Tuesday 26th July 2016
NEWS TICKER: JULY 25TH 2016: Moody's says that Vedanta Ltd's (unrated) revised merger terms with Cairn India Ltd. (unrated) have no immediate impact on Vedanta Resources plc's B2 corporate family rating (CFR), Caa1 senior unsecured notes rating and negative outlook. While the revised terms entail a rise in debt/cash out flow of an estimated $447m -- compared to $120munder the original terms -- they will give Vedanta Ltd. complete access to Cairn India's large cash holdings, as well as provide the flexibility to reduce debt, thereby lowering leverage and reducing subordination within the group. As such, the successful execution of the merger, to the extent that it leads to de-leveraging, will be credit positive. Positive rating implications could emerge if adjusted leverage improved to less than 4.5x on a sustained basis. Should the merger proceed as announced -- subject to approval, in some cashless, all-stock transaction -- minority shareholders will receive one equity share and four 7.5% preference shares in Vedanta Ltd. for every share held in Cairn India. Shareholders will have the option of redeeming the preference shares within 30 days, or holding until maturity for 18 months. Following completion of the transaction, Vedanta Resources' shareholding in its subsidiary Vedanta Ltd will fall to 50.1% from 62.9%. At the end of June this year, Cairn India had $3.5 billion in cash and no external debt outstanding." Although delayed from the initial announcement in June 2015, the revised terms are a step forward in the merger proceedings -- the merger will provide Vedanta Ltd. better access to Cairn India's large cash balances of $3.5 billion, as previous access was only possible through the up-streaming of dividends," says Kaustubh Chaubal a Moody's Vice President and Senior Analyst. - The World Bank is beginning work on a new project, aimed at supporting the poorer regions of Poland by better utilising European Union funds made available to the country through the European Union Financial Framework 2014-2020. Representatives from Podkarpackie and Świętokrzyskie, the two regions selected for this work, will cooperate with experts from the World Bank, the Ministry of Development, and the European Commission during this project. The project - part of a European Commission initiative - will also include two regions in Romania. Poland and Romania are the first to implement this pilot project, whose objective is to increase the absorption of European Union funds and support socioeconomic development at the local level. “We are happy that we will be able to use our global experience, as well as our knowledge of the conditions in Poland, to support the Polish authorities in developing the country’s lagging regions,” says Arup Banerji, World Bank regional director for European Union countries - The Straits Times Index (STI) ended 4.87 points or 0.17% higher to 2945.35, taking the year-to-date performance to +2.17%. The top active stocks today were Singtel, which gained 1.66%, DBS, which declined 0.06%, Wilmar Intl, which declined 0.97%, UOB, which gained0.26% and ComfortDelGro, with a1.73% fall. The FTSE ST Mid Cap Index declined 0.84%, while the FTSE ST Small Cap Index declined0.24%. Elsewhere in Asia, Taiwan stocks retreat from over 1-year high; TSMC down. Taiwan stocks retreated from more-than-one-year highs on Monday as investors took profits on recent winners such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The main index fell 0.6 percent at 8,954.58 points. It reached as high as 9,085.91 earlier in the session, an intraday level not seen since July 2015. The electronics subindex and the financial sub-index were both down about 0.7%. TSMC, the world's top contract chip maker, was off nearly 1%. The yen traded weaker with trade data showing better than expected figures though exports and imports declined notably ahead of a week that will see the Fed and the Bank of Japan comment on monetary policy. The adjusted trade balance came in at a surplus of ¥33bn while and imports eased 18.8%, less than the 19.7% drop expected and exports fell 7.4%, less than the 11.6% decline anticipated. The overall trade balance came in at a surplus of ¥693bn, better than the ¥495bn expected. USD/JPY changed hands at 106.32, up 0.18%, while AUD/USD traded at 0.7478, up 0.17%. GBP/USD traded at 1.3135, up 0.19%. -- Rangold Resources will be announcing its Q2 results at the London Stock Exchange on Thursday, August 4th – Most equity markets kicked off higher today, buoyed by the firm tone of the G-20 Finance Ministers meeting which promised “to use all policy tools –monetary, fiscal and structural- individually and collectively” to achieve the goal of “sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth” in view of lingering concerns over spillover effects from Brexit. Central bank meetings will be the focus of market attention this week. The Fed is widely expected to leave its monetary policy unchanged this week. However, a recent string of better than expected U.S. data reignited speculation that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates before the end of the year. Interest rate futures are currently pricing in a 45% chance of a rate hike by December, compared with less than 20% a week ago and up from 9% at the start of this month. The Fed monetary oversight committee starts its two-day meeting tomorrow. However, the story this week will focus on the Bank of Japan: will it, won’t it expand its monetary policy, without ‘helicopter money’? According to Russell Matthews, a portfolio manager at Russell Matthews, “Core government bond markets have largely moved sideways and very short dated US rates have repriced the probability of a Federal Reserve interest rate hike in 2016 meaningfully higher. Corporate bonds have continued to perform well as the insatiable demand for yield is unabated, with spreads compressing in all sectors… Rate and sovereign credit have had a good run of late but the question we are asking ourselves is are we at the point where policy makers and investors have become complacent? Our mantra has always been that policy makers are likely to be lazy and under deliver if there is no pressure from markets. We have been through two major risk events in the last six weeks (Brexit, Turkey) and risk assets have continued to perform. We expected and anticipated this outcome, but that does not prevent us from becoming uneasy at the level of calm that we are witnessing, and the growing confidence that the market has with policy makers.” The other trend on investors’ minds will be the EU’s stance on Italy’s growing banking crisis: will the EU stick its ostrich like head in the sand? Elsewhere in Europe, Greek Minister of Finance Euclid Tsakalotos stated in an interview on Saturday that the primary surplus targets until 2018 are attainable and the government will not have to activate the automatic spending cuts mechanism. Beyond 2018 and in the medium term, however, the Greek government will pursue through negotiations primary surplus targets below 3.5% of GDP -

Latest Video

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 Issue

TWITTER FEED