Reverse home-spun racial prejudices, Don't be an Ibrahim, Perkasa ! Drop him!

Comment by SHAILA KOSHER

“DON’T be an Ibrahim Ali in our homes.”

When the young and savvy Hannah Yeoh made this remark at the 5th National Con­gress of Integrity (NCOI) on Malaysia Day, it drove home a point.

Many Malaysians love castigating Datuk Ibrahim Ali, the head of Perkasa, yet a lot of them spout their own brand of bigotry and prejudice in their homes. Worse, they brainwash the next generation with their biases and stereotypes.

After 47 years, Malaysians – young and old – are still trying to work out what the promise of Malaysia in 1963 was. Is it in the Federal Constitution, in government policies? Has race-based politics resulted in us being more fragmented today than before?

I think that if all Malaysians put into practice the Subang Jaya assemblywoman’s timely advice, we’re on to a good start to improving national integration, reducing polarisation and developing as a nation.

Slagging off a co-worker or neighbour in your home might be cathartic. But by tagging a gender or ethnic origin at the end of “that inept/useless ...”, it means that when your child inevitably meets someone of that race/gender who is all those things, your bigotry is validated as “the truth” instead of the fact that laziness, stupidity and chauvinism is common to all of the human race.

Often times, schools can reverse racism nurtured at the parent’s knees, but it would appear that our young are in danger of having home-spun prejudices reinforced by racist teachers in our schools as well.

Chatting with a senior judge a few days later on the responsibility of parents because children insidiously learn racism at home and the school, he had a horror tale to tell: “I was in practice then. I asked my son about a birthday party he’d asked to go to earlier and he said ‘Not going, he’s Indian.’”

“When I asked why, he replied it was because of something his teacher said. Needless to say, my wife and I made him go to the party.”

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak declared Malaysia Day a public holiday this year. But if he wants to successfully propagate 1Malaysia, the Government must promote a society of equal citizens and protect the marginalised.

He must put an end to or have a sunset clause in policies that polarise Malaysians based on political classifications (bumiputra versus non-bumiputra), ethnic origins (Malay vs non-Malay), religion (Muslim vs non-Muslim), geographical location (West Malaysia vs East Malaysia) and ability (able-bodied vs disabled).

Meanwhile, quite unfettered by slogans and/or political baggage, non-governmental organisations which organised three events in the Klang Valley on Sept 16 did not just help the people celebrate Malaysia but also explore its nuts and bolts (a.k.a. the Federal Constitution) intellectually and artistically.

One was the Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (Ohmsi) that has been the driving force behind five National Congress on Integrity (NCOI) events with different partners since the first NCOI in 2005.

Ohmsi, which is focused on integration with integrity and building bridges of respect, is slowly seeing the impact of its work in individuals. In 2009, Malaysia Day was not a public holiday but Ohmsi and a regular partner – the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies – held a closed-door dialogue between Muslims and Christians.

In the light of the continuing controversy over whether Muslims can visit their friends during religious celebrations or invite them to a mosque, it was reassuring to hear that the Islamic Information & Services Foundation takes Muslims to churches and temples where they attend the service, dialogue and share a meal with their Christian, Hindu or Buddhist hosts.

It wasn’t just talk. Last Nov 22, 50 Muslim brothers and sisters attended the Holy Qurbana (Communion) service at the Mar Thoma Church in Kuala Lumpur. It was reported in The Star on Nov 29 that it was a learning and heartfelt experience for both visitors and the hosts.

At this year’s NCOI, former Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram and senior lawyer Datuk Azzat Kamaluddin spoke on national integration with Constitutional integrity: when the Executive and the Legislature both fail the people, it is up to the Judiciary to uphold their fundamental liberties as Constitution is the blueprint of “Malaysia”.

Senator Datuk Seri Idris Jala, who spoke on celebrating diversity, shared an anecdote of an elderly villager from his kampung in Sabah who told him to take his programme on integration to the peninsula because those in East Malaysia already knew more about living together peacefully with those of different ethnic origins and faiths.

Maybe the Education Ministry should get into the mini-homestay business – send batches of orang Semenanjung to live in Sabah and Sarawak, starting with students.

The other organisation deserving mention is the Bar Council’s Constitutional Law Committee, which is driving a two-year campaign to educate all Malaysians on the Constitution in layman terms.

They launched the campaign’s 6th phase, despite a 1Malaysia youth club recently lodging a police report against the council for handing out allegedly seditious material on the Constitution.

These young graduates seem to object to Malaysians learning about the Constitution but another young bunch have chosen instead to render their thoughts in music under Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia’s (SABM) youth project.

Aliff, 23, lead guitarist for Car Crash Hearts rock band, said their song Bangkit! hoped to move youths to get out and vote instead of just whining and complaining.

One year ago, the SABM with its message of “One People, One Nation” had attracted “the oldies”.
But its co-founder Haris Ibrahim reckons “the baton is being passed on to the younger generation by the old fogies”.

Hopefully by next Malaysia Day, we’ll all be a little less polarised, a little more integrated, a little more a Bangsa Malaysia.

Tuesday September 28, 2010

Koh: Don’t give Perkasa space and face

KUALA LUMPUR: Malay rights group Perkasa should not be given the publicity that it has been enjoying, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon.

He said the group was of no importance and that “we should not give them too much face and space.”
“However, while taking a stand against extremism, we should look at the root cause which are socio-economic and political in nature,” he told reporters after giving his keynote address at the National Unity Forum 2010 here yesterday.

He said voices like Perkasa had always existed in every society but they were not well-articulated then.
“When society becomes more open and with the development of technology and the Internet, these voices that were hidden have now become well-known,” he said.

On the 1Malaysia concept, Dr Koh said it was about inclusiveness and not just tolerance.

“In realising the goal of 1Malaysia, we have to ensure we practise inclusiveness in everything we do.
“At the Government level, the implementation of policies must be fair and just and seen to be so,” he said.
Dr Koh said Malaysians must respect the differences of others and celebrate their diversity and uniqueness.

He declined to comment when asked whether he would move a motion against Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan to remove him as the Penang Gerakan chief.

“This is an internal party matter and I do not intend to make a public statement,” said Dr Koh, who is Gerakan president.

Wednesday September 29, 2010

MCA chief: Deputy director not fit for Civics Bureau position

KUALA LUMPUR: A deputy director of the National Civics Bureau (NCB) who allegedly uttered racist remarks is no longer fit to hold his position, MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said.

He added that Hamim Husin should be sent for counselling, retraining and transferred to a desk job.
Dr Chua said Hamim did not understand the concept of democracy when he proclaimed Malay rights as a mandate to rule the country.

“He obviously does not know what democracy is all about. In a country that practises democracy, it is the rakyat who determine who rules the country,” he said.

A news portal on Monday reported that Hamim had made the remarks at a Puteri Umno event.

Dr Chua said the Public Services Department should take action against Hamim if he was in the wrong.
“Our (MCA) stand is very clear. Anyone who makes remarks which are racial, religious, extreme in nature and hurt the people of other religions or races should be subjected to punishment according to the country’s laws,” he told reporters after chairing the party’s presidential council meeting here yesterday.

MCA publicity bureau deputy chairman Loh Seng Kok said it was shameful for a public servant employed to train upcoming civil servants to use such derogatory stereotypical terms.

He said Hamim’s statement had offended the Chinese and Indian communities.

“If necessary, the police should also charge Hamim under the Sedition Act. It is time to put a halt to the arrogance and intolerance of bigots,” he said in a statement yesterday.

Loh said lecturers and facilitators should take heed from Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s earlier announcement that the Cabinet had given the nod for the NCB course to be revamped to cater to all races in line with 1Malaysia.

MIC vice-president Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam also condemned Hamim’s derogatory remarks, saying NCB was a government agency under the Prime Minister’s Department.

The Price of Crisis Prevention

 Present value of corresponding losses in future output estimated at 100% of world GDP.

COMMENT
By JEAN PISANI-FERRY

TWO years have passed since the financial crises erupted, and we have only started to realise how costly it is likely to be. Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England estimates that the present value of the corresponding losses in future output could well reach 100% of world GDP (or gross domestic product).

This estimate may look astonishingly high, but it is relatively conservative, as it assumes that only one-quarter of the initial shock will result in permanently lower output.

According to the true doomsayers, who believe that most, if not all, of the shock will have a permanent impact on output, the total loss could be two or three times higher.

One year of world GDP amounts to US$60 trillion, which corresponds to about five centuries of official development assistance or, to be even more concrete, 10 billion classrooms in African villages. Of course, this is no direct cost to public budgets (the total cost of bank rescue packages is much lower), but this lost output is the cost that matters most when considering how to reduce the frequency of crises.

Assume that, absent adequate preventive measures, a crisis costing one year of world GDP occurs every 50 years (a rough but not unreasonable assumption). It would then be rational for the world’s citizens to pay an insurance premium, provided its cost remains below 2% of GDP (100%/50).

A simple way to reduce the frequency of crises is to require banks to rely more on equity and less on debt so that they can incur more losses without going bankrupt – a measure that is currently being considered at the global level. Thanks to reports just released by the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee – one on the long-term implications of requiring higher capital-to-asset ratios, and one on the transitory effects of introducing them – we know more now about the likely impact of such regulation.

The first report finds that, starting from the current low level of bank capitalisation, a one percentage point increase in capital ratios would permanently reduce the frequency of crises by one-third, while increasing interest rates by some 13 basis points (banks would need to charge more because it costs them more to raise capital than to issue debt).

In other words, the price of losing one year of income every 75 years instead of every 50 years would lead banks to increase the rate on a loan from 4% to 4.13%. Such an insignificant increase would at most lead a few bank customers to turn to alternative sources of finance, most likely with no discernible effect on GDP.
It is stunning to find that a regulation can do so much good at such a small cost – much smaller than in many other fields where public policy imposes economically costly safety requirements. Think, for example, of the environment or public health, where the precautionary principle guides decision-making.

So much for the long term. The hotly debated question nowadays is whether the transition to higher mandatory reserves would involve excessive short-term costs (as banks will likely increase lending spreads and reduce credit volumes). Subjecting banks, some of which are still ailing, to new regulation may lead them to curtail lending even more, thereby further weakening the pace of economic recovery.

Sound judgement is needed regarding the speed and timing of regulatory tightening.

The second report finds that a one-percentage-point increase in bank capital ratios, if introduced gradually over four years, would lower GDP by about 0.2%. Given that increases by three percentage points are frequently mentioned, the total effect could be 0.6%.

Uncertainties abound

But uncertainties abound. The report oddly finds that raising the target capital ratio would have a significantly greater adverse effect in the United States than in the eurozone, despite the latter’s more pronounced reliance on bank-based financing.

Moreover, the report assumes that monetary policy can offset part of the shock, which may not be true where near zero interest rates already prevail – or in the euro area where the effort may vary across countries while monetary policy is uniform.

So the impact of new regulations on countries where banks are significantly under-capitalised could easily be four or five times larger than the headline figure – say, in the vicinity of a percentage point at a four-year horizon.

This may still look small, but it is hardly a trivial sum in view of the short-term growth outlook in the developed world. At a time when growth is too slow to reduce massive unemployment, every decimal matters.

To lower growth by this magnitude at a time when the private sector has not yet completed its deleveraging cycle – and governments are starting their own – is to risk a prolonged period of near stagnation, which could turn crisis-induced unemployment into structural unemployment.

Furthermore, tighter credit standards over a prolonged period are likely to fall disproportionately on cash-poor, fast-growing companies, with consequences for innovation, productivity, and ultimately growth potential.

None of this means that banks should be granted a regulatory holiday and forget the need to recapitalise. But it does suggest, first, that timing matters. Policymakers should be wary of imposing a regulatory shock simultaneously with a fiscal shock. For this reason, enacting new regulatory standards now while setting distant deadlines is a sensible strategy.

Second, the existence and magnitude of transition costs means that not everything that reduces the probability of financial crises is worth undertaking. For politicians obsessed by current difficulties, whether the next crisis occurs in 50 or 75 years may seem secondary. As a result, regulatory reform must be designed in a way that minimises short-term costs.

Higher capital ratios and liquidity ratios are only one of several approaches to making the financial system safer. Other measures – say, capital insurance, or reform of the boundaries within the financial industry, a la Paul Volcker – are worth considering.

There is no doubt that the long-term price of insuring against crises is worth paying. But that doesn’t mean that reform should not be as cost-effective as possible. © Project Syndicate
● Jean Pisani-Ferry is director of European think-tank, Bruegel.

Japan in deep hibernation, Yen intervention, Saving crisis

WHAT ARE WE TO DO
By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN

I AM privileged to be associated with the Asian Economic Panel (AEP), first convened in 2002 on the initiative of the Centre for International Development at Harvard University, Keio University and the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.

This forum promotes quality analysis of key economic issues in Asia, and offers creative solutions by drawing on the collective wisdom of worldwide economists. The prime movers were Prof Jeffrey Sachs and Prof Eisuke Sakakibara. When Jeffrey moved to Columbia, his new Earth Institute replaced Harvard. Brookings has since come on board.

AEP last met at Keio University (Tokyo) on Sept 11. Observations on what’s happening in Japan by Prof Yoshino, a respected insider with deep knowledge of official thinking, were insightful. He is optimistic Japanese economic activity will gradually improve, shake off deflation and return to steady nominal growth since the bubble burst in 1990. Sure, the economy is stuck with deflation; public debt is rising, population is ageing and Japan still has to define and find its “proper place” in the world.

But Japan is unique. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it is simplistic to say all Japan needed is a strong leader with guts to do what everyone knows has to be done. Yes, Japan’s leaders have so far oscillated and shirked hard choices.

To be fair, solutions are far from obvious. A visitor to Tokyo sees no outward signs of crisis. However, lots of political intrigue is evident. Politicians and policymakers have bickered and schemed, but have chosen to leave things as they are. The Sept 10 set of disappointing “stimulus” measures reflects recognition of the complex web of bureaucratic intrigue and the public’s deep ambivalence about what is wrong and how to fix it. There are no magic solutions.

Sleep walking in slow motion

Since the bubble burst in 1990, Japan experienced three bouts of negative growth dips (’93, ’98 and ’02), with nominal GDP falling faster than real (price adjusted) GDP, reflecting deflation – the so called “lost decade.” In 2001, growth recovered but only gradually – since averaging 2% a year, with nominal income slackening (about 1% p.a.).

This trend was interrupted by the global crisis when GDP fell by 0.7% in 2008 and 6% in 2009. So, after two decades of virtual stagnation, nominal GDP today is at the same level as 1992. Growth in 2010 is expected at 1.7% (2Q’10 growth has been revised to an annualised 1.6% against just 0.4% earlier).

To put this in perspective, the world is expected to grow by 2.5% in 2010, with advanced economies recovering at an average 0.6% (with less than 1% each in the United States and euro-zone), compared with 7% in developing Asia, 8.5% in China, 6.5% in India and 3.7% in Asean-5. But the outlook for global growth will likely get worse.

Once heralded as the unchallenged economic giant of Asia, Japan is today a pale reflection of its old self. Although recovering, the vital signs are weak in the face of faltering global growth and a high yen. There is widespread concern that its fragile recovery could soon run out of steam as key export markets in Asia contract and the strong yen exerts new pressure on its exporters.

Already, corporate capital spending slipped in 2Q’10 even though inventory surged. Such spending, accounting for 16% GDP, is likely to moderate. Official data showed businesses becoming nervous about the outlook even before the yen’s continuing gain and as share prices tumble.

Japan has emerged as a key beneficiary of global recovery, helped by its proximity to Asia’s fast moving economies and its companies’ large presence in the region, especially China. In 1Q’10, Asia accounted for 55% of Japan’s exports (26% for the United States and 23% for Europe). This has heightened anxiety since Japan ceded ground to China as the world’s second largest economy.

Other indicators point to more of the same:

(i) private consumption spending (60% of GDP) was flat in 2Q’10. As a result, domestic demand subtracted 0.2 percentage points from GDP growth;

(ii) contribution to GDP from external demand (exports less imports) added only 0.3 percentage points in 2Q’10 (0.6 percentage points in 1Q’10), reflecting softening of demand, including from Asia;

(iii) weak job market weighed-in on consumer sentiment in June; unemployment hit a 7-month high at 5.3%; and

(iv) deflation continued to drag on recovery.

Persistent price falls encourage consumers to postpone purchases, waiting for prices to fall further; they also hurt business investment by weighing-in on firms’ bottom line and raising real borrowing costs. The GDP deflator (the broadest measure of prices) was -1.8% in 2Q’10 against -2.8% in 1Q’10. It continues to underscore how deeply entrenched deflation really is. As I see it, risk of protracted deflation is rising given the strong yen. It looks like Japan will remain in deep sleep for a while longer.

New stimulus

Clouding the outlook for deflation, exports and competition is the recent strengthening of the yen. Dollar-yen fell in mid-September to 84.72, its lowest since July 1995. No wonder the Japanese economy doesn’t instil confidence. It continues to wage a losing battle against deflation; population is ageing (and in decline); and government is struggling with a mountain of debt.

Yet, the yen has risen steadily and is now at its highest in 15 years. Most economists, including Yoshino, think Japan is in a lull but the risk of going into a double-dip remains low. Amidst strong calls for government and Bank of Japan (BoJ) to do more to support growth and ease business concerns facing a bleak future, is the unmistakeable and urgent need for them to take strong supply-side and tax measures to encourage companies to grow.

In response, on Sept 10, the Kan administration unveiled a 915 billion yen stimulus package to ward off dangers of double-dip recession in the face of increasing downside risks from a strong yen and slowing global demand. The measures comprised

(a) about US$10bil of fiscal stimulus offering support for jobs, investment, consumer spending, disaster prevention and deregulation; these efforts are expected to boost GDP by 0.3 percentage points and create 200,000 new jobs; and

(b) a 10 trillion yen top-up (to 30 trillion yen) from BoJ of soft loans at 1% for local banks to help bolster their lending. Not surprisingly, the impact felt like water off a duck’s back since what the market wanted was strong supply-side stimulus; after all, the banks are already so flushed with funds and so risk-adverse that more funding doesn’t help.

Yen intervention

A week later (Sept 15) in a measure that took the market off-guard, Japan broke international convention and intervened directly to weaken the yen for the first time in six years. The impact was swift when selling orders hit the market early as US dollar fell to a new low of 82.57 yen. It hit one yen higher and was trading up 1.6% on the day at 84.50 yen. It closed midday in New York at 85.59.

Effects have already begun to fade with the rate at 84.91 (Tokyo) on Sept 22. Historically, Japan has not intervened since March 2004 after a 15-month, 35 trillion yen (US$422bil) selling spree aimed at stopping the strong yen from railroading economic recovery. However, the yen rose to its highest since 1995 in the face of surging carry-trade business made possible by low US interest rates, bringing the yen closer to its record peak of 79.75 set in 1995.

Japan is not alone in this. The Swiss National Bank intervened to hold the Swiss franc (SF) down against the euro in a move in March 2009 as part of a package to fight off deflation risks. The euro has since fallen 12% this year.

Similarly, the strengthening yen is of concern to Japan’s neighbours in the face of a weakening US dollar. Prior to the intervention, the US dollar fell 4.2% against the Singapore dollar so far this year. It has also fallen against other Asian currencies: down 8.7% against the ringgit, 6.6% against the baht, 4.4% against the rupiah, and 3.4% against the Philippine peso.

Asian authorities worry swift and sharp rises in their currencies can become destabilising. It also makes their exports less competitive. But it’s anti-inflationary. In comparison, the US dollar had devalued by nearly 10% against the yen.

As I see it, Japan is fighting fundamentals. Like the SF, the yen has strengthened because the market doesn’t like the US dollar (with its weak economy and high deficits) or the euro (so crisis stricken). Swiss intervention could not hold back bags of monies flowing in for safety.

Similarly, its own 2003-04 experience points to only slowing down the yen’s rise. However, this time Japan may have an advantage. Deflation (near zero interest rate) means its interest rates are still too high; hence, more QE (quantitative easing). Printing money to buy US dollar has similar impact, by allowing US$23.5bil through intervention to remain in the market. Japan may not be able to hold back yen’s rise. But the side-effects make it worthwhile.

Deflation, status quo and recovery

For Japan, deflation remains a constant worry. Make no mistake, deflation is becoming more alarming. Prices in Tokyo (a leading indicator) fell again in June. Nation-wide core deflation (excluding food & energy) was 1.2%, the sharpest fall since 1971.

Yen strength is asphyxiating exporters and feeding (through imports) a self-reinforcing spiral of lower prices and wages. This process raises the real burden of private debt; public debt to GDP ratio is a whopping 190%. Yet, bond yields are stubbornly low and living standards high.

This is not sustainable for three reasons: (i) as expectations of deflation become entrenched (35% of Japanese expect prices to be the same or lower in 5 years’ time), consumption will be depressed; (ii) as Japan ages, savings will run down, and less monies will be invested in JBGs (government bonds). Even with savings rate maintained, gross debt will exceed gross household savings by 2015. Already six persons of working age supported one retiree in 1990. By 2025, the ratio will fall to two. That’s a harsh reality check; and (iii) Japan can’t count on export-led growth.

Without a much stronger economy, tax revenue is insufficient to reduce rising debt (borrowing exceeds revenue for first time in the 2010 budget). Getting out means structural reforms to raise productivity, fiscal tax restructuring and strong monetary stimulus. Politicians prevaricates bold moves. BoJ argues there’s only so much it can do: QE can’t resolve a problem it can’t fix. In the end, Japan is still stuck with the status quo.

Two obstacles promote inaction: (a) many perceive these problems to be not as serious as portrayed. Sakakibara talks of “we should enjoy mild deflation, rather than to deplore deflation as a disease.” Japanese are reluctant to give up what they have got: low unemployment, a pacifist constitution, a homogenous, equitable society and high living standards; and (b) these problems are not so easy to resolve – the public is divided on what’s really wrong and how to fix it. Take raising sales tax (now just 5%). It has a troubled record. When it was raised from 3% in 1997, retail sales fell for the next seven years.

Problem is Japanese wants US tax rates with Swedish levels of welfare. Nice thought. At Jackson Hole, Fed chairman Bernanke remarked: “Central bankers alone cannot solve the world’s economic problems.” Now, over to the politicians.

● Former banker Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching and promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email:
starbizweek@thestar.com.my.

Japan suspected of yen intervention

An employee at a foreign exchange trading company pauses near electronic boards displaying the Japanese yen's exchange rate against the U.S. dollar in Tokyo September 24, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Issei Kato

By Masayuki Kitano and Yoshiko Mori

TOKYO | Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:56pm BST
 

TOKYO (Reuters) - A sudden slide in the yen against the dollar on Friday stirred suspicions Japanese authorities intervened for a second time this month to try to prevent the currency's strength from worsening a faltering recovery.

Traders in Tokyo reckoned a sharp yen drop was likely due to intervention, though the fall happened at levels where authorities were not expected to act.

Some blamed corporate orders for triggering the move and others a rumour -- later denied -- that Bank of Japan Governor Masaaki Shirakawa planned to resign.

"At first, people thought that was intervention but it seems like the market was driven one-way by Shirakawa's rumour and so on. It was a bit like an accident," said Ayako Sera, market strategist at Sumitomo Trust Bank. "It's like everyone is afraid of ghosts in the market."

Japan spent an estimated 2 trillion yen (14.6 billion pounds) last Wednesday to combat a rise in the currency to a 15-year high against the dollar.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan, just re-elected as leader of the ruling party, faces a divided parliament so is keen to curb the strength in the yen, which has hurt Japan's stock market and sparked the ire of exporters.

But while Japan's unilateral action last week occurred throughout the global trading day and succeeded in driving the dollar up about 3 percent against the yen, Friday's dollar rise quickly faded and there was no sign of follow-through action.

Adding to the intervention doubts, authorities confirmed their yen selling on September 15, but on Friday officials declined to comment.

DOUBTS
Many currency dealers doubt intervention would succeed in reversing the yen's rise, which they argue is driven more by dollar weakness.

The dollar has tumbled across the board on expectations the U.S. Federal Reserve will ease monetary policy by boosting its bond purchases to help revive the faltering recovery.

Japan's unilateral intervention last week, the first in six years, prompted some grumbles among Group of Seven partners but most have stayed quiet on the issue.

Washington is focussed on China, pressuring Beijing to let the yuan rise more quickly.
Indeed, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan and U.S. President Barack Obama did not discuss currency intervention in a meeting in New York, Kyodo news reported, a sign to some that Washington was taking a hands off approach.

The dollar surge happened at midday Tokyo time.
The currency rose to as high as 85.40 yen from about 84.55 yen in a matter of minutes, and several traders said it looked like the Bank of Japan, which acts on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, had been selling yen.
Last Wednesday's intervention drove the dollar up to near 86 yen from a 15-year low of 82.87. But the yen has clawed back about half those losses.

Despite doubts about whether Tokyo intervened on Friday, analysts expect authorities to step into the market if the yen's rise against the dollar accelerates from current levels.

"They sent out a message that they are ready to intervene in the market again if the yen firms beyond what they believe is a proper level," Seiji Adachi, senior economist with Deutsche Securities in Tokyo, said of Japanese authorities.

"In terms of the economy, it is still going to be tough unless they bring the yen down to 90-100 against the dollar. But they probably can't do that. So they are going to just try to stop it going any higher."

NERVOUS TRADING
Showing the uncertainty over whether authorities had intervened, the dollar drifted back towards 84.70 yen as no government confirmation emerged.

After climbing into positive territory on the intervention speculation, Japan's Nikkei share average .N225 also drifted lower, closing down 1 percent on the day.

Both Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda, who has said Tokyo must gain global understanding about its intervention, and the BOJ declined to comment.

Some traders watching the yen's every move speculated Tokyo was trying new tactics to scare dealers and get the biggest effect from their yen selling.

"Rather than saying clearly whether they did or not, they may be trying to make market players jittery," a trader for a Japanese brokerage house said.

So far Japan's yen selling has generated grumbling by some policymakers, but no widespread fallout -- in contrast to the international outcry over the yuan's exchange rate.

Obama urged Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in New York on Thursday to take rapid steps to address a dispute over the value of China's currency and made clear the United States would protect its economic interests.

So far G7 officials have not complained loudly about Japan trying to stem the yen's strength.
In some ways, Japan is fighting the Federal Reserve.

Japan's purchases of dollars come as investors price in the risk of the Fed printing more dollars to purchase bonds in a quantitative easing policy. Such expectations have driven short-term U.S. Treasury yields to record lows.

"The signals from the Fed are countering the bullets fired by the BOJ," Adrian Foster, head of financial markets research with Rabobank International in Hong Kong, said.
($1=85.15 Yen)

(Additional reporting by Hideyuki Sano, Writing by Kevin Plumberg)

Japan’s savings crisis

Comment by Martin Feldstein

JAPAN is heading toward a savings crisis. The potential future clash between larger fiscal deficits and a low household saving rate could have powerful negative effects on both Japan and the global economy.

First, some background. Japan was long famous for having the highest saving rate among the industrial countries. In the early 1980’s, Japanese households were saving about 15% of their after-tax incomes. Those were the days of sharply rising incomes, when Japanese households could increase their consumption rapidly while adding significant amounts to their savings. Although the saving rate came down gradually in the 1980’s, it was still 10% in 1990.

But the 1990’s was a decade of slow growth, and households devoted a rising share of their incomes to maintaining their level of consumer spending. Although they had experienced large declines in share prices and house values, they had such large amounts of liquid savings in postal savings accounts and in banks that they did not feel the need to increase saving in order to rebuild assets.

A variety of forces have contributed to a continuing decline in Japan’s household saving rate. The country’s demographic structure is changing, with an increasing number of retirees relative to the workers who are in their prime saving years.

Surveys tell us that younger Japanese are more interested in current consumption and less concerned about the future than previous generations were. And the traditional notion of saving for bequests has waned.

The household saving rate, therefore, continued to fall until it was below 5% at the end of the 1990’s and reached just above 2% in 2009. At the same time, the fiscal deficit is more than 7% of gross domestic product (GDP).

The combination of low household saving and substantial government dissaving would normally force a country to borrow from the rest of the world. But Japan maintains a current-account surplus and continues to send more than 3% of its GDP abroad, providing more than US$175bil of funds this year for other countries to borrow.

This apparent paradox is explained by a combination of high corporate saving and low levels of residential and non-residential fixed investment.

In short, Japan’s national savings still exceed its domestic investment, allowing Japan to be a net capital exporter.

The excess of national saving over investment not only permits Japan to be a capital exporter, but also contributes – along with the mild deflation that Japan continues to experience – to the low level of Japanese long-term interest rates.

Indeed, despite the large government deficit and the enormous government debt – now close to 200% of GDP – the interest rate on 10-year Japanese government bonds is just 1%, the lowest such rate in the world.

But what of the future? While the current situation could continue for a number of years, there is a risk that rising interest rates and reductions in net business saving will bring Japan’s current-account surplus to an end.

One reason for a rise in the interest rate would be a shift from low deflation to low inflation. Prices in Japan have been falling at about 1% a year. If that swung by two percentage points – as the government and the central bank want – to a positive 1% inflation rate, the interest rate would also increase by about two percentage points.

With a debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%, the higher interest rate would eventually raise the government’s interest bill by about 4% of GDP. And that would push a 7%-of-GDP fiscal deficit to 11%.

Higher deficits, moreover, would cause the ratio of debt to GDP to rise from its already high level, which implies greater debt-service costs and, therefore, even larger deficits. This vicious spiral of rising deficits and debt would be likely to push interest rates even higher, causing the spiral to accelerate.

The larger deficits would also eliminate all of the excess saving that now underpins the current-account surplus. The same negative effect on the current account could occur if the corporate sector increases its rate of investment in plant and equipment or reduces corporate saving by paying higher wages or dividends. The excess saving could also decline if housing construction picks up.

Japan’s ability to sustain high fiscal deficits, low interest rates, and net capital exports has been possible because of its high private saving rate, which has kept national saving positive. But, with the current low rate of household saving, the cycle of rising deficits and debt will soon make national saving negative. A shift from deflation to low inflation would accelerate this process.

The result in Japan would then be rising real interest rates as the low private saving rate runs head-on into large fiscal deficits. That would weaken the stock market, lower business investment, and impede economic growth.

And if Japan’s domestic net saving surplus vanishes, the current US$175bil of capital outflow would no longer be available to other countries, while Japan might itself become a net drain on global savings. — © Project Syndicate

Martin Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard, was chairman of President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors, and is former president of the National Bureau for Economic Research.

Smart Grid's $200 Billion Investment Lures Cisco, ABB

Technology companies and established power-systems suppliers are vying for a share of the global electricity-management market

 By David Bogoslaw,

Finance

Technology companies from Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) to ABB Ltd. (ABB) are angling for pieces of the smart grid, the next-generation electricity-delivery network designed to monitor consumption better at households and businesses.

San Jose (Calif.)-based Cisco, the largest maker of computer-networking equipment and a producer of energy-monitoring devices, has partnered with meter-maker Itron Inc. (ITRI) for contracts. Zurich-based ABB, the biggest builder of electricity networks, is developing automation devices for power lines.

With $200 billion in global smart-grid investment expected in 2008 to 2015 by the Pike Research group, with almost $53 billion just in the U.S., technology companies have joined established power-systems suppliers as contestants in the power-management market.

Rather than employing a single technology, the smart grid comprises a network of networks that makes possible real-time two-way communication between power providers and users, omnipresent sensing control, and distributed automation throughout the electrical generation network.

The key difference between the current and future grids: decentralized management of electric power. That's essential when demand for electricity surges as a result of increased consumption.

Smart-grid technology will be a key driver of the $750 billion in incremental spending that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) foresees for the global transmission and distribution market over the next 30 years, according to a Sept. 15 research note.

Stimulus Grants

In the U.S., development of the smart grid is near a critical point. Utilities face a Sept. 30 deadline to report their plans, budgets, and choice of vendors and technology for approved smart-grid projects to the U.S. Energy Dept. in order to qualify for $3.4 billion in federal stimulus grants.

Just how much of the money that utilities plan to spend on substation and transformer upgrades can be classified as smart-grid investments is open to debate since utilities' long-term capital budgets include upgrades anyway, says Andy Roehr, head of Smart Energy Services at Capgemini, a consulting firm to the utilities and other tech-oriented industries.

While a piece of the smart-grid pie will go to traditional suppliers of power-line equipment such as ABB and General Electric Co. (GE), the communication network that needs to be built is entirely new and is attracting Cisco, privately held Silver Spring Networks, and eventually some telecommunications providers.

$15 Billion Opportunity

Cisco expects $15 billion to $20 billion in global opportunities to join electrical infrastructure with information technology over the next seven years.

"It's not going to happen overnight. A lot of regulatory issues have to be worked out," says Jennifer Gresson, a company spokeswoman.

Last year, Cisco began to sell a building mediator that tells facilities managers how much power elevators, heating and cooling systems, and other equipment are using and centralizes the information flow so they can monitor multiple business locations at once.

Cisco says one customer, NetApp Inc. (NTAP), a storage and data management provider, reported $2 million in savings in less than one year from using the building mediator. In 2011, Cisco plans to roll out a home energy controller that performs the same service for consumers

Variable Power Prices

Investment right now in the smart grid primarily means advanced metering infrastructure, one goal of which is to move billing from flat rates to variable rates based on time-of-use and letting consumers adjust their use accordingly.

Utilities have already contracted with meter vendors for one-third of the roughly 147 million total customer endpoints in the U.S. and another 40 million to 50 million will be contracted over the next two to three years, says Howard Scott, a managing partner at Cognyst Advisors, a consulting firm to the power industry.

illion in the first quarter, according to Scott's August report on deployment of automated meters in North America. Total shipments for 2010 are projected at 15.8 million, up from 10.9 million in 2009.

To be sure, utilities are finding it hard to convince state public utility commissions of the financial benefits of these projects, as reported in Bloomberg Businessweek's Sept. 20 issue.

Higher Electricity Rates?

Utilities need state regulators' approval to make capital investments that are ultimately recouped by charging ratepayers more for electricity. And fiscal constraints due to the recession and slow recovery have hampered smart-grid investment among municipal-owned utilities.

In the end, the smart grid may prove to be less about lowering ratepayers' bills than better managing increasing power loads. Experts are watching one thing in particular: electric vehicles. The number of plug-in cars and trucks is expected to reach 841,000 in the U.S. by the end of 2015, according to Pike Research.

Itron's advanced meter shipments, which include electric, gas, and water meters, have been far ahead of its competitors in each of the past five years and its projected volume in 2010 is roughly equivalent to the combined volume of its two closest rivals, Sensus USA Inc. and Silver Spring Networks.

Itron, the only publicly traded pure-play meter provider, saw its revenue jump 38 percent from a year earlier to $569 million in the second quarter, while North American revenue of $303 million more than doubled.

Meter Contracts

The Liberty Lake (Wash.)-based company has 14 million meters currently contracted and has delivered more than 3 million of those. Virtually all of its deliveries have been to its biggest customers: Southern California Edison Co., San Diego Gas & Electric, CenterPoint Energy Inc. (CNP) in Texas, and Detroit Edison Co.

Itron announced a strategic alliance with Cisco on Sept. 1 that aims to create a definitive Internet Protocol-based communications platform for the smart-grid market. By standardizing the communications platform and having a leading network provider as a partner, "we think we can really accelerate adoption" in the industry, says Philip Mezey, chief operating officer of Itron North America.

Some industry experts say reliance on any one communication protocol or vendor may be a hindrance, given the need for communication between many different grid-linked devices in the future. This could help give San Jose-based Echelon Corp. (ELON) a market advantage.

Echelon, Duke Energy

Echelon's new control system software platform, ECoS, is designed to be flexible enough to connect to multiple communications mediums such as Wi-Fi, 3G, and 900-megaherz radio frequency.

Duke Energy Corp. (DUK), which serves 4 million customers in five states, signed up on Sept. 3 to be the first user, with a $14.5 million order. Duke could eventually contract for well over 1 million units, Wedbush Equity Research said in a Sept. 9 research note.

Ultimately, semiconductor manufacturers may be the biggest beneficiaries as the smart grid is built. Embedded intelligence distributed throughout the grid will require more microprocessors to analyze information at transformers, substations, and the in-home energy management devices that will control home appliances.

Smart Power

Bazmi Husain, head of the smart grid for ABB Worldwide, a division of ABB Ltd., expects more significant cost savings to come from greater automation to manage power lines, reducing the need for manual work. Husain sees grid modernization and the convergence of power and automation as major sources of future growth. ABB's network-management systems enable the utility to monitor conditions for each of its devices on distribution lines and control them if something goes wrong.

ABB is also making equity investments in smart-grid infrastructure companies such as California-based Trilliant and developing grid-scale energy storage systems, including the world's largest in Fairbanks, Alaska. In May, it acquired Ventyx Inc., which provides software to help utilities better manage equipment and employees.

Capgemini's Roehr says a more realistic goal than saving ratepayers money is handling additional energy demand, with electric vehicles likely the most disruptive factor. With a transformer for every three or four houses, "if two or three of them plug in their electric vehicles at 5:30, they'll kill the transformer and kill the circuit," he says.

The hope is that building out the smart grid won't add costs for consumers. "That will be a challenge," Roehr says.

Bogoslaw is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek's Finance channel. 

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Finance

• Smart Grid's $200 Billion Investment Lures Cisco, ABB
• Smart Meters May Not Be So Clever
• How to Clean Up the Muni Bond Market
• 'Death Spiral' Besets State Pensions
• Illinois Leads Underfunded U.S. Pensions

The Angry Rich

When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, normal rules of civilized discourse no longer apply

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Anger is sweeping America. True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterizes most of our fellow citizens. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away. And they’re out for revenge.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times ,Paul Krugman

No, I’m not talking about the Tea Partiers. I’m talking about the rich.

These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.

Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.

The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled “The Wail Of the 1%,” it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses.

When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.

Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character.

For one thing, craziness has gone mainstream. It’s one thing when a billionaire rants at a dinner event. It’s another when Forbes magazine runs a cover story alleging that the president of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, “anticolonialist” agenda, that “the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.” When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational) discourse no longer apply.

At the same time, self-pity among the privileged has become acceptable, even fashionable.
Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone.

These days, however, tax-cutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don’t really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.

And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it’s their money, and they have the right to keep it. “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago.

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.

Cost of bank bailout keeps rising for UK

Cameron Vexed by Bailout’s $5 Billion Interest Costs  

The Annual interest payment is about 3.2 billion Pounds. 

"They should have lent money to these banks, not bought shares in them"

By Andrew MacAskill and Jon Menon

Sept. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. pledged more money rescuing banks during the credit crunch than on any project in British history outside of world wars. And the cost keeps rising as the government looks for ways to get its money back.

While U.S., French and Swiss banks repaid bailouts, the U.K. hasn’t received any return on its 66 billion pound ($103.2 billion) rescue of Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Lloyds Banking Group Plc. The annual interest payment on the debt incurred acquiring controlling stakes in the banks is about 3.2 billion pounds, according to a JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimate.

That’s about what British taxpayers spent on military operations in Afghanistan last year and exceeds the forecast of 2 billion pounds from a proposed levy on banks. While the government would like to sell the bank stakes, it can’t because the shares are fluctuating below the level the state paid for them. In addition, a government commission isn’t scheduled to decide for another year whether to split the retail and investment-banking businesses of Britain’s largest lenders.

“They should have lent money to these banks, not bought shares in them,” said Conservative lawmaker John Redwood, 59, who advised former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on privatizations in the 1980s. “If the government succeeds in getting all the taxpayers’ money back with proper reward, then that’s a good achievement. But it’s not guaranteed.”

Selling Stakes

Analysts and investors are divided over how long it will take the government to sell its stakes, with estimates in a Bloomberg survey of five analysts ranging from three to eight years. Stephen Hester, 49, chief executive officer of Edinburgh- based RBS, said last month that he’s ready for the government to start selling its holdings immediately, as the bank posted a half-year profit for the first time since 2007.

That’s not likely to happen, at least not until the commission reports its conclusions, because the findings may affect the value of the banks, according to government officials who declined to be identified because the talks are private. The commission, chaired by John Vickers, a former chief economist of the Bank of England, starts collecting evidence on Sept. 24.

“The government investigation into separating the banks rules out any sale in the short term,” said Jeremy Scott, the global financial services chairman at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, who wrote a report saying it may take up to seven years to sell the stakes. “The markets are not favorable at the moment, even if you wanted a sale.”

Gold Reserves

Prime Minister David Cameron could use the money from a share sale. His Conservative-led coalition is under pressure to tackle a deficit that hit a postwar high of 11 percent of gross domestic product in the year through March. The government unveiled an emergency budget on June 22 with plans to cut spending by a quarter on average in all departments except health and international aid. The Treasury’s fiscal monitor forecasts 490,000 public-sector jobs will be lost by April 2015.

The timing of the share sales may prove as controversial as former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s decision to dispose of all of Britain’s gold reserves a decade ago. Brown sold 400 tons of gold, a stack almost as big as two London taxis, in a two-and-a- half year period ending in March 2002.

Gold prices have risen about 270 percent since then, leading to criticism that Brown’s decision to sell the reserves at a 20-year low cost the country about 7 billion pounds. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said this year that it was “one of the worst economic judgments ever made by a chancellor.”

850 Billion Pounds

“The timing is going to be a difficult decision,” said Paul Mumford, who helps manage about $1 billion at Cavendish Asset Management Ltd. in London, which owns RBS and Lloyds shares. “Undoubtedly people may draw a comparison with Gordon Brown selling the gold if the government sells the bank shares and the price shoots up.”

The government invested, loaned and pledged more than 850 billion pounds rescuing stricken banks during the financial crisis that started in 2007, the National Audit Office, the U.K. public-spending watchdog, said in a December report describing the outlay as unprecedented. It’s equivalent to each U.K. household having about 3,000 pounds of stock in RBS and Lloyds.

Next month marks the second anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2008, bailout amid concern by then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling that RBS, the nation’s second-largest bank, and Britain’s biggest mortgage lender HBOS Plc didn’t have enough money to open their doors the next day.

Defeating Hitler

The government took an 83 percent stake in RBS and bought 41 percent of Lloyds, which acquired HBOS. It also took over all of Northern Rock Plc and parts of Bradford & Bingley Plc after bailing out the banks, and agreed to insure 280 billion pounds of RBS’s riskiest assets for an annual fee. The U.K. provided a further 450 billion pounds in guarantees to increase liquidity.

The annual interest cost on the 66 billion pounds of bonds the government had to sell to finance the rescue of RBS and Lloyds isn’t included in official estimates of the outlay for the bailout, meaning the actual bill may be as much as 19.7 billion pounds more, or 30 percent higher, JPMorgan’s analysis shows. That assumes the government can’t sell its stakes until 2014, six years after it used taxpayer money to save the banks.

Aside from World War I and World War II, the bank rescue was the costliest undertaking in British history. The U.K. spent 300 billion pounds defeating Adolf Hitler’s Germany in World War II, according to the Penguin Atlas of World History, about 3.5 trillion pounds on an inflation-adjusted basis today.

‘Devise and Execute’

U.K. Financial Investments Ltd., which manages the government’s bank holdings, declined to comment on the cost of the bailout or when share sales might begin. The Treasury, which declined to comment on interest costs, said in a statement that the UKFI will “devise and execute a strategy for disposing of the government’s investments in an orderly and active way.”

In a budget submitted to Parliament in March, the Treasury scaled back its estimate for the eventual cost of bailing out the U.K. financial industry to 6 billion pounds. It lowered its estimate from 50 billion pounds because of a recovery in financial markets and after Lloyds raised capital rather than paying the government to insure toxic assets.

The U.K. currently has a 3.35 billion pound paper profit on its stake in London-based Lloyds, after the shares gained 49 percent this year, and a 1.87 billion pound loss on RBS, even after its shares rose 64 percent. RBS and Lloyds are among the best-performing bank stocks in Europe and the U.S. this year after returning to profit earlier than analysts expected.

Breakeven Price

The calculations are based on the average price the government paid for shares in the banks after injecting capital in 2008 and 2009. The so-called breakeven price is 49.9 pence for RBS and 63.2 pence for Lloyds, according to UKFI. When working out the price, UKFI subtracted fees paid by the banks for setting up the bailout and 2.5 billion pounds paid by Lloyds for exiting the government’s insurance program.

RBS closed at 49.02 pence today in London trading and Lloyds at 77.41 pence. Since the start of the financial crisis in August 2007, RBS has plunged 90 percent, making it the second-worst performing bank stock in Europe after Bank of Ireland Plc. Lloyds has fallen 73 percent. The bank’s CEO, Eric Daniels, said today he will step down in the next 12 months, and the lender said it will form a committee to find his successor.

RBS, which on average lost 36 million pounds a day in 2008 and 2009, posted net income of 9 million pounds in the first half of the year. Lloyds, still reliant on 132 billion pounds of government and central bank funding, reported half-year net income of 596 million pounds, its first profit since the rescue.

‘Popular Capitalism’

Hester says RBS’s biggest problem is retaining staff at its investment bank, where restraints on pay, including deferrals and clawbacks imposed after the bailout, are driving some employees away. About 1,000 investment bank employees left last year over bonuses, which cost the lender 1 billion pounds in lost profit, Hester said in February.

As part of the terms of the bailout, RBS and Lloyds halted dividend payments in 2008, and the lenders won’t resume paying them until at least 2012, which has suppressed the share prices.

UKFI will recommend that the Treasury start selling its bank stakes when the lenders are free of state funding and when a sale offers the best return for taxpayers, according to government officials. UKFI only has a mandate to recommend selling to achieve value, which depends on market conditions, not to ensure stakes are sold at a profit, the officials said.

The government said in June that it plans a discount sale of bank shares to the public to foster what Cameron termed “popular capitalism.” It is also considering selling shares to institutional investors and using convertible bonds to dispose of the stakes, UKFI said in its annual report last year.

‘Reaping Bigger Profits’

“The government has a fighting chance of making some sort of profit on the holdings, and it will be politically damaging not to do so,” said Richard Hunter, head of U.K. equities at Hargreaves Lansdown Plc, a London-based asset manager and retail stockbroker. “The biggest problem is the technical aspect of finding a way to sell the two massive holdings in RBS and Lloyds.”

Disposing of so many shares runs the risk of depressing the stocks’ prices, he said.

While the U.K.’s decision to take direct stakes in banks may force it to hold them longer than it would like, the government stands to benefit from rising share prices, according to Charles Davis, an economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research in London.

France, U.S.

“Holding the banks for longer gives the government a better chance of reaping bigger profits,” said Davis, whose firm estimates that British taxpayers stand to make about 19 billion pounds from the rescue. “Banks are getting their balance sheets in order and should become increasingly profitable over the next few years.”

If Davis’s forecast is correct, the U.K. government may make more money from rescuing its banks than Switzerland, France or the U.S.

Switzerland made a profit of about 1.2 billion francs ($1.18 billion) from bailing out UBS AG after spending 6 billion francs buying mandatory convertible notes in 2008. The French government made about 2 billion euros ($2.62 billion) from its rescue of banks, including BNP Paribas and Societe Generale SA, after injecting emergency capital the same year. The U.S. government has received about $16 billion in dividends and interest payments on its investment in banks, insurance companies and automakers through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the Treasury.

Sweden’s Lesson

Britain’s bank rescue also exposes taxpayers to more risk, Davis said. And the cost of financing the bailout continues to climb -- already more than 6 billion pounds, according to JPMorgan’s estimate.

The lesson from Sweden, which nationalized two big banks in the 1990s, is that it will take longer than expected to sell the stakes, said Bo Lundgren, Sweden’s minister for fiscal and financial affairs in the 1990s. 

The government still owns 19.9 percent of Nordea AB almost two decades after taking over its predecessor, Nordbanken, which went on to merge with Gotabank, which also had been nationalized.

“What you need to do is try to privatize them as soon as possible, though not when the markets are bad,” Lundgren said. “Governments are not very good owners in the long run.”

--With assistance from Gavin Finch and Scott Hamilton in London, Niklas Magnusson in Stockholm and Fabio Benedetti-Valentini in Paris. Editors: Steve Bailey, Robert Friedman

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew MacAskill in London at amacaskill@bloomberg.net; Jon Menon in London at jmenon1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Edward Evans at eevans3@bloomberg.net