www.inversionperu.com

Viernes

Eventos economicos

Expiracion cuadriple de options
Capital international del Tesoro
Sentimiento del consumidor

Quadruple Witching

Market Focus »

Treasury International Capital
9:00 AM ET

Consumer Sentiment

Moody's puso en revision para un downgrade a UBS.

RIMM reporto utilidades muy por debajo de las expectativas, sus ganancias cayeron 59%.

Treasurys Price Chg Yield %
2-Year Note* -1/32 0.198
10-Year Note* -25/32 2.079
* at close

9:01 p.m. EDT 09/15/11Futures Last Change Settle
Crude Oil 89.22 -0.18 89.40
Gold 1784.8 3.4 1781.4
E-mini Dow 11361 -14 11375
E-mini S&P 500 1202.50 -1.75 1204.25

9:10 p.m. EDT 09/15/11Currencies Last (bid) Prior Day †
Japanese Yen (USD/JPY) 76.75 76.70
Euro (EUR/USD) 1.3848 1.3876
† Late Thursday in New York.

Copper September 15,20:59
Bid/Ask 3.9504 - 3.9520
Change -0.0068 -0.17%
Low/High 3.9481 - 3.9649
Charts

Nickel September 15,19:59
Bid/Ask 9.8448 - 9.8607
Change +0.0000 +0.00%
Low/High 9.8448 - 9.8607
Charts

Aluminum September 15,20:58
Bid/Ask 1.0567 - 1.0583
Change +0.0017 +0.16%
Low/High 1.0547 - 1.0586
Charts

Zinc September 15,20:59
Bid/Ask 0.9826 - 0.9863
Change -0.0023 -0.23%
Low/High 0.9825 - 0.9866
Charts

Lead September 15,20:42
Bid/Ask 1.0918 - 1.0977
Change -0.0023 -0.21%
Low/High 1.0859 - 1.1000

Au up 1,783.30, Oil sin cambio a 89.40

Los futures del Dow Jones 1 punto a la baja.

Por primera vez un marino recibe la Medalla de Honor en vida desde la Guerra de Vietnan.

Marine Who Saved Dozens Gets Medal of Honor

By JULIAN E. BARNES
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama presented the nation's highest military award Thursday to Sgt. Dakota Meyer, the first living Marine to earn the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War.

President Barack Obama presents Sgt. Dakota Meyer with the Medal of Honor during an East Room ceremony at the White House on Thursday.
.Sgt. Meyer was recognized for his actions on Sept. 8, 2009, when he repeatedly braved enemy fire to rescue members of a Marine patrol ambushed by 50 Taliban in the eastern Afghanistan village of Ganjgal.

"Today we pay tribute to an American who placed himself in the thick of the fight again and again and again," Mr. Obama said.

Including Sgt. Meyer, six service members—three living and three deceased—have received the Medal of Honor for actions in Afghanistan. Four service members have been recognized, all posthumously, for bravery during the Iraq war.

The 2009 ambush leading to Sgt. Meyer's recognition remains controversial. Despite the large Taliban force, U.S. artillery support was denied and helicopter support was late in arriving, as commanders worried they might violate a tactical directive to limit the use of air power when civilians could be injured or killed.

As a result, the patrol was pinned down for hours. Leading the contingent were members of a team that trained Afghan soldiers, of which Sgt. Meyer—who was a corporal at the time—belonged.

As the fighting raged, he and Staff Sgt. Juan Rodriguez-Chavez were ordered to remain with a Humvee outside the battle zone.

"We requested a few times and were denied to come in," Sgt. Meyer said in a statement released by the Marine Corps. "Finally, we knew what we needed to do and decided we were going to go on in on our own."

During the White House ceremony, Mr. Obama said that what Sgt. Meyer did next would be told "for generations."

"They were defying orders but they were doing what they thought was right," the president said.

The two Marines entered the ambush area with Sgt. Meyer manning the machine gun on the Humvee turret and Sgt. Rodriguez-Chavez at the wheel. The enemy began shooting rifles, firing rockets and launching mortars at their vehicle.

Sgt. Meyer began evacuating the wounded and dead from the ambush zone. But he was unable to find the members of his training team.

As they pressed deeper into the ambush area, Sgt. Rodriguez-Chavez warned of the risk that the Humvee could get stuck in the rough terrain. "I guess we'll die with them," Sgt. Meyer responded, according to the military's account of the raid.

On a fifth and final run into the fighting area, Sgt. Meyer led two other officers in search of the missing training-team members.

A UH-60 helicopter, which by then had arrived to aid the Marines, spotted four bodies.

Ignoring the continuing small-arms fire and a wound to his arm, Sgt. Meyer ran to the fallen Marines. With the help of the others, he retrieved their remains and brought them out.

Mr. Obama said Sgt. Meyer grappled with the grief of the day, because he was ultimately unable to save some of his other team members. But, the president said, "You did your duty and you kept your faith with the highest traditions of the Marine Corps that you love."

Mr. Obama credited Sgt. Meyer not only with retrieving the bodies of his fallen team members, but also saving the lives of 13 Marines and 23 Afghan soldiers.

Sgt. Meyer, who is 23 years old, left active duty in 2010 and joined the Marine reserves.

Yenn down 76.76

Ag down 39.63

Euro down 1.3854

El Nikkei+1.77%, Australia +2.08%, Korea +2.93%

Los futures del Dow Jones 12 puntos a la baja.

Tomorrow’s Tape: Nice and Quiet

By Mark Gongloff

EverettEconomics:

9:00 a.m. ET: TIC data. Yes, Treasury International Capital data. Christmas time for… well, for nobody.
9:55 a.m.: University of Michigan consumer sentiment data. Let’s get it together, consumers, you’re our only hope.
Earnings:

None

Mas manipulacion del gobierno, me cuentan como sale el experimento en unos anios.

----------------------------
Brasil le sube 30 los impuestos a los productos industriales de autos, excepto para los que se producen en mas del 65% de las partes en los paises del Mercosur o Mexico. La medida aumenta el costo de los carros importados en hasta 28% y fuerza a los fabricantes de autos extranjeros a comprar partes fabricadas en Brasil.

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

Brazil Lifts Tax to Protect Domestic Automakers From Cheap Chinese Imports
By Arnaldo Galvao and Matthew Bristow - Sep 15, 2011 7:12 PM ET .

Brazil’s government announced tax incentives for local carmakers in a bid to protect jobs from a surge in imports that’s been fueled by a rally in the currency and competition from China.

Finance Minister Guido Mantega raised the so-called industrial products tax on carmakers by 30 percentage points, except for those who source 65 percent of their parts from the Mercosur trade bloc or Mexico. The measure will raise the cost of imported cars by as much as 28 percent, and force foreign automakers to build key components in Brazil, he said.

“These measures are going to stimulate national production and guarantee investment,” Mantega told reporters in Brasilia. “If we don’t do anything, we are going to lose space to imports, and we are not going to permit that.”

Carmakers based in Brazil have been hit by a rally in the real, which has sucked in cheap imports from China and elsewhere. Brazil’s motor industry, the world’s fifth-biggest, is dominated by Volkswagen AG (VOW), Fiat SpA (F) and General Motors Co. who between them have about two thirds of the market.

Chinese automakers’ market share of the market expanded to 3.29 percent in August, from virtually zero in April 2010, according to the national car dealers’ association Fenabrave.

Cheap Imports
Mantega said the government is worried by the rise in car inventories, and the spare capacity in the industry.

The real hit a 12-year high against the dollar in July, and is up 36 percent since the start of 2009, as near-zero interest rates in the U.S. and Europe led investors to seek higher returns elsewhere.

Fiat, General Motors and Ford Motor Co. (F) have all lost market share in Brazil over the last year.

Carmakers must meet six of 11 requirements ranging from building of transmissions to the assembly of cars in Brazil in order to avoid the higher tax, Mantega said. The new rules will apply until December 2012, he said.

JAC Motors, Suzuki Motor Corp. (7269) and Chery Automobile Co. could reconsider their decision to invest in Brazil due to the rise in the tax, the president of the Brazilian Association of Vehicle Importers José Luis Gandini told reporters in Brasilia.

Growth Outlook
Research firm J.D. Power and Associates in July cut its growth forecast for 2011 light vehicle sales in Brazil to 3.4 percent, from 9.8 percent at the start of the year, as inventories rose and the economy showed signs of cooling.

Brazil’s car industry has also been hit by central bank measures to curb credit growth. Auto loans fell to 8.4 billion reais in July, down 24 percent from December when the central bank set capital requirements encouraging higher down payments and fewer installments on car purchases.

Since last year, Chinese carmakers Chery, Chongqing Lifan Auto Co. and Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Co.’s JAC Motors have all announced plans to build plants in Brazil.

Por que el plan de Obama se queda corto.

Thomas J. Donohue quien escribe este articulo es el Presidente de la Camara de Comercio, alguien que representa al motor del pais. Merece ser escuchado.

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

En lugar de excepciones de impuestos temporales y mas gastos, nosotros necesitamos incentivos de impuestos permanentes, desarrollar nuestros recursos de energia y reformar los beneficios sociales.

Aunque el plan de Obama contiene algunas ideas que los negocios Americanos apoyan, se queda corto. Esta enfocado demasiado en el gasto del gobierno y recortes de impuestos temporales y muy poco en el comercio internacional, energia, impuestos, regulacion y reforma de los beneficios sociales que impulsaria nuestra economia y devolveria el mercado laboral a la vida.

El nuevo plan de Obama costara $447 billones y no se recortara ningun gasto para pagar por el plan. En su lugar, los exitosos pequenios negocios, industrias productivas y aquellos Americanos que son los mas capaces de invertir y generar crecimiento son los que pagaran mas impuestos para pagar por el plan de Obama. Cualquier empleo que sea creado por estas medidas, sera eliminado por los aumentos de impuestos. Esto no tiene ningun sentido economico.


Why the Jobs Plan Falls Short
Instead of temporary tax breaks and more spending, we need permanent tax incentives, development of our energy resources, and entitlement reform

By THOMAS J. DONOHUE
While the jobs plan President Obama proposed last week contains some ideas that American business supports, it falls short. It focuses too much on government spending and temporary tax breaks and too little on the trade, energy, tax, regulatory and entitlement reforms that will jolt our economy and job market back to life.

The proposed payroll tax cut would likely offer a measure of relief for some small and medium-size businesses. Eligible enterprises that were already planning to add employees will welcome the hiring tax credits offered in the plan. Yet one-year, one-time tax changes will not create new jobs in significant numbers—and unfortunately, neither will the plan as a whole. It fails to adequately address the fundamental challenge facing our economy—too little growth—or the business reality that keeps companies from expanding payrolls—too few customers.

And this week we have learned that the administration won't cut one dime of spending to offset the $447 billion cost of the jobs bill. Instead, successful small businesses, productive industries and those Americans most capable of investing in growth will foot the bill through major tax increases. Any jobs that might have been supported by other measures in the plan would be more than wiped out by these tax hikes. This doesn't make economic sense.

So what should we do instead? The president touched on some of the needed steps to spur growth, boost demand and trigger hiring, but he failed to go far enough and overlooked some important opportunities.

He was right to call for passage of the long-pending free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. But the United States should also be vigorously negotiating new trade and investment agreements around the world. The White House should administratively complete the task of modernizing arcane export-control rules. Reaching the 95% of the world's consumers who live outside our borders is the best way to find new customers for our businesses and create new jobs.

Additionally, if the U.S. restored its share of global travel and tourism to what it was in 2000, we could create 1.3 million American jobs. Standing in the way are interminable visa procedures, maddening airport hassles and a growing perception around the world that the U.S. does not welcome international visitors. The president and Congress can change that.

Mr. Obama was right to call on Congress to support investments in infrastructure. But rather than focus on one-shot infusions of money for favored projects (much like the 2009 stimulus program), the president should urge Congress to enact a multiyear reauthorization of the nation's core surface transportation, aviation and water resources programs with full funding. By providing predictable funding streams, removing regulatory roadblocks and establishing supportive legal frameworks, we could also unlock up to $250 billion in private infrastructure capital and create huge numbers of new jobs.

We need affordable energy—and our nation could have plenty of it, and the jobs that come with it, by responsibly developing the enormous resources beneath our lands and off our shores. Producing more American energy would be a boon to our economy, our workers, our national security and our government tax coffers. The administration has yet to seize this extraordinary opportunity. It should.

Finally, Mr. Obama touched only briefly on tax, regulatory and entitlement reforms. These reforms should be the centerpiece of an American jobs plan—not mere footnotes.

Instead of piecemeal tax breaks, for example, Congress and the president should negotiate and pass comprehensive pro-growth tax reform that lowers individual and corporate rates and broadens the tax base.

And while the administration has recently taken some steps to rein in regulations, it does not fully appreciate the negative impact that its new regulatory rulemakings—in health care, labor, capital markets and environmental policy—are having on business confidence, expansion and jobs. Congress must reaffirm its oversight role, and the president should issue executive orders to reform the federal environmental permitting process for new infrastructure and energy projects, and to declare a time-out on new major discretionary regulations.

Without meaningful entitlement reform, an ever-increasing share of the government's budget and the nation's wealth will be eaten away by runaway costs and unsustainable obligations. No economy can grow or create jobs at its full potential when faced with such massive and expanding claims on its capital, credit and other resources.

Business likes bottom lines. Here's mine: Rather than tinker around the edges with temporary tax cuts and more government spending, the administration and Congress should embrace a bolder and more effective plan to open markets, attract new investments in infrastructure, develop American energy, and create powerful growth incentives by reforming taxes, regulations and entitlements. Start doing these things and America's private sector can get on with the job of putting America back to work.

Mr. Donohue is president and CEO of the United States Chamber of Commerce.

El dolar al rescate...de Europa

Mientras los bancos centrales ayudan a la banca Francesa, nosotros recibimos una llamada telefonica.
-----------

Este articulo es escrito por el WSJ, ellos fueron los primeros en alerta de que la banca Europea no tenia acceso a dolares o que tenian problemas para financiar sus operaciones en dolares, inicialmente la noticia fue negada y hasta llegaron al extremo de exigir una investigacion contra el WSJ (BNP) a raiz de la segun ellos, infundada noticia. El gobierno Frances reclamo que la noticia publicada por el WSJ era danina a la banca Francesa.

Al final este diario tenia razon.

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

Dollars to the European Rescue
As central banks help French banks, we get a phone call..

The world's central banks rode in on their Brinks trucks yesterday to stem the global run on European banks, creating new vehicles for access to U.S.-dollar liquidity. European bank stocks promptly soared, and now it would be nice if Europe's political and financial leaders finally used this reprieve to address their solvency issues.

The central-bank move is a de facto admission that dollar funding has been drying up for many European banks. We warned on June 27 ("Money-Market Mayhem") about the dangers to U.S. money funds from their lending to banks heavily invested in Greek and other sovereign debt. The money-fund lobby said we were exaggerating, but the funds have since cut their lending dramatically. This is prudent, since the world doesn't need a repeat of 2008 when a U.S. money fund broke its $1 net asset value.

The problem is that this withdrawal by money funds reduces the options for European banks to finance their dollar-lending operations. Moody's downgraded two of the three biggest French banks on Wednesday, citing liquidity and short-term funding needs. The CEO of Societe Generale—one of the downgraded banks, with Credit Agricole—said his bank was "adjusting to the reduction in the money-market fund exposure."

We received our own immersion in the issue this week after we published an op-ed Tuesday by contributor Nicolas Lecaussin quoting an unnamed executive from BNP Paribas as saying the bank had lost its access to dollar funding. BNP immediately said it was "fully able to obtain USD funding in the normal course of business, either directly or through swaps." It also acknowledged a "reduction and shortening of resources" from U.S. money funds.

In its official statement, BNP Paribas said only that its borrowing from U.S. money funds had recently declined to €36 billion outstanding from €46 billion, so we asked the bank to support its claim that it was "fully able" to meet its dollar needs. BNP's treasurer, Michel Eydoux, elaborated in an interview that "some of the money market funds have not renewed" their loans and others are of shorter maturities—generally one month instead of three to 12 months previously.

He said BNP is thus relying more on foreign-exchange swap contracts for its dollar needs. The counterparties to these swaps are, according to Mr. Eydoux, "banks and corporations who want the same maturities" that BNP is seeking and can no longer obtain from the money markets. The bank is also trying to expand its dollar deposit base among corporations and governments in Asia and Middle East that need someplace to keep their dollars.

Much to our surprise, BNP Paribas also requested that the French equivalent of the SEC, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers, "open an investigation into the publication of erroneous information about its funding in dollars in an article in the Opinions section of the Wall Street Journal."

The AMF is "tasked with safeguarding investments and maintaining orderly financial markets in France" and it can also conduct investigations, although by its own account its jurisdiction does not normally extend to the press. An official at the AMF declined to say how often newspaper articles lead to investigations.

Meanwhile, a senior French government official called us "as a reader," he said, to express his shock that we had published Mr. Lecaussin's op-ed. The article, he said, "was quite damaging to this bank and to French banks generally." At least he conceded that perhaps he was "abusing his position" as a top government official to express his displeasure.

We certainly hope the French government and BNP intention isn't to shut down reporting on French bank problems. We can't imagine, say, White House chief of staff Bill Daley calling us about a story on Bank of America, or BofA siccing the SEC on us. Relations between banks and the government are closer in France than they are in the U.S., but we'd have thought French politicians had enough problems without picking a fight over press freedom.

All the more so because we're far from the only messengers. In a report last week, JP Morgan analysts argued that French banks as a group had one of the lowest ratios of highly liquid assets to short-term funding needs in Europe. JP Morgan pegged BNP's so-called liquidity-coverage ratio at 70%. When asked about that figure, one BNP official sputtered that JP Morgan's own coverage ratio was only 52%. Under the Basel III international banking standards, banks are required to achieve a 100% liquidity-coverage ratio by 2015.

The funding status of French banks is news because fears of 2008 are still fresh and Europe's woes could spill into U.S. banks and the larger world financial system. Europe's banks have done far less than American banks since 2008 to strengthen their capital base, own up to their bad assets, and generally clean up their act. Until they do, the world's lenders will treat them with well-deserved wariness.

Obam dice que quiere crear empleos, de verdad? quien le cree?

Aqui la noticia de Boeing, el sindicato apoyado por Obama no quiere que Boeing abra una planta en South Carolina porque en ese estado los trabajadores no estan obligados a ser sindicalizados. Boeing ha dicho que la planta ya esta construida y si no los dejan abrir la planta, la abrira en otro pais. Muy bonito ahora exportando los empleos tambien.

Que tragedia, y no era que uno es libre de trabajar donde quiera. No bajo el gobierno de Obama.

-----------

Boeing and Barack
Only eight House Democrats buck Big Labor on the NLRB.

President Obama has so far come down firmly on both sides of the debate over the National Labor Relations Board's attempt to stop Boeing from building airplanes in South Carolina. A vote in the House yesterday may finally force his hand.

The House passed a measure that would bar the NLRB from telling a company where it can operate. It's hard to believe such a bill is necessary in the land of the free, but in the Obama era no economic verity is safe. The NLRB, which is dominated by Mr. Obama's appointees, has sued to stop Boeing from building some of its 787 Dreamliners in South Carolina because it is a right-to-work state that doesn't force union membership on workers.

The bill passed 238-186, with eight Democrats joining all but seven Republicans. So few defections shows how much sway Big Labor still carries in Democratic ranks because most Americans favor the right to invest where you want. The bill will now move to the Senate, where Democrats may be able to filibuster it—but at some political cost. It'll be interesting to see where Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Jon Tester (Montana), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Joe Manchin (West Virginia) and Bill Nelson (Florida) come down on this one.

As for Mr. Obama, he's said he favors the free movement of capital but that the NLRB is an independent agency and so he won't take a position. He thus gets to please labor by staying silent without offending CEOs, who he is trying court for his re-election campaign. Now that the legislation is moving he may have to show what he really thinks, and whether he wants to force a great U.S. manufacturer like Boeing to build aircraft only with union labor in America—and perhaps have to send more jobs overseas as a result.

Friega a los ricos? No, friega a los pobres.

El plan de trabajo de Obama limita la deduccion de impuestos a las obras de caridad, asi castiga a los que reciben, no solamente a los que dan.

El que escribe este ariticulo es un millonario, fue el CEO de Columbia Pictures y ex Comisionado de la Liga Mayor de Baseball.

By Fay Vincent

Yo soy uno de los que Obama constantemente trata de gravar mas agresivamente. Yo estoy dispuesto a pagar mas y los impuestos adicionales son parte de una politica de impuestos razonable. Pero Obama quiere financiar su plan de empleos restringiendo la deduccion de las contribuciones a las obras de caridad.

En mi opinion esta medida castiga a las iglesias en general, las escuelas y las organizaciones de caridad que necesitan el dinero.



Soak the Rich? No, Soak the Needy
Obama's proposal to limit charitable tax deductions punishes those who receive, not just those who give
By FAY VINCENT
I am one of those people President Obama continually tries to tax more aggressively. And I'm willing to pay more if the additional taxes are part of a sensible tax policy. But Mr. Obama wants to pay for much of his new jobs legislation by restricting the deductibility of charitable contributions (along with other items such as home mortgage interest and state taxes) by those he has defined as wealthy.

In my opinion his willingness to punish churches, synagogues, schools and other charitable organizations is badly considered.

The president is under pressure to find ways to finance the $447 billion jobs plan he announced last week. Of that amount, he proposes to raise $405 billion over 10 years by limiting the value of itemized deductions. The way this will work is that individuals making a gift to a college, for example, will only be able to reduce their taxes by 28% of the gift, even if they are in the 33% or 35% tax bracket.

The effect is as follows. Under the current law, if an individual donates $1,000 and is in the highest, 35%, bracket, his taxes would be reduced by $350. Under the president's proposal, his tax savings will be capped at $280.

The president thus will inhibit giving by making it less attractive to give. And this will impose pain on the recipients.

Why would he want to raise taxes by this convoluted method? Clearly the jobs proposal is a high priority for the White House. But does Mr. Obama really want to make it harder for me, or others in my position, to give?

At the moment a fine young woman is at the Mayo Clinic Medical School under a fellowship program I fund annually to pay her costs. She is a remarkable woman on her way to a superb medical career. If this new proposal either causes me to diminish my gift, or worse, to terminate it, I doubt the president would applaud.

.His plan may assume I will continue to give because the gift still will be deductible but to a lesser degree. Yet by attempting to increase my taxes in this indirect manner, the president is not only giving an intentional whack at us wealthy but he will likely punish those who benefit from our gifts.

After all, there is only one reason to make a charitable gift deductible and that is to encourage giving. Tax policy is Congress saying we will use the tax laws to influence taxpayer behavior. Here the president is trying to influence me by increasing the costs to me of my gift. He may see it as a tax increase. I see it as a blow at the young medical student or at others who will be hurt if I and millions of others reduce our charitable giving.

When the president tells voters of his plans to increase taxes on the "millionaires and billionaires," as he often does, he seldom acknowledges the risks or potential costs to the nation if those wealthy taxpayers change their behavior and reduce their economic activities.

If tax policy influences behavior, increased taxes will reduce individual risk taking and make most of us more cautious. It is difficult to believe Mr. Obama would be willing to stand tall at the teleprompter to announce he wants fewer and lesser gifts to support minority education or medical research or any of the myriad other laudable programs and causes paid for by tax-deductible funds.

The lesson in all of this is clear. There are no easy solutions to the need for additional federal revenues. The jobs plan may be flawed. But the method the president has chosen to pay the costs of this new jobs effort unwisely conflates taxes and charitable giving.

Mr. Obama seems to believe that additional taxes will soak the rich. I believe he ought to look not at donors who will pay more, but at those who may get fewer and lesser gifts. There is no merit in a measure that would restrain individuals' charitable donations in order to raise their taxes.

Mr. Vincent, who has served as CEO of Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., is a former commissioner of Major League Baseball.

El Asia 2 y 3% al alza.

+18