Quote of the day

“I find economics increasingly satisfactory, and I think I am rather good at it.”– John Maynard Keynes
Showing posts with label capital. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capital. Show all posts

Sunday, 11 April 2021

Perfect article for trade and development

 

Africa’s jobs dilemma

project-syndicate.org

AFRICA’S MANUFACTURING SECTOR IS NOT CREATING ENOUGH GOOD JOBS

Economic development is a result of creating more productive jobs for an ever-increasing share of the workforce, says Dani Rodrik. In the past that has meant industrialisation. Many low-income countries in Africa and elsewhere still hope to walk this well-trodden path out of poverty. “Industrialisation and integration into global value chains are viewed as essential for achieving rapid economic growth… and creating a large number of jobs for Africa’s young population.” 

There is, however, a problem. Even where “industrialisation is putting down deep roots”, few good jobs are being created. Ethiopia, for example, has built an export-oriented sector manufacturing clothes and shoes. Tanzania has a manufacturing base that serves domestic and regional markets. But the bulk of the increase in jobs is coming rather from small, informal enterprises. New research shows that in both Ethiopia and Tanzania larger firms are seeing big gains in productivity, but do not expand employment much, while small firms are absorbing labour but not seeing much in the way of productivity growth. 

SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL

One feature of the larger manufacturing firms that may help account for this is that they are “excessively capital-intensive”. In low-income countries such as Ethiopia and Tanzania, workers are plentiful and capital (machinery and equipment) is scarce and hence expensive. You might think, then, that firms would be biased more toward labour-intensive techniques. We find the opposite. Why? Perhaps because the firms do not have much choice. Manufacturing technologies have become “progressively more capital- and skill-intensive over time” and technologies used in global value chains “appear to be particularly biased against unskilled labour”. 

This leaves African economies “in a bind”. Their manufacturing firms can either become more productive and competitive, or they can generate more jobs. “Doing both at the same time seems very difficult, if not impossible.” 

This dilemma is reminiscent of an old concern. Authors such as E. F.  Schumacher, author of Small is Beautiful, worried in the 1970s that Western technologies favoured large-scale, capital-intensive plants ill-suited to conditions in poorer countries. Developments consigned Schumacher to the sidelines, but we may need to consider his ideas again and begin “a public debate about the direction of technological change” and the tools states have to “reorient it”.

Sunday, 1 October 2017

US Corporation Tax - implications of change.

American corporation tax - possible changes, and the implications thereof. Important for Tax & Fiscal Policy section:

CAMBRIDGE – The United States Congress is likely to enact a major tax reform sometime during the next six months. Although the new rules will apply only to American taxpayers, they will have important consequences for companies and markets around the world.

The most important changes will apply to US corporations rather than to individual taxpayers. Of these reforms, the one with the most obvious and direct international impact will be the change in the taxation of US corporations’ foreign subsidiaries.
The current US rule is unique among all major advanced economies. Consider the example of a subsidiary of a US corporation that earns profits in Ireland. That subsidiary pays the Irish corporate tax at Ireland’s low 12% rate. It is then free to reinvest the after-tax profits in Ireland, in financial securities, or in operating businesses anywhere in the world – except the US.
If the foreign subsidiary’s parent company brings the after-tax profits back to the US to invest or distribute to its shareholders, it must pay the current US corporate tax rate of 35% on its original pre-tax Irish profits, with a credit for the 12% that it has already paid.
Because of this 23% penalty on repatriation, US companies generally choose not to repatriate the profits of their foreign subsidiaries. The Treasury Department estimates that these subsidiaries have accumulated $2.5 trillion of offshore profits.
Congress is now likely to adopt the “territorial” method of taxing the profits of US corporations’ foreign subsidiaries. Under the territorial method, which virtually every other advanced economy uses, US corporations will be able to repatriate their foreign subsidiaries’ after-tax profits with little or no extra tax.
Congress is also likely to enact a “deemed repatriation tax” on the $2.5 trillion of profits that have been accumulated abroad but never subject to US tax. Although the details of this provision have not been decided, the basic idea would be to levy a tax of about 10% on the untaxed overseas profits, to be paid over a period of years. In exchange for this new tax liability, a US corporation could repatriate those accumulated profits whenever it wanted to do so.
The shift to a territorial tax system is likely to have important effects on US corporations’ behavior. A large share of their foreign subsidiaries’ future profits, which would be retained abroad under current law, are likely to be returned to the US, reducing investment in Europe and Asia. A portion of the $2.5 trillion of past profits now held abroad would be repatriated as well.
Moreover, US corporations will no longer have an incentive to shift their country of incorporation to other countries in order to be able to distribute their foreign-earned profits to their shareholders. At the same time, foreign companies will have an incentive to shift their headquarters to the US, where they could enjoy the advantages of being a US corporation without incurring the current tax penalty.
Although the shift to a territorial system of taxation would have the most obvious foreign impact, the planned reduction in the corporate tax rate may have an even larger effect. The 35% statutory tax rate on corporate profits is one of the highest among all developed countries. The congressional proposal would reduce the corporate rate to 20%. President Donald Trump has called for a 15% rate.
A lower corporate tax rate and the shift to a territorial system would increase the flow of capital to investment in US corporations from abroad and from capital investments in owner-occupied housing and in agriculture. This would raise productivity and GDP, leading to increases in tax revenue that would partly offset the direct effect of the corporate rate reduction.
But, because corporate tax revenue is now about 1.6% of GDP, the direct effect of halving the tax rate would reduce revenue by about 0.8% of GDP, or $160 billion a year at the current level of output.
The US cannot afford such a large increase in the fiscal deficit. And, because few features of the corporate tax law can be changed to reduce that revenue loss, I think the corporate tax rate will be reduced to about 25%. That would still be substantially less than the current rate and in line with the OECD average.
Corporate tax rates have been declining around the world in recent decades. The US rate was previously 50%, and rates in the other OECD countries were substantially higher than the current 25% average. It is certainly possible that the reduction of the US rate will cause other developed countries to reduce their corporate tax rates to improve their relative attractiveness to internationally mobile capital.
In short, the congressional legislation that is likely in the months ahead will change the tax rules for US companies, but it will also have important effects on international capital flows. It could also have significant effects on tax rules around the world.

Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research, chaired President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984. In 2006, he was appointed to President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and, in 2009, was appointed to President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Currently, he is on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Group of 30, a non-profit, international body that seeks greater understanding of global economic issues.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Y13 - More on the funding/credit possible problems issue:

This is a research note put out by my friendly investment bank; some will be way too financial for you, so don't try and understand it all. Skim read it, get the gist, and then try and focus on the numbers, and about two thirds of the way down, what happens if one of these firms fails:


Earlier today, in its latest attempt to restore confidence in its brand and business model after suffering a historic stock price collapse, Glencore - whose CDS recently blew out to a level implying a 50% probability of default - released a 4 page funding worksheet which was meant to serve as a simplied summary of its balance sheet funding obligations and lending arrangements to equity research analysts who have never opened a bond indenture, and which among other things provided a simplied and watered-down estimate of what could happen if and when the company is downgraded to junk.

 Meanwhile, in a furious race to shore up as much liquidity as possible, Glencore - which a month ago announced a dramatic deleveraging plan - and its peers have been quietly scrambling to raise billions in secured funding. Case in point none other than Glencore's biggest competitor and the largest independent oil trader in the world, Swiss-based, Dutch-owned Vitol Group, whose Swiss unit Vitol SA earlier today raised a record $8 billion in loans.


 It is not alone.


 As Bloomberg reports, another name profiled previously here, privately-held (but with publicly-traded debt) Trafigura "won improved terms on a $2.2 billion loan refinancing deal on Oct. 1 via a group of 28 banks. Swiss commodity traders Gunvor Group Ltd. and Mercuria Energy Group Ltd. are also marketing credit facilities totaling $2 billion."


 Louis Dreyfus Commodities, the world’s largest raw-cotton and rice trader, said in its interim report last month that it had six revolving credit facilities with staggered maturity dates totaling $3.3 billion. In June, it amended and extended its North American facilities totaling $1.6 billion and in July it refinanced a $400 million Asian lending facility with the company securing an option to request an increase of $100 million.


 Noble Agri, the agricultural commodity trader majority owned by China’s Cofco Corp., attracted four new lenders to its $1.58 billion one-year revolving credit facility, people familiar with the matter said this month.
In short - a race against time to pledge as much unencumbered collateral as possible for future funding needs, because as every CEO knows you raise capital when you can, not when you have to.



Yet this is odd, because even as the companies hold investor meetings and publicly comfort investors that they are adequatly funded and see no need for a liquidity-raising scramble, that's precisely what the world's commodity traders are doing.

 Bloomberg's take was more optimistic: "The transactions show banks are still eager to loan money to commodity traders even after debt concerns caused by wild swings in Glencore’s stock and bond prices."
The new loans and refinancing signal banks are comfortable lending to commodity traders, whose business models allow them to profit from volatility and lower financing costs amid weaker prices for raw materials.
According to Bloomberg, Vitol’s record credit facilities from a group of 57 banks were increased by a third after the initial $6 billion sought by the trading house was oversubscribed by $2.7 billion, the Rotterdam-based company said in a statement. The facilities, refinancing a debt package signed 12 months ago, are the biggest in the firm’s 49-year history, a Vitol spokeswoman in London said.


 Then comes even more spin:


 The loan package, coming after Trafigura last week agreed to lower lending rates, suggests some analysts don’t understand the business of trading houses, which can benefit from lower commodity prices and the current contango market structure that allows them to profit by storing oil because forward prices are higher than current costs.


 Actually analysts (at least credit) understand the business of trading houses very well; what Bloomberg's reporters don't seems to understand, however, is the principle of muturally assured megaleverage destruction, or the implied threat for a company's secured lending syndicate that a borrower which already has billions of exposure to banks has all the leverage in demanding even more debt. After all, should Vitol fail, it would lead to a cascade of bank failures as all the banks that have lent money to the giant commodity trader are forced to charge off their exposure, in the process leading to serial defaults among undercapitalized financial institutions.


 It is these institutions whose credit officers underwrote the loans, that are the ones who "don't understand the business of trading houses" because based on the recent collapse in publicly traded securities, they never modelled what happens to cash flows in a world in which the price of oil, copper, zinc, aluminum or other commodities, suffer a 50%+ plunge in prices.


“Given the recent turbulence in the commodities space, we have been repeatedly asked by investors on the banks’ exposure to commodity traders,” analysts at Sanford C. Bernstein led by Chirantan Barua wrote in a note Monday.


 As they well should, and in order to avoid answering, the banks are perfectly happy to throw a little more good money after lots of bad money in order to avoid remarking their entire exposure to the sector to something resembling fair value.


 But the day of remarking is coming: as Bernstein calculates, commodity traders have raised at least $125 billion of debt, of which about $75 billion is loans. In other words, there is about $75 billion in secured debt, collateralized by either inventory and/or receivables collateral whose value has cratered in the past year, and as a result the LTV on the secured loans has soared. It is this that is prompting the panicked banks to be more eager to provide funds to the suddenly distressed energy-trading sector than even the borrowers themselves. And after all, if the banks do blow up, there is always the taxpayer-funded bailout as a last reserve.


 And here is a pop quiz to either analyst, or Bloomberg writers who don't "understand the the business of trading houses" - if you issue secured debt to shore up liquidity as a result of what is fundamentally a massively over-leveraged capital structure, does the pro forma debt increase or decrease. This is not a trick question.


 The good news for the Vitols of the world is that by pledging even more of their unencumbered assets to banks, they buy themselves a few more months, or quarters, of liquidity to pay down upcoming maturities and interest. Which is what Glencore did with its "doomsday" plan in early September... a plan which calmed the stock for all of two weeks before investors saw right through it for what it was: a desperate scramble to put lipstick on a declining-stage supercycle pig.


 In the meantime, the end result is this: companies that are even more levered to commodity prices in a world in which at last check commodity prices, a proxy for China's economy, are sliding. Which, incidentally, was our thesis in March of 2014 when we said that buying Glencore CDS is the best way to trade China's hard landing. This is precisely what happened.


 Which is why both the companies, and their lending banks, better pray that commodity prices pick upin the coming weeks and months, because for the Vitols, the Glencores, the Trafiguras, the Mercurias and so on, that is all that matters. Ironically, by levering up even more, they bought themselves some time now, but if and when the next leg down in the commodity supercycle takes place, the pain will only be that much greater.

Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Global debt & deleveraging - $57 trillion and rising?

A $57 trillion increase since 2007! We are 5 years in to our "deleveraging" - most of the heavy work is yet to come:

 
 
 
 
 







Saturday, 14 February 2015

Free movement of capital


Prison planet: how free movement of capital is a thing of the past

Check-in queue at Haneda Airport © Getty images
Japan’s new wealth tax is an exit tax
I had a chat with a member of the UK’s 0.01% a few days ago. He was worried about all sorts of things, from the status of non-doms to the rise of racial intolerance and the mansion tax. He might, he said, have to leave. But where, I asked, would you go?
The days in which the rich could live wherever they liked and just hold their money offshore – where it went unnoticed and untaxed – are long gone. These days, wherever they are, one state or another is going to want a piece of them.
Look to Japan, which is introducing a new wealth tax structured as an ‘exit tax’.* From 1 July 2015, any permanent residents of Japan – who have been in the country for more than five out of the last ten years – or Japanese nationals with financial assets (this doesn’t include cash or real estate) of more than ¥100m (about $850,000) must pay the normal capital gains rate on any unrealised gains on those assets’ departure. The same rate must be paid if those assets are inherited by or given to anyone living outside Japan.
For now, this clearly this isn’t an unavoidable tax: you can rebalance your portfolio towards cash before leaving to avoid it; if you are planning to return to Japan, you can apply for a payment extension; and there are various visa shenanigans foreigners can indulge in to stop themselves being considered a permanent resident, too.
But the aim of the Japanese government is obvious: it is to prevent people moving to low-tax areas, such as Singapore and Hong Kong, and selling their assets – depriving Tokyo of its own much-needed tax revenue.
It’s all part of the growing trend by nations to try and contain capital, and to capture what tax revenue they can within their own borders from individuals and bodies that have previously assumed free movement of capital to be a fully established right (large tax-avoiding corporations, take note).
The standard advice from accountants on this one is simple: if you are pretty rich and you live in Japan, but you don’t want to live in Japan for ever, leave now. However, that still leaves the rich one tricky question: leave for where?
* This isn’t a new idea for taxmen: the US charges an exit tax to anyone wanting to give up citizenship, and France and Germany both operate a type of exit tax.
FREE daily investment email from MoneyWeek
Receive our thought-provoking investment email Money Morning every weekday morning, plus occasional promotions, & become a smarter investor. 
To sign up, enter your email address:

Tuesday, 23 December 2014

Negative interest rates, tax changes and more - A2 material

Swiss take interest rates negative - well, not until 22nd January... what happens on 22nd Jan?

Govt mulling tax cut for oil companies - check out the potential job losses

How the poor end up paying the most tax

David Smith on deflation - good or bad thing?

Short article on falling capital inflows - problem for growth in future?

If the links do not open (because The Times doesn't allow it) post this in the comments section, and I will put the articles up individually. There is plenty more to come, and I expect EVERYONE to make the effort to keep up to date.