Share This

Sunday, February 14, 2010

The New Generation Leaving Ireland, now rated to junk by Moody




Some 170,000 jobs vanished last year, and the lack of employment is driving a generation away

http://images.businessweek.com/mz/10/08/600/1008_mz_50ireland.jpg "The lack of jobs is driving people away," says Trinity College senior Simon Phelan Jude Edginton
Dublin - When Simon Phelan started a civil engineering degree at Dublin's Trinity College four years ago, he figured his biggest problem upon graduation would be deciding which job to choose. Ireland's economy was growing at 5.4%, unemployment was a mere 4.4%, and construction was booming.

Today, with graduation fast approaching, only two of Phelan's 100 classmates have even had interviews. Worse, in these recession-scarred times, just two people from the class ahead of him are employed. So Phelan and many contemporaries see emigration as the only option. "The lack of jobs is driving people away," the 20-year-old Dubliner says after trawling through the meager offerings at Trinity's career office, a small building tucked off the school's cobblestoned quadrangle. "Ireland will lose a whole generation of graduates."

It's a scenario most Irish thought had gone the way of the potato famine and two-shilling pints of Guinness. Two decades of prosperity had transformed the island nation of 4.5 million from a European laggard into the so-called Celtic Tiger. After a century and a half in which Ireland's young and energetic routinely fled to South Boston or London's Kilburn, today's twentysomethings grew up expecting to live and work at home. But with one in three males under age 25 out of work, their confidence seems to have been misplaced. "It used to be employers were fighting over graduates," says Shane King, a 22-year-old Trinity senior from County Mayo on Ireland's west coast. "Now graduates are fighting each other for jobs."

The country's budget swung from a surplus in 2007 to a deficit of nearly 12% of gross domestic product last year as the economy shrank by 7.5%. A decade-long property bubble, which saw real estate prices triple, led to a banking crisis that Standard & Poor's estimates could cost taxpayers as much as $34 billion. "Everything we have is being spent on the banks," says David Begg, head of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Drive the 10 miles from central Dublin to Citywest, an industrial park near the border of County Kildare, and you'll see ample evidence of overbuilding. On the banks of the Liffey River, there's the half-finished shell of Anglo Irish Bank's new headquarters. Farther on, "for sale" signs dot posh developments where new homes stand unoccupied.

AUSTRALIA BOUND?

Many would-be emigrants have made the same trip. On a chilly Sunday, hundreds of people gather in a conference room at the Citywest Hotel for a seminar on emigrating Down Under. Representatives of several Aussie states sit behind foldable tables stacked with pamphlets extolling Australia's low unemployment and "no worries" outlook. Carpenter Michael McGerr, 38, drove more than 100 miles with his wife and toddler to attend. "Our goal is to go away for good," he says.

Last year emigration exceeded immigration for the first time in 15 years as 65,100 people left, outpacing arrivals by nearly 8,000. Almost half of those who decamped were recent immigrants from Eastern Europe. But with few opportunities at home, growing numbers of native Irish are also headed for the exit. "There was loads of work three years ago, then it just dried up," says Patrick Maye, an unemployed bricklayer who traveled to the Aussie seminar from Carlow, some 50 miles south of Dublin. The 22-year-old hopes to move to Australia once he finishes retraining as a fitness instructor.

With unemployment set to hit 13.8% this year, things are sure to get worse. The Economic & Social Research Institute (ESRI), an independent think tank in Dublin, predicts net outward migration of 40,000 for the year ending in April, the highest level in more than 20 years. "We are right back to the 1980s," says Piaras Mac Éinrí, a lecturer at University College Cork.

Back then, unemployment soared to 18% as the economy took a dive. Then in the 1990s, a wave of foreign investment swept Ireland, lured by low corporate taxes and inexpensive workers. Now the blue chips are scaling way back. In the past year, Intel (INTC), Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), and Waterford Wedgwood have downsized; Dell (DELL) moved PC production from Limerick to lower-wage Poland; and some 1,500 smaller companies have folded. Last year 170,000 Irish jobs vanished, and ESRI predicts 76,000 more will be lost in 2010.

One problem is that Ireland got too pricey. The American Chamber of Commerce Ireland estimates that from 2004 to 2008, Irish wages rose 50% faster than the average of advanced European economies. Former Intel Chairman Craig R. Barrett says that of the 14 reasons Intel came to Ireland two decades ago, only one remained: a low corporate tax rate of 12.5%. "Ireland needs a new game plan," he said at a Dublin conference in September.

In the past, the state has been a big creator of jobs by hiring civil servants and promoting investment. But to plug a yawning gap in public finances, Dublin in December announced spending cuts of $5.6 billion, including $1.4 billion from public sector pay and $1.1 billion from social welfare benefits. The tough measures have helped restore Ireland's standing among global investors, but the cuts make it difficult for the government to launch the policies that might enable people to ride out the recession, either in on-the-job training or higher education.

The biggest job casualties have been in construction. At its peak in 2007, the building trade employed 1 in 7 Irish workers. But over the past two years, the sector has shed 200,000 jobs, according to Ireland's Construction Industry Federation. "We went from being in high demand to no demand," says Gordon Cobbe, a construction manager from Cork. Out of work for a year, he plans on moving to Perth, Australia.

Many Irish aiming to get out face problems similar to workers in, say, Detroit or Toledo: They can't afford to leave their homes. John McKenna is eager to join more than a dozen friends who have moved to Australia. With business slow at the plumbing supply store where he works, "I don't know how much longer I'll have a job," the 39-year-old says. But the house he bought for $306,000 in 2006 has halved in value, so it'll be tough to depart anytime soon.

The emigration surge comes as Dublin tries to implement a program called "Smart Economy." The plan is to boost innovation through tax breaks for research, expedited visa processing for skilled workers, a $689 million fund to back promising tech startups, and other incentives. The glue holding it all together, the government says, is "the knowledge, skills, and creativity" of the Irish—a problem with so many people leaving. "There is a risk that many of the talented individuals envisioned as the foundation of the innovation economy will make their careers elsewhere," says John McHale, an economics professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway.

Other economists are more optimistic. Alan Barrett, a research professor at ESRI, says the current exodus is likely to be benign. As part of the EU, Ireland will again lure immigrants from across Europe as growth picks up. And he points out that many who left in the '80s returned with better skills. "As soon as the economy recovered, people came back in droves," he says.

Kevin Carey, CEO of moving company Careline International, can attest to that. His firm helped relocate emigrants in the 1980s before bringing many back a decade later. Now most of his work is again outbound, and business was up 23% last year. His customers weren't so lucky. "They're all leaving; the cost of living here is too high," says Carey, who was manning a table at the Australian emigration event at the Citywest Hotel. For him, at least, business was good.
 
Source: Capell, Capell is a senior writer in BusinessWeek's London bureau .



Moody's cuts Ireland to junk, warns of second bailout

 A protestor waves a tri-color flag outside Government Buildings in Dublin November 24, 2010. REUTERS/Cathal McNaughton

NEW YORK/DUBLIN | Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:29pm EDT

Reuters) - Moody's cut Ireland's credit rating to junk on Tuesday, warning that the debt-laden country would likely need a second bailout -- just the latest move amid heightening concerns about Europe's ability to address its debt crisis and prevent it from spreading.

Moody's move comes a week after it slashed Portugal to junk status with a similar warning about the need for a second round of rescue funds. It reflects the credit rating agency's view that any further financial assistance from Brussels will require private investors to share part of the pain, possibly through a debt rollover or swap.

European finance ministers have acknowledged for the first time that some form of Greek default may be needed to cut Athens' debts, and if that materializes, Ireland's rating, never before in junk territory, could be set for a further round of cuts.

Investors fear a Greece default could ripple through Europe's banking system, putting pressure on stretched public finances in other euro zone countries. Italy, the euro zone's third largest economy, looks especially vulnerable with a debt-to-output ratio second only to Greece, and markets fear political bickering may derail a plan to slash spending and rein in the deficit.

Moody's one-notch downgrade on Ireland weighed on stocks and the euro, which hit its lowest level against the dollar in four months.

The Irish government, which wants to return to debt markets in 2013 when its current EU-IMF bailout runs out, offered a vexed response.

"This is a disappointing development and it is completely at odds with the recent views of other rating agencies," the finance ministry said in a statement. "We are doing all that we can to put our house in order and the progress that we are making is there for all to see."

Moody's now rates Ireland Ba1, one notch below former financial market pariah Colombia and two notches below Brazil, and has kept a negative outlook, meaning further downgrades are likely in the next 12 to 18 months.

Ireland's rating is still one notch above Portugal and six above Greece. Both Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings have Ireland at BBB-plus, three notches above junk status, with S&P's outlook stable and Fitch on outlook negative meaning it does not expect a downgrade in the short-term.

Moody's move, however, will likely put pressure on the other ratings as the downgrade forces some investors to dump Irish bonds because they no longer enjoy a clean investment-grade sweep of the three major ratings agencies.

"It's amazing to me that Ireland was still investment grade," said Suvrat Prakash, interest rate strategist at BNP Paribas in New York.

"A lot of people assume that these rating agencies tend to move with a lag so there could be more downgrades to come.

Ireland's borrowing costs are already at levels once thought unimaginable, with five-year paper yielding over 15 percent on the secondary market and 10-year paper close to euro-era highs of 13.86 percent.

When Ireland agreed an 85 billion euros ($119 billion) bailout package with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund last November -- a move designed to soothe market fears -- its 10-year paper was yielding around 9.5 percent, a level viewed as shocking at the time.

Economic growth in the European region as a whole has been sluggish, as a number of nations have struggled with mounting debt costs and have had to pass harsh austerity plans that have slowed economic growth further, creating a vicious cycle where tax revenues drop, reducing their chances of repaying the debt even more.

But the more investors fear that heavily indebted euro zone governments will be unable to repay their debts, the more the yields on their bonds rise, dragging down their value in banks' balance sheets, erasing their capital, and increasing the need for yet more bank bailout's by stronger euro zone governments.

A CORK BOBBING IN THE OCEAN

Unlike Greece, Ireland is meeting its bailout targets and Irish officials have felt frustrated at how their efforts have been swept aside by events in Athens.

An agreement by the euro zone finance ministers, known as the Eurogroup, late on Monday to cut the interest rate for countries borrowing from their rescue fund and an agreement to make the fund more flexible and extend its loan maturities was hailed by Dublin as helping it return to debt markets.

The finance ministry said Moody's move appeared not to reflect the Eurogroup developments, but Moody's analyst Dietmar Hornung said the risk of private sector participation in any future bailout meant investors would be put off lending fresh funds to Ireland.

Hornung, in an interview with Reuters, warned over the risks even though Moody's is confident the euro zone is "willing to continue to provide liquidity support for peripheral countries and give them time to achieve a sustainable financial position.

"But at the same time we see a growing possibility that, as a precondition of additional rounds of liquidity support here, private-sector creditors participation will be required," he said.

Ireland's debt management agency said on Tuesday the country was fully funded until the end of 2013. Ireland has a financing requirement of nearly 34 billion euros over 2014 and 2015, based on estimated deficits and maturing debts.

Even before Moody's downgrade, Finance Minister Michael Noonan admitted Dublin was at the mercy of the markets.

"Ireland is a cork bobbing on a very turbulent ocean at present," he told state broadcaster RTE on Tuesday.

Officials from the EU, the IMF and the European Central Bank are expected to confirm Dublin is meeting all its bailout targets in their latest quarterly review, expected on Thursday.

But Ireland's weak domestic economy is hitting spending-related tax revenues, and Moody's warned that another downgrade would be considered if the government can't meet its fiscal consolidation goals.

(Reporting by Walter Brandimaret and Carmel Crimmins; Additional reporting by Daniel Bases; Writing by Carmel Crimmins; Editing by Leslie Adler)

OpenOffice 3.2 - now with less Microsoft envy

It's 2010. And 2007 is finally here
 
Review OpenOffice 3.2 - now now available for Windows, Mac and Linux - boasts faster start-up times than before. But the really big news is that now - finally - this open-source suite offers full compatibility with files created using Microsoft's Office 2007.

If you've ever tried opening or converting .docx and other Microsoft Office 2007 file formats outside of Office 2007 itself, you've likely pounded your head against more than a few walls - downloading plug-ins or struggling with online conversion services.

That should be a thing of the past with OpenOffice 3.2, which supports all the Office 2007 formats out of the box. That said, the conversion process still isn't completely perfect, especially if you're trying for pixel-perfect document formatting or, in my testing, spreadsheets with complicated equation cells.

Of course, it's hard to be too excited about the new conversion tools given that they arrive three years after Office 2007 hit the shelves. If your business had a mission-critical need to work with Microsoft's formats let's hope you weren't holding your breath for OpenOffice to come through for you.

Is it fair to give an open-source project a hard time for taking three years to reverse engineer a document format more or less invented to make OpenOffice's life more complicated?

Well, no, but in the real world Microsoft Office is - for better or worse - the moving target OpenOffice.org must aim for - and, in this case, taking quite a while to hit.

Also on the document support front, OpenOffice 3.2 boasts improved compliance with Open Document Format (ODF) 1.2 standards as well as the ability to open password-protected Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files.

Given that Microsoft's preview release of Office 2010 offers support for ODF files there's some small chance that OpenOffice might actually have an easier time integrating with Microsoft's Office in the future.

The latest version of OpenOffice isn't all about format wars, though, and version 3.2 makes a worthwhile update for the considerable speed boost - especially in start up times.

It's so fast, I no longer had time to grab a fresh cup of coffee while the suite came to life. No, I double clicked the icon and - just like - that OpenOffice was ready to go. Also, I found most of the applications were somewhat snappier in general usage. The one exception seemed to be the database application, which felt sluggish in comparison - particularly with large database files.

After the speed and file format improvements, the OpenOffice release notes get very technical, very quickly. The gory details can be found on the OpenOffice site, but suffice to say that the Calc tool spreadsheet application has received quite a few improvements - such as improved copy-and-paste features - while the rest of the applications also see minor updates and bug fixes.

Time for a fluffing

However, what's perhaps most significant about this release may have nothing to do with the improved applications at all. Rather, it's the fact this will be last release before OpenOffice moves to its new owner Oracle, which finally closed its purchase of Sun Microsystems last month.

Oracle has pledged to continue OpenOffice and plans to keep the entire Sun team on hand, running OpenOffice as an independent business unit. Of course, Oracle clearly sees the online office suite as the future and plans to launch Oracle Cloud Office at some point. Whether that means OpenOffice will suffer neglect remains to be seen.

It would be nice to see Oracle do for OpenOffice what Microsoft is trying to do for its Office - integrate an online component - but do it without creating a massive vendor lock-in scheme.

Some might argue the future of office suites is all online with things like Google Docs or Zoho one day becoming the norm, but while document storage in the cloud is all well and good, editing documents in a browser is still nowhere near as pleasant or powerful as with dedicated software.

If Oracle can provide a first-rate connect-anywhere, edit-anywhere online office suite, it might have finally found something that can break Microsoft's stronghold on business productivity tools.
That's what I'd be looking for in follow on versions to OpenOffice 3.2. ®

Source:

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Whatever Volcker wants, Volcker gets?

Volcker Rules is about separation of commercial banking functions from high-risk activities

I FIRST met Paul Volcker, 82, in the summer of 1986. He was then chairman of the US Federal Reserve System (Fed). I was a rookie Fellow of the Eisenhower Exchange Programme, whose chairman was President Gerald Ford.

Volcker was well known to me as the towering central banker (at 6ft 7in, not sure if he is the tallest economist around; late Harvard Prof Ken Galbraith was about there). He was better known as the daring but brutal inflation fighter of the late 70s and early 80s, at great cost in lost output and jobs.

He was kind to me when I visited him in his office; even gave me lunch. He was impressive, friendly and had time for a visitor (and fellow Harvard alumnus) who was completely at awe with what he does. We spent four hours together. We have since been in contact, off and on.

The Volcker Rule

Volcker is now back at centrestage, after retiring from the Fed some 20 years ago. This time, introduced as the “tall guy behind me”, President Obama proposed a “simple and common sense reform, which we are calling the ‘Volcker Rule’.” Essentially, the new bank reforms would ban proprietary trading and prevent banks from “owning, investing in and sponsoring” hedge funds or private equity ventures. The proposals are intended to curb the size and spread of the biggest US banks.

Volcker had pushed hard for such a version of the separation between commercial and investment banking, first brought into being by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, soon after the Great Depression. He considered this to be key in resolving the problem of banks getting “too big to fail” (TBTF).

Indeed, it challenges the status quo that institutionalises moral hazard and exposes governments to constant bailouts at taxpayers’ expense. Volcker wants to limit this guarantee. His proposal was first mooted more than a year ago.

The mayor and the gunslinger

Volcker’s Rule can be likened to separating a prosperous cowboy town’s operations into the mundane mayor-like activities (safe and less risky but unexciting) and the gunslinger-like operations (indulging in taking undue risks and speculation, e.g. credit default swaps or CDSs), including proprietary trading for own profit, quite unrelated to serving their customers.

This Rule would provide government backing for the unexciting but safe town-mayors, but not to the speculative gunslingers. Thus, getting banks out of the gunslingers’ business would eliminate the likes of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers from holding government hostage – a moral hazard every time. These gunslingers should be allowed to fail.

Volcker rationalised that banks are sheltered by the government because providing credit is critical to economic growth. As such, they should be prevented from taking advantage of the safety net to make risky investments. For Volcker, banks are there to serve the public and that’s what they should do. Other activities can create conflicts of interest. They create unnecessary risks.

Wide ranging support

Once called “big nanny” by Walter Wriston (chairman of Citicorp in the 70s and 80s), Volcker has a towering reputation worldwide. “He is brilliant, eminently logical and steadfastly devoted to his work,” said D. Rockefeller (Volcker’s boss in the late 50s). According to an old friend, Gerry Corrigan (New York Fed president when Volcker was Fed chief), whenever Volcker was criticised, he never “flinched” simply because “he’s a man of utter conviction and absolute integrity.”

That’s why Volcker’s ideas are widely respected. European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet offered qualified support: it goes “in the same direction of our own position”. Along the way, he picked up other allies – notably John Reed (former chairman, Citicorp) and Stanley Fischer (ex-deputy CEO, International Monetary Fund or IMF).

Support has also come from chairman of the Financial Stability Board, the new president of the Swiss National Bank, and France’s Finance Minister: “It is a very, very good step forward.”

Mervyn King (governor, Bank of England) had been an early campaigner of a similar proposal to resolve the TBTF problem: “After you ring-fence retail deposits, the statement that no one else get bailed out becomes credible…That is the argument for trying to create firewalls.”

His version goes further than Volcker’s: He wants government to break up the big banks into “utilities” and “casinos” – the former are safe, the latter to live and die in the markets.

There is, of course, support from Prof J. Stiglitz (2001 Nobel Laureate in economics): “Banks that are too big to fail are too big to exist…That means breaking up too-important-to-fail (or too-complex-to-fix) institutions.” The latest being Harvard Prof N. Ferguson: “So far, there is only one credible proposal.” Since then, George Soros has also come on board.

Deciphering the Volcker Rule

The United States desperately needs financial reform. Ironically, as a result of massive government support, banks as a whole are now doing reasonably well. This contrast of strong finance and a weak jobless economy in the early stages of recovery makes the politics of reform easy to understand. But, unemployment looms large.

Voters in the United States feel betrayed by the banks and want to feel that their anger has been heard. Yet, voters cannot be sold on technicalities. The Volcker Rule (VR) has concerns in controversial technicalities.

The best insight I have read in deciphering the VR is provided by two of the London Financial Times’ best economic columnists, Martin Wolf and John Gapper. I have respect for Wolf, whom I have met occasionally at seminars run by Harvard’s Marty Feldstein at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Wolf raises three pertinent questions: are Volcker’s proposals desirable, workable and relevant?

Desirable? Of course. Surely, banks should not be allowed to exploit the government’s “guarantee” to make speculative investments with little economic benefits. The very idea of banks profiteering from activities from whose consequences they had to be rescued and of whose impact the public is still suffering, is despicable. Nevertheless, Wolf thinks the VR is not the best way to go.

Workable? Here many doubts arise. Where do you draw the line (and police it) between legitimate bank activities and activities “unrelated to serving their customers”. Various technical considerations begin to blur the line. Further, how is bank size to be measured? Definition technicalities get more complicated.

Relevant? Wolf argues persuasively that vast affiliated parts of the financial system which have evolved from deposit-taking are vital; and indeed represent well-coordinated component parts of the entire system. These have become so interconnected that the system operates as one integral whole. Then, there is “shadow” banking (institutions with promises to repay liabilities on demand), which is vulnerable to a “run” as well. The list extends to money market funds, finance companies, structured investment houses, securities dealers, etc.

Surely, this chain of shadow institutions can’t be ignored in any reform exercise. Ironically, during the crisis, banks’ investments in hedge funds, private equity and even proprietary trading were not at the “core” which went terribly wrong.

Gapper argues that “Volcker has the measure of the banks.” For the first time, he states: “A government is attacking the size and complexity of the over-mighty institutions.” Impractical? No way. Hedge funds and private equity can be readily hived off from banks with access to the Fed window and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp insurance.

Granted, the definition of proprietary trading can be technically tricky. But, in reality, banks know what a proprietary desk is. Indeed, Volcker assured US Congress that “bankers know what proprietary trading is and is not. Don’t let them tell you different…I don’t think it’s so hard.” He emphasised: “What I want to get out of the system is taxpayer support for speculative activity.”

Gapper didn’t think much of Wolf’s idea that the VR would not fit outside the United States where Europeans are not only wedded to the universal bank model but love big banks. Hence, there will be difficulties in international coordination of regulation. This is an over-reaction.

Gapper argues that the VR does not prevent the investment houses from – indeed, they are already taking – big risks. What is important is for the US system to be reformed and made stable. The VR would not curb innovation or stop hedge funds and private equity from making money. Curbs on very large financial institutions are compatible with – indeed, can stimulate – a thriving and stable financial system.

It is noteworthy that Volcker himself concedes that the proposals would not have prevented the debacles at American International Group and Lehman at the heart of the 2008 crisis. But he stated emphatically that not adopting the proposals would surely “lead to another crisis in the future”.

Can big banks really walk alone?

Both Wolf and Gapper agree that the VR is not perfect – its implementation needs sharpening. As I see it, serious bank reform is a global problem. Other central banks should offer ideas. It’s worth trying to forge reform that is smart and practical. Lest we forget, contagion risk and counterparty failure globally have been the main hallmarks of the crisis.

Human nature being what it is, I don’t think we have seen the last of “gung ho” traders and their quants who just want to drive profits. Right now such activity is already back to up profits in some big banks. Since we don’t (and won’t) really learn, the separation of commercial banking functions from such high-risk activities is what the VR is all about.

I gather that OECD (a developed nations group) has also been looking at options. One concerns structuring systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) under a variant of non-operating holding companies on a global basis, as follows:

(i) Parent is non-operational – only raises capital and invests transparently in legally separate SIFIs;

(ii) Profits are flowed-up through parent to shareholders;

 (iii) Parent not allowed to shift capital among subsidiaries in crisis and can’t request special dividends to do so. Such a structure allows for the separation of prudential risks and use of capital. In this way, regulators and investors can spot potential weaknesses. It creates a non-subsiding environment for the riskier business;

(iv) In the event of failure, the regulator shuts it down without affecting its commercial banking sister – obviating the need for even “living wills”. This offers an innovative, transparent way to achieve globally what both Volcker and King wanted but without being extreme.

Whatever the final outcome, a right balance needs to be struck between an appropriate size that’s conducive to benefit from purposeful diversification, and strong global competition to meet sustainable consumer demands at reasonable cost.

In the end, realistically, I can’t see how the VR or its variants, including what the OECD is working on, can really prevent another crisis, human nature being what it is. History is full of repeats where “greed” eventually overwhelms prudence and common sense.

Nevertheless, it could make one less likely, less often (we have had one every three years), and less costly if it did occur. To this, I think Churchill would have added: such a measure would make finance less proud but the industry more content.

Source: ● Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time promoting public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email:
starbizweek@thestar.com.my.