French Housing “In Total Meltdown”, “Current Figures Are Disastrous”

If Venezuela is the case study of a country in the late stages of transition into a socialist utopia, then France is the clear runner up. The most recent case in point, aside from the already sliding French economy, whose recent contraction can be best seen be deteriorating PMI data…

… which hints at the dreaded “triple dip” recession, nowhere is the economic collapse in France more evident than in its housing market which as even Bloomberg admits, citing industry participants, is now “in total meltdown.

The reason? The belief of the socialist president that a few economists know better than the overall market, especially when the sanctity of the “fairness doctrine” and the greater good is to be upheld at all costs. To wit: “French President Francois Hollande’s government may have made a housing slump worse, pushing the construction market to its lowest in more than 15 years. Housing starts fell 19 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, and permits — a gauge of future construction — dropped 13 percent, the French Housing Ministry said yesterday.

The reason: a law that was passed this year that seeks to make housing more affordable by capping rents in expensive neighborhoods. To protect home buyers, the law also boosted the number of documents that must be provided by sellers, leading to a decline in home sales and longer transaction times.

Of course, it didn’t take long for the government to realize its mistake and to scramble to adjust the rules, but “the damage is done, threatening France’s anemic recovery that’s already lagging behind those of the U.K. and Germany.”

Enter the soundbites: “Construction is in total meltdown,” said Dominique Barbet, an economist at BNP Paribas in Paris. “It’s difficult to see how the new housing law is not to blame.”

Barbet says the drop in home building lopped 0.4 points off France’s gross domestic product growth last year and cut the pace of expansion by a third in the first quarter. Expenditure in the sector was at its lowest level ever as a portion of total real GDP in the first quarter at 4.7 percent, down from 6.3 percent in the first three months of 2007, he estimates.

Sales of new-build homes fell 5 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier and are down by about a third compared with their level in 2007, according to Credit Agricole.

It’s not just the government to blame, though: central planning, which has made the rich richer beyond their wildest dreams has pushed prices near all-time highs in the Paris are, making real estate inaccessible to all but the richest, and leading a crunch in new construction and the associated spending. This is further impacted by the country’s record jobless claims, which in turn is leading to a plunge in sales and profits at building material and electrical equipment makers including Cie. de Saint-Gobain SA, Lafarge SA, Vicat SA, Schneider Electric SE, Legrand SA and Rexel SA.

Enter more soundbites: “Current figures are worrying and will be disastrous if nothing is done; clients of the building sector are sounding the alarm bell,” Pierre-Andre de Chalendar, chief executive officer of Saint-Gobain, said this month. “It’s as though everything is being done to discourage investment in housing.”

Alternatively, it is as if everything is done by a socialist government to boost the economy. The outcome almost without fail is the same. Alain Dinin, chairman of property company Nexity (NXI), concurs.

“The French residential real estate market has been in a particularly tough situation,” he told investors after last week posting a drop in first-half revenue. “A host of complex regulations have been introduced and, most importantly, buyer sentiment has suffered. All those factors have combined to slow the already historically-low rate of new homes entering the market.”

The direct threat of this housing collapse is that the country’s already lowered GDP forecast may end up sliding to 0%, if not negative:

Reduced home construction is threatening Hollande’s goal of increasing GDP by 1 percent this year. The International Monetary Fund slashed its 2014 French growth forecast to 0.7 percent this month from 1 percent previously. The IMF expects expansions of 1.9 percent in Germany and 3.2 percent in the U.K., as well as growth of 1.2 percent in Spain.

 

Hollande, who has been trying to revive an economy that has barely grown in two years, is grappling with a record 3.3 million jobless claims and an approval rating that’s at the lowest level ever for any French president.

 

Construction has the advantage of being an industry that’s easy to revive and lifts the broader economy by leading to the hiring of less-skilled workers and spurring private investment, economists say.

 

“A recovery in construction would help the rebound but it won’t happen without government initiative,” said Ludovic Subran, chief economist at Euler Hermes in Paris. Building is “a sector where the impact on growth and employment is felt immediately.”

Sadly, the underlying problem is one which even China has figured out has no solution, and where a housing sector saddled with insurmountable debt has only one short-term “fix” – even more debt to boost sales for another quarter or two, while kicking the can of the inevitable collapse a little further, assuring that the plunge, when it comes, will be worse than anything experienced.

In France, it is no different, and the “solution” is to do more of what has not worked:

State-controlled financial institution Caisse des Depots is starting talks with public and private investors to raise funds to build several tens of thousands homes in the greater Paris region, where the lack of available land and a rising population has boosted housing prices.

 

“If we invest public money and funds from the Caisse, we must lure private investors,” Caisse des Depots CEO Pierre-Rene Lemas said in a July 6 interview. “Some talks are starting with a view to conclude by the end of the year.” Sylvia Pinel, who replaced former housing minister Cecile Duflot in April, has also introduced measures to revive the construction market, and cut some rules to reduce construction costs.

At the end of the day, the only thing left is what has so far prevented the world from imploding since the Lehman collapse on the back of trillions in central bank liquidity: preserving public confidence at all costs.

“What is important for France is to reassure people, to reassure everyone who wants to invest and to restore confidence,” Lafarge CEO Bruno Lafont said in an interview with Bloomberg Television last week, calling for simpler rules, lower construction costs, and incentives for institutional investors to invest more in housing.

But, as Bloomberg summarizes it best: “It may be too little too late.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1ttDeke Tyler Durden

Complacency Is Sowing The Seeds Of The Next Euro-Zone Crisis

Authored by Nicholas Spiro (Spiro Sovereign Strategy) and Nick Stamenkovic (RIA Capital Markets) via Bloomberg Briefs,

With yields at record lows, it is all too easy to suggest that ‘Europe is fixed’ especially if you are a European leader, but that is not the case…

There are grounds for optimism about Europe’s single currency area. Yet beneath the surface of favorable sentiment towards the euro zone, the seeds of the next financial crisis are being sown.

 

 

On the economic front, while Spain may be staging a brisker-than-expected recovery, Italy will struggle to post growth in the second quarter while private sector output in France continues to contract, exacerbated by rigid labour markets and deteriorating competitiveness. The lackluster and patchy recovery in the bloc will ensure that the specter of deflation lingers, boding ill for the region’s debt dynamics.

 

The deterioration in the fiscal fundamentals of Portugal and Spain, in particular, is deeply worrying in a deflationary environment.

But in fact – the situatiuon has got far worse, far more systemically worrisome, and far more fragile…

Since the first quarter of 2010, when the euro-zone financial crisis erupted, the public debt-to-GDP ratios of the two economies have risen by a staggering 48 and 40 percentage points, respectively, to 133 percent and 97 percent — increases which are more or less on a par with the surge in public indebtedness in Ireland.

 

 

 

Concerns about debt sustainability in the periphery of the euro zone throw the failure to sever the pernicious links between vulnerable banks and sovereigns into sharp relief. The euro zone is caught between the Scylla of intense political and fiscal pressure for an end to taxpayerfunded bank bailouts and the Charybdis of fear that the proposed shift from a “bail-out” to a “bail-in” regime for troubled lenders will unsettle markets.

This dangerous predicament is likely to become more pronounced as investors start fretting about more “skeletons in the closet” in the run-up to the publication of the results of the European Central Bank’s closely watched Asset Quality Review in the autumn.

As Spiro and Stamenkovic conclude:

If markets connected all these dots — a weak and fragile economic recovery, the failure to break the “doom loop” between banks and sovereigns and, most importantly, scant prospect of a more secure political and economic union — the glaring disconnect between asset prices and underlying fundamentals in the euro zone would be a source of much greater concern.

And even Draghi is starting to realize the limits of his omnipotence…

It should set alarm bells ringing that the ECB itself, whose pledge to support the debt markets of the euro zone (and keep the door open to full-scale quantitative easing) continues to underpin sentiment, is increasingly worried about the lack of integration in the bloc.

 

President Mario Draghi’s call in London on July 9 for a new economic governance regime to force euro-zone members — in particular France and Italy — to implement structural reforms is a tacit admission from the ECB that its policies are unable to fix the underlying problems of Europe’s ill-managed single-currency area.

*  *  *

Nicholas Spiro is managing director of Spiro Sovereign Strategy and Nick Stamenkovic is macro strategist at RIA Capital Markets.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1n3q7hs Tyler Durden

GDP Deja Vu Stunner: Over Half Of US Growth In The Past Year Is From Inventory Accumulation

Back in December 2013, when everyone was expecting a 3% GDP print for Q1, we did a simple analysis concluding that “Inventory Hoarding Accounts For Nearly 60% Of GDP Increase In Past Year.” We stated that this “hollow growth”, which is merely producers pulling demand from the future courtesy of cheap credit and assuming the inventory will be sold off in ordinary course of business without bottom-line slamming liquidations or dumping, and which further assumes a healthy US consumer and global economy, is a flashing red flag for the future of US economic growth. In fact, we were one of the very few who warned that Q1 GDP would be a disaster: “The problem with inventory hoarding, however, is that at some point it will have to be “unhoarded.” Which is why expect many downward revisions to future GDP as this inventory overhang has to be destocked.

This is precisely what happened in Q1, however it was blamed on the “harsh weather.”

Alas, following today’s “spectacular” 4.0% GDP print following the predicted plunge in the US economy in Q1, we can again conclude that not only has nothing changed, but what we warned in Q4 of 2013 is about to happen all over again, and the inventory overhang (which incidentally was estiamted by the BEA and will certainly be revised lower next month) is about to slam future US growth.

The chart below shows the quarterly change in the revised GDP series broken down by Inventory (yellow) and all other non-Inventory components comprising GDP (blue). Something to note: companies are traditionally loath to liquidate inventories unless the economy is clearly in a depressionary collapse as happened in late 2008 early 2009, when inventory dumping was the main reason why GDP remained flat if not negative even as other GDP components rebounded. As such, it is always the last component of GDP to go, and when it does watch out below.

And, as we showed last time, where the scramble to accumulate inventory in hopes that it will be sold, profitably, sooner or later to buyers either domestic or foreign, is most visible, is in the data from the past 4 quarters, or the trailing year starting in Q2 2013 and ending with the just released revised Q2 2014 number. The result is that of the $675 billion rise in nominal GDP in the past year, a whopping 52%, or over half, is due to nothing else but inventory hoarding.

Once again, enjoy the sugar high that inventory accumulation always generates in the current quarter. Just don’t expect it to last.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1xzN55V Tyler Durden

Portugal Plunges To 9-Month Lows, Europe's VIX At 3-Month Highs

Portugal’s PSI20 plunged over 3.4% today extending recent losses after its dead-cat-bounce, leaving the index near its lowest since October 2013. Interestingly peripheral bond spreads (and IG/HY credit spreads) compressed while equity markets all dumped across Europe amid concerns of blowback from Russia. As the sell-off accelerated into the close, credit markets also tumbled. An initial rally in financials gave way rapidly as US opened and rumors of G7 statements and Russian retaliation spread. Europe’s VIX closed just shy of 18.00 – its highest close since early May. Banco Espirito Santo fell another 10% to record lows ahead of tonight’s earnings.

Early gains disappeared for European banks…

 

Portugal plunged to 9 month lows…

 

and broad European stocks fell as US GDP (as good as it gets) and Russian warnings sparked selling…

 

Charts: Bloomberg




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1xzN2qz Tyler Durden

Portugal Plunges To 9-Month Lows, Europe’s VIX At 3-Month Highs

Portugal’s PSI20 plunged over 3.4% today extending recent losses after its dead-cat-bounce, leaving the index near its lowest since October 2013. Interestingly peripheral bond spreads (and IG/HY credit spreads) compressed while equity markets all dumped across Europe amid concerns of blowback from Russia. As the sell-off accelerated into the close, credit markets also tumbled. An initial rally in financials gave way rapidly as US opened and rumors of G7 statements and Russian retaliation spread. Europe’s VIX closed just shy of 18.00 – its highest close since early May. Banco Espirito Santo fell another 10% to record lows ahead of tonight’s earnings.

Early gains disappeared for European banks…

 

Portugal plunged to 9 month lows…

 

and broad European stocks fell as US GDP (as good as it gets) and Russian warnings sparked selling…

 

Charts: Bloomberg




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1xzN2qz Tyler Durden

WATCH: Inside the Sharknado – Mockbusters, Remix Culture, and the Earnestness of Camp

“The government’s not prepared, man,” says Judah Friedlander,
castmember of Sharknado 2: The Second One, when asked if
FEMA would respond to a sharknado effectively. “But Ian
Ziering is.”

Reason TV talked to Friedlander, Ziering, and director Anthony
C. Ferrante about the upcoming sequel to the wildly popular TV
movie Sharknado,
which became a cultural phenomenon inspiring almost 5,000 tweets a
minute and netting SyFy network more viewers than any other
original program had ever done before.

Reason TV also spoke to David Rimawi, CEO of The Asylum, the production and
distribution company that made Sharknado and has created a
name for itself as a producer of low-budget “mockbuster” movies
like Snakes on a
Train
, Transmorphers,
and The
Terminators
, which consistently push the limits of
intellectual property law.

Sharknado 2: The Second One
premieres tonight at 9 p.m.
on SyFy.

Click the link below for the full text, downloadable versions,
and associated links.

Approximately 4 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera
by Tracy Oppenheimer, Alexis Garcia, and Weissmueller.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/XfwoBC
via IFTTT

Carbon Rebates: Better than Carbon Regulations?

Carbon ShareThe New York Times is
running today an op/ed, “The
Carbon Dividend
,” by University of Massachusetts economist
James Boyce touting a new bill by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)
that would set up a cap-and-dividend program that aims to limit
U.S. emissions of globe-warming carbon dioxide. Boyce explains that
the plan…

…would require coal, oil and natural gas companies to buy a
permit for each ton of carbon in the fuels they sell. Permits would
be auctioned, and 100 percent of the proceeds would be returned
straight to the American people as equal dividends for every woman,
man and child…

The number of permits initially would be capped at the level of
our 2005 carbon dioxide emissions. This cap would gradually ratchet
down to 80 percent below that level by 2050. Prices of fossil fuels
would rise as the cap tightened, spurring private investment in
energy efficiency and clean energy. Energy companies would pass the
cost of permits to consumers in the form of higher fuel prices. But
for most families, the gain in carbon dividends would be greater
than the pain. In fact, my calculations show that more than 80
percent of American households would come out ahead financially —
and that doesn’t even count the benefits of cleaner air and a
cooler planet.

As the cap tightened, prices of fossil fuels would rise faster
than quantity would fall, so total revenues would rise. The tighter
the cap, the bigger the dividend. Voters not only would want to
keep the policy in place for the duration of the clean energy
transition, they would want to strengthen it.

The net effect on any household would depend on its carbon
footprint — how much it spent, directly and indirectly, on fossil
fuels. The less carbon it consumed, the bigger its net benefit. But
why would a vast majority emerge as winners?

There are two reasons. First, among final consumers, households
account for about two-thirds of fossil fuel use in the United
States. Most of the remainder is consumed by government. In Mr. Van
Hollen’s bill, households would receive these other carbon dollars,
too.

Republicans should welcome this feature, since over the years it
would return billions of dollars from the government to the people.
Unlike a carbon tax, which brings in more revenue for the
government, Mr. Van Hollen’s bill is, in effect, a tax cut.

Boyce likens the proposal to the popular Alaska permanent fund
that divvies up oil and gas royalties to each Alaskan citizen.

Given that the bastards in Washington and various statehouses
are going to “do something” about climate, this proposal could be
thought of as a least bad policy alternative policy. After all, our
policymakers have already screwed up the economy with ethanol
mandates, EPA coal regulations, CAFE standards, feed-in tariffs,
renewable portfolio standards, tax credits for solar, wind, and
electric cars, and on and on and on. So what about a deal? Get rid
of all of those regulations, mandates and requirements in exchange
for this straigtforward carbon dividend plan.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1zvxCGF
via IFTTT

How Obamacare Made Health Insurance Industry 'Villains' Into White House Partners

Recall, for a moment, how health insurers were
treated by Democrats in the Obamacare debate. They were the bad
guys, in no uncertain terms. 
They’ve been
immoral all along,
” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA),
then the House Majority Leader
said
in July 2009, as the debate over the government-run public
option raged. 
They [insurers] are
the villains in this. They have been part of the problem in a major
way.
 

Democrats found some success in casting insurers as the
antagonists, and made a show of targeting health
insurers. 
It is well known to the
public that the health insurance companies are the
problem,
 as
she 
warned
insurers how much the health law would cost them.

So, how did Obamacare end up punishing the big, bad insurance
company villains? By creating a federal program to help cover their
costs in the event of higher than anticipated spending—and then
expanding that program at the request of the insurers following the
launch of the health law’s exchanges last year.

A
report
released this week by the House Oversight Committee
highlights how, in the months since the exchanges went online, the
Obama administration has worked closely with the insurance
industry, looking for policy options to assuage insurers’ financial
woes and feeding talking points to insurance industry officials
prior to major media appearances. And even though the
administration has stated an intention to run the program in a
revenue-neutral manner, the report finds it’s likely to cost
taxpayers around $1 billion this year. 

The focus of the White House/ health insurer
relationship is Obamacare’s “risk corridor” program. Frequently
described as a bailout of insurers, it is a
symmetrical risk sharing program
set to run through 2016:
Participating insurance carriers set a target for health spending
each year, and if the total amount comes in at 103 percent of the
target or more, the federal government kicks in a share of the
overage; between 103 and 108 percent, the federal government pays
half. Above 108 percent, the federal government pays 80 percent. If
spending comes in lower, insurers pay the government.

The thinking when the law was passed was that the program would
be revenue neutral; some insurers would pay in, and others would be
paid. The payments would even out. But there’s no requirement in
the law that it be revenue neutral, which means that it’s possible
for the federal government to pay out a lot more than it takes
in.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration indicated that it
expected the program to be revenue neutral. But the Oversight
Committee report surveyed 80 percent of participating insurers and
found that, on net, insurers expect payouts of about $725 million
this year. Add in the other insurers who weren’t surveyed, and it’s
possible that risk corridor payouts will end up totaling $1
billion.

Now, it’s of course possible the balance could always shift over
time, leaving a program that is revenue neutral for its entire
three year run. But the early signs aren’t promising.

And insurers sure aren’t excited about the possibility
that the administration might actually decide to operate the
program in a revenue-neutral manner. Insurers, who had already
expressed 
concern
about Republican opposition to the risk corridors,
lobbied

against
the possibility. At least one even contacted the
White House directly.
 

In early April of this year, the Committee report says, Care
First Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Chet Burrell wrote to Senior
Adviser Valerie Jarrett warning that “a brewing issue” could
“negatively impact upcoming ACA premium rates” and requesting a
conversation. The two spoke on the phone that day, and Burrell
followed up with an email warning that a revenue-neutral
implementation of the risk corridor rule could push insurers “to
increase rates substantially (i.e., as much as 20% or more…).” The
letter described Burrell’s worries as urgent, and thanked her for
understanding. “I am only trying to give a ‘heads-up’ notice on an
issue that could produce an unwelcome surprise.”

Jarrett was eager to assuage his concerns. According to the
report, Jarrett wrote back saying that the White House “policy team
is aggressively pursuing options.” Later that month the
administration published a memo, titled Risk Corridors and Budget
Neutrality, which said that if the program does not take in enough
funds to match the required payouts, payments would be reduced
accordingly the following year.

Burrell wrote back, still concerned about the policy and
warning, again, premium increases would likely appear because the
risk corridors program was no longer
reliable. 

Jarrett’s response: “After speaking at length today with Jeanne
[Lambrew, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Health
Reform] and our other policy folks, I do not think I have any more
to add. They seem to have given you 80 percent of what you
requested and I am not in a position to second guess there [sic]
analysis.”

Eventually, though, the administration did second guess the
analysis. Insurers pressed on, with increasingly adamant lobbying
that the risk corridors program not be operated with “the
constraint of budget neutrality,” as America’s Health Insurance
Plans (AHIP), the top insurance lobby group, put it.

When the final rule came out in May, the administration had made
a number of changes. Even in the event of a shortfall, it said, the
administration would make “full payments” to insurance carriers. If
necessary, “HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk
corridors payments, subject to the availability of appropriations.”
The May rule also made additional changes to the payment formula
making the risk corridor more generous and increasing the
likelihood that insurers would receive payments through the
program.

In short, insurers warned that premium hikes were likely under
Obamacare, and begged the administration for money. The
administration was eager to respond, eventually gave in to the
insurance industry’s demands, and decided to expand and existing
program to minimize insurer losses under the law. The Obama
administration isn’t treating health insurers like villains. It’s
treating them like partners.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1zvxBCL
via IFTTT