Monday, March 5, 2012

Report Shows Netherlands Would Benefit by Leaving Eurozone; Country by Country Aggregate Costs; Dutch Freedom Party Wants Euro Exit Referendum; Critical Juncture for Eurozone

Report Shows Netherlands Would Benefit by Leaving Eurozone

Inquiring minds are reading a 73 page detailed report The Netherlands & The Euro that explains country by country why Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Spain are going to need lots more money, and the Netherlands and Germany will end up footing the bill.

The study highlights the fundamental flaws of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), the damage done by the euro to date to the Netherlands, and the potential costs down the road. The report conclusion is Netherlands should exit the EMU.

Here are some snips from the report regarding the finances of Italy, Spain, and Portugal.
Italian Projections

It cannot be assumed that roll-over of existing debt as it matures can be done with private lenders, as in the past. Italy has virtually zero real growth, and interest rates that, at 6% or so, are 4-5% ahead of likely future inflation. A government debt burden well over 100% of GDP in a country whose real interest rate exceeds its real growth rate by 4% or more is theoretically unsustainable. The debt ratio is almost certain to mount indefinitely. In this context, it is realistic to analyse a scenario in which financial markets conclude that Italy has slipped into the “Greek trap”. In that case, official Eurozone financing will be needed not just for the budget deficit, but to refinance maturing debt as well. This would be a major added burden, as Italy’s maturities are €305 billion in 2012, €175 billion in 2013, and €140 billion in 2014 and 2015, before falling below €100 billion a year. In this scenario, financing Italy within the Eurozone could quadruple in cost to a five-year average of €250 billion a year.



All of the above highlights the risk that Italy’s debt will increase its net ratio to GDP from 100%. But the SGP, Maastricht criteria, and recent pact to “save” the euro, all require that Italy reduce its gross debt ratio to 60% of GDP or less. Clearly there is not the slightest chance of this within decades, unless Italy quits the euro and inflation rises. The setting of this target is fantasy – the 60% number is arbitrary, relating to no rational (or achievable) objective, though for Italy in the euro, with negligible potential nominal growth, the sustainable limit of government debt is clearly far below the current level.

Spanish Projections

Portugal is in desperate trouble – well beyond rescue, with business net debts at 16 times net cash flow – and Spain, and possibly France, in serious trouble: their ratios of around 12 times net cash flow being about that of Japan in 1996 that was followed by six years of zero growth. The analysis here will focus on Spain, its grim conclusions simply being grimmer for Portugal. French risks will be seen to be less.

The Spanish government has actively pursued a tighter fiscal stance, in line with the current Eurozone insistence on austerity. It is likely to prove counter-productive. Unemployment has already mounted from 8% in late 2007 to over 20%. The government’s GDP estimates have ceased to be credible, registering a real decline of just under 5% in the recession, with negligible recovery since. It is highly improbable that such a recession, less than that of the US, Germany or Britain, would lead to a 12 percentage-point rise in unemployment, even with the lay-off of masses of low-productivity casual construction labour, much of it migrants from eastern Europe. But, as elsewhere, denial followed by bluff has been the standard Eurozone response to critics throughout the crisis. Almost certainly, the true fall in GDP has been much greater.

Spain’s business finances, in the context of austerity, are caught in the same vice as Italy’s government finances. As long as they stay in the Euro, austerity is worsening, not reducing, the debt problem. The only solution to these debt problems is growth, and that is precisely what the Berlin-Brussels-Paris political élite is ensuring will not happen.

The risk, obviously, is to the Spanish banking system. Even after Japan’s six-year “drying-out” period, its banks had to undergo a substantial debt write-down in early 2003 (8% of GDP) before economic recovery became sound. In Spain, it is unlikely that exaggerated asset values – especially in real estate, but also in business generally – can withstand the coming economic downswing. Once they start to tumble, the call on the government to bail out the banks could cause its debt to soar. This is like Ireland a couple of years ago, when it dealt with the business debt problem, so that government debt, which has soared, now accommodates the business debt excesses of the boom. A recession in Spain now probably implies serious debt service problems in business, asset liquidation leading to falling asset prices, and major bank write-offs requiring government recapitalisation. There is a major danger that current austerity policies will lead straight to depression.



Portugal Projections

Portugal will probably be out of the EMU quickly if Greece goes, and this will bring the focus onto the two large Med-Europe countries, Italy and Spain, of which Italy will probably be “next up”. The debt crises of Ireland, Portugal and Spain (in order of overall debt/GDP ratio, all of them with a higher ratio than Greece or Italy) lie in the private sector, and are therefore “slowburn”.

In Portugal, where the chief export market is potentially recessionary Spain, where cost competitiveness is worse than Spain, and the business debt burden much higher at 16 times net cash flow, as is government debt relative to GDP, the private sector is actually still in deficit – the current-account deficit is larger than the budget deficit.

It is almost impossible to see how Portugal can avoid a crash. It is a poorer country than Greece, so the Franco-German decision to insist on no further government debt write-offs after Greece means the country is likely to be returned to penury – having in any case had very little growth since it joined the euro at its inception.

In this projection of Portuguese financial needs, the assumption is that coping with the extremity of business debt ratios creates a crisis that requires the write-off of existing debt over three years, as in Greece above. The projected government debt of zero in 2015 is therefore fictitious in the sense that the existing debt will have been replaced by a large volume of government debt to finance a banking recapitalisation. This could be substantially larger than Ireland’s 2010 31% of GDP, as Portugal’s business debt is larger than Ireland’s was. Portugal’s future debt capacity will be extremely low, as it has negligible potential growth and, assuming it stays in the euro, no inflation either – yet market interest rates are likely to be quite high.

Austerity + Subsidy – Not a Cure

In summary terms, curing a country’s excessive debt problem requires one (or more) of the three ‘de’s: devaluation, default or deflation. The Eurozone has ruled out the first two – and adopting the third seems likely to achieve a fourth ‘de’: depression.

With unchanged Eurozone membership, the only method of adjusting costs and prices in Med-Europe to be competitive without extreme and constantly reinforced austerity, leading to depression, would be stimulation of rapid inflation in The Netherlands and Germany for a decade or two; and acceptance over that adjustment period of large fiscal subsidy payments to the deficit countries – not loans to be repaid later, but unrequited transfers. Such transfers are already happening through banking systems being subsidised by access to the ECB’s repo “window” to finance themselves at interest rates well below those paid by their own governments

The danger for The Netherlands is that the potential for subsidy needed by Med-Europe is open-ended. All official scenarios are based on a rapid reversion to recovery, both in Eurozone economies and financial markets. Official scenarios never anticipate recession or financial crisis. This is part of the problem. The imbalances that are poisoning the Eurozone economies cannot be acknowledged because their cure, once they are acknowledged, clearly requires major exits from the euro, or its disbandment. Unacknowledged, they remain unaddressed, so continued financial deterioration is likely, unless the core Eurozone countries step in and provide the continuing subsidies outlined above.

Aggregate Potential Costs of Current EMU Membership

Dutch Freedom Party Wants Euro Exit Referendum

Bloomberg reports Dutch Freedom Party Wants Euro Exit Referendum
The Dutch Freedom party wants voters in the Netherlands to decide in a referendum whether the country should return to the guilder, De Telegraaf reported today, citing an interview with party leader Geert Wilders.

The Freedom Party hired Lombard Street Research to investigate the cost of maintaining the Euro zone and alternative scenarios if countries elect to leave, according to a statement by London-based FTI Consulting. The report will be presented in The Hague on March 5.
How Significant is the Dutch Freedom Party?

Inquiring minds may be wondering how big and influential the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (‘PVV’, the Party for Freedom) might be. It's a good question, too. The short answer is the PVV is a critical part of the coalition holding the Netherlands government together.

Reuters explains in commentary from November, Analysis: Populists exploit euro zone crisis to gain influence
In the Netherlands, eurosceptic politician Geert Wilders is staging a campaign which could push the minority government to the brink of collapse after barely a year in power.

Last week, Wilders proposed that the Netherlands should hold a referendum on whether to ditch the euro and embrace the Dutch guilder again, pending a study of the long-term economic costs.

The government relies on the support of Wilders's Freedom Party (PVV), even though it is not in the ruling coalition.

PVV won the third-largest number of seats in parliament in elections last year, mainly because of its tough stance on immigration and Islam. It has a pact with the coalition of Liberals (VVD) and Christian Democrats (CDA), giving the pro-euro government the majority it needs to pass legislation.

Wilders denies he wants to bring down the government over the euro but he is playing up a split on a major issue between the coalition and the party on which it relies for survival.

"The euro and Europe is the key element of our foreign policy. How can we have a split between VVD-CDA who strongly support Europe, and PVV? This is the most dangerous issue for our cabinet," Eijffinger told Reuters.

"If you disagree on such enormously important issues then it becomes harder and harder to avoid accidents. At a certain moment it will accelerate."
The Freedom Party has become the second-most popular party in Dutch opinion polls, mainly because it opposes the costly bailouts of the euro zone's heavily indebted members.

By proposing a referendum, Wilders has heightened tensions between his party and the government. The euro zone debt crisis has already toppled several governments and now threatens to engulf Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Rutte has shot down the idea of quitting the euro, saying it would be disastrous for the export-oriented Dutch economy.

But his government has been criticized for supporting bailouts of countries such as Ireland and Portugal, and a stability fund intended for future rescues as the euro zone debt crisis spreads like wildfire to bigger economies like Italy.

Opinion polls suggest many Dutch still hanker for the guilder, and resent having to pay for Europe's more profligate members, particularly while the Dutch government is cutting spending on healthcare, education, and social security benefits.

A poll at the weekend found 32 percent favored quitting the euro, 60 percent were against leaving, and 43 percent wanted a referendum on whether to return to the guilder. Another poll found that a majority wished the country had stuck with the guilder.

With elections due in 2013, Austria's Freedom Party is neck and neck with the governing Social Democrats and ahead of the conservative People's Party, the junior party in the coalition.

"Now even Paris and Berlin are thinking about splitting up the euro zone. We in the Freedom Party suggested this at the start of the euro crisis because in truth it is the only correct solution. This is the only way to save Europe," Strache said.

In an interview with the newspaper Oesterreich in May, he warned: "We have to get out of the euro before it plunges us into the abyss. We need a new currency along with other strong-currency countries."
Critical Juncture for Eurozone

This new report could very well topple the government of  Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Put that bit of news together with the fact that French Presidential candidate wants to redo portions of the just signed "Merkozy" treaty. Polls show French president Nicolas Sarkozy will not survive the next set of elections.

German chancellor Angela Merkel is rapidly losing support as well. Ironically, the breakup of Merkel's coalition might be to a coalition wanting to lend still more support the nanny-zone.

Regardless, the net effect of the demise of the governments of Germany, France, and the Netherlands would be for far more feuding, adding to the overall pressure for a eurozone breakup.

The eurozone is at a critical juncture now. If governments in the Netherlands, Germany, and France collapse, and I think they will, the eurozone could be nearing the inevitable breakup stage already.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Eurozone Services and Composite PMI Back in Contraction; Italy, Spain, France at New Lows

Markit Eurozone Services and Composite PMIs show renewed contraction due to drop in services activity, making it extremely difficult to deny that Europe is in a recession. Let's take a look at some numbers.

Markit Eurozone Composite PMI®
The Markit Eurozone PMI® Composite Output Index fell from 50.4 in January to 49.3 in February, dropping below the earlier flash estimate of 49.7. The final reading confirmed that business activity contracted in February, having briefly returned to growth in January following four months of decline at the end of last year.



Key points:
  • Final data confirm slide back into contraction, as drop in services activity offsets marginal rise in manufacturing output
  • Strong downturns still evident in Italy and Spain
  • Employment and prices charged fall as firms seek to cut costs and win new sales

Markit Eurozone Services PMI®
Service sector weakness poses new recession risk

Key points:

  • Service sector activity contracts for fifth time in six months
  • Ongoing fall in new business leads to job losses
  • Growth in Germany contrasts with steeper declines in Italy and Spain
  • Business confidence hits seven-month high



Of the four largest euro countries, only Germany showed expansion in February, and the rate of growth slowed from January’s seven-month high. The French service sector stagnated, ending a two-month period of mild expansion. Both Spain and Italy registered steep contractions, with the rates of decline gathering momentum in both cases.

Nations ranked by business activity (February)
  • Ireland 53.3 12-month high
  • Germany 52.8 2-month low
  • France 50.0 3-month low
  • Italy 44.1 4-month low
  • Spain 41.9 3-month low

Spanish service providers reported a further particularly steep drop in payroll numbers, and employment also fell sharply in Italy’s service sector. French headcounts rose only slightly, while services employment growth in Germany slowed to the weakest since June 2010.

Companies frequently sought to boost sales by cutting prices, and average prices charged for services fell for the fifth time in the past six months as a result. Price trends varied markedly by country, however, ranging from ongoing upward pressure in Germany to steep falls in Spain and, to a lesser extent, Italy. France registered a slight fall in prices charged for services, reflecting the stagnation of new business flows in February.

In contrast to the trend for charges levied by service providers, input prices in the sector rose for the twenty-seventh straight month, pushed up in many instances by higher fuel and energy prices.
Profit Squeeze

Note that prices received fell for the fifth month in six, but prices paid rose for the twenty-seventh straight month.

Let's take a look at the second biggest economy, France, to see what is coming up.

Markit France Services PMI®

French service sector output stagnates in February, despite rise in new business.

Key points:

  • Final Markit France Services Activity Index(1) at 50.0 (52.3 in January), 3-month low.
  • Final Markit France Composite Output Index(2) at 50.2 (51.2 in January), 2-month low.



Recent growth of French service sector output slowed to a halt in February, as activity levels stagnated. This was despite a marginal rise in new work intakes, with poor weather impeding output. Nonetheless, backlogs of work declined again, albeit only slightly. A mild increase in staffing levels was indicated. Future expectations strengthened markedly in February, albeit remaining below the long-run series trend. Meanwhile, strong competition led to a further reduction in output prices despite solid input cost inflation.
Spain is in an economic depression as are Greece and Portugal.  Italy is not in a depression but it is a basket case as shown by the business activity above.

See that positive GDP in the France chart? Don't expect it to last because it won't.

Moreover, austerity measures across the board coupled with a slowdown in Asia strongly indicate the vaunted German export machine is about to break down as well.

The European recession will be both long and deep.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Disingenuous Recession Explanations from ECRI Regarding Coincident Indicators; An Email Response From ECRI; Does the ECRI Even Believe Its Own Indicators?

Late last month in ECRI Sticks with Recession Call on CNBC; More than a Bit of an Exaggeration by Achuthan to Make His Call? I questioned the ECRI's use of coincident indicators to make a claim regarding recession
I count three instances between 1990 and 2000 where ECRI coincident indicators flagged a recession by the methodology Achuthan cited.

I have numerous other problems historically with ECRI claims, including their alleged "perfect" track record. Please see A Look at ECRI's Recession Predicting Track Record for details.

This time, I happen to think Achuthan has very valid points. However, once again, Achuthan has a hard time articulating them in a purely factual manner in spite of the fact he is clearly bright and articulate.
Email Response From ECRI

In response to that article, reader "Art" sent an email to the ECRI and received this email back from Melinda Hubman, ECRI Managing Director, Operations.
Hi Art,

Actually, it is incorrect to say that the U.S. Coincident Index (USCI) year-over-year growth rate dropped even more in ~91, 95 & 98 and no recession followed.

We have attached an Excel file showing the straightforward calculations, based on the USCI data available from ECRI’s website (http://www.businesscycle.com/reports_indexes/allindexes).

The latest USCI growth rate is 1.94% (which can be rounded off to 1.9%). In January 1996, it had dropped only to 2.06% (which can be rounded off to 2.1%). This was certainly not below current readings. Of course, no recession followed.

In 1998, the USCI growth came nowhere near current readings, so the question doesn’t arise. It wasn’t until January 2001 that it fell below 2%, and the recession began two months later.

The attached worksheet marks all months when USCI growth, rounded off to one decimal place, fell to 2.1% (marked in blue) or to 2.0% or below (marked in red).

If you look at all the occasions in the last 50-plus years when USCI growth fell to 2.0% or below (marked in red), it is clear that recessions began around those dates (obviously, we don’t include the occasions when USCI growth had risen through 2.0% following the recessions).

In sum, it is precisely accurate to claim that y-o-y USCI growth has never dropped to current readings in the past 50-plus years without a recession ensuing.

Kind regards,

Melinda Hubman
Managing Director, Operations
ECRI
Disingenuous Response

I am rather amazed at the disingenuous response from the ECRI.

The ECRI rounded down 1.94% to 1.9% then rounded up 2.06% to 2.1% to make their claim. Really! You cannot make this stuff up.

The ECRI sent an excel spreadsheet to reader Art, and I took that exact spreadsheet and created a chart from it. Here is my chart.

ECRI Year-Over-Year Percent Change in Coincident Indicators



click on chart for sharper image

Incredulous Defense

Somehow the ECRI wants us to believe that a year-over-year plunge in coincident indicators from 3.71% to 1.94% (a 1.77 percentage point drop in 15 months) is more important than the 1995-1996 plunge from 5.23% to 2.06% (a whopping 3.17 percentage point drop in 12 months).

I am not the only one in disbelief of this ridiculous position.

Georg Vrba, P.E. wrote a pair of articles on Advisor Perspectives on the subject.


Is There Something Magic About 2 Percent?

I want to continue the discussion with a point Vrba missed, specifically the "magic" 2 percent threshold.

Melinda Hubman, ECRI Managing Director, took great "rounding" pains to defend a dip below 2 percent as if a decline to 1.94 percent was significant but a far bigger percentage point decline to 2.06% was not.

Indeed.

Spotlight 2007

Please take a good look at that chart created using ECRI data, supplied by the ECRI. What I want you to focus on is the decline in March of 2006 from 3.76% to 1.80% in October of 2007, all the way to 1.05% in February of 2008.

Please consider this image clip from the November-December 2007 ECRI Outlook (now conveniently redirected by the ECRI to another spot).



Got that?

The ECRI in its November-December 2007 Outlook, in spite of that massive drop in coincident indicators, in spite of a recession that I believe should have been obvious, actually said "this weakness is not pronounced, pervasive and persistent enough to be recessionary"!

Coincident indicators did not appear to be a concern at all in 2007, now (out of the blue), they are paramount.

Saturday, January 05, 2008
ECRI Says Fed Has Room To Cut Rates Despite Fears of Inflation
"WLI growth is now at its worst reading since the 2001 recession. However, the WLI's recent decline is not based on pervasive weakness among its components, suggesting that a recession could still be averted," Achuthan said.
Somehow a recession that had already started could be avoided.

 Friday, January 25, 2008
ECRI Says There Is A Window of Opportunity for the US Economy
The U.S. economy is now in a clear window of vulnerability, given the plunge in ECRI’s Weekly Leading Index (WLI) since last spring. Yet there is a brief window of opportunity within that window of vulnerability to avert a recession. That is why ECRI has not yet forecast a recession.

If we have a recession this year, it would turn out to be the most widely anticipated recession in history. Clearly, the pessimism of consumers and business managers could cause them to cut spending, creating a self- fulfilling recession prophecy. But there is another side to the story.

At turning points, a few months’ lag in policy action can be immensely costly. If it spells the difference between a recession and a soft landing, a couple of months’ delay can end up costing a couple of million jobs and couple of hundred extra basis points in rate cuts – and still not have the same effect. What a stitch in time can accomplish early in a down cycle cannot be achieved, even with far more aggressive action, a few months down the road. At best, forceful but delayed action can mitigate the severity of a recession.
Amazingly, in a recession that was now two months old, with coincident indicators all the way down to 1.05%, the ECRI saw a "Window of Opportunity" to avoid a recession.

What's even more amazing is the ECRI's discussion of a "soft landing"!

Friday, March 28, 2008
ECRI Calls it "A Recession of Choice"
The U.S. economy is now on a recession track. Yet this is a recession that could have been averted. In January, given the plunge in the Weekly Leading Index, we declared that the economy had entered a clear window of vulnerability. Yet we emphasized the brief window of opportunity within that window of vulnerability for timely policy stimulus to head off a recession.

The bottom line is that the outcome was not pre-ordained. Policy-makers had a choice about the speed with which stimulus took effect. If they had understood this, their actions could indeed have averted this recessionary downturn.
ECRI Digs Deeper and Deeper Holes

At the end of March the ECRI was still in denial about the recession that was then four months old! Amazingly, the ECRI  has the unmitigated gall to claim a perfect track record at predicting recessions.

By the way, according to the Excel spreadsheet sent to Art, the ECRI monthly coincident index was .62 on March 1, 2008 and .32 on April 1, 2008 (the ECRI having finally thrown in the towel just 4 days prior).

In attempting to defend the indefensible, and by attempting "mind over indicators" the ECRI has dug a hole that is impossible to get out of.

Does the ECRI Even Believe Its Own Indicators?

I have to ask a serious question. Does the ECRI even believe its own indicators?

If it does, then why did the ECRI refuse to see a recession in late 2007 that should have been blatantly obvious? If it does, then why all these contortions now?

The only explanation I can come up with is Achuthan and the ECRI form an opinion, then twist and turn past history to defend it.

In this case, the ECRI made extensive use of coincident indicators to make its point, having totally ignored coincident indicators in similar conditions as recently as 2007. When you do that, you miss things, serious things, as I pointed out above.

As a result, the ECRI looks ridiculous.

On Making Mistakes

Regardless of how it may look, I do not have anything against the ECRI per se. Everyone makes mistakes. I have made dozens and I will make dozens more. The only way to not make mistakes is to not predict anything. However, I do have problems with people twisting facts and making claims known to be inaccurate.

The problem the ECRI has is twofold.

  1. Pretending they have a perfect track record when they don't
  2. Twisting and contorting their own indicators to say what they want them to say

One can only get away with each of those for so long. Indeed, on point number two, I would have to say the ECRI's interpretation has been good enough, long, enough, to generally mask the problem.

However, repeated cover-ups eventually blowup in spectacular fashion, just as they have done now.

About That 2012 Recession Call

In spite of all the above, I happen to like the ECRI recession call. Yes, I am biased, but it is hard to find anyone who is not.

I was way early in 2006 when the yield curve inverted, and I was early again this time, but never emphatic as was economist David Rosenberg with his June 13, 2011 "99% chance of US recession by 2012"

To go out on a limb, I think GDP in 2012 is going to hugely surprise on the downside, and 1st Quarter GDP may be as low as zero to .5%. A negative number (or more likely a revised negative number) would not shock me in the least.

If so, there is still room for the ECRI to be correct. The ECRI needs (by its own admission) a recession by mid-year to be correct. It will be interesting to see how much they twist and turn a few months from now.

However, even if GDP tanks big time, the NBER (the official designator of recessions) may not acknowledge the recession for another six months to a year.

In general, delayed NBER calls explain why the ECRI can also get away with late calls. However, it fails to explain why the ECRI stuck its neck out so early this time. The most likely explanation is as described earlier: "mind over indicators".

I don't care that much, recognizing that perfection is simply impossible. However, it does pose a big problem to the ECRI because they pretend they are perfect even though facts prove otherwise.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Australia Services Index Plunges to Significant Contraction; Bleakest of Views From Retail Shops; Retail and Housing Bloodbath Coming Up

Two more signs surfaced today that suggest Australia is headed for if not in recession.

Australia Services Index Plunges, Now in Contraction

Bloomberg reports Australian February Services Fall to Lowest in Almost a Year
Australia’s services industry declined in February to the lowest level in almost a year, driven by a drop in new orders as the gap between resources and other industries widens, a private survey showed.

The performance of services index sank to 46.7 last month from 51.9 in January, the weakest reading since March last year, Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Australian Industry Group said in Sydney today. Fifty is the dividing line between expansion and contraction.

Today’s report, based on a poll of about 200 companies, is similar to the U.S. non-manufacturing ISM index.
Australia Service Index Components
  • Index sank to 46.7 from 51.9
  • Selling prices fell to 44.2 from 46.9
  • Employment measure slid to 47.5 from 51.2
  • Sales declined to 47.5 from 49.4
  • New orders plunged to 45.6 from 54.1
  • Wages indicator dipped to 57.7 from 57.8

This is nothing short of an absolute disaster. That wages have held up is not good news either. Think retailers or any other service industries will be hiring? If so, think again.

Bleakest of Views From Retail Shops

The Herald Sun comments on the Bleakest of views from the shopfronts.
THE Australian retail sector is in trouble like it's never been before. Not even in the dark days of the 1990 recession.

That should have been made blindingly clear when Woolworths, our biggest and most successful retail group, unveiled on Thursday its first drop in profit in nearly 20 years.

Yes, Woolies is getting out of electronics because it stuffed up with Dick Smith.

This story is repeated, with varying degrees of intensity, across all retail.

The casualty list is long and growing. From women's fashions - one of the mainstays of shopping - to housewares and home furnishings, to the big department stores.

Sales are struggling, profits are plunging, jobs are being slashed and names are disappearing from high streets and shopping centres.
The article concludes with complete economic drivel...
The numbers from the big listed retailers, such as Harvey Norman and David Jones, are ominous enough. We are not really seeing the havoc wreaked across small mum-and-dad retailing.

Lower interest rates would help, leaving more money in consumers' pockets.

That's why it's not wise to rule out further rate cuts, just because of the continued boom in the resources sector.

The jobs and spending from the boom, at least, put some floor under retail. But for the foreseeable future it's going to be good for shoppers.

Not so good for shopkeepers. Or the broader economy.
Retail and Housing Bloodbath Coming Up

There is so much misguided drivel in the article that I hardly know where to start.

Here is some nonsense about a shopper's sweet spot: "For shoppers, it's something of a sweet spot. They've never had it so good. The $100 you spend in a supermarket buys you about 5 per cent more in goods than it did a year ago."

Retail prices in Australia are absurd. A 5% reduction in prices is hardly a bargain. As for the notion mining will carry the economy, forget about it. Commodity prices are going to plunge, and besides, commodities are not a big driver of jobs anyway.

There is no "floor" under retail. The bottom is going to fall out, and unemployment is going to soar. In turn, rising unemployment will clobber Australia's already deep-in-trouble housing sector.

As for small shops, they are completely doomed. Store owners with little leeway on wages will not get the income they need to pay taxes, interest, utilities, and rent.

Expect an across the board retail and housing bloodbath because one is coming.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Ron Paul on Face the Nation Blasts Rush Limbaugh's Insincere Apology, Santorum's Fake Conservatism, Government Mandates; Rooting for Santorum; 10 Things That Should Be Clear

Ron Paul was on Face the Nation today discussing Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, and Government Mandates.



CBS News reports Paul: Limbaugh apologized for personal gain.
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul said an apology by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke for calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute" was not sincere, and was made only because it best served Limbaugh.

"He's doing it because some people were taking their advertisements off of his program. It was his bottom line he was concerned about," Paul said.

Paul referred to three companies that pulled advertisements from Limbaugh's show following incendiary remarks Limbaugh made about Fluke for testifying before a mock Congressional committee in favor of free contraception insurance coverage at Georgetown, a Jesuit university. [One company's spokesman said that Limbaugh's comments "do not align [with] our values." Another pulled out "Due to continued inflammatory comments - along with valuable feedback from clients and team members" about the remarks.]

Although Paul disagreed with Limbaugh's remarks and called them "over the top," he said the government should not mandate that insurance companies provide contraception coverage.

"This is philosophically and politically important because, does the government have a mandate to tell insurance (companies) what to give?" Paul asked, and then responded to his own question: "So they're saying that the insurance companies should give everybody free birth control pill, that strikes me as rather odd."

Paul was specific in his attack against former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and his support (as Senator) for Planned Parenthood dollars in a government funding bill.

"He pretends to be the champion of social values," Paul told Schieffer. "That to me is rather bizarre, and that's why I call him a fake conservative."
Attack by Limbaugh Awakens a ‘Stop Rush’ Campaign

The New York Times reports Attack by Limbaugh Awakens a ‘Stop Rush’ Campaign
Some of the same activists that persuaded advertisers to boycott Glenn Beck’s television show on Fox News in 2009 are now mobilizing against Rush Limbaugh in the wake of his verbal attacks on a Georgetown University law school student this week.

Actually, they are remobilizing. A Twitter account, “Stop Rush,” which has been dormant since late 2010, woke up on Wednesday, when Mr. Limbaugh first called the student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut.”

On Friday, as complaints from “Stop Rush” and others about Mr. Limbaugh’s comments mounted, a handful of companies said that they had halted their advertising on “The Rush Limbaugh Show,” at least temporarily.

One of the companies, Quicken Loans, wrote on Twitter, “Due to continued inflammatory comments — along with valuable feedback from clients and team members — QL has suspended ads on Rush Limbaugh program.”

Two mattress companies, Sleep Train and Sleep Number, made similar statements on Friday. A representative of Sleep Number wrote on Twitter, “Recent comments by Rush Limbaugh do not align w/ our values, so we made decision to immediately suspend all advertising on that program.”
Limbaugh the Epitome of Everything Wrong With Republican Party

Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are the epitome of everything wrong with the Republican party. Limbaugh is a chickenhawk, a sexist, was fired from sports broadcasting for being a racist, was arrested on drug charges, and was addicted to pain killers.

Yet the blazing hypocrite stated "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

Asinine talk might appeal to the far right, but the far right is not going to carry the day. Republicans need to be seeking the middle ground and independents. Divisive attacks on abortion, birth control pills, and refusal to consider military cuts are not going to win over independents.

Rooting for Santorum

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera says he is Rooting for Santorum.
I’m rooting for Rick Santorum to win the Republican nomination. Seriously.

You probably think that is because it would be the best possible outcome for President Obama. No doubt it would be. If Santorum were the Republican nominee for president, the independents disenchanted with Obama would come flocking back; their fear of Santorum’s unyielding brand of social conservatism would far outweigh their reservations about the incumbent president. A Santorum nomination would likely lead to an epic defeat, ranking with Richard Nixon’s 49-to-1 state landslide victory over George McGovern in 1972, or Ronald Reagan’s 49-to-1 state whipping of Walter Mondale 12 years later.

But it’s not the Democrats I’m really concerned with. It’s the Republicans. For more than a decade now, moderate Republicans have been an endangered species, either losing elections or choosing to retire in the face of a hard-line challenger.

During the McGovern-Mondale era, the Democrats were exactly where the Republicans are now: the party had been taken over by its most extreme liberal faction, and it had lost touch with the core concerns of the middle class, just as the Republicans have now.

One person who was drummed out is Lincoln Chafee, the governor of Rhode Island, a Republican turned independent. “I care about deficits,” he told me, “but, on social issues, I believe that people should have the right to make their own decisions.” As a result, he said, “I realized that there wasn’t any room in the Republican Party for me.”

When I asked him what it would take to change the Republican Party, he had a quick answer: “What it usually takes is a good drubbing at election time.”

If Mitt Romney takes the nomination and then loses to Obama, the extremists who’ve taken over the party will surely say the problem was Romney’s lack of ideological purity. If, however, Santorum is the nominee — and then loses in a landslide — the party will no longer be able to delude itself about where its ideological rigidity has taken it.

An alcoholic doesn’t stop drinking until he hits bottom. The Republican Party won’t change until it hits bottom. Only Santorum offers that possibility.
The Republican party needs to get rid of the extreme right-wingers like Limbaugh and Santorum, the phonies like Mitt Romney, and the war-mongers like McCain. If they did, they could hold the center for decades (assuming there was anything left of the party).

10 Things That Should Be Clear

  1. It should be clear by now that cutting taxes and spending more money will not shrink the budget.
  2. It should be clear by now the US cannot afford to have troops in 140 countries 
  3. It should be clear by now that wars are expensive and we cannot afford more of them
  4. It should be clear by now that some bargaining is needed to bring the deficit under control
  5. It should be clear by now that some tax hikes coupled with genuine structural reforms to rein in collective bargaining of public unions would be a good idea
  6. It should be clear by now that republicans need independents and the center to win
  7. It should be clear by now that the war on drugs cannot be won, should not be fought, and US prisons are overloaded at great expense as a result
  8. It should be clear we need less government on social issues, on drugs, on war-mongering, on taxes, on education, on spending, on everything, not just half of everything along party lines.
  9. It should be clear that Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Rush Limbaugh are not the future of the Republican party
  10. It should be clear Republicans risk losing to a very weak, unpopular Democrat president in the midst of economic uncertainty and miserably high unemployment rates

Those things should be clear but obviously they are not. Perhaps a Democrat landslide is what it takes to make the case clear.

 Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Super Tuesday Delegate Rules and Preview; Brokered Convention Revised Math

On Monday February 27, I laid out the Mathematical Case for Brokered Convention. Since then, Michigan, Wyoming, and Washington have posted results. The table below reflects those results.

I made additional changes to my super Tuesday estimates based on new information regarding delegate rules. For example, many states have minimum percentages to receive any delegates and this favors Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum except in Georgia where rules heavily favor Gingrich.

Finally, the LA times and Krem have posted different explanations for how the Idaho caucus works. There are now three possible scenarios for Idaho in play (depending on which explanation is correct).

Totals through March 3 in the table below are from Real Clear Politics 2012 Republican Delegates.

March 6 Super Tuesday numbers are my estimates.

StatePrimaryCountRomneySantorumGingrichPaul
Total to Date-374166723329
IowaJan 3286700
New HampshireJan 1012*7003
South CarolinaJan 212520230
FloridaJan 3150*50000
NevadaFeb 42814365
Minnesota **Feb 74021714
Colorado **Feb 73691721
Maine **Feb 11249307
MichiganFeb 2830*161400
ArizonaFeb 282929000
Wyoming **Feb 292910816
Washington **Mar 34312303
GeorgiaMar 676246460
OhioMar 666363000
TennesseeMar 658203800
VirginiaMar 64949000
OklahomaMar 6431221100
MassachusettsMar 64138300
Idaho **Mar 632180014
North DakotaMar 6288767
AlaskaMar 627101133
VermontMar 61715200
Super Tuesday EstMar 681139619013153

* States penalized half of their delegates.
** Not all delegates assigned, or assigned to candidates who have dropped out
*** Idaho Rules are in Question. See explanation below.

Thru Super-Tuesday (If Idaho Splits)
Romney: 396
Santorum + Gingrich + Paul: 374
Other:  41

Thru Super-Tuesday (If Idaho Goes to Paul)
Romney: 378
Santorum + Gingrich + Paul: 392
Other:  41

Thru Super-Tuesday (If Idaho Goes to Romney)
Romney: 410
Santorum + Gingrich + Paul: 360
Other:  41

As you can see there is a decent-sized swing in play for Idaho, depending on the exact caucus rules. Even assuming Romney wins 100% of the Idaho delegates, he would still have barely over 50% of the delegates to date. However, that would probably, but not necessarily be enough as he would pick up some of those 41 and he rates to do reasonably well in California.

Nonetheless, even if Romney does as outlined above, the possibility for a brokered convention still exists. If Romney does worse than expected on Super Tuesday, it's a whole new ball game. It would also be a whole new ballgame if Romney were to do poorly in California, or split the delegates three ways here on out.

Super Tuesday Delegate Rules, Preview, Estimates

The rules for each primary are from the LA Times article Super Tuesday 2012: What's at stake and who's in the lead

Except where noted, polls are from Real Clear Politics Super Tuesday Poll.

GEORGIA PRIMARY
Delegates at stake: 76
How it works: 34 delegates will be awarded proportionally to any candidate receiving more than 20% of the statewide vote. The winner in each of the state's 14 congressional districts will earn another two delegates, and the second-place finisher will win one, unless one candidate wins more than 50% in a district.



Georgia Predictions
Gingrich wins all 14 districts for 28
Romney comes in second in all 14 districts for 14
Gingrich gets 52% of 34 for 18
Romney gets 28% of 34 for 10
Santorum gets 20% of 34 for 6

Totals
Gingrich: 46
Romney: 24
Santorum: 6
Paul: 0

OHIO PRIMARY
Delegates at stake: 66
How it works: 15 delegates will be awarded on a proportional basis to any candidate receiving more than 20% of the statewide vote. If a candidate has more than 50%, though, he wins all 15. Another three delegates will be awarded to the winner in each of the state's 16 congressional districts.
In both cases, voters are electing delegates who have pledged to vote for a presidential nominee. Santorum, it should be noted, did not file delegate lists in all of the congressional districts.
The final three delegates are the elected state party leaders.



Santorum is not on the ballot in 3 of 13 districts.
See Family of three GOP delegates gets Santorum on ballot in an Ohio district for an explanation.

Ohio Predictions
Of the 15 at-large

Romney: 7
Santorum: 8

Of 16 Districts
Romney wins 3 by default and 6 contested for 27 delegates
Santorum wins 7 contested for 21 delegates

State Party Leaders give Romney 2, Santorum 1

Totals
Romney: 36
Santorum: 30

TENNESSEE PRIMARY
Delegates at stake: 58
How it works: 28 delegates will be awarded on a proportional basis to any candidate receiving more than 20% of the statewide vote. If one candidate has more than 66% of the vote, he wins all 28. In the nine congressional districts, a candidate will win all three delegates if he wins 66% of the vote. If the winner and runner-up both have between 20% and 66% of the vote, the winner receives two delegates and the runner-up gets one. The other three delegates are the elected state party leaders.



A more recent MTSU Poll show those percentages are holding.

Tennessee Predictions
Of the 28 at-large Santorum wins 18
Of the 28 at-large Romney wins 10

In the 9 Congressional Districts Santorum wins all 9 for 18
Romney come in second in all 9 for 9

State party leaders give 2 to Santorum, 1 to Romney

Totals
Romney: 20
Santorum: 38

VIRGINIA PRIMARY
Delegates at stake: 49
How it works: 13 delegates will be awarded proportionally to any candidate receiving 15% of the vote. But because there are only two candidates on the ballot -- Romney and Paul -- it will likely be winner-take-all. Three delegates will also be awarded to the winner in each of the 11 congressional districts.

Prediction
Romney wins all 49

OKLAHOMA PRIMARY
Delegates at stake: 43
How it works: 25 delegates will be awarded on a proportional basis to any candidate receiving more than 15% of the statewide vote, unless one candidate has more than 50%, in which case he wins all 25. In each of the state's five congressional districts, three delegates will be awarded proportionally to candidates with 15% of the vote, unless, again, one had more than 50% of the vote in that district. The other three delegates are the elected state party leaders.



Oklahoma Predictions
Santorum wins 48% of 25 for 12
Romney wins 28% of 25 for 7
Gingrich wins 24% of 25 for 6

15 district Delegates
Santorum wins 7
Romney wins 4
Gingrich wins 4

Santorum wins 2 party leader votes, Romney 1

Totals
Romney: 12
Santorum: 21
Gingrich: 10

MASSACHUSETTS PRIMARY
Delegates at stake: 41
How it works: 11 delegates will be awarded proportionally to any candidate receiving more than 15% of the statewide vote. Another three delegates will be awarded based on the vote in each of the state's nine congressional districts, again proportionally to any candidate receiving more than 15% of the vote. The other three delegates are the elected state party leaders.



Based on the rules it appears Santorum will be lucky to win even a handful.
Totals
Romney 38
Santorum 3

IDAHO CAUCUSES
Delegates at stake: 32
How it works: According to the Idaho Republican Party, a secret vote will be held at each county caucus, lasting several rounds. In each round, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated until one reaches 50%. County results will then be tabulated statewide, with 29 delegates awarded proportionally based on the final tallies. The other three delegates are the elected state party leaders.

Note: That description from the LA Times differs considerably from this
Idaho Caucus Explanation:
Voters will go to locations for their county and use ballots or tokens to support a candidate on Tuesday, March 6th. There are five candidates for Idaho voters to choose from and they will keep voting until a winner is selected.

In each round the candidate with the fewest votes or anyone with less than 15% is out of the race. The voting ends at the county level when there is a final vote for two candidates or one has more than 50% of the vote for that county.

The delegates assigned for that county will then represent the winning candidate. Counties will report their winner to the state office in Boise. If one candidate has more than 50% of the vote for all of Idaho, they get all 32 delegates. Otherwise, the candidates split delegates they won in each county
Predictions
Assuming the LA Times is correct, the delegate totals will be split between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Otherwise Paul or Romney will win them all.

Scenario 1: Mitt Romney: 18 Ron Paul: 14
Scenario 2: Mitt Romney 32
Scenario 3: Ron Paul 32

NORTH DAKOTA CAUCUSES
Delegates at stake: 28
How it works: The caucuses will begin the process of allocating delegates to the national convention, but all 28 will remain unbound, meaning they can ultimately vote for whichever candidate they choose.

Predictions
This is somewhat of a crapshoot but no one is likely to dominate and Paul's organization in caucus states should help.

Romney: 8
Santorum: 7
Paul: 7
Gingrich: 6

ALASKA DISTRICT CONVENTIONS
Delegates at stake: 27
How it works: 24 delegates will be awarded on a proportional basis to candidates, based on the statewide vote, at individual district conventions. The other three delegates are the elected state party leaders.

Predictions
This is another crapshoot but one that favors Santorum and Romney
Totals
Romney: 10
Santorum: 11
Paul: 3
Gingrich: 3

VERMONT PRIMARY
Delegates at stake: 17
How they're awarded: 11 delegates will be awarded on a proportional basis to any candidate receiving more than 20% of the statewide vote, unless one candidate received a majority. Another three delegates will be allocated to the overall statewide winner. The final three delegates are the elected state party leaders.

Rules are such that Romney will walk away with the lion's share
Predictions
Romney: 15
Santorum: 2

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Brazil Declares New Currency War on US and Europe; Japan Losing Balance of Trade Battle

In hope-against-hope scenario, countries with balance-of-trade surpluses struggle to maintain it. Put Japan, Germany, Brazil, and China in that group.

In that group, Japan is losing the Balance of Trade Battle.


Japan’s trade deficit widened to a record level in January, as falling exports combined with surging imports of energy.

Imports rose 9.8 per cent from a year earlier, while exports were down 9.3 per cent, resulting in a record monthly deficit of Y1.48tn ($19bn).

Last year Japan’s trade balance fell into an annual deficit for the first time since 1980, driven by subdued global demand and soaring fossil fuel imports in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear power crisis.

Japan reported a trade deficit equivalent to 1475 Million JPY in January of 2012. Exports have been the main engine of Japan's economic growth in the past six years. Japan imports raw materials and processes them into high technology products. Japan’s major exports are: consumer electronics, automobiles, semiconductors, optical fibers, optoelectronics, optical media, facsimile and copy machines. Its main trading partners are The United States, China and European Union.
Brazil Declares New Currency War on US and Europe

The Financial Times reports Brazil declares new ‘currency war’
Brazil has declared a fresh “currency war” on the US and Europe, extending a tax on foreign borrowings and threatening further capital controls in an effort to protect the country’s struggling manufacturers.

Guido Mantega, the finance minister who was the first to use the controversial term in 2010, said the government would not “sit by passively” as developed nations continue to pursue expansionary monetary policies at the expense of Brazil.

“When the real appreciates, it reduces our competitiveness. Exports are more expensive, imports are cheaper and it creates unfair competition for businesses in Brazil,” he said on Thursday after announcing changes to the so-called IOF tax.

In a presidential decree, the government extended the existing 6 per cent financial transactions tax on overseas loans maturing in up to three years. Previously, the levy was applied only to loans with maturities of under two years.

President Dilma Rousseff later weighed in on the debate, vowing to defend Brazilian industry and stop developed countries’ policies from causing the “cannibalisation” of emerging markets.

The move comes as Brazil’s central bank also steps up direct intervention in the market, selling dollars and offering derivatives called reverse currency swaps to curb the real’s near 9 per cent surge against the US dollar this year.
Brazilian Real vs. US Dollar



The chart shows the Brazilian Real has pretty much been on a tear vs. the US dollar since 2003. Now Brazil is concerned about loss of exports, just as Japan is concerned about loss of exports.

Mathematically speaking, the desire for every country to be net exporters is impossible. Massive trade wars are on the horizon  as a result.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List