 months have gone by and they still haven't done it. We feel deceived."
In recent weeks, protesters - mostly Islamists and young activists - have been demonstrating against a draft constitution they say would allow the military to retain too much power after a civilian government is elected.
Earlier this month the military council produced a draft document setting out principles for a new constitution, under which the military and its budget could be exempted from civilian oversight.
A proposal by the military to delay the presidential election until late 2012 or early 2013 has further angered the opposition.
Protesters want the presidential vote to take place after parliamentary elections, which begin on 28 November and will be staggered over the next three months.
A statement from the cabinet on Sunday said the elections would go ahead as planned, and praised the "restraint" of interior ministry forces against protesters.
The military council, in a statement read out on state television, said it "regretted" what was happening, AFP news agency reports.


bbc

Euro = Gold?

The gold standard forced austerity and helped cause the Depression. Today's problem is the hard-money elites of the euro zone

  Like the gold standard of a century ago, the euro has promoted free trade and investment across borders. The 12-year-old unified currency also shares the gold standard’s greatest flaw: the lack of an escape hatch. If a country runs chronic deficits, it can’t regain competitiveness through the market’s depreciation of its currency. Under the gold standard, exchange rates were fixed, which is to say the escape hatch of depreciation was locked. Under the euro, exchange rates no longer even exist. The escape hatch has been locked, welded shut, and sat on by the leaders of the Continent’s most powerful economies.
What does a country do when it can’t depreciate its currency to lower its prices? Now, as in the 1930s, the only alternative is an internal devaluation, which means cutting wages and other costs, including government benefits.   That’s a painful process that creates enormous social stress. In the 1920s and ’30s the impoverishment of the working class led to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini. Even if fascism is averted, punitive austerity can lead to a downward spiral as trade and financing dry up, deflation sets in, debts loom larger, and one country after another gets sucked downward.
  Once the euro symbolized common purpose and uplift. But to quote the Depression-era lyricist Lorenz Hart, “When love congeals/It soon reveals/The faint aroma of performing seals.” The seals of 2011 are the hard-money types in Germany, Finland, and other points north who insist that the Greeks, the Italians—and maybe soon the French—must be held to account for their financial transgressions. These calls for fiscal responsibility, and the anger behind them, make emotional sense. But today’s austerity tough guys sound alarmingly like Andrew Mellon, President Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who, according to Hoover’s memoirs, said the only way to get the U.S. economy back on track in the 1930s was to “liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … purge the rottenness out of the system.”
  Purging the rottenness nearly killed the patient. In an increasingly relevant 2000 essay called “The Gold Standard and the Great Depression” in Contemporary European History, American economists Barry Eichengreen and Peter Temin wrote that elites were befuddled by a gold standard mentality that “sharply restricted the range of actions they were willing to contemplate.” They added: “The result of this cultural condition was to transform a run-of-the-mill economic contraction into a Great Depression that changed the course of history.”
A gold standard doesn’t have to be deflationary. From the 1870s until World War I, the gold standard more or less worked under the auspices of the Bank of England: Countries that imported more than they exported were forced to make up the difference by shipping gold to their trading partners. Because gold was the ultimate storehouse of value, countries feared losing too much of it. To stanch the outflow of gold, central banks would raise interest rates to push down domestic spending and prices. Meanwhile, the countries that imported gold would see domestic prices rise, which would make them more receptive to cheaper imports and shrink their surpluses. There was discipline and a natural balance.
  World War I spoiled the equilibrium. War spending caused inflation, forcing countries to suspend convertibility of their currencies into gold. After the war most countries struggled back onto the gold standard (though not Germany, which suffered hyperinflation). Returning to the old exchange rates required reversing the wartime inflation—namely, imposing punishing deflation. Democracies weren’t as good at imposing austerity as autocracies had been. The rise of labor unions and the introduction of minimum-wage laws made it harder for employers to cut pay, so they cut workers instead.
Creditor countries such as the U.S. didn’t play fair in the 1930s. They bought tons of gold to take it off the market so it wouldn’t affect their money supply or interest rates. By hoarding, they left too little gold for the debtor countries and worsened their deflation.
Eventually all countries were forced off gold by financial crises and popular upheavals. Britain abandoned gold in 1931 and fared best economically. Die-hard France, which stuck with gold until 1936, did worst. Even with prices plunging, the elites fretted about the threat of inflation. Ralph Hawtrey, a British Treasury official, likened that to crying “‘Fire, fire’ in Noah’s flood.”
Policymakers have not fully absorbed the lessons of the Depression. Monetary and fiscal policy are better but “not enough better,” Eichengreen says. There’s an understanding that big banks can’t be allowed to fail, but “one might say, Aren’t the biggest banks too big to save, especially in Europe?”
The most unfortunate difference between then and now is that the euro, unlike the gold standard, is a raccoon trap: Its designers deliberately left out an exit procedure. That means you can get in, but you can’t get out without leaving a part of yourself behind. Eichengreen points out that Britain was growing again by the end of 1932, just over a year after abandoning gold under duress. Today a country—say, Greece—that quit the euro would take far longer to right itself. That’s because unlike Britain, to get relief Greece would have to default on its euro-denominated debts and damage its credit rating. “The Greek government,” Eichengreen says, “will be hard-pressed to find funds to recapitalize the banking system. Greek companies won’t be able to get credit lines. The new Greek government is going to have to print money hand over fist. At some point they would be able to push down the drachma and become more competitive. But the balance is different now.”
That’s why Eichengreen thinks leaving the euro zone should be a last resort. The better option, he says, is to make the euro work the way the gold standard worked in its best years. Surplus countries should equally share the cost of adjustment with deficit countries. He favors transforming the underfunded European Financial Stability Facility from an emergency fund into a bank. He would have the facility borrow from the European Central Bank so it can make unlimited loans to countries such as Greece and Italy—on the condition, of course, that the countries demonstrate they’re on a path to fixing their competitiveness problems. Those countries don’t have a chance to fix things without the breathing room afforded by official lending, Eichengreen says.
Europe’s fatal mistake was to push ahead with monetary union without having achieved fiscal union. Limits on national budget deficits were flouted with impunity. Now creditor nations are dragging their heels on aid and stimulus because they don’t want profligate debtors to play them for fools. In an echo of the gold-hoarding mentality of the Depression, Germans have reacted angrily to the suggestion that the International Monetary Fund might tap Germany’s gold reserves to bolster the EFSF. The mood is angry and confused. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was correct on Nov. 14 in Leipzig when she described the debt crisis as “maybe Europe’s most difficult hours since World War II.”
The answer, as Merkel told her Christian Democratic Union colleagues, is “more Europe and not less Europe.” If Germany can get the “more Europe” it wants—i.e., tough, enforceable budget rules—it might countenance more help for weaker nations, even if for now Merkel is still rejecting open-ended ECB lending or jointly issued euro bonds.
There are signs that creditor nations understand their responsibilities. In October, European Union finance ministers agreed on a “six pack” of economic-governance rules that in theory should penalize countries with excessive surpluses, not just those with excessive deficits. Merkel said on Nov. 16 that “we are prepared to give up a little bit of national sovereignty” to preserve the euro.
Something needs to happen fast. As the debt crisis has come to a head, economists surveyed by Bloomberg have sharply lowered their forecasts for European growth in 2012. Output may well be shrinking in the current quarter. The risk is that the worsening woes will make the key players less flexible. In the 1930s, Eichengreen and Temin wrote, “The masochistic strand of the gold-standard mentality grew stronger as the crisis built.” Now would be an excellent time to replace masochism with common sense.
Illustration by 731; Photographs: Getty; Alamy 

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Mr Amano says there is information Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a bomb

Iran. agency IAEA.UN. Mr Amano says...        

The UN nuclear agency says it wants to send a high-level mission to Iran to address new fears that it may be seeking to build nuclear weapons.

The head of the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA, has proposed sending a high-level mission to Iran, to address new fears about a possible military dimension to the country's nuclear programme. 

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano said there was credible information Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a bomb.
He said there might be undeclared nuclear material and activities.
Tehran says its programme is for peaceful purposes.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's governing board has been debating the latest report on Iran released last week in the Austrian capital, Vienna, where it is based.
"Our technical experts have spent years painstakingly and objectively analysing a huge quantity of information from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of member states, from the agency's own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself. The agency finds the information to be, overall, credible," Mr Amano said in a statement.
"It is consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organisations involved, and timeframes. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."
He hoped a date for the visit would be agreed soon, he added.
The United States and its allies want to see stronger sanctions imposed on Iran, but Russia believes the report contains no new evidence - and could hurt the chances for diplomacy, says the BBC's Bethany Bell in Vienna.
China says sanctions cannot resolve the issue.
'Accident'
On Wednesday, Iranian General Hassan Firouzabadi said that - contrary to speculation - the US and Israel were not behind a weekend munitions base blast that killed 17 Revolutionary Guards, including a key ballistics missile expert.
"This recent incident and blast has no link to Israel or America, but the outcome of the research, in which the incident happened as a consequence, could be a strong smack to the mouth of Israel and its occupying regime," Gen Firouzabadi was quoted as saying by the student news agency Isna.
Iranian officials had previously said the accident happened while munitions were being moved at the base, without linking it directly to weapons research.
Brigadier General Hassan Moqaddam, who was considered a key figure in Iran's missile programme, was the most senior casualty in the incident. 


bbc

JPMorgan Joins Goldman Keeping Italy Derivatives Risk in Dark


(For more on Europe’s debt crisis, see EXT4 <GO>.)



By Christine Harper and Michael J. Moore
Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., among the world’s biggest traders of credit derivatives, disclosed to shareholders that they have sold protection on more than $5 trillion of debt globally.
Just don’t ask them how much of that was issued by Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, known as the GIIPS.
As concerns mount that those countries may not be creditworthy, investors are being kept in the dark about how much risk U.S. banks face from a default. Firms including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan don’t provide a full picture of potential losses and gains in such a scenario, giving only net numbers or excluding some derivatives altogether.
“If you don’t have to, generally people don’t see the advantage to doing it,” said Richard Lindsey, a former director of market regulation at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission who worked at Bear Stearns Cos. from 1999 through 2006. “On the other hand, if there were a run on Goldman Sachs tomorrow because the rumor was that they had exposure to Greece, you’d see them produce those numbers.”
A case in point: Jefferies Group Inc., the New York-based securities firm, disclosed every long and short position it held on European debt earlier this month after its shares plunged more than 20 percent. Jefferies also said it wasn’t relying on credit-default swaps, contracts that promise to pay the buyer if the underlying debt defaults, as a hedge on European holdings.
‘Funded’ Exposure
By contrast, Goldman Sachs discloses only what it calls “funded” exposure to GIIPS debt -- $4.16 billion before hedges and $2.46 billion after, as of Sept. 30. Those amounts exclude commitments or contingent payments, such as credit-default swaps, said Lucas van Praag, a spokesman for the bank.
Goldman Sachs includes CDS in its market-risk calculations, of which value-at-risk is one measure, and it hedges the swaps and holds collateral against the hedges, primarily cash and U.S. Treasuries, van Praag said. The firm doesn’t break out its estimate of the market risk related to the five countries.
JPMorgan said in its third-quarter SEC filing that more than 98 percent of the credit-default swaps the New York-based bank has written on GIIPS debt is balanced by CDS contracts purchased on the same bonds. The bank said its net exposure was no more than $1.5 billion, with a portion coming from debt and equity securities. The company didn’t disclose gross numbers or how much of the $1.5 billion came from swaps, leaving investors wondering whether the notional value of CDS sold could be as high as $150 billion or as low as zero.
Counterparty Clarity
“Their position is you don’t need to know the risks, which is why they’re giving you net numbers,” said Nomi Prins, a managing director at New York-based Goldman Sachs until she left in 2002 to become a writer. “Net is only as good as the counterparties on each side of the net -- that’s why it’s misleading in a fluid, dynamic market.”
Investors should want to know how much defaulted debt the banks could be forced to repay because of credit derivatives and how much they’d be in line to receive from other counterparties, Prins said. In addition, they should seek to find out who those counterparties are, she said.
JPMorgan sought to allay concerns that its counterparties are unreliable by saying in the filing that it buys protection only from firms outside the five countries that are “either investment-grade or well-supported by collateral arrangements.” The bank doesn’t identify the counterparties.
Citigroup, Morgan Stanley
Bank of America, Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley also don’t list gross amounts of CDS on GIIPS debt in their filings. All three banks provide figures within their disclosures that they say include a net of their credit-default swaps bought and sold on the five countries.
Citigroup’s net funded exposure as of Sept. 30 was $7.2 billion, and its unfunded commitments were $9.2 billion, the New York-based bank said in a filing and a presentation. Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, said total net exposure was $14.6 billion for the five countries, while New York-based Morgan Stanley listed $2.1 billion.
Jon Diat, a Citigroup spokesman, declined to comment, as did Bank of America’s Jerry Dubrowski, JPMorgan’s Howard Opinsky and Morgan Stanley’s Mark Lake.
Banks exchange collateral, usually cash or liquid securities such as U.S. government debt, with trading partners as the value of their credit-default swaps fluctuates and their perception of one another’s ability to repay changes.
Bungee Cords
If the value of Italian bonds drops, as it did last week, a U.S. firm that sold a credit-default swap on that debt to a French bank would have to provide more collateral. The same U.S. company might be collecting collateral from a British bank because it bought a swap from that firm.
As long as all three banks can make good on their promises, the trade doesn’t have much risk. It could all unravel if the British firm runs into trouble because it’s waiting for a payment from an Italian company that defaults. The collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in 2008 demonstrated some of the ripple effects that one failure can have in the market.
“We learned from Lehman that all of these firms are tied together with bungee cords -- you can’t just lift one out without it affecting everyone else in the group,” said Brad Hintz, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York who previously worked at Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley. More disclosure “may push the stock prices down when it becomes clear how big the bungee cords are. But it certainly would be a welcome addition for an analyst.”
FASB Rule
The Financial Accounting Standards Board in 2008 started requiring companies to disclose the worldwide gross notional credit protection they’ve written and bought. As of Sept. 30, JPMorgan said it had sold $3.13 trillion of credit-derivative protection and purchased $3.07 trillion, up from $2.75 trillion sold and $2.72 trillion bought at the end of 2010, filings show. Goldman Sachs disclosed it had written $2.07 trillion and bought $2.20 trillion, about the same amount it reported at year-end.
At the end of the second quarter, those two firms accounted for 43 percent of the $24 trillion of credit derivatives sold and bought by the 25 largest banks in the U.S., according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The top five account for 97 percent of the total, the data show.
Guarantees provided by U.S. lenders on government, bank and corporate debt in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain rose by $80.7 billion to $518 billion in the first half of 2011, according to the Bank for International Settlements.
‘Ultra-Transparency’
Neither FASB nor the SEC requires banks to disclose how many of those derivatives are written by country or region. That’s something Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, would like to see changed.
“We should have ultra-transparency on those institutions,” Fisher said of the biggest financial firms in a Nov. 14 interview at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. “They should report both their gross and their net CDS exposure, and they should do it country-by-country. After all, they need to inform their shareholders.”
Banks are reluctant to provide the figures in part because doing so would reveal too much information about their positions and operations, said Jon Fisher, a portfolio manager at Fifth Third Asset Management in Minneapolis, which manages more than $16 billion. The sheer size of the numbers may also be a deterrent, investors said.
‘Biggest Fear’
“I think the biggest fear is the numbers are so large that even though they offset, it would maybe shock people,” said Ralph Cole, a senior vice president in research at Ferguson Wellman Inc. in Portland, Oregon, which manages $2.8 billion including JPMorgan stock. “Maybe they don’t think that disclosure will be treated fairly or understood well.”
Still, “they need to give us a good reason why we shouldn’t see that,” he said. “More disclosure is better, and you can see that in their valuations right now.”
Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have each fallen more than 40 percent this year, while JPMorgan has dropped 23 percent. Each of the lenders trades at least 24 percent below book value, indicating investors are questioning the assets on the firms’ balance sheets.
Lloyd C. Blankfein, 57, Goldman Sachs’s chairman and chief executive officer, said in an interview with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission staff last year that the amount of the firm’s derivatives trades shouldn’t be a cause for alarm.
‘Longs and Shorts’
“We either have netting agreements, or they foot, or they cancel each other out, or they’re longs and shorts on the same instrument,” he said, answering a question about how the firm manages so many contracts in a crisis. “The only way you can run a business like that is to have these systems work so they can aggregate stuff, so you can run the business on a macro basis, and also so you can get the details quickly if you need them. And that’s all systems and technology.”
Lindsey, the former SEC official who’s now president of New York-based Callcott Group LLC, which consults on markets and market operations, said few firms have systems that can portray their real-time exposure to trading partners.
“That’s very difficult for any firm to have a good handle on all of that -- you know large positions and you know what certain positions are, but to be able to say I’ve adequately aggregated all of my long exposure and all of my short exposure to a specific counterparty may be very difficult,” Lindsey said. “I don’t know of a firm where it’s not pulled together by a phone call, where somebody says, ‘OK, we need to know our exposure to X,’ and a lot of people stop their day jobs and try to find an answer.”
‘Needlessly Cause Reaction’
Lindsey said banks may be wary of disclosures that could confuse investors. Figures such as gross notional exposure -- the total amount of debt insured by credit derivatives -- give investors an exaggerated sense of the risk and could “needlessly cause reaction,” he said.
Other methods, such as stress-testing, scenario analysis or so-called value-at-risk estimates, rely on models that may underestimate risk because historical data on sovereign defaults show them to be unlikely.
“If you’re looking at your exposure to a defaulting sovereign, there’s a relatively low frequency rate,” Lindsey said. “So it really depends on what they’ve done internally to back up their ideas of what their assessment of the probability of default is.”
--With assistance from Donal Griffin, Dawn Kopecki, Yalman Onaran and Hugh Son in New York. Editors: Robert Friedman, Peter Eichenbaum
To contact the reporters on this story: Christine Harper in New York at charper@bloomberg.net; Michael J. Moore in New York at mmoore55@bloomberg.net


Illustration by Andre Da Loba

Labor Pains (Italy's)

With productivity flat and GDP growth near 1  percent, Italy must make hiring and firing easier

If you want to know which of Italy’s many problems is the most daunting, look no further than the first sentence of its constitution, written in 1947, which describes the country as “a democratic republic, founded on labor.” That foundation has begun to crumble. Italy’s economy can no longer afford the generous benefits it showered on its workers in the 1960s, when the country grew 5 percent to 6 percent a year. Measures put in place years ago to protect workers aren’t just slowing down the economy now, they’re perversely hurting the very workers they’re meant to protect.
How serious is the labor issue? Start with the country’s 2,700 pages of opaque and capricious labor laws. The laws are so unclear that many dismissals of workers end up in the country’s dysfunctional court system, where if a judge decides a worker was let go unfairly, he will likely rule that the employer has to reinstate him with back pay for the time he was gone. “When an investor asks about severance costs, all the other countries can provide an answer,” says Pietro Ichino, an Italian senator and professor of labor law at the University of Milan. “Italy can’t.” Duccio Astaldi, president of Condotte, one of Italy’s largest construction companies, says the difficulty of firing often prevents him from hiring when times are good. “It’s easier for me to get rid of my wife than to fire an employee,” he says.
Italian work contracts are negotiated nationally. Union leaders and employer federations set pay scales, benefits packages, and employment conditions for entire classes of workers—metal mechanics, textile laborers, construction workers, journalists, even maids and nannies. Workers—especially public employees—are guaranteed the same wage wherever they live. Never mind that living in Milan is 10 percent more expensive than Naples, according to Italy’s National Institute for Statistics. Negotiating labor contracts at the national level also removes nearly all incentives to compromise. A union based in a single factory or company may want to make sure its employer remains profitable. National negotiators have different motives: a craving for the media exposure that stormy wage talks generate, a goal of imposing their left-wing ideology on talks, or a plan to use their success in high-level negotiations as a steppingstone into the lucrative political establishment. “It’s in our DNA that negotiations mean conflict,” says Giorgi Elefante, an analyst at PricewaterhouseCoopers in Milan.
The result is crippling. The World Economic Forum ranks Italy 123rd out of 142 countries in the efficiency of its labor market. Employers are robbed of their ability to innovate, from experimenting with hours of operations to introducing new forms of wage structures. Meanwhile, national strikes roll around like federal holidays—one every month or so and almost always on a Monday or Friday to guarantee participants a three-day weekend. On average, Italian workers spend almost six times as many hours on strike as their German counterparts, according to the European Industrial Relations Observatory. In the past decade productivity has remained flat, even as its neighbors to the north have continued to work more efficiently.
Italy’s tangled legislation and contentious industrial relations are responsible for many absurdities. Some banks, including No. 1 bank Intesa Sanpaolo, have offered workers who take early retirement an opportunity to nominate a family member to replace them.
Companies and workers often try to get around these laws. Italian companies are famously tiny—some 95 percent of the country’s businesses employ fewer than 10 workers. One reason they stay so small is that at that size they are exempt from the more arduous provisions of national union contracts.
Another way for a worker or small entrepreneur to avoid becoming entangled in red tape is to opt out of the formal economy altogether. Anywhere from 15 percent to 27 percent of economic activity is underground, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Monetary Fund. In this world, receipts are unheard of, taxes unpaid, and union rules don’t apply. Meanwhile, big multinationals can invest in friendlier environments. The country attracts less foreign direct investment as a percentage of gross domestic product than any other country in Europe except for Greece, according to the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development.

 

Employers have battled for years with the unions for greater flexibility. The result is a three-tiered labor force, a setup Italians dub “apartheid.” Of 27 million workers, 15 million—most 40-plus—enjoy stable jobs with guaranteed privileges. An additional 8 million, mostly younger, form a growing army of freelancers and employees on continuously rolled-over short-term contracts. They receive none of the benefits that would in theory be granted under the generous labor laws. The remainder, 4 million or so, toil in the unprotected underground economy, according to Italy’s National Institute for Statistics.
Those in the top tier cling to their jobs knowing that if they quit they’re unlikely to find another. Unlike in the U.S., where constant churn means jobs are continuously being opened and filled, in Italy the labor market has seized up. Workers can’t move where they’re most productive. Potential entrepreneurs don’t dare drop out of their regular jobs to launch startups, for fear they would not land another good position should they fail. And woe to those who clash with their boss; the flip side of protection from being fired is that it’s very hard to change employers.
As long as Europe and the U.S. held a technological edge over the developing world, Italian companies could afford some inefficiencies. Globalization now means a worker in Warsaw or Shenzhen is just as likely to be sitting at a modern workstation as his counterpart in Detroit or Torino. If Italy wants its workers to be paid more than those in emerging markets, it can’t afford a frozen labor market. “Normally, countries change to grow, to get better,” says Giovanni Fiori, a professor of business administration at Rome’s LUISS University. “We have to change not to die.”
Newly appointed Prime Minister Mario Monti must reform a country where free-market ideas don’t have a political base. Labor laws are, along with pensions, the third rail of Italian politics—literally deadly. Pietro Ichino, the senator who has spoken out strongly for labor reform, has lived under police protection ever since two professors of industrial relations were assassinated by left-wing terrorists because they advised the government on how to cut through the tangled labor laws.
There is one way to build public support for change. Italy supports a class of workers who, though universally despised, are the most pampered in the country. Most of the year they enjoy a roughly two-day workweek, for which they receive an aftertax salary of $90,000 per annum, plus a $5,500 living allowance and a similar sum for expenses. They get free plane and train tickets, meals subsidized by taxpayers, free seats at premier soccer games, and a generous pension that kicks in after just five years of service. They’re the country’s politicians. Any reform of Italy’s workforce will have to start with them.
The bottom line: With productivity flat and GDP growth near 1 percent, Italy must make hiring and firing its 15 million most protected workers easier.


businessweek


How Inequality Hurts the Economy

The gap between the rich and the rest makes for short recoveries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The public discussion about the widening gap between rich and poor hasn’t been this loud since the Great Depression. Warren Buffett has condemned the disparity, Occupy Wall Street has inveighed against it, President Barack Obama cites it to justify higher taxes on the wealthy. Much of the debate, though, has focused on inequality’s moral dimension. Somehow it just doesn’t seem right that so many Americans struggle while a handful prospers. What many are missing is the actual impact rising inequality is having on the U.S. economy. Hint: It isn’t good.
Since 1980 about 5 percent of annual national income has shifted from the middle class to the nation’s richest households. That means the wealthiest 5,934 households last year enjoyed an additional $650 billion beyond what they would have had if the economic pie had been divided as it was in 1980, according to Census Bureau data.
The typical U.S. household, meanwhile, has yet to regain the ground it lost during the recession. The median income of $49,445 at the end of 2010 remains a shade below the level reached in 1997, adjusted for inflation. “Income inequality in this country is just getting worse and worse and worse,” says James Chanos, president and founder of money managers Kynikos Associates. “And that is not a recipe for stable growth.”
In the 1960s economists such as the late Arthur M. Okun, who was chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, believed that societies could emphasize equality or growth, not both. Today, when the quality of the workforce plays a larger role in determining who prospers, many economists—including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke—now believe that equality and growth are linked. As Branko Milanovic, a World Bank economist, wrote in September: “Widespread education has become the secret to growth. And broadly accessible education is difficult to achieve unless a society has a relatively even income distribution.”
Thus the growing chasm in the U.S. between the haves and the have-nots has serious consequences. Societies that manage a narrower gap between rich and poor enjoy longer economic expansions, according to research published this year by the International Monetary Fund. Income trends in the U.S. mean that future U.S. expansions could last just one-third as long as in the late 1960s, before the income divide began widening, says economist Jonathan D. Ostry of the IMF. The average postwar economic boom lasted 4.8 years, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The current expansion, which is just 27 months old, may peter out within a few months. Goldman Sachs (GS) said on Oct. 3 that the U.S. would be “on the edge of recession” by early 2012.
Expansions fizzle sooner in less equal societies because they are more vulnerable to both financial crises and political instability. When such countries are hit by external shocks, they often stumble into gridlock rather than agree to tough policies needed to keep growth alive. Raghuram G. Rajan, the IMF’s former chief economist, says political systems in economically divided countries become polarized and immobilized by the sort of zero-sum politics now gripping Washington. “It makes the politics more difficult, and that makes it more difficult to grow,” says Rajan, now a finance professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. “There is no consensus on any of the solutions that are proposed.”
As rich and poor drift apart, the constituency that favors redistributive tax and spending policies grows. “The guys who are falling behind don’t see much hope of getting ahead and therefore are more focused on redistribution,” says Rajan. Ultimately, unbridled inequality threatens social stability as rich and poor nurse their mirror-image resentments.
Inequality is not just a problem for the have-nots. Barry Ritholtz, chief executive officer of the investment research firm Fusion IQ, says millions of potential investors may conclude, as they did after the Great Depression, that the market is a rigged game for insiders. Such seismic shifts in popular sentiment can have lasting effects. The Dow Jones industrial average didn’t regain its September 1929 peak of 355.95 until 1954. “You’re going to lose a generation of investors,” says Ritholtz. “And that’s how you end up with a 25-year bear market. That’s the risk if people start to think there is no economic justice.”
During the 1920s and the most recent decade the rich enjoyed large income gains, while politicians encouraged the poor and middle class to use credit to make up for flat-lining wage income, according to Rajan’s 2010 book, Fault Lines. Household debt nearly doubled in both periods, setting the stage for the Great Depression and the latest financial crisis, says a December 2010 paper by economists Michael Kumhof and Romain Rancière of the IMF. That increasing debt burden exposed the economy to widespread defaults when the financial shocks of 1929 and 2008 hit. “If nothing is done about income inequality, there may be recurring crises,” says Kumhof. “Leverage has not significantly improved. In terms of the danger of another crisis, we’re right back where we started.”
The bottom line: With $650 billion in income shifted to the top 5,934 households, the result could be shorter recoveries and gun-shy investors.


businessweek

Friday, May 6, 2011

Doubles down...

Two weeks after the earthquake, a Toyota in Sendai. Sales in Japan fell by nearly 70% Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters

While economic forces dictate more overseas plants, Toyota has recommitted to domestic production—for economic, political, and institutional reasons

By Drake Bennett
The village of Ohira is in Miyagi prefecture, 20 miles northwest of Sendai Bay, the stretch of Japan's coastline closest to the epicenter of the massive Mar.
11 earthquake. In recent years the area has become Toyota (TM) country, and car and car-supply plants dot the region. But in a year that has been hard on Toyota and cruel to Japan, Ohira has done O.K. In the Sendai Shiogama port, the tsunami crushed cars as if they were soda cans, scattered street lamps like lawn clippings, and left huge fishing trawlers beached on the docks among the blown-open shells of warehouses. Ohira itself, however, lies inland. Compared with the devastation along the coast, the damage the village suffered was mild: cracked walls, torqued pavement, a few utility poles listing to one side or the other.
Ohira, in short, was lucky, and not for the first time. The village has managed to escape much of the nation's economic stagnation, too. Unlike many Japanese towns, Ohira has good jobs to keep its young people from fleeing to Tokyo and Osaka. The population of 5,500 swells by more than 2,000 during the workday as commuters stream in. Oki Electric Industry, which makes servers and ATMs, has a factory in Ohira, as does zipper maker YKK. Corporate taxes account for 80 percent of the village's revenue.
It's Toyota that looms the largest, though. The automaker's Central Motor unit opened a plant here in January where 900 workers make Yaris compact cars. In the neighboring town of Taiwa, a wholly owned subsidiary called Toyota Tohoku makes brakes and suspensions. Taiwa is also home to a factory where Primearth EV Energy, a joint venture between Toyota and Panasonic, makes hybrid-car batteries. This island of job growth was only momentarily unsettled by the earthquake: Central Motors is in the process of transferring 400 more workers here from a plant near Tokyo, and the plant will soon add Corollas to its product line. Toyota Tohoku is going ahead with plans to build an engine factory next to its existing facility to meet the growing demand from the area's Toyota car plants.
To an extent, Ohira and Miyagi's dependence on Toyota reflects the nation's. The world's biggest carmaker is also Japan's largest company by sales and its biggest taxpayer. But what sets Toyota apart from other Japanese manufacturing giants, as much as its size and clout and cultural prominence, is its insistence on making things in Japan. Nissan, the next-largest Japanese auto manufacturer, makes just 30 percent of its cars in Japan. Honda, the third of the Big Three, makes only a quarter. By contrast, for Toyota the share was 60 percent in 2010, and half those vehicles were shipped abroad.
The Mar. 11 earthquake underlined one risk of concentrating so much production in a tectonically cursed nation. Even though Toyota's actual plants suffered little damage from the quake and tsunami, the power shortages and disruptions along Japanese supply chains hurt Toyota more than its Japanese competitors. Toyota's global output dropped 30 percent in March, while Honda's fell only 19 percent, and Nissan's actually increased, as its overseas plants were able to temporarily offset the drop at home.
By itself, an unprecedented natural calamity might not be an argument for Toyota to radically change its global strategy. But the company is also facing a pair of longer-term challenges: a shrinking domestic market and a stubbornly high yen that makes its cars more expensive outside Japan. Industry analysts say Toyota needs to speed up the process of moving overseas to stay competitive at a time when the chaos brought about by the earthquake and tsunami all but ensure it will lose its status as the world's No. 1 carmaker, for now in any case.
"For Toyota, economically it makes 100 percent sense to move their production in Japan overseas," says Koji Endo, an auto analyst at Advanced Research Japan. But that "obviously would pose at least a huge short-term impact in particular communities and a spillover impact on other industries as well," he adds. "It's probably not that big a problem for Honda or Nissan, but it's going to be a big problem for Toyota."
And yet in the wake of the disaster, Toyota has announced its intention to maintain its footprint in Japan. "[Chief Executive Officer] Akio Toyoda came here and told me personally that Toyota is not going anywhere," says Yuki Takahashi, the Miyagi official in charge of auto business development, in an interview in his office in the prefectural capital, Sendai. This vehemence is even more striking since the company revealed plans last year to cut a fifth of domestic production by 2015 and move more manufacturing to emerging markets.
Reflexively digging in now might seem a stubborn, even reckless stance for a company of Toyota's size and global reach. It might also just be PR. But the conflicting signals that Toyota has sent can be read as an illustration of how much its leadership is torn over moving more business overseas and the company's awareness of the stakes involved. Toyota, it turns out, has good reasons for keeping its center of gravity in Japan—some of them economic, some political, some institutional. The company's size brings added scrutiny to its decisions and pressure not to do anything that would cost Japan jobs. And being a truly Japanese car company is important for Toyota in ways that it is not for its rivals—it is woven through the company's famed corporate culture and the image it has assiduously cultivated among Japanese drivers and citizens. Taken together, these factors tie Toyota to its home country, even as economic forces pull it away. Understanding them helps explains how—and why—Toyota remains exceptional, and may only seem to be acting against its own best business interests by breaking with the competition and publicly recommitting to domestic manufacturing.


Toyota Motor was founded in 1936 by a young Japanese mechanical engineer named Kiichiri Toyoda at the behest of his father, the entrepreneur and inventor Sakichi Toyoda. The seed money was one million yen that the elder Toyoda had earned licensing his design for an automatic loom to an English textile company. More than the money, Sakichi Toyoda's legacy was a fervent faith in the abilities of Japanese engineers like himself. In his book Staying Power, Michael Cusumano, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, contrasts Toyota with Nissan, which was founded around the same time. Both companies drew heavily on American and English car designs, but while Nissan simply copied those plans wholesale and imported engineers to direct operations, Toyota reverse engineered the foreign models with the help of Japanese university professors and auto experts. The company carefully adapted the designs and production methods to the Japanese market—a smaller one than the U.S. that lacked, at the time, the industrial capacity to make many key parts in bulk.
Cusumano argues that this focus on "ingenuity and self-reliance" remains a central part of Toyota's culture. It is a key to the legendary efficiency of the company's production and the until recently industry-leading reliability of its cars. The determination to reinvent rather than simply copy automotive expertise was the first step in a long and relentless effort to improve on vehicles and the processes of making them, even when both were already considered state-of-the-art. The goal was to produce cars in Japan that were, in Kiichiro's words, both "cheaper and better than foreign imports."
While its production methods are celebrated and copied throughout the industry, sales and marketing prowess had as much to do with Toyota's rise, especially in Japan. The company did everything possible to make its cars ubiquitous and familiar. Early on, it focused on recruiting as many of General Motors' (GM) Japanese dealers as it could, to provide a national network of dealerships. And in the 1950s, Toyota started buying up driving schools. "As more Japanese became affluent and took up driving, their first exposure was often to a Toyota car," Cusumano writes. "Many of these people became lifelong Toyota customers." Toyota passed Nissan in 1951 as Japan's largest carmaker. Today it commands half the Japanese market.
That hegemony drove Toyota's Japanese competitors to look to overseas markets, and then to start making cars overseas, both to bring down transport costs and to curry favor with the governments of those countries. Toyota, on the other hand, was more conservative about making the jump. Honda started manufacturing Elsinore motorcycles in the U.S. in 1979; in 1983, Nissan opened a plant in Smyrna, Tenn. Toyota brought production to the U.S. a year later but hedged its bets. The first American plant was a joint venture called Nummi (for New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.) in Fremont, Calif., where Toyota managers taught GM workers how to make cars "the Toyota way." For GM it was a way to learn about the legendary Toyota Production System—with its tenets of "kaizen," or continuous improvement; just-in-time inventory; and "jidoka," the idea that any worker is encouraged to stop the production line if he spots a problem. For Toyota, Nummi was a pilot project to find out whether that production system could in fact be adapted to American autoworkers and their unions.
Since then, even as Toyota has built multiple plants in the U.S. and other overseas markets, the company has kept the majority of its high-end production—the Prius and most of the Lexus line—at home. Cultural chauvinism could be part of this decision. Toyota's North American plants, after all, have exemplary records, and tend to lead regional quality surveys. In those same surveys, however, the plants judged to be the best in the world are still Japanese. The J.D. Power and Associates (MHP) initial quality survey, which identifies the factories producing the cars with the fewest defects and malfunctions, has chosen Toyota plants in Japan for its "platinum" award for best on the planet in 10 out of the last 15 years.
"There's no question that if you want to see the best Toyota production system in the world, you go to Japan. That's still the case," says Jeff Liker, a professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan and the author of several books on Toyota. "If you want to see them making parts in true just-in-time, delivering every two hours with almost no inventory in the system, and the quality almost perfect, you'll see that in Japan. It's just a little bit of a different level." What it takes 1.2 workers to do in an American plant, he estimates, one worker does in Japan.
"They've kaizen-ed and kaizen-ed and kaizen-ed the jobs. There's so little waste, it's just remarkable," he says. "If you think about a really good drummer playing a solo, that's what these workers look like."
Toyota's Japanese plants also benefit from a dense, tight-knit network of domestic parts suppliers. Rather than shop around for the cheapest acceptable option as American carmakers have traditionally done, the carmaker collaborates closely with prospective suppliers to bring their quality up to the level it demands, and continues to work with them to improve quality and pare cost. And while the carmaker does pit its suppliers against each other in this quest, it rarely drops one altogether. The Toyota Tohoku plant in Taiwa, according to its managing director, Kozo Sakurai, worked with a small die-cast manufacturer in nearby Iwaki for three years before it began accepting their parts.
The result, in Liker's description, can seem more like a family—if a slightly autocratic one—than a web of commercial relationships. Smaller Japanese automakers also have their supply networks, or keiretsu, but because of its size, Toyota can offer exclusivity and demand greater loyalty. The strength of the bonds is such that, when Toyota's sole supplier of a crucial brake valve burned to the ground in 1997, the company was able to assemble a team of representatives from other suppliers in a war room with the blueprints for the part and, working feverishly, cobble together an alternate production line. The carmaker's plants were back up and running again in a mere five days, even though the process involved designing and producing new manufacturing equipment. Only afterward was there any talk of payment. It was, The Wall Street Journal wrote a few months later, "the corporate equivalent of an Amish barn-raising."
This unquestioned sense of mutual obligation is what gives Toyota faith that it can recover quickly from this latest disaster, and it is what the company may lose in moving overseas too aggressively. The decision to move more production to Miyagi—where wages are lower than in the Tokyo and Nagoya areas—can be seen through this lens. The shift allows the company to cut costs but still draw on a Japanese labor pool and network of parts suppliers who share the cultural assumptions that undergird the company philosophy.
Toyota has done its utmost to recreate a keiretsu network in the overseas markets where it now produces cars. And though it has succeeded in exporting the structures and many of the norms it cultivated in Japan, there have been shortfalls. Recent quality problems can be traced, at least in one instance, to a supplier: Because of rusting in frames provided by Ohio-based Dana Holding Corp., Toyota instituted a buyback program for its 1995-2000 Tacoma pickups in 2008, and defective Dana driveshafts led to a Tacoma recall last year. (The higher-profile recalls related to faulty floor mats and sticking accelerators, Toyota spokesman Paul Nolasco points out, were design problems, not production problems, and therefore unconnected to where the cars in question were manufactured.)
"Part of the reason that they have had so much difficulty with quality is precisely because they've grown very rapidly and spread all over the world," argues Wallace Hopp, a professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business. "Their production base isn't as tight-knit as it once was." The recalls, he suggests, and the recent slippage of Toyota cars in quality rankings are likely to make the company more reluctant to move further production overseas. "When you hear Toyota say 'We're committed to Japan,' it's not just because they're altruistic and loyal Japanese citizens," says Hopp. "They're committed to Japan because they created a colossus there, and they want to take as much advantage as they can going forward."


Arrayed against this advantage are two forces: the high yen and the low Japanese birthrate. Right now the exchange rate is 80 yen to the dollar—two years ago it was 100 yen to the dollar, four years ago it was 120. Toyota estimates that every additional yen of appreciation against the dollar cuts 30 billion yen from the company's earnings.
Demographic trends look even less tractable. With one of the world's lowest birthrates as well as one of its lowest immigration rates, Japan's population is shrinking. That is not good news for large companies that hire Japanese workers or make money selling to the domestic mass market. And as the Japanese market shrinks, it makes less and less sense to keep making cars at home only to ship them overseas to where people are actually buying them.
"Five years from now, will a greater fraction of Toyota's manufacturing happen outside Japan than today? The clear answer is yes," says Sunil Chopra, a supply chain expert who teaches at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management. That means, some analysts argue, not only building more plants overseas but shuttering them at home. "I think it makes sense for everybody, including Toyota, to close some capacity in Japan," says Endo of Advanced Research Japan.
None of these arguments have much traction with the company itself. While Toyota is pushing to build more cars outside Japan, it insists the new capacity will be to meet new overseas demand, not replace Japanese production. "[M]aking more overseas has not meant making less in Japan," Toyota spokesman Paul Nolasco wrote in an e-mail, declining to make an executive available to discuss the matter. "[N]ot only does Toyota not have plans to move production away from Japan, there are no collective worries of which I am aware that Toyota might possibly do so," he wrote.
Even if leaving Japan didn't run counter to so much of Toyota's history and culture, the company's size brings its own political pressure. Toyota directly employs over 70,000 people in Japan, and several times that if one counts subsidiary plants and dealerships and the parts suppliers it keeps in business. After Renault bought Nissan, the new CEO, Carlos Ghosn, closed five Nissan plants. "It didn't have so much of an impact on the Japanese market," says Endo. "If Toyota decides to close two or three, it would be a huge impact on the Japanese market and on the economy as a whole."
Toyota in Japan today is in a similar position to GM in the U.S. in the 1960s, when it, too, controlled half its home market. Companies that big and that iconic become more than just companies. They're expected to serve political and social and symbolic purposes as well. They become bigger targets. GM made some poor decisions, and its problems are not those of Toyota, but the company's decline, Cusumano argues, was partly preordained by its dominance. "The unions always targeted GM because it was the biggest kid on the block, and its agreements were much less favorable than the ones at Ford Motor (F) or even Chrysler. It would be under pressure from government regulators to maintain employment and contracts. Over time it hurt [GM's] ability to be competitive. Over time it wore them down," he says.
"The big question for Toyota," says Cusumano, "is how much of these social responsibilities can they realistically take on and still remain a pillar of the economy."
With Yuki Hagiwara and Makiko Kitamura. Bennett is a staff writer for Bloomberg Businessweek.






Commodity prices remain volatile after sharp fall

Commodity prices have seen large swings, falling sharply at first before fully recovering.

 
Brent crude oil initially fell 5.8% to $105.15 a barrel, adding to an 8.6% drop on Thursday, before recovering to above $110 by mid-afternoon.
The rebound in the price of major raw materials was given a boost by strong US jobs data, which also pushed European stock markets up by nearly 1%.
The volatility comes a day after one of the biggest market sell-offs in years.
The sell-off affected most types of commodity.
Industrial metals saw further sharp swings on Friday. Copper futures fell a further 1.75%, following a 6% slide a day earlier, before recovering.
Meanwhile, the price of US sweet, light crude oil fell a further 5.5% on Friday morning to $94.63 a barrel, but then recovered to above $99.
Shares resilient
Prices of precious metals - such as gold and silver - held steady during the morning, despite having previously followed other commodities sharply lower during Thursday's market rout.
However, silver prices suffered another wobble, briefly down 5%. The price of silver has fallen more than 30% since it hit an all-time high last week.
Stock markets also proved resilient. After falling slightly at the start of trade, European stock markets recovered and pushed higher, rising further when figures showed that more jobs than expected had been created in the US in April.
Thursday's commodity price rout was prompted by disappointing data on US benefit claims and German industrial orders.
The dollar also remained stable against other currencies on Friday, in contrast with Thursday, when a sharp rise in the greenback contributed towards the fall in commodity prices, which are measured in dollars.

Brent Crude Oil Futures $/barrel

Last Updated at 06 May 2011, 16:15 GMT *Chart shows local time

 price          change        %
 111.21       +0.41­­      +0.37

'Scary' correction 
Analysts warn the volatility in the markets could remain.
"When you have this kind of damage, it will take several weeks, or maybe several months... for confidence to be rebuilt," said Dennis Gartman, author of a markets guide.
"It's not the end of the commodities cycle, not even close. You still have to call this a correction. It's a sizable one and scared the heck out of everybody."
However, other analysts suggest that it could mark the beginning of a more sustained fall.
Emma Pinnock, energy analyst at Inenco, sees the oil price dropping back below $100 a barrel within days if not sooner, as markets realign supply and demand.
"Ultimately the price increases that we saw of almost 12% since the beginning of 2011, due to instability in the Middle East, the Japanese earthquake and the nuclear crisis, were not sustainable," she said.
"The poor economic data released from the US and Europe has confirmed fears that the recent high commodity prices could affect global demand."


bbc.co

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Shell profits rise on oil prices


Royal Dutch Shell has announced a 41% increase in first quarter profits on the back of higher world oil prices.

The Anglo-Dutch company said profits for the first three months of the year were $6.9bn (£4.1bn) compared with $4.9bn a year ago.
"We are making good progress against our targets, to deliver a more competitive performance," said chief executive Peter Voser.
On Wednesday, rival BP reported first quarter profits of $5.5bn.
BP's profits were down slightly from the same period last year. Production in the quarter was down 11% after BP sold assets to help pay for the cost of cleaning up last year's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Production target
As well as higher oil prices, Shell said asset sales and cost saving measures had also contributed to its profitability in the first quarter.
In March, the firm set out a new $100bn investment programme to meet demand for oil and gas.
It has set a production target of 3.7 million barrels of gas and oil per day by 2014.
Shell is one of the world's major suppliers of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The firm said it had started commercial production at its Qatargas 4 LNG facility.
As a consequence of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, demand for LNG is expected to increase as nuclear power there is scaled back.