Monday, April 23, 2007

J.P.Morgan Chase on the top of heap in its industrial sector/subsector

NYC-based MarketWatch financial editor Greg Morcroft in a recent article regarding J.P. Morgan Case commercial bank (which also features a "retail unit") supplies a topnotch analysis of the company, also supplying references to competitors in the bank subsector of the financial sector of the American economy.
Financial Stocks
J.P. Morgan at 6-year high, leading sector gainers

New York (MarketWatch) -- Shares of J.P. Morgan Chase on Wednesday hit their highest level in six years after the bank said a strong showing at its investment bank offset a sluggish retail business to boost first-quarter results more than 50% from a year earlier.

"The firm's strong results include some benefit from the generally favorable credit environment, which we do not expect to continue indefinitely," Chairman and Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said in a news release.

Investors looked past that cautious tone though and the shares, which are a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, hit their highest intraday level since February 2001, rising more than 4% to $52.91.

-------------------
I've excised a whole bunch of technical stock-market infobits embedded in the article, to make reading easier for those who have no expertise in that area of business discourse, and because including the live-links would exhaust available time. Sorry!
-------------------

Sandler O'Neill analyst Richard Repetto on Wednesday said TD Ameritrade's weaker-than-expected results boost the case for a merger with rival E-Trade. The two are fighting over customer assets verses Schwab, which has been winning the battle among the trio.

Both Ameritrade and E-Trade have moved toward asset/deposit-driven strategies with investments in sales people, registered independent advisers, call centers and relationship managers.

"While these endeavors are key to successfully achieving a more efficient/higher margin model than Schwab and full-service brokers, the redundancy of the e-brokers' efforts to effectively 'touch' their clients is clearly obvious," Repetto said in a note to clients. End of Story


By studying Mr Morcroft's article, the reader can perhaps grasp better the discussion of "sectors" and the problems of classifications of companies in the financial sector and its subsectors, with specific companies assigned mostly to one or another (sometimes more than one sector/subsector) as in the parallel blog-entry posted to BizMixture for USE.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Will giant UK private bank Barclays swallow-merge giant Dutch private bank ABN Amro?

A report by Peter Thal Larsen and Ian Bickerton appears today in MSNBC online: "ABN close to €70bn bid from Barclays" (Apr22,2k7). ABN Amro NV is a huge Dutch company, a holding company, a private bank and source of private equity. Barclays PLC is a similar British corporation. They are keys to market capitalization thru-out the world.
ABN Amro was on Sunday night close to agreeing a takeover bid from Barclays, the British bank, which values the Dutch lender at almost €70bn (£48bn). ...

A deal would mark the culmination of more than a month of talks between Barclays and ABN Amro. Their merger would create one of the world's largest banks by market capitalisation. ...

[ABN's CEO has been] the main target of a campaign by activist investors impatient with the bank's performance....
Meanwhile, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander (Spain) and Fortis (Belgo-Dutch) are also eyeing ABN.
ABN Amro's supervisory board, which has been threatened with legal action by Children's Investment Fund, the activist hedge fund, has taken extra care in recent days to make sure it is following the correct procedures.
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
The story relates a huge corporate tale of merger and acquistion. It also has an important sidebar about shareholder activism, which pertains to the normative concept of corporate governance (I don't think Prof Bainbridge would be very happy about developments in this respect). Coupled with that is the important notion of a hedge fund.

More info:

Barclays could make formal bid for ABN tomorrow or Tuesday - sources (Forbes)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Will giant UK private bank Barclays swallow-merge giant Dutch private bank ABN Amro?

A report by Peter Thal Larsen and Ian Bickerton appears today in MSNBC online: "ABN close to €70bn bid from Barclays" (Apr22,2k7). ABN Amro NV is a huge Dutch company, a holding company, a private bank and source of private equity. Barclays PLC is a similar British corporation. They are keys to market capitalization thru-out the world.
ABN Amro was on Sunday night close to agreeing a takeover bid from Barclays, the British bank, which values the Dutch lender at almost €70bn (£48bn). ...

A deal would mark the culmination of more than a month of talks between Barclays and ABN Amro. Their merger would create one of the world's largest banks by market capitalisation. ...

[ABN's CEO has been] the main target of a campaign by activist investors impatient with the bank's performance....
Meanwhile, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander (Spain) and Fortis (Belgo-Dutch) are also eyeing ABN.
ABN Amro's supervisory board, which has been threatened with legal action by Children's Investment Fund, the activist hedge fund, has taken extra care in recent days to make sure it is following the correct procedures.
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
The story relates a huge corporate tale of merger and acquistion. It also has an important sidebar about shareholder activism, which pertains to the normative concept of corporate governance (I don't think Prof Bainbridge would be very happy about developments in this respect). Coupled with that is the important notion of a hedge fund.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

What are the best run megacorporations?

CSM email newsletter carries this summarization of a Fortune article:
They're big, successful, and admired: top companies in US Blue-chip businesses, those with great bottom lines, are almost by definition well run. That's why they dominate Fortune magazine's annual list of most admired companies. General Electric tops the 2007 list, and the remainder of the Top 10 hardly need an introduction either. To conduct the survey for Fortune, pollsters for the Hay Group tallied the opinions of more than 3,000 executives, directors, and securities analysts on eight criteria, among them people management, quality of products, investment value, and social responsibility. The 10 most-admired companies operating in the US, and the countries where each maintains its headquarters:

1.) General Electric US
2.) Toyota Japan
3.) Procter & Gamble US
4.) Johnson & Johnson US
5.) Apple US
6.) Berkshire Hathaway US
7.) FedEx US
8.) Microsoft US
9.) BMW Germany
10. PepsiCo US
You can click up Fortune on CNN Money.com and navigate to the article "America's Most-Admired Companies" (click the foregoing, and I'll take you there directly). From this location you can read indepth on each of the top 10 listed above, or you can check out the top 20. Of course, who knows how accurate the entire exercize actually is?

Labels: , , ,

Monday, April 9, 2007

Economics: USA: Homeowners in the street, banks flush with dwellings they can't quickly unload on new suckers

CSM's Mark Trumbull explores the human families who borroweed beyond their predictable ability to repay the devious banks who ended up owning the families' dwellings. "Foreclosure's shadow falls across diverse set of US homeowners--At the housing boom's peak in 2005, 20 percent of new mortgage loans were subprime, four times the share a decade earlier" (Apr9,2k7; 4 pages)
Lawrence, Mass. - Victor Castro bought his home four years ago, expecting the move would bring stability. The Massachusetts janitor thought he would no longer move from rental to rental.

Music teacher Al Ynigues bought his home in Minnesota with a similar plan: He expected to be living and teaching there for years to come.

In Michigan, Mary Beyer arranged to refinance her home loan in a bid to bring order to her finances. She was having trouble getting by on her fixed income of disability payments.

Now each faces the possibility of foreclosure. They share a common American dream of homeownership, but what's equally notable is their diversity. Their cases hint at the wide range of people who make up the group called "subprime" borrowers, who are now being hit hardest by a nationwide real estate slump.

They are white as well as black, old as well as young, and middle-income as well as low-income. As the name subprime implies, these loans aren't for the Rockefellers, but for people with rocky credit records. Yet this category of loans saw an unprecedented wave of expansion since 2002, encompassing millions of Americans.

The explanation lies partly in the housing boom itself. As land values pushed toward record highs, many borrowers stretched against their credit limits to afford a home. Lenders, often charging lucrative fees, stood ready to help them.

By the time the housing boom peaked in 2005, fully 20 percent of new mortgage loans were subprime, four times the share a decade earlier.

Catching the perfidy of [some] American companies in China

J D Maguire, China e-Lobby's Apr4,2k7 blog-entry:
I have to start with Harold Meyerson: The Washington Post columnist gets his first Enlightened Comment of the Day honors with a terrific piece on how the Chinese Communist Party brings out the worst in American business. While I recommend one read him in full, Meyerson's final paragraph is nearly perfect:

Admittedly, a few nettlesome issues remain. First, about one-fourth of the global labor force is in China. Opposing steps toward the formation of unions there suppresses the wages of so many workers that its effect is felt worldwide. Second, since authoritarian China remains an adversary of the United States and a backer of some genuinely dangerous authoritarian regimes, blocking even the most modest steps toward the development of a civil society and democratic rights there poses a threat to U.S. security interests. Third, since the Bush administration champions the spread of democracy globally, why hasn't it taken America's leading corporations to task for retarding democracy's growth in China? And fourth, since preserving our national security should require executives at companies such as GE to answer for their conduct, where's the House Un-American Activities Committee now that we really need it?

Where indeed?
WaPo's Harold Myerson, "In Fear of Chinese democracy" (Apr4,2k7):
Listen to the apostles of free trade, and you'll learn that once consumer choice comes to authoritarian regimes, democracy is sure to follow. Call it the Starbucks rule: Situate enough Starbucks around Shanghai, and the Communist Party's control will crumble like dunked biscotti.

As a theory of revolution, the Starbucks rule leaves a lot to be desired.


Shanghai is swimming in Starbucks, yet, as James Mann notes in "The China Fantasy," his new book on the non-democratization of China, the regime soldiers on. Conversely, the American farmers who made our revolution didn't have much in the way of consumer choice, yet they managed to free themselves from the British. In New England, however, they did have town meetings, which may be a surer guide to the coming of democratic change. It's a growing civil society -- a sphere where people can deliberate and decide on more than their coffee -- that more characteristically sounds the death knell of dictatorships.

Which is why the conduct of America's corporate titans in China is so disquieting. There, since March of last year, the government has been considering a labor law that promises a smidgen of increase in workers' rights. And since March of last year, the American businesses so mightily invested in China have mightily fought it.

Beyond the Starbucks of Shanghai, the China of workers and peasants is a sea of unrest, roiled by thousands of strikes and protests that the regime routinely represses. Cognizant that they need to do something to quell the causes of unrest, some of China's rulers have entertained modest changes to the country's labor law. The legislation wouldn't allow workers to form independent trade unions or grant them the right to strike -- this is, after all, a communist regime. It would, however, require employers to provide employees, either individually or collectively, with written contracts. It would allow employees to change jobs within their industries or get jobs in related industries in other regions; employers have hitherto been able to thwart this by invoking statutes on proprietary information. It would also require that companies bargain with worker representatives over health and safety conditions.

It's not as if Chinese unions would use these laws to run roughshod over employers. Chinese unions are not, strictly speaking, unions at all. They remain controlled by the Communist Party. Their locals can be and frequently are headed by plant managers, whether the workers want them or not. And yet, these changes proved too radical for America's leading corporations.

As documented by Global Labor Strategies, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization headed by longtime labor activists, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and the US-China Business Council embarked on a major campaign to kill these tepid reforms. Last April, one month after the legislation was first floated, the chamber sent a 42-page document to the Chinese government on behalf of its 1,300 members -- including General Electric, Microsoft, Dell, Ford and dozens of other household brand names -- objecting to these minimal increases in worker power. In its public comments on the proposed law, GE declared that it strongly preferred "consultation" with workers to "securing worker representative approval" on a range of its labor practices.

Based on a second draft of the law, completed in December, it looks like American businesses have substantially prevailed. Key provisions were weakened; if an employer elects not to issue written contracts, workers are guaranteed only the wages of similar employees -- with the employer apparently free to define who, exactly, is similar. Business is relieved: Facing "increased pressure to allow the establishment of unions in companies," Andreas Lauff, a Hong Kong-based corporate attorney, wrote in the Jan. 30 Financial Times, "comments from the business community appear to have had an impact." The new draft "scaled back protections for employees and sharply curtailed the role of unions."

Phew!

Admittedly, a few nettlesome issues remain. First, about one-fourth of the global labor force is in China. Opposing steps toward the formation of unions there suppresses the wages of so many workers that its effect is felt worldwide.

Second, since authoritarian China remains an adversary of the United States and a backer of some genuinely dangerous authoritarian regimes, blocking even the most modest steps toward the development of a civil society and democratic rights there poses a threat to U.S. security interests.

Third, since the Bush administration champions the spread of democracy globally, why hasn't it taken America's leading corporations to task for retarding democracy's growth in China?

And fourth, since preserving our national security should require executives at companies such as GE to answer for their conduct, where's the House Un-American Activities Committee now that we really need it?

meyersonh@washpost.com

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Are China's Communists moving against stock-market flu in Shanghai?

What I have been calling "the Shanghai Flu" is the sudden Shanghai stock-market drop brawt on by over-heated buying of shares in flimsy companies that in some cases should never have been listed. The Chinese government does not regulate its financial sector well (not just its stock market, but its banks too). The Shanghai Flu was the sudden, drastic, unanticpated drop by the market there (China's leading stockmarket, and pace-setter for its cowboy, even sometimes its robber-baron, economy.

Chinese official news sources now are sending out signals that the Shanghai stock exchange and the brokerage and financial services built-up around it, in future will be held in rein by the Communist Party there. No mention, however, of the tension between party cadres in Shanghai and the central Communist regime of Hu Jintoa. An earlier leadership in Shanghai was repressed by Hu, now perhaps the factions supporting him are consoldiating power and "cleaning up" chaotic financial problems possibly accruing from neglect during the power struggle.

In any case, both centrally in Beijing and locally in Shanghai, there seems to be movement toward financial-sector reform. "Party chief of Shanghai pledges to cement financial hub status" (Apr3,2k7) People's Online Daily:
Shanghai is entering a new phase of its development and willing to once again assume a leading role in the country's reforms, said Xi Jinping, the newly appointed Communist Party secretary of China's largest city, one week after taking office.

The 54-year old Xi, who was appointed secretary of the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) on March 24, made the remarks when inspecting Shanghai's Pudong new area, one of the showcases of China's modernizing reforms.

Accompanied by vice mayors and other municipal officials, Xi visited the Pudong exhibition hall, the General Electric (China) research and development center, the China Unipay Shanghai information center and the Waigaoqiao bonded zone.

Xi pointed out that Shanghai has the obligation to take a leading role in the country's reforms and development.

The development of Pudong is a requirement of the CPC central committee and the State Council and part of the nation's development strategy, said Xi, adding that the municipality will speed up its development as an international economic, finance, trade and shipping center.

He said that Shanghai would continue to innovate in the financial sector by developing market systems, reinforcing financial supervision, safeguarding financial security and nurturing staff.

Source: Xinhua
China is fast becoming the world's leading economic power, its leading polluter, its leading labour-market as the poor migrate to new industrial areas under wage conditions far below the industrial West, and at the same time its leading consumer base as the various classes spend their income on everything from millionaire luxury items to a sure dinner for proletarian working families.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, April 2, 2007

Volatility continues on stock market, Bernanke still settles for half-warning on inflation trend

MarketWatch Weekly Roundup email newsletter (Mar30,2k7) in its summary of last week continued its coverage of the most recent Fed statement on economic trends, that we noted on the subject of inflation vs slowed growth.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Wednesday said he expected the economy to keep growing at a moderate pace and inflation to stay under control. But he also said there was a risk that inflation would be stronger than he currently expected. ...
In the itemized teasers, however, the Roundup repeated its noxious headline of last week: Clear as mud again by restating it in bold as an item headline:
Clear as mud, again

Reiterating comments from last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress the central bank expected the economy to keep expanding at a moderate pace with contained inflation. But he warned that the expectation could be wrong and that inflation could turn out to be higher than forecast.
Teasing up the full-length article by MR's lead hand in Washington, we come again to the drum being beaten by Rex Nutting, as the reporter deftly tries to get Bernanke to march to the line preferred by many stock-market economists. "Bernanke sees moderate growth, slower inflation -- FOMC's top priority remains inflation, Fed chief says" (Mar 28, 2007), MarketWatch.
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Despite heightened risks from the contraction in housing and the slump in manufacturing, the US economy will most likely achieve moderate growth this year with gradually slowing inflation, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday.

"Overall, the economy appears likely to continue to expand at a moderate pace over coming quarters," he said, adding that he doesn't see a recession coming this year.
Growth "probably will stay moderate until the housing situation turns around," Bernanke said.
It's perhaps needless to intersperse here the notation that the US economy, and contemporary mega-capitlaism generally, is based on the norm of economic growth, the maximization of growth in the economy is the norm of economic activity and hence of corporations (with possible exceptions for non-profits of various sizes, and entrepreneur-run small businesses). In contrast to the prevailing norm, the leading reformational Christian economist, Bob Goudzwaard and colleagues have critiqued this very idea of normativity for economic life and theory, claiming we have enuff, bring growth as such way down on the basis of sustainability (thus, a competing norm), and re-order our economic institutions and system to feed, clothe, shelter all the people. and provide clean air and good water in a healthy environment.

Goudzwaard nowadays frames this in terms of the international economic order, which does exist (being required by globalization and free trade) and needs drastic change. I have some problems with this conception of what's normative for the economy and its institutions, but am trying to take Goudzwaard's distinction between norms and goals, especially in regard to the economy--beginning with the national economies of the USA and Canada--seriously, especially in regard to the absolutization of growth.

In short, at present, I'm somewhat at home in worrying about growth slowdown, in feeling better with moderate growth, and quite concerned about rapid growth such as we see today at the extreme in Communist China where a kind of robber-baron and cowboy capitalism has been let loose on its population and the world. It was the combination of the overheated Shanghai Stockmarket and the American false-loans for first-time mortagages that were the chief factors in triggering the recent New York Stockmarket downfall. Bernanke and FOMC surely have their work cut out for them.
At the same time, the core rate of inflation "remains uncomfortably high" but "seems likely to moderate gradually over time," he said.

The Fed is likely to keep its overnight lending target at 5.25%, Bernanke said in his prepared testimony to the congressional Joint Economic Committee [of the House and Senate]." The current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable economic growth and a gradual ebbing in core inflation."

US stocks sold off as the central banker began speaking, disappointed that he didn't hint at a quick cut in interest rates. By mid-afternoon, the major indexes were back where they were before Bernanke spoke. Tensions with Iran seemed to play a larger role in market psychology than Bernanke's comments.
This is the key detail of a danger-point in a stockmarket-driven economy, where buyers and sellers await breathlessly for a "hint" from the Fed Chairman in order to determine their next course of action, which when compiled into trend statistics affects all of us in the American economy and elsewhere.

Bernanke continued his itemizations of industrial sectors, including the financial sector and futures markets on various commodities like next season's crops in agriculture and drill yields in petroleum that won't reach markets until after the refining and processing into oil and gas. Futures trading is inherently risking in all industrial sectors where it is needed.
...Treasury[ bonds] sold off, driving yields higher. Futures markets continued to see a 30% to 40% chance of a rate cut by mid-2007.

The dollar fell further against the yen. "Bernanke fails to alter the market's predominant concern," which is housing and weaker growth, wrote Ashraf Laidi, chief foreign-exchange analyst for CMC Markets US.

In his prepared testimony, Bernanke expanded on the Federal Open Market Committee's statement from last week's monetary-policy meeting, during which policymakers held interest rates steady.

Last week's FOMC statement confused the financial markets. At first, the statement seemed to imply the Fed was more likely to ease policy to support growth, rather than leaning toward higher rates to combat inflation.

Gradually, however, prices began to reflect a more balanced view that the Fed had heightened its concerns about both inflation and growth but was still more worried about inflation.
Getting the stockmarket analysts and economics reporters in the media to a consensus around that "more balanced view" was the obstacle to a more proper pricing across the American economy. This is a thorny reality: how instant-trigger economic actionism, especially buying and selling on the stockmarkets, is itself driven by over-reaction of said analysts and media to a careful and truthful statement by the Fed's FOMC led now by Bernanke, to the best of their responsible ability. There is no built in pause for contemplation.
Clearing the air

In response to a question, Bernanke explicitly said the committee didn't change its policy stance and is still focused more on fighting inflation, even though "risks had increased on both sides." He said [FOMC] is moving away from giving firm guidance about future rate actions.

'Despite the recent weak readings, we expect business investment in equipment and software to grow at a moderate pace this year.' — Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman

The Fed's baseline scenario sees inflation rates falling. He noted that higher rents had been a major factor in the acceleration of core inflation, something he expects to dissipate as the housing market corrects.

"It is encouraging that inflation expectations appear to be contained," he said.

"Bernanke's prepared text contained nothing new regarding the Fed's inflation objective," wrote David Greenlaw, economist for Morgan Stanley.

Most of Wednesday's testimony concerned the prospects for growth in the wake of the sudden weakening of the subprime mortgage industry.

Housing woes

"Thus far, the weakness in housing and in some parts of manufacturing does not appear to have spilled over to any significant extent to other sectors of the economy," Bernanke said. The Fed chief identified several downside risks to his benign outlook, including what he called the "substantial correction in housing," which could lead to severe financial problems for many individuals.

"The implications for these developments for the housing market as a whole are less clear," he said. "The impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime [housing] market seems likely to be contained."

In response to a question from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Bernanke said it would be "worth looking at" a federal predatory-lending law. Bernanke noted that financial regulation in the United States is divided among many federal and state agencies.

But he defended the Fed's hands-off approach to the lending business, saying overbroad rules could "kill" the market.
Here I would tend to think a Fed law against predatory lending is in order, but there's huge note of auxiliary issues that flow from making it more difficult for first-time home-owners to get the mortagages they need and, at the same time, have real good prospects of being able to pay-off on a monthly basis. Predatory lending cannot be solved without a national home-owners policy, and that relates to the persistent problems of unemployment.
A slowing in capital spending is another risk, heightened by the February durable-goods orders report, released earlier Wednesday, that showed further slowing in capital equipment orders.

"Despite the recent weak readings, we expect business investment in equipment and software to grow at a moderate pace this year," he said.

"Bernanke appears to be in denial," said Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist for High Frequency Economics, who said manufacturing is in recession. "There is plenty of room for the Fed to do much more than the market thinks, once they get over their usual late-cycle inflation hangups and focus on the fact that the economy is grinding to a halt."

For his part, Bernanke said there are also reasons to think growth might accelerate. "Consumer spending -- which has proved quite resilient despite the housing downturn and increases in energy prices -- might continue to grow at a brisk pace, stimulating a more-rapid economic expansion than we currently anticipate," Bernanke said. Exports are also an area of growth.

------------

Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch. Bolds, underlines, minor deletions and intersperses are mine. -- Economix
In a week's time, while Nutting maintained his slant judiciously, the headline writer for MR moved from "Clear as mud" last week, repeating it "Clear as mud again" this week in the teaser, to the subhead "Clears the air." But the fact is that Bernanke has remained unchanged, while his explication of the nuances on the situation, sector by sector, has been elaborated. That's good and proper. The only trouble3 is that economists for the stock-brokers' analysts and corporations are yammering for hardedge "clarity" where "softedge" is truer given the limits of human knowledge to predict economic trends and unanticible shifts in specific factors.

Of course, I'm not putting down Rex Nutting, whom I regard as just about the best reporter on overall trends in the US economy, with contacts both in the government economic agencies like the Fed and in Congressional finance committees, as well as in the corporate interests, not least among the economists who work for them and often are them. Nutting is immersed in this guild, as are most reports in his specialty and all others.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,