Monday, October 31, 2005

Economic Ties Binding Japan to Rival China (NYTimes, 10/31/05)

October 31, 2005
Economic Ties Binding Japan to Rival China
By HOWARD W. FRENCH and NORIMITSU ONISHI
SHANGHAI, Oct. 26 - At a call center in Dalian, in northeast China, young workers speaking flawless Japanese answer customer service calls for a Japanese insurance company. In western Japan, a new commercial Chinatown is rising in Kobe City's rebuilt port area.
Rather than the gaudy restaurants of the old Chinatown, the new one contains nondescript office buildings leased to Chinese companies focusing on everything from biotechnology to that most traditional form of Japanese attire, the kimono.
At a time of rising political tensions, heightened by a growing nationalism, China and Japan are more intertwined economically than they have ever been. In their breadth and intensity, the ties have begun to surpass those between the United States and Japan, whose economic relationship has often been called the most important in the world.
The ties offer a counterpoint to rapidly deteriorating diplomatic relations, which reached another low point on Oct. 17 when Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan visited the Yasukuni Shrine, the nationalist memorial to Japan's war dead, and China immediately called off high-level talks.
Tensions will probably keep rising with Asia's transformation: China, which had lost its historical role as the region's economic and political leader to Japan in the last century and a half, is hungry to reclaim it.
"In the last few years, things have grown black and white between us," said Toshio Hori, general manager of the Tokyo-Mitsubishi Bank branch in Shanghai, China's biggest city and an increasingly vital commercial artery to Japan. "On the political and diplomatic side, things are pessimistic, but on the economic side, the relationship is growing stronger and stronger."
The possibility that ill will could lead to conflict is lessened by the reality that both countries would have a lot to lose:
¶Sharply increased trade with China has lifted the Japanese economy out of a lost decade of feeble growth and recurring recession, while cheap imports from China have driven costs down significantly for Japan's long-suffering consumers.
¶More than 150,000 Chinese students attend Japanese universities and language schools, and a million Chinese people work in Japanese companies.
¶Shanghai, officially home to 20,000 Japanese, may actually house as many as 100,000, which would make it the largest overseas Japanese community.
¶Japanese investment totaling $31.5 billion is enabling China to learn the formidable industrial skills of its neighbor.
China's ascension has been so fast that Japan must now contemplate a true rivalry, with the Chinese economy not only outstripping Japan's in size, but perhaps matching it in sophistication before long.
The uncertain new relationship between the countries, one rich in promise and in lingering suspicions, is on full view today in this city.
Sixty-three years after Japanese troops stormed ashore, Shanghai is dotted with neighborhoods of Japanese residents. Japanese-language magazines cater to the wealthy Asian expatriates with everything from restaurant reviews to sex club listings, and the membership directory of the Japanese chamber of commerce reads like a who's who of the Japanese corporate world.
The comfortable veneer of life overseas was suddenly stripped away in April, however, when a large protest march against visits by Mr. Koizumi to the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Japanese forces responsible for atrocities throughout Asia, degenerated into a riot. Crowds pelted the Japanese Consulate with stones.
Mr. Koizumi's landslide victory in the general elections in September suggests that the official relationship between China and Japan will remain rocky. However, a breakthrough could occur after Mr. Koizumi retires next year.
Mr. Hori of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Bank, who is also chairman of the Japanese chamber of commerce in Shanghai, said his worst fear was another protest, perhaps even nationwide. Still, he added, "it is meaningless to think Japanese companies would withdraw and go somewhere else, like Vietnam."
"The relationship is too big for that already," he said.
Among students at the Dalian University of Technology, many of whom will be vying for jobs at Japanese companies, there is a strong sense of pragmatism. "History problems are history problems, but I think you have to be realistic," said Zhang Shuai, a 22-year-old engineering student.
Here and there, the same kind of pragmatism can be found in Japan, in sharp contrast to the anxious, sometimes hysterical public discussion of a rising China. Like the rest of the heavily industrialized Kansai region of Japan, Kobe, the port city that was devastated by an earthquake 10 years ago, has been economically depressed for years.
Sensing opportunity in China's rise, the city government has invested heavily in attracting Chinese businesses and promoting trade with China, especially the Shanghai region.
One businessman, Chen Jianjun, 43, is the founder of a biotechnology consulting firm, Shanghai Rundo Biotech Japan, in Kobe. After completing a graduate degree in Japan, Mr. Chen worked at Nestlé before going out on his own. Now he advises Japanese pharmaceutical companies on conducting clinical trials and marketing in China, giving him a broad perspective on the countries' problems. "China and Japan are close to each other but have a distant relationship," he said. "Each does not understand the other well."
That plaint is echoed by businesspeople from each country, pragmatists who basically want to make money. In Japan, business tends to support Mr. Koizumi for leading domestic economic change, but cringes at his government's antagonistic policy toward China. Businesspeople fear that after Mr. Koizumi retires next year, an even more nationalistic leader may replace him.
The gap in understanding extends to schools and universities. Even though more Chinese students are choosing Japanese universities over American ones, they are often surprised that their Asian neighbors are in many ways more foreign than the Americans.
"I think Chinese people understand American people better," said Gao Ruihong, 35, a Chinese student at Kobe University. "People hold parties at home and invite their friends and neighbors in China or the United States. I came to Japan nine years ago, but I have seldom been invited to friends' homes."
But like most of her classmates, Ms. Gao was optimistic. "The relationship between Japan and China will become closer in the future," she said, "and I'd like to act as a bridge between the two countries."
For many in Shanghai's large Japanese community, the best way to build a better future between the countries appears to be in taking advantage of huge opportunities for prosperity today.
"We don't know what will happen to this market in the future, but we know that our development will depend on what happens here to a large extent," said Satoshi Tachikake, director of operations for Mazda in Shanghai. Japanese car companies arrived late in China compared with their European and American rivals, but today no one is investing more heavily in China than Japan.
Shanghai's official Japanese school has 2,214 students, a tenfold increase from a decade ago, and is expanding faster than ever. "We have zero space now," said the principal of the school, Kazuyuki Taichi, smiling as he displayed the model of a new school that is near completion.
Mr. Taichi, who came to Shanghai just before the April protests, expressed surprise at what he found on arriving in China. "I expected to see another transition from Communism," he said, not a booming city as big as Tokyo. "It's difficult to make Japanese, even your own brothers and sisters, understand that Japan's development depends on China and China's development depends on Japan. They are under the influence of the media back home, which is always blasting away at China."
Eriko Yamamoto, 26, believes that Japan can reinvigorate itself by building closer ties to China. After quitting her full-time job with Hitachi in Tokyo, she came to Shanghai recently to study at the China Europe International Business School.
"Initially I thought I should go to China and try things out, and if things didn't work here I could always go home," Ms. Yamamoto said. "But here I discovered if you have a bit of money you can do just about anything. In Japan, you don't have that feeling. There is a sense of so many rules."

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Fed改朝換代 捨神諭講白話(經濟日報,2005/10/31)

Fed改朝換代 捨神諭講白話
劉道捷
18年前,當時的美國聯邦準備理事會(Fed)主席伏克爾宣布辭職,雷根總統提名葛林斯班繼任當天,美國30年期公債重挫3.5點,美元對日圓暴跌2.6%,因為市場對葛林斯班所知不多,擔心他無法接下威名赫赫的通膨殺手伏克爾的重任。
上周,布希總統提名柏南克繼任Fed主席時,市場平靜無波,證明市場與Fed這麼多年來大有進步,不再擔心聯準會主席換人天下就會大亂,知道聯準會這種機構遠遠超越個人,甚至超越身影像葛林斯班這麼巨大的人物。
柏南克出任Fed主席,九成九會得到美國參議院的同意,Fed改朝換代幾乎已經可以確定,Fed在柏南克主持下,也幾乎確定會改變,但會有什麼變化,跟葛林斯班掌控聯準會18年的情形會有什麼不同?

葛老風格 說話像天書,沒人懂
一定會大大不同!看看葛林斯班的風格,大概可以想到Fed日後的轉變。
有人說葛林斯班好像古希臘德爾菲太陽神神廟的女祭司,人人對女祭司誠惶誠恐,因為諸神有什麼神諭,全部要靠祭司解讀給凡人聽。像希臘聯軍要出征特洛伊,奪回天下第一美人海倫前,就到德爾菲神廟,問過神的諭旨。
神諭透過地上裂縫中冒出的濃煙和其他異像傳達,由祭司解釋。可想而知,祭司的地位尊崇之至;大家對祭司不著邊際、好比喃喃自語的解讀也惶惑之至。葛林斯班就給人這種印象,他說出來的話好比天書,幾乎沒有什麼人聽得懂,每個人對他的話都有不同的解讀。
連堂堂美國參議員碰到他都束手無策,前美國財政部長魯賓曾經描述葛林斯班回答質詢的方法:
葛林史班是這方面的大師,他會順藤摸瓜,有時候甚至有點言不及義。他會說:「參議員先生,你剛才說地球是平的,說的很有意思,容許我換個方式,把問題述敘一遍。」然後就問自己一個完全不同的問題,再用極為複雜、十分精準、差異極小的答案,回答這個問題,讓質詢的人得在明智的點頭和承認完全不懂之間選擇。
然後葛林史班會問眾議員或參議員,「這樣回答你的問題了嗎?」
質詢的議員一定會說:「對,回答了。」
除了神秘之外,葛林斯班在Fed也搞個人主義,靠著自己善於消化無數的資料,從中得出決策,再在會議中,把自己的決定包裝成眾議咸同的形式,成為Fed的政策。因此在葛林斯班掌理Fed期間,聯準會理事幾乎只有一個聲音,只要其他理事有異聲,都會變成轟動一時的頭條新聞。

新掌門人 重集體決策,較平易
單從這方面來看,至少今後的聯準會應該會變的比較平易近人、比較透明化、比較偏向集體決策、比較注重經濟模型、比較可能訂定通貨膨脹目標。換言之,就是褪去個人的神秘面紗,以通曉的白話代替晦澀的神諭。 【2005/10/31 經濟日報】

Monday, October 24, 2005

中國進口喊冷 全球經濟膽寒 (華爾街日報, 10/24/05)

華爾街日報:中國進口喊冷 全球經濟膽寒
鉅亨網編譯趙健君/綜合外電.10月24日2005 / 10 / 24 星期一

全球經濟愈來愈依賴中國大陸做為成長的火車頭,不過最好先習慣其偶爾頓挫的步伐。
華爾街日報指出,中國大陸大量進口全球各地的商品,由巴西的鐵礦砂、美國的半導體、馬來西亞的棕櫚油、到南韓的平板電視,無所不包。2004年中國對全球經濟成長的貢獻度已超過美國、日本、和歐盟的總和。
不過,今年中國進口成長率卻明顯下滑,雖然9月鋼鐵、鋁、和銅的進口量再度開始增加,單月貿易順差並因此由8月的100億美元降至76億,但中國對進口的胃納縮小卻是顯而易見的。
另一方面,出口則持續蓬勃。中國政府自2004年開始實施宏觀調控,壓抑投資,造成國內需求降溫,但中國工廠仍將水泥、汽車零組件等各類工業品銷往全球,使得全球製造商備感壓力。
有鑑於中國進口和出口的趨勢分道揚鑣,華府 Institute for International Economics的中國專家 Nicholas Lardy斷言:「中國對全球經濟的影響將轉為負面。」
中國進口和出口力道改變的的一大因素是中國製造業策略的轉變:中國生產的商品已超過全球經濟所能消費,這恐將在未來幾個月形成貿易衝突。
Credit Suisse First Boston首席亞洲經濟學家陶冬表示表示,目前主導全球經濟的兩大因素,一是中國的需求,一是美國的利率。其中,中國的需求是最不可預測的。由於中國全力提高產能來供應自身需求,但過度投資造成中國商品向全球氾濫。
南非造紙公司Sappi Ltd.估計,過去1年中國的銅版紙產能增加了110萬噸,以全球每年2800萬噸的產能來看,增幅不可謂不大。結果Sappi發現愈來愈難調高售價。美國鋁業大廠Alcoa(AA-US)自2004年初至今,股價下跌近40%,主要的利空就是中國鋁的產量激增。
鋼鐵是中國改變其龐大胃納的另一例。中國原為全球最大進口國,但將在今年轉為淨出口國,此一劇變拖累全球鋼價今年已來跌價30%。
好戲還在後頭。UBS(瑞銀)估計中國今年鋼鐵產能將增加7300萬噸,約為南韓全部產能的1.5倍,及美國產能的3/4。部份低階鋼材早已陷入過度供給,而新的產能仍會源源不斷的開出。
南韓浦項鋼鐵在9月份時宣佈調降11項鋼鐵產品售價6-9%,為3年來首度降價,並直指中國過度供給是直接原因。
有些人士批評中國的重商主義(mercantilism)。曾參與中國加入世貿組織(WTO)談判的美國前貿易代表 Charlene Barshefsky(白茜芙)則不願驟下斷語,她說中國進口減緩也許是暫時現象,不過「若形成進口替代策略,那就是另一回事,而且會引發不同的反應。」
香港UBS經濟學家Jonathan Anderson同意此觀點,他已看到轉機的訊號。「中國將恢復購買力。」他說不論中國增加多少產能,長期來看都無法滿足其龐大的需求。
中國進口成長滑落,亞洲首當其衝。據Goldman Sachs(高盛)統計,中國已成亞洲國家的最大出口市場:吸納了日本海外銷售的19%。中國也是亞洲鋼鐵、塑化和高科技產品的消費大國。

Conglomerate Reverses Field; Plans Breakup (NYTimes, 10/24/05)

October 24, 2005
Conglomerate Reverses Field; Plans Breakup
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Cendant, the $18 billion conglomerate that was built through the acquisitions of dozens of the nation's most prominent businesses like Century 21, Avis, Days Inn and Orbitz, is planning a radical breakup into four different companies.
The move, which Henry R. Silverman, Cendant's chairman, said the company planned to announce today, is perhaps the most vivid acknowledgment that the latest era of conglomerates built through mergers and acquisitions may be over.
Under the plan approved by Cendant's board yesterday, the company will be divided into four parts - one each for Cendant's real estate, travel distribution, hospitality and vehicle rental businesses. Each unit will be spun off into a separate publicly traded company. Current Cendant shareholders will receive shares in each and will continue to receive dividends. For customers and employees, the change should mean little, at least in the near term.
Cendant's decision to pursue a breakup comes about six months after Viacom announced plans to separate CBS and its cable television companies into two, reversing an all-under-the-same-roof strategy that created one of the world's most powerful media conglomerates. Similarly, Time Warner, which merged with America Online in 2000, is now entertaining offers for its AOL unit, potentially reversing what has been decried as perhaps the worst merger in modern history. The breakup of big conglomerates like Cendant is being driven in large part by investors' newfound desire for companies to be more focused and narrow - what bankers and analysts like to call "pure plays" - as opposed to large empires with disparate businesses. The stock prices of many big companies, like General Electric and Citigroup, have suffered in recent years, and some analysts attribute their sluggishness to what is often called a "conglomerate discount."
And of course, it is a long-held tradition on Wall Street to build up big companies (garnering fees along the way) and then disassembling them (garnering even more fees).
For Cendant, which also owns the Budget rental car system, Ramada and Super 8 hotels and the Coldwell Banker real estate business, among others, the breakup is a complete about-face aimed at reviving its lagging stock price, which has remained stagnant ever since the company merged with CUC International in 1997. It was later discovered that CUC had been involved in what was then considered the largest accounting fraud in history. Cendant's stock price has hovered from $20 to $25 over the last two years and closed Friday at $20.90 a share.
The decision to split up the company was made by Cendant's management team, which is led by Mr. Silverman, who built the business through an acquisition spree beginning in 1990. In an interview yesterday at Cendant's office with sweeping views of Central Park, Mr. Silverman said the decision to undo what he had so painstakingly put together was difficult, but said that he believed it was the right thing to do for shareholders.
Mr. Silverman, the company's largest shareholder, called his conglomerate strategy a "financial success, but a stock market failure," noting that the company is financially strong, but that investors have not rewarded the company's stock price.
"You can have a great business strategy, but if it's not moving the stock price, it's not working," he said. "This is a classic case of the sum of the parts is worth more than the whole."
Mr. Silverman said he planned to run one of the companies, in effect demoting himself. He has chosen the travel distribution company, which he has been building up in recent years with the acquisitions of Orbitz, Cheaptickets.com and Galileo International, an electronic network for travel agents.
More remarkably, Mr. Silverman, who has long been criticized for his compensation packages, said he planned to work for free. Mr. Silverman, who is estimated to have made $36.6 million in salary and bonus and reaped $223 million from exercising options between 1998 and 2002, said he would not accept a salary so that investors could not accuse him of trying to use the breakup to enrich himself.
"I want to take the issue off the table," he said. "I'm going to work for nothing." Of course, as a large shareholder, if his breakup plan helps lifts the company's share price, he would be handsomely rewarded.
While it is unclear how the stock market will react to the breakup, some analysts have been calling on the company to break itself up. Just about a month ago, Michael Rietbrock, an analyst at Citigroup, wrote in a note to investors that "we're not sure there's any way around splitting the company."
Still, not all breakups or spin-offs have worked. Viacom's stock price, for example, has not moved much higher since it announced its plan to split in two, leading some investors to question whether such moves really "unlock shareholder value." Even Mr. Rietbrock mentioned in his note about Cendant that, "we're typically cynical of financial engineering that only rearranges the pieces of the puzzle."
However, Mr. Rietbrock and Cendant may have reason to believe that its split will increase the company's share price. Over the past year, Cendant has spun off three different units; in both cases, investors benefited. Other historical examples, like the breakup of Dun & Bradstreet, resulted in huge gains.
Of course, there is a strong possibility that the units might quickly be gobbled up by suitors after they are spun off. Cendant's rental car businesses are seen as an especially attractive target for private equity firms; Hertz was just acquired by a consortium of buyout firms for $15 billion. It is unlikely any of the units will be purchased before they are spun off into separate companies because there would be significant tax consequence for any buyer.Cendant is being advised by Evercore Partners and JPMorgan in this transaction, and its outside legal counsel is Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
The four new companies will be led by teams drawn from Cendant's current senior leadership. Richard A. Smith will be chief executive of Real Estate Services, with Mr. Silverman serving as non-executive chairman. At Travel Network, Mr. Silverman will serve as chairman and chief executive. Hospitality will be headed by Stephen P. Holmes as chairman and chief executive. Ronald L. Nelson will lead Vehicle Rental Services as its chairman and chief executive.
Mr. Silverman was asked whether he would pursue the same conglomerate strategy if he could do it all over again. "Who knows?" he said. "It's woulda, coulda, shoulda."

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Paid for Performance, and Freed From the Herd (NYTimes, 10/23/05)

October 23, 2005
Strategies
Paid for Performance, and Freed From the Herd
By MARK HULBERT
EVIDENCE is mounting that mutual fund managers are more likely to think for themselves when their pay is closely linked to their fund's performance.
Just last month, the Janus Capital Group, the fund company based in Denver, established performance incentives for the managers of 13 of its mutual funds. This means that they will earn significantly more if their funds outperform the indexes they use as benchmarks. Janus thus joins several large fund families, including Fidelity Investments and the Vanguard Group, that use such incentives to compensate some of their funds' managers.
In a recent study, Massimo Massa, a finance professor at Insead, the French business school, and two Ph.D. students there, Nishant Dass and Rajdeep Patgiri, found that performance incentives have had a significant and salutary influence on the buying and selling decisions of fund managers.
The study, "Mutual Funds and Bubbles: The Surprising Role of Contractual Incentives," has circulated in academic circles since July.
(A version is at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=759365.)
Funds compensate their managers in a variety of ways - and some methods, of course, offer more performance incentives than others. The managers who have the least incentive for good performance, according to the researchers, are those who are paid a declining percentage of assets under management as those assets grow. At the other end of the spectrum are managers, now including some at Janus, whose compensation is significantly greater if certain performance hurdles are met. In the middle are those whose compensation is a flat percentage of assets under management.
The researchers measured how various incentives affected a fund manager's predisposition to buy Internet stocks during the late 1990's. They found that managers with the strongest pay-for-performance incentives tended to have the smallest investments in such companies. That, in turn, tended to make their funds lag behind the average fund over the three years before the Internet bubble burst, and to outperform over the three years thereafter.
The researchers say they believe that compensation incentives affect a manager's willingness to buy and sell the same stocks that others are trading. They theorize that managers who are the least rewarded for good performance tend to be most worried about ending up at the bottom of the rankings - and are not very motivated to take a risk and try to finish at the top. This means that they will be more likely to mimic other funds' portfolios, something that the researchers call herding behavior.
During a bubble, the researchers found, these managers tend to invest in the frothiest stocks. While doing so looks risky from the investors' point of view, it is a safe strategy for managers who at all costs want to avoid falling to the bottom of the rankings. That is because they know that by jumping on the bubble's bandwagon, they will participate in the spectacular performance while the bubble is expanding, but still land in the middle of the pack when the bubble bursts.
In contrast, according to the researchers, managers who are best rewarded for good performance are less likely to run with the herd. "With high-enough contractual incentives," the researchers write, "the prospect of ranking at the top by diverging from the bubble would more than offset the incentives to have a high, but not the best, performance by riding the bubble." Such managers will tend to invest in stocks that are out of favor.
The study also helps to explain the conflicting conclusions of previous research into the effect of performance-based fees on fund returns. During a bubble like that of the late 1990's, the funds with the greatest performance-based incentives for their managers are likely to lag behind those with the least such incentives. But the opposite conclusion emerges after a bubble bursts.
The new research has major public policy implications. Securities regulators typically have taken a jaundiced view of pay-for-performance among mutual funds, based on the idea that such compensation may encourage fund managers to incur too much risk. But the researchers believe that mutual funds whose managers are poorly compensated for performance may unwittingly be contributing to the market's boom-and-bust cycle. Funds with stronger performance incentives "may provide a useful counterweight" to offset future bubbles, they said.
In light of these findings, should you be leaning toward a mutual fund that gives its managers more performance-based incentives? The answer depends on your willingness to have your fund's performance deviate significantly from that of the average fund. In the late 1990's, many investors were impatient with funds that did not load up on Internet stocks, so they dumped those funds before the bubble burst. Others were willing to tolerate their funds' low rankings in the hope of outperforming over the longer term - and, for the most part, they have had the last laugh.
Mark Hulbert is editor of The Hulbert Financial Digest, a service of MarketWatch. E-mail: strategy@nytimes.com.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Bankers Oppose Wal-Mart as Rival(NYTimes, 10/15/05)





October 15, 2005
Bankers Oppose Wal-Mart as Rival
By MICHAEL BARBARO
The letters to federal banking regulators, which poured in at a rate of 20 a day, are a catalogue of fear.
The chief executive of a bank in North Dakota predicted a "dangerous and unprecedented concentration of economic power." The president of a bank in Colorado foresaw "unacceptable risk to the banking system." The head of a California bank anticipated "long-term community disinvestment."
Wal-Mart's proposal to open a bank has sent a wave of concern through community bankers, who view the move as the first of several maneuvers that will turn the company into a financial services behemoth and drive them out of business.
In July, Wal-Mart filed an application with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for an industrial bank in Utah that would process credit and debit card transactions for its 3,500 United States stores, saving the retailer the fraction of a penny it now pays to national banks every time a shopper pays with plastic. It is Wal-Mart's fourth effort to enter the banking industry.
A public comment period for the F.D.I.C. application, which concluded on Sept. 23, produced a flood of letters from community banks and activists and yet another public relations problem for Wal-Mart, which is trying to burnish its image.
The number of letters - more than 1,100 - broke a record at the F.D.I.C., which usually receives no more than six comments on an application. To accommodate the response, it extended the public comment period to two months, from one.
Jane Thompson, president of Wal-Mart Financial Services, defended the company's proposal, saying, "This will not be a bank that a consumer ever sees. It's only customer is Wal-Mart."
But community bankers fear that could change and Wal-Mart would open retail branches. Many bankers say Wal-Mart's move into their cities has hurt the smaller businesses that compete with the store's supercenters, including groceries, auto repair centers and photo processing labs.
A coalition has formed to keep Wal-Mart out of banking and includes the Independent Community Bankers of America (which provided a sample letter for its members to send to the F.D.I.C.), the National Grocers Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores and the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which is trying unionize Wal-Mart workers. A coalition of community groups called Wal-Mart Watch has sent a petition to the F.D.I.C. with 11,000 signatures opposing Wal-Mart's application.
The debate has even reached Capitol Hill, where Representatives Paul Gillmor of Ohio and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, both members of the House Financial Services Committee, have asked the F.D.I.C. to hold hearings. "This is a very controversial application filed by the company that is the largest retailer in the world," they wrote.
David Barr, an F.D.I.C. spokesman, said that if such a hearing was held, it would be the first in 20 years.
The F.D.I.C. is expected to rule on the Wal-Mart application by July 2006. Rejections are rare. Wal-Mart is also awaiting approval from Utah, one of the few states that allows retailers to open industrial banks. The chain plans to locate the bank's headquarters in Salt Lake City.
Wal-Mart has made no secret of its banking ambitions. In 1999, the company tried to buy an Oklahoma thrift, prompting federal legislation that banned commercial companies from buying thrifts and unraveled the deal. In 2001, it attempted to strike a partnership with a Toronto bank to establish branches inside its stores, a plan blocked by the United States government. And in 2002, it tried to buy a bank in California, a transaction thwarted when the state banned such arrangements.
This time, Wal-Mart is trying to avoid those pitfalls by creating an industrial bank with the narrow aim of eliminating the payments it makes to third parties for the roughly 2.4 billion electronic payment transactions it handles every year. The bank will, however, accept limited deposits from nonprofit groups.
"Wal-Mart will not have its own bank branches inside our stores or outside of them," said Ms. Thompson of Wal-Mart. As evidence of the bank's limited scope, Ms. Thompson pointed to the 300 different community banks that already operate in more than 1,000 Wal-Mart stores. "We have long-term arrangements with these banks," she said.
But if the letters to the F.D.I.C. are any indication, community banks still believe Wal-Mart poses a direct threat.
"Wal-Mart is well known for entering a community" and "driving out the local competition," wrote Martin J. Schmitz, president of Citywide Banks of Colorado. The bank proposal, he added, would "pose unacceptable risk to the banking system and its regulatory safety net."

U.S. Offers Details of Plan for Open Markets in China(NYTimes, 10/16/05)





October 16, 2005
U.S. Offers Details of Plan for Open Markets in China
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
XIANGHE, China, Oct. 15 - The Bush administration is expected to present China's political leaders on Sunday with a sweeping plan to overhaul China's financial markets and open the country to foreign banks, investment firms and insurance companies.
Administration officials say the plan is part of an effort to put the yuan into a broader debate over China's lopsided reliance on exports as the main source of economic growth.
The plan, to be discussed in two days of talks here and in Beijing, calls for China to speed up the privatization of state-owned companies, including banks; to develop a Chicago-style futures market for currency trading; to establish an independent credit-rating agency; and to crack down on bailouts for banks left holding bad loans.
"What we tried to do is take a quantum leap in sophistication and scope," said Timothy D. Adams, undersecretary for international affairs at the Treasury Department. "It gives you a picture of the truly complex nature of what we are trying to do."
Though many of the ideas are familiar, and often supported by Chinese leaders in principle, the list reflects an increased effort to lecture China about internal financial issues.
That could backfire. Chinese leaders invariably bristle at pressure from American officials, and they could view the new American "priorities" as an unwelcome intrusion.
The new tack comes as Treasury Secretary John W. Snow continues to show little progress on the volatile economic dispute with China over exchange rates.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress have long complained that the yuan has been pegged at an artificially low value against the dollar, making Chinese exports to the United States cheaper than they would otherwise be.
China announced a 2 percent revaluation in July, but have yet to follow with any additional changes. Based on signals from senior Chinese officials on Friday and Saturday, Mr. Snow is unlikely to return to Washington next week with any evidence of new progress.
Mr. Snow has been arguing that China needs to get people to spend more and save less. Administration officials say that a financial overhaul would help make that happen.
Many economists agree with that assessment, but they caution that there are limits to what the United States can do to speed up change.
"They are doing a smart thing, because the exchange rate is a small part of the overall economic relationship," said Andrew Rothman, a Shanghai-based strategist at CLSA Asia-Pacific, a brokerage firm. But he added, "This is not the kind of thing where someone flips a switch and it happens overnight."
Mr. Rothman said that China had already embraced many of the ideas that Mr. Snow was promoting and that consumer spending has grown sharply in the past few years.
Retail sales in China have been climbing about 10 percent a year for the past several years, he said. Household credit, virtually nonexistent five years ago, now accounts for 16 percent of all outstanding credit.
But many of the Bush administration's proposals would encounter fierce political opposition from many quarters.
China's state-owned banks and far-flung rural credit cooperatives have many defenders in the ruling Communist party, and they are certain to oppose well-financed competition from Western banks.
Even without opposition from vested interests, many Chinese leaders are likely to fret over giving more freedom to foreign financial institutions to enter Chinese markets.
Under current laws, foreign investors are usually prohibited from owning more than 25 percent of a commercial bank, and no single foreign investor can own more than 20 percent.
According to a document that Treasury officials plan to circulate among Chinese leaders, the Bush administration would remove the limits on foreign ownership as well as a host of other restricitons.
Foreign financial institutions that want to buy Chinese securities would be freed from having to have at least $10 billion in assets and to have been in business at least five years.
Foreign-affiliated banks, brokerage firms and insurers would be freed from restrictions on setting up multiple branches at one time.

Monday, October 10, 2005

諾貝爾經濟獎美雙贏【中央日報 法新社.斯德哥爾摩訊:10/11/05】

諾貝爾經濟獎美雙贏
中央日報 法新社.斯德哥爾摩訊】

諾貝爾獎評審團表示,擁有以色列(新聞)和美國雙重國籍的奧曼及美國人謝林利用賽局理論(博弈理論),成功闡釋衝突與合作,於今天獲得二○○五年諾貝爾經濟學獎。
利用賽局理論,兩位諾貝爾獎桂冠得主聚焦於為何有些人和國家選擇合作,而其他人或國家則陷於衝突困境。他倆的成就有助於理解諸如貿易齟齬、有組織犯罪、政治決策、勞資談判以及全面開戰等現象。在經濟和商業領域上,為何原本相互競爭的企業最終會共謀操控價格,以及為何農民會願意共享牧草或灌溉系統,如今已不再成為秘密。
除經濟領域外,兩位大師亦利用賽局理論闡釋自音樂會座位選擇以迄種族和性別歧視等形形色色現象。拜謝林和奧曼的研究成就之賜,狀似不理性行為突然能獲解釋。評審團表示,「他們的成就讓這門社會科學演進,遠超出經濟學領域以外」,並推崇謝林以最少數學工具引介其原創理念的能力。
高齡八十四歲的謝林係馬里蘭大學名譽教授,於美蘇冷戰時代締造其主要研究成就,利用賽局理論闡釋兩大議題全球安全和軍備競賽。謝林曾於一九五○年代任職美國白宮和參與二次大戰後協助歐洲自廢墟中復興的馬歇爾計畫,他是檢視美蘇超強核子對峙背後根本理由的不二人選。他證明擁有報復能力遠較擁有抵抗攻擊能力更有用,且讓敵人摸不透報復的可能結局或許更佳。
評審團表示,謝林的開創性研究「衝突策略」已成為經典,對後世戰略策士影響深遠,「這些洞見已證明對於紛爭解決和避免戰爭攸關重要」。奧曼以謝林的原創理論為基礎,利用數學分析工具凸顯某個國家及敵對國家在爆發紛爭時有那些可行的替代抉擇。
七十五歲的奧曼任教於耶路撒冷希伯來大學理性研究中心,他是創立「無限重覆賽局」分析的第一人,協助理解為何有些人或社區,假以時日寧願選擇合作而非其他途徑,即使他們原本相互猜疑也如此。一九三○年生於德國法蘭克福的奧曼,為逃避納粹迫害於一九三八年舉家逃往紐約,其後定居以色列。謝林和奧曼將平分一千萬瑞典克朗(一百三十萬美元)獎金。

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

經濟脈搏﹕別指望奇跡來拯救美國的債務重擔了(9/30/05 WSJ)

經濟脈搏-- 《華爾街日報》中文網絡版
2005年09月29日20:40
***
別指望奇跡來拯救美國的債務重擔了
在科幻電影里﹐沒有什麼強大到人類不能克服的障礙。具有卓越才能而且意志堅定的科學家們總能在小行星撞上地球前找到辦法避開它。
而在現實生活里﹐有些問題因為太可怕了﹐人們甚至不願想起﹐直到災難臨頭。
眼下我們就有一個讓人痛心的例子──新奧爾良﹐它被沖垮的防洪墻和臨時防洪堤。另一個例子就是美國不斷攀高的外債。
就在二十年前﹐美國還是一個債權國﹐現在﹐它卻欠下別的國家高達2.5萬億美元的債務(用外國人在美國的資產減去美國在國外擁有的資產)。今年美國的新增外債額將達到相當於商品和服務總產出6%的水平﹐這個數字是有案可查的過去135年時間里從未有過的。

這對美國來說並不是什麼困難﹐也不會對全球經濟有任何明顯的干擾。不過﹐幾乎沒有任何知名的經濟學家﹑財政部長或者央行官員認為﹐美國可以永遠不停地借下去﹑越借越多。國際貨幣基金組織(International Monetary Fund, 簡稱IMF)日前措辭委婉地表示﹐雖然這種溫和的狀態尚可持續一段時間﹐但不會永遠繼續下去﹔至於好日子何時會到頭......最好還是別去以身試法了。
必須採取措施割斷美國對亞洲和歐洲人的儲蓄資金日甚一日的依賴﹐但這些措施無論對借債人還是放貸人都不討好。(想想吧﹐如果讓美國提高稅收或要求中國進一步大幅上調人民幣匯率會怎樣?)曾有人危言聳聽地預言﹐減少依賴將導致美元發生5級颶風般的崩潰﹐並由此引發經濟衰退﹔同時﹐外國人對美國債券的興趣也將盪然無存。不過﹐目前來看這些預言尚未兌現。政治家和金融市場未免對此有些沾沾自喜並拒絕納諫。也許﹐一切都會自行順利平息﹔也許不會。
問題在於﹐美國人花的比掙的多﹐用於投資的比自己攢下的多﹐消費的比生產的多﹐而且多得多。而世界其他國家剛好相反﹐他們將多餘的產品出口到美國﹐並把多餘的錢投到美國。就連有充分理由將錢化在國內提高人民生活水平的中國﹐也把結餘下來的錢送到美國。正因為有了這些錢﹐美國人才得以享受低息抵押貸款。但是﹐好事不會永遠繼續下去。
這種局面潛在的風險是﹐一旦世界經濟失衡﹐必然要採取措施恢復平衡。即使那些覺得大好局面未必就會結束的人也對今天的趨勢感到擔憂。最近剛剛卸去白宮首席經濟學家身份的哈佛大學經濟學家格利高里.曼昆(Gregory Mankiw)預言﹐這個問題會以相對溫和的方式解決。
不過他還說﹐對外國儲蓄的依賴意味著美國人的未來不會那麼富庶。外國人以後要麼會決定將更多的錢留在身邊──迫使美國人減少推動未來財富增長所必需的投資﹔要麼就會繼續借錢給美國人﹐並要求分享更多回報。
政府統計資料也發出了警告聲。多年來﹐美國人從自己擁有的國外工廠﹑房地產﹑股票﹑債券和銀行帳戶上得到的回報要高於外國人在美國擁有的資產的回報﹐而他們的投資規模實際上比美國人的海外投資更大。美國彷彿就像是全世界人民投資的貨幣市場基金﹐只提供安全但偏低的回報。去年﹐美國的海外投資淨收益是360億美元。但淨收益規模正在收縮﹐主要是因為外國人在美國已經沉積了太多的錢。今年第二季度美國的海外投資淨收益降到了10億美元。
華盛頓智囊機構全球發展研究中心(Center for Global Development)及國際經濟研究院(Institute for International Economics)的經濟學家威廉.克萊恩(William Cline)最近要給他的新書《債務大國美利堅》(The United States as a Debtor Nation)挑選封面。他想到的圖案是:一座山坡﹐一邊是螞蟻往上爬﹐另一邊是蚱蜢往下跳。這來自《伊索寓言》(Aesop's fable)里的一則故事。但這個方案最後被他否決了。他說﹐人們會以為那些是(能導致“千里之堤毀於蟻穴”)的白蟻﹐這不是他的本意。真可惜﹐那本來應該是個不錯的封面。
有什麼解決辦法嗎?是的﹐不過需要其他國家的經濟比美國增長得更快﹐這樣他們才能消費更多自己的產品﹐消化更多的自有儲蓄。美元走軟和人民幣走強也會有所幫助。如果其他國家不加快腳步﹐美國就注定要遇到:利率上升﹑股市或債市下降﹑房地產熱降溫﹐或者增加稅收。這些將導致美國經濟放緩﹐進而削弱它對外國產品和儲蓄的需求。
我們有過這種經歷﹐知道接下來會發生什麼﹐只是還不清楚何時發生﹑會到什麼程度。八十年代末﹐美國的經濟增長大大超過其他國家﹐美元走強使進口商品相對低廉﹐預算赤字進一步加大﹐美國的外債也緊跟著急劇攀升。然後﹐就是美元暴跌﹐股市崩盤﹐經濟衰退﹐遏制了美國人對進口商品的需求。
Barclays Capital首席經濟學家勞倫斯.肯特(Laurence Kantor)提醒我們﹐當時是東﹑西德出人意料地實現統一才阻止了全球經濟走向更深層次的衰退──統一促使德國政府轉向了特徵不甚明顯的積極財政政策。這不啻是一個奇跡。
但是﹐如果指望奇跡重演﹐那可就笨到家了。


閱讀以上事件的詳細報導﹐請參閱:
http://chinese.wsj.com/