The Great Debate UK

from MacroScope:

Give me liberty and give me cash!

Come back Mr Fukuyama, all is forgiven.

In his 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man", American political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously argued that all states were moving inexorably towards liberal democracy. His thesis that democracy is the pinnacle of political evolution has since been challenged by the violent eruption of radical Islam as well as the economic success of authoritarian countries such as China and Russia.

Now a study by Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital into the link between economic wealth and democracy seems to back Fukuyama.

Looking at 150 countries and over 60 years of history, RenCap found that countries are likely to become more democratic as they enjoyed rising levels of income with democracy virtually 'immortal' in countries with a GDP per capita above $10,000.

" Only five democracies above the $6,000 income level have died. Even democracies above the $6,000 level have a 99 percent chance of sustaining their political system each year. The only exceptions were the military coups in Greece in 1967 ($9,800), Argentina in 1976 ($8,180) and Thailand in 2006 ($7,440), and the events in Venezuela in 2009 ($9,115), as well as Iran in 2004 ($8,475)," RenCap global chief economist Charles Robertson writes.

The $6,000 per capita GDP seems to be a crucial level, marking the point where a country is likely to shift to democracy. Tunisia, which early this year triggered the wave of uprisings against autocracy across the Arab world, recently crossed that threshold.

Conversely, democracy is most fragile at the lowest income levels and when incomes are shrinking. The world's populous democracy, India, is a notable exception as its per capita income was under $800 from 1950-1967, and only exceeded $2,000 in 2003.

from Global Investing:

Investors love those emerging markets

No question that investors are in the throes of passion over emerging markets. The latest Reuters asset allocation polls show investors pouring money into Asian and Latin American stocks in October to the detriment of U.S. and euro zone equities. Exposure to equities in emerging Europe, Asia ex-Japan, Latin America and Africa/Middle East rose to 15.6 percent of a typical stock portfolio from 14.3 percent a month earlier.

from Summit Notebook:

Is emerging Europe out of the woods yet?

A surge in portfolio inflows is flooding into emerging central Europe, although yield-hungry investors are picking solid policy and higher growth over countries still struggling to put the crisis behind them.

After deep contractions across the region, a two-speed recovery is underway, with countries boasting better debt fundamentals like Poland and the Czech Republic for the moment ahead of those who depend on foreign lending.

Investors are also dipping into countries like Hungary, but struggles by the new centre-right Fidesz government to get its budget deficit under control mean it is lagging for now, along with fellow International Monetary Fund benefactor Romania.

"There has... been clear differentiation between the more robust and the weaker economies of the region," Goldman Sachs wrote in a research note on the region.

"We believe that the region's stronger economies -- namely, Poland, Turkey, Israel and the Czech Republic -- will be the first to see an acceleration in financial inflows both in debt and, increasingly, equity." Turkey and Israel are often grouped with emerging European markets.

Extremely easy monetary policy in the world's developing economies, including expectations the Fed will push ahead with more asset-buying, plus continued worries over debt in troubled euro zone countries like Greece and Ireland have helped push investors into these higher-yielding countries.

But these new, more volatile, portfolio flows carry risks.

from Global Investing:

What fund managers think

Bank of America-Merrill Lynch's monthly poll of around 200 fund managers had a few nuggets in the June version, aside from the usual mood-taking.

Gold is too expensive.  A net 27 percent of respondent thought it overvalued, up from 13 percent in May. Then again, the respondents to this poll have reckoned gold is too pricey since September 2009.

The fall in the euro should be tailing off. A net 14 percent reckon the single currency is still overvalued, but that is way down from the net 45 percent who thought so in the May poll.

BP is good for pharma. The net percentage of fund managers who remain overweight in energy stocks plunged to 7 percent in June from 37 percent in May as oil has continued to spill into the Gulf of Mexico.  The stock beneficiaries have been "dividend friendly" utilities, telecoms and pharmaceuticals.

China's growth is slowing. A net 27 percent of investors reckoned China's economy will weaken from where it is now over the next 12 months. That probably has mixed blessings given that investors both are expecting China to pull the world along the course of recovery and are worried about its economy overheating.

Overall, the poll showed fund managers to be cautious about the world economy but not giving up on riskier assets.

Fears of UK hung parliament may be overstated

– The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –

Fears of a hung parliament following the UK’s general election may be overstated. With Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, Britain’s third largest party, performing well in the first prime ministerial debate, sterling has received a mild knock. Investors do not like the uncertainty that goes with a hung parliament. While many European countries are used to coalition government, the UK is traditionally a two-party system – with government swinging between Labour and the Conservatives.

Added to this uncertainty is the fact that none of the three parties has come up with a credible plan for cutting the government’s deficit, which stands at 12 percent of GDP. One fear is that valuable months could be lost in horse-trading over forming the next government. Another is that a minority government could embark on a populist, but expensive, programme to prepare the ground for a second election later this year.

The hung parliament scenario is really two sub-scenarios. In the first, the party with the largest number of seats would govern on its own. This is probably what would happen if the Tories were the largest party. Such a government might well be unstable.

The second sub-scenario is a majority formed through a coalition with the LibDems. This is more likely if Labour emerges as the largest party. That’s because it has offered to change the system for electing MPs – something the LibDems and their predecessor parties have wanted for decades. Indeed, during Thursday’s debate, Labour’s Gordon Brown several times dangled this olive branch.

A formal “Lib-Lab” pact would still need to come up with a credible deficit reduction plan. But arguably this would be easier with a coalition that had been supported by over 50 percent of the electorate. What’s more, if it did not have overall power, Labour would have a ready-made excuse for abandoning pledges made in its manifesto, which would otherwise tie its hands in confronting the deficit.

If there is a hung parliament, it will be better to hang together than hang separately.

from MacroScope:

Britain heading for rude awakening?

There is a divisive election ahead for Britain, the threat of a ratings downgrade on its sovereign debt and a deficit that has ballooned into the largest by percentage of any major economy.  UK stocks, bonds and sterling, however, are trundling along as if all were well. What gives?

For a fuller discussion on the issue click here, but the gist is that all three asset classes  are being support by factors that may be masking the danger of a broad reversal. UK equities have been driven higher by the improving global economy, bonds held up by the Bank of England's huge buying programme and sterling by valuation and the distress of others.

But with the Bank of England's buying spree due to end soon and the possibility that UK voters won't give a clear victory to either the Conservatives or Labour, meaning political stalemate, is this set to change?

Royal Bank of Canada does not go as far as saying it will. But it says it is clear that not enough attention is being paid the prospect of  politics grinding to a halt and failing to solve the fiscal problem

Many sacred cows will have to be sacrificed in the years ahead, and this will require effective leadership, imagination, and courage. But the danger is that because of the political situation, the country is instead left with weak government, temporary expedients, and initiatives that are the lowest common denominator of long and exhausting negotiation.

Britain is not yet headed back to the 1970s, in our view, but such economic and political recidivism cannot be ruled out. Policy makers and money managers would do well to consult their history books and be alert to the errors and failings of 35 years ago

from MacroScope:

The end of capitalism

Hard to imagine with financial markets still buoyant and newspapers full of tales of bonus greed, but there is still the possibility that captialism will end.  At least there is according to prestigious investment consultants Watson Wyatt in their latest study called "Extreme Risks".

The firm listed the demise of the system of private ownership as one of 15 threats to investors and the global economy that probably won't happen but which it reckons are worth worrying about anyway. The idea behind the report is that such things as climate change, the break up of the euro zone and war are always worth being included in an investment risk management process.

As for the future of capitalism:

In our view, the most likely scenario is moving along from one end of a spectrum where market is king (minimum regulation) towards the other end, where we could see more onerous regulations and government intervention in, and control of, the economy. The extreme risk, however, is the demise of the capitalist system and the end of the market as the primary means of resource allocation.

And the impact:

The economy would be likely to run a higher risk of failure and economic growth would be sluggish in the long run due to lower productivity.  Centrally controlled economies tend to be characterised by shortages, which are inherently inflationary. Private investment activities would collapse or even be terminated. The end of capitalism is simply the ultimate extreme risk. The economy is likely to be associated with extreme uncertainty and a large amount of wealth destruction during the transition period.

Watson Wyatt does try to give its free market clients some hope, suggesting that buying gold may be one way to hedge against the propect of capitalism's demise. But it admitted that in such a circumstance investors would probably be more concerned about the return of their investments rather that the return on them.

Is it time for investors to look towards the U.S.?

-Kully Samra is branch director at Charles Schwab, UK. The opinions expressed are his own.-

The economic crisis that has prevailed over the global markets in the last 12 months has undoubtedly rattled investors worldwide, but rather than leaving their heads in the sand, seasoned investors have continued to search for opportunities amidst the instability.

One such opportunity that seems to have been overlooked by UK investors is that of overseas share ownership.

Whilst I have no doubt that there are viable investment opportunities in other markets, I do believe that the U.S. market provides a whole wealth of opportunities for the UK investor, especially those looking to diversify their portfolios. 

Whilst this belief stems from our experience of the U.S. markets it was recently supported by the findings of our latest survey which looked at the investing habits of active UK retail investors; specifically in relation to their views on overseas investments.

Our independent survey of more than 1400 British-based active retail investors found that 44 percent believed that the U.S. economy and financial markets would recover sooner than those of the UK, with only 28 percent believing that the UK will recover ahead of the U.S. 

We also found that investors expect the U.S. to lead recovery more generally, with 39 percent of respondents believing the U.S. will take more than 12 months to come out of recession, compared to 50 percent for the UK.

from Commentaries:

The revenge of Madoff’s victims

By Lynnley Browning (Lynnley Browning is a guest columnist. The views expressed are her own. She is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities.)

Some have argued that the victims of Bernie Madoff's enormous fraud should simply take their lumps for having trusted their money to the greatest con artist in history.

The victims, not surprisingly, disagree. More important, many of them are organizing in a way that could change the way investors are treated in the future. As the Obama administration pushes to add greater protections and even a new agency for investors, the Madoff victims stand to make an impact that goes beyond simply being objects of pity. Two groups of Madoff investors, the Madoff Survivors Group and www.madoff-help.com, are trying to persuade Congress to overhaul the rules that limit the ability of investors to try to recoup their losses.

The Madoff groups want the Internal Revenue Service to extend the time that investors can reclaim taxes paid on fictitious Madoff earnings beyond the current limit of five years. They are also backing legislation in Congress that would create tax breaks for phantom profits and extend carry-back losses to 10 years.

And the Madoff victims are pressing for changes at the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, the government chartered insurance agency that is funded by the securities industry and whose mission is to protect and reimburse investors.

SIPC has infuriated many victims by saying it will only reimburse, up to the $500,000 limit, those who invested directly with Madoff, instead of those who went through feeder funds like the Fairfield Greenwich Group.

It has also angered some victims by using a new definition of "net equity" that largely limits recoveries to how much money the victims initially put into Madoff's scheme, minus what they took out -- not how much money Madoff said they had on their balance statements.

PIMCO avoids UK, U.S. printing presses

– Margaret Doyle is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are her own –

One of the challenges for bond investors over the coming years is how to deal with the enormous ballooning of government debt that is happening as a result of the credit crisis.

Traditionally, investors allocate funds between asset classes and require managers to manage to a benchmark. However, most indexes are based on market capitalisation: the securities with the biggest value in aggregate have the largest share of the index.

This is less than ideal in equity markets, where indexing can lead to herding by forcing investors to buy overvalued shares. But it is particularly perverse for bond investors. The countries with the largest weightings in the indices are those that have issued the most debt.

At present those are the countries with the most colossal deficits to finance. So, traditional index-tracking bond funds are being obliged to allocate more money to precisely those countries whose creditworthiness is decreasing fastest.

PIMCO, the world’s biggest bond investment manager, has come up with a new index — the Global Advantage Bond Index (“Gladi”) — that tries to get around this problem.

Gladi, which is being administered by Markit, a global index provider, is weighted by national income rather than by historic debt issuance. When initially launched, after 2 years of research, earlier this year, it was pitched as a way of “building in a tilt toward these countries that are developing rapidly but their capital markets and market capitalization haven’t caught up yet.”