November 22, 2024

Asian Stocks Rally After Surprise Fed Announcement

HONG KONG — Stock markets across the Asia-Pacific region jumped on Thursday, and many previously battered currencies rose, as investors cheered the news that the U.S. Federal Reserve will not pare back its support of the U.S. economy — at least for now.

The biggest gainers were those that had suffered most from the past months’ exodus of funds from emerging markets. In Indonesia, the region’s worst performer over the past three months, the benchmark stock index had jumped 4.5 percent by midday, and in India, where slowing growth, looming elections and a large current account deficit have helped undermine investor confidence, the Sensex index soared 2.6 percent in early trading.

The relief spread across the entire region, producing gains of more than 3 percent in Thailand and the Philippines, 1.7 percent in Hong Kong, and 1.1 percent for the S.P./ASX 200 index in Australia. In Japan, the Nikkei 225 closed up 1.8 percent.

The markets in mainland China, Taiwan and South Korea were closed for a holiday.

Many of the region’s currencies also rose, with the beleaguered Indonesian rupiah up about 1.5 percent and the currencies of India, Malaysia and Thailand all 2 percent stronger against the U.S. dollar.

European stock markets also were swept higher early on Thursday. The FTSE 100 rose 1.4 percent soon after trading opened in London, and the key indexes in Germany and France both rose 1.2 percent.

“A Fed that is more dovish than expected should be a near-term positive for Asia’s economies,” analysts at Nomura said in a research note on Thursday, as the Fed’s stance should increase net capital inflows, or at least lessen outflows.

Like many other analysts, however, they also cautioned that the Fed’s statement on Wednesday was likely to be only a “short-term positive,” particularly as the timing of a reduction in bond-buying and the sustainability of a recent upswing in China’s economy remained uncertain.

After an initial relief rally over the next few days, “markets will start to fret again about tapering beginning in December. And that won’t be the end of it. Once tapering begins, the next worry will be when asset purchases will end altogether. And then, when rates will rise,” equity strategists at HSBC wrote in a research note. “We see a year or more when equity markets dip (and then recover) each time the Fed moves to (or towards) ending its ultra-easy policy.”

Meanwhile, they added, the delay in the Fed’s “tapering” of its stimulus gives policy makers in Asia a chance to speed up much-needed reforms. “But the risk is that the current surge in equity markets could also bring back complacency.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/global/daily-stock-market-activity.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

It’s the Economy: C.E.O.’s Don’t Need to Earn Less. They Need to Sweat More.

Most C.E.O.’s used to be able to handle their pay negotiations in private, but the Dodd-Frank reforms, which were passed in 2010, now give shareholders the right to vote on executive compensation. This has helped usher in a so-called “say on pay” revolution, which tries to stop executives from making more money when their companies don’t do that well. In Switzerland, a recent nationwide referendum, passed 2 to 1, gave shareholders the right to restrict the pay for the heads of Swiss companies. The European Union is likely to vote on a similar measure by the end of the year.

C.E.O.’s like Farris have long argued that they should make more money, but what’s surprising is that many business-school professors make the case even more energetically. The standard defense is that a talented marketing director or chief engineer can help a company thrive, but the next-best candidate will probably be successful, too. A great C.E.O., they say, is many times better than an average one, and those great ones need high-powered incentives. C.E.O.-friendly economists also suggest that the salary is moot if the chief executive is creating many multiples of their pay in shareholder value. Some of these enthusiasts point out that Steve Jobs rescued Apple (after his exodus) in 1997, when it was near bankruptcy, and turned it into one of the most valuable companies ever. Jobs was worth an estimated $7 billion at his death, but he made hundreds of billions of dollars for his shareholders. Many now say he was underpaid.

C.E.O.’s might indeed need significant incentives, but the problem is that most of them don’t perform like Steve Jobs even when they get them. The financial research firm Obermatt recently compared the compensation of C.E.O.’s at publicly traded firms and their performance and found no correlation between the two. Like a bottle of wine or a promising college quarterback turning pro, C.E.O.’s are similar to what economists call experience goods: you commit to a price long before you know if they’re worth it. Just ask the shareholders of J.C. Penney, which ousted its C.E.O., Ron Johnson, less than 18 months after hiring him away from Apple. Under his leadership, the company lost more than $500 million in a single quarter.

So far, the “say on pay” revolution feels more like the second season of “Game of Thrones” — there’s a lot of drama, a bit of blood, some cheers, but things end up more or less exactly where they started. While the Dodd-Frank law requires a shareholder vote on executive pay at least every three years, the vote is not binding. Apache’s board eventually lowered Farris’s package by around $3 million, but it is the exception. Shareholders ended up approving pay packages around 97 percent of the time. A vast majority of overpaid C.E.O.’s, it seems, have little to fear from all these new guidelines.

Economically speaking, this is more than a little odd. Shareholders should be motivated to pay their C.E.O.’s according to their success. But doing so involves a tricky dance known to game theorists as the principal-agent problem: how does an employer (the principal) motivate a worker (the agent) to pursue the principal’s interest? This principal-agent problem is everywhere. (Do you pay a contractor per day of work or per project? Do you pay salespeople by the hour or on commission?) It becomes particularly thorny when the agent knows a lot more about his job than the principal. George Costanza was a comic incarnation of the principal-agent problem. He constantly invented schemes to make his employer think he was doing his job well when he wasn’t doing much at all. “When you look annoyed all the time,” he once told Jerry and Elaine, “people think that you’re busy.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/magazine/ceos-dont-need-to-earn-less-they-need-to-sweat-more.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Spanish Companies Look Abroad for Growth

While it is hardly a corporate exodus, the fear that trickle will become a flood if the Spanish economy worsens is already generating concern at a time when the government in Madrid is struggling to find additional revenue to close a gaping budget deficit.

Telefónica, the former public telephone monopoly, set off alarms in September when it said that it would create a new digital unit in London for its most promising mobile and online businesses.

The news came shortly after it announced major layoffs in Spain, where unemployment is already higher than 20 percent.

Other companies are taking smaller steps, like using foreign subsidiaries to circumvent punitive borrowing costs at home. At the same time, some multinationals, like the two biggest Spanish banks, Santander and BBVA, are playing down their nationality to reassure international investors as they seek to expand their business outside the country.

The value of Spain as a corporate brand has become “a lot worse,” said Pablo Vázquez, an economist at the Fundación de Estudios de Economía Aplicada, a Madrid-based research institute. The effect is felt not only in falling earnings, he said, but also “in terms of the intangible benefits that the Spanish brand transmitted before, those of a dynamic and youthful European society.”

Avoiding an exodus should be one of the priorities of the next government, following a general election Nov. 20, he added.

Company executives have been reluctant to discuss publicly their concerns about being located in Spain, particularly before the election.

Telefónica insisted that the decision to shift the digital unit, which includes its popular social network Tuenti, should not be viewed as an abandonment of Spain, even though the reorganization also involved folding its Spanish unit into a broader European business.

Guillermo Ansaldo, a Telefónica executive, told a conference a day after the relocation announcement was made that the group would continue to invest heavily in Spain, after spending €24.5 billion, or nearly $34 billion at the current exchange rate, in the country over the past decade.

Still, since the onset of the financial crisis, the proportion of Telefónica’s investments in Spain has fallen to 24.5 percent of its global capital investments in the past financial year, from 27.6 percent in the 2007 financial year.

In a surprising U-turn, the fashion retailing giant Inditex announced last month that it would move the online sales subsidiary of Zara, its flagship brand, back to Spain from Ireland. It made that statement shortly after reports in the Spanish media highlighting the tax savings that the Zara unit had made in Ireland.

Inditex, however, is among the few Spanish companies to have been relatively unscathed in the financial crisis.

On average, Spanish companies in the main Ibex stock market index have been trading recently at price-earnings ratios below those of their counterparts in Greece, which has suffered the most during the debt crisis, said Pankaj Ghemawat, professor of strategic management at the IESE business school in Spain.

“Spanish companies are really getting hit very hard in terms of their ability to issue shares and raise financing in general,” Mr. Ghemawat said. “It might not boost the market capitalization immediately, but it does make sense to shift assets to safer jurisdictions, should things really get more sour here.”

However, given the public outcry that any full-fledged departure could generate, Mauro Guillén, a Spanish professor of international management at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, said that companies were instead likely to use “lots of intermediary solutions.”

A company that followed Telefónica’s lead would be likely to benefit, since “being based in London would give them more favorable access to financing,” said Luis Garicano, a Spanish professor at the London School of Economics.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=0e0d14ef6377e817d303b9f88fa5d9fc