Martes 10/08/10 La esperada decision del Fed

[admin]

Buenas noticias de Japon, ese pais dice que su economia esta mejorando.

La confianza del consumidor cae en Australia.

[admin]

Los bonos que esta vendiendo Venezuela estan pagando 12.75% de interes al anio. Son $3 billones y maduran en el 2022 (estara Chavez en el gobierno para entonces? quien sabe)

[admin]

Los precios de las propiedades en China suben 10.3% esta es la menor alza en seis meses.

Los inversionistas del Medio Oriente prefieren invertir en Asia que en Europa.

[admin]

El hang Seng -0.42%, Korea -0.12%, el Shanghai C. -0.46%, Australia -0.69%

Los futures del Dow Joens 24 puntos a la baja.

[admin]

El Nikkei +0.53%

[admin]

Oil down 81.19, Au down 1,199

[admin]

ABK -20.93% despues del cierre. Sus utilidades fueron de 0.20 por accion vs.8.24 el anio pasado.

Se prepara para la bancarrota. Espero que ningun forista tenga esa empresa.

Ambac says it's working on bankruptcy filingMarketwatch

MBI casi 8% al alza despues del cierre.

[admin]

El gobierno de Obama y BP estan cerca de llegar a un acuerdo para usar las futuras ventas del Golfo de Mexico para el fondo de compensacion de $20 billones, este acuerdo le daria a ambas partes un incentivo para continuar la produccion en el Golfo, escenario del peor derrame de petroleo de la historia.

U.S., BP Near Deal on Fund
Gulf of Mexico Oil Production Would Secure Company's $20 Billion Recovery Plan

By MONICA LANGLEY
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration and BP PLC are close to a deal to use future revenues from the oil giant's Gulf of Mexico operations to guarantee its $20 billion cleanup and compensation fund, a move that would give both sides an incentive to continue production in the Gulf, scene of the U.S.'s worst-ever offshore oil spill.

The Justice Department and BP said Monday they had completed talks to establish the fund, which is designed to cover damage claims from residents and businesses hurt by the spill and clean-up efforts by state and local governments. BP paid $3 billion into the fund ahead of schedule.

.Discussions continue, however, on how BP will guarantee its remaining obligation of $17 billion. At one point in the negotiations, the two sides discussed securing the fund with BP's oil fields in the Gulf, but the government didn't want to end up owning wells, said one person familiar with the situation.

BP has said it expects to be able to make the required payments to the $20 billion fund through its ongoing operations and asset sales. However, the administration wanted security in the form of collateral in the event that BP couldn't meet its obligation due to financial or legal problems.

The issue of collateral is the last detail to be ironed out. It is a prickly political issue because it could make the administration and BP partners of sorts in developing the Gulf.

Such a deal could provoke a backlash on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers are moving to bar BP from operating in the Gulf. Legislation approved by the House of Representatives in July would effectively prohibit the government from issuing new offshore oil leases or drilling permits to the oil company by adding a roster of requirements BP couldn't satisfy.

BP currently is the operator of 89 producing wells in the Gulf and a stakeholder in 60 other wells operated by other companies. Of these 149 producing wells, BP's share of the production is 400,000 barrels a day. BP isn't currently drilling any new Gulf wells, other than a relief well for the plugging operation.

Under the latest negotiations, BP would use production payments from its producing Gulf wells as collateral for the fund, and would provide quarterly production updates to the government. The collateral requirements would be reduced as BP pays money into the fund.

An administration official called the oil revenue "one option" for collateral, adding that the administration needed to do more work on several factors including the "financial reliability of well production" in BP's Gulf operations. The Gulf region accounts for about 10% of BP's production of oil and gas and is one of the company's most profitable areas of business.



.The two sides met Monday at the White House. BP's soon-to-be chief executive Robert Dudley and another BP executive sat down with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and the White House energy and climate change adviser Carol Browner. The administration officials "impressed upon BP the importance of living up to their commitment to long-term recovery, and underscored that the Administration will remain vigilant in ensuring that promise is met," the White House said in a written statement.

It's unclear how any agreement on collateral would affect the administration's moratorium on exploratory deep-water drilling in the Gulf. The Interior Department issued a new ban in July after its initial order was struck down by a federal judge. The Obama administration estimates the ban has idled 33 drilling rigs; the oil industry says it has resulted in millions of dollars in lost wages. Rigs currently producing oil aren't affected.

If this unusual collateral arrangement is inked, it would represent a new level of interaction between BP and the federal government. Both sides have been tied together, for good and bad, since the Deepwater Horizon rig sank in April.

The escrow fund has become a focus of both the White House and BP now that the runaway well is close to being permanently sealed. President Barack Obama, who announced the $20 billion fund earlier this summer after meeting with BP executives, wants to show he is holding the oil giant responsible for the environmental and financial mess caused by the spill.

BP, for its part, wants to dispel rumors it is dragging its feet on helping the Gulf. "Establishing this trust and making the initial deposit ahead of schedule further demonstrates our commitment to making it right in the Gulf Coast," said Mr. Dudley, the recently named BP chief executive, in a written statement.

In a written statement Monday, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrilli said: "We have made clear that the company still needs to ensure that the necessary funds will be available if something happens to the subsidiary that established the trust, and we look forward to completion of an appropriate security arrangement in the near future."

In setting up the escrow fund Monday, BP named two individual trustees, a former federal judge and a law-school dean. It also selected Citigroup as the corporate trustee. BP also has retained former Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman to advise on how the oil giant can pledge oil revenue to the U.S. government as collateral.

BP is scheduled to make the next payment into the fund of $2 billion in the fourth quarter of this year. After that, $1.25 billion will be deposited per quarter until the total $20 billion has been paid.

Separately, BP said early this week that an operation to plug the troubled well, called a "static kill," was successful. Now BP is in the final days of drilling a relief well as a precaution. This "bottom kill" operation will pour heavy drilling fluid and cement into the well to ensure that it never again spills oil into the Gulf.

[admin]

Los inversionistas salieron de la accion de HP pero sus clientes apoyan a la compania y no la abandonaran.

[admin]

Disney reporta utilidades

La decision del Fed: Quantitative easing or not, esa es la pregunta.

On Deck Tuesday: The Mouse and The Fed
Earnings:

Walt Disney Co. — Analysts expect EPS of 58 cents on $9.38 billion in revenue when the media and entertainment giant reports after the close of trading.

Economics:

7:30 a.m. ET — The NFIB small business optimism index is released.

8:30 a.m. ET — Preliminary second-quarter productivity and costs data is set to be released. Back in early June the productivity number for the first quarter was revised down to 2.8% , versus the fourth quarter of 2009. (Originally it was pegged at 3.6%.) While productivity growth is a boon for profits, it restrains employment and incomes. At a certain point, economists say, soaring productivity has to slow as companies step up operations that may not be essential in the short term but that affect the company in the long run, such as research and development or marketing strategy.

10 a.m. ET — Monthly wholesale trade numbers for June are expected to rise 0.6%.

2:15 p.m. ET — The Fed’s rate decision and hotly awaited statement. As we mentioned before, QE or not QE, that is the question.

[admin]

Hoy dia escuche en la radio que una empresa de 100,000 empleados cuyo costo por el seguro de salud es de $25 millones subiria bajo el nuevo plan de Obama a $95 billones, el CEO dijo que no tenia remedio mas que eliminar el seguro para todos y pagar la multa, eso les saldria mas barato. Ademas dijo que todos los empleados partime trabajaran menos de 30 horas para no verse obligados a ofrecer el seguro de salud. Dijo que lo sentian mucho pero que simplemente no habia otra salida.

El anio pasado no ganaron un centavo, solo les alcanzo para pagar los gastos.

[admin]

El CEO de una empresa relacionada al sector automotriz dijo que cuando iba a hacer negocios al estado de California sentia que abandonaba el pais y que estaba en el extranjero. Dijo que cuando le preguntaban que tipo de negocio tenia en California, decia que era cobrador de impuestos del estado. El asunto es que California se lleva el 13% de los ingresos de la empresa mientras las utilidades de la compania no llegan al 5%.

Como se puede hacer empresa de esa manera. Por ese motivo mas y mas empresas estan abandonando ese estado.

Por eso las peliculas ya no se filman en California por que es simplemente prohibitivo hacerlo.

Una pena.

[admin]

Desempleo: que haria Reagan?

No ha habido ninguna recesion en el pais en los ultimos 60 anios que haya visto una mayor destruccion de empleos.

El pais sufre de la peor caida en el empleo desde la Segunda Guerra Mundia. La economia, en su punto mas alto durante el gobierno de Bush tenia al 63% de los adultos Americanos con trabajos. Ahora solo el 58.4% tiene un empleo esa es una caida de casi 5%.

Unemployment: What Would Reagan Do?
No other recession in the last 60 years saw such rapid job destruction.

By HENRY OLSEN
Friday's grim labor report is the latest confirmation that our economy is not recovering. A loss of 131,000 jobs and a stagnant 9.5% unemployment rate are bad enough. But a deeper look—at the little-known civilian employment-population ratio—shows how hard it's going to be to pull out of our crisis, and why the Obama administration's policies are unlikely to do the job.

In contrast to the better-known unemployment rate, which measures the percentage of working-age Americans who are actively seeking jobs but do not have one, the civilian employment-population ratio measures the percentage of working-age Americans who have a job, whether they are seeking one or not.

Incomes Fall in Most Metro Areas
.This distinction matters because the state of an economy affects whether someone looks for a job at all. Bad times discourage potential workers from seeking jobs; boom times encourage marginal workers to seek them. As our population grows, we have more working-age adults who need work. A growing economy needs to replace the jobs we have lost and add new ones to accommodate these added potential workers.

Looking at this ratio, America is suffering its largest drop since World War II. When the economy was at its Bush-era height, in 2007, a little over 63% of adult Americans had jobs. Friday's report shows that only about 58.4% do, a decline of nearly five percentage points. While the unemployment rate remains steady at 9.5%, the employment-population ratio continues to fall each month. In April it was 58.8%, in May 58.7%, and in June 58.5%.

Since America has about 238 million noninstitutionalized civilian adults of working age, this decrease means that we have nearly 12 million fewer jobs today than we would have if the employment-population rate were still at its 2007 level of 63%.

No other recession in the past 60 years saw such rapid job destruction in either absolute or percentage terms. In the 1979-82 recession, unemployment topped out at a higher rate, 10.8%, but the employment-population ratio declined by only three percentage points, to 57% from 60%.

[admin]

Esto es algo que vengo diciendo hace tiempo, lo que Bernanke hace con la mano derecha, Obama lo destruye con la mano izquierda. Es una confabulacion. Nada puede funcionar si la politica monetaria no esta acompaniada de la politica fiscal.

El Fed, el Falso Salvador

La politica monetaria no puede contrarestar la equivocada politica fiscal y regulatoria.

La Biblia dice: nosotros sabemos quien es nuestro salvador. Y en Wall Street y Washington estos dias, el redentor economico es la voz del Fed. Cuando el Fed se reuna nuevamente hoy dia, los mercados estaran esperando un movimiento de politica mometaria facil que se supone prevendra la deflation, llenara de vigor a la economia , revivira el mercado laboral y pondra agua en Chateau Petrus.

Es una religion tentadora, la fe en los magicos poderes de Ben Bernanke y su politica monetaria, es peligrosa. Pone demasiada esperanza en una sola politica , ignora el significado del riesgo de mantener los intereses tan bajos y sobre todo hace creer a la clase politica que no son responsables de la politica fiscal y las politicas regulatorias como barreras para promover una economia mas robusta.

El gobierno de Obama piensa que puede gastar todo lo que quiera y que al final el Fed saldra al rescate.

Bernanke tiene que decirle a Obama que su trabajo es mantener la estabilidad de los precio y no convertir sus malas politicas en vino.



The False Fed Savior
Monetary policy can't make up for failed fiscal and regulatory policy

As the Bible says, we know that our redeemer liveth. And on Wall Street and Washington these days, the economic redeemer of choice is the Federal Reserve. When the Fed's Open Market Committee meets again today, markets are expecting a move toward easier money that is supposed to prevent deflation, re-ignite a lackluster recovery, revive the jobs market, and turn water into Chateau Petrus.

It's a tempting religion, this faith in the magical powers of Ben Bernanke and monetary policy, but it's also dangerous. It puts far too much hope in a single policy lever, ignores the significant risks of perpetually easy money, and above all lets the political class dodge responsibility for its fiscal and regulatory policies that have become the real barrier to more robust economic growth.

***
The latest impetus for easing comes from July's weak jobs report, which has fed the growing fear that the U.S. is following Japan into a deflationary spiral. Deflation—a falling price level—is as undesirable as inflation and is best avoided.

But is deflation really a clear and present danger? While the consumer price index has declined in the last three months, the overall price level rose by 1.1% over the 12 months that ended in June. Commodity prices in particular have remained strong, reflecting higher demand as the global economy continues to recover, especially in Asia. Average hourly earnings are also slowly rising again in the U.S., assuming you have a job. Even the biggest deflation-phobes count the odds of it occurring at only one in four.

.The Japan analogy is especially rich, coming as it does from those who have urged America to heed the same spending stimulus policies that also failed in Japan. Tokyo careened into deflation even as it embarked on a two-decade Keynesian spending spree that has sent its debt to GDP ratio nearly to 200%. Among those who urged Japan on: Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, then at the Clinton Treasury, now at the Obama Treasury and White House. The real Japan analogy to the current U.S. economy is the failure of spending stimulus.

The deflation alarmists also give the impression that the easy-money antidote is a free lunch. We'd have thought the aftermath of the last deflation scare, circa 2003, would have exploded that bromide. To fight what turned out to be the illusion of falling prices, the Fed maintained negative real interest rates from 2003-2005, creating a huge subsidy for credit and the start of the housing mania.

As for the current moment, the Fed has maintained its nearly zero interest rate target for 20 months, while expanding its balance sheet by some $2 trillion. By any definition this is historically easy monetary policy, and not without costs of its own. Zero interest rates punish savers, who in turn can create new investment distortions as they desperately search for higher yield. Zero rates also favor government borrowers, which can finance their deficits at historically cheap rates, over private investors.

Stanford economist Ron McKinnon has suggested that the extended zero rate policy has also created a "liquidity trap" by stifling the interbank lending market and thus the incentive among banks to extend retail and corporate credit. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard recently issued a similar warning about the impact of the Fed's promise to keep rates near zero for an "extended period," even as he urged the Fed to pursue more "quantitative easing" (buying bonds directly) as an alternative.

Above all, the easy money solution misdiagnoses the real U.S. problem. The economy doesn't suffer from a shortage of money. It is suffering from a shortage of confidence and animal spirits. Banks have plenty of reserves to lend, while U.S. corporations have repaired their balance sheets enough that they have something close to $2 trillion in cash on hand. Even the U.S. consumer is saving more. The problem is that Americans won't invest more or take more risks amid Washington policies that are hostile to private markets and have created only greater uncertainty and higher costs for doing business.

Regular readers of these columns know the litany: Taxes on capital and incomes are set to rise sharply next January, and again in 2013 to finance ObamaCare; record levels of government spending have created the expectation of still higher taxes and borrowing in the future; the health-care and financial industries are being turned upside down by new rules to be written in the coming months; politically directed credit and subsidies have distorted the energy, automobile and other markets, favoring some companies and business models over others; antitrust policy is punishing successful companies like Intel; and now the FCC is proposing to rewrite the rules for Internet and telecom investment.

Amid such a political assault, it is a tribute to American business that it is willing to take any risks at all.

***
This is the real root of our current economic malaise—the conceit of Congress and the White House that more government spending, taxing and rule-making can force-feed economic expansion. Now that this great government experiment is so obviously failing, the politicians and the Wall Street Keynesians who cheered the stimulus are asking the Federal Reserve to save the day. Mr. Bernanke should tell them politely but firmly that his job is to maintain a stable price level, not to turn bad policy into wine.

[admin]

Como siempre digo Obama se tapa las orejas y les saca la lengua. No escucha, pero no importa todos los Americanos estan leyendo este articulo, hasta lo han pasado por la television. Muy bien dicho.

...........................................
Por que no estoy contratando personal nuevo
Cuando tu sumas todo, cuesta $74,000 el contratar a alguien $44,000 es el sueldo del empleado y $12,000 en beneficios.

Con el desempleo casi en 10% y las companias sentadas en cash, uno pensaria que tarde o temprano las empresas comenzaran a contratar personal. Creo que va a ser mas tarde que temprano, mucho mas tarde y aqui les digo por que.

Le presento a Sally (no es su verdadero nombre) Sally es una empleada ejemplar y su sueldo esta mas o menos en el medio de las 83 personas que trabajan en mi pequenia empresa en New Jersey donde proveemos audio systems para uso educacional, comercial e industrial. Ella ha estado con nosotros por 15 anios. Ella tiene un diploma de secundaria y ha tenido cierto tipo de entrenamiento especializado. Ella gana $59,000 al anio (en teoria) En realidad, ella solo gana $44,000 por que $15,000 son deducidos en impuestos y otras deducciones, y esa es la gran diferencia entre los sueldos brutos y netos.

Antes que ella deposite su cheque en el banco, su sueldo es reducido en $2,376 en pago de seguro medico y dental que la compania provee. Y despues el gobierno se cobra lo que le corresponde. Ella paga $126 por seguro de desempleo, $149 por seguro de incapacidad y $856 por Medicare. Estos son gastos pequenio. El estado de New Jersey le quita $1,893 en impuestos a los ingresos. El gobierno Federal le quita $3,661 para Social Security y otros $6,250 por impuestos a los ingresos. Los casi $13,000 tomados por las varias entidades gubernamentales son el 22% de su sueldo bruto, el cual se va a Washington o a Trenton. Ella tiene suerte de no vivir en New York donde sus impuestos seria aun mas altos.

Y eso es lo que Sally paga, ahora lo que paga la empresa por contratarla:

Emplear a Sally cuesta mucho tambie. My compania tiene que mandar un cheque por $74,000 para que Sally pueda recibir sus $59,000 nominales. El seguro de salud es un costo grande y adicional a todos los demas" Mientras Sally paga cerca a $2,400 porsu seguro de salud, my compania paga el resto que son $9,561 por cada empleado con esposo en gasto medico y dental. My compania tambien les da seguro de vida y otros seguros por un costo de $153. Todo junto los beneficios que le da la empresa a Sally suman $9,714.

Y el gobierno federal y del estado quieren algo extra. Ellos se toman $56 por seguro de desempleo, $149 por incapacidad, $303 por compensacion en caso de accidente de trabajo y $505 por seguro de desempleo. Finalmente el gobierno me hace pagar $856 por Meicare y $3,661 por Social Security. (aparte de lo que ella tiene que pagar)

Cuando se suma todo realmente cuesta $74,000 poner $44,000 en el bolsillo de Sally y hay que darle $12,000 en beneficios. La realidad es que el gobierno le impone un 33% de impuesto o cargo al trabajo de Sally todos los anios.

Porque mi compania es forzada por el gobierno para cobrarle sus impuestos, nosotros somos cobradores de impuesos, nosostros hemos perdido el control de una gran parte de la estructura de costos. Los aumentos de impuestos, ya sea por incapacidad, Medicare, etc. cambia dramaticamente nuestra situacion financiera. Con el gobierno gastando como lo hace haciendo crecer el deficit a la velocidad que lo estan haciendo, todos sabemos que impuestos mas altos nos esperan en el futuro cercano - tanto para mi compania como para Sally tambien.

Las companias han sido presionadas para proveer servicio de salud. En un mundo mas sano, el seguro de salid deberia ser algo que los individuos compran por su cuenta de la misma manera que compran el seguro de carro. Ahora agregar el costo del ObamaCare es una locura.

Cada anio, nosotros negociamos la renovacion de nuestra cobertura de salul. Este anio, nuestro proveedor ha demandado un aumento del 28% a la prima. Nosotros nunca antes habiamos enfrentado un aumento tan alto; en cada uno de los dos ultimos anios fue el 10%.

Para contrarestar el aumento de impuestos y el costo de las primas de lso seguros de salud, mi compania tienen que mantener mayores ganancias - algo que es imposible en este verano de recuperacion. Nosotros no podemos pasar costos adiccionales a nuestros clientes. Solo los gobiernos pueden subir los precios repetidamente y pretender que no habran consecuencias.

Y asi la situacion economica fuera mas alentadora, el aumento de las ventas son siempre inciertos y caros. Asi yo quisisera contratar mas personal para crecer, estaria aumentando la vulnerabilidad de mi empresa a las decisiones del gobierno de aumentar los impuestos, a la politica que hacen el seguro de salud mas caro y a las dificultades del ambiente economico.

La vida de los negocios esta lleno de incertidumbres, pero yo estoy seguro que cada vez que empleo a alquien nuevo, mis obligaciones con el gobierno van a subir. Desde donde estoy sentado, el mensaje del gobierno es muy claro: Crear un nuevo empleo acarrea un precio castigador.



Why I'm Not Hiring
When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits.

By MICHAEL P. FLEISCHER
With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

.Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

.Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare.

Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums—for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.

To offset tax increases and steepening rises in health-insurance premiums, my company needs sustainably higher profits and sales—something unlikely in this "summer of recovery." We can't pass the additional costs onto our customers, because the market is too tight and we'd lose sales. Only governments can raise prices repeatedly and pretend there will be no consequences.

And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company's vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government's message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.

Mr. Fleischer is president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.