Archive for Economics & Fundamentals – Page 137

Plunging pound and crumbling confidence: How the new UK government stumbled into a political and financial crisis of its own making

By David McMillan, University of Stirling 

The new British government is off to a very rocky start – after stumbling through an economic and financial crisis of its own making.

Just a few weeks into its term on Sept. 23, 2022, Prime Minister Liz Truss’ government released a so-called mini-budget that proposed £161 billion – about US$184 billion at today’s rate – in new spending and the biggest tax cuts in half a century, with the benefits mainly going to Britain’s top earners. The aim was to jump-start growth in an economy on the verge of recession, but the government didn’t indicate how it would pay for it – or provide evidence that the spending and tax cuts would actually work.

Financial markets reacted badly, prompting interest rates to soar and the pound to plunge to the lowest level against the dollar since 1985. The Bank of England was forced to gobble up government bonds to avoid a financial crisis.

After days of defending the plan, the government did a U-turn of sorts on Oct. 3 by scrapping the most controversial component of the budget – elimination of its top 45% tax rate on high earners. This calmed markets, leading to a rally in the pound and government bonds.

As a finance professor who tracks markets closely, I believe at the heart of this mini-crisis over the mini-budget was a lack of confidence – and now a lack of credibility.

A looming recession

Truss’ government inherited a troubled economy.

Growth has been sluggish, with the latest quarterly figure at 0.2%. The Bank of England predicts the U.K. will soon enter a recession that could last until 2024. The latest data on U.K. manufacturing shows the sector is contracting.

Consumer confidence is at its lowest level ever as soaring inflation – currently at an annualized pace of 9.9% – drives up the cost of living, especially for food and fuel. At the same time, real, inflation-adjusted wages are falling by a record amount, or around 3%.

It’s important to note that many countries in the world, including the U.S. and in mainland Europe, are experiencing the same problems of low growth and high inflation. But rumblings in the background in the U.K. are also other weaknesses.

Since the financial crisis of 2008, the U.K. has suffered from lower productivity compared with other major economies. Business investment plateaued after Brexit in 2016 – when a slim majority of voters chose to leave the European Union – and remains significantly below pre-COVID-19 levels. And the U.K. also consistently runs a balance of payments deficit, which means the country imports a lot more goods and services than it exports, with a trade deficit of over 5% of gross domestic product.

In other words, investors were already predisposed to view the long-term trajectory of the U.K. economy and the British pound in a negative light.

An ambitious agenda

Truss, who became prime minister on Sept. 6, 2022, also didn’t have a strong start politically.

The government of Boris Johnson lost the confidence of his party and the electorate after a series of scandals, including accusations he mishandled sexual abuse allegations and revelations about parties being held in government offices while the country was in lockdown.

Truss was not the preferred candidate of lawmakers in her own Conservative Party, who had the task of submitting two choices for the wider party membership to vote on. The rest of the party – dues-paying members of the general public – chose Truss. The lack of support from Conservative members of Parliament meant she wasn’t in a position of strength coming into the job.

Nonetheless, the new cabinet had an ambitious agenda of cutting taxes and deregulating energy and business.

Some of the decisions, laid out in the mini-budget, were expected, such as subsidies limiting higher energy prices, reversing an increase in social security taxes and a planned increase in the corporate tax rate.

But others, notably a plan to abolish the 45% tax rate on incomes over £150,000, were not anticipated by markets. Since there were no explicit spending cuts cited, funding for the £161 billion package was expected to come from selling more debt. There was also the threat that this would be paid for, in part, by lower welfare payments at a time when poorer Britons are suffering from the soaring cost of living. The fear of welfare cuts is putting more pressure on the Truss government.

A collapse in confidence

Even as the new U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng was presenting the mini-budget on Sept. 23, the British pound was already getting hammered. It sank from $1.13 the day before the proposal to as low as $1.03 in intraday trading on Sept. 26. Yields on 10-year government bonds, known as gilts, jumped from about 3.5% to 4.5% – the highest level since 2008 – in the same period.

The jump in rates prompted mortgage lenders to suspend deals with new customers, eventually offering them again at significantly higher borrowing costs. There were fears that this would lead to a crash in the housing market.

In addition, the drop in gilt prices led to a crisis in pension funds, putting them at risk of insolvency.

Many members of Truss’ party voiced opposition to the high levels of borrowing likely necessary to finance the tax cuts and spending and said they would vote against the package.

The International Monetary Fund, which bailed out the U.K. in 1976, even offered its figurative two cents on the tax cuts, urging the government to “reevaluate” the plan. The comments further spooked investors.

To prevent a broader crisis in financial markets, the Bank of England stepped in and pledged to purchase up to £65 billion in government bonds.

Besides causing investors to lose faith, the crisis also severely dented the public’s confidence in the U.K. government. The latest polls showed the opposition Labour Party enjoying a 24-point lead, on average, over the Conservatives.

So the government likely had little choice but to reverse course and drop the most controversial part of the plan, the abolition of the 45% tax rate. The pound recovered its losses. The recovery in gilts was more modest, with bonds still trading at elevated levels.

Putting this all together, less than a month into the job, Truss has lost confidence – and credibility – with international investors, voters and her own party. And all this over a “mini-budget” – the full budget isn’t due until November 2022. It suggests the U.K.‘s troubles are far from over, a view echoed by credit rating agencies.The Conversation

About the Author:

David McMillan, Professor in Finance, University of Stirling

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

OPEC+ countries are cutting production. Credit Suisse bank moves toward default

By JustForex

After a smaller-than-expected interest rate hike by the RBA this week and the UN asking central banks to slow interest rate hikes, the fundamental narrative shifted toward a potential “turnaround” by the Fed toward a slower interest rate hike. This has helped support stock markets. On the other hand, the US Consumer Confidence and Service Sector Activity Index data were better than expected, suggesting that the US economy is holding up relatively well so far. Thus, the US Fed may not shy away from its hawkish bias, which will once again put pressure on stocks.

As the stock market closed yesterday, the Dow Jones Index (US30) decreased by 0.14%, and the S&P 500 Index (US500) lost 0.20%. NASDAQ technology index (US100) fell by 0.30%.

Mary Daley, President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, said that the Fed’s goal is to keep tightening monetary policy until interest rates are at a restrictive level. The policymaker added that the US Federal Reserve does not expect interest rates to fall in 2023.

Credit Suisse’s credit risk continues to rise sharply. Yesterday, SocGen analysts wrote that Credit Suisse must actively deleverage its investment banking operations or risk default. But analysts at HSBC said Credit Suisse has no immediate concerns about liquidity and funding.

Equity markets in Europe were mostly down yesterday. German DAX (DE30) was 1.21% lower, French CAC 40 (FR40) fell by 0.90%, Spanish IBEX 35 (ES35) decreased by 1.52%, British FTSE 100 (UK100) was 0.48% lower.

With almost 90% of the storage capacity in the EU, Europe will survive the coming winter with only a few scratches, barring any political or technical surprises, but the real difficulties will start in February or March when the storage capacity needs to be filled again.

The German economy minister blamed the United States and other “friendly” gas-supplying countries for the astronomical prices of their supplies. According to the minister, some gas suppliers are profiting from the consequences of the war in Ukraine, which has led to a sharp rise in global energy prices. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues to undermine energy markets, global supply chains remain trapped in China’s COVID-19 strategy, and advanced economies are moving ever closer to stagflation.

Leaders from more than 40 countries, meeting Thursday in the Czech capital, are set to create a “European Political Community,” which aims to increase security and prosperity across the continent. But critics say the new forum is an attempt to stall the expansion of the European Union.

OPEC+ countries have agreed to cut oil production by 2 million BPD. OPEC+ oil production cuts will take effect in November. Oil producers do not want to allow oil prices to fall and will reduce production to maintain “profit.” In a statement issued after the OPEC+ decision, the White House said it was disappointed by the short-sighted decision to cut production quotas at a time when the world economy is facing the continued negative impact of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Biden also directed the Energy Secretary to explore additional actions to increase domestic fuel production. Goldman raised its oil forecast immediately by $10 to $110 by the end of the year.

OPEC+ will no longer meet monthly. Meetings will now be held every two months.

Bond yields have corrected downward in recent days amid speculation that the Fed may move to a less aggressive policy in the near future amid growing tensions in financial markets and fears of a global recession. This situation supported gold and silver prices, causing a sharp rally in recent days. But the outlook for gold and silver remains bearish in the medium and long term as the tightening cycle goes on.

Asian markets traded higher yesterday. Japan’s Nikkei 225 (JP225) increased by 0.48%, Hong Kong’s Hang Sengv(HK50) jumped by 5.90%, and Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 (AU200) ended the day up by 1.74%.

S&P 500 (F) (US500) 3,783.28 −7.65 (−0.20%)

Dow Jones (US30) 30,273.87 −42.45 (−0.14%)

DAX (DE40) 12,517.18 −153.30 (−1.21%)

FTSE 100 (UK100) 7,052.62 −33.84 (−0.48%)

USD Index 111.15 +1.09 (+0.99%)

Important events for today:
  • – Japan BOJ Gov Kuroda Speaks at 03:30 (Tentative);
  • – UK Construction PMI (m/m) at 11:30 (GMT+3);
  • – Eurozone ECB Monetary Policy Meeting Accounts at 14:30 (GMT+3);
  • – US Initial Jobless Claims (w/w) at 15:30 (GMT+3);
  • – Canada Ivey PMI (m/m) at 17:00 (GMT+3);
  • – US Natural Gas Storage (w/w) at 17:30 (GMT+3).

By JustForex

 

This article reflects a personal opinion and should not be interpreted as an investment advice, and/or offer, and/or a persistent request for carrying out financial transactions, and/or a guarantee, and/or a forecast of future events.

Kenya’s new finance minister has good credentials but he can’t work miracles

By XN Iraki, University of Nairobi 

President William Ruto has nominated Njuguna Ndung’u to head Kenya’s National Treasury. A Central Bank of Kenya governor for eight years between 2007 and 2015, Ndung’u is also an accomplished researcher and a University of Nairobi academic. He has extensive expertise in macroeconomics (inflation, economic growth, national income and unemployment) and poverty reduction.

If parliament approves his nomination, Ndung’u will lead the treasury in difficult circumstances. The country is just emerging from divisive electoral campaigns. It also faces economic challenges.

The government is spending more than it gets in revenue, inflation is rising and the value of the shilling is tumbling against major currencies.

Ndung’u has his work cut out for him. Ruto campaigned on the platform of mending a broken economy and redistributing growth dividends to low-income earners.

With a PhD in economics, Ndung’u has a deep understanding of both local and global economic trends. His latest stint was as executive director of the Africa Economic Research Consortium, a research and policy think-tank.

He has been an advisor to international organisations, such as the Brookings Institution and the International Development Research Centre (Africa’s regional office).

The job at hand

The Treasury Cabinet Secretary (finance minister) manages the revenues and expenditures of the country.

The government gets its revenue from taxes, grants, debts and dividends paid by state-owned enterprises. The treasury (ministry of finance) delegates powers to raise such revenues.

On the spending side, the ministry has to contend with the dictates of other institutions like parliament, the central bank and multilateral organisations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Decisions have to be made about how the revenue is shared and used – for recurrent expenditure like paying salaries and debt, and for development such as building roads or hospitals.

In Kenya, the decision is complicated by another factor. The money must be shared with 47 counties.

What he brings to the position

Ndung’u will have to make Ruto’s bottom-up economics model work. That means focusing on the people at the bottom of the pyramid who lack capital and opportunities to run businesses. The expectation is that empowering this segment of society would create more jobs and give more citizens a higher standard of living. This model is contrasted with trickle-down economics, which gives resources to a few at the “top” in the hope that it spreads down to the masses.

Ndung’u previously worked at the Kenya Institute of Public Policy Research and Analysis, which advises government departments, including the National Treasury, on policy issues. In 2001, he helped develop a macroeconomics model to analyse Kenya’s economy.

He is back in familiar waters, having been a central bank governor at the chaotic start of Mwai Kibaki’s second term in 2008, when post-election violence and the global financial crisis slowed down the Kenyan economy. He was a member of the National Economic and Social Council that Kibaki put together to lift the economy.

His most valuable experience for the task at hand is, perhaps, his mastery of monetary tools as a central banker. His new role focuses on fiscal policy (spending, tax and debt).

He is likely to work in tandem with the central bank, avoiding fiscal policies that upset monetary measures (like interest rates). Harmony between fiscal and monetary policies would be good for stability of the currency (as the UK is finding out).

Ndung’u is also known to have championed financial inclusion, mainly through mobile banking. This implies mass access to affordable payments, savings, credit and insurance.

He was bold in getting banks to accept mobile money, which was unpopular at the time. This may be a quality needed to drive bottom-up economics. There will have to be institutional changes to accommodate bottom-up economics and some resistance is to be expected. Kenyans are used to trickle-down economics.

Missing in his tool box

But Ndung’u lacks political experience in a cabinet dominated by politicians. He is a technocrat and, as Uhuru Kenyatta’s first term showed, some technocrats find it hard to fit into a new political dispensation. Political experience matters even in the most technical of jobs. In addition, Kenyatta lost his political clout partly because his cabinet, dominated by technocrats, lacked the political weight to sell government programmes to his core support base.

Ruto, too, needs to be careful, in my view. The Treasury under his regime should give free markets a human face. For example, the removal of subsidies could be seen as heartless.

What may not change

I doubt debt taps will close during Ndung’u’s tenure. The debt ceiling may be raised again in the new administration. Given the country’s budget deficit, which is about 6.2% of annual production (GDP), borrowing is bound to continue.

If there is change, it might come in the mixture of debt between long term and short term, as well as bilateral and multilateral loans.

At the moment, Kenya borrows equally from local and foreign lenders. Ruto wants Kenyans to save more, reducing the need for external borrowing. This is unlikely in the short run because of the poverty levels. People save after taking care of the basics, like food and shelter.

Inflation is also likely to remain an issue. Will interest rate hikes slow down inflation? Will government raise wages and salaries to cushion workers? Could cutting taxes be a better option despite fears of stoking inflation? The UK is a good case study – its tax cuts have led to a weaker currency, which implies higher inflation.

Finally, reliance on fiscal and monetary tools may not bear fruit. Kenya is a very informal economy. Tools like interest rate cuts may not work effectively when people borrow mostly informally.

Foreign direct investment and increased trade would be more effective than borrowing, as long as the business environment is attractive to investors.The Conversation

About the Author:

XN Iraki, Associate Professor, Faculty of Business and Management Sciences, University of Nairobi

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Hurricane Ian capped 2 weeks of extreme storms around the globe: Here’s what’s known about how climate change fuels tropical cyclones

By Mathew Barlow, UMass Lowell and Suzana J. Camargo, Columbia University 

When Hurricane Ian hit Florida, it was one of the United States’ most powerful hurricanes on record, and it followed a two-week string of massive, devastating storms around the world.

A few days earlier in the Philippines, Typhoon Noru gave new meaning to rapid intensification when it blew up from a tropical storm with 50 mph winds to a Category 5 monster with 155 mph winds the next day. Hurricane Fiona flooded Puerto Rico, then became Canada’s most intense storm on record. Typhoon Merbok gained strength over a warm Pacific Ocean and tore up over 1,000 miles of the Alaska coast.

Major storms hit from the Philippines in the western Pacific to the Canary Islands in the eastern Atlantic, to Japan and Florida in the middle latitudes and western Alaska and the Canadian Maritimes in the high latitudes.

A lot of people are asking about the role rising global temperatures play in storms like these. It’s not always a simple answer.

Record-setting cyclones in late September 2022.
Mathew Barlow

It is clear that climate change increases the upper limit on hurricane strength and rain rate and that it also raises the average sea level and therefore storm surge. The influence on the total number of hurricanes is currently uncertain, as are other aspects. But, as hurricanes occur, we expect more of them to be major storms. Hurricane Ian and other recent storms, including the 2020 Atlantic season, provide a picture of what that can look like.

Our research has focused on hurricanes, climate change and the water cycle for years. Here’s what scientists know so far.

Rainfall: Temperature has a clear influence

The temperature of both the ocean and atmosphere are critical to hurricane development.

Hurricanes are powered by the release of heat when water that evaporates from the ocean’s surface condenses into the storm’s rain.

A warmer ocean produces more evaporation, which means more water is available to the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere can hold more water, which allows more rain. More rain means more heat is released, and more heat released means stronger winds.

Simplified cross section of a hurricane.
Mathew Barlow

These are basic physical properties of the climate system, and this simplicity lends a great deal of confidence to scientists’ expectations for storm conditions as the planet warms. The potential for greater evaporation and higher rain rates is true in general for all types of storms, on land or sea.

That basic physical understanding, confirmed in computer simulations of these storms in current and future climates, as well as recent events, leads to high confidence that rainfall rates in hurricanes increase by at least 7% per degree of warming.

Storm strength and rapid intensification

Scientists also have high confidence that wind speeds will increase in a warming climate and that the proportion of storms that intensify into powerful Category 4 or 5 storms will increase. Similar to rainfall rates, increases in intensity are based on the physics of extreme rainfall events.

Damage is exponentially related to wind speed, so more intense storms can have a bigger impact on lives and economies. The damage potential from a Category 4 storm with 150 mph winds, like Ian at landfall, is roughly 256 times that of a category 1 storm with 75 mph winds.

Hurricane Ian’s water vapor on Sept. 28, 2022, meant heavy rainfall for large parts of Florida.
NOAA

Whether warming causes storms to intensify more rapidly is an active area of research, with some models offering evidence that this will probably happen. One of the challenges is that the world has limited reliable historical data for detecting long-term trends. Atlantic hurricane observations go back to the 1800s, but they’re only considered reliable globally since the 1980s, with satellite coverage.

That said, there is already some evidence that an increase in rapid intensification is distinguishable in the Atlantic.

Within the last two weeks of September 2022, both Noru and Ian exhibited rapid intensification. In the case of Ian, successful forecasts of rapid intensification were issued several days in advance, when the storm was still a tropical depression. They exemplify the significant progress in intensity forecasts in the past few years, although improvements are not uniform.

There is some indication that, on average, the location where storms reach their maximum intensity is moving poleward. This would have important implications for the location of the storms’ main impacts. However, it is still not clear that this trend will continue in the future.

Storm surge: Two important influences

Storm surge – the rise in water at a coast caused by a storm – is related to a number of factors including storm speed, storm size, wind direction and coastal sea bottom topography. Climate change could have at least two important influences.

Stronger storms increase the potential for higher surge, and rising temperatures are causing sea level to rise, which increases the water height, so the storm surge is now higher than before in relation to the land. As a result, there is high confidence for an increase in the potential for higher storm surges.

Speed of movement and potential for stalling

The speed of the storm can be an important factor in total rainfall amounts at a given location: A slower-moving storm, like Hurricane Harvey in 2017, provides a longer period of time for rain to accumulate.

There are indications of a global slowdown in hurricane speed, but the quality of historical data limits understanding at this point, and the possible mechanisms are not yet understood.

Frequency of storms in the future is less clear

How the number of hurricanes that form each year may change is another major question that is not well understood.

There is no definitive theory explaining the number of storms in the current climate, or how it will change in the future.

Besides having the right environmental conditions to fuel a storm, the storm has to form from a disturbance in the atmosphere. There is currently a debate in the scientific community about the role of these pre-storm disturbances in determining the number of storms in the current and future climates.

Natural climate variations, such as El Niño and La Niña, also have a substantial impact on whether and where hurricanes develop. How they and other natural variations will change in the future and influence future hurricane activity is a topic of active research.

How much did climate change influence Ian?

Scientists conduct attribution studies on individual storms to gauge how much global warming likely affected them, and those studies are currently underway for Ian.

However, individual attribution studies are not needed to be certain that the storm occurred in an environment that human-caused climate change made more favorable for a stronger, rainier and higher-surge disaster. Human activities will continue to increase the odds for even worse storms, year over year, unless rapid and dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are undertaken.The Conversation

About the Author:

Mathew Barlow, Professor of Climate Science, UMass Lowell and Suzana J. Camargo, Lamont Research Professor of Ocean and Climate Physics, Columbia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The big reason Florida insurance companies are failing isn’t just hurricane risk – it’s fraud and lawsuits

By Shahid S. Hamid, Florida International University 

Hurricane Ian’s widespread damage is another disaster for Florida’s already shaky insurance industry. Even though home insurance rates in Florida are nearly triple the national average, insurers have been losing money. Six have failed since January 2022. Now, insured losses from Ian are estimated to exceed US$40 billion

Hurricane risk might seem like the obvious problem, but there is a more insidious driver in this financial train wreck.

Finance professor Shahid Hamid, who directs the Laboratory for Insurance at Florida International University, explained how Florida’s insurance market got this bad – and how the state’s insurer of last resort, Citizens Property Insurance, now carrying more than 1 million policies, can weather the storm.

What’s making it so hard for Florida insurers to survive?

Florida’s insurance rates have almost doubled in the past five years, yet insurance companies are still losing money for three main reasons.

One is the rising hurricane risk. Hurricanes Matthew (2016), Irma (2017) and Michael (2018) were all destructive. But a lot of Florida’s hurricane damage is from water, which is covered by the National Flood Insurance Program, rather than by private property insurance.

Another reason is that reinsurance pricing is going up – that’s insurance for insurance companies to help when claims spike.

But the biggest single reason is the “assignment of benefits” problem, involving contractors after a storm. It’s partly fraud and partly taking advantage of loose regulation and court decisions that have affected insurance companies.

It generally looks like this: Contractors will knock on doors and say they can get the homeowner a new roof. The cost of a new roof is maybe $20,000-$30,000. So, the contractor inspects the roof. Often, there isn’t really that much damage. The contractor promises to take care of everything if the homeowner assigns over their insurance benefit. The contractors can then claim whatever they want from the insurance company without needing the homeowner’s consent.

If the insurance company determines the damage wasn’t actually covered, the contractor sues.

So insurance companies are stuck either fighting the lawsuit or settling. Either way, it’s costly.

Other lawsuits may involve homeowners who don’t have flood insurance. Only about 14% of Florida homeowners pay for flood insurance, which is mostly available through the federal National Flood Insurance Program. Some without flood insurance will file damage claims with their property insurance company, arguing that wind caused the problem.

How widespread of a problem are these lawsuits?

Overall, the numbers are pretty striking.

About 9% of homeowner property claims nationwide are filed in Florida, yet 79% of lawsuits related to property claims are filed there.

The legal cost in 2019 was over $3 billion for insurance companies just fighting these lawsuits, and that’s all going to be passed on to homeowners in higher costs.

Insurance companies had a more than $1 billion underwriting loss in 2020 and again in 2021. Even with premiums going up so much, they’re still losing money in Florida because of this. And that’s part of the reason so many companies are deciding to leave.

Assignment of benefits is likely more prevalent in Florida than most other states because there is more opportunity from all the roof damage from hurricanes. The state’s regulation is also relatively weak. This may eventually be fixed by the legislature, but that takes time and groups are lobbying against change. It took a long time to pass a law saying the attorney fee has to be capped.

How bad is the situation for insurers?

We’ve seen about a dozen companies be declared insolvent or leave since early 2020. At least six dropped out this year alone.

Thirty more are on the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation’s watch list. About 17 of those are likely to be or have been downgraded from A rating, meaning they’re no longer considered to be in good financial health.

Chart show increasing losses for Florida's domestic property insurers in the past five years
Based on a Florida Office of Insurance Regulation chart

The ratings downgrades have consequences for the real estate market. To get a loan from the federal mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, you have to have insurance. But if an insurance company is downgraded to below A, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae won’t accept it. Florida established a $2 billion reinsurance fund in May 2022 that can help smaller insurance companies in situations like this. If they get downgraded, the reinsurance can act like co-signing the loan so the mortgage lenders will accept it.

But it’s a very fragile market.

Ian could be one of the costliest hurricanes in Florida history. I’ve seen estimates of $40 billion to $60 billion in losses. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those companies on the watch list leave after this storm. That will put more pressure on Citizens Property Insurance, the state’s insurer of last resort.

Some headlines suggest that Florida’s insurer of last resort is also in trouble. Is it really at risk, and what would that mean for residents?

Citizens is not facing collapse, per se. The problem with Citizens is that its policy numbers typically swell after a crisis because as other insurers go out of business, their policies shift to Citizens. It sells off those policies to smaller companies, then another crisis comes along and its policy numbers rise again.

Three years ago, Citizens had half a million policies. Now, it has twice that. All these insurance companies that left in the last two years, their policies have been migrated to Citizens.

Ian will be costly, but Citizens is flush with cash right now because it had a lot of premium increases and built up its reserves.

Citizens also has a lot of backstops.

It has the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, established in the 1990s after Hurricane Andrew. It’s like reinsurance, but it’s tax-exempt so it can build reserves faster. Once a trigger is reached, Citizens can go to the catastrophe fund and get reimbursed.

More importantly, if Citizens runs out of money, it has the authority to impose a surcharge on everyone’s policies – not just its own policies, but insurance policies across Florida. It can also impose surcharges on some other types of insurance, such as life insurance and auto insurance. After Hurricane Wilma in 2005, Citizens imposed a 1% surcharge on all homeowner policies.

Those surcharges can bail Citizens out to some degree. But if payouts are in the tens of billions of dollars in losses, it will probably also get a bailout from the state.

So, I’m not as worried for Citizens. Homeowners will need help, though, especially if they’re uninsured. I expect Congress will approve some special funding, as it did in the past for hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy, to provide financial aid for residents and communities.The Conversation

About the Author:

Shahid S. Hamid, Professor of Finance, Florida International University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What are tactical nuclear weapons? An international security expert explains and assesses what they mean for the war in Ukraine

By Nina Srinivasan Rathbun, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences 

Tactical nuclear weapons have burst onto the international stage as Russian President Vladimir Putin, facing battlefield losses in eastern Ukraine, has threatened that Russia will “make use of all weapon systems available to us” if Russia’s territorial integrity is threatened. Putin has characterized the war in Ukraine as an existential battle against the West, which he said wants to weaken, divide and destroy Russia.

U.S. President Joe Biden criticized Putin’s overt nuclear threats against Europe. Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg downplayed the threat, saying Putin “knows very well that a nuclear war should never be fought and cannot be won.” This is not the first time Putin has invoked nuclear weapons in an attempt to deter NATO.

I am an international security scholar who has worked on and researched nuclear restraint, nonproliferation and costly signaling theory applied to international relations for two decades. Russia’s large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, which are not governed by international treaties, and Putin’s doctrine of threatening their use have raised tensions, but tactical nuclear weapons are not simply another type of battlefield weapon.

Tactical by the numbers

Tactical nuclear weapons, sometimes called battlefield or nonstrategic nuclear weapons, were designed to be used on the battlefield – for example, to counter overwhelming conventional forces like large formations of infantry and armor. They are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons like the warheads carried on intercontinental ballistic missiles.

While experts disagree about precise definitions of tactical nuclear weapons, lower explosive yields, measured in kilotons, and shorter-range delivery vehicles are commonly identified characteristics. Tactical nuclear weapons vary in yields from fractions of 1 kiloton to about 50 kilotons, compared with strategic nuclear weapons, which have yields that range from about 100 kilotons to over a megaton, though much more powerful warheads were developed during the Cold War.

For reference, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, so some tactical nuclear weapons are capable of causing widespread destruction. The largest conventional bomb, the Mother of All Bombs or MOAB, that the U.S. has dropped has a 0.011-kiloton yield.

Delivery systems for tactical nuclear weapons also tend to have shorter ranges, typically under 310 miles (500 kilometers) compared with strategic nuclear weapons, which are typically designed to cross continents.

Because low-yield nuclear weapons’ explosive force is not much greater than that of increasingly powerful conventional weapons, the U.S. military has reduced its reliance on them. Most of its remaining stockpile, about 150 B61 gravity bombs, is deployed in Europe. The U.K. and France have completely eliminated their tactical stockpiles. Pakistan, China, India, Israel and North Korea all have several types of tactical nuclear weaponry.

Russia has retained more tactical nuclear weapons, estimated to be around 2,000, and relied more heavily on them in its nuclear strategy than the U.S. has, mostly due to Russia’s less advanced conventional weaponry and capabilities.

Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons can be deployed by ships, planes and ground forces. Most are deployed on air-to-surface missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, gravity bombs and depth charges delivered by medium-range and tactical bombers, or naval anti-ship and anti-submarine torpedoes. These missiles are mostly held in reserve in central depots in Russia.

Russia has updated its delivery systems to be able to carry either nuclear or conventional bombs. There is heightened concern over these dual capability delivery systems because Russia has used many of these short-range missile systems, particularly the Iskander-M, to bombard Ukraine.

Russia’s Iskander-M mobile short-range ballistic missile can carry conventional or nuclear warheads. Russia has used the missile with conventional warheads in the war in Ukraine.

Tactical nuclear weapons are substantially more destructive than their conventional counterparts even at the same explosive energy. Nuclear explosions are more powerful by factors of 10 million to 100 million than chemical explosions, and leave deadly radiation fallout that would contaminate air, soil, water and food supplies, similar to the disastrous Chernobyl nuclear reactor meltdown in 1986. The interactive simulation site NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein depicts the multiple effects of nuclear explosions at various yields.

Can any nuke be tactical?

Unlike strategic nuclear weapons, tactical weapons are not focused on mutually assured destruction through overwhelming retaliation or nuclear umbrella deterrence to protect allies. While tactical nuclear weapons have not been included in arms control agreements, medium-range weapons were included in the now-defunct Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (1987-2018), which reduced nuclear weapons in Europe.

Both the U.S. and Russia reduced their total nuclear arsenals from about 19,000 and 35,000 respectively at the end of the Cold War to about 3,700 and 4,480 as of January 2022. Russia’s reluctance to negotiate over its nonstrategic nuclear weapons has stymied further nuclear arms control efforts.

The fundamental question is whether tactical nuclear weapons are more “useable” and therefore could potentially trigger a full-scale nuclear war. Their development was part of an effort to overcome concerns that because large-scale nuclear attacks were widely seen as unthinkable, strategic nuclear weapons were losing their value as a deterrent to war between the superpowers. The nuclear powers would be more likely to use tactical nuclear weapons, in theory, and so the weapons would bolster a nation’s nuclear deterrence.

Yet, any use of tactical nuclear weapons would invoke defensive nuclear strategies. In fact, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis notably stated in 2018: “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon use any time is a strategic game changer.”

This documentary explores how the risk of nuclear war has changed – and possibly increased – since the end of the Cold War.

The U.S. has criticized Russia’s nuclear strategy of escalate to de-escalate, in which tactical nuclear weapons could be used to deter a widening of the war to include NATO.

While there is disagreement among experts, Russian and U.S. nuclear strategies focus on deterrence, and so involve large-scale retaliatory nuclear attacks in the face of any first-nuclear weapon use. This means that Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent to conventional war is threatening an action that would, under nuclear warfare doctrine, invite a retaliatory nuclear strike if aimed at the U.S. or NATO.

Nukes and Ukraine

I believe Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not achieve any military goal. It would contaminate the territory that Russia claims as part of its historic empire and possibly drift into Russia itself. It would increase the likelihood of direct NATO intervention and destroy Russia’s image in the world.

Putin aims to deter Ukraine’s continued successes in regaining territory by preemptively annexing regions in the east of the country after holding staged referendums. He could then declare that Russia would use nuclear weapons to defend the new territory as though the existence of the Russian state were threatened. But I believe this claim stretches Russia’s nuclear strategy beyond belief.

Putin has explicitly claimed that his threat to use tactical nuclear weapons is not a bluff precisely because, from a strategic standpoint, using them is not credible.The Conversation

About the Author:

Nina Srinivasan Rathbun, Professor of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The RBNZ raised the interest rate by 50 bps. Stock indices rise as economic indicators fall

By JustForex

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported on Tuesday that job openings fell from 11.17 million to 10.05 million during August. On the one hand, the news is negative. Still, on the other hand, investors have begun to wonder if the slowdown seen in the US economy will cause the Federal Reserve to adjust its rate hike trajectory and be less aggressive. The real estate market is already in recession, manufacturing activity is slowing, and the labor market has shown signs of weakness. This caused the dollar and US government bond yields to pull back sharply, allowing the stock market to rise substantially.

At the close of the stock market yesterday, the Dow Jones Index (US30) increased by 2.80%, and the S&P 500 Index (US500) added 3.06%. The NASDAQ Technology Index (US100) jumped by 2.69% on Tuesday.

Monetary and fiscal policies in advanced economies, including continued interest rate hikes, could push the world into a global recession and stagnation, the UN Trade and Development said. The global recession has the potential to cause more damage than the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid-19 shock in 2020. Developing countries in Asia and Africa could bear the brunt of the impending recession, according to the report. If central banks continue to raise interest rates without using other tools and without considering supply-side economics, the desired soft landing is unlikely.

The Global Manufacturing PMI fell into contractionary territory (below the 50 level) for the first time since 2020. The Core Index fell from 50.3 in August to 49.8 in September. The report points to a worsening manufacturing trend in the coming months amid an intensifying downturn in global trade flows, reduced demand related to the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, and growing economic uncertainty about the outlook.

Reuters reported that billionaire Elon Musk plans to realize his initial $44 billion bid to privatize Twitter Inc.

Stock markets in Europe were mostly rising yesterday. Germany’s DAX (DE30) gained 3.78%, France’s CAC 40 (FR40) added 4.24%, Spain’s IBEX 35 (ES35) jumped by 3.14%, Britain’s FTSE 100 (UK100) closed up 2.57% yesterday.

Fiscal changes in the UK had a rather broad impact on global risk attitude and probably contributed to the recovery of risky assets and bonds. But according to analysts, European assets still have a long way to go to restore market positioning, given the energy crisis and geopolitical events. Experts remain skeptical about Europe and believe the recent recovery in sentiment is temporary.

There will be an important OPEC+ meeting today. According to preliminary information, the OPEC+ countries will consider cutting the quota by 1-2 million barrels per day in order to support oil prices. Yesterday, the price of “black gold” jumped by 3% on these rumors. If OPEC+ countries cut production, this step will sharply reduce supply in the oil market. For his part, Kuwait Oil Minister said yesterday that OPEC+ would make a suitable decision to guarantee energy supplies and serve the interests of producers and consumers.

Asian markets traded higher yesterday. Japan’s Nikkei 225 (JP225) gained 2.96%, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng (HK50) did not trade, and Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 (AU200) ended the day up 3.75%.

The Central Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) raised its interest rate by 0.5% but considered a 0.75% increase. The RBNZ raised interest rates for the eighth time in a row, bringing the interest rate to 3.5%, the highest among major economies. The meeting minutes said that inflation is currently too high and employment is above the maximum sustainable level. RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr noted that their tightening cycle has become “very mature,” although “there is still some work to be done.” The RBNZ expects its OCR rate to be 3.7% by December, and with only one meeting left this year, the RBNZ is very likely to raise the rate by 0.25% at the end of the year.

S&P 500 (F) (US500) 3,791.05 +112.62 (+3.06%)

Dow Jones (US30) 30,316.98 +826.09 (+2.80%)

DAX (DE40) 12,670.48 +461.00 (+3.78%)

FTSE 100 (UK100) 7,086.46 +177.70 (+2.57%)

USD Index 110.15 -1.60 (-1.43%)

Important events for today:
  • – Australia Retail Sales (m/m) at 03:30 (GMT+3);
  • – Japan Services PMI (m/m) at 03:30 (GMT+3);
  • – New Zealand Interest Rate Decision at 04:00 (GMT+3);
  • – New Zealand RBNZ Rate Statement at 04:00 (GMT+3);
  • – Eurozone Services PMI (m/m) at 11:00 (GMT+3);
  • – UK Services PMI (m/m) at 11:30 (GMT+3);
  • – OPEC+ Meeting at 13:00 (GMT+3);
  • – US ISM Services PMI (m/m) at 17:00 (GMT+3);
  • – US Crude Oil Reserves (w/w) at 17:30 (GMT+3).

By JustForex

 

This article reflects a personal opinion and should not be interpreted as an investment advice, and/or offer, and/or a persistent request for carrying out financial transactions, and/or a guarantee, and/or a forecast of future events.

Capping Russia’s oil profits could keep oil flowing to global markets at a reasonable cost while slashing Putin’s war funding

By Amitrajeet A. Batabyal, Rochester Institute of Technology 

The world as we know it cannot function without oil, giving oil-producing countries an advantage economists call market power. Nations that produce oil are able to set the price, while countries that rely on oil have little choice but to buy it at prices determined by the seller.

While this asymmetry in market power generally favors the seller, in response to the war in Ukraine, a group of global oil buyers are trying to leverage their economic purchasing power to weaken Russia’s strength as a major global oil producer. The European Union and the United States have both imposed bans on the purchase of Russian oil. In solidarity, other nations like Australia and Canada have also decided to not purchase Russian oil anymore.

Now, the G-7 countries – a group of democracies including the United States that try to coordinate global policy – are developing a price cap they hope nations will agree to when paying for Russian oil to further limit Russia’s profits and shrink the income stream that fuels its war with Ukraine. Can a price cap make a difference? And if so, how?

Oil as an economic engine

Given that it is not possible for the world to completely wean itself off Russian oil, the G-7 recently announced that it is planning to cap the price of Russian oil beginning in December 2022. Its goal is to get more nations to join the G-7 price cap scheme.

Tankers in the foreground of an industrial landscape. Billowing emissions from smokestacks rise in the air.
European Union sanctions will prohibit Russian oil exports from international shipping lanes and ports.
Chris LeBoutillier for Unsplash, CC BY-SA

The economics of a price cap can be quite straightforward. The escalating costs of an apartment in New York, for example, demonstrate how rent control – a price cap policy – protects renters from the rising cost of housing. When the market rental price, which equates the demand for apartments with its supply, is too high, a price cap below the market rental rate ensures that the price of an apartment cannot legally be higher than the cap.

Squeezing Russian oil profits

Led by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the G-7 nations in July 2022 decided to cap the price of oil sold by Russia, a policy that is planned to go into effect on Dec. 5. Since this cap would be executed in an international setting with different rules and regulations and with nations whose interests are not always aligned, the success of a price cap is not guaranteed. Even so, the leaders of the G-7 agree that a cap policy is needed to decelerate, if not stop, the Russian war machine.

A man stands in a doorway of a residential building that has been bombed. Rubble blocks his way.
Shelling continued in the town of Toretsk in the Donetsk region in late September 2022 as Russia moved to annex portions of Ukraine.
Anatolie Stepanov via Getty Images, CC BY-ND

In addition to ensuring Putin’s war funding is reduced, a cap may help preclude an even higher spike of oil prices. The European Union’s sixth sanctions package is set to ban all Russian crude imports by sea – also set to begin Dec. 5, 2022 – and all refined oil products starting on Feb. 5, 2023. Because the world economy will have relatively little time to adjust to these hard cutoff dates, they are likely to lead to enormous oil price hikes that could cause great suffering in the European Union, the United States and other nations.

If capped at the right level – a little above Russia’s cost of producing oil, estimated at US$40 per barrel – and periodically monitored, then Russia will likely act in its own interest and legally sell oil at the capped price. Potential buyers would not run afoul of Western sanctions if oil is purchased at the capped price, helping to limit dramatic upticks in the price. This is how the price cap concept is supposed to work. Yet a few things could go wrong.

Chief among these is the behavior of nations that are not party to the G-7 cap. China and India, for instance, could decide that they will pay no heed to the cap and simply continue to do business with Russia as they have in the recent past.

But economic forces are likely to make China and India behave consistent with the cap policy.

Since oil can always be purchased at the capped price, China and India have an incentive to reduce their oil expenditures by obtaining even larger discounts from Russia to continue to buy its oil. Since Russia is desperate to find markets for its oil, to continue to do business in these large markets, President Vladimir Putin either has to sell his oil at the capped price or at a negotiated discount. Either way, the intention of the cap, to reduce oil revenues flowing to Putin, will be met.

Some nations might be able to undermine the cap because it would be difficult to enforce. Privately held companies in the business of shipping and financing Russian oil may continue to sell oil to buyers. Such entities, because of the risk of running afoul of Western sanctions, are likely to do so after demanding a cut from any oil sales, and this will, once again, have the impact of cutting into Putin’s profits.

Other forces may help maintain a cap

Another consideration for businesses that ignore the cap is that 90% of maritime insurance is based in Britain and the EU. Such firms will not be able to do legal business with Russian entities or those promoting its interests as determined by the international cap enforcement criteria. Based on my research, I believe that not many buyers will continue to do business with Russia when most seaports, ocean shipping lanes and oil tankers are off-limits to Russian oil because of the terms stipulated in the European Union’s sixth sanctions package.

Putin claims that he will not sell Russian oil to nations participating in the cap program. Based on my research, this is difficult to believe given how dependent the Russian economy is on oil revenue.

Russia’s economy is in poor shape. By one measure, its war with Ukraine is costing about $1 billion per day. Such high costs, in concert with Western sanctions, will continue to have an adverse impact on Russia’s economy. To continue his “special military operation” in Ukraine, Putin urgently needs more revenue.

Oil sales are Russia’s principal revenue source. Perhaps the price cap will pressure Russia to choose selling oil over waging war.The Conversation

About the Author:

Amitrajeet A. Batabyal, Distinguished Professor, Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics, & Interim Head, Department of Sustainability, Rochester Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Truss and Kwarteng’s U-turn will not be enough to calm markets

By George Prior

The UK government’s humiliating U-turn on the higher tax rate reforms will not be enough to calm turbulent financial markets, warns the CEO of one of the world’s largest financial advisory, asset management and fintech organizations.

The warning from Nigel Green of deVere Group comes as it is reported that the Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, plans to bring forward his medium-term fiscal plan announcement to this month.

The deVere CEO says: “Mr Kwarteng’s bringing forward of the plan to this month rather than November 23 underscores just how badly the so-called mini budget was received by financial markets.

“Having the announcement sooner rather than later is the right thing to do, as the longer the markets wait for proof that the government’s fiscal agenda is sound, the higher the risk of turbulence.

“However, the bringing forward of the announcement and the scrapping of plans to axe the 45p tax rate stinks of desperation.”

He continues: “The forthcoming amendments to the reckless mini budget that we know already are unlikely to calm markets in a significant way.

“Sterling did regain some ground higher against the dollar and gilt yields fell on the scrapping of the 45p rate announcement, but the pound will remain under pressure and high bond yields remain of serious concern.

“Investors’ trust in UK plc has had a hole blown through it.”

Last week, Nigel Green noted that markets now know where the weakness lies. He added: “If they don’t budge, they will have blown up the UK mortgage market, UK pensions, amongst others, and eventually this could spread to impact the wider global financial markets which themselves are sitting on thin ice as liquidity disappears.”

“Prime Minister Liz Truss and her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng have created a loop of doom.

He concludes: “There will be some relief that the UK government finally seems to be listening somewhat.

“However, the modified plans do not go nearly far enough to ease markets and regain economic trust and confidence.”

About:

deVere Group is one of the world’s largest independent advisors of specialist global financial solutions to international, local mass affluent, and high-net-worth clients.  It has a network of more than 70 offices across the world, over 80,000 clients and $12bn under advisement.

 

The RBA raised the rate by 0.25% instead of 0.5%. The US stock indices rebounded from September lows.

By JustForex

The US stocks rose on the first trading day of October after a challenging September. The Dow Jones (US30) and S&P 500 (US500) indices experienced their worst months since March 2020 and were dangerously close to their June lows. As the stock market closed yesterday, the Dow Jones Index (US30) increased by 0.79%, and the S&P 500 Index (US500) added 2.59%. The Technology Index NASDAQ (US100) gained 2.91% on Monday.

Shares of Apple, Microsoft, and Google pushed the tech sector up. But Tesla shares fell more than 8.5% as the company reported third-quarter deliveries that fell short of Wall Street’s expectations.

Analysts believe that even though the long-term trend points to lower prices, fresh quarterly flows could rebound from current levels. At the same time, experts pointed out that higher US Treasury bond yields continue to discourage investors from risky assets.

Equity markets in Europe mostly rose yesterday. German DAX (DE30) gained 0.76%, French CAC 40 (FR40) added 0.55%, Spanish IBEX 35 (ES35) jumped by 1.29%, British FTSE 100 (UK100) closed yesterday with 0.22% gain.

In Switzerland, the Consumer Price Index in September 2022 decreased by 0.2% compared to the previous month. In annual terms, inflation fell from 3.5% to 3.3%. The Swiss and Canadian economies are currently among the most resilient in an environment of rising interest rates and high energy prices.

The Business Activity Index in the manufacturing sectors across Europe continues to decline. The biggest declines are in Germany (48.3→47.8), Spain (49.9→49.0), and France (47.8→47.7). Italy has a small gain (48.0→48.3), but the Eurozone Manufacturing PMI index has fallen from 48.5 to 48.4. A value below 50 for the third consecutive month indicates that the Eurozone economy is, de facto, already in recession. The main problem for the Eurozone is still high inflation, which is accompanied by rising electricity and gas prices, forcing companies to economize and cut production.

Oil prices rose on Monday. The OPEC+ meeting, which begins Wednesday, could well lead to a production cut of one million barrels a day, pushing oil traders to buy. Technically, oil is pointing to further declines, so OPEC+ countries are serious about getting prices back above $90 a barrel by cutting.

Asian markets traded flat yesterday. Japan’s Nikkei 225 (JP225) gained +1.07%, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng (HK50) ended yesterday down by 0.83%, and Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 (AU200) ended the day down by 0.27%.

The Central Bank of Australia (RBA) raised its interest rate by 0.25%, which came as a surprise since the expectation was a 0.5% increase. The accompanying statement said that the RBA decided to raise the monetary rate by 25 basis points this month as it reassessed the outlook for inflation and economic growth in Australia. The central CPI inflation forecast is about 7.75% in 2022, just over 4% in 2023, and about 3% in 2024. That said, further rate increases are expected in the coming months.

The Reserve Bank (RBNZ) is set to raise the official interest rate (OCR) for the eighth consecutive time tomorrow. Analysts are forecasting another 50 basis point increase in the OCR to 3.5%, the highest level since mid-2015. On the other hand, if the RBNZ raises the rate by 0.25% tomorrow instead of 0.5%, as the RBA did today, it would be a great precedent for other central banks, including the US Fed, to become less aggressive, and would also indicate that we are close to the end of the rate hike cycle.

S&P 500 (F) (US500) 3,678.43 +92.81 (+2.59%)

Dow Jones (US30) 29,490.36 +764.85 (+2.66%)

DAX (DE40) 12,209.48  +95.12 (+0.79%)

FTSE 100 (UK100) 6,908.76 +14.95 (+0.22%)

USD Index 111.71 -0.41 (-0.37%)

Important events for today:
  • – Japan Tokyo Core CP (m/m) at 02:30 (GMT+3);
  • – Australia RBA Interest Rate Decision (m/m) at 06:30 (GMT+3);
  • – Australia RBA Rate Statement (m/m) at 06:30 (GMT+3);
  • – US FOMC Member Williams Speaks (m/m) at 16:00 (GMT+3);
  • – US FOMC Member Mester Speaks (m/m) at 16:15 (GMT+3);
  • – US JOLTs Job Openings (m/m) at 17:00 (GMT+3);
  • – Eurozone ECB President Lagarde Speaks (m/m) at 18:00 (GMT+3).

By JustForex

 

This article reflects a personal opinion and should not be interpreted as an investment advice, and/or offer, and/or a persistent request for carrying out financial transactions, and/or a guarantee, and/or a forecast of future events.