April 25, 2024

New Zealand Suffers Double Ratings Downgrade

The downgrade came hot on the heels of a similar move by Fitch Ratings, which cut its rating for New Zealand on Thursday, also singling out the country’s high foreign debt levels as a cause for concern.

Despite the downgrades, New Zealand’s local and foreign currency ratings remain near the top end of both agencies’ scales. The country’s financial system is sound, the agencies said, and New Zealand continues to enjoy plenty of monetary and fiscal flexibility: public debt, unlike in many other developed economies, remains modest.

Debt levels in the household and agriculture sectors, by contrast, are high, while the country’s dependence on commodity income and an aging population poses challenges for the future.

Still, the downgrade highlighted that the turmoil sweeping the globe — prompted by worries over the slow pace of growth in the United States and doubts about the ability of several European countries to meet their debt obligations — is affecting economies even as far afield as New Zealand.

Stock markets in the Asia-Pacific region have been dragged down along with those in the rest of the world, as investors have largely ignored developing Asia’s robust economic fundamentals, and pulled funds out of stocks.

Economic data from across the region also has shown that economies are growing at a more subdued pace. The latest such evidence came Friday in the shape of an index measuring manufacturing activity in China, which showed a reading of 49.9 for September — the third successive month that the reading was below 50, signaling contraction.

In a report on Sept. 21, Standard Poor’s noted that the weaker global backdrop, combined with generally high inflation, could slow the pace of upgrades for some Asia-Pacific sovereigns, and could bring negative rating actions for those countries whose balance sheets are weak.

Asia-Pacific sovereign ratings have bucked the global trend so far in 2011 with two upgrades (Indonesia and Fiji) to one downgrade (Japan). But several countries in the region now have higher debt burdens and weaker budget positions than they had in 2008, S. P. said. It singled out the Cook Islands, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Vietnam, as countries whose net general government debt levels have risen “significantly” in the past few years.

In Japan and New Zealand, reconstruction efforts following devastating earthquakes earlier this year have added to government spending needs.

That was a factor in S. P.’s decision Friday to downgrade New Zealand’s long-term local-currency rating to AA+ from AAA, and its foreign-currency rating to AA from AA+. The day before, Fitch cut the country’s credit rating to AA from AA+.

Analysts broadly agree, however, that most emerging economies in Asia are relatively well positioned to weather the turmoil in the United States and Europe. Banks across the region have little direct exposure to the debt of Greece and other beleaguered European economies, while firm domestic demand is likely to help to insulate the region’s economies from any downturn in demand for Asian-made goods from overseas.

Exports to the West are less important now than they were in the run-up to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, said Frederic Neumann, a regional economist for HSBC in Hong Kong, in a research note on Friday. “Overall economic growth should hold up better even if shipments to the US and the EU decline more sharply.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/business/global/New-Zealand-Double-Ratings-Downgrade.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Financial Overhaul Is Mired in Detail and Dissent

The delays come as regulators extend public comment periods on the rules, and as some on Wall Street and in Congress resist the changes. One result may be that many new safeguards do not take hold in earnest before the next election, an outcome that could open the door for newly elected officials to back away from the overhaul.

The rules are mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law and range from curbs on executive compensation to consumer banking protection provisions to more transparency in the trading of derivatives, those complex financial instruments that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.

So far, 28 of the financial overhaul rule-making deadlines have been missed, according to Davis Polk, a law firm that is tracking the rules. Of the 385 new rules to be written, the law firm says, regulators have completed only 24 requirements; they were supposed to have taken 41 such actions by now.

“There’s an attempt to kill this through delay,” said Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former official at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is in charge of writing batches of the rules. “The difference between eight or nine months and 24 months could be cataclysmic here.”

The setbacks and resistance extend across many types of new rules, including ones to limit the debit card fees that banks can charge retailers and to require banks to retain more of the risk in certain home loans.

But the efforts were especially apparent at a hearing last month in Washington related to derivatives. Some of the most powerful players in the derivatives market — which is closely controlled by just a small group of banks — argued that the government should allow a slow pace of changes for rewriting derivatives contracts.

On Monday, the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, spoke about the Dodd-Frank rules in a speech in Atlanta, warning that there were efforts by groups that oppose the reform to starve regulators of the resources they need to put new rules in place.

“Those in the U.S. financial community who are supporting these efforts to block resources and appointments are looking for leverage over the rules still being written,” Mr. Geithner said.

He specifically focused on derivatives rule-writing, where some financial groups have complained that European rules may differ from the new rules in the United States. He said he hoped regulators in Europe and Asia would create standardized rules to prevent a “race to the bottom.”

Regulators in the United States overseeing the process say it is difficult to tell how many of the concerns that financial executives and their lobbyists raise are valid and which ones are exaggerated. 

“For us, it’s a question of figuring out the legitimate interests of folks who say, ‘Wait a minute, slow down’ because they really want us to get it right, and some of them who really have an ulterior motive of just running the clock out,” said Bart Chilton, one of the three Democratic commissioners of the commodities futures trading agency, which is overseeing most rule-writing for derivatives. “It’s going a lot slower than I had envisioned.”

Financial firms argue that slower deliberations may lead to smarter outcomes. Some lawmakers agree, and some voted in recent weeks in Congressional committees to delay derivatives rules at least a year. Many of those rules were to have been completed by the July anniversary of the Dodd-Frank bill.

Regulators have been swamped by public comments and asked for more funds and personnel to meet the demands. In April, the C.F.T.C. extended all of its derivative comment periods for a month. 

“Right now there’s a tacit truce on the deadlines,” said Margaret E. Tahyar, a partner at Davis Polk, which represents financial institutions. “Really, it’s the right thing to have a little bit more time on this. There really hasn’t been anything like this ever before in terms of rule-makings.”

Perhaps nowhere are the stakes higher for the megabanks than with derivatives, which insure against many different risks in the economy. Some of the Dodd-Frank rules center on increasing security and transparency in this $600 trillion market. For instance, many are related to clearinghouses, which provide a central repository for money backing those wagers. Some of the changes threaten to cut into banks’ lucrative profit margins. 

At the derivatives round table in May, bankers and other representatives of financial firms asked for substantial implementation periods on derivatives rules. For instance, Athanassios Diplas, of Deutsche Bank, said the bank would need 18 to 24 months “simply to sign documentation” related to the new rules because of “bandwidth” issues, according to a transcript from the event.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c557645f3d0847200d8fcadb2db04545

U.S. Home Sales Top Forecasts in March

Sales of previously owned homes in the United States rose more than expected in March, a trade group said Wednesday, raising cautious optimism about the housing market.

The National Association of Realtors said sales rose 3.7 percent month over month to an annual rate of 5.10 million units after an upwardly revised pace of 4.92 million units in February.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected sales to rise 2.5 percent to a 5-million-unit pace from the previously reported 4.88-million-unit rate. Sales have now risen in six of the last eight months.

“It’s slow, steady progress, but you cannot not be disturbed by the slow pace of recovery,” said Pierre Ellis, an economist at Decision Economics in New York. “Demand is rising even with higher mortgage rates so that’s encouraging.”

The housing market is struggling to find its footing as a wave of foreclosed properties keeps supply elevated and prices depressed.

Last month, foreclosures and short sales, which typically occur at about 20 percent below market value, accounted for 40 percent of transactions. That was the highest since April 2009 and was up from 39 percent in February.

The median home price fell 5.9 percent in March from a year earlier, to $159,600. Compared with March last year, sales were down 6.3 percent.

“A sustained turnaround in the housing market is still far off based on earlier-released depressed readings for housing starts, building permits and builders’ confidence indices,” said Krishen Rangasamy, an economist at CIBC World Markets in Toronto.

A separate report on Wednesday showed demand for home loans rose last week, as interest rates eased and purchase activity picked up. The Mortgage Bankers Association said its purchase index rose 10 percent to 210.8, the highest since early December.

Last month, all-cash purchases made up a record 35 percent of sales in March and the NAR said the lower and upper ends of the market were showing strong activity, with the middle part remaining sluggish.

Sales last month rose across the board, with multifamily dwellings rising 1.6 percent and single-family home units advancing 4 percent.

At March’s sales pace, the supply of existing homes on the market slipped to 8.4 months’ worth, from 8.5 months in February. However, the number of previously owned homes on the market rose 1.5 percent, to 3.55 million.

A supply of six to seven months is generally considered ideal, with higher readings pointing to lower house prices.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=cc0d696152100903cac1dc2163eb43ec