Of Tax Havens & Money Laundering

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 7/03/2007 12:44:00 AM
I have come across two interesting articles on seemingly disparate topics that are nonetheless more related than you think. One word sums them up: globalization. The first concerns offshore tax breaks luring in hedge fund operators to destinations like the Cayman Islands from the New York Times. A fine book on this topic, by the way, is Ronen Palan's The Offshore World: Sovereign Markets, Virtual Places, and Nomad Millionaires which vividly depicts the deracination of global finance. Here, the NYT describes the case of the Cayman Islands seeking more business from hedgies to the growing opposition of politicians Stateside who perceive them as not paying their fair share:

William E. Grayson, the president of EGM Capital, a hedge fund firm in San Francisco, has never set foot on the Cayman Islands, but he knows that sun-baked Caribbean haven quite well. That’s because he set up one of his funds in the Caymans, where lucrative tax breaks and fabled financial secrecy have made this British territory a magnet for hedge fund managers.

“All of the offshore jurisdictions are competing against each other to provide the most hospitable regulatory landscape, and the Caymans are really coming on strong,” Mr. Grayson says. “As a hedge fund manager, you just might be deciding whether you want to golf or scuba-dive more.”

In as little as two weeks, and for about $35,000 in fees, hedge funds can set up shop in the Caymans — just a fraction of the time and up to one-tenth the price of incorporating a fund in drearier climes like Delaware.

While speed and bargain prices are big attractions, the real draw, say analysts and Congressional investigators, are perfectly legal Caymans-based corporations and partnerships that allow major investors to avoid taxes of up to 35 percent that the Internal Revenue Service levies on unearned business income. Cayman tax laws also help American fund managers legally defer domestic taxes on their personal profits by channeling them offshore through their funds.

The biggest of the three islands that make up the Caymans, Grand Cayman, is only 22 miles long and, at its widest, 8 miles across. But the territory’s tax advantages have turned it into one of the linchpins of the estimated $1.5 trillion global hedge fund business.

“So many of the best money managers have set up in the Cayman Islands,” says Kurt N. Schacht, managing director of the CFA Centre for Financial Market Integrity, a nonprofit research organization in Charlottesville, Va. “It has become the place to go.”

As recently as a decade ago, regulators and law enforcement officials regarded the Caymans, an outpost 480 miles south of Miami that once served as a shelter for pirates like Blackbeard, as a hotbed for money laundering and other dubious financial schemes. Today, it is the corporate home for what the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority estimates to be three out of every four of the world’s hedge funds — more than anywhere else — thanks to its friendly tax and regulatory regimes, as well as an army of foreign bankers, tax lawyers, accountants and fund administrators who make it all work.

“With some of the other jurisdictions, there’s an island mentality,” says Michelle Kline, a principal at Genesee Investments, a hedge fund based in Bellevue, Wash. “The thing that’s different about Cayman is that the regulators realize that hedge funds are a business, rather than just something to regulate.”

For their part, Cayman officials, regulators and private-sector lawyers, bankers and accountants say that there is nothing illegitimate about how the territory supports offshore finance, and that it is a system that is unfairly tarred and much misunderstood by its critics.

True, “we’re not a widows-and-orphans jurisdiction,” says Ted Bravakis, the director of public relations in the Portfolio of Finance and Economics, a Cayman government agency that helps to oversee financial services there. But, he adds, “the Cayman Islands sees the use of our jurisdiction and service providers by U.S. entities and individuals to avoid their tax responsibilities as abusive — we feel equally abused because our regime is not intended to be used in that way.”

The Caymans’ ascent as a hedge fund haven coincides with recent calls by American legislators for greater oversight and taxation of hedge funds — lightly regulated, secretive investment pools for wealthy individuals and institutions — as well as greater scrutiny of the tax status of private equity firms.

As legislators like Senators Carl M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and Max S. Baucus, Democrat of Montana, also make renewed calls for a broader crackdown on financial abuses in offshore tax havens, the Cayman government has continued spending heavily on high-profile lobbyists, public relations firms and well-connected lawyers to persuade the world’s senior financial officials and regulators that the Caymans has outgrown its past as a center of financial high jinks.

During the spring, Cayman representatives lobbied the Securities and Exchange Commission, aides and members of the Senate Banking Committee, tax policy officials of the Treasury Department, and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney in an effort to foster the impression that the island territory has remade itself into a law-abiding, smoothly run financial supermarket...

The daily nuts-and-bolts investment activities of most hedge funds still occur, of course, in places like Manhattan and Greenwich, Conn. — the manicured enclave that is home to “hedgies” earning up to hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, of dollars a year — or behind glossy black doors in the upscale Belgravia and Mayfair sections of London.

But the legal home of many of the world’s hedge funds, the place where they often choose to incorporate for tax purposes, is the Caymans.

Most American individual investors are not able to play the Cayman tax game. Such investments are taxable to American investors under United States tax laws, so investors typically put their money in a section of hedge funds that are set up as Delaware partnerships or limited liability companies. That means that they will pay taxes of anywhere from 15 percent for capital gains or up to 35 percent for ordinary income taxes when they cash in their investments.

Speaking of money laundering, efforts by the worldwide authorities such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to crack down on illicit financial flows--especially in the wake of 9/11--have resulted in, er, "launderers" (Mr. Clean, anyone?) shifting their modus operandi. The Wall street Journal notes that instead of sending funds electronically, would-be terrorists are now using old-fashioned trade as a way of shuttling funds worldwide:
After a long and intense crackdown on cross-border money laundering, authorities say terrorist supporters, narcotics syndicates and sanctions busters have adopted a new method of sneaking funds past the watchful eye of the law: the global commodity trade.

The practice, known as "trade-based money laundering," was pioneered by Latin American drug smugglers in the 1990s. Now, it is spreading to Europe and the Middle East.

Here's how the practice works: Instead of wiring money directly from one country to another, a would-be money launderer buys foodstuffs like sugar or vegetable oil or other goods. Those goods are far easier to deliver to restricted destinations like Iran and the Palestinian territories because they often look like legitimate aid. When they arrive, local merchants transfer the goods on, or simply sell them for cash. A portion of the proceeds end up with local terrorist groups or criminals.

The illicit trades are often blended in with legitimate ones, which makes them difficult to single out and the source of their funding hard to trace. Authorities say the scope and prevalence of the practice is tough to determine with any precision, but it is clearly on the rise.

One such case recently surfaced in Europe when French authorities discovered that a Paris-based charity the U.S. officially designates as a sponsor of terrorism has been buying large lots of commodities for delivery to the Palestinian territories. While much of the goods constitute legitimate aid, a portion of the shipments ultimately ends up with terror groups, officials allege.

Funds for the original goods purchases by money launderers increasingly come from Iran, Israeli officials say. Some of the funds and goods allegedly end up with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Both groups are seeking to disrupt the Palestinian peace process with Israel and often sponsor terrorist attacks.

For at least two years, Israeli and European counterterrorism officials allege, supporters of the Palestinian groups have been using donations raised in Europe to purchase sugar and other commodities.

U.S. officials have been warning about such swap deals since the State Department's release of its 2004 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. "As both the formal international financial system and money-service businesses become increasingly regulated, scrutinized, and transparent, criminal money launderers and terrorist financiers are increasingly likely to use fraudulent trade-based practices in international commerce to launder, earn, move, and integrate funds and assets," the report said...

Now, U.S. officials say the trade-based model is being adopted across the Persian Gulf region. U.S. sanctions on Iran and Tehran's own rigid financial controls promote the practice, the State Department said in a recent report. "The trade and smuggling of goods into Iranian commerce leads to a significant amount of trade-based money laundering," according to the department's annual narcotics-control report released in March.

"There is no reliable estimate on trade-based money-laundering because no authorities are looking systematically at their trade activities," says money-laundering expert Nikos Passas of Northeastern University in Boston. "The vulnerability is gigantic though, and undermines all other financial controls we have in place, no matter how well these may be implemented."

Much of the money in question is laundered in the United Arab Emirates, the primary conduit for Iranian imports. Trade-based laundering in the Emirate of Dubai also helps finance the booming Afghan-Iran heroin trade, according to U.S., Italian, and U.A.E. law-enforcement officials.

Goldman Sachs's White House LBO

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 7/03/2007 12:38:00 AM
From the Yomiuri Shimbun comes this self-explanatory article about the revolving door between the Bush White House and the venerable investment banking firm Goldman Sachs. I have made some previous notes on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and former US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. However, it turns out that a couple of more Bushites are Goldman Sachs alumni:

Want a top position in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush? It helps to have worked at Goldman Sachs.

Robert Zoellick, currently a vice chairman at Goldman, is the latest from the powerful Wall Street investment bank to be appointed to a top post by the president. A former U.S. trade representative, Zoellick has also served at high levels in the State and Treasury departments. But his ascension to the presidency of the World Bank is the latest chapter in what has become an unmistakable trend. Indeed, Goldman Sachs has become a favorite source from which the administration draws many appointees.

Hank Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer and current treasury secretary, is the most prominent alumnus serving in the Bush Administration, but he is hardly alone. In fact, many say it was White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton, a former executive director of legal and government affairs at Goldman, who helped persuade Paulson to give up the highest pay package on Wall Street and come to Washington. Robert Steel should feel comfortable as Paulson's advisor for domestic finance at the Treasury Department, as he was formerly vice chairman to Paulson at Goldman Sachs. Reuben Jeffrey, who worked for the firm as a managing partner, now serves as chairman of the government commission regulating U.S. commodity futures and trading.

Other Goldman alumni include Assistant Secretary of State Randall Fort, who was the firm's co-chief operating officer, and Stephen Friedman, a former Goldman CEO, who is currently chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

"There's no question there's a tradition of public service here," says Peter Rose, a Goldman Sachs spokesman, who also points to the command-and-control mindset his firm tries to avoid. "Teamwork is very important here, as in Washington, where you have to work by persuasion, rather than just barking an order."

The fact that Goldman executives are among the highest earners on Wall Street may be another reason they end up in Washington. "They've already made so much money that they can afford to work for what is essentially a rounding error," explains John Steele Gordon, a Wall Street historian. "I don't know what the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors gets paid, but I'd be surprised if it was more than 150,000 dollars a year. And to a Goldman Sachs partner, that's what he pays to have his private jet parked." [Gee, thanks for the anti-populist commentary, John. Rounding error...that's exactly former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling's terminology.]

While these former Goldman executives are qualified, not everyone is happy with the situation. "The views of Wall Street are not necessarily the views of the country as a whole," argues Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research...

Meanwhile, the level of influence Goldman Sachs gains from the arrangement is unclear. "They certainly don't direct business to Goldman Sachs because Congress would be all over them if they tried something like that," Gordon contends.

Market Development and Democracy

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 7/03/2007 12:24:00 AM
The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) has a new discussion paper out on the political economy of Eastern Europe's transition away from socialism to democracy. Pauline Grosjean of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and Claudia Senik of the Sorbonne find in their study that the relationship between market development and democracy is rather unidirectional. The J-Curve hypothesis I described a few posts back is a modern spin on the idea that economic engagement or market development eventually leads to public demand for democracy. This argument has been deployed with regard to China's emergence as a global economic powerhouse, of course. What this study demonstrates, however, is that those who believe the Chinese people will eventually demand more substantive freedoms might have to rethink their initial views.

Using regression models, the authors determine that while democracy tends to increase demand for market development, the opposite does not hold. It's food for thought, especially for all of us contemplating whether China will become more democratic. The usual caveats apply, such as these Eastern European cases probably differing quite a bit from the experience of China. The former group's transition w more abrupt than China's, for example. The abstract follows:
This paper is dedicated to the relation between market development and democracy. We distinguish contexts and preferences and ask whether it is true that the demand for democracy only emerges after a certain degree of market development is reached, and whether, conversely, democratization is likely to be an obstacle to the acceptation of market liberalization. Our study hinges on a new survey rich in attitudinal variables: the Life in Transition Survey (LITS) conducted in 2006 by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank, in 28 post-Transition countries. Our identification strategy consists in relying on the specific situation of frontier-zones. We find that democracy enhances the support for market development whereas the reverse is not true. Hence, the relativist argument according to which the preference for democracy is an endogenous by-product of market development is not supported by our data.

Parsing Chimerica (China + America)

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 7/02/2007 01:51:00 AM
Reader Kramladen pointed me in the direction of this recent paper by Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick on "Chimerica and Global Asset Markets." Supposedly, "West Chimerica" (the US) and "East Chimerica" (China) propel this economic order buoying assets markets worldwide. Minus the funky new terminology, many of the themes here echo those made in the "Bretton Woods II" argument with a handful of new flourishes. Whereas simpletons like me see asset bubbles forming worldwide due to abundant liquidity--the mess Greenspan made--these authors argue that "the asset boom has been a rational response by market actors to a fundamental macroeconomic phenomenon, namely the wedge between the returns on capital in a globalized world economy and the abnormally low cost of capital" (p. 2). That is, abnormally cheap credit c/o the PRC combined with higher returns to capital enabled by globalization have propelled asset values upwards but not to unjustifiable levels, or so they argue The paper's abstract follows which pretty much summarizes the paper's contents well:
In this essay we present a potential explanation for the persistent and, to some eyes, puzzling buoyancy of global asset markets in recent years. We argue that the current world economic conjecture is the product of a large and unusual divergence or "wedge" between the returns on capital and cost of capital. Globalization--in particular the integration of the massive Asian labor force into the world economy--has significantly increased the returns on capital. However, contrary to what economic theory might lead us to expect, the cost of capital has not increased, but actually fallen. We call this phenomenon "Chimerica" because it is a consequence of the symbiotic economic relationship between the People's Republic of China and the United States of America. The entry of Chinese labor into the world economy has significantly boosted the returns on cpaital relative to the returns on labor. At the same time, by accumulating large currency reserves and channeling them (until very recently) almost exclusively into U.S. .government securities, China has kept nominal and real long-term interest rates artificially low. In our view, it is this wedge between returns on capital and the cost of capital, rather than excess liquidity or a shortage of financial assets, that explains the boom in global asset markets as well as the recent upsurge of leveraged buy-out activity.
It's notable that Ferguson takes a more sanguine outlook here in describing the US-China economic relationship as a symbiotic one. In contrast, he described the US as a lumbering, debt-addled dinosaur called "debtlodocus" in the recent past. I have a handful of issues with this paper--mainly to do with inflation and the characterization of globalization as a very contemporary phenomenon--though it is a thought-provoking read overall. It ties into some recent posts I've made on surging numbers of high-net worth individuals; Marxist interpretations of globalization [1, 2]; and government support of "market fundamentalism" [1, 2]. A few of the tables presented are also interesting. First up is this one on soaring corporate profits in the US, especially after Bush took office:

Also notable is the markedly increasing ratio of corporate profits to GDP in various developed countries and regions:
Lastly, here is a dramatic illustration of the leveraged buy-out (private equity takeover) binge enabled by low interest rates worldwide:

The Fight Over Air Travel Pollution

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,, at 7/02/2007 01:11:00 AM
The clip above is from the dark green organization Camp for Climate Action, which has taken a strong stance against market-based carbon trading regimes. Its reasoning is simple: markets caused widespread environmental damage in the first place, so there is little reason to believe that markets will undo the damage they've done. It has now taken aim at air travel; indeed, they plan to disrupt flights at Heathrow Airport this coming August. (I don't think they'll get very far with all the recent commotion here in Brown's Britain over terrorism; expect a hard crackdown if they try anything too disruptive.) The Guardian tackles this organization as well as the impending backlash against air travel. However, the article also provides an interesting counterpoint that tourism is an important source of livelihood for those who may not find opportunities elsewhere:
We still have time, but not for long - it all comes down to us now.' There is no doubting the seriousness or sincerity of the protesters putting the final touches to plans for a campaign of direct action next month. Sometimes their communications even assume a biblical tone: 'Should we not change our ways, we'll see forests burn, soils decay, oceans rise and millions of people die.' Their methods, including a huge protest camp and co-ordinated civil disobedience, echo those of past campaigns against the Vietnam War, nuclear weapons, and oppressive regimes abroad. But this time, the mission is not to stop wars, bombs or torture, it's to stop people going on holiday.

Thousands of activists are expected to descend on Heathrow for the Camp for Climate Action from 14 to 21 August. There will be workshops on issues from carbon offsetting and biofuels to campaign strategy and skills for direct action, and the week will climax with a day when demonstrators will try to disrupt the airport as much as possible.

Never before has flying been so controversial. In the space of two years, the environmental damage done by planes has gone from being something quietly discussed by scientists and committed environmentalists, to a headline-grabbing issue no one can ignore. Politicians are pilloried in newspapers for flying to meetings abroad. Travellers checking in for domestic flights are confronted by Greenpeace campaigners urging them to take the train instead. Travel agents' shops are daubed in protesters' paint and travel magazines get hate-mail...

One thing on which all sides agree is that aviation is booming. Today there are around 17,700 commercial aircraft in the world. Over the next 20 years, manufacturers expect to deliver 25,600 new planes, with massive growth coming from China, India and Russia as economies develop and flying is deregulated...

Moreover, with China building two new power stations per week, mostly coal-fired, it's easy to wonder if it's worth agonising about whether you should go for that long weekend in Tuscany. According to last year's government-commissioned report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern, power stations account for 24 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, shipping, train and road transport account for 12.3%, while flying accounts for just 1.7 per cent. Compare this with deforestation, which accounts for 18 per cent (half of which is attributed to the destruction of rainforests in two countries: Indonesia and Brazil).

That's not to say we're damned anyway, so let's get on the plane and keep partying till the world goes up in flames, but it does put the issue into balance - should we devote nine times more effort to fighting deforestation than flying? And being aware of the balance should steer us away from extreme positions - refusing to fly at all or ignoring the issue completely - towards taking practical, realistic steps to a solution...

Dark green' environmentalists argue there is a bankrupt logic in this kind of carbon offsetting - you are doing the equivalent of donating to the RSPCA so you can keep kicking your dog, as the saying goes. You could, after all, take all those carbon-saving steps, and still cancel your holiday in Barcelona.

Except that assumes tourism is a frivolous, self-indulgent activity which is as pointless as leaving your TV on standby. Even putting aside the benefits to the tourists themselves, this is clearly not the case. Tourism employs around 231 million people, and generates 8-10 per cent of world GDP.

While the campaigners plot their camp at Heathrow, in Kenya plans are being drawn up for a very different camp. Looking out from an escarpment over the deserts of Samburuland is a stunning hotel, the Ol Malo Eco-Lodge. Revenue from the small number of visiting tourists has allowed the 5,000 acres around it to be transformed from over-grazed cattle ranch to a pristine conservation site, but that is just the start. The tourist-funded lodge provides the infrastructure and backup for a range of vital community work. Around 100 women are employed in the workshop making traditional beadwork for export, and the children come along to paint for fun.

More impressive still is the Ol Malo eye project. Up to 80 per cent of adults in the area suffer sight loss, caused by the infectious and preventable disease Trachoma, so the Ol Malo Trust runs regular surgical camps, bringing doctors from the UK to treat them. In January, the camp gave 102 people back their sight, and final plans are now being made for another camp this autumn. 'It's very simple - all of our visitors fly here,' said Julia Francombe, the founder. 'If they stopped coming, it would kill us...'

However, as the pollution from planes is emitted high in the atmosphere, its effects are far worse, and vapour trails (or 'contrails') lead to the formation of cirrus clouds, which stop heat escaping from the earth.

Most scientists agree that this 'radiative forcing' effect is real - and point to the significant cooling in America after all planes were grounded on 9/11 - but few agree on the scale of its effects. Current estimates are that before comparing a plane's emissions to those of a car or train, you would first have to double or triple them. 'The big problem is that there is no consensus on this and people seem to be becoming split along ideological lines with NGOs accepting the multiplier and industry not,' said Upham.

His Manchester-Guernsey calculation has made him the unwitting poster boy for the pro-aviation lobby, but his actual views are very different: 'Taking into account the contrails, flying is usually about nine times worse than taking the train, and three times worse than a car with two passengers.'

You might also be interested in the British Air Line Pilots Association (BALPA) putting out a new guide saying that the effects of air travel on the environment are (surprise!) rather exaggerated:

Most of us who operate aircraft never lose our sense of awe at the beauty of our planet. We care for it deeply and many of us have children who we want to be able to grow up seeing it in all its glory.

During the last five years, air travel has been under attack, being accused of almost singlehandedly destroying this beautiful planet. And now airline passengers are being made to feel guilty about taking holidays abroad.

BALPA has launched a campaign to inject some rationality into this debate and for 3 main reasons:

Firstly, to put the debate into context and to give some facts about aviation’s impact.

Secondly, to look at some of the policy and operational options that will help limit our contribution to environmental damage.

Thirdly, to stimulate debate - amongst our own members and their colleagues operating in other countries; within our industry – especially those in air traffic control, engineering and operations; and amongst policy makers and politicians.

Pilots recognise that we have a part to play but we want practical and “joined up” solutions that enable aviation to continue to be a source of social and economic advancement, equality and great pleasure for the many people who are transported to the corners of this beautiful planet.

The New York Times has a related article on this topic. It discusses how dark greens are becoming wary about light greens' attempts to make the green movement into a consumer fad. While dark greens (or deep ecologists) fear that this fad is mere "co-option," their more mainstream counterparts see it as a way for environmentalists to connect with the mainstream and avoid the "extremist" tag. Naturally (heh), I favor the latter approach, though I do appreciate that lifestyle changes need to follow on from mere fad. We cannot use the excuse that some miracle future technology is eventually going to solve our pollution problems:

Here's one popular vision for saving the planet: Roll out from under the sumptuous hemp-fiber sheets on your bed in the morning and pull on a pair of $245 organic cotton Levi’s and an Armani biodegradable knit shirt.

Stroll from the bedroom in your eco-McMansion, with its photovoltaic solar panels, into the kitchen remodeled with reclaimed lumber. Enter the three-car garage lighted by energy-sipping fluorescent bulbs and slip behind the wheel of your $104,000 Lexus hybrid.

Drive to the airport, where you settle in for an 8,000-mile flight— careful to buy carbon offsets beforehand — and spend a week driving golf balls made from compacted fish food at an eco-resort in the Maldives.

That vision of an eco-sensitive life as a series of choices about what to buy appeals to millions of consumers and arguably defines the current environmental movement as equal parts concern for the earth and for making a stylish statement.

Some 35 million Americans regularly buy products that claim to be earth-friendly, according to one report, everything from organic beeswax lipstick from the west Zambian rain forest to Toyota Priuses. With baby steps, more and more shoppers browse among the 60,000 products available under Home Depot’s new Eco Options program...

Consumers have embraced living green, and for the most part the mainstream green movement has embraced green consumerism. But even at this moment of high visibility and impact for environmental activists, a splinter wing of the movement has begun to critique what it sometimes calls “light greens.”

Critics question the notion that we can avert global warming by buying so-called earth-friendly products, from clothing and cars to homes and vacations, when the cumulative effect of our consumption remains enormous and hazardous.

“There is a very common mind-set right now which holds that all that we’re going to need to do to avert the large-scale planetary catastrophes upon us is make slightly different shopping decisions,” said Alex Steffen, the executive editor of Worldchanging.com, a Web site devoted to sustainability issues.

The genuine solution, he and other critics say, is to significantly reduce one’s consumption of goods and resources. It’s not enough to build a vacation home of recycled lumber; the real way to reduce one’s carbon footprint is to only own one home...

The issue of green shopping is highlighting a division in the environmental movement: “the old-school environmentalism of self-abnegation versus this camp of buying your way into heaven,” said Chip Giller, the founder of Grist.org, an online environmental blog that claims a monthly readership of 800,000. “Over even the last couple of months, there is more concern growing within the traditional camp about the Cosmo-izing of the green movement — ‘55 great ways to look eco-sexy,’ ” he said. “Among traditional greens, there is concern that too much of the population thinks there’s an easy way out.”

What Would Adam Smith Do?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 7/02/2007 12:54:00 AM
What would Adam Smith do for a living nowadays? It seems an odd question to ask about the person some refer to as the father of economics. However, two researchers at the University of Texas, Daniel Sutter and Rex Pjesky, argue that Smith would not have been able to find work in modern economics as his approach was mainly non-quantitative; his method relied on prose and not maths. Indeed, some Nobel Prize winners in Economics have won the award with little or no quantitative analysis such as Gunnar Myrdal, Friedrich Hayek, Ronald Coase, Thomas Schelling, and James Buchanan. However, in their survey of recent publications in economics journals, the UT authors find that few papers are free from quantitative analysis.

It begs the question, "Is economics about econometrics?" I always like to think that concepts that cannot be explained to reasonably diligent undergraduates are perhaps not worth explaining. Similarly, some economists may hide a lack of anything meaningful to say behind a wall of Greek symbols. Though I am by no means a quant jock, I am not totally bereft of technical chops, either. All I'd ask, and this may be a long shot, is for explanations to be equally accessible in maths or prose. Though I do not always agree with him, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times is one fellow who writes about economics in a very accessible way, Then again, I'm a political economist and not an economist; in my discipline, methodological diversity is tolerated if not encouraged. Of course, I would argue that Smith is more of a political economist than an economist with his use of different analytical lenses, though I suspect most mainstream economists would demur. In any event, do read this brief paper if you're interested in it. The abstract is below:
Using papers published in 2003 and 2004, we measure the extent of math-free research in top economics journals. Of more than 1200 papers published in ten top journals, six percent met a weak criterion of math-free, three percent an intermediate criterion, and only 1.5 percent a strong criterion. General interest journals published more math-free papers than field journals. If Adam Smith were alive today, to survive he would in all likelihood need to learn math. His extensive mastery of history, ethics, and rhetoric would ill-serve his career.

Bush's Fast Track Authority is Dead

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 7/02/2007 12:17:00 AM
The Bush Administration's Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) which previously enabled it to pursue trade deals and have them subjected to an up-down vote in Congress without amendment went with nary a sigh into the abyss at the end of June [TPA...it's dead! No one mourns the wicked, etc.] Few tears were shed over it as globalization's proponents saw its demise coming well in advance and deglobalizers (for lack of a better term) did too. The US Congress is making no bones about its doubts over the benefits of such deals--especially Democrats:
President Bush loses his power Saturday to seal "fast track" trade agreements without interference from Congress, where Democrats blame recent deals for sending U.S. jobs abroad.

Since 1975, only one other president, Bill Clinton, has been stripped of that trade promotion authority, designed to speed the reduction of trade barriers and open new markets with other countries. Bush won't get it back again, and the next president might not either.

House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, whose Ways and Means Committee handles trade policy, said in a written statement Friday that their legislative priorities "do not include the renewal of fast track authority."

"Before that debate can even begin, we must expand the benefits of globalization to all Americans," they said.

Rather than promoting new free trade accords, the government should concentrate on rewriting old deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, going after countries such as China that manipulate their currencies, strengthening product safety and pushing anti-sweatshop legislation, said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio...

Fast track authority, which dates back to the Ford administration in 1975, gives the president the right to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can accept or reject, but cannot amend. Every president since then has enjoyed it, although the law lapsed between 1994 and 2002, when Democrats suspicious of trade agreements joined with Republicans hostile to the Clinton administration in opposing its renewal.

The revival of the law in 2002 came only after Republicans agreed to Democratic demands to expand a program assisting U.S. workers hurt by foreign trade...

Democrats reached a broad agreement with the Bush administration last month that worker rights and the environment will be core parts of future free trade agreements. That improved prospects for congressional action on several of the accords, although there are still sticking points, such as violence against labor leaders in Colombia and South Korea's restrictions on U.S. auto imports...

But Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., argued that "trade agreements have given us the largest trade deficits in human history." Last year the U.S. trade deficit reached $836 billion.

Thomas Palley echoes many of the populist sentiments expressed by Democratic officials in a recent blog entry of his:

Opponents of TPA renewal have focused on two arguments. One argument is that such ceding of constitutional power is inappropriate, and Congress should reclaim this power as part of restoring a more balanced relationship between the legislative and executive branches.

A second argument is that absence of TPA would make it more difficult to sign new “free trade” agreements. This is because absent an up or down vote, agreements would get bogged down in Congressional special interest horse-trading. This is probably true, but it also constitutes a purely tactical argument for opposing TPA rather than an argument of principle.

An alternative argument for burying TPA concerns its distorting effect on trade policy. Over the last two decades the power of corporations has increased dramatically while that of labor has fallen. That power shift is reflected in the increased numbers of Washington K Street lobbyists working on behalf of corporations, which has increased corporate influence over policy and legislation. TPA plays into and amplifies this power shift.

Trade deals are negotiated by the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), and then sent to Congress for approval. This negotiating process is stacked in favor of business. First, corporations get front seats at the negotiating table through regular detailed consultations, ensuring their interests are fully represented. Second, the trade bureaucrats who do the negotiating are subject to corrupting influences that bias negotiations.

One problem is that negotiators’ metric of success too easily becomes the number of deals signed, rather than getting good deals done. A second problem is that, as with other branches of government such as the Pentagon, there is a revolving door between USTR and business. Thus, trade negotiators who do good work for business are rewarded with plum K Street lobbying jobs, and Washington’s trade scene is crammed with persons who have followed this route. Furthermore, these lobbyists then have insider access to their former colleagues, thereby amplifying corporations’ representation advantage. The net result is business interests almost always trump those of workers.

TPA reinforces this jaundiced structure by reducing Congressional over-sight of trade, thereby short-changing the electorate’s interest. Bad agreements pass because the political costs of voting them down on account of specific problems are perceived as too high. Moreover, TPA provides individual congressmen with political cover, enabling them to retain favor with corporate sponsors without having to explain to constituents their lack of action.

The bottom line is that the balance of power and process of trade negotiation already favors corporate interests over those of ordinary people. TPA aggravates this pattern, which speaks for burying it and letting TPA rest in peace.

Ah, well, it really doesn't matter now. Stick a fork in it--TPA is done. Will it be renewed in the near future? With a strong isolationist streak in America becoming more and more reflected by its elected officials (even Hillary Clinton, supposedly) don't count on it.

High Net Worth Individuals = $37T

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 7/01/2007 02:23:00 AM
Barry Ritholtz of the Big Picture tends to call a graphical presentation of data "infoporn." So, after talking about papal matters in the previous post, I am now presenting some "infoporn" on the financial services industry's favorite bit of client services, the so-called high-net worth individuals (HNWI) end. These are the folks who are worth $1 million and over. The following charts, by the way, are from a Capgemini report on HNWI. Among the report's findings are the following:
  • 9.5 million people globally hold more than US$1 million in financial asets, an increase of 8.3% over 2005
  • HNWI wealth totals US$37.2 trillion, representing an 11.4% gain since 2005
  • Wealth generation was driven by real GDP gains and continued market capitalization growth
  • Emerging markets registered strong advances in market capitalization, aiding wealth creation in regions such as Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Asia-Pacific
  • Singapore, India, Indonesia and Russia witnessed the highest growth in HNWI populations
First, have a look at the growing global population of millionaires:Next up is the distribution of wealth among the HNWI:
A separate category of ultra-HNWIs is also depicted consisting of those worth $30M and up:
Finally, it seems that private banking for the HNWI is becoming more focused on lifestyle choices of the HNWI as opposed to being merely portfolio-based. That is, the emphasis is becoming one of catering to the aspirational choices of HNWI clients.
It's interesting stuff, especially for those selling products and services to this market segment. The rest of the report is available from the Capgemini site, though you will need to register. Honestly, I am astounded by the sheer size of this market and the opportunities it may present to astute marketers. Luxury goods makers may never have had it so good. $37 trillion isn't something to sneeze at, no?

The Pope's China Push

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 7/01/2007 01:29:00 AM
Make no mistake: the Holy See is in business--the business of saving souls, or so it claims. And, nowhere else in the world are there more souls than in China with its population of 1.3B. Officially, China claims to be an atheist state in line with the tenets of communism. No need for the opiate for the masses here, thank you very much. The Communist Party has traditionally seen organized religions as potential enemies of the state. The belief is that they may foment political unrest and divided loyalties. After half a century of strained ties with China, however, the Roman Catholic Church is reconsidering its stance on China. Like almost everyone else, the Holy See perceives China as an attractive growth market.

However, distrust among these two parties is still rife. The Vatican has taken a relatively hard line until now by encouraging the faithful to attend services at approved venues. It also extends diplomatic recognition to Taiwan (The Republic of China) and not to the People's Republic of China. China has returned the favor of mistrust by installing its own bishops. To make amends, the Vatican has now made moves toward rapprochement in an open letter written by Benedict XVI to Catholics in China. The Associated Press summarizes the horse-trading that the Vatican is willing to engage in to make the Church more viable in the Middle Kingdom:

Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday invited all Roman Catholics in China to unite under his jurisdiction and urged the government in Beijing to restore diplomatic ties and permit religious freedom.

He called China's state-run Catholic Church "incompatible" with Catholic doctrine but nevertheless made unprecedented overtures toward it.

China forced its Roman Catholics to cut ties with the Vatican in 1951, shortly after the officially atheist Communist Party took power. Worship is allowed only in the government-controlled churches, which recognize the pope as a spiritual leader but appoint their own priests and bishops.

Millions of Chinese, however, belong to unofficial congregations that remained loyal to Rome.

In the eagerly awaited letter to the faithful in China, Benedict insisted on his right to appoint bishops, but said he trusted that an agreement could be reached with the Beijing authorities on nominations. The Vatican would like to have a formula similar to the one it has with Vietnam, another communist country, where the Vatican proposes a few names and the government selects one.

Significantly, Benedict revoked previous Vatican-issued restrictions on contacts with the clergy of the official church, and recognized that some Chinese faithful have no choice but to attend officially recognized Masses.

The Vatican said in a note accompanying the letter that it was prepared "at any time" to move its diplomatic representation from Taiwan — which split from China in 1949 — to Beijing, as soon as an agreement with the government was reached.

The letter was the most significant effort by Benedict to balance his pastoral concerns for the up to 12 million Roman Catholics in China who are divided between an official church — the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association — and an underground church that is not registered with the authorities...

The text was believed to have been sent to the Beijing government in recent days as a courtesy. However, the vice chairman of the Patriotic Association, Liu Bainian, said Saturday after its release that he had not seen the letter and that the church had no immediate plans to read it out to the faithful or distribute it.

Qin Gang, a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, said in a statement posted to the ministry's Web site that China would "continue to have a frank, constructive dialogue with the Vatican in order to resolve differences between the two sides."

The statement called on the Vatican to sever ties with rival Taiwan and not interfere in Beijing's internal affairs in the name of religion.

"We hope that the Vatican take practical action and does not create new barriers," Qin said, without elaborating.

On several occasions, Benedict praised Catholics who resisted pressure to join the official church and paid a price for it "with the shedding of their blood."

But he urged them to forgive and reconcile with others for the sake of unifying the church.

Tellingly, Benedict referred repeatedly to the "Catholic Church in China," without distinguishing between the divisions — an indication of his aim to see the two united and in communion with Rome.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the revocation of the 1988 restrictions on contacts with the clergy of the official church was "significant" because it meant that the Catholic Church in China did not require special Vatican regulation.

It is interesting that while the Pope is seeking better ties, his previous reputation as "God's Rottweiler" still comes through in some of his statements that are not bound to be received especially warmly by Chinese officials--especially those dealing with the Church's persecution:
Many members of the Chinese episcopate who have guided the Church in recent decades have offered and continue to offer a shining testimony to their own communities and to the universal Church. Once again, let a heartfelt hymn of praise and thanksgiving be sung to the "chief Shepherd'' of the flock (1 Pet 5:4): in fact, it must not be forgotten that many Bishops have undergone persecution and have been impeded in the exercise of their ministry, and some of them have made the Church fruitful with the shedding of their blood.
The Pope also gives partial blessing to the "scabs" chosen by the Chinese officialdom if those of the Vatican-ordained variety are unavailable:
Concerning Bishops whose consecrations took place without the pontifical mandate yet respecting the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination, the resulting problems must always be resolved in the light of the principles of Catholic doctrine. Their ordination – as I have already said (cf. section 8 above, paragraph 12) – is illegitimate but valid, just as priestly ordinations conferred by them are valid, and sacraments administered by such Bishops and priests are likewise valid. Therefore the faithful, taking this into account, where the eucharistic celebration and the other sacraments are concerned, must, within the limits of the possible, seek Bishops and priests who are in communion with the Pope: nevertheless, where this cannot be achieved without grave inconvenience, they may, for the sake of their spiritual good, turn also to those who are not in communion with the Pope.
It will be interesting to see how this matter plays out, especially with regard to Taiwan's diplomatic recognition. My view is that China will not accept these overtures lock, stock, and barrel just as it hasn't throughout the years. While the Vatican may make some inroads, it will be tough for it to gain followers in China due to constant Communist Party intervention.

Beijing: The Air That I Breathe

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 7/01/2007 01:06:00 AM
As China busies itself with its preparations for the 2008 Olympic Games, the bugaboo of poor air quality is again rearing its head despite attempts to improve air quality in the host city.

Beijing has recorded the worst air quality for June in the past seven years, as it was substandard for 15 days in the month, authorities said on Saturday.

Particles in the air was the main pollutant, said officials with the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Environment Protection. The city's weather "was bad for the spread of pollutants".

The pollution in June was mainly caused by car exhaust, while farmers burning stalks in neighboring Hebei, Henan, Shandong, Jiangsu and Anhui provinces were also to blame, the Beijing officials said…

Beijing has aimed to have 245 days with "blue sky" this year, but it recorded only 110 days in the first six months.

Consequently, the government has mandated that automakers improve vehicle emission standards:
A more stringent vehicle emission standard equivalent to the Euro III will begin on Sunday, said China's environmental regulator. And the sale and licensing of Euro II vehicles will expire a year later.

The State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) said that as the world's second-largest vehicle market and third-largest vehicle producer, China's rapidly growing car sales aren't just creating traffic jams in major cities; they're also causing noticeable deterioration of air quality in some large cities including the country's capital, Beijing.

The new standards would cut vehicle pollutants by 30 percent, said Zhao Yingmin, head of SEPA's department of science, technology and standards. He also said an emission standard equivalent to the Euro IV would take effect in 2010.

The new standard, equivalent to the Euro III, was issued in China by SEPA in April 2005. More than 7,000 types of vehicles have been able to meet the new standard, according to ministry figures. And most automakers in China have the technology to produce Euro III vehicles.

The national adoption of the Euro III standard will help the country reduce its pollutants, like sulfur dioxide (SO2). China planned to cut its SO2 emissions 2 percent year-on-year from 2006 to 2010, but failed to meet the target last year. SEPA reminded carmakers of the timetable to eliminate high-emission vehicles.

While this initiative to improve emission standards to Euro III is welcome, do note that the EU began implementing these standards seven years ago. (See chart depicting allowable particulate matter and sulfur oxide emissions.) Meanwhile, Euro IV standards which China plans to put into effect in 2010 were adopted in 2005 by the EU. Beijing intends to ban parking at Olympic venues during the Games to reduce reduce traffic and air pollution. Whether Beijing's air can improve sufficiently by then is an open question, however.