How These Fortune 500 Companies (Legally) Paid $0 In Taxes Last Year

apple.news/AZJX2FyyrSzuQ3k7-ZK5a4w

Advertisements

The $9 Trillion Short That May Send the Dollar Even Higher

The $9 Trillion Short That May Send the Dollar Even Higher

2:15

April 13 — Bloomberg’s Tom Keene examines a chart on the euro. Langer Research’s Gary Langer also speaks on “Bloomberg Surveillance.” 

Investors speculating the dollar rally is fizzling out may be overlooking trillions of reasons why it will keep on going.

There’s pent-up demand for the U.S. currency that will underpin years of appreciation because the world is “structurally short” the dollar, according to investor and former International Monetary Fund economist Stephen Jen.

Sovereign and corporate borrowers outside America owe a record $9 trillion in the U.S. currency, much of which will need repaying in coming years, data from the Bank for International Settlements show.

In addition, central banks that had reduced their holdings of the greenback are starting to reverse course, creating more demand. The dollar’s share of global foreign reserves shrank to a record 60 percent in 2011 from 73 percent a decade earlier, though it’s since climbed back to 63 percent.

So, the short-term ebbs and flows caused by changes in Federal Reserve policy or economic data releases may be overwhelmed by these larger forces combining to fuel more appreciation, according to Jen, the London-based co-founder of SLJ Macro Partners LLP and the former head of currency research at Morgan Stanley.

Dollar ‘Power’

“Short-covering will continue to power the dollar higher,” said Jen, who predicts a 9 percent advance in the next three months to 96 cents per euro. “The dollar’s strength is not just about cyclical factors such as growth. The recent consolidation will likely prove to be temporary.”

Most strategists and investors agree on the reasons for the dollar’s advance versus each of its major counterparts during the past year: the prospect of higher U.S. interest rates while other nations are loosening policy.

Bloomberg’s Dollar Spot Index, which tracks the U.S. currency against 10 major peers including the euro and yen, has surged 20 percent since the middle of 2014. The gains stalled recently, sending the index down more than 3 percent in the three weeks through April 3, as Fed officials tempered investors’ expectations about the pace of rate increases.

Top Forecaster

Jen isn’t the only one who thinks short-dollar positions will cause the rally to extend.

Chris Turner, head of foreign-exchange strategy at ING Groep NV, sees the dollar surging through parity with the European currency by mid-year, from $1.0586 per euro as of 12:11 p.m. in New York. He said gains will be spurred by bonds from Germany to Ireland yielding below zero.

“Central banks are re-accumulating their dollar reserves and low, or negative, bond yields in the euro zone will probably speed up that trend,” said London-based Turner, whose bank topped Bloomberg’s rankings for the most accurate currency forecasts in the past two quarters.

Not everyone thinks the dollar will keep on climbing. David Bloom, global head of currency strategy at HSBC Holdings Plc, said in a report that the effects of policy divergence have run their course and that the greenback rally “will stall as the market demands: tell me something I don’t know.”

Billionaire Bill Gross of Janus Capital Group Inc. has meanwhile been betting on U.S. Treasuries against German bunds on the basis that the spread between American and European interest rates will narrow. He called his bet “the trade of the year.”

Rates ‘Dichotomy’

Adrian Lee, whose eponymous investment company oversees more than $5 billion, does expect the dollar to keep strengthening and points to monetary policy as the biggest driver as the tightening bias of the Fed contrasts with a European Central Bank that’s expanding the money supply.

“The dichotomy between Europe and the U.S. is most interesting,” said Lee, chief investment officer at Adrian Lee & Partners, which has offices in London and Dublin. “If you ask where our strategy would be in a year’s time, we can easily have a forecast of the euro well below $1.”

He also sees another structural factor that’s underpinning the dollar: the U.S.’s shrinking current-account deficit.

The decline in oil prices — even with the shale-gas revolution, the nation is still an importer — has helped the U.S. reduce its trade shortfall to 2.3 percent of gross domestic product, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s down from a record 5.9 percent in 2006.

For Jen, the rise in dollar-denominated debt across the globe is key. The $9 trillion owed by borrowers outside the U.S. has surged from $6 trillion at the end of 2008 — when the Fed cut its benchmark interest rate to near zero, making it cheaper to issue in the currency.

Repaying Debt

Russian gas producer OAO Gazprom, Spanish phone company Telefonica SA and ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steelmaker, have each raised about $12 billion in the U.S. currency since then, data compiled by Bloomberg show. France and Sweden are among the biggest sovereign issuers, borrowing more than $100 billion between the two.

Some of that will need to be repaid even if the remainder will be rolled over. And debt that will eventually be refinanced needs servicing in the meantime.

“After years of accumulating a huge amount of debt in dollars, borrowers will need to figure out how to repay” given the currency’s recent gains, Jen said. “People will either repay early or start hedging actively. There’ll be huge demand for the dollar that is much more than what’s consistent with growth or interest-rate differentials.”

Germany’s economic policy is hurting Europe, the world, and itself Business Insider  / The Economist

FROM Washington to Athens, politicians and economists who often have little in common all agree that Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel is largely wrong about economic policy.

Germany’s apparent economic strengths–the lowest unemployment in two decades; steady, if low, growth; a balanced federal budget–mask weaknesses and policy errors, they say.

A first mistake is to insist that troubled euro-zone countries such as Greece not only make structural reforms to their economies, but simultaneously cut spending and borrowing (depressing demand).

But a second is domestic. Given low interest rates, now would be a golden opportunity to borrow and invest more at home, boosting the economy and providing a Keynesian stimulus to the entire sluggish euro zone. Instead, Germany is investing less than in the past and less than most other countries (see chart).

Raising investment could also deal with another imbalance in the German economy: its current-account surplus, the largest in the world, which has just set another record in 2014 of EUR220 billion ($250 billion), over 7% of GDP. By definition, this surplus measures the excess of savings over investment. Invest more, and the surplus would shrink or even disappear.

Such thinking has fans even in Germany. Marcel Fratzscher at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin thinks that German strength is an “illusion” given its large “investment gap”. Public investment in Germany–shared by the federal, state and local governments–has fallen from 6% of GDP in 1970 (in the West) to 2% now. Roads, bridges, broadband internet and much else could do with more money.

The German Marshall Fund has said that 40% of bridges in Germany are in “critical condition”. The Cologne Institute for Economic Research, another think-tank, reckons that the capital stock of German machines has not risen in real terms since 2008. Markus Kerber, director of the German Federation of Industries, a trade association, says that a “long-term investment-offensive is needed” to sustain growth.

But other German economists are sceptical about claims of underinvestment. Christoph Schmidt, chairman of the German Council of Economic Experts, which advises the government, thinks published ratios of investment as a percentage of GDP can be misleading when compared both across time and between countries.

France, for example, has a lot of public housing. Germany does not, and this skews the numbers. Reunification in 1990 caused a one-off investment boom in both parts of the country. And whereas other countries had property crashes, Germany did not. In that case, at least, skimping on housebuilding was sensible.

Yet the trend of declining public and private investment remains clear. A recalculation to fit European Union norms lifts Germany’s investment ratio from 17% to 19%, by including companies’ research and development spending. But that is still low. Why is this?

Most investing is done by private firms. But German ones have for years preferred to invest abroad, not at home. Mr Fratzscher regrets this: he reckons that German investment abroad has yielded an annual return of 10% over 20 years whereas foreign investment in Germany has made more like 15%.

The main reason for low domestic investment, says Michael Hüther, the Cologne institute’s director, is uncertainty and nervousness over the future. Continuing anxiety over Greece and the euro has been especially damaging.

More recently worries about Russia, which is more commercially entangled with Germany than with other big Western economies, have unsettled the business climate. But the biggest problem for many businessmen may be benighted government policies.

These start with Germany’s “energy transition,” a plan to exit simultaneously from fossil fuels and nuclear energy. The main policy is a huge subsidy to solar and wind. The surcharge that many firms have to pay on a unit of energy is larger than the entire cost of electricity paid by firms in America. Half the firms polled by Mr Hüther’s institute claim that this makes any new investment unattractive.

Many also complain, in a country that has an ageing, shrinking population, about a shortage of skilled workers despite Germany’s admired apprenticeship system. Mrs Merkel’s government, under the influence of her Social Democratic coalition partners, has made things worse by letting some workers retire at 63, rather than at 67, as previously envisaged.

In the housing market, owners are put off investment by a cap on rents in many cities. A new federal minimum wage is yet another measure that will add costs for business.

The best way to boost investment is to fix these policy errors, argues Mr Schmidt. On energy, even if the government insists on sticking to its emissions targets, it could leave the choice of technology to the market.

The pension age could be raised again; the minimum wage should be lower. And public investment should be raised. Gustav Horn, head of the Macroeconomic Policy Institute, part of a foundation with links to the trade unions, reckons that a 1% increase in euro-zone public investment would boost GDP by 1.6%.

Yet Germany led resistance to calls for more public money to be put into the European Commission’s planned investment programme. At home it is constrained by the constitutional “debt brake”, adopted in 2009, which requires state governments to balance their budgets by 2020 and the federal one to do so by 2016.

Wolfgang Schäuble, the finance minister, has beaten the timetable, balancing the budget in 2014. He and Mrs Merkel are proud of the “black zero”, which demonstrates that Germans sticks by the rules, as others should. The books may balance, but Germany is a long way from rectifying its investment shortfall at home.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

This article was from The Economist and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.

JIM ROGERS: I Warned You The Swiss Central Bank’s Currency Policy Would End Disastrously

JIM ROGERS: I Warned You The Swiss Central Bank’s Currency Policy Would End Disastrously
Business Insider

Global currency markets are roiling in the aftermath of Thursday’s surprise decision by Switzerland’s central bank to end a 3-year policy that limited the franc from appreciating too much against the euro.

The move sent the franc soaring, triggering hundreds of millions of dollars of losses at banks including Barclays and Deutsche Bank, and bankrupted several currency brokers overnight. Many financial observers have lambasted the Swiss central bank for failing to signal the move was coming.

Jim Rogers, however, saw all of this coming, and he wrote about it in his 2013 book Street Smarts.

“I explained carefully and at length that it was coming and why,” he said in an email to Business Insider. “I am still astonished they would ever have done something so foolish, but politicians throughout history have always done some amazingly foolish things.”

Here’s the excerpt from the book:

Some of Switzerland’s most prestigious banks were established in the aftermath of the French Revolution, during the turmoil that gripped France under Napoleon. Bank people fled France and took their money over the mountains to Geneva, which was not very far away. You will see that some of the great old Swiss banks, the private banks, were founded in 1795, 1803, years like that. But by then Swiss banking traditions were already well established.

Switzerland has been an international center of finance since the end of the Renaissance. Known since then for its stability, sound economy, sound currency, and privacy in financial matters, it has long provided monetary refuge from the wealthy evading the consequences of political turmoil in Europe, from French nobility fleeing the guillotine to the Jews escaping Germany a century and a half later. It has, for the same reasons, in modern times, attracted the money of numerous despots, criminal organizations, and scoundrels.

Switzerland, traditionally, has been unconditional in its offer of bank secrecy. Of course, all banks are supposed to keep your affairs quiet. If you put your money in a bank in Chicago fifty years ago, you would have done so with the assumption that it was confidential. In America, as we have seen, that is no longer the case. The government can look into your bank account, your bedroom, your mail … anywhere it wants. And in much the way that our privacy has been taken away from us, the Swiss have recently surrendered some of theirs, succumbing to pressure from the United States. Bank secrecy in Switzerland is not as sacrosanct as it once was.

Nonetheless, the first thing people look for when seeking monetary refuge is safety. They want stability. They want the security of knowing they will get their money back, and that they will get back at least as much as they put there in the first place. That depends entirely on a sound currency. And that is something the Swiss franc has always offered. The question, now, is whether that is going to last.

I had opened my first Swiss bank account in 1970 in the face of coming turmoil in the currency markets. By the end of the decade, as the markets grew more volatile, people all over the world were trying to open Swiss accounts. And the same thing is happening today. The dollar is suspect, the euro is suspect, and again people are rushing to the franc. In 2011, the CHF (the Swiss franc) escalated to record highs against both the euro and the dollar, rising 43 percent against the euro in a year and a half as of August 2011.

It was a “massive overvaluation,” according to the country’s central bank, the Swiss National Bank (SNB). Under pressure from the country’s exporters, the SNB announced that “the value of the franc is a threat to the economy” and said it was “prepared to purchase foreign exchange in unlimited quantities” in order to drive the price down.

A threat to the economy? It was the exporters who were doing the screaming, but everybody else in Switzerland was better-off. When the franc rises, everything the Swiss import goes down in price, whether it is cotton shirts, TVs, or cars. The standard of living for everybody goes up. Every citizen of Switzerland benefits from a stronger currency. Our dental technician down in Geneva is not calling up and moaning. She is happy. Everything she buys is cheaper. But the big exporters get on the phone and the government takes their call.

The franc went down 7 or 8 percent the day of the SNB announcement. Nobody, at least in the beginning, wanted to take on the central bank. But the bank’s currency manipulation will turn out to be disastrous. One of two things is going to happen.

Here’s the excerpt from the book:

Some of Switzerland’s most prestigious banks were established in the aftermath of the French Revolution, during the turmoil that gripped France under Napoleon. Bank people fled France and took their money over the mountains to Geneva, which was not very far away. You will see that some of the great old Swiss banks, the private banks, were founded in 1795, 1803, years like that. But by then Swiss banking traditions were already well established.

Switzerland has been an international center of finance since the end of the Renaissance. Known since then for its stability, sound economy, sound currency, and privacy in financial matters, it has long provided monetary refuge from the wealthy evading the consequences of political turmoil in Europe, from French nobility fleeing the guillotine to the Jews escaping Germany a century and a half later. It has, for the same reasons, in modern times, attracted the money of numerous despots, criminal organizations, and scoundrels.

Switzerland, traditionally, has been unconditional in its offer of bank secrecy. Of course, all banks are supposed to keep your affairs quiet. If you put your money in a bank in Chicago fifty years ago, you would have done so with the assumption that it was confidential. In America, as we have seen, that is no longer the case. The government can look into your bank account, your bedroom, your mail … anywhere it wants. And in much the way that our privacy has been taken away from us, the Swiss have recently surrendered some of theirs, succumbing to pressure from the United States. Bank secrecy in Switzerland is not as sacrosanct as it once was.

Nonetheless, the first thing people look for when seeking monetary refuge is safety. They want stability. They want the security of knowing they will get their money back, and that they will get back at least as much as they put there in the first place. That depends entirely on a sound currency. And that is something the Swiss franc has always offered. The question, now, is whether that is going to last.

I had opened my first Swiss bank account in 1970 in the face of coming turmoil in the currency markets. By the end of the decade, as the markets grew more volatile, people all over the world were trying to open Swiss accounts. And the same thing is happening today. The dollar is suspect, the euro is suspect, and again people are rushing to the franc. In 2011, the CHF (the Swiss franc) escalated to record highs against both the euro and the dollar, rising 43 percent against the euro in a year and a half as of August 2011.

It was a “massive overvaluation,” according to the country’s central bank, the Swiss National Bank (SNB). Under pressure from the country’s exporters, the SNB announced that “the value of the franc is a threat to the economy” and said it was “prepared to purchase foreign exchange in unlimited quantities” in order to drive the price down.

A threat to the economy? It was the exporters who were doing the screaming, but everybody else in Switzerland was better-off. When the franc rises, everything the Swiss import goes down in price, whether it is cotton shirts, TVs, or cars. The standard of living for everybody goes up. Every citizen of Switzerland benefits from a stronger currency. Our dental technician down in Geneva is not calling up and moaning. She is happy. Everything she buys is cheaper. But the big exporters get on the phone and the government takes their call.

The franc went down 7 or 8 percent the day of the SNB announcement. Nobody, at least in the beginning, wanted to take on the central bank. But the bank’s currency manipulation will turn out to be disastrous. One of two things is going to happen.

In the first scenario, the market will continue to buy Swiss francs, which means that the Swiss National Bank will just have to keep printing and printing and printing, and that will of course debase the currency. Now, there are major exporters in Switzerland who might benefit, but the largest industry in Switzerland, the single largest business, is finance. The economy rises or falls on the nation’s ability to attract capital. And the reason people put their money there is their trust in the soundness of the currency- they not that their money will be there when they want it, and that it will not be worth significantly less than when they put it there in the first place.

But people will stop rushing to put their money into a country where the value of the currency is deliberately being driven down. After the Second World War and for the next thirty years, people took their money out of the United Kingdom because the currency plummeted. (Politicians blamed it on the gnomes of Zurich.) London ceased to be the world’s reserve financial center because Britain’s money was no good. Similarly, if you debase the franc, eventually nobody will want it. You will have eroded its value, not simply as a medium of exchange, but also a monetary refuge. The money will move to Singapore or Hong Kong, and the Swiss finance industry will wither up and disappear.

The alternative scenario is what happened in July 2010, the last time the Swiss tried to weaken their currency. They did so by buying up foreign currencies to hold against the franc-selling the franc to keep the price down. But the market just kept buying the francs, and the Swiss central bank, after quadrupling its foreign currency holdings, abandoned the effort. At that point, when the bank stopped selling it, the Swiss franc rose in value, all the currencies the Swiss had bought (and were now holding) declined in value, and the country lost $21 billion. In the end, the market had more money than the bank, and market forces inevitably prevailed.

In the late 1970s when everyone was rushing to the franc, the Swiss National Bank, to stem the tide, imposed negative interest rates on foreign depositors. The government levied a tax on anybody who bought the currency. It was their form of exchange controls back then. If you bought 100 Swiss francs, you wound up with 70 in your pocket. Today, with the rush on again, The Economist has described the Swiss currency as “an innocent bystander in a world where the eurozone’s politicians have failed to sort out their sovereign-debt crisis, America’s economic policy seems intent on spooking investors and the Japanese have intervened to hold down the value of the yen.”

All of which is true, but I think the problem runs deeper than that. The Swiss for decades had a semi monopoly on finance. And as a result they have become less and less competent. The entire economy has been overprotected. The reason Swiss Air went bankrupt is because it never really had to compete. Any monopoly eventually destroys itself, and Switzerland, in predictable fashion, is corroding from within. As a result, other financial centers have been rising: London, Lichtenstein, Vienna, Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong.

I still have those original Swiss francs that I bought in 1970, and since then the franc is up about 400 percent. Granted, it has been over forty years, but 400 percent is nothing to sneeze at. Plus I have been collecting interest. Had I kept the money in an American savings account, it would have gone down 80 percent against the franc.

Reprinted from “Street Smarts” Copyright © 2013 by Jim Rogers. Published by Crown Business, an imprint of The Crown Publishing Group, a division Random House LLC, a Penguin Random House Company.

Deutsche Bank, Barclays Seen Losing Millions Amid Swiss Rout

Bloomberg Jan 16, 2015

Deutsche Bank AG and Barclays Plc (BARC ▼ -1.58% 224.35), two of the world’s largest currency dealers, were among the first banks to suffer losses after the Swiss central bank’s surprise decision to abandon a cap on the franc, people with knowledge of the matter said.

Deutsche Bank lost $150 million on Thursday amid an unexpected surge in the Swiss franc, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the figure hasn’t been made public. Barclays’s losses were less than $100 million, another person said. The losses are still being calculated, and may spread to other asset classes, including equities, one of the people said.

The Swiss National Bank’s decision to scrap the three-year-old ceiling sent the franc up as much as 41 percent versus the euro, while climbing more than 15 percent against all of the more than 150 currencies tracked by Bloomberg. Two brokers, Global Brokers NZ Ltd. and Alpari (UK) Ltd., said they were forced to shut down amid continuing market turmoil.

Barclays’s losses won’t have a material impact on results and the London-based bank is able to fulfill all spot Swiss currency trades made, said the person.

Greek euro exit would be ‘Lehman Brothers squared’: economist

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — A decision by a new Greek government to leave the eurozone would set off devastating turmoil in financial markets even worse than the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, a leading international economist warned Saturday.

A Greek exit would likely spark runs on Greek banks and the country’s stock market and end with the imposition of severe capital controls, said Barry Eichengreen, an economic historian at the University of California at Berkeley. He spoke as part of a panel discussion on the euro crisis at the American Economic Association’s annual meeting.

The exit would also spill into other countries as investors speculate about which might be next to leave the currency union, he said.

“In the short run, it would be Lehman Brothers squared,” Eichengreen warned.

He predicted that European politicians would “swallow hard once again” and make the compromises necessary to keep Greece in the currency union.

“While holding the eurozone together will be costly and difficult and painful for the politicians, breaking it up will be even more costly and more difficult,” he said.

In general, the panel, consisting of four prominent American economists, was pessimistic about the outlook for the single-currency project.

Jeffrey Frankel, an economics professor at Harvard University, said that global investors “have piled back into” European markets over the last years as the crisis ebbed.

Now, there will likely be a repeat of the periods of market turmoil in the region and spreads between sovereign European bonds could widen sharply.

Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and a Harvard professor, said the euro “is a historic disaster.”

“It doesn’t mean it is easy to break up,” he said.

Martin Feldstein, a longtime critic of the euro project, said all the attempts to return Europe to healthy growth have failed.

“I think there may be no way to end to euro crisis,” Feldstein said.

The options being discussed to stem the crisis, including launch of full scale quantitative easing by the European Central Bank, “are in my judgment not likely to be any more successful,” Feldstein said.

The best way to ensure the euro’s survival would be for each individual eurozone member state to enact its own tax policies to spur demand, including cutting the value-added tax for the next five years to increase consumer spending, Feldstein said.

Copper Caps Worst Year Since 2011 as China’s Economy Cools

Copper Caps Worst Year Since 2011 as China’s Economy Cools
By Agnieszka de Sousa and Joe Deaux – Dec 31, 2014, 1:34:50 PM

Copper capped the biggest annual loss in three years in London amid signs of an economic slowdown in China, the world’s largest metals consumer.

The final reading this month for the manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index for China from HSBC Holdings Plc and Markit Economics came in at 49.6, the lowest in seven months. A figure below 50 signifies contraction. China is on course for the slowest year of economic growth since 1990, according to a Bloomberg survey. Copper dropped 14 percent this year amid prospects for fading demand from the Asian nation.

“The biggest stumbling block is you have China certainly slowing down,” Tai Wong, the director of commodity products trading at BMO Capital Markets Corp. in New York, said in a telephone interview. “If people have trades that they want to put on for the start of 2015, buying copper doesn’t seem to be one of them.”

Copper for delivery in three months on the London Metal Exchange fell 0.4 percent to settle at $6,300 a metric ton ($2.86 a pound) at 2:50 p.m. The drop this year was the biggest drop since a 21 percent loss in 2011.

The global copper market is poised to swing to a surplus of 139,000 tons next year from an estimated 128,000-ton deficit this year on more output from mines, according to RBC Capital Markets. Slowing demand in China could push the market into a bigger surplus in 2015, RBC analyst Fraser Phillips said in a report last week.

Copper stockpiles tracked by the LME rose 2.8 percent to 177,025 tons, the highest since May, data showed today. Inventories are down 52 percent this year, the biggest decline in a decade.

Aluminum, lead and zinc were also lower in London, while nickel and tin advanced. The LMEX index of six metals fell 7.8 percent this year.

In New York, copper futures for March delivery declined 1 percent to $2.8255 a pound on the Comex, closing down 17 percent for 2014. Trading was 54 percent below the average of the past 100 days for this time, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

To contact the reporters on this story: Agnieszka de Sousa in London at atroszkiewic@bloomberg.net; Joe Deaux in New York at jdeaux@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Millie Munshi at mmunshi@bloomberg.net Joe Richter

More articles on london