Showing posts with label Tim Geithner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Geithner. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Geithner Could Label China As A Currency Manipulator Come April

The Greek debacle has been dying down a bit after attempts by bigger EU nations to placate the markets. While the Greece situation is still dicey, it is still in ICU but showing signs of life and recovery. Now we have a new looming "bear factor" coming to play with a fixed deadline, mid-April.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk243/sgdaily2/judaha073.jpg

There have been furious behind the scenes negotiations that have basically gone nowhere. Now the discussions, opinions and grouses are being publicly aired - obviously after the secretive discussions went nowhere, the US BSDs will have to air their attempts to the democratic Senate, telling them that they have tried. Just weeks before he makes a decision whether to label China a "currency manipulator," which could trigger tougher action against Beijing, Geithner said last week that Beijing should allow its yuan currency, which is virtually pegged to the US dollar, to appreciate in a reflection of market expectations.

"We can't force them to make that change. But it is very important that they let it start to appreciate again," he said.

Some experts believe the Chinese currency is undervalued against the dollar by up to 40 percent. The United States and China's other trading partners claim that it gives the Asian giant an unfair trade advantage by making Chinese exports cheaper. US lawmakers have called on Geithner to label China a "currency manipulator" in a mid-April US Treasury report, as they demanded Beijing to revalue the yuan.

The exchange rate is the most important factor in determining U.S. export competitiveness. Every increase of 1 percent in the dollar, averaged against other major currencies, reduces US exports by about $20 billion annually and destroys about 150,000 jobs. The recurrent overvaluations of the past 30 years, when the dollar became overpriced by 30 to 40 percent, contributed significantly to the decline in manufacturing jobs and was the major cause of the huge current account deficits of most of that period.

The policy goal should be a competitive exchange rate that produces a sustainable trade balance, rather than a "strong dollar." Fortunately, the decline of the dollar since 2002 has virtually restored equilibrium in its value against most other industrial countries' currencies.

Fred Bergsten said that the remaining large misalignment is the undervaluation of at least 25 percent of China's renminbi and the currencies of several important economies surrounding it (Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan). How to make a correct statement but with all the wrong examples. Yes, the HKD is undervalued but its not their active manipulation that causes that, OMG its been pegged to the USD for 20 years - if anything it just shows that HK has been a lot more competitive and productive using the same currency.

Singapore is not overvalued, if anything they have let their currency to appreciate as they wanted to be progressive and hive off the labour intensive industries. So Fred's very wrong there. As for Malaysia, well he is right on the dot. As much as the yuan is undervalued, Bank Negara has been keeping the ringgit in step with the yuan for the past 5-7 years. BN is more concerned on pricing Malaysia's industrial competitiveness rather than letting the ringgit appreciate on its own. Taiwan's currency is also slightly undervalued but nowhere as much as the ringgit. Of in my view, if the yuan is 40% undervalued to the USD, the ringgit is about half that.

If China continues to block any rise of the renminbi, the administration should label it a currency manipulator and escalate pressure, including by taking China to the World Trade Organization.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk243/sgdaily2/judaha074.jpg

Obama has entered into negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership with seven Asia Pacific nations, a group that could shortly expand to include a critical mass of countries in that region and eventually evolve into the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific that President George W. Bush proposed in 2006. The administration should aim to conclude these talks when the United States hosts the annual summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in 2011.

The Obama's administration should abandon its plan to increase taxes on the overseas activities of U.S. firms because their foreign investments clearly increase U.S. exports. Several modest tax reforms could enhance our international competitiveness, including to attract direct investment here by foreign companies that would then access many of their global markets from the United States and create jobs here.

The administration and Congress must avoid hurting U.S. competitiveness when they inevitably move to raise tax revenue substantially over the next few years to help curb the budget deficit. Increases in corporate income tax rates would jeopardize exports by raising U.S. production costs. By contrast, a value-added tax or national retail sales tax, or better yet a gasoline or carbon tax, could be fully rebated at the border on exports (and imposed at the border on imports) and thus avoid such harm. Positive export and job expansion would be fostered by replacing some or all of our current income tax system with these alternative devices.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk243/sgdaily2/judaha041.jpg

In the past a rising renminbi hasn’t reduced China’s surplus, the United States can’t produce many of the goods it now imports from China
, so most of the jobs won't get shipped back even if the yuan is revalued 20%. In many cases, Chinese exports compete with those of other developing nations. If the renminbi rises, those nations would become more competitive – and would also find their currencies appreciating against the dollar, offering new channels for onshoring.
China is an economy in the process of rapid transformation – exactly the circumstances in which a real exchange rate that makes sense one year may be way off base just a few years later.

The U.S. administration feels that the policy of keeping quiet on China and instead engaging its leaders privately has failed. The U.S. grudgingly accepted for a while that China was bound to re-peg in the middle of the economic and financial storm of 2008-09 as it was rapidly losing exports and experiencing a sharp growth slowdown.

A formal U.S. statement that China is a currency manipulator would not trigger automatic U.S. trade sanctions against China; rather, it would lead to a negotiation process that bilaterally—or possibly multilaterally with the IMF—would rectify the situation. Trade sanctions would be the eventual outcome of failed negotiations. In fact, it could take the better part of a year for disputes to be lodged with the WTO and trade sanctions imposed. But certainly even a formal U.S. statement that China is a currency manipulator would significantly raise trade tensions and nervousness in financial markets about a trade war.

The real-estate boom is turning into a bubble, with home prices rising more than 32% in the largest cities in the last year alone. Ghost towns are popping up all over China as the increase in the supply of commercial real estate, with vacancy rates in office space of 20% in Beijing and 16% in Shanghai, and of residential real estate, especially at the high end of the market, is becoming serious. Even in infrastructure, China has advanced too far for a country at its level of development, as evidenced by empty highways to nowhere, bullet trains that no one uses and fancy, empty new airports.No country in the world is productive enough to take almost 50% of GDP every year, reinvest it into more physical capital stock to produce more goods and services and not end up with a glut of capacity that will eventually cause low returns, rising nonperforming loans and rising implicit liabilities for the public sector.

Letting the currency appreciate is key for achieving the stated goal of increasing consumption's share of GDP.The financial market consequences of such a move could be significant: If the decision is unexpected, global stock markets could fall by several percentage points once the ugly M word is uttered by the U.S. Treasury. And so far, financial markets don’t seem to be pricing in such an outcome. History suggests that even threats of trade protectionism can sharply move financial markets. Take 1987: The U.S. had a very large current account deficit, in spite of the dollar falling since 1985, and the major U.S. trade partners (Japan and Germany, which were running a large surplus with the U.S.) were resisting the U.S. push for further rapid appreciation of their currencies against the U.S. dollar. On a Sunday morning, as tensions were rising, then-U.S. Treasury Secretary James Baker appeared in a TV interview and implicitly threatened a trade war if Germany and Japan were to resist further appreciation of their currencies. The next day, the Dow Jones index fell by 20% in the infamous October 1987 stock market crash.


p/s photos: Ju Daha

Monday, February 16, 2009

Opinions On Bad Bank Idea


    Overview: Geithner aims to add private funding as a new component of proposals to address the toxic debt clogging banks’ balance sheets next to government guarantees of ring-fenced toxic assets. Aspects of the plan that have been settled include a new round of injections of taxpayer funds into banks, targeted at those identified by regulators as most in need of new capital. Previously, the comprehensive solution that aimed at keeping banks in private hands as outlined in Tim Geithner's confirmation hearing was the set-up of an 'aggregator bank' that buys toxic assets. The main sticking point is the toxic asset valuation issue--> markets gain on prospect of easing mark-to-market accounting rules. Major headache is systemic impact of too-big-to-fail banks. Treasury will outline action plan on February 10.

  • Amount of toxic assets: WSJ says combination of guarantee and aggegator bank likely, with the latter buying about $2 trillion in toxic assets. Compare with size of U.S. originated shadow banking system pushing for re-intermediation and access to central bank liquidity is $10 trillion (see Geithner speech June 9). Of these, about $6T in U.S., $4t abroad according to Fed research based on flow of funds data (compare with Goldman estimates (not online) that amount of toxic assets in U.S. is at $5.7T). Moreover, IMF notes in October GFSR that $10T is the likely amount of asset deleveraging at global banks. Simon Johnson estimates U.S. bank rescue will cost $3-4T with net cost to taxpayer of about $1-2T or range of 5-10% of GDP as in past banking crises (via Fortune).
  • RGE: for U.S. banks: $1.1T in total loan losses, $600-700bn in current mark-to-market losses based on derivatives and cash bond prices. Compare with Chris Whalen (IRA) estimate for accumulated bank charge offs for 2009 in the neighborhood of $1 trillion vs. $1.5 trillion in Tier 1 Risk Based Capital at all US banks. "The good news, though, is that 2/3 to 3/4 of that loss number comes from the top 4 - Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorganChase and Wells Fargo, in that order of risk profile."
  • Industry proposal with private sector involvement (via Fortune): The idea, as drafted and as articulated by Citigroup's Flexner, is for the government to create a massive new fund to lend money at a fair price to professional investors -- pension funds, hedge funds, private equity funds and endowment funds -- for the sole purpose of providing reliable long-term financing to allow these investors to buy the various "toxic assets" in the secondary market that are now frozen on the balance sheets of financial institutions the world over--> The bet would be that these securities would increase in value over time
  • similarly Michael Jaliman 'MBS Economic Freedom Bonds' (without temporary nationalization) and Luigi Spaventa's Brady Bond proposal to clear toxic asset overhang and sever market and funding liquidity negative feedback loop.
  • Jeffrey Sachs: The bank can be recapitalized at fair value to taxpayers and without inducing a squeeze on bank capital and lending. The government can swap 20 in government bonds for the 20 in toxic assets plus contingent warrants on bank capital, the value of which depends on the eventual sale price of the toxic assets. The government would then dispose of the 20 in toxic assets at a market price over the course of the next year or two and exercise its contingent warrants at that time. During the period of liquidating the toxic assets, the government would exercise a kind of receivership over the banks in order to prevent asset stripping or 'Hail-Mary' incentives on the part of managers --> In this process, there are no taxpayer bailouts, and there is also no squeeze on bank capital resulting from the exchange of toxic assets at less than face value.
  • Nouriel Roubini: in the bad bank model the government may overpay for the bad assets as the true value of them is uncertain; even in the guarantee model there can be such implicit over-payment (or over-guarantee that is not properly priced). Thus, paradoxically nationalization may be a more market friendly solution: it creates the biggest hit for common and preferred shareholders of clearly insolvent institutions and – possibly – even the unsecured creditors in case the bank insolvency is too large; it provides a fair upside to the tax-payer; it can resolve the problem of government managing the bad assets by reselling most of the assets and liabilities of the bank to new private shareholders after a clean-up of the bank.
  • Robert Pozen: Here's a practical solution to the valuation issue: suppose the Treasury estimates that a toxic asset is worth $700,000. It would pay the bank $560,000 in cash (=80%) plus a capital certificate for $140,000 (=20%). If the government later sold that security for $660,000, the bank would receive an additional cash payment of $80,000 (80% of $100,000, the excess of $660,000 over $560,000). The Treasury would receive the remaining $20,000 of the excess. On the other hand, if the government later sold the security for $550,000, the bank would receive nothing more. The Treasury would absorb a loss of $10,000.
  • Willem Buiter (similar arguments by Stiglitz/Romer/Soros): Government should finance and run temporarily one or more good banks, i.e. buy the good assets for which there IS a price by definition and leave the bad assets with the old legacy banks and its shareholders, creditors. Latter will most likely fail and at that point Chapter 7 and 11 are ready--> the state meets its three key objectives: first, its short-run economic stabilisation and crisis-fighting objective; second, its medium and long-term banking sector incentive-enhancing, moral-hazard-minimising objective; and third, its fairness objectives: the polluter pays or, you break it, you own it.
  • Paul Krugman: The only way to make effectively insolvent banks viable again without explicit but temporary government takeover and restructuring is if the government pays much more for toxic assets than private buyers are willing to offer. There is no guarantee that paying near fair value prices will make banks solvent again which would require additional capital injections. A better approach would be to do what the government did with zombie savings and loans at the end of the 1980s: it seized the defunct banks, cleaning out the shareholders. Then it transferred their bad assets to a special institution, the Resolution Trust Corporation; paid off enough of the banks’ debts to make them solvent; and sold the fixed-up banks to new owners.
  • Luigi Zingales: Avoid putting any further taxpayer money at risk at all and mandate a sizable debt to equity swap and adjust distributional issues with equity warrants (change in legislation needed).
  • Nationalization (Swedish Model):
    Pro: write down toxic assets to market value, then nationalize insolvent banks (receivership) in order to align institution's and taxpayer incentives (Zombie banks are likely to engage in gambling), wipe out equity holders (maybe also debt restructuring needed) instead of subsidizing them with taxpayer money, dismiss management, dispose of them via a new RTC (or bad bank), wind down unviable banks, refinance viable ones, start afresh.
    Con:
    Government is not in the business of running a commercial bank; potentially large upfront government outlays, what do you do with debt holders?, stigma.
  • Backstop guarantee of ring-fenced assets on banks' balance sheets of Citi and BoA:
    Pro: Little upfront outlays for the government
    Con: Open-end government commitment, question of asset valuation unresolved; assets that are good today may turn bad tomorrow (coming loan losses) which may need additional capital, persistent lack of transparency on who holds what, ongoing subsidization of existing share- and debt holders by taxpayers, banks might need additional capital injections.
  • Bad Bank or Aggregator Bank (to be run by FDIC):
    Pro: Government purchase of toxic assets off banks' balance sheets contributes to price discovery and helps deleverage balance sheets.
    Con:
    Big question is at what price should toxic assets be bought? If government buys at market values, many banks will be insolvent anyway as they have to mark down asset values to new price. If price is too high, taxpayer is once again subsidizing eqyity and debt holders. Bernanke advocates 'hold-to-maturity' prices above current market prices.
  • 'Bad bank' without nationalization and full writedown of toxic assets to market value is reminiscent of super-SIV that industry did not want to back itself due to asymmetric exposures.
  • IMF: Fair value accounting has its problems but it is still the best option available.

p/s photos: Kim Ok Bin

Monday, November 24, 2008

Some Direction At Last, Some Market Leadership


Well, this post is written after the plan by FDIC and Treasury on Citigroup. So, where are we now? The first thing was Obama made the right choice in appointing Timothy Geithner (please reread posting on the new Treasury Secretary). The market basically rallied over 4% on Friday over the news. Can the appointment alone charge up markets? Yes, especially in the current market situation where there is little confidence, little direction, high volatility, basically no market leadership.

The best thing for Geithner to do is to grab the markets by the neck and tell them "This is the way ahead, follow me and I will guide you towards the light (no pun intended, obviously)".
Geithner, as mentioned before is a market interventionist. He was critical in lining up the JP Morgan / Bear Stearns deal, he was instrumental in getting the funding for AIG, he tried to save Lehman but was dissuaded by higher powers ...

The market basically saw in Tim, a person who will not let things get blown out of his control. It was very easy to predict what he would do in a Citigroup situation. The new rescue package for Citigroup was assembled with Tim's input, and it was a package that tries to cover even the most extreme situation Citigroup could find itself in.
Naturally there will be many naysayers that will criticise that the package will not work.

To me, its a very substantive package, watch the shorts try to stampede out of Citigroup in a hurry tonight.
Why is the package so good? I did mention that Treasure could follow the UK prescription for Royal Bank of Scotland, whereby they injected capital for actual shares, thus controlling the bank. Instead a softer version was adopted, the Swiss version, on how they bailed out UBS. But in reality, the package is a Swiss UBS package with a subsequent evolvement to the UK RBS method as future losses, above the preset levels, will see the government absorbing the loss in exchange of an equity stake in Citi - so prediction stayed true.

First, there is the additional $20bn capital. Two, the guarantee on $300bn of toxic assets, phew. Thirdly Citi is only liable for the first $29bn of losses, as I mentioned earlier, without the package, Citi would probably have to incur losses totalling at least $50bn for the next 3 quarters. Now that has been largely eliminated.


Fourthly, most importantly, confidence is restored. Global bank run on deposits would now start to reverse. Fifthly, no dividends for 3 years (or just 1 cents actually) - this has to come from the government as management has no balls to say no more dividends (Alaweed no happy man, no feel like smiling).

The 8% payment on $7bn to Treasury is a cheap way to raise funds. This move will make it SO MUCH EASIER for Citi to go to sovereign wealth funds to tap additional capital. Mark my words, Citi will easily raise another $10-15bn within weeks, which will further boost its defence system.After the deal, Citi's Tier 1 capital ratio at Sept. 30, on a pro-forma basis assuming the October capital injection and the new capital announced on Sunday, is expected to be 14.8%. Its tangible common equity would be about 9.3% of risk-weighted managed assets, Citi said.


We have market leadership. Expect a sharp revival in Citi, and possibly a new bottom at 8,000 for the Dow.

p/s photos: Haruna Yabuki