sábado, 4 de enero de 2014

50% de inflación implícita en Argentina, según Hanke

El ideólogo de la Convertibilidad afirma que la Argentina esconde una inflación de casi el 50%
El economista Steve Hanke elabora un índice propio que considera el mercado de dólar paralelo para determinar el real aumento general de precios




El economista Steve Hanke, que en 1989 conoció al ex presidente Carlos Menem y, algunos años después, le propuso crear una caja de conversión para paliar la inflación que vivía la Argentina (la Convertibilidad que Domingo Cavallo ejecutó), está de regreso.
El analista estadounidense, de la Johns Hopkins University y Cato Institute, elabora un índice que mide la "real" inflación que esconden los países con tipos de cambio paralelos. La Argentina aparece en la lista con una inflación implícita que ronda el 50%, en la última actualización a fines del año pasado. 
Según su "Troubled Currencies Project" (proyecto de monedas en problemas), en el país hay una inflación "escondida" del 48% anual mientras que el Gobierno sólo admite algo más del 10%. Los datos que toma son el tipo de cambio del mercado paralelo y la tasa de inflación en EE.UU.
No obstante, el caso de la Argentina no es el peor de la muestra. También existen mercados paralelos del dólar en países como Venezuela que escondería un aumento general de precios del 261% según el trabajo de Hanke cuando oficialmente el gobierno de Nicolás Maduro admite un 54%. Siria, Corea del Norte y Egipto completan la lista con tipos de cambio paralelos que esconden tasas de inflación mayores a las oficialmente publicadas.
"Para los académicos, el término 'moneda en problemas' podría ser un término técnico. Pero para las personas que se enfrentan a esa divisa, saben reconocerla cuando lo ven. Hoy en día, este es el caso para millones de personas en todo el mundo, sobre todo en Irán, Corea del Norte, Argentina, Venezuela, Egipto y Siria", escribió Hanke en Business Insider.
"Una moneda con problemas es una en la que los usuarios han perdido la confianza. Cuando los usuarios ya no creen que una moneda mantendrá su poder adquisitivo, tratan de cambiarla por una moneda extranjera estable (o materias primas). A medida que la demanda de la 'moneda con problemas' se evapora, su valor frente a las monedas extranjeras estables se colapsa, y los precios de los bienes y servicios que se venden en la moneda con problemas se disparan", explica en declaraciones consignadas por Infobae.
"Mientras se desarrolla este proceso, las expectativas sobre la capacidad de la moneda para mantener su poder adquisitivo se deterioran, y un ciclo fatal sobreviene", alerta el ideólogo de la Convertibilidad.

viernes, 3 de enero de 2014

La penetración móvil en África llega al 80%

African mobile penetration hits 80% (and is growing faster than anywhere else)



John Koetsier

We tend to have certain paradigms about the “developing world” and the “developing world,” including Africa. Including, of course, media-fed images of Africa as a place of almost irredeemable poverty, deprivation, and pain.
Many of our paradigms are, of course, illusions.

A new report on the African telecommunications market highlights that mobile penetration in Africa hit 80 percent in the first quarter of this year, and is still growing at 4.2 percent annually. That’s faster than anywhere else in the world, the report says, and the 54 countries of Africa are, after Asia, the world’s second-largest market.
Which means that today, more than eight in ten Africans have a mobile phone.
In part, that’s driven by a massive reduction in the costs of owning a mobile phone: The average revenue per user for telecom companies has dropped 80 percent between 2001 and 2011. Economies of scale have taken hold now as the basic infrastructure has been built out, and more competition by independent (not state-owned) telecoms has driven down prices.
That’s good for Africans, of course, and good for the market in the long term as well. And there’s still a lot of room to grow, of course.
Most mobile connections — 62.7 percent, or almost two thirds — are basic 2G voice and SMS services, the report says. Of the remaining third, about 27 percent have access to 2.5G for low-speed data, and just 11 percent have 3G access — never mind LTE.
As more and more infrastructure is built, however, data services and connection speeds are increasing. Data revenue for telecoms has grown 67 percent in the key African countries of South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria in the past few years. And while smartphones are cost-prohibitive for some, current penetration is at 20 percent and are project to grow fast — almost 600 percent in Nigeria alone by 2017.



jueves, 2 de enero de 2014

La deuda de tarjeta de crédito hace una vida apretada

I Have A Six-Figure Salary, Yet I'm Still In Financial Trouble

Holly Michaelson




A few weeks ago I spent a quiet weekend at home. While I should’ve been relaxing—cooking, reading, enjoying my beautiful apartment after a busy week of traveling for work—I was totally stressed. That’s because there was a huge pile of bills on my dining room table, and I couldn’t shake the sinking feeling that I couldn’t pay them.
Here’s the kicker: I should be able to pay these bills. I’m a pharmacist making $100,000 a year. But over the course of the last year, I’ve racked up nearly $14,000 in credit card debt. I hadn’t told a single soul about this debt until this particular Saturday night. I knew it was time to come clean to someone, so I called my mom, who came straight over.
“Ooooh, that’s not good,” she said, when I confessed exactly how much debt I was in.  But she also wasn’t totally surprised. My mom and I were in a car accident a year and a half ago, so she knew I was facing some serious medical bills. When I told her the debt was due to more than those costs, she gave me some great advice: “Tomorrow morning, go through every single one of your expenses,” she told me. “Then figure out what’s necessary and what’s not. Doing that will help you get a handle on this.”
The next day, I sat at my desk and did just that. Netflix? Goner. All those premium cable movie channels? Canceled. Two online dating accounts? Done-zo. (I’m done with online dating on a few different levels, but that’s another story.) Nights out in New York City with my girlfriends? Not for a while.
What I realized very quickly was that I was spending around $300 a month (and sometimes more) on stuff I just didn’t need. I thought I could afford a certain lifestyle given my income. I also felt like I deserved all of these extras. After all, I work my butt off. I should be able to treat myself! But what I saw when I took a detailed look at my expenses was that I was being excessive, and while giving up Netflix was a good start, I was going to need to do more to get out of debt.

Why Credit Cards Used to Scare Me

In 2009 I graduated from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh with a pharmaceutical degree. I chose to do a six-year doctorate program right from the start, as I always knew I wanted to be a pharmacist. My parents told me they’d pay for four years of college, and anything else would have to be my responsibility. So I accrued about $70,000 in student loans during those last two years of pharmaceutical school.
When I got out of college, I did a post-doc fellowship at Rutgers University in New Jersey, where I worked as an adjunct professor and spent 75% to 80% of my time working on cardiovascular drug development at Merck. My annual salary was $40,000 my first year, and that climbed to $43,000 my second year. I deferred my student loans, but still tried to pay some of that debt off when I could.
My rent was around $1,500 a month, and since I was living about 40 minutes outside New York City, the cost of living was pretty expensive. That meant my budget was tight. At times, I found myself calling my parents saying, “Hey, can you help me out?” But I never got into debt. I had a credit card with a low credit limit, but I was terrified to use it. I didn’t want to get into the kind of situation I’m in now.
“I was still at a steady pace of charging around $1,000 a month. When I started seeing the amount of debt I had, I freaked.”
After my post-doc, I continued working for Merck as a medical writer, and the money was awesome; they were practically throwing it at me. I was making $110 an hour, which I calculated to be around $280,000 a year. Even though I decided the money didn’t make up for how much I hated the job—I wasn’t using any of the skills or knowledge that I went to school for—it was a great experience, and one that allowed me to start my own consulting practice. So I quit that job and started a medical writing consulting business, and I was making good money while I looked for another job.
Then, in June 2012, my mom and I were in a car accident. We were driving on a four-lane highway, and a car in the opposite lane made a left-hand turn on a red arrow. My mom, who was driving, had no time to stop, so we T-boned the other car. At first, we
thought our injuries were minor enough, even though my mom’s car was totaled.
When we got to the hospital, my mom was treated for burns on her legs from the airbags, and I was experiencing shoulder and back pain. But a couple months after the accident, my back pain persisted. I went to chiropractors and physical therapists and tried all kinds of treatments to feel better, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that something was off.

How I Began Getting Into Debt

While I was dealing with these symptoms, I actually got a call from a recruiter and landed the job I have now. I love it, and at $100,000 a year, I’m compensated well. However, a couple weeks after I started, my back pain got worse, and sure enough an MRI showed serious problems: I had a herniated disc, as well as a shattered disc in my lower spine that was causing nerve damage (and resulting pain that shot down my legs).
My doctors told me that my only option was surgery to remove the pieces of my shattered disc that were causing the nerve issues. Since I was self-employed at the time of the car accident, my current insurance wouldn’t pay for all of my medical expenses. (I was insured when I was self-employed, but that coverage wasn’t great.)
To cut a long, fighting-with-insurance-companies story short, I ended up with more than $200,000 in medical bills after my back surgery, and insurance only covered about 60 percent of that. Which meant I was receiving big medical bills that I just couldn’t afford. That’s what led me to apply for a credit card in the first place.
Since my salary was so high, my credit limit was high—around $14,000. I started using my card to pay down some of the most pressing doctor’s bills, but I never thought I’d get close to the limit. I also paid $25,000 in medical expenses out of my savings, and hired an attorney to work with me on getting my insurance companies to pay for some of the remaining $25,000. But then, I started using the card for more than medical bills. I started using it to pay for groceries. Then I started using it when I found a cute lamp or rug for my apartment.
It turns out all of the little purchases I made—even ones that were on sale and were actually a screamin’ deal—added up just as quickly as if I’d bought a few big-ticket items. When I was in spending mode, I didn’t realize what was happening. Now that I have distance from my spending spree, I can see how quickly and easily the debt grew.

Why I Spent the Way I Did

It’s interesting to really look at why you spend money. For starters, I think I was spending more than I otherwise would because I was down about my injuries. After my surgery, I spent a good bit of time flat on my back recovering. I put on weight, which didn’t help me feel any better. So while I wasn’t interested in buying clothes, I did buy a lot of nice things for my apartment.
I also had this sense that I could afford everything. After all, my salary was so high. Of course I could afford to furnish my apartment with the nicest things. What’s more, I grew up with a certain standard of living. My dad is in real estate and my parents live in a pretty affluent area, and I want my life to be similar in many ways. Even though I’m renting, I was able to paint and decorate. I wanted my home to be comfy, cozy and to project a certain lifestyle. I wanted it to be something I could be proud of.
Finally, I felt like because I was working so hard for the money I was earning, I deserved all of these nice things. This created a perfect storm for me to spend like crazy without really taking stock of where my money was going.

My Get-Out-of-Debt Plan

That same weekend I spent stressed-out about my growing pile of bills, I seriously considered opening up another credit card. That’s when I said to myself, “Wait, what?! You’ve already dug yourself into a hole,” and called my mom.
For a few months I hadn’t been able to pay the minimum balance on the card I had, and I was still at a steady pace of charging around $1,000 a month. When I saw the amount of debt I had on my card, I freaked.
Now my spending freeze has set me on a plan to pay down my debt quickly. My goal is to put $800 to $1,000 a month toward my balance. I don’t go out for dinner nearly as much as I used to, and I pack my lunches almost every day. I’m also committed to keeping extraneous expenses to a minimum. Sure, it’s hard not to go out to dinner and then to a club in the city with my friends, but this goal is more important to me right now. I’m also paying about $400 a month toward my student loans, and I’m investing 5% of my salary into a 401(k).
I’m glad I confided in my mother; she checks in with me on how I’m doing, and is such a good sounding board. If I’m shopping and see something that would be cool in my place, I’ll call her and say, “I know I shouldn’t spend money on this.” And she validates that, reminding me of how good I’ll feel when I’m out of this debt.
On the upside, I’m sure this experience will change my spending and savings habits forever. Once I have this card paid off and don’t have this umbrella of debt hanging over me, I’m going to feel amazing. And I’ll be even more committed to doing everything possible to never carry a credit card balance again.

Business Insider

Journales de Economía: B a E

Journales de Economía


Letra B



Letra C


Letra D





miércoles, 1 de enero de 2014

Oro que me hiciste mal... y sin embargo te quiero

Gold just had its worst year since 1981
By Matt Phillips @MatthewPhillips 


Gold still makes a lovely helmet. Reuters/Bogdan Cristel

Alas, it seems like gold bugs have given up on the arrival of the long-awaited, Weimar-style hyper-inflation in US.

The dawning realization has sent futures prices for the precious metal down a bit more than 28% this year, to just above $1,200 per troy ounce. And that’s made itone of the worst assets to own this year. (Yes, some commodities such as corn (-39%) and silver (-35%) have done even worse.)

Barring a year-end rally of remarkable proportions tomorrow, this is going to be the worst year for gold since 1981, when the metal tumbled more than 30%.




Of course, inflation was a real thing back in the early 1980s. And gold’s crash in 1981 coincided with maverick Fed Chairman Paul Volcker’s effort to stamp it out. Volcker’s cure was costly. By jacking up the Federal Funds rate to a nose-bleeding 20%, he sank the economy into a deep recession.
The rationale behind the recent surge of gold prices was far more specious. Inflation-focused investors argued that the Federal Reserve’s recent effort to push new money into the economy by buying bonds—known as quantitative easing—would inevitably set off a spiral of inflation.

It hasn’t. In fact, inflation is only of concern right now because it is too low, consistently undershooting the US central bank’s stated goal of about 2% a year. Here’s a look at the Fed’s favorite inflation gauge:



And now that the Fed has announced its plan to start trimming its bond purchases—the long-awaited taper—it seems like investors are finding an even tougher time justifying owning the metal.

On the other hand, don’t feel too bad for the gold bugs. This year will be the first time since 2000 that gold has actually had a down year. And between the end of 2008 and gold’s peak in August 2011, the metal had surged 113%. If gold bugs didn’t lighten up on their holdings then, they have no one to blame but themselves.

martes, 31 de diciembre de 2013

¿Por qué no estudiar abogacía en USA?

Este triste gráfico de flujo hilarante le convencerá de no ir a la Facultad de Derecho
Erin Fuchs

Un abogado de Connecticut llamado Samuel Browning ha creado un diagrama de flujo masivo de la lista de todos los terribles razones que la gente quiere ir a la escuela de leyes en estos días.

Esa carta se basó en el libro "No vaya a la Escuela de Derecho (A menos que)", de Paul Campos, que esboza las pocas buenas razones para obtener un doctorado en leyes en el mercado actual. Matt Leichter publicó el diagrama de flujo en su Law School Tuition Bubble blog, y él y Browning nos han dado permiso para publicarlo aquí.

Como puede ver, la carta de Browning pudo contener la mayor parte de los aspirantes abogado incluso de tomar el LSAT. Compruébalo por ti mismo:



Business Insider

domingo, 29 de diciembre de 2013

El oro en el apocalipsis: ¿A cuanto cotizaría?


Why Gold Would Be Useless in an Economic Apocalypse

Seriously, stick with the canned goods. 

Reuters

Since November, financial advisor David Marotta has been publishing a series of blog posts on how to manage your money in the event of a financial apocalypse—as in a world of hyperinflation, governmental collapse, and anarachic mobs. You know, the standard stuff of a doomsday prepper's fever dreams. While Marotta admits he has some fears about the direction of the country (the man's not an Obamacare fan, to say the least) most of it seems to be fairly tongue-in-cheek material aimed at talking potential clients down from investing in some of the crazy, survivalist scams advertised on conservative talk radio. (Sadly, TheWashington Examiner seems to have missed the humor). 
And the first scam on his agenda? Plowing all your money into gold, of course. Here's his biblically inflected explanation of why toting around a suitcase of gold come the end times—and at today's prices, a $1 million in gold coins would fit in a suitcase—would be a suboptimal strategy: 
If there really is a collapse of the money supply it is difficult to believe that your briefcase of pretty coins will still have any purchasing power near $1 million. In the 1970s, Christian singer Larry Norman made popular the Apocalyptic song lyric, “A piece of bread could buy a bag of gold” based on Revelation 6:6. In The End, I’d rather not have bought as much gold as possible.
In other words, when an economy goes full-on Mad Max and we're all reduced to bartering, the survivors are going to be more interested in useful goods than in a soft metal useful mostly for ornamental purposes. Part of gold's value as a commodity is derived from the fact that it can easily be traded across borders. But if that were no longer an option, and you were reduced to using bullion to buy a baguette, it wouldn't really matter what people in China or India were willing to pay for your gold. 
I would also add that, in a truly Hobbesian state of nature, it might not be wise to keep all your wealth stored in a small, easily pilfered box. 
Now, in fairness to the goldbugs out there, I think Marotta is oversimplifying a bit. Let's say the United States has a bout of Zimbabwe-like inflation, but the international commodities markets stay up and running. Theoretically, if the collapse of the world's reserve currency hasn't shocked the entire global economy into paralysis, you might be able to trade your gold for Euros or Swiss Francs or whatever else the markets start denominating prices in and start a nice little import business.
The problem is that if doomsday doesn't arrive, you're probably stuck with a bum investment. As Marotta puts it: "Gold has a low expected return of just inflation and one of the highest volatilities as measured by standard deviation. That means that the optimum asset allocation to gold is always zero."
His bottom line? Keep the shiny stuff to less than 3 percent of your portfolio. And, if you're really convinced the end is nigh, I say stick with canned goods.

sábado, 28 de diciembre de 2013

Convirtiendo un libro en ventas

How to Make Your Book a Bestseller

An imagined guide to successful self-promotion
The Atlantic


Flickr / Ian Muttoo
More and more often these days, authors are considered responsible for their own success—and those who were once responsible for promoting them now tout the glories of self-promotion. Or, as a cheery New York literary agent recently put it, “You, the author, have an unprecedented amount of control over the way people discover you and your work, and how your ‘presence’ is presented to the world.”
Here’s what an author's guide to stardom might look like in the near future.

What a fortunate time to be an author. With the range of social and antisocial media at your disposal, you, the author, have unlimited opportunities to reach every single member of your potential audience. And we have your back, we do. That’s why we’ve assembled these tips for getting the world’s attention. It’s time for you to think outside the book.

The Internet

Finding the right audience is like online dating. Who loves long walks in the rain?There’s a soul mate for your Portland-born Samantha! Is someone enamored of the majestic beauty abundant in America’s national parks? Marry this novel, already! All you, the author, have to do is play matchmaker.

Your ripe and delicious novel could be all over that internet like a brag on Facebook. Take the passage where Samantha climbs Half Dome to meet up with Hugo. You might:
  • Write a life-changing essay about a trek of your own, and submit it to LifeChangingHikes.net, YosemiteAfternoons.com, StoriesBehindPeopleNamedSamantha.net, or the Huffington Post.
  • Craft a dozen painstakingly researched pieces on Samantha’s gear. Offer these to blogs devoted to day packs, crampons, tampons, etc.
  • Post a novel excerpt in TripAdvisor’s Yosemite comments section.
  • Write a quiz on Literary Hikes for your Goodreads author page—give away your novel as a prize!
  • Organize a flash mob performance atop Half Dome. Don’t hesitate to go full frontal Hollywood—maybe the crowd wears bear suits and ranger hats, though wet T-shirts work, too. All the better if you can do it on a double-rainbow day. Hiring several videographers will ensure that you have abundant footage for fashioning a two-minute You-Tube clip.
If each of the above leads four people to your novel, you, the author, will have nearly two dozen new readers. So start generating related content that your audience can use!

Book Clubs

Get chosen, already. Handy things to remember:

  • You, the author, have written the perfect book for any club, whether centered around dogs, Nobel Laureates, or 19th-century classics. After all, Samantha names her kitten Aung San Suu Kitty—there’s the Nobel tie-in. With the same page count as Middlemarch and a review citing your “dickens of a plot”—hello, 19th century! And for the dog lovers, there’s your vet’s blog post, featuring that author photo of you surrounded by rescue greyhounds.
  • Volunteer to make personal appearances. Samantha’s campfire-roasted quail? Treat the club to a mini-wing fest. The brandy toddies steaming forth from Hugo’s thermos? Mix, pour, repeat. (Bring your laptop for those who want to drunk dial Goodreads!)
  • Once at book club, stay at book club. You, the author, might offer to read your hosts a chapter each night or clean the bathroom. When the others have gone and the household is asleep, locate the post-it above the computer labeled “passwords.” Don’t be getting all ethical at this late date; take a lesson from both the Nigerians and the NSA. Three bumps out on their email contacts, and you, the author, will go viral, baby.                       

Publicity

We counsel authors to manage their expectations—by which we mean, lower yours. You, the author, shouldn’t expect coverage for merely arranging words on a page. A better bet is to become a story. We suggest:
  • Gain 100+ pounds and then lose them! Extra publicity for endorsing one simple rule that lets you enjoy the food you love and take off the weight.
  • Find a cure for—oh, for heaven’s sake, do we have to do everything? You, the author, can do at least identify potentially curable diseases for yourself.
  • Give 5,000 of your books away. This may sound counterintuitive, but once, for a single author, it worked. 
  • Stop saying, “I couldn’t get arrested!” Use that password cache you collected, though robbing a bank works, too. Depending on the magnitude of your caper, you may garner cable or even national coverage. Added value: Bus stops now feature security cam footage, a.k.a. free book trailer!
Politicians know there are tradeoffs for being in the public eye, but the rewards are hard to beat. A term in the Senate or in the pen undoubtedly yields a new book, one embossed with the coveted “based on a true story.” And while it takes millions of dollars to run for office, you, the author, don’t even need a publicist to knock over a jewelry store—we are confident that you can get arrested! It takes bold moves like that to get your name out there. Or should we say in there, because you’d be lucky to get five to 10 years to capture an increasingly expanding audience. Don’t forget, if every prison library buys your book, it’s a guaranteed bestseller. 

miércoles, 25 de diciembre de 2013

La falla en la política monetaria de demanda agregada del FED


We’ll finally see that the Fed has done nothing to help Main Street

By Manuel Hinds December 24, 2013
Manuel Hinds is El Salvador's former finance minister. He also has worked with the World Bank in the public and private sector. In 2010, he won the Manhattan Institute's Hayek Prize.
What taper? Reuters/Brian Snyder


On Dec. 18, the Fed announced that in January it would start tapering its purchases of treasury bonds and mortgage-related securities by $10 billion a month, down from $85 to $75 billion per month. It also hinted that it would keep on tapering, possibly at a rate of $10 billion per meeting of the Federal Open Markets Operations Committee. The Fed also said that interest rates are unlikely to increase before the unemployment rate declines below 6.5%.
+

The new policy mix seems to have accelerated the outflows of capital from the emerging markets (see here  and here). Yet, the initial response of the domestic markets was anti-climatic. The S&P 500 ended the week at record highs. The real economy (that is, Main Street) does not seem to have taken notice of the announcement.
+

Is that strange? People who supported quantitative easing would argue that nothing is happening because the program has been quite successful. In their minds, this is similar to what happens when, after a successful recovery from a surgery, the patient walks happily away while the physicians dismount the equipment that has kept him alive. Before coming to this conclusion, however, we must ask ourselves, what did quantitative easing do for Main Street? Did it actually help to keep the patient alive?
+

Unless you believe in Voodoo, you will want to identify the means through which quantitative easing transmitted its possibly beneficial impact to Main Street. We can think of two ways. One is increased availability of credit. The other is lower long-term interest rates.  Common sense and economic theory suggest that the two are linked. Larger amounts of credit lead to lower interest rates and lower rates lead to larger amounts of credit. On this basis, we should look only to one of the two variables. Yet, Fed distinguished between the two in its rhetoric, even if the open market operations are based on the supposition that they are linked as the Fed buys credit instruments to lower interest rates. The reason for this distinction seems to be that the Fed controls the short-term interest rates, not the long-term ones, through its conventional open market operations. When the crisis exploded, the Fed was able to lower the short-term rates to practically zero, but the long-term ones remained aloft. Quantitative easing increased the purchases well beyond what was needed to keep the short-term rates close to zero. It also aimed at reducing the long-term rates by purchasing long-term instruments in the market, including agency mortgage-backed securities ($600 billion between 2008 and 2009 and $40 billion per month since September 2012.)
+

Thus, we can look at volumes of credit and interest rates separately.
+

First, we can look at the volumes of credit. The next chart suggests that the help provided by quantitative easing to Main Street in this dimension must have been very scant. Most of the money created by the Fed since the September 2008 crisis through quantitative easing and otherwise has been turned into excess reserves of the banking system (excess reserves is cash that the banks can use to create credit but chose not to and instead deposited it back in the Fed). That is, the cash created by quantitative easing did not become additional credit but, instead, it became excess reserves of the banks deposited in the Fed.
+

1. Monetary-base-and-excess-reserves-in-dollar-millions-Monetary-base-Excess-Reserves_chartbuilder
The next chart shows in a more dramatic way that the money created by quantitative easing has been sitting idly in the Fed. The curves plot the 12-month differences of the monetary base (the money created by the Fed) and the excess reserves of the banking system since September 2009 (12 months after the beginning of the crisis). They demonstrate that quantitative easing has worked as a merry-go-round. The Fed created the money only to see it returning as deposits of the commercial banks in the Fed itself.
+

2. Monetary-Base-and-Excess-Reserves-12-month-growth-Monetary-base-Excess-Reserves_chartbuilder
Thus, we have seen that the money created by quantitative easing did not go to increase credit to the private sector. It had a neutral effect because what the Fed created came back to the Fed. But, what happened to credit? Did it stay put, at the same level?
+

The next graph shows that one major category of commercial banks’ credit increased since the crisis began: net credit to the central government (net of deposits of the government in the banks). However, total commercial banks’ credit went down substantially. By the end of the second quarter of 2013 it still had not recovered the level it had when quantitative easing began. Moreover, credit to the private sector (Main Street) declined and is still $600 billion below its level in 2008. Credit to other financial institutions also went down. Not a nice chart to see.
+

3. Change-in-commercial-banks-credit-relative-to-second-quarter-2008-Net-Claims-on-Central-Government-Other-Financial-Corporations-Private-Sector-Total-Net-credit_chartbuilder
You can argue that this chart does not portray the complete picture because banks are not the only source of credit. Right. The next chart shows that recently the financial system’s credit to the private sector did increase over the level it had at the end of June 2008 (the financial system includes the banks plus all other financial institutions, such as insurance companies).
+

4. Change-in-the-financial-system-s-credit-relative-to-Q2-2008-Domestic-Claims-Net-Claims-on-Central-Government-Claims-on-Private-Sector_chartbuilder
However, as shown in the next chart, the main source of this credit was not deposits but, instead, the insurance companies’ technical reserves and the financial institutions’ shares and other equities. To believe that quantitative easing helped to increase credit to the private sector you would have to believe that enormous amounts of money sitting idly in the Fed help increasing the technical reserves of insurance companies or lead to larger equity issues by financial institutions. Not very probable.
+

5. Change-in-sources-of-credit-of-financial-system-in-billions-Deposits-Securities-other-than-Shares-Insurance-Reserves-Shares-and-other-Equity_chartbuilder
Now we can look at the interest rate side of our puzzle. You can say that maybe quantitative easing worked not because the money it created became credit to the private sector but because it helped the long-term interest rates to decline and remain low. Certainly, low interest rates, even if they have not increased the volume of credit, may have had a substitution effect in the allocation of financial resources—that is, people who had invested in something not very attractive today (like housing) may have decided to move their resources to invest in equity shares. This lowered the cost of issuing shares to finance companies, including financial institutions (the price-to-earnings ratio has gone up substantially if, as suggested by Nobel laureate Robert Shiller, the earnings are estimated as the average of the last decade).
+

This seems to have happened. The stock exchange has been in a frenzy of booms since the policies of artificially low interest rates have been applied. The low interest rates did not create new credit to Main Street but diverted resources toward the stock exchange, including the shares of financial institutions that used them to grant credit.
+

The effectiveness of the Fed in keeping low the long-term rates seems to be waning, however. As shown in the next chart, the long-term interest rates have been increasing as of late (those of the US bonds since June 2012 and those of mortgages since February 2013) even if the short-term rates have been flat and close to zero. The mortgage rate has gone up from 3.4% to 4.5%, and the 10-year US Treasury bond rates from 1.6% to 2.9% since those dates, reversing the trend these rates had shown since the beginning of quantitative easing at the end of 2008. That was embarrassing. Quantitative easing was not able to keep the long-term interest rates low. Maybe it was time to quit before this became too obvious.
+

6. Long-term-interest-rates-Mortgage-US-Bonds-GS10_chartbuilder
But, why did the long-term interest rates increase while the short-term ones remain so low, particularly at a time when the banks are full of liquidity and could increase the supply of credit at a snap? One obvious answer is that the long-term market is expecting an increase in inflation rates. That is a good reason to stop quantitative easing, maybe better than the assertions of its complete success.
+

Thus, perhaps nothing has happened after the Fed announced the end of quantitative easing because the program didn’t do anything except unnecessarily increase the liquidity reserves of commercial banks and help to keep the long-term interest rate low in the first few years of the program—something that recent evidence suggests it can no longer do.
+

Of course, the fact that to this date nothing has happened does not necessarily mean that nothing will happen in the longer run. The problem will not come from the amount of money in circulation. The banks have enough excess reserves to submerge the world in currency. Yet, if the interest rates keep on increasing, and everything suggests that they will keep on doing it, many activities that have been profitable at the low interest rates will fail, and this will negatively affect the financial system. Depending on the magnitude of the adjustment, the coming event will be just financial turmoil or a full fledged financial crisis.
+

Now, you can ask yourself, why getting into all this, risking inflation and financial turmoil just to have money parked in the Fed? Well, keeping the banks artificially liquid may be useful to keep insolvent banks artificially alive. Maybe this was the secret purpose of quantitative easing. Maybe the idea was to keep them liquid while they cleansed their bad loan and investment portfolios. However, for most of the life of the program, the monetary authorities have insisted that the banks were quite solvent.
+

Were they? Are they? We are going to know the answers to these questions now that tapering seems to have started in earnest. The end of quantitative easing is like the end of Neverland. Only those who learned to live in the real world of free interest rates, as opposed to the fictional lands of artificially low interest rates, will survive. As Warren Buffett said, “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”

domingo, 22 de diciembre de 2013

Merca paraguaya competirá con la droga legal uruguaya

La Legalidad en Uruguay es una gran noticia para los señores de la droga de Paraguay
Por Roberto A. Ferdman @robferdman

Precio alto. Reuters / Mario Anzuoni

Cuando Uruguay comience a vender marihuana cultivada por el estado el año que viene, las cosas va a estar barata - el gobierno, la única entidad a la que se le permite vender marihuana, que planea cobrar sólo $1 por gramo. Eso se compara con un precio medio de la calle de alrededor de US $ 20 en los EE.UU.

Pero eso podría no ser en realidad bastante barato.

Los narcotraficantes en el vecino Paraguay, uno de los mayores productores de la región de marihuana, (pdf) y contribuyentes pesados ​​al narcotráfico subterráneo en ciernes de América del Sur, pueden ser capaces de producir y vender por mucho menos. Un kilo de marihuana cultivada en Paraguay actualmente se vende por $ 60 en el país y 300 dólares en la frontera con Uruguay, según el jefe de la Secretaría Nacional Antidrogas de Paraguay Luis Rojas. (enlace en español ) Eso es 0,06 dólares un gramo y $ 0,30 el gramo, respectivamente.

La perspectiva de una brecha significativa que tiene funcionarios paraguayos bastante preocupado. Gran parte de la mala hierba ilegal de Uruguay ya se cree que proviene de Paraguay - algunas de ellas a través de Brasil, que se cree que es el primer destino de hasta el 80% de toda la marihuana producida en Paraguay . Pero una vez que la droga es legal, el consumo uruguayo presumiblemente va a subir, y el más barato producto paraguayo ilegal competirá favorablemente con la ganga sancionada por el gobierno más caro. "Estamos más que convencidos de que va a estimular el consumo interno y por lo tanto el tráfico de marihuana hacia allí", dijo Rojas.

Paraguay ha sido constante en su crítica de la histórica legislación para la marihuana de Uruguay. En agosto, Rojas advirtió que la legalización de la droga haría poco para frenar los flujos de drogas regionales en el país. "El mercado uruguayo va a recibir la marihuana que se produce y que no vamos a dejar de recibir la marihuana producida en Paraguay", dijo en ese momento. Es un escenario que Uruguay es más que probable que en cuenta, así como preocupados. Si bien la suciedad malezas barato no es el fin del mundo, una presencia continua de los flujos de drogas ilegales podría ser un reto, especialmente si esto significa más de la violencia relacionada con las drogas que llevó Uruguay para impulsar la legalización de la marihuana en el primer lugar.

Quartz