MBS Blog

This is the right way to close out 2008!! The most tumultuous year in decades was a turning point for everyone in the wake of a global economic tsunami.  As the tide recedes…the doubters, deniers, dreamers and dogmatists some of whom once thought socialism was the way forward, have begun to pillory the very system that has brought the greatest amount of wealth, prosperity and progress to humankind.  Capitalism..or at least what is referred to describe the current system-if that is possible-is again the enemy. 

On the eve of a new year, Caroline Baum writing on www.bloomberg.com , nails the manifesto-however old and tattered- to the public square of the internet for all to see. In the light of examination and reflection, her thesis stands.

Happy New Year from MBS, Ltd!

Capitalism Is Worst System Except for the Rest

Commentary by Caroline Baum

Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) — The year 2008 will be remembered as one that exposed the fatal flaws in free-market capitalism, sending it to an untimely death.

Or will it?

That capitalism’s obituary is already being written suggests the enemies of the free market were waiting to pounce.

Last week, Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the Huffington Post, wrote that laissez-faire capitalism, “a monumental failure in practice,” should be “as dead as Soviet Communism” as an ideology.

On National Public Radio, Daniel Schorr pronounced “the death of a doctrine” in his year-end review.

All I could think of was Winston Churchill’s assertion about democracy. Capitalism is surely the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.

With its ideology under fire and its practice falsely maligned, it is to the defense of free markets that I devote my final column of the year.

Before you can declare free markets a failure, you have to establish that they exist, says Paul Kasriel, chief economist at the Northern Trust Co. in Chicago.

“We do not have free markets in credit in the U.S. or anywhere else that I know of,” he says. “The price of short- term credit is fixed by central banks. It would only be by accident that a central bank would fix the price of short-term credit” at the precise level that a free market would.

Chosen People

Fixing the price of any other commodity, including labor, has proven to be a failure, an affront to the inviolable invisible hand. Yet when it comes to setting the interest rate that will keep the economy on an even keel, we put our faith in a chosen few to get it right.

All sorts of unintended consequences flow forth from central bankers’ fixing of a short-term rate. Hold the rate too low, and it leads to a misallocation of capital into, say, housing or dot- com stocks. That’s what happened in the late 1990s and again in the early part of this decade.

“We are now experiencing the economic and financial market fallout from (Alan) Greenspan’s interference with the free market,” Kasriel says.

In a true free market, risk-takers are punished for bad bets. Not so in the current crisis, where financial institutions — with the exception of Lehman Brothers — are deemed too big to fail and rescued, merged or recapitalized.

Army of Regulators

One supposed nail in capitalism’s coffin is the assertion that deregulation created the problems. This is curious, given that banks, which are at the root of the credit crunch, are among the most highly regulated institutions.

“There is a small army of people overseeing the banking industry,” says Paul DeRosa, a partner at Mt. Lucas Management Corp. in New York. And yet “we’ve had a banking crisis every 15 years since 1837. The number of people devoted to regulation doesn’t seem to matter.”

Regulators from the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Controller of the Currency and New York State Banking Commission are “on the premises 365 days a year,” he says.

The regulatory structure may have been antiquated and overlapping. That’s no excuse for the regulators to be caught napping.

Censuring the free market is a way of deflecting blame from the true source, according to Dan Mitchell, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington.

Compromised Overseers

“The genesis of the problem is bad government policy,” Mitchell says, pointing to everything from easy money to “affordable lending schemes” to the “corrupt system of subsidies from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” to the tax code’s favorable treatment of debt (the interest is deductible) versus equity.

Fannie’s and Freddie’s generous campaign contributions (anywhere else, these would be called bribes) encouraged Congress to look the other way as the two housing finance agencies used their implicit government guarantee to increase their leverage and buy riskier mortgages.

Those clamoring for more regulation as a solution to the current crisis are forgetting that Congress has oversight responsibility for the regulator of those agencies.

“I have no confidence regulation will solve the problem,” says Allan Meltzer, professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “Lawyers and bureaucrats make regulations. Markets figure out how to circumvent the costly ones.”

Imperfect Like Us

As a case in point, Meltzer pointed to the Basel Accords, which “required banks that hold more risky assets to hold more reserves. So they held them off their balance sheet, where they went from being poorly monitored to not monitored at all.”

Capitalism has spread across the globe, lifting millions out of poverty as “a direct consequence of government stepping out of the way,” DeRosa says.

Yet critics of free-market capitalism are implicitly arguing for a bigger role for government.

Alas, government isn’t some benevolent matriarch acting in the public interest, even if it knew what that was. It is a conglomeration of politicians acting in their own self-interest, guided by payoffs from special-interest groups. That’s a poor substitute for the market’s price signals, not to mention a guarantee of inefficiency and waste.

“Capitalism is the only system that produces both growth and freedom,” Meltzer says. Unlike socialism and communism, “it doesn’t depend on someone’s ideas of perfection.”

Yes, markets are guilty of excess, greed, even corruption.

“We’re not perfect people,” Meltzer says. “Capitalism matches mankind.”

Technorati Tags: 2008, turning point, global economic crisis, capitalism, Anton Olff, socialism, MBS Ltd., Caroline Baum, www.bloomberg.com, free markets, Arianna Huffington, Huffington Pos, Soviet Union, Communism, National Public Radio, Daniel Schorr, Winston Churchill, democracy, ideology, Paul Kasriel, Northern Trust Co., Chicago, central banks, short-term credit, commodity, labor, Alan Greenspan, risk takers, Lehman Brothers, deregulation, credit crunch, banking industry, Paul DeRosa, Mt. Lucas Management Corp., New York, Federal Reserve, Securities and Excahnge Commission, Office of the Controller of the Currency, New York State Banking Commission, Dan Mitchell, Cato Institute, Washington D.C., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, debt, equity, Congress, Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, lawyers, bureaucrats, Basel Accords, special interest groups, freedom, greed, corruption, mankind

As a resident of Odessa, I can attest to the fear out there regarding the free fall of the hryvnia.  People are downright scared and the empty stores, restaurants and cafes indicate they are not spending.

As this article from www.unian.net states, it is extremely difficult to get dollars and euros at banks or kiosks.

On a positive note, this could force the Ukrainian Government to enact needed changes which were put off during better times. After the crisis recedes, and with economic reforms, Ukraine will be at the forefront of emerging markets.

Panic as Ukraine’s currency plummets

The national currency of Ukraine, whose pro-West government wants to join the European Union, has almost halved in value in the last six months, prompting panic amongst its heavily indebted population.
The sudden fall in the hryvnia has sent Ukrainians rushing to exchange booths to change local money for hard currency, in scenes that recalled the hyperinflation suffered by the country in the early 1990s.
Not only do Ukrainian consumers have to pay back loans taken out in more prosperous times but many will also have to pay them back in dollars.

The hryvnia (UAH) was on Friday trading at 7.49 UAH against the dollar compared with 5.05 UAH at the beginning of the year and 4.84 UAH in July.

The National Bank of Ukraine has allowed the hryvnia to trade freely in line with the conditions of a 16.4-billion-dollar (12.8 billion euro) IMF loan aimed at helping the country through the financial crisis.
The hyrvnia — a currency introduced in 1996 and named after money used in ancient Kiev — has endured the ignominy of suffering one of the worst devaluations, along with the Icelandic krona, in the global financial crisis.

“I consider myself a cultivated gentleman. But at the moment I`m thinking of taking petrol and a lighter and setting the National Bank of Ukraine on fire,” said Egor Sobolev, a journalist who owes 60,000 dollars for his flat.

“We are paid in hryvnia and for the moment our family budget allows us to make monthly payments of 1,000 dollars, but if the hyrvnia falls to 10 or 15 to the dollar the Bank has a big chance of going up in flames!”

As of December 1, Ukrainian consumers had notched up debts of 235.5 billion hryvnia (31 billion dollars) some 70 percent of which (176 billion hryvnia or 23 billion dollars) has been taken out in foreign currency.

Dollars and euros were almost impossible to buy in banks and exchange offices in Ukraine in November as people flocked to trade their hyrvnia for stronger currencies.

The growth in hryvnia-denominated bank deposits was replaced in October by an outflow amounting to 10 percent of investments.

The panic reached a peak earlier this month when a newspaper reported that all dollar bank savings could be converted into hryvnias, a rumour vehemently denied by the authorities.

“Savers can only feel that they have been duped and have reason to be scared of similar surprises in the future,” said the Dzerkalo Tyjnia weekly.

“Who is going to answer for for the devastation of entire layers of Ukrainian society?”

President Viktor Yuschchenko oversaw the currency`s introduction when he was working as head of the central bank in the 1990s.

Ukraine has been among the countries hardest hit by financial turmoil as the plunging price of steel, the country`s main export, has exacerbated a credit crunch and a sharp fall in stock prices.

Underlining the country`s difficulties, Ukrainian industrial production is in freefall, crashing 15.2 percent in November compared to the previous month and 28.6 percent compared to November 2007.

Metals output in November was 23.5 percent lower than in October and a whopping 48.8 percent lower than the same figure for November 2007.

Out of the three major economies of the former Soviet Union — Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine — Ukraine is to see the sharpest slowdown, analysts at UBS said in a bleak research note.

“Ukraine will see the sharpest slowdown among the three countries despite support from the IMF. Its currency will have to devalue given that it has the worst net international asset position,” the UBS analysts said.

But they added that with the conditions of the IMF loan there is a “good chance” that Ukraine might finally start implementing the reforms that it had put off for 10 years.

Technorati Tags: Odessa, Ukraine, hryvnia, www.unian.net, Anton Olff, dollars, euros, Ukrainian Government, economic crisis, European Union, consumers, National Bank of Ukraine, UAH, Kiev, devaluations, Icelandic krona, Egor Sobolev, Dzerkalo Tyjnia, Viktor Yuschenko, stell, credit crunch, industrial production, Soviet Union, Russia, Kazakhstan, IMF, reforms

Someone in Russia understands a thing or two about the benefits of competition. As this article from the Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) indicates, the privatization of one of Moscow’s airports, has been positive.

As a frequent traveler to Moscow , the privatized Domodedovo Airport is the preferred choice.  Modern, clean and efficient…with decent food for the international traveler, it is a stark contrast to the international terminal at Sheremetyevo Airport. The dark brown paint at Sheremetyevo may have been whitewashed, but the depressing feeling lingers for travelers and airport workers there.

 While government investment in Sheremetyevo Airport will certainly improve the overall quality, the privatized Domodedovo Airport will have the edge with travelers, vendors and airlines. It is simply more responsive to the needs of the market.

 Privatization of airports is growing. According to Robert W. Poole, Jr. of the Reason Foundation (www. reason.org), “15 major airports were privatized in 2006, the second-highest annual total ever (there were 21 airport privatization deals in 1998).

Despite recent political setbacks, privatizations could continue. Unlike China,  Russia and Ukraine lack sufficient resources to fully modernize their infrastructure.  Privatization or partial privatization remain the most viable options. The investment, technology and management that foreign companies would bring, could go very far in raising the living standard in these emerging economies.  

 Moscow Points the Way With Airport Competition

While Most Nations Sport Monopolies, Rivalry Between Two Russian Gateways Ushers in Improvements for Carriers, Travelers

By DANIEL MICHAELS

MOSCOW — A heated battle for passengers between the Russian capital’s main airports offers an unlikely model of competition for the aviation industry.

In most cities, airports are monopolies. Even in cities that have more than one, including New York, Paris and Tokyo, airports are usually owned by the same operator. That means airlines can rarely make the kind of choices passengers take for granted, such as choosing an airport for its efficiency, shopping or lounges.

Not so in Moscow, where two international airports, Domodedovo and Sheremetyevo, owned by rival organizations, battle for business. The result is lower fees, better service and fast-improving facilities all around.

Domodedovo Airport, for example, recently convinced several top airlines to make it their Russian base, thanks to a major modernization that added more than 20 new restaurants, jewelry boutiques and a shop where passengers can rent DVDs to watch in booths.

Sheremetyevo Airport responded by building a fast rail link to Moscow, complete with a Starbucks at the airport station.

Moscow’s airport rivalry highlights a paradox of the global aviation industry: Airlines compete fiercely with each other for customers, but they face many monopolist suppliers, such as air-traffic control systems, fuel distributors and airports. Resulting costs and poor services get passed on to travelers.

Regulators world-wide are starting to tackle the issue — and some see Moscow as a paradigm.

Britain’s competition authority, for example, last year considered breaking up BAA, the company that runs London’s three big airports. In testimony before the regulator, officials from the International Air Transport Association, a trade group, cited Moscow as evidence of the benefits that competition could bring London’s airport system. IATA testified that fees at Moscow’s fast-growing, privately owned Domodedovo Airport are as much as 20% lower than at Sheremetyevo, the state-owned hub of flag carrier Aeroflot.

The U.K. listened. Bowing to government pressure, BAA’s Spanish ownerFerrovial SA now plans to sell London’s second-biggest airport, Gatwick. British Airways PLC and other big customers are too entrenched at Heathrow to switch to Gatwick, but airlines say competition could prompt airport managers to trim fees and start to resolve problems such as chronic fuel-supply shortages.

“I’d love to have competing airports everywhere in the world,” says Bruno Matheu, executive vice president for marketing at Franco-Dutch carrier Air France-KLM SA, an Aeroflot partner in the SkyTeam airline alliance. Air France-KLM uses Sheremetyevo in Moscow.

Moscow’s airport market didn’t develop overnight.

Until recently, few big airports world-wide were worse than Sheremetyevo, the Soviet Union’s international gateway, built for the 1980 Olympics. Checking in for a flight could take hours. So could driving jammed roads to the airport, which lacked rail connection.

During Russia’s privatization drive of the 1990s, local investors bought Domodedovo, which was previously Moscow’s airport serving Soviet Central Asia. The investors, grouped into an upstart charter-airline operator, East Line Group, renovated a terminal at Domodedovo and oversaw construction of a train line to Moscow.

East Line charged airlines landing and operating fees that undercut Sheremetyevo by around 30%. For passengers, Domodedovo’s rail link guaranteed a 40-minute trip to downtown Moscow. Private Russian carriers, largely frozen out of Aeroflot’s base at Sheremetyevo, expanded quickly at the spacious Domodedovo.

East Line’s big break came in 2003, when British Airways announced it would switch from Sheremetyevo to Domodedovo.

“The authorities were shocked that a major airline would leave the government airport,” recalls Daniel Burkard, BA’s former country manager for Russia. He says a big factor was that East Line offered a big business-class lounge.

Mr. Burkard, a 41-year-old German, says he was so impressed by Domodedovo’s management that when his BA contract in Moscow ended in 2005, he joined East Line as its business development manager and started wooing other airlines to Domodedovo.

He promoted the airport’s many domestic airlines, which allow foreign carriers to reach small cities across the former Soviet Union, and in 2005 catapulted Domodedovo over Sheremetyevo as Moscow’s biggest airport in terms of passenger traffic. Other attractions include a children’s area staffed with nurses, fast immigration lines for Westerners, and competing vending machines, operated by rival suppliers.

In 2006 Mr. Burkard convinced up-market Austrian Airlines AG to switch from Sheremetyevo. The move prompted other carriers in the Star Alliance to rethink their choice in Moscow. Last year Deutsche Lufthansa AG, one of the biggest foreign carriers in Russia, also made the jump.

When AMR Corp.’s American Airlines decided last year to enter the Moscow market, managers visited both international airports. They were impressed by Domodedovo.

The airport’s executives “were a bit more aware of how we do business,” says Craig Kreeger, American’s senior vice president for international operations. Since flights began this June, Mr. Kreeger says, Domodedovo has fulfilled its commitments better than many airports in more developed markets.

Over the past three years, 28 carriers have either shifted to Domodedovo or started new Moscow service there.

Domodedovo’s success brought it unwanted attention, however. During Vladimir Putin’s recent presidency, many of Russia’s 1990s privatizations were reversed.

At East Line, government security officials repeatedly searched facilities and confiscated property. Government lawsuits against East Line yielded court rulings that threatened the company’s control of the airport. The Kremlin’s objective wasn’t clear, but appeared to be related to battles between powerful clans for control over the lucrative airport business, according to people close to the conflict. Recent appeals-court decisions supporting East Line seem to have ended the problem, although political shifts might prompt new challenges.

Two years ago, Sheremetyevo started to fight back, as a new management team began redeveloping the airport. In June, Sheremetyevo got a 30-minute rail link to Moscow. One new terminal recently opened and two more are slated for completion by 2010. In the old terminal, workers are now repainting brown walls white, modernizing check-in desks and installing more shops.

Anton Olff

Technorati Tags: Aeroflot, Air France-KLM, American Airlines, Austrian Airlines, BAA, British Airways, Domodedovo Airport, East Line Group, Ferrovial SA, Gatwick, IATA, Lufthansa, Moscow, Privatization, Reason Foundation, Robert W. Poole Jr., Russia, Sheremetyevo Airport, SkyTeam, Soviet Union, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, Wall Street Journal

Feeling the effects of the current Global Economic Crisis, there is little doubt that Russian and Ukrainian Governments are preparing to let their currencies slide even further. The question remains as to how low they will go and what effect they will have on these emerging market economies.

In Ukraine, the hryvna is now hovering around 6 to $1USD, having lost more than 20% over the last 60 days.  The Russian ruble is also getting battered and could see levels against the U.S. dollar that it has not experienced since the financial crisis of the late 1990s.

Devaluations in either economy could exascerbate already high levels of inflation. Russia is particularly vulnerable as it relies on imports of basic food products, plus it derives a significant portion of its revenues for oil and natural gas exports. As oil revenue has declined, and subsequent market interventions have depleted Russia’s foreign currency reserves, Russia could be hit with a higher degree of stagnation than Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine may be able to weather a devaluation better than Russia.

The industrial sector located in Eastern Ukraine could benefit from the lower prices of their steel and chemical products, making their products competitive with China and South Korea. The Ukrainian agricultural sector could also benefit from devaluation.  The fomer “bread basket” of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union, could regain this title, but with exports to Europe and Asia. This vastly under utilized sector could see a surge in foreign investment next year, or whenever the global credit markets become unfrozen.

In the meantime, businesses and individuals are going to have to adjust to the new reality.

Anton Olff

Technorati Tags: Global Economic Crisis, Ukraine, devaluation, currency reserves, hryvna, Russia, ruble, dollar, Eastern Ukraine, China, South Korea, Soviet Union, exports, Europe, Asia,