Tuesday, 30 December 2008

Buying low, selling lower!

Kerkorian sells off Ford shares at deep loss


Reuters – Billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian leaves the Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles August 20, 2008. …

DETROIT (Reuters) – Billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian has sold off all of his remaining shares of Ford Motor Co, completing a retreat from a high-profile stake in the No. 2 U.S. automaker that cost him hundreds of millions of dollars.
A spokeswoman for Kerkorian's investment firm, Tracinda Corp, said that the firm's remaining Ford shares had been sold. A spokesman for Ford had no comment on the development.
Tracinda, which briefly ranked as Ford's largest outside investor, said in a regulatory filing in October that it had begun working with bankers to sell the 133.5 million shares of the No. 2 U.S. automaker it still held at that time.
It was not immediately clear when Tracinda had completed those remaining sales of Ford stock over the past two months.
The pullout from Ford by Kerkorian caps a two-year period during which the activist investor took a run at all three Detroit-based car companies as they struggled to restructure.
Kerkorian, 91, previously held a nearly 10 percent stake in General Motors Corp and made a failed bid for Chrysler LLC last year.
Since October, he has been cutting his losses on a $1 billion investment in Ford that had lost most of its value.
It was not immediately clear how deep Kerkorian's losses on the Ford investment were. But even if Tracinda sold all its remaining shares at the recent high for Ford stock, the firm would have been facing a loss of some $475 million based on its average acquisition cost for the shares.
If the firm had sold out at the bottom of the market for Ford stock in November, it would have lost more than $800 million.
Kerkorian surprised analysts and investors in April when he began buying Ford shares and spent more than $1 billion to take a stake in the automaker at an average price per share of $7.10.
At the peak of his investment, Kerkorian held a 6.5 percent stake in Ford. In June, he had also offered to support the automaker's turnaround efforts with an infusion of additional capital.
Ford has been widely considered to be the best-positioned of the three Detroit automakers at a time when all three have been hit hard by declining sales and tight credit.
When GM and Chrysler negotiated $17.4 billion of emergency loans from the U.S. government earlier this month, Ford held back, saying it expected to be able to weather the downturn on its own.
But conditions across the auto industry have taken a dramatic turn for the worse since September when credit suddenly tightened for both car shoppers and dealers.
In late October, Tracinda began selling Ford shares at $2.43, representing a loss of almost 66 percent from what the fund paid on average.
Since then, Ford's shares have traded between a low of $1.02 in November and a high of $3.54 earlier this month.
Ford shares closed down 3 percent on Monday to end the New York trading day at $2.22.
The Ford family holds slightly less than 3 percent of the automaker's shares but controls 40 percent of the voting power through a separate class of shares.
Kerkorian's offer of additional capital for Ford had been seen as an endorsement of the company's strategy and management under Chief Executive Alan Mulally.
But Kerkorian's record as an activist investor had also raised questions earlier this year about whether his investment could be a threat to the Ford family's continued control of the automaker.
(Reporting by Kevin Krolicki; editing by Phil Berlowitz and Matthew Lewis).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081229/bs_nm/us_ford_kerkorian

Monday, 29 December 2008

What are you doing with your money?

Fear Index

What are you doing with your money?

  1. I'm buying stocks while they are cheap.
  2. I'm staying put in the market for the long-term.
  3. I'm taking some money out of stocks. I don't want to risk everything.
  4. I'm selling all stocks and moving to CDs.
  5. I'm in a panic. Where's the nearest mattress?

http://finances.about.com/

Best Moves in a Bad Economy

What Type of Financial Adviser do You Need?

What Type of Financial Adviser do You Need?
Part Two of Series
By Ken Little, About.com

See More About:
fee-only financial adviser
commission based financial adviser
Sponsored Links
Financial Planning Abroad
Migrate to Australia

Do you need the services of a professional financial adviser? Many people find that having a professional look at their total financial picture and bring it in focus is a valuable service.
As I discussed in part one of this two-part series, people often turn to financial advisers when they don’t have the time, energy or talent to manage a complex financial life.
If you think the services of a professional sound like something you could use, the next question becomes which type of adviser do you pick.
Generally, who can classify financial advisers two ways:
How they are compensated
Professional designations

How they are Compensated

There are three basic ways you compensate financial advisers for their work. Each of the three methods has some good points and some weaknesses. In the end, you should choose the adviser you feel will do the best job for you and worry less about the method of compensation. The compensation methods are:

Fee Only
The fee-only adviser develops a comprehensive plan that lays out how you can reach your financial goals. However, it leaves the actual execution of the plan to you. The adviser doesn’t sell any products or services other than the plan itself.
The strong points of fee-only financial advisers are:
Comprehensive plan – Fee-only advisers usually produce the most comprehensive plan since this is their sole product.
Objective recommendations – Since the fee-only advisers make no money off sales of any products, their recommendations are not driven by potential commissions.
Customer interaction – Fee-only advisers are more likely to spend time educating customers on various aspects of the plan since it will be up to the customer to execute the plan.
The weak points of fee-only financial advisers are:
Cost – Fee-only advisers charge more than other types of advisers since they do not take any other form of compensation.
Execution – Some customers find they are not much better off with a plan in their hand if they have to perform the execution also.
Updating – As things change, the plan needs updating, which may involve additional costs.

Fee and Commission or Percentage of Assets
The second method of compensation of financial advisers includes a fee and commissions. The fee, which is usually substantially less than what a fee-only adviser would charge covers the cost of building the plan and commissions cover the cost of execution.
A variation on this compensation plan involves an annual fee based on a percentage of assets in your accounts. The fee compensates the adviser for monitoring your investments and making recommendations.
The strong points of fee plus commission advisers are:
Plan development – The fee plus adviser develops a plan for the customer that lays out suggested strategies for reaching the customer’s goals.
Execution – Because the fee plus adviser receives compensation from executing the plan, the adviser is there to execute the plan.
Multiple products – The fee plus adviser often sells or has access to multiple products such as insurance in addition to investments, so much of they can do much of execution.
The weak points of fee plus commission adviser are:
Objectivity – There is always the question of how objective the advice will be when it results in a commission for the financial adviser.
House products – Fee plus advisers may push house products (certain mutual funds or life insurance products, for example), which may not be the best choice for your particular situation.
High-price products – There is a danger the fee-plus adviser will pick products for your plan that pay higher commissions over other equally good, but lower commissioned products.

Commission Only
The third method of compensation is commission only. The financial adviser receives their only compensation from products they sell you.
I think you can see the inherent problem with this arrangement – it is in the adviser best interest to sell you something. A person who works on a commission only basis is a salesperson.
However, this is not to say that you can’t work with someone on this basis. It will depend on the individual and your relationship.

Who is a Financial Adviser?
In many states there are no strict regulations regarding the terms “financial adviser” or “financial planner,” meaning anyone can print up business cards using those terms. However, several professional designations are protected.
The top designations you should look for are:
Certified Financial Planner (CFP) – This is the top of the line in terms of professional designations. Before an adviser can carry this designation, they must complete three years of work in financial planning, take a course of study and pass a comprehensive set of examinations. They must also meet certain ethical and educational standards.
Chartered Financial Consultants (ChFC) – Take courses of study on personal finance and pass exams.
Certified Public Accountant (CPA) – CPAs must pass exams on accounting and tax preparation to win the designation. However, you want CPA who has also been awarded the designation Personal Finance Specialist.
Other designations and some explanations of financial planning terms can be found at this site on financial credentials.

Conclusion
If you decide to use a professional financial adviser, the most important considerations are the person’s integrity and your relationship.
Method of compensation and other factors are secondary to establishing a level of trust that will allow you to work with the adviser in confidence.

http://stocks.about.com/od/findingabroker/a/Finadvis121404.htm

Do You Need a Financial Adviser?

Do You Need a Financial Adviser?
Part One of Series
By Ken Little, About.com

See More About:
financial advisor
allocate resources
estate planning
retirement planning
financial goals

Buy high and sell low. To borrow an old retail saying, “you can’t make a profit on volume” trading stocks that way.
Some investors find that they don’t have the time, energy or talent to research and identify stocks for their portfolio, much less manage their money effectively. Their needs go beyond the scope of a stock broker - they may need the services of a qualified financial adviser.
In this two-part series, I’ll look at what a financial adviser can do for you and discuss the different types of financial advisers and how they work with you. This article covers what benefits you can expect from a financial adviser.
A good financial adviser will work with you to develop a game plan that fits your financial circumstances and tailors a plan to accomplish your goals.
Some people find that they are more comfortable doing their “own thing” and don’t want to spend the money a good adviser may cost.
On the other hand, many people gladly turn over the details of developing a financial plan to an expert.
What Financial Advisers Do
Most financial advisers want to look at your whole financial picture – all your income and liabilities. They want a complete picture of where you are financially so they can draw a map from where you are to where you want to go. Here are some of the benefits of using a financial adviser:
The Big Picture – A financial adviser will develop a comprehensive profile of your financial status. This profile will identify areas of strengths and weakness.
An Unemotional Assessment – The financial adviser will give you an unemotional assessment of what needs to be done. Money is an emotional topic for many people, which often leads to bad decisions.
Allocate Resources – It is likely you have competing priorities, such as sending the kids to college while building a retirement fund. A financial adviser can help you allocate resources so both goals receive the appropriate share of dollars.
Minimize Taxes – Most investment decisions carry some type of short or long-term tax implication. Your adviser can help you shape your investments in a manner that keeps taxes to a minimum and more of your dollars invested.
Estate Planning – Careful planning will help ensure that your estate passes to loved ones in a manner that protects as much of its value as possible. In broad terms, your adviser will cover these areas. More specifically, your adviser will focus on these areas:
Retirement accounts such as 401(k)s, IRAs, and so on
Insurance including medical, life, disability, liability
Educational goals for how many children at what ages
Taxes both personal and business if self employed or own a business
Other financial goals such as second home, buy a business, retire early
The Plan
Depending of the type of financial adviser you use, you will get some form of financial plan that details the findings of the adviser and provides a blueprint to reach your goals.
The plan may include options to reach your goals that involve different levels of commitment on your part (read that dollars).
Conclusion
In the second part of this series, I’ll look at how different financial advisers execute their plans and how much their services cost.
Financial advisers come in variety of flavors, each with their strong points. The second part of this series examines how these financial advisers differ in execution and compensation.

Understanding Bear Markets

Understanding Bear Markets
What they are, how they work, and what they mean for your investments

Last year, I wrote an article called "Understanding a Bear Market". The first sentence read, "If you've only begun investing in the past few years, you aren't aware of what a bear market is." Unfortunately, that isn't the case anymore. In the past few months, Wall Street has reeled, stumbled, picked up speed, fallen on its side, and gone in circles. Professional and average investors alike have no idea where the market is headed, but everyone seems to have an opinion.
In light of the recent events on Wall Street, here's an update to that article.

What is a bear market and what causes them?

By definition, a bear market is when the stock market falls for a prolonged period of time, usually by twenty percent or more. It is the opposite of a bull market. This sharp decline in stock prices is normally due to a decrease in corporate profits, or a correction of overvaluation [i.e., stocks were way too expensive and needed to fall to more reasonable levels]. Investors who are scared by these lower earnings or lofty valuations sell their stock - causing the price to drop. This causes other investors to worry about losing the money they've invested, so they sell as well... and the vicious cycle begins.
One of the best examples of such an unfriendly market is the 1970's, when stocks went sideways for well over a decade. Experiences such as these are generally what scare would-be investors away from investing [which, ironically, keeps the bear market alive... since there are no buyers purchasing investments, the selling continues.]

How do they affect my investments?

Generally, a bear market will cause the securities you already own to become undervalued. The decline in their value may be sudden, or it may be prolonged over the course of time, but the end result is the same: What you already own is worth less [according to the market.]

This leads to two fundamental truths:
1.) A bear market is only bad if you plan on selling your stock or need your money immediately.
2.) Falling stock prices and depressed markets are the friend of the long-term investor.
In other words, if you invest with the intent to hold your investments for years down the road, a bear market is a great opportunity to buy. [It always amazes me that the "experts" advocate selling after the market has fallen. The time to sell was before your stocks lost value. If they know everything about your money, why they didn't warn you the crash was coming in the first place?]

So what do I do with my money in a bear market?

The first thing you need to do is to look for companies and funds that are going to be fine ten or twenty years down the road. If the market crashed tomorrow and caused Gillette's stock price to fall 30%, people are still going to buy razors. The basics of the business haven't changed.
This proves the third fundamental truth of the market:
3.) You must learn to separate the stock price from the underlying business. They have very little to do with each other over the short-term.
When you understand this, you will see falling stock markets like a clearance sale at your favorite furniture store... load up on it while you can, because before long, the prices will go back up to normal levels.

Copyright © 2002 Joshua Kennon

http://beginnersinvest.about.com/library/weekly/n031701.htm

Bull and Bear Stock Markets Two Sides of Same Coin

Bull and Bear Stock Markets Two Sides of Same Coin
By Ken Little, About.com

Bull and bear stock markets are two sides of the same coin.
Long-time investors know that bear markets are setting up the next bull market.
They also know that bull markets don’t run forever.
The longest running bull market ever was from 1990 – 2000.

Bull or Bear Market
It is impossible to know when a bull or bear market is officially over except through the 20-20 vision of history.
All bull and bear markets will exhibit periods that look like reversals, but are just momentary before the bull or bear regains control.
We now know that the bull market ended in March 2000, but at that moment, it wasn’t clear the party was over.
The three-year bear market that followed was pushed by the tragedy of 9/11 and a recession.

Bottom of Market
CNN pointed out that the Dow bottomed out at 776 in October of 2002.
From that point, the market has gone on to record heights.
Long the way, there have been some significant dips, but followed by a continuation of strong upward pressure.
This is all easy to see now, but when you are gasping for air as your portfolio value plummets, it’s not so easy to step back for perspective.
In the end, good companies have a better chance of weathering storms the sweep the market and the economy.

Necessary Bears
Bear markets perform the necessary service of deflating values and sweeping the market clean of stocks that are weak and riding on fads alone.
Your faith in solid fundamentals will usually pay off over time, but even a great company’s stock can get banged around in a tough market.
The lesson here is that stocks, as illustrated by the Dow, are good long-term investments, but dangerous short-term bets.

Comment: According to Suze Orman, we are in a secular bear market starting from the year 2000. She opines this will last 15 years. In between 2000 and 2015, there will be the occasional cyclical bull market lasting a few months to a few years.

See More About:
bull markets
bear markets
stock markets
How to Start Trading Stocks
Stocks Trading Strategies
Understanding Stock Market
Make a Living Trading Stocks
Day Trading Training
Suggested Reading
Don't be too Conservative with Stocks in Retirement
Avoiding Pump and Dump Scams
How Much Help do You Need from Your Broker?
Related Articles
Bull or Bear Markets Strategies - Why Intelligent Investors have an Edge in...
Timing Market Turns is Foolish Game - Better to Stay Invested than Guess Wh...
Staying in the Stock Market is Safer Move than Timing Bears and Bulls
Strategies to Weather a Bear Market – How to Survive Tough Economic Ti...
Bear Markets Part of Investing in Stocks - Expect Bear Markets and Prepare ...

http://stocks.about.com/od/understandingstocks/a/1009bull.htm

Saturday, 27 December 2008

The Sin in Doing Good Deeds


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof


Op-Ed Columnist
The Sin in Doing Good Deeds



new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/opinion/25kristof.html
if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 24, 2008
Here’s a question for the holiday season: If a businessman rakes in a hefty profit while doing good works, is that charity or greed? Do we applaud or hiss?
A new book, “Uncharitable,” seethes with indignation at public expectations that charities be prudent, nonprofit and saintly. The author, Dan Pallotta, argues that those expectations make them less effective, and he has a point.
Mr. Pallotta’s frustration is intertwined with his own history as the inventor of fund-raisers like AIDSRides and Breast Cancer 3-Days — events that, he says, netted $305 million over nine years for unrestricted use by charities. In the aid world, that’s a breathtaking sum.
But Mr. Pallotta’s company wasn’t a charity, but rather a for-profit company that created charitable events. Critics railed at his $394,500 salary — low for a corporate chief executive, but stratospheric in the aid world — and at the millions of dollars spent on advertising and marketing and other expenses.
“Shame on Pallotta,” declared one critic at the time, accusing him of “greed and unabashed profiteering.” In the aftermath of a wave of criticism, his company collapsed.
One breast cancer charity that parted ways with Mr. Pallotta began producing its own fund-raising walks, but the net sum raised by those walks for breast cancer research plummeted from $71 million to $11 million, he says.
Mr. Pallotta argues powerfully that the aid world is stunted because groups are discouraged from using such standard business tools as advertising, risk-taking, competitive salaries and profits to lure capital.
“We allow people to make huge profits doing any number of things that will hurt the poor, but we want to crucify anyone who wants to make money helping them,” Mr. Pallotta says. “Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.”
I confess to ambivalence. I deeply admire the other kind of aid workers, those whose passion for their work is evident by the fact that they’ve gone broke doing it. I’m filled with awe when I go to a place like Darfur and see unpaid or underpaid aid workers in groups like Doctors Without Borders, risking their lives to patch up the victims of genocide.
I also worry that if aid groups paid executives as lavishly as Citigroup, they would be managed as badly as Citigroup.
Yet there’s a broad recognition in much of the aid community that a major rethink is necessary, that groups would be more effective if they borrowed more tools from the business world, and that there is too much “gotcha” scrutiny on overhead rather than on what they actually accomplish. It’s notable that leaders of Oxfam and Save the Children have publicly endorsed the book, and it’s certainly becoming more socially acceptable to note that businesses can also play a powerful role in fighting poverty.
“Howard Schultz has done more for coffee-growing regions of Africa than anybody I can think of,” Michael Fairbanks, a development expert, said of the chief executive of Starbucks. By helping countries improve their coffee-growing practices and brand their coffees, Starbucks has probably helped impoverished African coffee farmers more than any aid group has.
Mr. Fairbanks himself demonstrates that a businessman can do good even as he does well. Rwanda’s president, Paul Kagame, hired Mr. Fairbanks’s consulting company and paid it millions of dollars between 2000 and 2007.
In turn, Mr. Fairbanks helped Rwanda market its coffee, tea and gorillas. Rwandan coffee now retails for up to $55 a pound in Manhattan, wages in the Rwandan coffee sector have soared up to eight-fold, and zillionaires stumble through the Rwandan jungle to admire the wildlife. President Kagame thanked Mr. Fairbanks by granting him Rwandan citizenship.
There are lots of saintly aid workers in Rwanda, including the heroic Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health, and they do extraordinary work. But sometimes, so do the suits. Isaac Durojaiye, a Nigerian businessman, is an example of the way the line is beginning to blur between businesses and charities. He runs a for-profit franchise business that provides fee-for-use public toilets in Nigeria. When he started, there was one public toilet in Nigeria for every 200,000 people, but by charging, he has been able to provide basic sanitation to far more people than any aid group.
In the war on poverty, there is room for all kinds of organizations. Mr. Pallotta may be right that by frowning on aid groups that pay high salaries, advertise extensively and even turn a profit, we end up hurting the world’s neediest.
“People continue to die as a result,” he says bluntly. “This we call morality.”



I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

Friday, 26 December 2008

A Money Story

A Money Story
Finally, I want to share a story told by Sister Maria Jose Hobday, a Franciscan nun and author who has written and lectured internationally for 30 years on Native American spirituality, prayer, and simplicity. In the 1930s, her family was living on the edge of poverty:
"One Saturday evening I was working late on my homework. I was in the living room, my brothers were outside with their friends, and my parents were in the kitchen, discussing our financial situation. It was very quiet, and I found myself more and more following the kitchen conversation rather than attending to my homework. Mama and Daddy were talking about what had to be paid for during the week, and there was very little money -- a few dollars.
"As I listened, I became more and more anxious, realizing there was not enough to go around. They spoke of school needs, of fuel bills, of food. Suddenly the conversation stopped, and my mother came into the room where I was studying. She put the money -- a couple of bills and a handful of change -- on the desk. ‘Here,' she said, ‘go find two or three of your brothers and run to the drugstore before it closes. Use this money to buy strawberry ice cream.' I was astonished! I was a smart little girl, I knew we needed this money for essentials. So I objected. ‘What? We have to use this to pay bills, Mama, to buy school things. We can't spend this on ice cream!' Then I added, ‘I'm going to ask Daddy.' So I went to my father, telling him what Mother had asked me to do. Daddy looked at me for a moment, then threw back his head and laughed. ‘You mother is right, honey,' he said. ‘When we get this worried and upset about a few dollars, we are better off having nothing at all. We can't solve all the problems, so maybe we should celebrate instead. Do as your mother says.'
"So I collected my brothers and went to the drugstore. In those days, you could get a lot of ice cream for a few dollars, and we came home with our arms full of packages. My mother had set the table, made fresh coffee, put out what cookies we had and invited the neighbors. It was a great party! I do not remember what happened concerning other needs, but I remember the freedom and fun of that evening. I thought about that evening many times, and came to realize that spending a little money for pleasure was not irresponsible. It was a matter of survival of the spirit. The bills must have been paid; we made it through the weeks and months that followed. I learned my parents were not going to allow money to dominate them. I learned something of the value of money, of its use. I saw that of itself it was not important but that my attitude toward it affected my own spirit, could reduce me to powerlessness or give me power of soul."
Wishing you power of soul in abundance in the New Year.

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/131034;_ylt=AvjGsuP3u0cFDXOeOmx8biS7YWsA

Charitable giving in tough times

AP

Giving in tough times balancing act for companies

Thursday December 25, 11:51 am ET
By Dan Sewell, AP Business Writer

Cost-conscious companies work to keep up charitable programs as need rises in tough times

CINCINNATI (AP) -- She sat patiently in her wheelchair, as scurrying volunteers gathered ham, a turkey, canned goods, bread, and bags of potatoes, apples and pungent onions in a storeroom with sporadic drafts of frigid air from outside.
But Patricia Jordan had a warm feeling as she considered the bounty that would help feed her cash-strapped household of 14, including her disabled-veteran husband, their children and her sister's family. She, like others who flocked to the FreestoreFoodbank this week, were concerned about companies reducing donations this year because of the economy.
"I think a lot of us were worried about everybody cutting back, but so far it's panning out," Jordan said. "You can't ask for any more than that, that they're still willing to help."
The food bank opened 90 minutes early Monday, at 6:30 a.m., after workers found 200 people lined up, some waiting in near-zero cold since 4 a.m.
Across the nation, the needs are growing as the recession deepens and leads to more families struggling each day just to put food on the table. Feeding America, the largest domestic hunger-relief organization, says some 25 million people are going to such food banks, and the number is rising. And at the same time, many usual donors are facing their own budget problems.
FreestoreFoodbank expects to serve 16,000 households here this holiday season, and says demand has jumped 55 percent in the past two years, as jobless numbers rise and household budgets get stretched. But companies such as grocers Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. and Minneapolis-based SuperValu Inc.; Northfield, Ill.-based food maker Kraft Foods Inc.; and St. Louis-based bakery-restaurant chain Panera Bread Co., among others, have helped keep filling bags here.
"They get it," said John Young, the food bank's chief executive. "They understand that we're serving many more people this year. It's touching their customers, their communities."
Not all businesses are reacting in the same way, though. The New York-based Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy found that about a third of companies surveyed cut 2007 charitable giving in the slowing economy, and there are indications of more reductions this year. Sectors that showed declining giving in 2007 were financial, health care and utilities.
"It's a conflict, no question. How do you keep giving when you have laid off employees and are making other cost cuts?" said Charles Moore, the committee's executive director. But he stresses to corporate leaders the customer loyalty and connection to community they can build through giving -- benefiting business in the long run.
"You can be sure the community won't forget that the company stepped up," Moore said. "There is business to be gained at all levels by companies digging deeper in difficult times."
Companies have been hit by slower sales, volatile energy prices and higher raw materials costs, and some charitable organizations acknowledge that business leaders are under pressure to make profits, not give away money.
Some ailing companies such as Ford Motor Co., which donates refrigerated vehicles to help get food donations to rural areas, have continued charitable programs, but at reduced totals.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the Bentonville, Ark.-based retail giant that has seen sales continue to grow in a discount-minded economy, has increased its giving of cash and food this year.
"We've made an extra effort to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our community partners and our customers who maybe need some extra help," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Deisha Galberth said. She said the company, which donated nearly $300 million to charity last year, will top that this year. Wal-Mart last week gave $400,000 in hard-hit Ohio alone, to help feed families and pay utility bills this winter.
Ross Fraser, spokesman for Feeding America, said companies have been creative in keeping up donations such as by diverting holiday gifts and year-end bonuses to charities. Kroger encourages customers to "round up" their bills at checkout to donate, and grocers are coming up with more in gleaning efforts, in which food that would be pulled off retail shelves because it's at sell-by dates or for other reasons is donated because it's still good to eat.
Companies are encouraging more employee volunteer efforts and also enlisting celebrities. Members of the Stanley Cup champion Detroit Red Wings manned Salvation Army kettles outside Kroger stores in Michigan, while Cincinnati-based consumer products maker Procter & Gamble Co. has Tom Colicchio of Bravo TV's "Top Chef" in a meal donation program for its Cascade dishwashing brand, and Olympic gold-medal gymnast Shawn Johnson helped an effort to hand out more than 1.4 million tubes of Crest toothpaste to the needy.
Besides food, charities say there is also a big need for household items. P&G has a barrage of efforts involving its products, including Duracell battery donations and an Iams pet food pet adoption program at a time of rising abandonment of household pets. P&G also plans to provide millions of meals for children by tying consumer use of its coupons -- coupon-clipping has made a comeback during the recession --to company donations.
While cutting costs in other areas, P&G says it is keeping up charitable giving of well over $100 million a year.
"We are committed in good times and in bad," said Brian Sasson, global manager for P&G philanthropy. "We're proud to be helping families get what they need in these tough times."
http://www.feedingamerica.org/
http://www.corporatephilanthropy.org/
http://www.kroger.com/
http://www.walmart.com/
http://www.pg.com/
http://www.cascadefeedsamerica.com/

Source
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081225/still_giving.html

5 Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Might Recover Faster Than You Think in 2009

U.S.News & World Report

5 Reasons Why the Economy Might Recover Faster Than You Think in 2009
Monday December 22, 10:01 am ET By James Pethokoukis

Let's all hope Barack Obama is wrong when he says that getting the U.S. economy straightened out "will take longer than any of us would like -- years, not months. It will get worse before it gets better." And let's pray that Joe Biden is way off when he says the economy is in danger of "absolutely tanking." But, to be honest, far more economists would pretty much agree with those pessimistic statements than the number that wouldn't. (Though that is a good contrarian sign.) Most regular Americans, too. Still, there are a numbers of reasons to think that the economy might, just might, shift back into gear faster than most of us think or hope:

1) Plunging oil prices.
It was only five months ago that oil prices hit a record high of $147 a barrel. Now they're below $40 thanks to slowing global demand. At the same time, gas prices have plunged from over $4 a gallon to around $1.67 nationally. (And some analysts think they're heading to a buck a gallon.) And just as high energy prices were a drag on the economy last summer, they're giving it a boost heading into 2009. JP Morgan Chase economist James Glassman estimates that the drop in oil prices represents "a boost equivalent to a $350 billion stimulus." To bring that down to the average consumer, Glassman explains, think of it this way: The typical household drives 15,000 miles annually. So a drop in gas prices to, say, $1.50 a gallon would represent a savings in their annual gas bill of $2,500 from when gas was at $4. This could boost GDP growth by as much as two percentage points.

2) Falling mortgage rates.
If there's anything falling as fast as energy prices it's mortgage rates. Rates for a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage fell to a low, low 5.19 percent last week thanks to the Federal Reserve's pledged efforts to purchase mortgage securities. That should help housing affordability and the ability of current homeowners to refinance their mortgages. And even more good news could be on the way if you don't mind Uncle Sam borrowing billions more for yet another bailout: The Treasury Department is reportedly considering a plan to push mortgage rates to as low as 4.5 percent for new homebuyers and, perhaps, even for current homeowners who want to refinance. Investment strategist Edward Yardeni thinks if rates could get pushed down to 4 percent, either via the Fed or Treasury's efforts, the economic impact would be amazing. He figures that the average rate on the $10 trillion in outstanding mortgages is about 6 percent. A two-percentage-point drop would amount to a $200 billion annual tax cut for the 45 million American households with mortgages.

3) Actions by the Federal Reserve.
The nation's central bankers have basically said that they'll do whatever it takes to strengthen the economy. They've already pushed short-term interest rates to near zero percent and have made it clear that the Fed will buy various debt securities to unfreeze the credit markets. Brian Bethune of IHS Global Insight called the Fed's recent moves "exactly the kind of forceful medicine the economy needs as it plumbs the depths of the current recession. The Fed's actions will translate into much lower effective borrowing costs in the next few weeks." Certainly this is not your grandfather's Fed. The central bank is pouring money into the financial system. That's a big difference between now and the Great Depression. "In the Depression," notes economist Brian Wesbury of First Trust Advisers, " the real problem was that the Fed let the money supply collapse ... This is not happening now. The Federal Reserve ... is adding liquidity to the system as rapidly as it can."

4) Obama's stimulus plan, 2.0.
It now looks like Uncle Sam, under the direction of Obama and the new Democrat-controlled Congress, will spend somewhere between $750 billion and $1 trillion over the next two years to boost the economy. The money would be spent, according to analysts, mostly on infrastructure (everything from transportation to broadband to green technology investment) but also on aid to state and local governments and middle-class tax relief. This plan will probably create somewhat more jobs in the short term than if nothing were done. Obama optimistically hopes as many as 3 million. The real question is whether his spending plan is the best use of that amount of taxpayer money. Economists Susan Woodward of UCLA and Robert Hall of MIT are dubious. In their cowritten blog, the duo opine that "complicated projects take time to ramp up to high spending and employment levels." But, most promsing, there are rumors that Obama may be considering a payroll tax holiday. That would put money into the economy much faster than an infrastructure spending plan. Even better, many studies say, would be sweeping tax cuts on incomes, business and capital.

5) America's deep fundamentals.
Did you know that the World Economic Forum--the Davos people--for the second straight year judged the United States as possessing the most competitive economy in the world? (Then came Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, and Singapore.) Among America's strengths: innovation, flexible labor markets, and higher education. Not surprisingly, though, our institutions ranked a dismal 29th. (Thanks, Wall Street.) Overall, the core U.S. economy is in far better shape than it was in the 1970s, with a higher productivity and a better tax and regulatory system. Even though the American economy finally succumbed to the oil shock and the credit crisis in 2008, it held up longer than many predicted thanks to its deep strengths. Who knows, maybe it will surprise the bears again in 2009.

http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/081222/22_why_the_economy_might_recover_faster_than_you_think.html?.&.pf=banking-budgeting

Source of wealth affects nation's currency value

Source of wealth affects nation's currency value

CURRENCY MATTERS: Kathy Lien, GFT research director December 10, 2008
Article from: The Australian
OVER the past four weeks, we have discussed the three primary things that move currency markets -- politics, economics and monetary policy.
However, as you learn more about investing and trading currencies, you will quickly realise that the foreign exchange market is also intimately tied with commodity and equity markets.
Knowing this can help you predict movements in currencies or offer additional ideas for diversification.
When trading currencies, you are taking a view on a country. Therefore, the source of that country's wealth has a direct impact on its growth prospects and, by extension, the value of its currency.
For example, the lifeblood of Australia is gold and coal. As the world's third-largest producer of gold and fourth-largest producer of coal, the values of these commodities have a direct impact on the value of the Australian dollar.
When gold prices hit a record high above $1000 an ounce, the Australian dollar hit a 25-year high. Now that the price of gold has plunged 20 per cent, the value of the Australian dollar has declined 30 per cent.
Canada on the other hand has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, making the Canadian dollar sensitive to the price of oil.
Since this past northern summer, oil prices have plunged approximately 65 per cent from its record high of $US147.27 barrel.
During that same period, the Canadian dollar has fallen more than 20 per cent.
Similarly, when oil prices were soaring late last year, the Canadian dollar hit a record high, with one Canadian dollar worth more than one US dollar.
For countries that have well-developed capital markets, equities can also have a substantial impact on the value of their currencies.
Over the past few years, we have seen a positive correlation between the S&P 500 and US dollar/Japanese yen.
When US equities rally, the dollar has tended to rally against the yen. The same is true for the FTSE in Britain.
Generally speaking, when the FTSE sells off, we also see weakness in the British pound.
We must understand, however, that although these correlations are historically valid, like all things, they are not accurate 100 per cent of the time.
This is especially true if there are big surprises in politics, economic data or monetary policy.
However, these correlations generally have stood the test of time.
In fact, certain currency brokers allow you to track the price action of instruments such as the Australian dollar/US dollar and gold on the same chart so that you can see whether the correlation is holding on a day-to-day or even minute-to-minute basis.

Share This Article
From here you can use the Social Web links to save Source of wealth affects nation's currency value to a social bookmarking site.

Dividends to be frozen as earnings decline

Dividends to be frozen as earnings decline

Katherine Jimenez December 18, 2008
Article from: The Australian
A FREEZE on dividends is set to sweep across parts of corporate Australia, as company earnings and cash flows come under pressure.
Tony McGrath, chairman of corporate advisory and insolvency firm McGrathNicol, said that few public companies had cut dividends so far, but that would change soon.
"We will see that because earnings will decline but, more importantly, cash flow will be under pressure," he said.
"With the challenge of managing your debt load, why do you want to leak some of your cash flow to your dividends at this moment?"
The large volume of corporate loans due to mature in 2009 will add to the pressure.
A recent report by rating agency Fitch Ratings showed that the 2009 calendar year would produce a "maturity hump" of $3.4 billion worth of maturing commercial-mortgage-backed securities.
"Cash flow isn't something that boards normally have too much focus on," Mr McGrath said.
"I would suggest to you that that focus on cash flow is now amplified."
There would be pressure on the payment of dividends among large public companies, he said.
They would need to juggle the option of paying a dividend "versus debt retirement, versus the dangers of undertaking capital raisings", he said.
"I think all those questions need be considered by the boards of companies facing refinancing deadlines."
Mr McGrath, who has nearly 25 years of experience ni restructuring and insolvency, has a better picture than most of the state of corporate Australia.
His firm is currently the receiver for ABC Learning and the administrator of Allco Finance Group.
The firm was also called in this year by Australian banks to prepare accounts on troubled shopping centre owner, Centro Properties Group.
Mr McGrath said the economic conditions would get tougher in the next six months and warned that there may be more corporate failures.
Property, retail and mining are all expected to come under pressure.
"We are going to see both commercial and residential property face downward adjustments, even more downward adjustments than they've had to date," he said.
"I think you will find the valuation community is probably one step behind where the market is at, at the moment, because they need evidence ... before they can change values."
The overall economic outlook would depend on how US reforms fed through. "If that starts to provide some bite to the US economy, I think it's quite possible that things could start to look at bit brighter in the next six to 12 months," he said.
"The problem at the moment is people don't quite know where the bottom is. Until we get to that point, it's a bit difficult to look forward."

Australian dollar dips on US housing fears

Australian dollar dips on US housing fears

Sam Holmes December 24, 2008
Article from: Dow Jones Newswires
THE Australian dollar was weaker today as poor US housing data weighed on risk sentiment throughout the Asian session and pre-Christmas trading volumes remained extremely thin.The domestic currency is expected to hold relatively tight ranges in the offshore session tonight, however, analysts believe there is room for more pain trading if not before the end of the year, then at some time in January. Westpac chief currency strategist Robert Rennie said the Australian dollar has been "remarkably resilient" in the face of very weak Asian economic data and equities performance in the last few weeks. "This sort of improved price action that we've seen over the last two or three weeks for the Aussie will start to unravel and potentially quite quickly as we move into next year," Mr Rennie said. By late afternoon, the Australian dollar was trading at US67.91 cents, down from US68.37c late yesterday in domestic trade. Against the Japanese yen, it was trading at Y61.40 from Y61.72. US economic data released overnight showed new home sales fell a smaller-than-expected 2.9 per cent in November from October to its lowest reading since January 1991. However, existing home sales fell at a record monthly pace of 8.6 per cent. The data are yet another piece of the overall data puzzle confirming the dire state of the world's largest economy and weighed on US equities markets and higher-yielding currencies like the Australian dollar. Mr Rennie expects the Australian dollar to find some support around US67.50c in the offshore session tonight but said a break of this level will put support closer to US66c. More broadly, he said a more dramatic fall to US60c beckons in the March quarter of 2009 as investors consider a bleaker year ahead and the prospects of the US Government needing to provide more fiscal aid to shore up automakers. Australian bond futures were mixed with the domestic three to 10-year yield curve flattening, led by falls in longer-dated yields. The March three-year bond futures contract fell 3.5 ticks to 96.56 as Australian equities market shrugged off the negative Wall Street lead. However, 10-year bond futures contracts were 1.5 ticks firmer at 95.90, supported by the weak US housing data. The spread between the implied yields on the three and 10-year bonds fell to 67 basis points from a high of 74 basis points yesterday.

Thursday, 25 December 2008

Poverty in the 20th Century

Poverty in the 20th Century

At the beginning of the 20th century surveys showed that 25% of the population were living in poverty. They found that at least 15% were living at subsistence level. They had just enough money for food, rent, fuel and clothes. They could not afford 'luxuries' such as newspapers or public transport. About 10% were living in below subsistence level and could not afford an adequate diet.
The surveys found that the main cause of poverty was low wages. The main cause of extreme poverty was the loss of the main breadwinner. If dad was dead, ill or unemployed it was a disaster. Mum might get a job but women were paid much lower wages than men.
Surveys also found that poverty tended to go in a cycle. Workers might live in poverty when they were children but things usually improved when they left work and found a job. However when they married and had children things would take a turn for the worse. Their wages might be enough to support a single man comfortably but not enough to support a wife and children too. However when the children grew old enough to work things would improve again. Finally, when he was old a worker might find it hard to find work, except the most low paid kind and be driven into poverty again.
In 1900 some women made their underwear from bags that grocers kept rice or flour in. Poor children often did not wear underwear. Some poor families made prams from orange boxes.
A liberal government was elected in 1906 and they made some reforms. From that year poor children were given free school meals. In January 1909 the first old age pensions were paid. They were hardly generous - only 5 shillings a week, which was a paltry sum even in those days and they were only paid to people over 70. Nevertheless it was a start.
Also in 1909 the government formed wages councils. In those days some people worked in the so-called 'sweated industries' such as making clothes and they were very poorly paid and had to work extremely long hours just to survive. The wages councils set minimum pay levels for certain industries.
In 1910 the first labour exchanges where jobs were advertised were set up.
Then in 1911 the government passed an act establishing sickness benefits for workers. The act also provided unemployment benefit for workers in certain trades such as shipbuilding, where periods of unemployment were common. In 1920 unemployment was extended to most workers although it was not extended to agricultural workers until 1936.
Things greatly improved after the First World War. A survey in 1924 showed that 4% of the population were living in extreme poverty. (A tremendous improvement from the period before 1914 when it was about 10%). A survey in Liverpool in 1928 found that 14% of the population were living at bare subsistence level. (That figure may not apply to the whole of Britain as Liverpool was a poor city). In 1929-30 a survey in London found that about 10% of the population were living at subsistence level.
A survey in 1936 found that just under 4% were living at bare survival level. Poverty had by no means disappeared by the 1930s but it was much less than ever before.
Pensions and unemployment benefit were made more generous in 1928 and in 1930. In 1931 unemployment benefit was cut by 10% but it was restored in 1934. Furthermore prices continued to fall during the 1930s. By 1935 a man on the 'dole' was about as well off as a skilled worker in 1905, a measure of how much living standards had risen.
However even in the 1920s in the poorest areas children played barefoot because they couldn't afford boots or shoes. There was a charity called the Boot Fund which provided shoes for poor children and by the end of that decade children normally wore them.
Even so in 1939 many children from cities were evacuated to the countryside to be safe from bombing. Many of them had never seen the countryside before. Worse some of them were used to sleeping in their parents bed or even under it. Some poor children were not used to sleeping in a bed at all.
After 1945 things improved when child benefit was introduced. By 1950 absolute poverty had almost disappeared from Britain. Absolute poverty can be defined as not having enough money to eat an adequate diet or afford enough clothes.
However there is also such a thing as relative poverty, when you cannot afford the things most people have. Relative poverty in the late 20th century and it increased in the 1980s. That was partly due to mass unemployment and partly due to a huge rise in the number of single parent families, who often lived on benefits. During the 1980s the gap between rich and poor increased as the well off benefited from tax cuts.
To read more about life in the 20th Century click here.
To read a history of rich people click here.
Home

Your Friends Need Money. Do They Have References?

Your Friends Need Money. Do They Have References?

new_york_times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/fashion/25loans.html

By LAURA M. HOLSON
Published: December 24, 2008
AS a financial planner in Carlsbad, Calif., Candace Bahr tells clients to think twice before lending money to friends and family.
Jake Barnhill bought a truck with some personal financing from Josh Berry.
Melissa Pryor, left, is receiving help from Candace Bahr.
But when her manicurist, Melissa Pryor, asked to borrow $3,000 last month, Ms. Bahr couldn’t say no. Ms. Pryor was being evicted because bankers had foreclosed on the house she was renting in nearby Oceanside. Needing the money to hire a lawyer, she turned to Ms. Bahr, a client she had spoken with every other week for a decade though they were not friends socially.
“It was devastating, humbling,” Ms. Pryor said. “To be in that situation, with all the different factors involved, you are helpless.”
Ms. Bahr asked Ms. Pryor to sign a note promising to repay the loan in a year. Despite her professional skepticism, Ms. Bahr recognized that some decisions, even about money, can’t be judged on business alone.
“You can talk about it all day long,” she said, “but on an emotional level we are all still people.”
With the economy spiraling deeper into recession, friends, family and even unlikely acquaintances like the manicurist are increasingly turning to each other with a hand out. More often than not, these exchanges arouse feelings of guilt and worries that if anything goes awry, friendships and family bonds will be frayed.
In the best case, psychologists and financial planners say, giving money to a pal or a sibling in need can strengthen already close bonds. But there is inherent danger, too, that a loan will put an unspoken price tag on friendship. Then the lender feels guilty, no matter the decision, and the borrower chastened for having asked at all.
“The rules of friendship are tacit, unconscious; they are not rational,”
said Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University who has studied language, relationships and human nature. “In business, though, you have to think rationally. The question is how do you switch over without feeling like you are keeping track?”
With bank loans harder to get and more Americans losing their jobs, such emotionally fraught transactions are only likely to become more common. Virgin Money USA, which administers loans among friends and family members, said the dollar value of loans outstanding has soared in the last 13 months to $370 million at the end of November from $200 million in October 2007. Credit counseling companies like InCharge Debt Solutions in Orlando, Fla., are seeing a sharp increase of customers interested in borrowing from friends and relatives.
And financial planners say some clients gave thousands of dollars as gifts this holiday season instead of Burberry jackets or big-screen television sets, to thwart relatives from asking for money later.
Few understand the benefits of sharing among friends as well as Elizabeth Dunn, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia. She recently published the findings of a study that showed giving — buying a pal a cup of coffee or purchasing the occasional trinket — made people feel good about themselves and their relationships.
But when a friend asked Ms. Dunn if she would lend her several hundred dollars for expenses not long ago, the professor’s warm feelings turned cool. The loan stirred up feelings of guilt; Ms. Dunn wanted to say no. She knew if it was not repaid, it could damage the friendship forever.
“If you really need help and someone helps you, there is gratitude,’” said Ms. Dunn, 31, who ultimately declined to lend her friend the cash. “But at the same time, there is no shortage of stories about how relationships end or crumble over financial disagreements.”
In an effort to avoid such problems, some people making personal loans are using a middleman. In October, Josh Berry, a 32-year-old operations manager at Maxx Productions, an audio and lighting company for large events near Nashville, wanted to sell his 2004 Chevrolet Avalanche to Jason Barnhill, a colleague.
Mr. Berry’s only option was to finance the purchase himself because the buyer’s credit score made it hard to get a $14,000 loan from a bank. At first, Mr. Barnhill refused; a friend had failed to repay a loan several years ago. Mr. Barnhill lost the money and the friendship. “I could never trust him,” he said.
The two men spent afternoons debating different situations, like what would happen if Mr. Barnhill lost his job. Mr. Barnhill didn’t want to be beholden to his friend and Mr. Berry “didn’t want to beat down his door to get the money,” he said. Both agreed that a personal loan was a bad idea if they were to remain friends.
Finally Mr. Berry suggested the two use Virgin Money, the third-party service based in Waltham, Mass., that was started by the entrepreneur Richard Branson, to collect monthly payments from Mr. Barnhill and transfer them to Mr. Berry.
The distance was a comfort. If Mr. Barnhill defaults, the agreement states Mr. Berry gets his truck back. And if Mr. Barnhill can’t pay at all? “It would be them coming after me instead of him coming after me,” Mr. Barnhill said.
Mr. Berry was forced to face his own feelings about which friends were deserving. “I would not loan money to a person who has a low work ethic or simply is not responsible,” he said. “If they haven’t proved themselves in their personal life, I’m not going to extend my hand.”
The shifting power in a relationship — and feelings that ensue — can be particularly uncomfortable among family members who often have convoluted histories. In some cases, an older brother or sister unwittingly steps into the role of surrogate parent, bailing out siblings at the slightest hint of trouble. In other cases, unresolved childhood rivalries take center stage.
“If there is a way to keep money out of the family dynamic it should be considered,”
said Charles Lowenhaupt, chief executive of St. Louis-based Lowenhaupt Global Advisors, which works with wealthy families on financial matters. A wealthy client recently approached Mr. Lowenhaupt about what how to handle a situation with a sister who had lost her job and was in jeopardy of losing her home. The brother wanted to help — she was asking for about $400,000 — and he could afford to give it. At the same time, Mr. Lowenhaupt said, “He knew that she’d come back for more.”
What the brother needed was a buffer. The brother told his sister that he would ask his lawyer to help her get a $400,000 loan at a local bank. What the brother did not say was that he would put up the collateral for the loan. The sister ultimately got the loan, saved her house and was none the wiser about her brother’s help.
“It was a screen between him and his sister so they could have Thanksgiving dinner without incident,” Mr. Lowenhaupt said. “The lender didn’t want to feel beholden to the other. And, if it was just a gift, it could affect the self esteem of the person getting it.”
Few people have an army of advisers to cloak their intentions. Instead, financial planners say, truthfulness is the best defense in dealing with friends and relatives, no matter how painful the conversation. “Someone without confidence may avoid the person or plead poverty,” said Myra Salzer, a financial adviser to wealthy individuals who is based in Boulder, Colo.. “That’s not the way to go.”
A wealthy lawyer from San Francisco said she and her husband have helped two family members in recent months. (She spoke anonymously because she did not want to embarrass her relatives.) In one case, the lawyer gave a family member who was going through a bitter divorce a gift of $100,000. In the other, a family member who lost a job was lent $25,000 in recent weeks with the proviso it would be paid back in three to five years.
In both cases, the lawyer laid out for both siblings exactly what was expected of them. And she did not feel compelled to treat them equally even though each knew what the other received. “Quite honestly, the amount was dependent on the degree of closeness I had with each,” she said. “It is difficult not to be judgmental when you see someone in need. We want to blame someone.”
Unlike Ms. Bahr, the financial planner, the lawyer did not ask the family member borrowing $25,000 to sign a note agreeing to repay it. “The person was in such a low state,” she said. “There was no reason to distrust. It would have added insult to injury.”
But that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t feel any less angry if her relative reneged on repayment. “If they are driving a big fancy car and can’t pay me, I’d be mad,” the lawyer said. “But if they are doing what they need to get their life in order and still can’t pay me, I guess that’s O.K. I just don’t want someone to think I have a blank checkbook.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/fashion/25loans.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all

Wednesday, 24 December 2008

US November Home Sales Fell Faster Than Expected


Gas Producing Countries Try to Be More Like OPEC

With Russia’s Help, Gas-Producing Countries Try to Be More Like OPEC

new_york_times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/business/worldbusiness/24gas.html

By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: December 23, 2008
MOSCOW — With Russia’s support, a dozen large natural gas-producing countries founded an organization Tuesday that will study ways to set global prices for the fuel, much as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries does for crude oil.
The development seems likely to further unnerve European Union nations, already wary of their dependence on Russian energy and what critics say are efforts by Moscow to use oil and natural gas exports as leverage to reassert sway over former Soviet nations.
Russia’s foray into energy diplomacy affecting natural gas producers from the Middle East to South America also underlined its ambitions to assert itself on the world stage despite the slump in energy prices.
Initially, officials from member countries say, the group will focus on coordinating investment plans to dissuade countries from flooding the market with gas.
But if its longer-term goals are realized, the Forum of Gas Exporting Countries holds the potential to extend an OPEC-like model of price modulation to another basic commodity, even as natural gas is expected to play a larger role in global energy supplies.
The forum “will represent the interests of producers and exporters on the international market,” Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin, told the gathering of energy ministers. “The time of cheap energy resources, and cheap gas is surely coming to an end.”
Formation of the group was a coup for Russia, the world’s largest producer of natural gas and oil. But most members also belong to OPEC, which has been at odds with Russia over its reluctance to reduce crude oil output in coordination with OPEC.
Shokri Ghanem, the oil minister from Libya, told the new group that Russia should first reduce oil output if it wants to support natural gas prices, which are linked to the price of crude oil. “We are still waiting for a declaration from the Russian Federation that they are cutting their production,” Mr. Ghanem said, referring to OPEC.
The countries in the forum have been meeting informally since 2001; what was new Tuesday was the group’s adoption of a charter that would establish a permanent secretariat. Doha was chosen as the group’s headquarters.
The Russian government, in a statement, said falling energy prices had impelled members to quickly formalize their organization. As in OPEC, the ministers in the new group espoused an ideology of defiance to the industrialized countries that are the primary customers, and stated the rights of commodity exporting nations to coordinate efforts to improve the terms of trade.
That Russia decided to join forces with the petroleum-dependent nations is a bellwether of Russia’s economic trends. As its Soviet-era scientific and industrial accomplishments fade, the country is relying more heavily on natural resources exports and associated boom-and-bust cycles.
Russia, which also belongs to the Group of 8 industrialized nations, said the group was not a cartel, like OPEC.
A deputy chairman of the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom, Aleksander I. Medvedev, said the natural gas business, which relies on long-term contracts, would make the use of production quotas, the backbone of OPEC’s pricing policies, impossible.
But the energy minister of Venezuela, the country that initiated the formation of the original OPEC in 1960, was not coy about his hopes for the new group as liquefied natural gas traded on spot markets is projected to become a more important fuel in the global energy mix.
“We see this organization as OPEC,” Rafael Ramirez said on the sidelines of the meeting. “We are producer countries and we have to defend our interests.”
But OPEC has not had a good track record of being able to control prices over the year. Despite pledges of cuts this year totaling 4.2 million barrels a day, or nearly 12 percent of OPEC’s capacity, oil prices, which topped $145 a barrel this summer, continue to fall. Prices settled Tuesday at $38.98 a barrel in New York.
A study that the group commissioned said natural gas prices would inevitably remain linked to the price of oil.
However, the study said that the environmental benefits of natural gas, including lower releases of greenhouse gases, are not priced into the fuel, offering room to negotiate higher prices.
The study also concluded that the market for shipborne natural gas is transforming the fuel into a global commodity, suggesting the industry will transform from one modeled as a utility serving pipeline customers to one built around trading.
The forum members include: Algeria, Bolivia, Brunei, Venezuela, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Qatar, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and, as observers, Equatorial Guinea and Norway.
More Articles in Business » A version of this article appeared in print on December 24, 2008, on page B3 of the New York edition.

For HSBC, Questions of Vitality

For HSBC, Questions of Vitality

By LANDON THOMAS Jr. and JULIA WERDIGIER
Published: December 22, 2008
LONDON — Through more than a year of giant bailouts and bankruptcies, HSBC was one of the few big banks to emerge with its reputation largely intact.

Related Times Topics: HSBC Holdings PLC. HSBC Finance Corporation Credit Crisis — The Essentials

HSBC, the global financial giant, did bet on subprime mortgages — and lost. But it nonetheless managed to maintain a robust market value compared with its diminished peers, lending it an aura of unrivaled durability.
So much so that during a recent parliamentary debate in Britain, where HSBC is based, an opposition politician scorned the government’s borrowing policies by asserting that Britain’s creditworthiness had fallen behind that of HSBC.
Now, as the bank faces a sharp slowdown in the emerging markets where it earns the bulk of its profit, many investors are questioning HSBC’s ability to maintain this exalted standing.
Last week, HSBC shares listed in London sank more than 17 percent, hit by several analysts’ reports contending that the bank would be required to raise money or to cut its dividend sharply. On Monday, HSBC shares in Hong Kong fell 3.3 percent, after falling more than 9 percent late last week. In addition, there was the acknowledgment that HSBC might have lost the $1 billion it had invested with Bernard L. Madoff, the New York money manager who authorities say has confessed to running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme.
As banks throughout the world face uncertain futures amid the worst financial crisis since the Depression, HSBC — which spans the globe from its original home in Hong Kong to the Middle East, Latin America and North America — offered a vivid counterpoint.
Its share price outpaced the main indexes and still trades near its book value. Its assets are growing, with the $2.3 trillion on its books expected to grow by almost 20 percent this year.
Not only has the bank spurned government money, it has been — at least so far — one of the few financial institutions of size not to be required to raise capital.
But with the recent drop in its shares, HSBC’s critics are raising questions about the bank’s globe-girdling strategy, particularly its insistence on sticking with its struggling consumer finance unit in the United States.
HSBC gets three-quarters of its profit from emerging markets, which have underpinned its recent success. But three-quarters of its loans are still exposed to the stricken markets of the United States and Britain, which some investors argue will hold it back, after the global economy recovers.
HSBC became the world’s top subprime lender when it bought Household International in the United States in 2003. According to Knight Vinke, a small asset manager in Monaco that owns less than 1 percent of the bank’s shares, the parent group has injected $60 billion into HSBC Finance — including the purchase price of $15 billion — in a so far fruitless bid to turn around this flagging business. According to its research, the money would be better deployed in faster-growing emerging markets.
A spokesman for HSBC disputed the figure, saying the total amount was about $20 billion.
Knight Vinke argues that HSBC should leave this business and focus on its core area of expertise in Asia.
“There are steps to be taken, but if all else fails, you may have to walk away from it,” said Glen Suarez, an executive at Knight Vinke.
“We see HSBC’s comparative advantage being in developing its business in Asia,” he said. “We have always felt that subprime and Household International was a problem.”
In a report produced this year, Knight Vinke said that HSBC had been overly optimistic in assessing the risk of its subprime exposure and that if the bank were to take a write-down reflecting the full reality of its potential losses, it could total as much as $30 billion — a number that would require the company to raise cash. (My comment: CAUTION!!)
HSBC declined to address Knight Vinke’s assertions publicly, saying the firm’s small investment position undermined its credibility.
Still, bank executives and board members have met with Knight Vinke as it pressed its position.
HSBC’s position is that its subprime loans, while substantial, are different from those of most other banks because they are not bundled into complex — and at this point nearly worthless — securities like those that forced Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and others to take large losses. As a result, management argues, HSBC is not obliged to write down these assets as long as they produce a cash flow.
The bank has also said that it is a global institution, with a need to be in markets from Shanghai to St. Louis, and that it considers the United States housing market to be a crucial part of its strategy. It also said that writing off its investment in HSBC Finance would do lasting damage to its reputation.
As its rivals took their lumps, HSBC maintained a healthy cushion against losses of about 8 percent, a conservative position compared with the greater leverage of other banks. But now that troubled institutions like Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Citigroup have raised large sums of equity to bolster their balance sheets and enjoy the explicit or implicit support of national governments, HSBC no longer looks so secure.
What is more, the advancing slowdown in HSBC’s core emerging markets franchise is putting additional pressure on its earnings.
HSBC has said that its capital position was strong, but declined to comment on the recent reports predicting that it would seek a capital increase, which would dilute the value of existing shares. It has been careful to leave open the possibility of raising new funds in conjunction with a deal, or a major investment in a business.
For all the new questions, Julian Chillingworth, chief investment officer at Rathbones in London, said HSBC remained a refreshing contrast to an industry that seemed to lose its head in the housing bubble.
“It may well be that they have to raise capital, but there’s a much better chance for them to get support,” he said. “They didn’t commit the sins of others of relying on the wholesale markets, and they’ve been quite prudent.”
HSBC executives are by and large an austere, conservative lot, compared with their more expansive counterparts. Their attitude toward the banking excesses has been one of polite disdain as they turned down opportunity after opportunity to buy into the American investment banking market.
It is an approach that conveys a degree of rectitude not often seen in bankers these days. The self-denying tone flowed from the top, conveyed by the bank’s former chairman, John Bond.
His successor, Stephen Green, spare and unobtrusive, carries on this tradition, serving as an ordained priest in the Church of England.
He is also the author of a book titled “Serving God? Serving Mammon?” that wrestles with the idea of being a man of faith in the City of London.
Still, the bank has not been immune to temptation — witness the $1 billion it is likely to have lost from extending loans to funds that invested with Mr. Madoff’s firm.
There are signs, too, that the bank may be on the verge of some major decisions — particularly with regard to its troubled American business.
John Thornton, the former president of Goldman Sachs and a man known for his aggressive strategic thinking, joined the group board this month. He will also serve as nonexecutive chairman of HSBC North America — a position that will require him to work two days each week and will pay him $1.5 million a year.
It is not clear what, if any decision will be taken. Even with its recent troubles, the firm’s position is strong enough to support a midsize deal, especially for a bank with a strong position in the American Hispanic market, an area that has long been of interest for HSBC.
And analysts say that even HSBC cannot stay above the troubles around it.
“I’m surprised the shares have done so well in relative terms,” said Daniel Tabbush, an analyst at Crédit Lyonnais Securities, who wrote one of the reports that precipitated the stock sell-off.
“Now, we’re looking at the exposure to commercial U.K. real estate, the unsecured loan book, credit cards. Many banks around the world said they don’t have to raise capital, and then they do.”

More Articles in Business » A version of this article appeared in print on December 23, 2008, on page B1 of the New York edition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/business/worldbusiness/23hsbc.html?ref=business