Friday, October 31, 2008

South Africa - banks sound and clean

Low-income mortgage borrowers in SA are honouring their debts a lot better than subprime borrowers in the US.

This is just one of six reasons why SA banks have been relatively immune to the global financial meltdown, says Tom Boardman CEO of Nedbank (JSE:NED).

Speaking at a media party in Johannesburg Thursday night shortly after returning from the IMF, Boardman recalled that it was the Clinton administration that leant on the US mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, to lend to lower income people in the US.

"The idea was to increase home ownership. Unfortunately, while interest rates were 3% or 4%, people borrowed more than they could afford. When rates doubled, they defaulted in droves and Fannie and Freddie have had to be rescued by the Fed."

Boardman said SA banks had also been prevailed upon by government to lend collectively some R42bn to people in the R2 500-R7 000pm income bracket. The goal was also to increase home ownership. He said most of these borrowers were honouring their commitments.

"So far our bad debt experience in that area has been better than in the middle income market", he said. He added that so far unemployment in SA has not increased as dramatically as in the US and conceded these are early days.

Boardman said that while he was at the IMF-World Bank meetings, he attended a dinner for a number of the world's biggest names in banking with former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. (The CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland had excused himself. He was busy arranging a bail-out package with Gordon Brown and resigned the next day.)

"I asked Mr Greenspan if the problem wasn't that the US had held interest rates too low for too long. He paused a long while...and then said ‘no'. But that pause said it all for the people around the table."

Boardman said excessively low interest rates were a mistake that SA has avoided. Our rates never plumbed the depths of those in the US and Europe and that prevented people from over-extending themselves.

SA banks were not nearly as geared as their counterparts overseas.

"Their lendings in some cases were 35 times their capital base. For every $35 they lent, they had only $1 of capital. Our banks in SA are not half as highly geared."

SA consumers also were not nearly as heavily indebted as their counterparts in the US and the UK. Boardman told me privately that SA corporates are in excellent shape and default rates in that area are negligible.

SA banks were also not as enmeshed in exotic instruments.

"Securitisation is still in its infancy. We had few of the debt instruments that worsened the crisis offshore."

Finally, we had exchange control. That prevented SA banks from depositing huge sums of money offshore in institutions that have folded or been put on life support.

Said Boardman: "Like most bank executives, I have been critical of exchange control and have advocated its removal. In principle, I still think it is a bad thing. But in the event, I have to say to Trevor, thank you very much."

Author - David Carte - http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page38?oid=233659&sn=Detail

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

South African President flunks his first test

Nothing could illustrate the failure of African leadership more clearly than the farce that took place in Harare this weekend. Following the debacle last week when Morgan Tsvangirai refused to travel on an emergency travel document restricted to Swaziland, the SADC organ on politics and security convened in Harare this Monday. It was attended by the Presidents of South Africa and Mozambique as well as the Prime Minister of Swaziland and an official from Angola. 

They know exactly what the problem is - in March the MDC beat Zanu PF in a closely contested election and its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai beat Mugabe by a wide margin. These leaders know that Morgan got more than 50 per cent of the vote - I understand his actual vote was 54 per cent but after five weeks of procrastination and desperate efforts to falsify the poll the Junta was forced to admit that Mugabe had been beaten but that Tsvangirai had received less than 50 per cent and would have to face a run off. 

The South Africans know full well that the real result was a clear victory for MDC and a humiliation for Mugabe, but went along with the charade and allowed the run off to take place. What followed was three months of intense political violence unleashed on the population by 100 000 youth militia under military leadership in over 2000 camps spread throughout the country. 

When finally it became apparent that any attempt by the MDC to monitor the election would be faced with violence and even the murder of MDC polling agents, the MDC decided to pull out of the contest. Zanu PF went ahead and in complete contrast to the March election, Mugabe was declared the winner in 48 hours and sworn in, in unseemly haste. 

The African observer missions then turned Zanu's world upside down by declaring that the election had 'not been a reflection of the people's will' and stating that Mugabe had not been elected President. Battered and bruised, the MDC and the hapless electorate picked themselves up and were then faced with a demand by SADC leaders that they 'resume' the talks with Zanu PF under the mediation of Thabo Mbeki. 

Mbeki picked up from where his previous mediation had left off, as if nothing had happened in the interim. We are now 4 months down the road on that new initiative and having agreed and signed a power sharing agreement on the 15th September; we are still trying to get the deal implemented. In signing the deal, the MDC massively compromised its rights as the Party that had won the elections outright in March. 

Mugabe, who by all accounts lost the election in March and certainly has no legal or democratic justification to call himself President, continues to act as if he had won the election and Hansard still lists all Zanu PF ministers and Deputy Ministers as Ministers of Government. No doubt they are still on their full salaries and perks even though a number of them were defeated by MDC in the election in March and all of them were stood down as Ministers when Parliament was sworn in a few weeks ago. 

Just to compound this situation Mugabe is treated as a State President by SADC and given full political and diplomatic recognition. The so called 'Global Agreement' provides for a clear separation of powers between the Prime Minister and the President and also sets out in precise terms how the different arms of government are expected to work together. 

Only an idiot could interpret the agreement as meaning that Zanu PF is still in charge and MDC is the junior partner. It is self evident that the allocation of ministerial portfolios should be divided equitably, So when, after weeks of pointless argument Zanu PF published an allocation of Ministerial portfolios that gave Zanu PF complete control of the security machinery of the state as well as all resource ministries and left the rest to the MDC, it was a step too far. 

That brought the region back into the process and gave us the hope that the regional leadership would recognise the illogical and unacceptable nature of such an allocation and impose a solution on the local players that made sense. First it was Mbeki and he made a hash of things - actually endorsing the Zanu PF allocation of posts! Then came the Troika and the aborted meeting in Swaziland. 

Morgan had raised the issue of his passport with the negotiators and when he was issued with a Emergency Travel Document with a single destination restriction he refused to travel. In fact the issue goes far beyond just the question of withholding his travel documents (the passport has been ready for weeks and is sitting in the desk of the Registrar General) it was just the latest of a series of incidents that show that the Junta in Harare has no intention of allowing the new government to be formed. 

They are continuing to restrict and interfere with food distribution by the international community. They have retained tight control over commercial food distribution. The security forces continue to attack any attempts by civil society to support the negotiation process and the media is as warped and restricted as ever. There has been no attempt to implement the 'Global Agreement' in any form up to now. 

When Morgan Tsvangirai failed to attend the Troika meeting it was aborted and reorganised for Harare a week later. In Harare the key player was always going to be the new President of South Africa, Mr. Motlanthe. This was his first real test when it comes to foreign affairs and for most of us it seemed completely logical that he would step up to the plate and smash a home run. 

But no - after 13 hours of intense 'negotiations' they came out of the closet and issued a statement that did not change one single element in the situation (see here). The issue would go a full meeting of SADC Heads of State in two weeks time. What an even larger group of hopeless leaders will do is difficult to imagine. The key player remains Motlanthe, he alone has the power and influence to force a resolution and it just that that is required. The Junta will never give up power without the use of force in whatever form and if that is not going to come from the streets, it has to come diplomatically behind closed doors. 

In 1976 that pressure came from the South Africans in support of an initiative by the American Secretary of State, in 1979 it was pressure from Mozambique, Zambia and Tanzania. The only question now is who will do the necessary in 2008? 

While this charade is being played out, southern Africa burns. In the midst of the global financial crisis, we look indecisive and ineffective. By failing to take crucial decisions on issues such as inter Party violence in South Africa and the resolution of the crisis in Zimbabwe - all within our own clear competence, we are failing our respective countries, the region and our people's best interests. 

It was up to the Secretary General of the United Nations to spell out what was needed. He called for an equitable allocation of Ministerial portfolios and the formation of a new government in Harare as soon as possible. He said that only such a move would bring the political and economic crisis under control. He is right, are our leaders up to it this time? Failure is just that would be 'too ghastly to contemplate'. 

Eddie Cross is MP for Bulawayo South and the Policy Coordinator for the Movement for Democratic Change. This article first appeared on www.eddiecross.africanherd.com/ October 28 2008


US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

US and UAE Must Resist Rise in Protectionism

The US and UAE are working together to resist protectionist measures according to a senior US policymaker.

Speaking at the Dubai International Financial Centre on Tuesday, Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Treasury Robert M. Kimmitt said, “the rise in protectionist sentiment (is) epitomised in rhetoric questioning the benefits of cross-border investment”.

Neither the United States, nor the UAE, nor the rest of the world can afford to turn inward. Instead we must rely on increased interaction with each other to help drive our economies forward and make the benefits of foreign investment to all countries”, he commented. He added that foreign direct investment in the US from the Middle East and North Africa was over $7 billion in 2007 an increase of over 130 per cent from 2001. He said the benefits from foreign investment were clear saying foreign firms employ 5.3 million US workers or about 4.6 per cent of the private sector labour force.  Workers in foreign-owned firms generate 19 per cent of US exports, 14 per cent of R&D spending, 11 per cent of capital investment and 13 per cent of corporate tax revenue.

Kimmitt who is on the second leg of a five-nation tour of the Gulf confirmed he was meeting with a number of sovereign wealth funds, “I am taking the time to meet with sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) and other investors looking for opportunities in the United States to make clear we are open to investment that is done on a commercial not political basis and that does not raise security concerns”.  SWFs recently adopted a voluntary set of principles known as the ‘Santiago Principles’ aimed at fostering greater transparency amongst members. The International Working Group of Sovereign Wealth Funds was facilitated by the International Monetary Fund and co-chaired by the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority thought to be the largest  SWF with assets of between $500-875 billion according to the US based Peterson Institute for International Economics.

A number of proposed  SWF investments are before the Committee on Foreign Investment, Kimmitt stated without elaborating. “We are going to treat them on a non-discriminatory basis as we would any investor coming to the Unites States”.

Kimmitt added that following the issues raised by DP World two and a half years ago the US had taken steps to implement reforms in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The US and UAE last year suspended negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement.

Investor confidence in US financial markets still remains fragile, “we are clearly going through a difficult period at a time of slowing growth and we have difficult quarters ahead of us – I remain optimistic about the long-term strengths of the United States economy” he added?.  Kimmitt also stated that Iran “continues to employ deceptive practices to mask its illicit activities which makes it more difficult for a business partner to know the true beneficiary of a transaction o service with an Iranian entity”.  He also acknowledged measures taken by Gulf regulators to protect their financial systems from abuse.

Author mark_townsend@khaleejtimes.com

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

Sovereign Wealth Funds; Potential Strategic Tools for Regional Stability and Social Cohesion?

The opportunities for more cross-border GCC investments within the MENA region itself, as well as other emerging market regions, could be a good strategic response to the growing scrutiny over SWF investment in Western markets, says Alessandro Bruno.

The Case of the Middle East and the Growing Shiite-Sunni Rift

Investment Thesis:

True “sustainable” investment has at least three dimensions: economic, environmental, and social. With the conspicuous exception of Norway’s Government Pension Fund – Global, Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) have paid relatively little attention to the latter two dimensions. We believe that the embrace of Sustainable Investment (SI) approaches by the SWFs, particularly those in the Persian Gulf region, could pay important economic, social, environmental and even political dividends.

More specifically, SWFs in the Persian Gulf region should consider making strategic, cross-border investments which are explicitly targeted at job-creation and economic and social development within the region. Historically, major SWF investments have tended to be either global or purely domestic. A third, mid-range category of SWF investments holds considerable promise: cross-border, intra-regional investments with a strong job-creation and social development focus.

Such investments could go a considerable distance towards mitigating the Sunni-Shiite conflict, thereby helping create a more stable and attractive investment climate in the region. This would not only benefit the overall investment programs of the SWFs themselves, but also those of Western investors. The latter impact would also have the collateral benefit of creating new reputation capital for the Gulf SWFs, and potentially mitigate some of the suspicion with which they are currently viewed by the West.

Background and Context:

Sovereign Wealth Funds have been one of the hottest topics in both financial and political circles since early 2007. While the definition of SWFs remains somewhat imprecise and even controversial, they are frequently defined as funds controlled by governments invested in international securities against which the government does not have any liabilities. This differentiates them from other government-controlled investment entities such as public pension funds.

Following the surge in the price of oil, most oil-rich countries, which are especially concentrated in the Middle East, have accrued significant amounts of foreign reserve surpluses. Consequently, the scale, risk appetite and impact of SWFs have all increased exponentially over the past few years. In the face of the credit crisis and the bail-out of several major western banks by SWFs, they have been praised especially by financial actors, as forces of financial stability and saviors for troubled banks. Among the Western financial institutions which received life-saving financial transfusions from SWFs in 2007 are: UBS, Citibank, Barclays, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley. Table 1 below summarizes the investable asset bases of four of the largest SWFs in the Gulf region:

At the same time, however, major multilateral institutions such as the OECD and the IMF, as well as the international investment community, have also shown increasing concern about the real or potential lack of independence of SWF operations from government policies, and the possibility of “politically motivated” investments by SWFs. The International Monetary Fund is currently drafting a code of conduct for SWFs (Generally Accepted Principles and Practices), which will primarily focus on the transparency and independence of their governance structures and behavior.

In this short Issue Brief for Innovest clients, we shall argue that, while “political” investments in the western capital markets might not be desired by the Western investment community and regulatory bodies, in other regions such as the Middle East, strategically-targeted, “political” cross-investments between countries can be a source of both political and economic stability in the region. This would actually benefit most of the stakeholders in those jurisdictions, as well as Western investors and corporates.

The Global Trend Towards Sustainable Investment

There is a powerful, worldwide trend among major institutional investors to incorporate “sustainability” or “ESG” (environmental, social, and governance) concerns – notably climate change – into their global investment strategies. Recent evidence indicates that, in addition to other less tangible benefits, risk-adjusted returns can also be improved by including sustainability factors.

By far the most far-reaching aspect of this trend has been its rapid recent growth beyond the narrow “socially responsible investment” niche into the mainstream investment world. Among the most recent examples of this “mainstreaming” phenomenon:

• Over 380 leading global financial institutions, with more than $55 trillion worth of managed assets, have formally expressed strong concern about climate change as an investment risk through the global Carbon Disclosure Project.

• Over 400 major institutional investors, with over $15 trillion in assets, have recently pledged formally to integrate sustainability considerations more directly into their investment strategies by publicly adopting the UN Principles for Responsible Investment.

• Over 20 institutions from seven countries, with over $2.4 trillion in combined assets, have already invested in investment research in this area through the Enhanced Analytics Initiative.

To date, however, with the conspicuous exception of Norway’s Government Pension Fund – Global, the world’s SWF’s have been conspicuous by their absence from participation in this global trend. This may be an ideal opportunity to change that.

The Potential Stabilizing Role of the GCC SWFs

The urgency of subduing the Shiite-Sunni quarrel at both regional and domestic levels is such that in Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah has risked his own legitimacy, challenging the dogmatic Wahabi clerics. The emerging sectarian struggle in an area holding most of the world’s known oil reserves is a grave geo-political and economic concern. However, as worthwhile as the interfaith dialogue recently launched by Saudi Arabia could be, it must also be buttressed by investment and economic growth.

Significant political and economic changes have recently swept across the Persian Gulf countries. The princes of the Gulf have taken small but symbolic steps to suggest that they are trying to earn greater legitimacy with their populations, including the election of women parliamentarians in Saudi Arabia and semi-democratic elections in Kuwait. The economic changes, particularly as far as capital markets are concerned, have been even more significant. Many Gulf countries and companies are now open to foreign investment. Saudi Arabia has embarked on a privatization process, and the smaller princedoms of the UAE and Bahrain have made attracting foreign investment one of their main priorities. Libya has also adopted market reforms easing foreign investment, opening up to trade and removing domestic barriers to resource allocation. This suggests that economic cross-connections driven by SWFs could be increasingly effective policy tools which could contribute to political stability and sustainable economic growth in such historically volatile regions.

Even at an oil price of “only” USD 70/barrel, the Gulf Cooperation Council states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE) can expect unprecedented revenue (into the trillions of dollars) over the next decade. This gives them extraordinary investment clout abroad. It also gives the GCC a powerful investment opportunity, which has a real chance to affect the very nature of the region’s economy and society, by promoting diversification away from oil, as well as social transformation through the employment and training of locals in a greater variety of industries. In other words, the GCC SWFs’ investment philosophy will have significant worldwide and regional repercussions.

While their domestic investment has focused largely on improving hard physical and industrial infrastructure, outbound foreign investment has concentrated on gaining a foothold in the world’s principal capital markets and targeted industries such as aerospace, real estate and high technology. The GCC sovereign funds have, however, paid less attention to emerging markets, particularly those that share their same language, customs, and culture in the Middle East and North Africa. One of the main problems afflicting the region, in spite of the various pockets of intense oil-derived wealth, is youth unemployment. Left unchecked, it remains the primary destabilizing element in the region, because of its vulnerability to ideological and potentially violent forms of social protest, which often take on religious hues in the MENA region. The tensions that linger from the Iraq war and the Lebanese political crisis, combined with the hegemonic challenge posed by Iran in the region, can only grow as destabilizing ingredients. Characteristically, governments remain the largest employers in the region. The GCC’s sovereign funds should not simply seek to replace the state in offering essential services; they should consider investing to help support emerging private sector companies, so as to reduce the employment burden on the state itself. Abu Dhabi is already using private capital to finance water and power projects, and the model could be exported and supported through SWF’s.

Sovereign funds may prove to be the ideal tool to catalyze a greater diversification of the region’s economy, based on private rather than public sector leadership, carrying with it the promise of an improvement of living standards for the entire population of the MENA region. The SWFs have at least five major advantages denied to virtually all other major institutional investors:

- Exponential growth rates

- An infinitely long investment horizon

- An extremely broad vested interest in the overall health of entire national economies and societies

- A lack of financial liabilities to offset their revenues

- A very short, efficient decision chain

These unique assets provide a unique set of capabilities which could and should, we believe, achieve much wider objectives and benefits than is currently the case.

Some Early Progress

One ambitious example of what we have in mind is Saudi Arabia’s planned USD 6 billion SWF to finance domestic projects designed to maximize employment and training in general, and youth employment in particular. This provides an excellent and recent example of a domestic initiative which could be replicated and scaled up on a regional basis. The opportunities for more cross-border GCC investments within the MENA region itself, as well as other emerging market regions, could be a good strategic response to the growing scrutiny over SWF investment in Western markets. The Western ambivalence and occasional antipathy towards sovereign funds in the GCC region militate in favor of more of this kind of “South-South” cooperation. Not surprisingly, Libya's USD 100 billion sovereign fund is primarily targeting investment in other emerging market areas such as Asia and South America. It should be encouraged to seek opportunities in the emerging markets of the Middle East as well.

Kuwait has already used its sovereign wealth fund to make a cross-border strategic investment in Syria. The Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) has discussed launching a joint venture investment fund with the Syrian government to invest in Syria, which has continued to open its economy to foreign investment over the past decade despite the imposition of US sanctions. A Kuwaiti-Syrian holding already owns 10% of the Damascus Four Seasons hotel, which has been very profitable. In addition, in June 2008, it was also announced that Syria and Qatar set up a venture with share capital of $500 million to invest in property in Syria. The concrete prospects of peace with Israel are expected to boost market reforms in Syria even further.

Having historically been focused on either purely domestic or international investments, Gulf States now increasingly realize the investment opportunity to help develop the Muslim world, to overcome the sectarian rift, and to invest in the economic, social, and environmental infrastructure necessary for the region’s economic growth.

In the environmental sphere, Abu Dhabi’s USD 15 billion+ commitment to the ambitious MASDAR environmental technology initiative (including the creation of the world’s first carbon-neutral city) provides a compelling example of what can be accomplished with a “sustainability-enhanced” investment orientation. While MASDAR currently has a domestic focus, it could ultimately become an engine of technological development, employment, and forward-looking skills development for the entire region. On the social side of the sustainability ledger, in neighboring Dubai, investments improving the living standards of international workers could help minimize labor problems and bottlenecks which could otherwise threaten the emirate’s spectacular growth boom.

Conclusion

In the face of continued political crises in the Middle East, the GCC sovereign wealth funds and their oil revenues can play a significant political and economic stabilizing role in the region. We would advocate that the Gulf SWFs pursue three bottom lines (economic, environmental, and social) with their investment strategies, expanding their almost exclusive focus on only the first of the three. Such investments could decrease the overall investment risk profile of the region, and increase the scale and scope of the economic opportunities, for Gulf and Western investors alike.

Consequently, we believe that the attempts by western transnational institutions such as IMF and OECD to depoliticize the SWFs and to transform SWFs into pure economic players are not fully justified, and might deprive the investment community from the stabilizing roles that such funds could play in their own regions.

Any regulatory pressure on the SWFs by Western regulators and multilaterals, while attempting to depoliticize their investments in the international capital markets, should also permit or ideally encourage SWFs to make investments aimed at increased stability and long term economic, social and environmental progress in their home regions.

Alessandro Bruno is Research Analyst at Innovest Strategic Value Advisors.

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

Monday, October 27, 2008

Dubai benchmark index drops 5.8 per cent to 2,922 points

Gulf Arab markets fell across the board crippled by investor fears after Kuwait stepped in to a save a local bank and international markets crumbled on recession fears.

'Unfortunately our shares' performance is still directed by global events,' Rami Sidani, head of Middle East and North Africa, at Schroders said.

'The negative sentiment prevailing on the international market is determining the share price performance.'

Gulf bourses, treading water in early trade, turned abruptly lower after European markets fell to fresh 5-1/2 year lows at the open, echoing a slide in Asia.

Emerging market equities fell to their lowest since September as investors worried that a barrage of central bank support would not be enough to escape a global recession.

In Dubai, the index tumbled to its lowest close since March 2005, falling 5.8 per cent. Bank stocks in particular have taken a beating in the wake of Kuwait's move to step in and save Gulf Bank, which faces big derivatives losses.

The troubled bank sought to assure customers it was operating normally despite hasty withdrawals by clients on Monday and investors urged the government to resign over its handling of the global crisis.

'Kuwait has very bad news on banking sentiment because of Gulf Bank so negative sentiment will prevail. It will take a little time for them to come back from that,' said a trader.

The measure closes 2.22 per cent lower at 9,889 points on broadbased weakness, particularly among financial stocks.

Gulf Bank seeks to assure customers it was operating normally despite hasty withdrawals by clients and investors urge the government to resign over its handling of the global financial crisis.

The Dubai benchmark index drops 5.8 per cent to 2,922 points, its lowest level in 3-1/2 years.

Emaar Properties falls 9.25 percent. Shuaa Capital loses 4.29 percent. Shuaa said on Monday it wanted to buy back up to 55 million shares, or 10 percent share of its issued stock, pending regulatory approval.

The Saudi index, which is down 50 percent this year, closes off 4.17 per cent at 5,301 points, its lowest level since at least January 2007.

Saudi Arabia's central bank governor says sharp declines on the local stock market were due to poor investor sentiment stemming from the global financial turmoil, not economic fundamentals.

Qatar's benchmark closes down 1.46 per cent at 6,792 points. Commercial Bank of Qatar loses 6.34 per cent as a slew of stocks shed more than 9 per cent amid fears the financial crisis may last longer than expected.

The Gulf Arab state downplays the impact of the global credit crisis on its investment plans. The Abu Dhabi benchmark index loses 2.01 percent to 3,321 points.

First Gulf Bank drops 10 percent. The UAE's central bank governor says a liquidity crunch in the country's banking sector is stabilising. Central bank governor also says UAE banks should consider mergers to enable them to lower costs.

The Muscat main index sinks 7.45 percent to 6,021 points, its lowest close since June 2007. Lebanese Market heavyweight Solidere closes down 14 percent, drags index down 7 percent.

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

Obama’s Speech in Canton, Ohio, October 27, 2009

One week.

After decades of broken politics in Washington, eight years of failed policies from George Bush, and twenty-one months of a campaign that has taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are one week away from change in America.

In one week, you can turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.

In one week, you can choose policies that invest in our middle-class, create new jobs, and grow this economy from the bottom-up so that everyone has a chance to succeed; from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor; from the factory owner to the men and women who work on its floor.

In one week, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat; that asks us to fear at a time when we need hope.

In one week, at this defining moment in history, you can give this country the change we need.

We began this journey in the depths of winter nearly two years ago, on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Back then, we didn't have much money or many endorsements. We weren't given much of a chance by the polls or the pundits, and we knew how steep our climb would be.

But I also knew this. I knew that the size of our challenges had outgrown the smallness of our politics. I believed that Democrats and Republicans and Americans of every political stripe were hungry for new ideas, new leadership, and a new kind of politics – one that favors common sense over ideology; one that focuses on those values and ideals we hold in common as Americans.

Most of all, I believed in your ability to make change happen. I knew that the American people were a decent, generous people who are willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations. And I was convinced that when we come together, our voices are more powerful than the most entrenched lobbyists, or the most vicious political attacks, or the full force of a status quo in Washington that wants to keep things just the way they are.

Twenty-one months later, my faith in the American people has been vindicated. That's how we've come so far and so close – because of you. That's how we'll change this country – with your help. And that's why we can't afford to slow down, sit back, or let up for one day, one minute, or one second in this last week. Not now. Not when so much is at stake.

We are in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 760,000 workers have lost their jobs this year. Businesses and families can't get credit. Home values are falling. Pensions are disappearing. Wages are lower than they've been in a decade, at a time when the cost of health care and college have never been higher. It's getting harder and harder to make the mortgage, or fill up your gas tank, or even keep the electricity on at the end of the month.

At a moment like this, the last thing we can afford is four more years of the tired, old theory that says we should give more to billionaires and big corporations and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. The last thing we can afford is four more years where no one in Washington is watching anyone on Wall Street because politicians and lobbyists killed common-sense regulations. Those are the theories that got us into this mess. They haven't worked, and it's time for change. That's why I'm running for President of the United States.

Now, Senator McCain has served this country honorably. And he can point to a few moments over the past eight years where he has broken from George Bush – on torture, for example. He deserves credit for that. But when it comes to the economy – when it comes to the central issue of this election – the plain truth is that John McCain has stood with this President every step of the way. Voting for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that he once opposed. Voting for the Bush budgets that spent us into debt. Calling for less regulation twenty-one times just this year. Those are the facts.

And now, after twenty-one months and three debates, Senator McCain still has not been able to tell the American people a single major thing he'd do differently from George Bush when it comes to the economy. Senator McCain says that we can't spend the next four years waiting for our luck to change, but you understand that the biggest gamble we can take is embracing the same old Bush-McCain policies that have failed us for the last eight years.

It's not change when John McCain wants to give a $700,000 tax cut to the average Fortune 500 CEO. It's not change when he wants to give $200 billion to the biggest corporations or $4 billion to the oil companies or $300 billion to the same Wall Street banks that got us into this mess. It's not change when he comes up with a tax plan that doesn't give a penny of relief to more than 100 million middle-class Americans. That's not change.

Look – we've tried it John McCain's way. We've tried it George Bush's way. Deep down, Senator McCain knows that, which is why his campaign said that "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." That's why he's spending these last weeks calling me every name in the book. Because that's how you play the game in Washington. If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas and maybe make some up. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run away from. You make a big election about small things.

Ohio, we are here to say "Not this time. Not this year. Not when so much is at stake." Senator McCain might be worried about losing an election, but I'm worried about Americans who are losing their homes, and their jobs, and their life savings. I can take one more week of John McCain's attacks, but this country can't take four more years of the same old politics and the same failed policies. It's time for something new.

The question in this election is not "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" We know the answer to that. The real question is, "Will this country be better off four years from now?"

I know these are difficult times for America. But I also know that we have faced difficult times before. The American story has never been about things coming easy – it's been about rising to the moment when the moment was hard. It's about seeing the highest mountaintop from the deepest of valleys. It's about rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose. That's how we've overcome war and depression. That's how we've won great struggles for civil rights and women's rights and worker's rights. And that's how we'll emerge from this crisis stronger and more prosperous than we were before – as one nation; as one people.

Remember, we still have the most talented, most productive workers of any country on Earth. We're still home to innovation and technology, colleges and universities that are the envy of the world. Some of the biggest ideas in history have come from our small businesses and our research facilities. So there's no reason we can't make this century another American century. We just need a new direction. We need a new politics.

Now, I don't believe that government can or should try to solve all our problems. I know you don't either. But I do believe that government should do that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm and provide a decent education for our children; invest in new roads and new science and technology. It should reward drive and innovation and growth in the free market, but it should also make sure businesses live up to their responsibility to create American jobs, and look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road. It should ensure a shot at success not only for those with money and power and influence, but for every single American who's willing to work. That's how we create not just more millionaires, but more middle-class families. That's how we make sure businesses have customers that can afford their products and services. That's how we've always grown the American economy – from the bottom-up. John McCain calls this socialism. I call it opportunity, and there is nothing more American than that.

Understand, if we want get through this crisis, we need to get beyond the old ideological debates and divides between left and right. We don't need bigger government or smaller government. We need a better government – a more competent government – a government that upholds the values we hold in common as Americans.

We don't have to choose between allowing our financial system to collapse and spending billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street banks. As President, I will ensure that the financial rescue plan helps stop foreclosures and protects your money instead of enriching CEOs. And I will put in place the common-sense regulations I've been calling for throughout this campaign so that Wall Street can never cause a crisis like this again. That's the change we need.

The choice in this election isn't between tax cuts and no tax cuts. It's about whether you believe we should only reward wealth, or whether we should also reward the work and workers who create it. I will give a tax break to 95% of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paychecks every week. I'll eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000 and give homeowners and working parents more of a break. And I'll help pay for this by asking the folks who are making more than $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rate they were paying in the 1990s. No matter what Senator McCain may claim, here are the facts – if you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing. Because the last thing we should do in this economy is raise taxes on the middle-class.

When it comes to jobs, the choice in this election is not between putting up a wall around America or allowing every job to disappear overseas. The truth is, we won't be able to bring back every job that we've lost, but that doesn't mean we should follow John McCain's plan to keep giving tax breaks to corporations that send American jobs overseas. I will end those breaks as President, and I will give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create right here in the United States of America. I'll eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country. We'll create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools, and by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country. And I will invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade – jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced; jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and a new electricity grid; jobs building the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow, not in Japan or South Korea but here in the United States of America; jobs that will help us eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in ten years and help save the planet in the bargain. That's how America can lead again.

When it comes to health care, we don't have to choose between a government-run health care system and the unaffordable one we have now. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums. If you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that Members of Congress get for themselves. We'll invest in preventative care and new technology to finally lower the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the entire economy. And as someone who watched his own mother spend the final months of her life arguing with insurance companies because they claimed her cancer was a pre-existing condition and didn't want to pay for treatment, I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care most.

When it comes to giving every child a world-class education so they can compete in this global economy for the jobs of the 21st century, the choice is not between more money and more reform – because our schools need both. As President, I will invest in early childhood education, recruit an army of new teachers, pay them more, and give them more support. But I will also demand higher standards and more accountability from our teachers and our schools. And I will make a deal with every American who has the drive and the will but not the money to go to college: if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford your tuition. You invest in America, America will invest in you, and together, we will move this country forward.

And when it comes to keeping this country safe, we don't have to choose between retreating from the world and fighting a war without end in Iraq. It's time to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a huge surplus. As President, I will end this war by asking the Iraqi government to step up, and finally finish the fight against bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century, and I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

I won't stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy – especially now. The cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq, means that Washington will have to tighten its belt and put off spending on things we can afford to do without. On this, there is no other choice. As President, I will go through the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don't need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

But as I've said from the day we began this journey all those months ago, the change we need isn't just about new programs and policies. It's about a new politics – a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts; one that reminds us of the obligations we have to ourselves and one another.

Part of the reason this economic crisis occurred is because we have been living through an era of profound irresponsibility. On Wall Street, easy money and an ethic of "what's good for me is good enough" blinded greedy executives to the danger in the decisions they were making. On Main Street, lenders tricked people into buying homes they couldn't afford. Some folks knew they couldn't afford those houses and bought them anyway. In Washington, politicians spent money they didn't have and allowed lobbyists to set the agenda. They scored political points instead of solving our problems, and even after the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, all we were asked to do by our President was to go out and shop.

That is why what we have lost in these last eight years cannot be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits alone. What has also been lost is the idea that in this American story, each of us has a role to play. Each of us has a responsibility to work hard and look after ourselves and our families, and each of us has a responsibility to our fellow citizens. That's what's been lost these last eight years – our sense of common purpose; of higher purpose. And that's what we need to restore right now.

Yes, government must lead the way on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and our businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But all of us must do our part as parents to turn off the television and read to our children and take responsibility for providing the love and guidance they need. Yes, we can argue and debate our positions passionately, but at this defining moment, all of us must summon the strength and grace to bridge our differences and unite in common effort – black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American; Democrat and Republican, young and old, rich and poor, gay and straight, disabled or not.

In this election, we cannot afford the same political games and tactics that are being used to pit us against one another and make us afraid of one another. The stakes are too high to divide us by class and region and background; by who we are or what we believe.

Because despite what our opponents may claim, there are no real or fake parts of this country. There is no city or town that is more pro-America than anywhere else – we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it; patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.

It won't be easy, Ohio. It won't be quick. But you and I know that it is time to come together and change this country. Some of you may be cynical and fed up with politics. A lot of you may be disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what has been asked of Americans throughout our history.

I ask you to believe – not just in my ability to bring about change, but in yours.

I know this change is possible. Because I have seen it over the last twenty-one months. Because in this campaign, I have had the privilege to witness what is best in America.

I've seen it in lines of voters that stretched around schools and churches; in the young people who cast their ballot for the first time, and those not so young folks who got involved again after a very long time. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut back their hours than see their friends lose their jobs; in the neighbors who take a stranger in when the floodwaters rise; in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb. I've seen it in the faces of the men and women I've met at countless rallies and town halls across the country, men and women who speak of their struggles but also of their hopes and dreams.

I still remember the email that a woman named Robyn sent me after I met her in Ft. Lauderdale. Sometime after our event, her son nearly went into cardiac arrest, and was diagnosed with a heart condition that could only be treated with a procedure that cost tens of thousands of dollars. Her insurance company refused to pay, and their family just didn't have that kind of money.

In her email, Robyn wrote, "I ask only this of you – on the days where you feel so tired you can't think of uttering another word to the people, think of us. When those who oppose you have you down, reach deep and fight back harder."

Ohio, that's what hope is – that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting around the bend; that insists there are better days ahead. If we're willing to work for it. If we're willing to shed our fears and our doubts. If we're willing to reach deep down inside ourselves when we're tired and come back fighting harder.

Hope! That's what kept some of our parents and grandparents going when times were tough. What led them to say, "Maybe I can't go to college, but if I save a little bit each week my child can; maybe I can't have my own business but if I work really hard my child can open one of her own." It's what led immigrants from distant lands to come to these shores against great odds and carve a new life for their families in America; what led those who couldn't vote to march and organize and stand for freedom; that led them to cry out, "It may look dark tonight, but if I hold on to hope, tomorrow will be brighter."

That's what this election is about. That is the choice we face right now.

Don't believe for a second this election is over. Don't think for a minute that power concedes. We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does.

In one week, we can choose an economy that rewards work and creates new jobs and fuels prosperity from the bottom-up.

In one week, we can choose to invest in health care for our families, and education for our kids, and renewable energy for our future.

In one week, we can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo.

In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history.

That's what's at stake. That's what we're fighting for. And if in this last week, you will knock on some doors for me, and make some calls for me, and talk to your neighbors, and convince your friends; if you will stand with me, and fight with me, and give me your vote, then I promise you this – we will not just win Ohio, we will not just win this election, but together, we will change this country and we will change the world. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.

Transcript provided by the Obama Campaign

Sunday, October 26, 2008

General Motors sales in the UAE up by 31% in first nine months of 2008

UAE. Sales of General Motors (GM) vehicles in the United Arab Emirates in the first nine months of this year are up 31% on the same year of 2007 according to figures released by the company today, reinforcing the Emirates’ position as GM’s second largest market in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia, with total sales of 17,789 units.


GMC continues to forge ahead as the company’s best-performing brand, with year-on-year sales up by 67% to just over 4,000 units. This growth was mainly attributed to the continuing popularity of the full-size SUVs, the Yukon and Yukon XL, with 1,913 units sold, as well as the impact of the Acadia luxury Crossover SUV, which recorded sales of 854 units.


Chevrolet, GM’s foundation brand, experienced an increase in sales of 20%, to 11,795 units, while the Premium brands of Cadillac, HUMMER and Saab registered growth of 15%. The full-size SUVs – the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, and Cadillac Escalade – were the biggest sellers, at 4,404 units, while the Chevrolet Epica was second with sales of 2,045 units.


At a press conference held in Beirut, Lebanon, to announce General Motors’ quarterly business results in the Middle East, Terry Johnsson, President of General Motors-Middle East Operations, said: “It is extremely rewarding to see that the General Motors line-up is attracting customers across the region and in the UAE in ever-increasing numbers, as demonstrated by these latest results.

"At the same time, we acknowledge the commitment and effort of our esteemed dealers - Al Ghandi Auto, Bin Hamoodah Auto, Gargash Motors & General Trading and Liberty Automobiles Co - in making this success possible.


“Looking forward, there are exciting times ahead for GM, with models such as the Chevrolet Traverse and Cadillac CTS-V, Hummer H3T and Sierra Denali just around the corner, and equally highly anticipated models such as the Chevrolet Cruze and Camaro set to arrive next year. GM really grabbed the headlines on September 16th, our 100th anniversary, when we announced our vision for the future by unveiling the production version of the Chevrolet Volt.


This extended-range electric vehicle is set to rewrite automotive history and revolutionize the way we travel.”


At the same time, GM announced a new Middle East sales record for the first nine months of the year, with its sales in the region up by 13% to 111,944 units compared to the same period in 2007. This success can be attributed to three key factors: increasing demand for the company’s full-size SUVs, a huge rise in sales for GMC and the growing popularity of the GM brands in the Lower Gulf and the smaller markets.


GM’s best-selling models across the Middle East continue to be its full-size SUVs - the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, and the Cadillac Escalade – with sales up by 38% over the first nine months of 2008.


At the opposite end of the size spectrum, and reinforcing GM’s reputation for offering great value cars, the fuel efficient Chevrolet Aveo and Optra models occupy second and third place in the sales chart.


With year-on-year sales up 41% on 2007, the GMC brand continues to go from strength to strength. Combined sales of the Yukon and Yukon XL are 37% to 22,535, while the GMC Acadia luxury Crossover SUV, in only its second year on sale in the Middle East, has sold 4,725 units, firmly establishing it among GM’s top ten best-sellers. The arrival earlier this year of the all-new compact SUV, the GMC Terrain, has stretched the appeal of the brand to a new breed of customers.

Combined Cadillac, Hummer and Saab sales are up 21% over the first nine months of 2007.


Cadillac’s award-winning, all-new CTS luxury sedan and Escalade luxury SUV have strengthened their appeal among premium brand customers, with big year-on-year increases. A 56% increase in sales of the rugged Hummer H2 and a 21% rise for the Saab 9-3 are further proof of the all-round appeal of GM’s Premium Brands.


Chevrolet has also performed strongly in 2008, with sales up 3% to 71,035 units, around two-thirds of all GM sales in the region. The best-selling Tahoe and Suburban full-size SUVs recorded combined sales up 42% on last year.


Chevrolet’s Aveo, Optra and Caprice models occupy second to fourth place in the GM best-selling list, while a 27% rise in demand for the Epica has helped it to jump into fifth place.


Across the region, GM also recorded some outstanding sales increases in Lebanon, (up 111%), Oman (up 43%), Iraq (up 21%), Kuwait (up 18%), Bahrain (up 17%), Saudi Arabia (up 8%) and Syria (up 6%).


Source: BI-ME , Author: Justin Smith

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Don't Close The Door On Free Trade

In the midst of the financial crisis, another threat is nipping at the global economy's heels: the re-emergence of protectionism.

Both the World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Pascal Lamy and the outgoing European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson are among those warning that the economic troubles could breed protectionism, which would curtail economic growth when we need it most.

These admonitions come on the heels of the breakdown of the Doha round of trade talks and after much public rancor over pacts including the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Nothing would be worse for the global economy than responding to the current crisis by closing the doors of opportunity that free trade unlocks. Free trade fuels momentous, positive change. According to the WTO, cutting trade barriers in agriculture, manufacturing and services by one-third would boost the world economy by $613 billion--that's equivalent to adding an economy the size of Canada's to the global marketplace. Free trade raises income--just look no further than the clear emergence of China and India's middle class for proof. In the U.S., exports have created 12 million jobs.

Beyond the economic benefits, free trade, if pursued with a long-term, fair and sustainable approach, can also build bridges among people and nations. At a time when the world seems constantly on edge, global trade presents a unique opportunity to help us overcome some of our differences and problems, whatever they may be.

One of the many lessons today's turmoil offers is that a company's success should be viewed in decades, not quarters. Having a long-term vision and the commitment to stick with it--fine-tuning as needed--sustains a company through downturns and propels steady growth.

Investing for the long haul was UPS's (nyse: UPS - news - people ) approach to building its international operations, which began in earnest 20 years ago this month. Our decision to "go global" was met initially with some internal skepticism, in part because our leaders knew it was going to be a very expensive and labor-intensive proposition.

They also recognized that it represented a big departure from our core competency as a domestic delivery service, but ultimately our executives did not waver from their vision of building an international company. As the Berlin Wall fell and China began to open its doors, they saw the emergence of a global economy. They knew that if UPS didn't adapt and become global itself, it would become irrelevant.

Today, the once-questioned decision to go global is helping to insulate UPS against the U.S. economic downturn. In part that's because many of our customers are experiencing tremendous growth even in these difficult times, because they're growing global businesses.

When U.S. companies grow internationally, they learn that long-term relationships are imperative to doing business around the world. Following the demise of some of Wall Street's most trusted names, I believe that business relationships are going to take on even more importance. For multinational companies, hiring locally wherever they operate is a key part of forging these relationships.

When UPS first set up operations around the world, we made the mistake of sending in large groups of U.S. expatriates to run the business. But we soon realized that we would not succeed without local knowledge and relationships. UPS's philosophy of developing "home-grown" talent and promotion from within has helped us establish a sustainable and community-conscious business model, while providing us a deep bench of talent that understands the local culture, language and business values.

That, in turn, has earned UPS the trust of the communities we serve. For example, 99% of our 5,500 employees in China are Chinese nationals. That played a big role in China's selection of UPS as the official logistics and express delivery sponsor of the Beijing Olympics.

While much of the world's trade growth has come as a result of shipping lower-cost goods from emerging markets to mature ones, higher fuel costs are shifting this pattern. Businesses in the European Union and the U.S. are finding it more cost effective to source their products from nearby locations in Eastern Europe or Mexico, respectively, forming a new trend called near-sourcing. This is helping companies better distribute risk, which is an important part of financial growth and stability. And it's also providing new opportunities. For example, in Mexico, the best-paying jobs now are export-related.

Sectors that export 60% or more of their production pay Mexican workers wages that are 39% higher than the rest of the economy, and maquiladora plants typically pay 3.5 times the Mexican minimum wage. These new economic opportunities can serve as a catalyst for educational development, positive political and regulatory reforms and social stability--all of which benefit us collectively.

The root cause of Wall Street's recent problems, and ultimately those of the world's financial institutions, won't be solved by global trade. But the ripple effect of those problems--which have been felt by virtually everyone on the planet--can be mitigated by ensuring the free flow of goods, information and funds around the world. Protectionism is a misnomer, as trade barriers don't protect.

The world is already so integrated economically that the greatest force impacting the greatest number of lives is business. How we react to our current challenges will be critical to our future. Let us keep the doors open.

The author, Dan Brutto is the President of UPS International.

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

The financial crisis, economic slow down and international trade

The financial crisis, economic slow down and international trade... an unhappy mix of developments.

The tumultuous changes in the world’s financial markets and sharp down turn in the availability of credit and liquidity will provide economists and financial analysts with experiences that will serve as a fertile source of subjects for topical research for years to come. Policy makers, including regulators, will also spend much effort in diagnosing the financial disease in order to find a cure and design preventative measures that, once the crisis like all past crises is something of the past, will prevent a recurrence. While analyzing the present crisis two observations demand serious consideration.

The first deals with the conventional wisdom that markets can fail and that market failure justifies intervention by governments and government agencies. What the current crisis, however, clearly illustrates is that markets can fail spectacularly with devastating results for economies in general. It also illustrates that a failure in a particular market such as that of the USA has a contagious impact on other markets; what we have is a stark reminder that we live in the clichéd global village.

Market failure of the current degree and scope demands serious and innovative reactions by the authorities. A good illustration of unusual action taken is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to move beyond the central bank function of acting as last resort to commercial banks and not only to come to the assistance of investment banks but now also to act as lender to companies through the purchase of the commercial paper of companies. The seriousness with which governments is acting is fortunately so totally different from the advice which Andrew Mellon, at the time Secretary of the US Treasury, gave President Herbert Hoover on how to deal with Great Depression: “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.”

Comments in the media and the degree and nature of government intervention to address the crisis are signals that in the post-crisis phase a major re-design of regulatory structures can be expected. A reaction to overzealous deregulation in the past is appropriate but important conditions or warnings should be flagged. Governments also fail and the consequences can be as serious as those of market failure. Furthermore, efficient markets are a prerequisite for economic growth and financial stability and in redesigning regulatory structures care should be taken not to rid the baby with the bath water. The architects of the new regulations will have to avoid structures that stifle the ability of markets to allocate credit and resources efficiently.

The second observation that the current crisis elicits is the demonstration of the close link between financial markets and the so-called real economy. The dichotomy of neoclassical economics does not apply. Developments in the financial markets, especially as radical as those of the current situation, have a negative impact on real economic activity. The causal link also runs in the opposite direction from the real economy to financial markets. What the current crisis illustrates is that the credit squeeze and the illiquidity that constrain banking activity are in all likelihood bound to exacerbate the cyclical downturn in economic activity. The outcome could be a deeper and more prolonged recession than what would have been the case otherwise.

Observers who are concerned about the impact on real economic activity and the consequences this hold for international trade relations need to note three possible developments. All three, but the first two in particular, call for special vigilance if the idea of international trade as welfare-enhancing is to remain alive and reflected in policy decisions at the national and international level.

First, a sharp and prolonged downturn in economic activity is not conducive to a revival of multilateral negotiations on trade liberalization. Recessionary conditions have a negative impact on world trade through the positive link between real income and imports, the latter for one country being the exports of a trading partner. Under these conditions protectionist thinking could thrive, as they did in the aftermath of the 1929-32 depression. These conditions are not favourable for the resuscitation of the Doha Round of negotiations.

Second, in a policy environment that favors protectionist thinking a fortunate source of discipline will be the principle of non-discrimination embodied in Article 1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the security and transparency provided by WTO tariff bindings. These principles guide trade relations within the framework of the WTO Agreements. However, it is not impossible and perhaps even likely that protectionism will enter through the backdoor, with firms and governments utilizing WTO acceptable exceptions to non-discrimination and tariff bindings. In a protectionist environment with little possibility of import tariff amendments because of the WTO Agreements, it is likely that we will see an increase in the number of anti-dumping cases. Experience has shown that it is not difficult to use this mechanism, provided for by Article VI of GATT 1994 and further regulated through the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as a protectionist measure.

But it is not only anti-dumping action that could provide room for protectionism posing as contingent protection. In severe recessionary conditions it would even be possible to invoke the safeguard protection provided for in Article XIX of GATT, further clarified and regulated by the Agreement on Safeguards. Safeguard action allows emergency protection on a temporary basis against ‘serious injury’ caused by a surge in the imports of a particular product. However, the surge need not manifest as an absolute increase in imports; it can also be a relative increase in the share of imports of a shrinking market. It does not take much imagination to see how this can be used as a means of industrial protection in a situation of recession plagued markets.

In the third place, it should be noted that reaction to the financial crisis has demonstrated that even an advanced regional integration arrangement such as that of the European Union (EU) does not ensure collective action. Within the EU not even a single currency and regional central bank could provide the basis for collective action. The Irish, a Euro country, led the way in doing their own thing with the introduction of a deposit guarantee scheme and since then other countries have followed, regardless of high-level meetings to coordinate and plan reactions. What this illustrates is that in the end national interests reign supreme and if collective action is to be achieved, post-crisis planning will have to bring banking regulation into the realm of the regional integration arrangement.

By Colin McCarthy - The author is an Associate at The Trade Law Centre For Southern Africa - tralac is a not-for-profit organisation, building trade law capacity in the southern Africa region; in governments, the private sector and civil society. http://www.tralac.org/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_cause&cause_id=1694

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

Friday, October 24, 2008

Emirates Airline took delivery Friday of its second Airbus A380

UAE. Emirates Airline took delivery Friday of its second Airbus A380 after some delays. Media reports had earlier claimed the delay was due to supplier issues with interior outfitting.

The new superjumbo will enter commercial service on the Dubai-New York route starting on 27 October. This increases Emirates’ A380 service on the route to once-a-day. Emirates operates two flights a day to New York JFK, the second daily service using a Boeing 777-300ER.

The double-decked aircraft arrived at Dubai International Airport at 03.30pm local time. HH Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Maktoum, Chairman and Chief Executive, Emirates Airline and Group said: "Emirates has an environmental goal to operate the world's most eco-efficient fleet and our second A380's arrival will further reduce the airline's average fuel use per passenger.

"By 2013, the arrival of at least 100 new aircraft and the retirement of some older aircraft will see a further improvement in Emirates' overall fleet efficiency." Emirates' A380s offer a fuel burn of three liters per 100 passenger kilometers. Emirates, the Middle East’s biggest airline, put its first giant A380 into service on 1 August with a direct flight from Dubai to New York. It has said that it will receive a total of five planes during its current financial year ending next March.

Emirates, with 58 firm orders for the A380 out of a total 198 from manufacturer EADS, is the biggest customer for the delay-plagued European plane and is the second client to take delivery after Singapore Airlines which already has five.

US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Oppenheimer: On Obama and Trade Pacts

Perhaps the most important question raised in the last presidential debate was the one that got the least media attention - whether a Barack Obama presidency would lead to U.S. protectionism, trade wars and a global depression.
 
Was that a fair accusation by Republican candidate John McCain?

The issue came up about halfway through the debate when McCain - noting that Obama ''has never been south of the border'' - attacked him for not supporting the U.S. free trade agreement with Colombia and for wanting to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

''I don't think there's any doubt that Sen. Obama wants to restrict trade, and he wants to raise taxes,'' McCain said. ''And the last president of the United States that tried that was Herbert Hoover, and we went from a deep recession into a depression.'' 

Obama responded that ''I believe in free trade,'' but he added that not every free trade deal is a good one. He said he opposes the Colombian deal because of human rights concerns over killings of union leaders in that country, and that he opposed NAFTA because he objected to its lack of proper labor and environmental clauses. But, on the other hand, he said, ''I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement, which was a well-structured agreement.''  McCain supporters say Obama is pandering to U.S. labor unions, which are campaigning actively for him and competition. Obama's current ads claiming that McCain's tax policies ''shift jobs overseas'' paint the Democrat's true feelings, Republicans say. 

And they note that Obama's claim that he ''supported'' the Peruvian free trade deal is misleading because Obama did not actually cast a vote for it. Obama aides say their candidate missed the vote because he was attending an Iowa debate that day, but that Obama publicly endorsed the deal at the time.

If Obama is a closet protectionist, as the McCain camp claims, that would entail huge risks for the global economy. 

The Great Depression of the 1930s was sparked by a 1929 stock market collapse, but really turned into a global depression after the United States passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act on June 17, 1930, which raised U.S. customs duties for imports by up to 50 percent. 

The tariff increases were aimed at helping domestic companies and generating jobs at home. Instead, other countries responded in kind, international trade plummeted by 33 percent over the next three years, U.S. exports collapsed and U.S. unemployment rose at record levels. 

The lesson is clear: Adopting protectionist measures in a recession is playing with fire, McCain supporters (and many Obama fans, too) say. 

My Opinion: I don't think Obama is a protectionist. When I interviewed him, he almost jumped from his seat when I asked him if he's anti-free trade. Like Bill Clinton before him, he would most likely switch to a more pro-free trade stance once in office. 

What worries me is whether Obama would have the guts to go against the growing protectionist mood in the country at a time when America needs to open new export markets more than ever. A new Zogby poll shows that 59 percent of Americans support either revising or withdrawing from NAFTA. 

And I wonder whether Obama would spend his political capital trying to persuade a Democratic-controlled Congress to support free trade. 

Pollsters forecast that the Democrats will retain control of both chambers of Congress and may win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Twenty-three of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs are held by mostly pro-free trade Republicans, and some may be replaced by trade-skeptic Democrats, they say. 

Granted, a landslide victory by Obama on Nov. 4 would give him enough political clout to sway Congress in the right direction. But an Obama win by a small margin with a more protectionist Congress and amid a growing isolationist sentiment would be a different story. 

I have to confess that I like Obama on most issues. But on this one, I would like him to show more statesmanship. If the next president doesn't enthusiastically embrace free trade, the United States will be under growing domestic pressures to close its market to foreign goods, hurting the world economy - and itself. 

Andres Oppenheimer
The Miami Herald


US EXPORT COUNCIL PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO US COMPANIES SEEKING ACCESS TO HIGH GROWTH MARKETS OVERSEAS. http://usexportcouncil.com/