Viernes 06/08/10 Situacion del empleo

[admin]

Viernes

Eventos economicos

Cuantos empleos se crearon, sobre todo en el sector privado.

El nivel de desempleo es posible que haya subido.

[admin]

Es ese dia del mes de nuevo. El gran reporte del empleo a las 8:30 a.m.

El consensus llama por una caida de 60,000 empleos en Julio. Pero el numero clave a mirar es el del sector privado. Los economistas esperan que se hayan creado 100,000 empleos el mes pasado. Se espera que el desempleo haya subido a 9.6%

On Deck Friday: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

By Matt Phillips
Yep, it’s that time again. The big monthly jobs report rolls in at 8:30 a.m. Friday.

The consensus headline figure calls for a 60,000 decline in payrolls for July. But the key number to watch will be the private sector jobs number. In Thursday’s Journal, Sudeep Reddy reported that economists expect the Labor Department’s Friday employment report to show that private-sector employers added about 100,000 jobs last month. The expected overall employment decline reflects the continued loss of temporary Census jobs. The unemployment rate is expected to tick up to 9.6%, from 9.5% in June.

As always, you also want to keep a close eye on the other details of the report including temporary workers, hourly workweek, wage growth, U-6, revisions, median duration of unemployment, etc.

See you tomorrow, bright and early.

[admin]

Las firmas de Wall Street siguen tratando de descifrar la regla de Volcker

Ellas estan tratando de ver que es lo mejor para sus hedge funds y sus operaciones de trading propios.

Varias firmas estan considerando separar las operaciones constituyendo nuevas empresas para esas dos funciones. Tanto Goldman Sachs como Morgan Stanley estan trabajando al respecto.

Wall Street Firms Still Trying to Figure Out Volcker Rule

By Matt Phillips
In light of new restrictions in the financial-overhaul bill signed into law last month by President Barack Obama, Wall Street’s gold-plated firms trying to figure exactly what to do with their internal hedge funds and proprietary trading operations. In the law, the Volcker provision limits Wall Street banks in their proprietary trading and investments in hedge funds, private equity and real-estate vehicles. The Journal’s Jenny Strasburg, Aaron Lucchetti and Liz Rappaport reported in Thursday’s paper:

Morgan Stanley is nearing a deal to relinquish control of in-house hedge-fund firm FrontPoint Partners, according to people familiar with the situation, in what would be one of its first high-profile overhauls amid new management and financial regulation.

In recent days, executives at the Wall Street firm and FrontPoint, which has $7 billion in assets, have been hashing out terms for a no-cash agreement that would bring Morgan Stanley’s full ownership of FrontPoint—purchased at the height of the hedge-fund market—down to between 20% and 25%, said the people close to the matter.

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is trying to decide what to do with its two large proprietary-trading desks, according to a person familiar with the matter. The desks manage about $9 billion, estimates Citigroup analyst Keith Horowitz. The options include moving the trading books to its asset-management arm or winding down the trades, said the person.

The firm isn’t considering closing down, selling or spinning off its private-equity business units, said a person familiar with the matter. A Goldman spokesman declined to comment.

Bloomberg also chimed in on the issue Thursday, reporting that Goldman’s “principal- strategies business, a unit that makes bets with the firm’s own capital, plans to transform into a fund and raise outside money, a person with direct knowledge of the decision said.”

[admin]

Lectura obligatoria

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

Las acciones y los bonos estan de acuerdo en no estar de acuerdo

Mucho se puede aprender del debate de las dos autoridades en un tema tan importante. Pero los inversionistas pueden formarse la impresion equivocada si leen mucho acerca de la aparente disonancia entre el stock market y los bonos con respecto al futuro de la economia Americana.

El S&P 500 esta casi 9% al alza desde finales de Junio y negocia a 14 vees sus ganancias. En otras palabras, el stock market a pesar del movido 2010, todavia esta pronosticando que habra una recuperacion economica lo suficientemente fuerte para darle soporte a los estimados de utilidades.

Por otro lado, los bonos, representados por los yields de 10 anios del treasury note, esta anticipando un escenario mas pesimista. Desde el mes de Junio, el yield de 10 anios ha estado al norte del 3% solo para caer debajo de ese nivel tan importantes. Los inversionistas de bonos parece estar apostando a que el Fed mantendra los intereses bajos por muy largo tiempo para poder incentivar la economia y evitar la deflation.

Entonces, parece que hay dos posiciones opuestas de sabiduria convencional. Pero un punto de vista alternativo es que los mercados de acciones y bonos no se estan oponiendo. En su lugar estan los dos pronosticado mas o menos el mismo resultado para la economia. Los bonos pueden estar correcto al predecir que el crecimiento va a ser menor y que la inflacion estara muerta por vareios anios. Pero los stocks tambien estan correctos al pronosticar que gran parte del sector de las corporaciones Americanas estan superando las dificultades en ese medio ambiente.

Alguna evidencia puede encontrarse en los margines de ganancias de las companias componentes del S&P 500. En el primer tirmestre del 2010, las companias del sector no financiero han ganado un equivalente a el 7.3% de ventas, a pesar de que las ventas fueron 3% menores al mismo periodo el anio pasado. Los margines de ganancias para todas las companias del S&P 500 esta proyectada en 8.2% para el segundo trimestre, eso es un 5.5% de incremento en las ventas con respecto al mismo periodo, el anio pasado.

Una objeccion tipica es que el recorte de costos ha creado un margin de ganancias que es insostenible. Pero este desaceleracion ha creado una nueva, duradera eficiencia, y esas nuevas estrategias podrian aunque sea en parte mantenerse, aunque las ventas no sean tan buenas como antes debido a la desaceleracion de la economia.

Por supuesto, este escenario implica menos gananicas y por lo tanto un PE ratio mas bajo que el de 14 que es ahora. Pero aun asi, esos aspectos negativos pueden ser contrarrestados. Primero, la mitad de las ventas de las companias del S&P 500 vienen de fuera. Segundo, hay una posibilidad de una gran cantidad de dividendos y recompra de acciones por parte de las empresas. En contraste con lo ocurrido en Japon despues del desinfle de su burbuja de propiedades, las companias no financieras Americanas tienen balances increiblemente fuerte.

US ha confiado siempre en sus consumidores para hacer crecer a su economia. La recuperacion, cuando venga, va a ser mas sostenible por que ahora cuenta con un sector corporativo mucho mas dinamico. Este posiblemente no es el escenario ideal, pero los bears (los pesimistas) no pueden ignorar estos fundamentos.




Stocks and Bonds Agree to Disagree

By PETER EAVIS
A lot can be learned from listening to two authorities debate an important subject. But investors may get misled if they read too much into the apparent disagreement between stocks and bonds over the fate of the U.S. economy.

The Standard and Poor's 500-stock index is up nearly 9% since the end of June and trades at 14 times forecast 2010 earnings. In other words, equities, despite a choppy 2010, are still forecasting that there will be an economic recovery of sufficient strength to support earnings forecasts.

Meanwhile, bonds, represented by the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, are supposedly sounding a more pessimistic note. Since the end of June, the 10-year's yield has edged north of 3% only to fall back below that important marker. Bond investors seem to be betting the Federal Reserve will have to keep interest rates very low for a long time in order to avoid deflation and kindle a self-sustaining economic recovery.

So there seem to be two opposing conventional wisdoms. But an alternative viewpoint is that stock and bond markets aren't in opposition. Instead, they are both forecasting more or less the same economic outcome. Bonds may be correct to predict growth is going to be lower, and inflation dead-to-dormant, for several years. But stocks may also be correct to forecast that large parts of the U.S. corporate sector are up to the challenge of dealing with such an environment.

Some evidence can be found for this in profit-margin data for S&P 500 companies. In the first quarter of 2010, nonfinancial companies in the index had earnings that were equivalent to 7.3% of sales, even though sales were 3% lower than in the year-earlier period, according to S&P data. The profit margin for all the S&P 500's companies is projected to be 8.2% in the second quarter, on a 5.5% increase in sales from the year-ago period.

A typical objection might be that the savage cost-cutting that created the strong margin performance isn't sustainable. But this downturn has likely created new, lasting efficiencies, and those could lock in at least some of that margin, even if sales growth underperforms in a sluggish U.S. economy.

Of course, this scenario implies paltry earnings growth and therefore a price-to-earnings ratio lower than today's 14 times. Even so, those negatives could be somewhat offset. First, about half the sales of S&P 500 companies come from outside the U.S. Second, there is the possibility of chunky dividends and share buybacks. In contrast to Japan in the aftermath of its property bubble, U.S. nonfinancial corporations have pretty strong balance sheets.

The U.S. has relied on overstretched consumers to drive the economy. The recovery, when it comes, would be more sustainable if it is built much more on a dynamic corporate sector. It is a grim Goldilocks scenario, but one the bears may find hard to maul.

[admin]

Les recomiendo que lean el articulo anterior, es muy interesante e importante para invertir en el stock market.

[admin]

El ID para la clase es 376-369-160

[admin]

Este es el unico dia del mes en que no importa nada de lo que este pasando en el mundo, todos estan esperando a las cifras del empleo a las 8:30 a.m. en US.

Korea +0.14%, pero todo el resto del Asia en rojo en menos del 0.5%

Euro down 1.3177

El Nikkei -0.31%. El Hang Seng -0.09%, el Shanghai C. -0.52%, Australia -0.28%

Los futures del Dow Jones sin cambio a esta hora.

[admin]

Copper August 05,22:11
Bid/Ask 3.3272 - 3.3317
Change -0.0045 -0.14%
Low/High 3.3158 - 3.3408
Charts

Nickel August 05,21:29
Bid/Ask 9.7915 - 9.8369
Change -0.0567 -0.58%
Low/High 9.7915 - 9.8959
Charts

Aluminum August 05,22:05
Bid/Ask 0.9726 - 0.9771
Change +0.0023 +0.23%
Low/High 0.9703 - 0.9771
Charts

Zinc August 05,22:10
Bid/Ask 0.9339 - 0.9385
Change +0.0023 +0.24%
Low/High 0.9271 - 0.9385
Charts

Lead August 05,21:53
Bid/Ask 0.9659 - 0.9705
Change -0.0091 -0.93%
Low/High 0.9569 - 0.9818

[admin]

Fannie repporta menores perdidas, aunque son artificiales. Sus perdidas son las menores en tres anios.

Fannie Posts Smallest Quarterly Loss in Three Years


By NICK TIMIRAOS
Fannie Mae posted a $1.2 billion net loss for the second quarter, the smallest loss in three years, amid signs that the massive wave of souring loans that brought down the mortgage-finance giant may be easing. But Fannie still asked the U.S. government for an additional $1.5 billion.

The quarterly loss reflects the lingering weaknesses in the housing market, but was an improvement from the $14.8 billion loss for the year-ago quarter. It marked the 12th consecutive loss for the Washington-based firm.

How quickly Fannie can turn around its losing streak will depend largely on how loans it has purchased or guaranteed over the past two years perform in the future, which in turn depend on how the economy fares.

The company said on Thursday that loans acquired since 2009 have the lowest early delinquency rates than those for any year over the past decade. Those loans would become unprofitable only if home prices were to fall more than 20% from their June levels over the next five years, the company said.

The improvement has come largely because Fannie and its smaller sibling, Freddie Mac, tightened lending standards sharply in 2008. "Across our industry, we are seeing a more realistic approach to housing and lending that bodes well for the future," said Michael Williams, Fannie's chief executive.

The rate of loans that are 90 days or more delinquent at Fannie Mae rose for 33 straight months before peaking at 5.59% in February and have fallen every month since then, to 4.99% in June. That rate is obscured, in part, because the pool of loans from the housing bust years has shrunk as some are liquidated through foreclosure and as better performing loans have been added over the past 18 months.

The company isn't necessarily out of the woods, especially if home prices decline or rising unemployment leads more homeowners to fall behind. "If the 2008 vintage gets worse, then you have a new round of reserves and losses," says Jim Vogel, an analyst with FTN Financial. Losses could also rise for other parts of the business as the company now works to sell its growing piles of foreclosed homes.

The U.S. took over Fannie and Freddie through a legal process known as conservatorship nearly two years ago and has pledged unlimited sums of aid over the next three years to keep them afloat. So far, Fannie and Freddie have taken a combined $146 billion in Treasury injections.

Fannie and Freddie could also continue to lose money going forward simply because it must pay the government a 10% dividend for those infusions. Fannie, for example, has to pay an annual dividend of $8.6 billion, which exceeds the company's annual net income for each of the last eight fiscal years.

The mortgage-finance titans are on pace to become the most expensive legacy for taxpayers from the housing bust. While the Obama administration has touted the speed with which it has patched up ailing automakers and rewritten the nation's financial regulatory laws, policymakers have been unsure about how to proceed with revamping the mortgage-finance giants.

The Obama administration says it will put forward a proposal on how to remake the broader housing-finance landscape early next year and will convene a summit to begin that process later this month.

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, has committed to beginning work on legislation this fall, and at a hearing last week, Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D., Pa.) promised to study "innovative ideas for recovering the costs" that resulted from the government takeover of the companies.

Last month, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that the government should retain "some type" of federal guarantee to ensure that Americans can easily take out mortgages.

But the debate over the future of the companies is likely to be protracted and heated because it raises fundamental questions about how vigorously the U.S. should subsidize housing, which benefits not only U.S. homeowners but an array of industries, from bankers to homebuilders. For years, lawmakers resisted attempts to limit those subsidies in the name of growing the homeownership rate.

Fannie and Freddie continue to pay for mistakes they made years ago, when they loosened their underwriting standards as the housing boom turned to bust. Nearly 85% of the Treasury infusions to the companies are set aside for future losses on loans made primarily through 2007, according to an analysis by FTN Financial.

Despite their losses, the firms are helping to stabilize the housing market. Together with the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie and Freddie backed more than nine in 10 new loans in the first quarter, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication. The companies are also playing a key role in the Obama administration's loan-modification effort to stem foreclosures.

[admin]

El equipo economico de Obama (que debe ser el peor en la historia del pais) pierde a otro miembro. Esta ves Christina Romer se va.

Esta es la economista que prometio que el estimulo economico mantendria el desempleo debajo del 8%.

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

Romer to Resign as Obama Adviser .

By DAVID WESSEL
WASHINGTON—Christina Romer said she would resign as chairman of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers to return to her teaching post at the University of California at Berkeley, effective Sept. 3.

Ms. Romer is the second member of Mr. Obama's economic team to leave. White House budget director Peter Orszag left earlier this summer. She said she is returning to California so the youngest of her three children can begin high school there.

View Full Image

European Pressphoto Agency

Christina Romer
.Ms. Romer, 51 years old, was a high-profile salesperson for the Obama economic program—and considered successful at that mission, in part because of her sincerity and plain-spoken style.

The post, she said in an interview Thursday, "was definitely as hard as I thought it ever would have been."

"I never anticipated the amount of the contact I'd have with the president," she added. "If anyone had told me that I'd meet the president of the free world every day, I never would have believed it."

Among her challenges was explaining why her prediction that the Obama-backed fiscal stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8% proved overly optimistic. The unemployment rate is now at 9.5%.

"I certainly hoped it would be lower," she said. "The world deteriorated between November 2008 when I started" and the initial estimates were made "and when we took office January 21. Do I wake up every morning and wish it were 8% instead of 9.5%? You bet."

View Full Image

Bloomberg News

Ms. Romer listened to President Obama speak about the economy at the White House in May.
.In internal White House circles, Ms. Romer occasionally clashed with Lawrence Summers, the Obama adviser and former Harvard University president and Treasury secretary. But on Thursday, she said, "If anyone had told me that I'd come to view Larry Summers as one of my dearest friends, I never would have believed it. But I do."

Ms. Romer has been mentioned as a possible successor to Janet Yellen as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Ms. Yellen has been nominated to be vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington.

Ms. Romer will join the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which is chaired by former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. Among the candidates to succeed her at the Council of Economic Advisers is Austan Goolsbee, who is on leave from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business.

Ms. Romer's academic work focused, among other things, on the causes of and recovery from the Great Depression and the impact of monetary, spending and tax policy on the economy. Her 19 months in Washington has confirmed some of her prior beliefs and altered others. "The first thing we have learned that policy does matter dramatically," she said.

"Where we are today is certainly not good. But in the absence of the actions taken by the Fed, the actions taken by the regulators and the Recovery Act [the official name of the stimulus bill], the economy would have been even more terrible."

One thing she says she hadn't realized previously: "The degree to which you often only get one shot at something like the Recovery Act."

"An economist's natural instinct is to do things in stages. You take one action, see what it does and see if you need more," she explained. But with the Bush administration Troubled Asset Relief Program to shore up the banks or the Obama fiscal stimulus, that proved wrong. "I didn't realize the degree to which you have only one shot."

Ms. Romer said she also was surprised that there was so much controversy and hesitation in Congress over renewing the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks with such a high jobless rate. "I wouldn't have believed that 9.5% unemployment wouldn't count as an emergency and thought that [proposal] would have been a slam dunk.

Ms. Romer's husband and frequent collaborator, David Romer, also on leave from Berkeley, worked at the International Monetary Fund while she was at the White House.

Write to David Wessel at capital@wsj.com

[admin]

Los asesores de Truman le dijeron que una invasion a Japon costaria dos millones de vidas Japonesas y un millon de vidas Americanas, la bomba mato inmediatamente a 120,000 Japoneses mas las demas victimas cuyo numero jamas pudo ser calculado.

17 millones de victimas sucumbieron en las manos de los Japoneses en sus invasiones a China, Manchuria, Korea, Philippines, Hong Kong, Burma, New Guinea y Pearl Harbor. Muertes brutales, violaciones (Rape of Nanking), etc. durante la guerra.

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

A Hiroshima Apology?

Japan's continued focus on remembering the bomb has been an understandable sore point for its Asian neighbors, who suffered greatly at its hands.

By WARREN KOZAK
For the first time since the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan 65 years ago, today the U.S. ambassador to Japan will attend the official commemoration ceremony at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The U.S. ambassador has always declined the annual invitation, but this year is different. President Barack Obama decided to acknowledge the event with the presence of a high-level dignitary. As State Department spokesman Philip Crowley explained, Ambassador John Roos will be there "to express respect for all the victims of World War II."

.Gene Tibbets—the son of Brig. Gen. Paul W. Tibbets Jr., the pilot who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima—called the Obama administration's decision "an unsaid apology." Whether or not that's the case, by saying "all the victims" Mr. Crowley raises the specter of moral equivalence, a problem that's grown worse over the years when it comes to judging right and wrong during World War II and throughout history.

The U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. When the Japanese still didn't give up, the U.S. dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki three days later. On Aug. 15, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally, ending the most brutal war in the history of the world.

Japan remains the only country ever to have been targeted by atomic bombs. More than 120,000 Japanese died instantly from the bombings and perhaps as many succumbed to radiation poisoning afterwards (the exact number will never be known). It should be noted that when President Harry Truman was considering whether to invade Japan instead of dropping the bombs, his advisers estimated that an invasion would result in one million American casualties and at least two million Japanese deaths. In the strange calculus of war, the bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

If the Obama administration wants to ease the friction over this event or even to apologize, then perhaps it is also a good time for the Japanese government to begin to discuss World War II truthfully with its own people.

Saved by the bomb? Japanese civilians watch U.S. occupation forces arriving in Kyushu, September 1945. President Truman was told two million Japanese might have died fighting a U.S. invasion.
.Since 1945, Japan's narrative has centered almost exclusively on the atomic blasts and its role as victim—with short shrift given to the Japanese invasions of China, Manchuria, Korea, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Indochina, Burma, New Guinea and, of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japanese children have learned little about the Rape of Nanking or the fact that as many as 17 million Asians died at the hands of the Japanese in World War II—many in the most brutal ways imaginable.

There is also the inconvenient truth that Japan started the war in the first place. There would have been no war in the Pacific between 1937 and 1945 had Japan stayed home.

Focusing on the atomic bombs paints the Japanese as victims, like other participants in World War II. They were not. The Japanese, like their German allies, were bent on global conquest and the destruction of other people who did not fit their bizarre racial theories. Japan's continued focus on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been an understandable sore point for its Asian neighbors, who suffered greatly at its hands.

There are times when ordinary citizens understand history better than their leaders. In approaching Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Mr. Obama should consider a related event that took place 25 years ago. On May 5, 1985, President Ronald Reagan made a rare public relations gaffe when he visited the Kolmeshohe Cemetery near Bitburg to lay a wreath at the graves of German soldiers.


His reasoning came from a decent place—he wanted to help bolster his ally, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and he thought that enough time had passed to allow both countries to move on together. But a firestorm erupted when it was learned that the graves were not just those of ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers but of SS troops as well. President Reagan dug in his heels despite strong protests and laid a wreath at the brick tower that loomed over those graves.

The protests came not because people refused to move on or because the postwar bonds between Germany and the U.S. were not strong and real. They were then and they remain so today. Rather, the anger came because the president's act created a tacit understanding that U.S. soldiers were no different than SS Storm Troopers, whose bloody tracks still leave a horror throughout Europe that can barely be equaled in that continent's long, lamentable history. The G.I.s were liberators. The SS were demented murderers. Period.

Young people today may have a hard time understanding that point because of the moral equivalence and political correctness that have taken over our society, our media and especially our universities. It teaches our children that all countries have good and bad elements within them—something so obvious that it's trite. But this lesson has become so powerful that it is not out of the norm for young people today to believe that, while World War II was certainly horrible, all sides share some blame.

Concerning today's event in Hiroshima, the State Department said "at this particular time, we thought it was the right thing to do." It may indeed be the right time for our two countries to share this event. But by tacitly placing all of World War II's participants in the same category, we undermine the ability of future generations to identify real evil, putting them at great risk.

Mr. Kozak is the author of "LeMay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis LeMay" (Regnery, 2009).

[admin]

AIG reporto perdidas debido al write down de Alico. Sus acciones +4.91%. Reporto 1.14 vs 0.99. Mejor a lo esperado

Libor down 0.41%

Yields igual 2.91%

Europa al alza, el Asia mixta

Oil down 81.74, Au down 1,197.60, futures cu up 3.37

Los futures del Dow Jones 16 puntos al alza.

Euro down 1.3172, yen up 85.90

[admin]

Copper August 06,08:03
Bid/Ask 3.3489 - 3.3535
Change +0.0172 +0.52%
Low/High 3.3158 - 3.3648
Charts

Nickel August 06,07:58
Bid/Ask 9.9775 - 10.0229
Change +0.1293 +1.31%
Low/High 9.7915 - 10.0864
Charts

Aluminum August 06,07:59
Bid/Ask 0.9807 - 0.9853
Change +0.0104 +1.08%
Low/High 0.9680 - 0.9866
Charts

Zinc August 06,08:03
Bid/Ask 0.9489 - 0.9535
Change +0.0172 +1.85%
Low/High 0.9271 - 0.9562
Charts

Lead August 06,08:01
Bid/Ask 0.9804 - 0.9850
Change +0.0054 +0.56%
Low/High 0.9569 - 0.9909

[admin]

La ganancia de Rio Tinto se triplica en el primer semestre
Por Robert Guy Matthews

La ganancia de Rio Tinto PLC en el primer semestre de este año más que se triplicó frente al mismo lapso del año pasado, gracias a un alza del precio del mineral del hierro. El gigante minero anglo-australiano informó que planea elevar el gasto para aumentar la producción tanto en Australia como en África.

Rio Tinto reportó una ganancia de US$5.850 millones en el primer semestre del año, frente a los US$1.600 millones que facturó en el mismo período de 2009. Las ventas subieron 37%, de US$19.520 millones a US$26.770 millones.

Sin embargo, los precios al contado que beneficiaron a la minera empezaron a retroceder hace un mes y han caído entre 30% y 35% desde el inicio del año. La tercera mayor minera del mundo en términos de producción obtiene 70% de su ganancia del mineral de hierro.

Los mayores productores de mineral de hierro del mundo —Rio Tinto, la australiana BHP Billiton y la brasileña Vale SA— se han beneficiado en los últimos meses de la venta de esta materia prima bajo un sistema de precios trimestral, en lugar de cotizaciones establecidas en contratos anuales. El objetivo es, en parte, equilibrar mejor la producción con la demanda.

Durante los primeros meses de 2010, los precios del mercado al contado fueron altos debido a la robusta demanda de las siderúrgicas de todo el mundo, pero han bajado gradualmente a medida que el crecimiento y la producción de acero de China se han desacelerado en China y el resto del mundo. El mineral de hierro ahora se vende a unos US$140 por tonelada, comparado con aproximadamente US$180 en abril.

Tom Albanese, presidente ejecutivo de Rio Tinto, dijo en una entrevista que los precios han subido en los últimos meses pero que aún no se encuentran en los niveles de principios de año.

"Hemos visto caer los precios al contado, pero se han recuperado un poco en las últimas semanas", señaló.

Para 2016, Rio Tinto quiere incrementar su capacidad de mineral de hierro a 330 millones de toneladas anuales, aproximadamente 50% más que su producción actual.

Además, sigue de cerca los niveles de producción en las plantas de producción de acero chinas.

China es el mayor productor mundial de acero y consume la gran mayoría del mineral de hierro importado por vía marítima. Vale, la mayor productora mundial del material, dijo la semana pasada que la producción de acero y la demanda de mineral de hierro en China se estaba enfriando, y que esperaba que esta tendencia continuara en el tercer trimestre. Vale reportó una ganancia neta de US$3.700 millones en el segundo trimestre, un alza frente a US$790 millones un año antes.

Las inversiones en infraestructura y proyectos de construcción de edificios residenciales y comerciales han menguado, lo que ha desatado los temores de un exceso de capacidad de producción de acero y de una caída de los precios del acero y del mineral de hierro. China también canceló sus alivios fiscales sobre la exportación de algunos productos de acero para evitar la necesidad de importaciones y ayudar a estabilizar los precios. Sin embargo, este factor también exacerbó los temores de un exceso de capacidad.

A pesar del aumento en los últimos días de los precios del mineral de hierro de unos US$130 por tonelada a US$140 por tonelada, se espera que el precio caiga durante el resto del año. "Creo que puede caer incluso hasta a US$100 para finales de año", dijo Alex Tonks, estratega de bienes básicos para Merrill Lynch en Australia.

Sin embargo, Tonks señaló que, incluso a un nivel tan bajo, los precios del mineral de hierro aún están comparativamente altos. Además, añadió que la demanda se mantiene lo suficientemente sólida como para consumir los actuales niveles de producción de las principales mineras mundiales y que las compañías del sector pueden seguir siendo rentables con precios de US$100 por tonelada. "Vale, BHP y Rio continuarán vendiendo cada tonelada de mineral de hierro que producen porque aún sigue habiendo demanda".

[admin]

Suspensión de exportaciones rusas de trigo pone en riesgo el suministro global

Por Liam Pleven, Gregory Zuckerman y Scott Kilman


AFP/Getty Images
.Los precios del trigo se dispararon el jueves después de que Rusia anunciara la suspensión de sus exportaciones de granos, extendiendo una racha que está elevando el costo del maíz y de otros sustitutos y poniendo de manifiesto el riesgo de una conmoción general en el suministro mundial de alimentos.

El primer ministro ruso, Vladimir Putin, respondiendo a la grave sequía y a los incendios mortales, dijo el jueves que las exportaciones quedarán suspendidas desde el 15 de agosto hasta finales de año.

Rusia está adquiriendo cada vez más protagonismo en la oferta global de granos, por lo que su decisión reavivó los temores de que algunos países comenzarán a acumular sus propias reservas, lo que podría crear una escasez de alimentos.

Aún están frescas las imágenes de la escasez de granos y la escalada de precios de 2008, que causaron disturbios en varios países. Las reservas mundiales siguen muy por encima que las de hace dos años, y los precios mucho más bajos, pero hay quienes temen que la situación empeore.

"La situación es muy, muy precaria. Va a tener repercusiones por doquier", dijo Abdolreza Abbasian, secretario del grupo intergubernamental sobre granos de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y Alimentación. "Espero que se trate de la última mala noticia. Cualquier pronóstico negativo del clima empeorará el problema".

.La mayor preocupación es que la sequía continúe hasta principios del otoño en Rusia, la temporada de plantación de la cosecha del próximo año.

Los precios del trigo subieron 8,3% en Chicago el jueves, y ya han avanzado 84% desde su mínimo de junio y 45% en lo que va de año. El maíz y la soya, ambas fuentes alternativas de alimentos para el ganado, le han seguido los pasos. El maíz ha subido 24% desde su punto más bajo en junio y está en máximos de siete meses.

Por ahora, la carga del trigo ruso a los vagones de tren para su transporte a los puertos se ha paralizado, según funcionarios de la industria. Según algunas estimaciones, entre 4 y 5 millones de toneladas de trigo ruso destinados a la exportación se encuentran en limbo. Ucrania, otro importante exportador de trigo, también ha cancelado varios contratos, dijeron ejecutivos del sector.

La historia es otra en América Latina. Se espera que un incremento en los campos de sembrado y lluvias constantes eleven considerablemente la producción de trigo de Argentina, una buena noticia para Brasil, el segundo mayor importador del grano en el mundo. Argentina se encamina a cultivar 13 millones de toneladas de trigo esta temporada, casi 75% más que la cosecha anterior que se vio perjudicada por sequías. El país debe exportar ocho millones de toneladas en 2010-2011, la mayor parte hacia Brasil.

El encarecimiento del trigo crea temores de que los precios de los alimentos podrían elevarse rápidamente en momentos en que los inversionistas están preocupados por los riesgos de una deflación, lo que crearía posibles fuerzas que perturbarían el comportamiento de los consumidores en varios países.

El salto de los precios del trigo ha obligado al Programa Mundial de Alimentos de la ONU, que ayuda a alimentar a más de 90 millones de personas en todo el mundo, a reducir las compras, según una vocera del programa.

Países como Egipto, el mayor importador de trigo del mundo, y que ha comprado el grano de Rusia, debe ahora considerar otras opciones. El país tiene suministros para seis meses, informó su Cámara de Granos.

Rusia fue el origen de 14,5% de las exportaciones globales del grano entre 2009 y 2010, según la Organización para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. Es más, jugó un papel clave al suplir un alza en la demanda, al exportar 17,5 millones de toneladas frente a menos de un millón entre 2000 y 2001.

Entre los ganadores en la comunidad de inversionistas que se beneficiaron de la reciente alza están grandes jugadores como Graham Capital Management y Touradji Capital, según inversionistas. Los corredores dicen que unos pocos fondos han registrado ganancias importantes al comprar trigo en el momento justo.

La medida rusa tuvo también repercusiones en la bolsa. Las acciones de los productores de alimentos que enfrentan un alza en los costos cayeron: General Mills Inc. registró un declive de 2,2%, mientras que Ralcorp Holdings Inc. perdió 3,9%. Pero gigantes que procesan y venden granos registraron ganancias importantes. Las acciones de Bunge Ltd. subieron 5,6%, mientras que las de Archer Daniels Midland Co. ganaron 5,7%.

Aunque el Departamento de Agricultura de EE.UU. estima que el mundo tendrá unos 187 millones de toneladas de trigo en reservas para junio de 2011, 45% estará en Rusia, India y China, que querrán mantenerlas en sus manos.