Saturday 18th April 2015
NEWS TICKER FRIDAY APRIL 17TH 2015: -On June 9, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop to examine competition, consumer protection, and economic issues raised by the proliferation of online and mobile peer-to peer business platforms in certain sectors of the economy, often referred to as the “sharing economy.” The workshop will take place in Washington, D.C., at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference space. Peer-to-peer platforms, which enable suppliers and consumers to connect and do business, have led to the emergence of new business models in industries that have been subject to regulation. The FTC’s sharing economy workshop will explore how regulatory frameworks can accommodate new sharing economy business models while maintaining appropriate consumer protections and a competitive marketplace. “We are seeing a dramatic growth in products and services that are built on peer-to-peer platforms, such as ride-sharing and property rentals, as more entrepreneurs harness the power of technology to reach more consumers,” says FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The resulting business models have great potential to benefit our economy and consumers. Through our workshop, we want to better understand the competitive impact of these new business models, as well as their interactions with existing regulatory frameworks.” - he Straits Times Index (STI) ended 6.42 points or 0.18% lower to 3525.19, taking the year-to-date performance to +4.76%. The top active stocks today were Keppel Corp, which declined 2.01%, DBS, which gained 0.91%, SingTel, which gained 0.23%, UOB, which gained 0.38% and ComfortDelGro, with a 1.70% advance. The FTSE ST Mid Cap Index fell 0.30%, while the FTSE ST Small Cap Index rose 0.06%. The outperforming sectors today were represented by the FTSE ST Utilities Index, which rose 1.60%. The two biggest stocks of the Index - United Envirotech and Hyflux – ended 5.12% higher and 2.09% lower respectively. The underperforming sector was the FTSE ST Basic Materials Index, which slipped 1.82%. Midas Holdings shares declined 2.56% and Geo Energy Resources remained unchanged - It has been a testing day in the markets, with most stock markets reporting substantial losses. The spectre of another crisis in Greece as the IMF talked tough on the country adhering to its repayment schedule, a terminal outage at Bloomberg and a clampdown on OTC and short selling in China combined to test investor sentiment. The FTSE 100, fell briefly below 7000 to end up finding support at 7007; however Spain's Ibex and Italy's FTSE MIB were both 2% down while the German DAX 30 slid 1.8% and France's CAC 40 fell 1.2% - The outage impacted the UK DMO’s offer of £300m 1 month bill, due 18-May-2015(ISIN GB00BDNKWT09); the £1,000m 3-months bill due 20-Jul-2015 (ISIN GB00BDNLZ833), and the £1,500m 6-months bill due 19-Oct-2015 (ISIN GB00BDNNDG38) was conducted between midday and14.30 today. Any bids submitted in the aborted operation earlier this morning were deemed null and void - Catastrophe bond issuance is forecast to have risen almost 30% so far this year, though the size of the market remains modest. The increase in demand for cat bonds means that some bonds are now trading at a discount to their original issue price for the first time in years. Issuance for the year through to mid-April is predicted to be up 27% on 2014, at around $2.1bn, The full-year trend also looks positive, following on from a record cat bond issuance of $8.4bn in 2014 - Moody's Investors Service has described in detail the approach it takes to allocating expected credit losses across the various classes of debt issued by banks in the US, the EU and Switzerland. The liability hierarchy or "waterfall" that Moody's employs to allocate estimated losses to debt classes in these three jurisdictions incorporates the implications of key structural differences in their bank resolution and bail-in frameworks. In this way, the liability hierarchy aims to capture the prioritisation authorities will give different debt classes when apportioning losses to creditors in the event of a bank's failure. The construction of a given bank's liability structure at failure serves as the starting point of Moody's Loss Given Failure (LGF) analysis, instituted as part of its new bank rating methodology. The LGF framework is used to assess and differentiate creditor risk across banks' liability structures, as detailed in Moody's report "How Resolution Frameworks Drive Our Creditor Hierarchies." The bank resolution and bail-in frameworks in the US, EU, and Switzerland all aim to limit the use of public funds in bank resolutions while mitigating risks to financial stability. Important differences in these frameworks include the degree of power authorities have to write down or convert capital instruments, differences in depositor preference, and variations in the obligations of holding companies to their operating companies - Close Brothers has reportedly acquired advisory firm Mackay Stewart & Brown for an undisclosed amount. Andy Cumming, head of advice at Close Brothers Asset Management, said the acquisition would strengthen the national advice firm’s Scottish operation.

Blog

The European Review

By Patrick Artus, chief economist at Natixis

What kind of economy would the euro zone be without Germany?

Thursday, 28 June 2012 Written by 
What kind of economy would the euro zone be without Germany? There is increasing talk about establishing federalist mechanisms (eurobonds, eurobills) and pooling certain risks and investments between euro-zone countries (European bank guarantees, recapitalisation of banks by the EFSF-ESM, increased investments by the EIB, EFSF-ESM access to ECB funding, purchases of government bonds by the ECB). Germany's criticism of these proposals is that they ultimately place all the costs and all the risks on Germany, due to its economic, fiscal and financial situation and its credibility in financial markets. It is claimed that eventually all the bills will be sent to Germany, since the other euro area countries have no fiscal or financial leeway or any credibility to guarantee deposits and loans. We shall therefore examine the economy of the euro zone excluding Germany and ask the question: Is it in such a bad situation that federalism or the pooling of risks and investments between euro-zone countries would in fact amount to potentially placing the entire burden on Germany? We think that Germany’s fears are justified. http://www.ftseglobalmarkets.com/

There is increasing talk about establishing federalist mechanisms (eurobonds, eurobills) and pooling certain risks and investments between euro-zone countries (European bank guarantees, recapitalisation of banks by the EFSF-ESM, increased investments by the EIB, EFSF-ESM access to ECB funding, purchases of government bonds by the ECB). Germany's criticism of these proposals is that they ultimately place all the costs and all the risks on Germany, due to its economic, fiscal and financial situation and its credibility in financial markets. It is claimed that eventually all the bills will be sent to Germany, since the other euro area countries have no fiscal or financial leeway or any credibility to guarantee deposits and loans.

We shall therefore examine the economy of the euro zone excluding Germany and ask the question: Is it in such a bad situation that federalism or the pooling of risks and investments between euro-zone countries would in fact amount to potentially placing the entire burden on Germany?

We think that Germany’s fears are justified.

Federalism: pooling between euro-zone countries

The resolution of the euro-zone crisis will inevitably involve establishing certain forms of federalism (eurobonds, eurobills) and the pooling of certain investments and risks (a European bank guarantee system, the recapitalisation of the banks (e.g. Spanish banks) by the EFSF-ESM, an increase in structural funds or investments by the EIB, ESM access to ECB funding).



The pooling of risks between euro-zone countries already exists: the Target 2 accounts are a pooling of bank risks among euro-zone central banks, and purchases of government bonds by the ECB pool sovereign risk.

This trend to federalism and pooling is inevitable: in a monetary union without federalism, countries with external surpluses and countries with external deficits cannot coexist permanently due to the resulting accumulation of external debt.

A number of financing needs are too substantial to be borne by a single country, e.g. for Spain the need for recapitalisation of its banks. And a number of risks (e.g. the risk of a bank run) are also too great not to be pooled.

Is this move towards federalism and pooling a trap for Germany?

The view in Germany is clearly that this move towards federalism and pooling is a trap for Germany. It is claimed that Germany will have to cover most of the costs because it has public finances in good health, growth that is now stronger, higher living standards than the countries in distress, and excess savings.

Germany also has strong credibility in financial markets, as shown by its interest rate level, and it is the only country to be able to credibly insure risks and guarantee loans.

The Germans' concern is therefore understandable: if there is federalism and a pooling of investments and risks, will Germany "receive all the bills"?

To determine whether this is a real risk, let’s examine the situation of the euro zone without Germany: is it such a worrying region, will it have to be propped up permanently by Germany?

The economic and financial situation of the euro zone without Germany: Is it serious?

Without going into greater detail for each country, we shall examine:

·                   its competitiveness, the foreign trade situation; the weight of industry;

·                   its situation regarding its technological level, skills, productivity and investment; its potential growth;

·                   the situation of its businesses and households;

·                   its public finances.

1. Foreign trade, competitiveness, weight of industry

The euro zone without Germany has:

·                   a structural external deficit;

·                   a shortfall in competitiveness;

·                   a small industrial base;

·                   a large external debt.

2. Technological level, skills, investment, productivity and potential growth, capacity for job creation

The technological level of the euro zone without Germany is fairly low, as is the population's level of education; this zone invests little, has low productivity gains, and since 2008 it has destroyed jobs massively.

3. Situation of businesses and households

Corporate profitability in the euro zone excluding Germany is low, but private (corporate and household) debt is lower than in Germany; however, household solvency has deteriorated (in Germany, household defaults are low and stable; in France, Spain and Italy, they are high and rising).

4. Public finance situation

The public finances of the euro zone excluding Germany are in a very poor state compared with Germany. Indeed Germany’s debt to GDP ratio is expected to fall, while in the euro zone excluding Germany it should rise rapidly toward 100%; Germany has a 1% primary surplus, while the euro zone excluding Germany has a 2% primary deficit.

Conclusion: Are the German fears justified?

If the euro zone were to become a federal monetary union, with solidarity between countries and pooling of certain investments (recapitalisation of banks, for example) and risks, surely the rest of the euro zone excluding Germany could only be:

·                   benefiting from transfers from Germany;

·                   benefiting from Germany's credibility in the markets;

·                   benefiting from Germany's guarantee;

Or could it share this burden with Germany? We suspect that the burden on Germany would be very heavy.

Patrick Artus

A graduate of Ecole Polytechnique, of Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Adminstration Economique and of Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, Patrick Artus is today the Chief Economist at Natixis. He began his career in 1975 where his work included economic forecasting and modelisation. He then worked at the Economics Department of the OECD (1980), before becoming Head of Research at the ENSAE. Thereafter, Patrick taught seminars on research at Paris Dauphine (1982) and was Professor at a number of Universities (including Dauphine, ENSAE, Centre des Hautes Etudes de l'Armement, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées and HEC Lausanne).

Patrick is now Professor of Economics at University Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. He combines these responsibilities with his research work at Natixis. Patrick was awarded "Best Economist of the year 1996" by the "Nouvel Economiste", and today is a member of the council of economic advisors to the French Prime Minister. He is also a board member at Total and Ipsos.

Website: cib.natixis.com/research/economic.aspx

Related News

Related Articles

Related Blogs

Related Videos

Current IssueSpecial Report

Tweets by @DataLend

DataLend is a global securities finance market data provider covering 42,000+ unique securities globally with a total on-loan value of more than $1.8 trillion.

What do our tweets mean? See: http://bit.ly/18YlGjP