An excellent Economist Special Report on the World Economy last week led with a quote from Pimco CEO, Mohamed El-Erian, that the economy has reached a “new normal,” or recovery on a reduced (less prosperous) path.  The Special Report rightly focused on US imbalances with China, the fiscal mess we’re in worldwide (especially in the United States), and worries of persistent unemployment and banking system weakness.  The only point I would stress more emphatically than either El-Erian or the Economist did is the dire need for medium-term fiscal consolidation to avoid a worsening of sovereign creditworthiness (and therefore higher interest rates and lower economic growth).

The El-Erian/Economist argument is that: 1) the weak banking sector will limit the mediation of savings to investment in the economy for some time, dampening growth; 2) households, buffeted by falling housing prices and lost jobs and income, will increase their savings and reduce consumption, also restraining growth; and 3) China, with its huge trade surpluses and low levels of domestic consumption, will not bail out such deficit countries as the U.S.  Therefore, a premature withdrawal of the fiscal stimulus any time soon could derail the incipient recovery before the private sector is back on its feet.   A fair point, but timing is everything.  If we wait too long to tighten fiscal policy, the goverment debt burden could skyrocket, interest rates will rise, the economy will tank, and the dollar will plummet.  Better to keep monetary policy loose instead — notwithstanding a call by some hawkish regional Fed presidents for rate hikes sooner rather than later. 

Before he was CEO of Pimco (the largest bond manager in the world), El-Erian managed the firm’s emerging markets book.  It was in this capacity that I met him a number of times as an emerging markets analyst.  He sports a quiet, brainy manner, holding his cards close and peering over onto yours – an image he cultivates, which convinces people to seek out his reluctant pearls of wisdom, like the “new normal.”   El-Erian was what we call a “country risk” analyst before taking the helm of Pimco.  Country risk analysts have seen this type of crisis many times before — in Mexico, Brazil, Thailand and Korea, among other places.  True, it is today more serious for the planet, given that the U.S., a $14 trillion economy, is at ground zero.  Nevertheless, the issues are much the same.   

Country risk analysts talk about a concept known as “debt dynamics.”  It is an equation in which you consider the variables that could drive government debt higher.  Interest rates, the non-interest budget balance (known as the “primary” balance), and GDP growth.  In order for government debt to be on a downward path, the government’s primary budget surplus (non-interest revenues minus non-interest spending) and GDP growth must be large enough to offset interest payments on the debt.  In the U.S. case, the primary balance has gone into deficit of nearly 10% of GDP this year, the real interest rate on the government debt is nearly 3%, the debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to rise to nearly 90% next year, and GDP growth is expected to languish at 1-2% per year.  Without a sharp reduction of the primary budget deficit, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio will explode.  What’s more, this will mean that America’s “country risk premium” will rise, moving the interest rate the government pays up even higher, which in turn will further dampen economic growth.

This is why health care reform with its $900 billion price tag, however warranted over the longer time, is simply fiscally irresponsible right now.  Yet the Democrats insist on using their Congressional majorities, which won’t last forever, to expand entitlements in the middle of the most serious fiscal crisis this government has ever seen.  Americans, spoiled by prosperity, have not experienced the chill of a sovereign credit crisis like we have seen time and time again in emerging markets.  It can happen here.

In business school, they teach us that the U.S. government bond rate is the “risk-free” rate, and that “country risk premiums” on less-creditworthy governments represent the spread above America’s cost of capital that such governments must pay to borrow.  Will America’s government bond rate remain the risk-free rate after all is said and done in this crisis?  Or will America pay a spread above another government’s “risk-free” rate.  Washington will write that ending.

In emerging markets over the last 20 years, financial crises often began with a credit boom, which led to a bubble in equity and home prices, imbalances with the rest of the world (e.g. trade deficits), and a government bailout of the private sector, launching government debt to the stars.  In America, it is clearly deja vu all over again.  This is why country risk analysts almost unanimously supported the bank bailout last year, because by shoring up sick banks, you avoid even greater losses of output.  Yet many Americans (including leaders in both the Republican and Democratic parties) resented the government bailout of Wall Street.  

Great powers and great economies throughout history have declined under the weight of deteriorating finances.  I hope the “new normal” is for humankind to learn from history. 

Last week’s Economist had a couple of nice articles on China’s National Day on October 1st, when the Chinese showcased their military, including the DF-31 nuclear-tipped ICBM, which can hit any city in America.  Most of these armaments have “Made in China” tags, not unlike all of our clothes and toys.

The Economist leader on the subject lamented this show of militarism, even comparing modern-day China to Prussia/Germany and Japan in the late 19th century.  I recall attending Bastille Day celebrations along the Champs Elysee in Paris in years past, when the glory-obsessed French showcased their military hardware; yet nobody got bent out of shape about French militarism.

Yet the rise of China should rightfully be compared to the rise of powers-past, such as Germany, Japan, Russia and the U.S.  We should consider how status-quo powers such as Britain might have mismanaged some of these rises in the 19th century and how we might avoid such mismanagement with regard to China today.  The blame for German militarism rests largely on the shoulders of Germans, this is true, especially on the fragile shoulders of Kaiser Wilhelm II and his cabal (though even Bismarck shares some of the blame).  Even so, the Western Powers could have better managed Germany’s rise.  They lacked an agenda for providing Wilhelmine Germany with enhanced international privileges to match its rising power.  Matching privileges with power is key to peacefully managing a power’s rise.  And, anchoring a rising power in the institutions of the status quo is likewise critical.

With the Concert of Europe and the Congress system of Metternich dead by the late 19th century, there were no international institutions to anchor Germany.  China, by contrast, is a card-carrying member of the U.N. Security Council, the WTO, the IMF and World Bank, the G-20, G-2, and other institutions.  Furthermore, although China may still feel somewhat dissatisfied because Taiwan and other East Asian assets (such as oil reserves in the South China Sea) are not being handed to it on a silver platter, Chinese privileges in the world are being equated step-by-step with Chinese power.  The ”peaceful rise” of the dragon is taking place, at least in part thanks to Western statecraft.

The parallel with Wilhelmine Germany is a nice one, but on one key parameter, China falls short of authoritarian Germany.  Germany of that era was a pluralist, if not a liberal, society.  There was the Reichstag, in which the Social Democratic opposition was well represented.  Sure, the Kaiser and his ministers were not beholden to the German parliament.  Yet the nascent democratic institutions were there, whereas Chinese communism has not provided such vehicles for democratic development.  Likewise, Bismarck had provided Germany of those days with the most progressive social security safety net in Europe, neutralizing in part the appeal of the left.  In China’s Workers’ Paradise, the social safety net is woefully inadequate.

A few months ago, observers worried that the global financial crisis could weaken the Chinese Communist Party’s hold on power.  As long as the CCP delivered economic growth north of 8% a year, few questions were asked by the populace.  But this social contract was seen as at risk.  These days, observers are applauding the resilience of the Chinese economy at weathering the storm.  However, China’s recovery has been driven by a huge fiscal stimulus and a massive state-directed lending boom, which could lead to banking sector weakness in the future.  True, China is much less-leveraged than the US or almost any Western nation, so it has room to be a little profligate.  Nevertheless, an economic shock in China, followed by political turmoil, cannot be ruled out.  Note that China’s leaders told Beijingers earlier this month to stay home in their crowded apartments to watch the National Day Parade on television, instead of thronging over to the Forbidden City, which couldn’t have a more suggestive name.  Since 1989, popular protests are the nightmare of China’s leaders.

Sovereign risk in Turkey was once talked about in the same breath as Brazil’s.  Not so anymore.  One is going hat in hand to the IMF, likely to get $45 billion in the coming weeks; the other is largely self-financing.  What went wrong in Turkey?  Always keep your eye on the current account deficit, folks, even when Wall St. analysts tell you its nothing to worry about because it’s financed by FDI, or some such Bernanke-esque bunk.  Current account deficits mean borrowing from abroad.  And that means vulnerability.  Turkey went into the global crisis with a 5-6% current account deficit, while Brazil went in with small surpluses.  Keep your eye on America as well and its sovereign credit risk — current account deficits there have been nearly halved to 2-3% from 5-7% a couple of years ago, largely due to the US recession.  But the U.S. still can’t kick its foreign borrowing habit, Obama’s protectionism notwithstanding.  Likewise, watch out for “twin deficits.”  That’s when government deficits move in tandem with current account deficits (the former often driving the latter).  The US has these, as does Turkey (where government deficits are in the range of 5-7% of GDP, versus Brazil’s 3-4%).  Turkey’s overall government debt burden remains modest at under 50%, versus Brazil’s near-70%; however, Brazil’s government debt burden is headed down, while Turkey’s is rising.  Hence, Fitch moved Brazil up to investment grade not long ago, while Turkey languishes at BB-.  They both were BB- only a few years ago.  Sometimes the rating agencies get it right, even though it often takes them some time to do so.

So, the Turkish prime minister shows up hat in hand at the IMF’s doorstep, while President Lula’s Brazil is considered a rising power.  Have a look below at the CreditSuisse report from today on Turkey’s negotiations with the IMF.  Deputy Prime Minister Babacan, whom I met with in the past and perceive as smart and wily, is thankfully in charge of these negotations.

From CreditSuisse:

Turkey
Berna Bayazitoglu
+44 20 7883 3431
berna.bayazitoglu@credit-suisse.com
Prime Minister Erdogan denounced yesterday the claims in the local media that the IMF has offered a sizable financing package to the Turkish government which it cannot turn down. As we reported in the Emerging Markets Economics Daily yesterday, Erdogan told the Wall Street Journal on Monday (5 October) that the Turkish government has resolved one of the sticking points with the IMF, namely the IMF’s request for an independent tax revenue administration, and added that “he would like to see a new IMF program for Turkey agreed soon.” This was the most upbeat assessment that Erdogan has offered on the subject in a long while. Looking for an explanation for the change in Erdogan’s tone about an IMF agreement, the Turkish media claimed yesterday morning that the IMF might have offered a large financing package to Turkey (amounting to $45bn) which Erdogan cannot turn down. However, at a reception later in the day, Erdogan denounced local media stories that the IMF has made a new offer to Turkey.

Nevertheless, Erdogan’s statements in the Wall Street Journal add strength to the possibility that the government might invite an IMF mission to Turkey soon. As we noted in the Emerging Markets Economics Daily yesterday, speaking at various conferences in the last few days at the IMF/World Bank annual meetings in Istanbul and somewhat in contradiction to Erdogan’s statements in the Wall Street Journal, Deputy Prime Minister Babacan (who is the senior policymaker in charge of policy discussions with the IMF) had said that the discussions on the tax revenue administration and local governments’ spending were still continuing and that the IMF was studying the government’s medium-term economic plan and fiscal program.

The Statistics Office will release the industrial production data for August tomorrow. We forecast that industrial production was down 4.7% yoy in August, slowing from a contraction of 9.1% yoy in July. Our forecast is more optimistic than the consensus forecast (according to Bloomberg) of a 5.2% yoy contraction.

During the Great Depression, international trade contracted by a third, as countries around the world erected barriers to trade, aggravating a sharp decline in output already under way and throwing millions out of work.  Thus far, in the Great Recession of 2008-09, the end of which some observers may have called too soon, the major powers have avoided trade protection.  Enter the Obama administration.

Last year, I published a piece calling for those supporting Democrats in America’s national elections to make sure they keep the Dems honest on trade.  Concerns about Obama’s commitment to free trade, due to his campaign strategy in Midwestern states last year, were dismissed as mere election-year politics.  His commitment to satisfying his friends in America’s trade unions is now abundantly clear, not only because he parrots their unfair accusations about abuses by the Colombian government, but also in the latest action by the Obama administration to raise tariffs against Chinese tires (see NYT imes article).

Trade wars can spiral out of control, even if this is not the original intention of protectionists.   During the 19th century, Britain, the unrivaled power at the time, ensured global prosperity through its commitment to free trade.  The U.S. since 1945 has played this role, through both Democratic and Republican administrations.  Doubts about President Obama’s commitment to free trade, a key pillar of international cooperation and a key strategy for broad-based global prosperity, have re-emerged, a point quite ably discussed in this Economist article.

Photo:  Chinese workers loading tires for export.  Source:  www.financialpost.com

Nilson Teixeira (nilson.teixeira@credit-suisse.com) and his team at CreditSuisse Brazil, one of the formidable analytical teams among Brazil’s brokerage firms, today published a comprehensive 170 page guide to the Brazilian economy.  Timely, given that the world’s eighth largest economy is now one to be watched, invested in, and profited from.  CSFB says this guide is good for experts in Brazil’s economy as well as neophytes.  The summary pages can be found below.

An old Brazil hand myself who met annually for years with Teixeira and his predecessors (who included a number of members of the board of Brazil’s central bank), I found the work interesting and noticed only a few points that I would stress differently, add to or subtract.  They are as follows:

• CSFB highlights as Brazil’s number one economic challenge to improve the quality of the country’s primary and secondary education system, including by adding more schools.  I couldn’t agree more. 
• Brazil’s sovereign default in the 1980s-90s is blamed on the oil shocks and consequent balance of payments pressures, which is well and good; however, blame should be layed as well at the doorstop of  Brazil’s Import-Substituting Industrialization (ISI) policies and massive government borrowing program.  Brazil’s problems were (and are) everywhere and anywhere a fiscal problem.  While CSFB does mention Brazil’s “fragile fiscal accounts,” it does not stress this aspect enough.
• I agree with the outlook for stronger potential GDP growth in the coming years (in the neighborhood of 4-5% growth per year, not stellar relative to other emerging market economies, but not bad, given Brazil’s history).  I agree that this is due to a decade of sound macro policies since 1999 — with the arrival of Arminio Fraga at the central bank — including inflation targeting, a floating exchange rate, and the Fiscal Responsibility Law.
• On the other hand, I would stress more the role of the sharp rise in commodity prices earlier this decade, driven to a great extent by demand from China, for Brazil’s improved growth performance. Brazil is a major exporter of soy and other agricultural commodities, minerals, and soon, oil.
• Brazil’s sound policy management has underpinned its weathering of the 2008-09 Global Financial Crisis.  In previous global crises, Brazil was always one of the first dominos to fall.
• CSFB says that Brazil, in spite of running a countercyclical fiscal policy during this crisis, should see net government debt decline in the coming years, unlike in most countries where debt will be rising.  Fitch Ratings, which expressed its worries about fiscal policy in a publication earlier this month, may beg to differ.
• Brazil, in spite of experiencing economic contraction last year and into this year, began expanding again in 2Q09, a good indicator for the future.
• Brazilian banks are well capitalized.  I might stress a bit more concern about recent rapid credit growth in Brazilian banks.
• I agree that Brazil’s infrastructure needs are sizable, and investment here could go far to raising potential GDP growth.
• Likewise, Teixeira and his team were correct in highlighting the challenges of reforming a distorted tax regime, reining in social security deficits, and freeing up a very rigid labor market.

All to say, well worth the read.  Start with the summary below:

“In recent decades, the Brazilian economy has oscillated between periods of strong economic growth (late 1960s and early 1970s) and periods of low growth with high inflation (1980s). Despite the introduction of several economic plans since the second half of the 1980s, inflation was not effectively reined in until 1994, when the Real Plan was implemented.

In step with recurrent balance-of-payment crises in emerging countries, imbalances in Brazil’s external accounts persisted, and average GDP growth was relatively sluggish until the mid-2000s. As the global outlook improved and Brazil maintained responsible macroeconomic policies, the economy’s average growth gained speed in 2004, resulting in the longest cycle of growth and investment since the 1970s.

This growth cycle was interrupted by the global crisis of 2008, but the Brazilian economy has proved much more resilient to crises than in the past. The evolution of its economic fundamentals suggests that, after several decades, the country is likely to experience higher and – even more importantly – less volatile economic growth than in the past. But after fulfilling many of the necessary prerequisites, we believe there are still challenges to be overcome for Brazil to reach a higher level of development in the next decades. For instance, it will have to consolidate the process of making elementary and secondary education universally available, not only by expanding its network of schools, but also by improving the quality of education provided.

Brazil is a federal republic composed of 26 states and a Federal District, which comprise 5,565 municipalities. It is the world’s fifth largest country both in terms of population and land area and has the eighth-largest Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Brazilian population has grown 1.5% annually on average over the past few decades to 189 million inhabitants in 2008, most of whom reside in cities.

From 1964 to 2008, GDP grew 4.5% per year on average. In the late 1960s and early 1970s (period referred to as the “Brazilian miracle”), GDP grew by more than 11% yearly in a scenario of heavy investment. At that time, Brazil was known as the “country of the future,” a title that has not been revisited in subsequent decades.
In the 1980s, referred to as “the lost decade,” Brazil’s economy was marked by high inflation and low GDP growth. During that period, an oil shock destabilized the global economy, and consequently several developing economies, including Brazil, were unable to roll over their large foreign debt and were forced into default. The balance-of-payments crisis was associated with high interest rates, a sharp depreciation in currency, and high inflation. In the second half of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, Brazil implemented several stabilization plans to thwart skyrocketing inflation. Some of these plans included price controls, a freeze on bank deposits, and some unorthodox inflation-reduction measures.

After several unsuccessful attempts, the government implemented the “Real plan” in 1994, which established the Real as its new currency and rapidly reduced monthly inflation from around 50% to less than 1%. Even after lowering inflation, the country experienced several balance-of-payments crises in the late 1990s and early 2000s, some originating in emerging economies and others homegrown. Brazil faced some onerous constraints for financing its foreign debt on several occasions. In order to keep inflation low, the government kept real interest rates very high for several years, which in turn led the economy into a sequence of stop-and-go business cycles. Fragile fiscal accounts and risk of insolvency revealed the weaknesses in the economic adjustment during this period and produced a steep devaluation in Brazil’s currency and a return of inflationary pressure. Despite lower inflation, economic growth remained weak during these years.

In 1999, the government adopted economic policy based on three main points: an inflation target regime, a floating exchange rate policy and adoption of fiscal responsibility law. After decades of huge economic uncertainty, observance of these policies for ten years has helped increase the predictability of the Brazilian economy.
Combined with a favorable global scenario in recent years, characterized by strong economic growth and high liquidity in financial markets, these policies contributed to a significant improvement in Brazil’s macroeconomic fundamentals. From 2003 to 2008, the government maintained relatively low inflation, bought back all sovereign debt originated from the 90s’ debt renegotiation, improved the risk profile of its government securities, maintained primary surpluses, and substantially increased the level of international reserves, contributing to Brazil becoming the fourth-largest holder of U.S. treasury bonds. The global crisis that began in 2008 has proven that the macroeconomic policies adopted in recent years have been effective; despite its magnitude, the impact on the mid-term fundamentals of Brazil’s economy have been rather moderate. One of the main differences versus other countries has been the absence of any balance of payments crises within Brazil. This greater freedom in relation to external accounts has allowed the government to implement a set of countercyclical fiscal and monetary policies to reduce the negative impact of the 2008-2009 crises on economic activity. The primary surplus has fallen, raising net debt to GDP in 2009. In upcoming years, we expect the net debt to GDP ratio to retract, unlike the forecast for many countries hit hard by the crisis. For the first time since the 1970s, the Brazilian economy has proved more resilient than most developed and developing countries, in our view.

Brazil’s potential output growth has increased substantially in recent years. Despite the retraction in 2009 brought on by the international crisis, we believe average GDP growth in the next few years will likely reach 4% or 5%, much higher than the average pace of 3% during the first half of the decade. This higher growth should be associated with a return to investments, which grew consistently from 2004 to 2008, forming the longest investment cycle since the 1970s. Over the past few years, investments have been spread out over various economic sectors, especially infrastructure and commodities. But despite this long growth cycle, the country’s infrastructure is still quite deficient. Heavy investments in infrastructure are needed to foster higher growth in areas ranging from transportation to expansion of the power grid.

Sectors with clear competitive advantages in the last few years are primarily those associated with commodities. Brazil is the largest producer of many soft commodities, such as sugar, coffee, and oranges, the second largest producer of soybean and ethanol, and the number one exporter of all these products. The country is also the second largest producer of beef and ranks third for chicken and fourth for pork. Brazil exports more beef and poultry than any other country. The cost of production in the Brazilian agricultural sector is currently lower than for most producer countries. The agricultural sector is likely to see sustained growth in upcoming years and reap benefits from existing competitive advantages, even if the elimination of non-tariff barriers and improvement within the logistics infrastructure are gradual.

Brazil has huge mineral reserves – especially iron ore, aluminum, copper, chromium, gold, tin, nickel, manganese, zinc, and potassium – and clear advantages in sectors associated with these commodities. Notwithstanding the halt in heavy investment in these sectors on account of the 2008-2009 global crisis, investments will likely remain high in the next few years to meet the growing demand, especially from emerging markets. At the same time, the huge discoveries of oil reserves in the pre-salt layer in recent years should make Brazil a major player in the world market and a net exporter of fuel in the next decade. In principle, much of the massive investments in this sector will be financed by government institutions, but the participation of private corporations, especially from abroad, will tend to attract rugged investment in years to come.

The capital ratio of local banks has been well above the Basel requirement for many years, resulting in a lightly leveraged financial system. This has prevented the international financial crisis from contaminating local banks. The government’s economic policy reaction has brought relatively low fiscal costs and has managed to contain the negative effects of the contrition in external credit. The economic policy response has shown that the banks are able to efficiently intermediate private savings and contribute to sustained high growth in credit, which reached nearly 45% of the GDP in mid-2009. Credit expansion in the next few years will probably have a different profile from the most recent cycle. The new phase will be marked by the lowest basic interest rate in 30 years, which will require a different set of financial instruments available to depositors. At the same time, financial institutions will change their focus, offering longer-term credit and reaching out to more corporate and real estate borrowers.

Greater stability in the local economy should continue to encourage a shift from short- to longer-term investments in addition to increased participation by foreign investors. The need for heavy investments in Brazil within the next few years will require increased risk capital, both from here and abroad, to finance activities. This favorable scenario is expected to stimulate growth in equity markets. Although investments in Brazil have historically been financed largely by public-sector institutions, corporations have been able to raise funds lately in capital markets to finance their investment plans. The private sector will account for a growing percentage of long-term investments in the next several years, either through bank loans or direct financing through equity offerings. High-risk investments will account for a large portion of these funds, and primary and secondary equity offerings are projected to increase significantly in the next few years.

The effects of the 2008-2009 global crisis were less drastic than expected at the outset, which signifies to us that Brazil’s growth pattern is less susceptible to changes in course as a result of the external outlook. However, this does not mean that the Brazilian economy is immune to the global crisis. On the contrary, the crisis has caused Brazil’s GDP to backtrack from an average expansion of 1.6% quarter on quarter from 1Q2008 to 3Q2008 to a peak-to-trough fall of 4.4% in 4Q2008 and 1Q2009. But the return to economic expansion has already taken hold in 2Q2009, demonstrating that Brazil’s solid fundamentals have enabled rapid adjustment to the change in global outlook.

This greater resilience to the external crisis has favorable consequences for the middle- and long-term outlook for the Brazilian economy. Uncertainty regarding the resilience of the country’s economic fundamentals dissipated fairly significantly as the crisis unraveled. Overall country risk and real interest rates should decline even further in the next few years, since severe macroeconomic crises in Brazil do not seem as likely as in the past, leading to higher investments and, therefore, higher potential output growth. Thus, the path of Brazil economic fundamentals suggests that, after several decades, potential GDP growth should be higher than in the past and, even more importantly, less volatile. We, therefore, think this dynamic should allow Brazil to regain its reputation as the “country of the future.”

There are still several challenges to be overcome. First, the country needs to consolidate the process of making elementary and secondary education universally available, not only by expanding its network of schools but by improving the quality of education. Second, Brazil needs to address certain structural constraints, such as its highly complex tax system, imbalances in social security and very rigid labor legislation. It will also be up to future administrations to reopen debate concerning the state’s role in the economy, particularly with regard to its efforts to stimulate manufacturing and strengthen the regulatory framework. These reforms will require serious discussion, because congressional approval tends to lag in light of the complexity of the issues. For example, although there is a consensus in society that the country’s tax structure is complex and tax burdens too high, approval of tax reform is uncertain, because it requires debate regarding which specific fiscal expenditures need to be reduced.

During the preparation of this publication, its target audience focused on those readers with a basic understanding of Brazil, wanting to learn more about the country’s fundamentals and economic outlook. For this group, this guide can hopefully serve as a starting point. Nonetheless, we believe the in-depth scope of this report will also interest readers with a more comprehensive knowledge of the country. We note that this publication is not meant to provide a complete guide to Brazil; it is not intended to offer extensive coverage of the individual topics included. This guide contains a sizable number of graphs and tables, which together provide a relatively general review of information we believe will be relevant for our readers, offering a broad reference base, with information and statistics supporting our overall view that Brazil meets many of the prerequisites needed to take it to the next level of economic development.

The guide is divided into nine chapters, including this introduction. The second section provides a panorama of the country’s geography, climate, mineral resources, biomas, and water resources. The third addresses topics related to population, age ranges, life expectation, labor market, and income distribution. Chapter four contains a brief history of economic policy since the mid-1960s and details policies implemented in the past decade, especially inflation targeting, the floating of the foreign exchange rate, and fiscal responsibility. This chapter also highlights the organization of the country’s political institutions. Chapter five describes the primary characteristics of Brazil’s infrastructure – especially modes of transportation and power generation, transmission and distribution. Chapter six enumerates the primary industrial sectors, such as oil, petrochemicals, steel, automobiles, mining, and construction.

In chapter seven, we present the most important issues in relation to farming, listing the main crops and herds, and describing how they are distributed throughout regions. Chapter eight addresses services, with an emphasis on financial services. In chapter nine, we discuss current business trends in Brazil and certain aspects of the local tax structure. Finally, the appendix provides useful reference material, acronyms, and Web sites to access for additional information.”

It wasn’t Paul Kennedy who first said that great powers who over-extend themselves — either externally or internally — fast-forward the date of their decline, but he wrote about imperial over-extension and decline so convincingly in a best-selling book in the late 80’s.  Political Scientist Robert Gilpin in War and Change in World Politics argued that both internal and external over-extension overburdens a hegemonic power such as the U.S. and results in an early decline. 

A colleague on the Global Markets blog and other FPA bloggers have applauded President Obama’s economic policies for rescuing America and the world from an early demise.  The stimulus package was the right thing to do at the right time, I agree, as was the bank rescue, which began under Bush’s watch, spearheaded by Republicans Paulson and Bernanke as well as Democrat Geithner, a year ago, lest we forget.  I wrote about that on my blog, applauding all those involved on both sides of the aisle.  Yes, Paulson was helped along by Democrats Pelosi and Reid and brave Republican Mitch McConnell, whereas the rest of the Republican caucus abdicated all responsibility in the name of free market capitalism.  Like Lenin said, the last capitalist will sell the rope to hang the second-to-last capitalist.  I did hear, nonetheless, from not a few Democrats at that time who opposed the bank bailout, including some so-called New Democrats.

In any case, I applaud President Obama’s continuation of Paulson’s policies (and remember, these were policies backed wholeheartedly by the much-maligned George W. Bush). 

But why health care reform?  Okay, I know why health care reform.  But why now?  Why now, with U.S. General Government Debt set to reach nearly 100% of GDP within two years??!! 

The answer:  because Dems have majorities in Congress and they’re afraid they’ll miss this opportunity to extend entitlements.  The prudent thing to do — the thing leaders of a great power wishing to prolong its great power status would do — is:  tackle health care reform when (and if) the ship of state is not in hock.

An Economist article points out the fine job accomplished last night by the Great Communicator (II).  It also points out that President Obama put a figure on the cost last night — $900 billion, or 5-10% of GDP.  Obama in his speech committed to convening an independent panel of experts to find savings in Medicare and other health schemes and to putting in mandatory cuts if cost restraint doesn’t materialize.  Hats off to the president for including these two commitments in this expansion of the role of the state.  Nevertheless, to those of us worried about the decline of a great power so important to the liberal institutions of the world, this health care reform remains an awful lot of the farm to bet on the Great Communicator’s promises before a joint session of a Democratic Congress.

 

I discussed Mexico’s fiscal woes and compared them to Brazil’s in a previous post.  Today, financial market analysts reacted positively to the Mexican government’s fiscal plan, set to limit the widening of the federal deficit in 2010.  Like Barack Obama’s unwillingness to confront Congress on the cap-and-trade carbon emissions plan or health care reform, Felipe Calderon’s government once again skirted the issue of expanding Mexico’s narrow VAT tax to cover food and medicines.  Instead, the government will tax income more heavily.  CreditSuisse’s Alonso Cervera applauds this move because of the virtual impossibility of moving a budget through the Mexican legislature with a VAT expansion in it.  Calderon faces a congress in which his PAN party is dwarfed by the opposition PRI party, unlike the commanding position of Obama’s Democrats in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Nevertheless, Mexico’s budget, if passed, is a step in the right direction, especially since it controls spending and raises the share of non-oil taxes in government revenues. 

Read Alonso Cervera at CreditSuisse and Alfredo Thorne at JPM below:  

 From CreditSuisse’s Emerging Markets Economics Daily, Sept 9, 2009

 

“The government presented an ambitious budget proposal for 2010 that seeks to limit the widening of the deficit to 0.4% of GDP mainly by strengthening non-oil tax collections. The government released the comprehensive documents last night. Our first impression is a positive one, in that the government will seek to gain congressional approval for tax hikes equivalent to 1.4% of GDP, and for spending cutbacks equivalent to 0.5% of GDP. By applying an additional 0.7% from non-recurring revenues (those

currently existing in stabilization funds as well as projected ones), the government seeks to limit the widening of the fiscal deficit to 0.4% of GDP, from 2.0% this year to 2.4% of GDP next year. The government will also seek to strengthen the fiscal responsibility law by, among others things, eliminating the maximum reserve levels for stabilization funds so that the government can capitalize on the materialization of a revenue windfall.

 

The government presented in its policy guidelines document relevant comparisons that make it clear that non-oil tax revenues in Mexico are particularly low. The government made the comparison versus other OECD countries, Latin American countries and Brazil in particular. The government’s proposal to enhance non-oil tax revenues does not rest on the introduction of a value-added tax on food and/or medicines. We view this as a wise decision, given the strong opposition that both the PRI and the PAN had voiced in recent days regarding this potential proposal. Instead, the government is seeking to

achieve a combination of higher excise and income taxes, as well as the introduction of a new tax that has been labeled the “anti-poverty tax”.

 

Specifically, the government’s proposals on the tax front include: 1) the introduction of a 4.0% excise tax on telecommunication services that use a public network (excluding services in rural areas as well as public telephones); 2) increasing the excise tax on tobacco by 10.9 percentage points in 2010; 3) increasing the excise tax on beer from 25%to 28% in 2010-2012 and then reducing it back to 25% by 2014; 4) increasing the excise tax on lottery games to 30% from 20%; 5) hiking the maximum income tax rate on individuals and corporations to 30% in 2010-2012 from 28% at present, and then reducing it gradually back to 28% by 2014; and, 6) increasing the tax on cash deposits from 2% to 3% and broadening its application to cover smaller transactions.

 

Finally, the so-called antipovertytax would be a “2% tax on revenues generated by all types of economic activities, applied in all stages of production  in a non-cumulative manner”, according to the document. The proceeds, estimated at 72bn pesos (0.6% of GDP), would be applied to selected anti-poverty  programs. The government estimates that non-oil tax revenues could increase from 9.2% of GDP in 2009 to 10.8% of GDP next year. The bulk of the increase would come from income taxes, which would increase from 5.0% of GDP in 2009 to 5.6% of GDP next year. The government is also proposing some changes to the taxation of Pemex. Specifically, one of the proposals is to create a new flat tax rate of 15% for natural gas and crude oil extraction activities in selected fields, as opposed to taxing them based on a variable rate that is capped at 20%.

 

On the spending front, the government is seeking a reduction of 0.6% of GDP in programmable expenditures as well as the re-allocation of other expenses in favor of pension payments, health coverage and overall anti-poverty measures. Some specific measures to cut spending include the closing of three major government offices, 5% headcount reductions for high ranking officials and administrative staff, and 10% cutbacks in Mexico’s representative offices abroad. On the debt financing front, we highlight that the government will seek a net domestic indebtedness ceiling of 340bn pesos, which compares favorably to the ceiling it requested (and got from congress) of 380bn pesos for 2009. We think that this should be a relief for the local market, as the government will seek more actively than usual non-market financing sources abroad (mainly IFIs and other non-traditional sources). As for market debt issuance in external markets, the government’s plan is to simply issue an amount equivalent to market amortizations coming due in 2010 ($2.9bn).

 

Finally, the government’s outlook on the global economy in 2010 is somewhat cautious. The government’s documents presented to Congress yesterday state that the global situation continues to show a significant degree of fragility and that the global economic recovery will be moderate. Mexico’s real GDP is projected to expand at an average rate of 3.0% in 2010, with average annual growth seen at 4.2% in 2011-2015. This is partly based on the Blue Chip survey that puts US real GDP growth at 2.3% in

2010 and US industrial output growth at 2.5%. The government’s oil price assumptions are based on the formula set out in the budget responsibility law. Taking historical and projected prices, the formula yields an estimate of $53.9 per barrel for Mexico’s crude oil export mix in 2010 (roughly $60 for the WTI mix), which increases gradually towards $64.6 by 2015, which we view as conservative. Finally, in terms of oil output, the assumption is that it will average 2.5mn barrels per day in 2009 and in subsequent years, down from slightly over 2.6mn barrels per day in 2009. This assumption may be on the optimistic side, in our view.

 

In the remainder of this week we will expand our analysis of the comprehensive documents issued by the government last night. We reiterate that our initial reaction is positive, in that the government is putting on the table several measures that seek to close the gap created by falling oil and non-oil prices due to structural and cyclical factors. We also view the decision to keep off the negotiating table any proposal to introduce a valueadded tax on food and medicines as a good move by the government, one that may make negotiations smoother with the main political parties.

 

Finally, and on a separate note, the central bank will publish today at 10:00 am EST the inflation results for August; we estimate headline inflation was 0.28% last month (relative to July). If our estimate proves accurate, annual headline inflation will drop to 5.1% from 5.4% in July. Meanwhile, we estimate that core prices rose by 0.24% last month, which would put the 12-month reading at 5.1%, down from 5.3% in July. These would be the lowest 12-month readings since May 2008 in the case of headline inflation,

and since July 2008 in the case of core inflation. Market expectations are generally in line with our own. The latest survey released yesterday showed average forecasts of 0.26% and 0.25% for headline and core inflation, respectively. The survey also showed that the overwhelming majority of analysts (19 out of 24) thought that the central bank will keep the overnight rate unchanged at 4.5% in the remainder of the year.”

 

 

From JPMorgan’s Emerging Markets Today, Sept. 9 2009

 

“President Calderón yesterday announced the 2010 economic

package, calling for an austere budget with changes in the

public sector’s administration structure. To reduce expenses,

Calderón presented four administrative changes for next year

to be discussed by Congress. First, the Ministries of Tourism,

Agricultural Reform, and Public Ministry will be eliminated.

The first two entities will be reallocated to the Ministry of

Economy and Ministry of Social Development and

Agriculture, while the third will fall under executive powers.

Second, the federal government will reduce the large number

of civil servants and freeze salaries and compensation. Third,

spending on embassy, councils, and foreign activities will be

reduced. Fourth, other administrative expenses will be

reduced. The measures together are expected to reduce

budgetary expenses by MXN80 billion. Calderón

estimated that these expenditure cuts, combined with the

fiscal package (still pending at the time of writing), will

narrow the fiscal gap to MXN180 billion (1.4% of GDP).

Calderon also reiterated the government’s commitment to

reducing poverty noting that none of these expenditure cuts

will include social programs.”

 

Alfredo Thorne (52-55) 5540-9558  alfredo.e.thorne@jpmorgan.com

Fitch Ratings published a report this month analyzing Brazil’s fiscal deterioration this year (see press release below).  Brazil’s public finances have slipped just like in just about every country in the world.  Fitch highlights Brazil’s heavy government debt burden relative to its emerging market peers.  Brazil’s fiscal deterioration – characterized by rising spending, tax cuts, and a poor tax intake — will at the very least slow any upward movement in Brazil’s credit rating, currently at BBB- for foreign currency debt, and could in fact lead to a downgrade if a fiscal consolidation is not forthcoming over the medium term, suggests Fitch. 

Yet Fitch rates Mexico fully two notches above Brazil (BBB+), albeit with a Negative Outlook (meaning the rating should go down within two years).  Brazil’s government debt to GDP ratio is nearly 70%, whereas Mexico’s is below 40%.  What they don’t highlight is that Brazil’s debt to tax revenue ratio is lower than Mexico’s (nearly 170% in South America’s largest economy vs. Mexico’s nearly 200%).  Mexico’s woeful tax performance is a perennial problem gone unfixed for decades.  Moreover, the Mexican government relies on oil-related revenues, even though oil production south of the Rio Grande is declining.  The Mexican government won’t allow private investment in the energy sector as a way to increase production (and can’t, due to popular opposition).  Mexico is a mess (not least because of its heavy dependence on one country, eh-hem, eh-hem, the United States), and Fitch acknowledged as much in July when it said it will monitor fiscal measures in the wake of the mid-term legislative election to decide whether or not to downgrade.  Signs are that an austere budget may be in the works.

Debt is measured against both GDP and revenues to indicate a country’s ability to grow out of its debt burden, i.e. to raise enough revenues to pay future debt obligations.  The debt to revenues measure is arguably a better proxy for this capacity, even though most analysts look at debt to GDP because GDP is more standardized…and perhaps out of laziness  Sure, Mexico has a vast untaxed portion of the economy it  could draw on to service its debt.  But it hasn’t ever done so and it won’t.  An owner of a Mexican trucking company once told me, he doesn’t pay any taxes.  So, Mexico’s fiscal picture is at least as bad, if not worse, than Brazil’s.  What’s more, Brazil’s external balance sheet is stronger than Mexico’s, with lower net external debt to exports and a stronger sovereign net external creditor position.  Its economy appears more resilient, not least due to its diversification.

Yet Mexico still remains two notches above Brazil due to sticky credit ratings and the inability of the rating agencies to take dramatic action.  Such dramatic rating action would suggest that rating agency analysts have been wrong for some time.      

 

Fitch: Brazil’s Fiscal Deterioration - A Slippery Slope
03 Sep 2009 2:05 PM (EDT)

---

Fitch Ratings-New York-03 September 2009: Fitch Ratings believes that Brazil will need to begin the process of fiscal consolidation, as an expected economic recovery begins to take hold, in order to preserve its fiscal credibility. Fitch has published a special report on Brazil’s deteriorating fiscal situation and the potential impact on its credit profile.

The degree of fiscal deterioration in Brazil’s public finances is quite evident when comparing the fiscal outturn of the first seven months of 2009 with the same period a year ago. The central government primary surplus has declined by 60% in the first seven months of 2009 compared with the same period in 2008 as a result of fast-paced spending growth and weak revenue performance.

‘The structure of Brazil’s public spending is deteriorating as a significant part of the increase is related to personnel and pension benefits, which will be harder to adjust in the future and cannot be classified as strictly ‘counter-cyclical’ in nature,’ said Shelly Shetty, Senior Director in Fitch’s Sovereign Group.

On the positive side, the scale of Brazil’s counter-cyclical fiscal stimulus package is modest by international standards, and the expected deterioration in the country’s fiscal balance is somewhat less than its rating peers. In addition, the government has domestic and external market access to fund the higher deficit. However, Fitch notes that the country’s starting fiscal position is weaker when compared with its peers. Brazil’s general government debt burden is significantly higher than the ‘BBB’ median (66% of GDP compared with 27% for the ‘BBB’ median) and will increase further this year.

Fitch recognizes that Brazil has a good track record in delivering and surpassing fiscal targets even when economic conditions are difficult, such as in 2002-2003. Across the globe, 2009 has been a challenging year, and many emerging markets have seen deterioration in their fiscal balances. However, the sharp increase in spending growth observed so far in 2009 needs to be curbed for the authorities to achieve even the reduced primary surplus target for this year, and more importantly, to return to the higher primary surplus target of 3.3% for 2010, as set under the Budgetary Guidelines Law.

‘Given the uncertainty in the pace of economic recovery and thus revenue growth, greater resolve to contain spending growth (especially current) would be positive for the credibility of fiscal targets,’ added Shetty.

While Brazil’s external finances remain strong and the country has weathered the global financial crisis relatively well, the deteriorating fiscal picture could potentially dampen the upward momentum of Brazil’s credit trajectory. On the other hand, persistent and significant deterioration of public finances and debt dynamics could undermine fiscal credibility, increase investor risk premia, and adversely affect investment and growth prospects, which in turn, could weigh on Brazil’s creditworthiness.

Fitch currently rates Brazil’s Long-Term Issuer Default Ratings at ‘BBB-’ with a Stable Rating Outlook.

The full report ‘Brazil’s Fiscal Deterioration: A Slippery Slope’ is available on the Fitch Ratings web site at ‘www.fitchratings.com.’

Contact: Shelly Shetty +1-212-908-0324 or Erich Arispe +1-212-908-9165, New York.

Media Relations: Kevin Duignan, New York, Tel: +1 212-908-0630, Email:  kevin.duignan at fitchratings.com; Sandro Scenga, New York, Tel: +1 212-908-0278, Email:  sandro.scenga at fitchratings.com.

Fitch Ratings, one of the three global rating agencies, published reports this week on the state of play in Russia.  The government of Russia’s BBB rating was affirmed, but the Outlook for the rating (i.e., where the rating is likely to go in the next two years) remains negative.  Russia has been more negatively affected by the global downturn than other Emerging Markets (with GDP down over 10% annualized in the first half of this year).  Fitch quotes these reasons why:

“First, it [Russia] was highly exposed to the shocks to global commodity prices and cross-border capital flows, which were of the order of 25% of GDP. Second, monetary policy was overly loose, external borrowing and domestic credit growth was excessive, and the economy was overheating prior to the crisis. Third, vulnerabilities were exacerbated by structural weaknesses including an undiversified economy, a weak banking sector, high inflation, FX mismatches on private sector balance sheets, weak institutions and a difficult business climate - which the authorities failed to address sufficiently during the boom years.”

In addition, Fitch banking analysts expect non-performing loans at Russia’s banks to top off at 25% of total loans, up from 14% in June.  Under its “pessimistic” scenario, Russia’s NPLs rise to 40% and losses amount to 24% of total loans.  Press releases on the Sovereign and the banks are below.

” Fitch Affirms Russia at ‘BBB’; Outlook Negative   04 Aug 2009 7:12 AM (EDT)

---

Fitch Ratings-London-04 August 2009: Fitch Ratings has today affirmed the Russian Federation’s Long-term foreign and local currency Issuer Default ratings (IDR) at ‘BBB’ with Negative Outlooks. At the same time, the agency has affirmed the Short-term foreign currency IDR at ‘F3′ and the Country Ceiling at ‘BBB+’.

“The Russian economy and sovereign balance sheet have been severely affected by the global financial crisis and, despite signs of economic and financial stabilisation since March, risks to creditworthiness remain on the downside,” says Edward Parker, Head of Emerging Europe in Fitch’s Sovereigns team.

Russian GDP contracted 10.1% y-o-y in H109, a far worse performance than in other larger emerging markets, and foreign exchange reserves (FXR) have fallen by around USD200bn over the past 12 months. The severe impact of the global crisis on Russia reflects three sets of factors. First, it was highly exposed to the shocks to global commodity prices and cross-border capital flows, which were of the order of 25% of GDP. Second, monetary policy was overly loose, external borrowing and domestic credit growth was excessive, and the economy was overheating prior to the crisis. Third, vulnerabilities were exacerbated by structural weaknesses including an undiversified economy, a weak banking sector, high inflation, FX mismatches on private sector balance sheets, weak institutions and a difficult business climate - which the authorities failed to address sufficiently during the boom years.

Fitch forecasts Russia’s real GDP to decline 7% in 2009, before increasing 3.5% in 2010, helped by the inventory cycle, base effects, higher oil prices and a large fiscal stimulus. However, the length and depth of the recession is a downside risk and will have implications for bank asset quality, public finances and, potentially, political pressures on the Russian authorities. Fitch views the banking sector as a key credit weakness. In its base case, the agency projects impaired loans to increase to 25% of total loans by end-2009, requiring recapitalisation of at least USD22bn in addition to the USD24bn injected since Q308. The central bank faces a challenge in providing sufficient liquidity to the banking sector, while reducing inflation to single-digits and avoiding excessive rouble volatility.

The Russian private sector faces maturing external debt payments of USD137bn this year, which may be difficult to refinance in current market conditions. Fitch estimates the roll-over rate was 64% in Q109. Capital outflows and the dollarisation of household bank deposits have eased since the completion of the rouble devaluation process in February, but could re-emerge in the event of renewed financial stress. Nevertheless, overall the country has a strong external liquidity position, with FXR of over USD400bn, and it is a net external creditor to the tune of 17% of GDP at end-2008, compared with a net debtor position for the ‘BBB’ range ten-year median of 13%.

Public finances are a key sovereign rating strength. General government debt was only 8% of GDP at end-2008, well below the ‘BBB’ range 10-year median of 35%. Moreover, Russia has an aggregate USD184bn in its Reserve Fund (RF) and National Wealth Fund (at end-June, equivalent to around 15% of projected 2009 GDP) providing a strong liquidity position to finance budget deficits and to run counter-cyclical fiscal policy. However, Fitch forecasts the recession, fall in oil prices and anti-crisis measures to cause the federal budget to swing from a surplus of 4.1% of GDP in 2008 to a deficit of 8.5% in 2009 and 6% in 2010. Even with a return to the eurobond market next year, this will cause the RF to be depleted in 2010 and require significant fiscal consolidation over the medium-term.

A renewed deterioration in global economic prospects, oil prices and risk appetite leading to a material weakening in the sovereign balance sheet or macroeconomic instability could result in another downgrade (Fitch downgraded Russia’s ratings by one notch on 4 February 2009). Negative shocks from the banking sector or elevated financial pressures from low roll-over rates on external debt or large-scale capital flight would also be negative for the ratings. Furthermore, a failure to narrow the budget deficit, and a consequent rapid increase in government debt and depletion of the sovereign wealth funds could lead to downward pressure on the ratings in the medium-term. In contrast, a material easing of a combination of these risks could see the Outlooks revised to Stable.

Contacts: Edward Parker, London, Tel: +44 (0)20 7417 6340; David Heslam, +44 (0)20 7417 4384.

Media Relations: Peter Fitzpatrick, London, Tel: + 44 (0)20 7417 4364, Email:  peter.fitzpatrick at fitchratings.com.”

 

“Fitch Ranks 57 Russian Banks by Loss Absorption Capacity  
14 Aug 2009 5:07 AM (EDT)

---

Fitch Ratings-London/Moscow-14 August 2009: Fitch Ratings released a report today ranking 57 rated Russian banks based on their loan loss absorption capacity. Fitch considers this capacity to be currently weak at 10 of the banks reviewed, although most of the 10 could likely rely on capital support from shareholders, and moderate at a further 14.

The extent of Russian banks’ asset quality deterioration, their loss absorption capacity and contingency recapitalisation plans are likely to be the main drivers of rating actions over the next 12 to 18 months. Fitch-rated banks reported an average 14% impaired loans (5% non-performing and 9% restructured) at 1 June 2009, up from 10% (3% and 7%) at 1 March.

“However, management figures prepared at a still relatively early stage of the credit downturn are unlikely to fully capture the eventual full extent of asset quality problems,” says Alexander Danilov, Senior Director, Fitch’s Financial Institutions group in Moscow. “The gradual deterioration of banks’ asset quality metrics is likely to continue during the second half of 2009 and into 2010.”

Fitch had previously stated that it expects impaired loans at Russian banks to reach 25% in a base case scenario, resulting in ultimate loan losses of 12.5%. Under a more pessimistic scenario, impaired loans could reach 40% resulting in loan losses of 24%.

Fitch ranked the loan loss absorption capacity of the 57 rated Russian banks to demonstrate their relative vulnerability to loan losses. The agency assessed the banks’ loss absorption based on the maximum reserves to loans ratio they could have sustained at 1 June 2009 without breaching minimum regulatory capital requirements. However, Fitch notes that a lower or higher loss absorption capacity, as defined by this measure, does not automatically mean that a bank is more or less vulnerable to potential loan impairment, as credit losses at individual banks may significantly diverge from Fitch’s average sector assumptions.

For 10 of the 57 banks - VTB24, Rossiya, Bank of Moscow, Swedbank (Russia), VTB, Moscow Bank for Reconstruction and Development, AK Bars, Rosbank, Orgresbank and Unicredit (Russia) - the maximum reserves/loans ratio is below 10%, and Fitch thus regards these banks’ loss absorption capacity as currently weak. However, Fitch notes that the capacity of two of these banks - Bank of Moscow and VTB - should strengthen significantly as a result of upcoming equity injections, and that most of the other eight banks also have relatively strong shareholders, which the agency would expect to contribute new capital in case of need. Fourteen of the banks reviewed had moderate loan loss absorption capacity (a maximum reserves/loans ratio of 10%-15%), while capacity was significant at 14 banks (15%-20%), solid at 11 (20%-32%) and strong at eight (more than 32%).

Banks’ loss absorption capacity has increased significantly in recent quarters as they have received new capital, albeit mainly in the form of subordinated debt, and cut back on loan growth. However, this capacity still remains moderate on a sector basis relative to potential credit losses.

“The recently approved government programme to support banks’ tier 1 capital, if successfully implemented, could help to make recapitalisation a manageable process,” says James Watson, Managing Director, Fitch’s Financial Institutions group, “Defaults would still be possible, in particular at banks with major asset quality or corporate governance failures, although recent government actions suggest a determination to avoid destabilising, unmanaged failures at larger institutions.”

The report, entitled ‘Russian Banks: Measuring Their Loss Absorption Capacity’, focuses mainly on asset quality deterioration trends and banks’ loss absorption capacity. It follows and expands on the July 2009 presentation, entitled ‘Asset Quality Problems Weigh on Russian Bank Ratings’, which provided a summary of Fitch’s sector wide credit loss expectations and recapitalisation requirements. The report and presentation are available at www.fitchratings.com.

Contacts: Alexander Danilov, James Watson, Moscow, Tel: +7 495 956 9901.

Media Relations: Marina Moshkina, Moscow, Tel: +7 495 956 9901, Email:  marina.moshkina at fitchratings.com; Hannah Warrington, London, Tel: +44 (0) 207 417 6298, Email:  hannah.warrington at fitchratings.com.”

What would President Monroe say?

An Economist article discusses the growing presence of Great Powers, especially China, in Latin America, flouting nearly two centuries of U.S. dominance in the region, since the articulation of the Monroe Doctrine in the early 1820s.  In the near term, this worry is overdone.  Longer-term, if the U.S. continues to damage its sovereign creditworthiness, i.e. by not putting in place a medium-term fiscal consolidation program (that is, to reduce America’s rising government debt) – a program that should include putting health care reform on hold, then America’s relative decline will accelerate and this will affect its projection of power in the Western Hemisphere. 

In the 1820s, as revolution in Spain led to unrest in its colonies in the Western Hemisphere, the Holy Alliance of autocratic east European courts – Russia, Austria and Prussia, threatened to intervene in these colonies.  President Monroe in 1823, backed by the British Navy, warned Europe that any extension of European power to the Western Hemisphere would be “dangerous to our [U.S.] peace and safety.”

Nowadays, as the world moves increasingly toward a multipolar system, power projection in Latin America is largely in the form of commerce.  China, India and others seek, above all, the region’s raw materials to fuel their rising economies.  True, with economic influence comes political influence.  True as well, such powers as Russia and Iran seek direct political influence through arms sales and energy deals with the likes of Chavez’s Venezuela, Cuba, and Evo Morales’s Bolivia.  But these countries are on the fringe.  More of interest to U.S. policymakers are China’s economic relations with the major economies of the region, notably Brazil.  China’s economic relations with Brazil have been hand in glove — raw materials fueling a manufacturing juggernaut, while with Mexico, they have been competitive.  Brazil is also a manufacturing nation and will one day find China an unwelcome competitor. 

So, the thrust of the foreign “intervention” is commercial and good for Latin America.  This is good for the United States as well, insofar as China supports growth in the region and the U.S. no longer has to be relied on so heavily as the source of demand and investment for the hemisphere.  In previous U.S. downturns, Latin countries hovered on the brink of default (or in fact defaulted), whereas this crisis they have weathered, due in part to demand from China and elsewhere. 

China, for its part, is “intervening” in Latin America as a rule-abiding member of the global capitalist system, wrought by the U.S. and its allies.  This should not worry American policymakers.  Sure, they should keep an eye on the mischief-making of countries like Iran and Russia that seek to upset the U.S. in its own backyard, much as Krushchev did with Cuba in the middle of the last century (however less dramatic and threatening the current mischief-making is).  Again, the smartest thing U.S. policymakers can do is get America’s fiscal house in order – by first of all, postponing health care reform — and revive the formidable U.S. economy — upon which the country’s power projection is based — not least through continued banking overhaul, workout of real estate loans, policies to increase household savings, and a reform of monetary policy (by discarding Greenspan’s discredited approach).