With the world economy on the slide, companies of all sizes are feeling the pinch of the credit crunch. Consumers are spending less and costs are rising. Businesses need to find ways of reducing costs and boosting efficiency.
Posts Tagged ‘Credit crunch’
Schumpeter: The silence of Mammon
Business people should stand up for themselves
HENRY HAZLITT, one of the great popularisers of free-market thinking, once said that good ideas have to be relearned in every generation. This is certainly true of good ideas about business. A generation ago Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan did an excellent job of making the case in favour of business. Today it looks as though the case needs to be made all over again.
It is hardly surprising that business has fallen from grace in recent years. The credit crunch almost plunged the world into depression. The new century began with the implosion of Enron and other prominent firms. Some bosses pay themselves like princes while preaching austerity to their workers. Business titans who once graced the covers of magazines have been hauled before congressional committees or carted off to prison. …
The Edge mid-week comment Aug 5: Bank results trigger market correction

THE IRONY FOR financial institutions emerging from the credit crunch is that as credit spreads declined, the net interest margins of banks could compress. That was the verdict of Wee Ee Cheong, CEO of United Overseas Bank, Singapore’s No. 2 bank by assets, who was in fine fettle this evening when he met analysts and the media, often joking with them about the rising price of property in the suburbs.
Recession – The Time is Right to Start a Business
If, after reading the title you are thinking that starting a business during recession is a walk in the park then wait, that’s not what the title indicates. Before we proceed, make one thing clear, recession maybe a good time to start a business but it’s definitely not an “easy” time to start a business. [...]
Wind power boosted by £1bn loans
Figures from Greenpeace show Conservative-run councils blocking three times as many wind farms as they approve
The government will today demonstrate its willingness to exert influence over Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group by announcing £1bn of lending to wind farm developers whose schemes have been becalmed by a lack of cash.
The initiative comes as Greenpeace unveils new figures showing that local councils run by the Conservative party block more than three times as many wind farms as they approve. Labour-controlled councils meanwhile approved marginally more projects than they turned down between December 2005 and November 2008, according to the campaign group.
Both issues are important because Vestas, the UK’s only major wind turbine maker, is threatening to close its manufacturing plant on the Isle of Wight this week blaming some of its woes on “faceless nimbies” and a lack of a vibrant domestic market.
Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary, will argue that the £1bn of loans organised through the partly state-owned banks and the European Investment Bank (EIB) will kick-start 1 gigawatt of onshore wind schemes delayed by the credit crunch – enough to power 2 million homes. The government does not want the loans to be seen as a specific attempt to save the Vestas plant, which is at the centre of a sit-in by workers.
“Earlier this month we laid out a transition plan to a low-carbon economy that included a massive expansion of green wind energy,” Miliband will say. “The resources we are announcing back up our plans with clear actions to ensure we deliver. The money for the development of offshore wind manufacturing will help us generate green jobs on top of our success as the leading country in the world for the generation of offshore wind.
“Alongside these proposals, we are reforming planning laws, finding new ways of working with local communities and are determined to persuade people that we need a significant increase in onshore wind as part of the UK’s future energy mix.”
The £1bn cash arranged by the government is part of the additional £4bn of EIB lending to support UK energy projects announced in the spring budget. The government has been urged by environmentalists and thinktanks to use the state equity stakes in banks – gained when they had to be bailed out last autumn – to push them towards green projects.
But the loans are unlikely to change the decision of Vestas to close its manufacturing plant at Newport on the Isle of Wight. The Danish group exports the turbines from there to the US, but the blades are unsuitable for the UK market and America will in future be served from a new production line in Colorado.
Vestas was considering investing in a new type of blade for the UK market but said the credit crunch, soft pound and endless delays in planning projects had made this uncommercial.
Greenpeace claimed last night that its study of publicly available information provided to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) showed that Tory councils approved 44.7 megawatts of onshore wind schemes but blocked 158.2MW. Labour-controlled councils approved 68.3MW and rejected 62.6MW.
“One of the reasons Britain’s green industrial revolution is yet to take off is the lack of domestic demand for wind turbines, and a key reason for that has been the attitude of many Conservative councils,” said John Sauven, Greenpeace’s executive director. “They need to be offered incentives to stop blocking wind developments, while David Cameron could make a difference straight away by making a crystal-clear commitment that a Tory Britain would meet the target to generate 20% of our energy from renewables by 2020.”
Vestas has insisted it will take no decision on the future of Newport and another facility at Southampton until the end of this month, when a formal consultation with its 600 staff ends. But the government seems resigned to the closure.
A research and development base at Newport will keep going and Vestas is expected to be one of the beneficiaries when a £10m R&D fund is distributed by the DECC, perhaps as early as this week. A second £10m fund will be launched by Miliband today and Vestas will also be eligible for funding from that.
Citigroup bonus prompts pay row
Andrew Hall, head of Phibro, is at the centre of a dispute between Citigroup and US pay tsar Kenneth Feinberg who wants to curb bonuses that increase the risk taking activities of banks
A British oil trader in line for a $100m (£60m) bonus is expected to pitch his employer Citigroup into direct conflict with the US treasury after a clampdown on excessive pay by the Obama administration.
Andrew Hall, an art-loving eccentric who owns a Connecticut mansion and 1,000-year-old castle in Germany, is at the centre of a dispute between the New York-based bank and the government pay tsar Kenneth Feinberg, who wants to limit rewards that increase the risk-taking activities of major banks.
Citigroup wants to protect the pay of its top-performing staff to prevent them defecting to rivals that have fared better in the banking crisis and can pay bigger rewards to traders.
Hall is considered a top trader after his Phibro energy trading unit bet that oil prices would rise from a low of $20 to $30 a barrel in the early part of the decade.
In April, following its $45bn bailout, Citigroup asked the treasury to exempt Phibro from an investigation into excessive bonuses.
Phibro is a secretive outfit, which in recent years has accounted for a substantial chunk of Citigroup’s profits. Little is known about Hall other than that he was an Oxford chemistry graduate who started work at BP before moving into oil trading for Salomon Brothers. After early gains, he lost $100m in the first Gulf war when oil prices plunged, but bounced back and became a multimillionaire and the boss of Phibro in the 1990s.
He is credited with buying every available oil futures contract in 2003, when they were priced on the basis that crude prices would remain stable. Over the next few years the demand for oil surged and prices soared to more than $150 a barrel, making Hall and Salomon Brothers owner Citigroup hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is understood Hall is in line for a $100m payout this year.
Citigroup, which has lost $30bn over the past year and seen many of its top-rated traders defect to rival banks, is keen to maintain one of its few profitable revenue streams while it stabilises its finances and seeks to escape government ownership.
However, bonus payments have brought criticism from members of Congress and the public. The Obama administration has blamed bonus packages for encouraging the risk-taking that pushed the financial services sector into chaos last year.
Feinberg, a lawyer, was selected by Tim Geithner, the US treasury secretary, to assess bonus awards at the seven banks receiving the most bailout aid, including Citi. He can reject pay plans he believes excessive and review compensation for the firms’ top 100 salaried employees.
MPs consider mortgage guarantees
Treasury could underwrite ‘risky’ home loans
Proposed scheme pushed by US insurer Genworth
First time home buyers could be thrown a lifeline under plans being considered by the Treasury to underwrite ‘risky’ mortgages, allowing people with only small deposits to buy homes.
Since the credit crunch took hold, banks have demanded far tougher criteria for lending, asking buyers to provide between 25% and 30% of the price of a home as a deposit.
There were 30,000 loans to first time buyers in the first three months of 2009 against an average of more than 100,000 a quarter in the previous decade.
But the government is now studying a scheme used in Canada in the hope of encouraging banks and building societies to step up their lending. The Canadian programme requires all mortgages secured with a deposit of 20% or less to be insured by the government or private insurers, giving the banks more confidence to lend. The Treasury has taken soundings from specialist insurance companies such as Genworth Financial, which suggest that the Canadian housing market has withstood the pressures of the global financial crisis better than most.
If the Treasury copied the scheme it might have to act as the insurer in the first instance before stepping back to underwrite insurance from private sector companies – opening the government to considerable criticism as it would put further taxpayer money at risk at a time when public finances are already stretched.
The amount of money flowing in the financial system still remains a concern for the government despite attempts to encourage lending through bank bailouts. Chancellor Alistair Darling is tomorrow scheduled to call in the major lenders to urge them to step up their lending to homeowners and small businesses to help stimulate the economy which has now contracted for five quarters in a row.
The possibility of the insurance scheme is outlined in the white paper on banking reform published this month and the Treasury promises an up-date in the autumn’s prebudget report. “Some countries have adopted alternative models for mortgage insurance such as Canada where mortgage insurance is compulsory for all mortgages above a lower limit and below a maximum proportion of a home’s value,” the paper said.
“Some UK stakeholders have proposed that the government considers the benefits of international models like Canada. The government is interested in the lessons that may be learnt from the experiences of other countries and will update at the pre-budget report,” the paper said.
The Treasury has made no decision on whether it would work here. The paper explains why it is being considered. “It is sometimes argued that this model helps provide borrowers with continued access to mortgage finance by encouraging risk sharing between insurers and lenders, and helping ensure that lenders do not take excessive risks when the economy is growing and do not withdraw from higher LTV lending during periods of economic disruption,” the paper said. But Treasury officials are also mindful of the pitfalls of the scheme which can push up the price of loans to first time buyers and others with small deposits. It might also be accused of trying to promote risky lending again or breath life into mortgage indemnity guarantees which lenders have charged customers for high loan to value loans but were largely scrapped in the mid 1990s.
The idea is being pushed by specialist insurers who might sell the necessary insurance to the banks. Genworth Financial, a US-based company, is among those to have submitted proposals. It is suggesting that the state would act as direct guarantor initially and that private sector players would step in to allow the government to “reduce its role from being a direct insurer to a guarantor of the private mortgage insurance providers”. “We urge the government to consider developing a partnership with mortgage insurance providers in order to prudently and efficiently provide a lasting and sustainable solution to prudently and efficiently provide a lasting and sustainable solution for the wholesale mortgage market,” Genworth said.
Darling presses banks on lending
Chancellor says he is ‘extremely concerned’ about cost of borrowing remaining high while interest rates are low
Alistair Darling today called on banks to improve lending to businesses, saying he was “extremely concerned” about the cost of borrowing.
Bank bosses are to be summoned to explain why they are charging more for credit when interest rates are at historically low levels. The chancellor suggested they had failed to keep promises to improve lending facilities in return for taxpayer support.
He said banks had not been rescued as “some sort of charitable act … We did it because if you don’t have a banking system that creates credit for businesses then you will make recovery and prosperity after that much more difficult.”
Speaking on BBC1′s Andrew Marr Show, Darling acknowledged that banks needed to rebuild their balance sheets in the aftermath of the financial crisis. But he said: “At the same time, because of the particular circumstances we are in now, because of the fact we’ve got this recession, we also need them to lend money and that’s why we recapitalised them to do that.
“That means they’ve got to live up to the promises they’ve made. That’s why we will be going through with each individual bank asking them why is it, at a time when the cost of borrowing is coming down, it would appear that the cost to small business appears to have gone up? We’re playing our part; the banks have got to understand that the public will not understand it if they do not play their part to the full.”
Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association, said banks were improving lending. “As far as the major banks are concerned they are lending, and increasing their lending,” she told BBC Radio 4′s The World This Weekend.
On interest rates, she said the base rate did not represent the real cost of money. “People say, ‘look, base rate is down to 0.5%, so why do you charge what you do for lending?’ The answer to that is that you can’t get the money at that rate. Base rate is not the money which a bank pays.”
Knight said the wholesale price of money was about twice that of the Bank of England rate. “But also, what there isn’t is capacity in the wholesale market because it’s credit crunch worldwide, so in fact the cost to the banks has gone up.”
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesman on Treasury affairs, said: “It is amazing that the chancellor of the exchequer has only just woken up to the fact that this is a problem. We have been warning about the lending crisis, including in government-owned banks, for months.
“The problem isn’t just about the cost of borrowing, but the difficulties which many companies who are solvent, with a good credit history, have in obtaining bank credit without unreasonable demands for personal security and charges. It’s time the government stopped being a passive investor in the nationalised and semi-nationalised banks and ensured that they maintain lending to good British companies for the wider interest of the national economy.”
This is how we let it happen, Ma’am …
A group of eminent economists has written to the Queen explaining why no one foresaw the timing, extent and severity of the recession.
The three-page missive, which blames “a failure of the collective imagination of many bright people”, was sent after the Queen asked, during a visit to the London School of Economics, why no one had predicted the credit crunch.
Signed by LSE professor Tim Besley, a member of the Bank of England monetary policy committee, and the eminent historian of government Peter Hennessy, the letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Observer, tells of the “psychology of denial” that gripped the financial and political world in the run-up to the crisis.
The content was discussed at a seminar at the British Academy in June that was attended by economic heavyweights including Treasury permanent secretary Nick MacPherson, Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O’Neill and Observer economics columnist William Keegan. The letter explains that as low interest rates made borrowing cheap, the “feelgood factor” masked how out-of-kilter the world economy had become beneath the surface, with some countries, such as the United States, running up enormous debts by borrowing from others, including China and the oil-rich Middle Eastern states, that were sitting on vast piles of cash.
Despite these yawning imbalances, they say, “financial wizards” managed to convince themselves and the world’s politicians that they had found clever ways to spread risk throughout financial markets – whereas “it is difficult to recall a greater example of wishful thinking combined with hubris”.
“Everyone seemed to be doing their own job properly on its own merit. And according to standard measures of success, they were often doing it well,” they say. “The failure was to see how collectively this added up to a series of interconnected imbalances over which no single authority had jurisdiction.”
That meant when the reckoning came it was extreme, starting in summer 2007 and culminating in the near-collapse of the entire world financial system after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers last autumn.
“In summary, Your Majesty,” they conclude, “the failure to foresee the timing, extent and severity of the crisis and to head it off, while it had many causes, was principally a failure of the collective imagination of many bright people, both in this country and internationally, to understand the risks to the system as a whole.”
Besley stressed that the experts had not been in “finger-wagging mode” and had agreed that the causes of the credit crunch were extremely complex. “There was a very complicated, interconnected set of issues, rather than one particular person or one particular institution.”
Other experts at the seminar last month included Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England, Vernon Bogdanor, the constitutional expert from Oxford University, and HSBC’s chief economist, Stephen King.
A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said the Queen has displayed a particular interest in the causes of the recession, summoning Bank of England governor Mervyn King to a private audience earlier this year to explain what he was doing to tackle it.
Official figures published on Friday revealed that Britain’s economy has now been contracting for 15 months, and the recession is deeper than any since the 1930s, outside of wartime.
Robin Jackson, chief executive and secretary of the British Academy, said: “The global recession is a huge development, and it is reasonable to ask to what extent it could have been foreseen. What’s more, we can’t say ‘never again’ if we don’t fully understand what occurred. The academy forum was an opportunity to get an exceptional range of experts, participants and commentators in one room, sifting fact from fiction and shedding light on what had gone on. We hope Her Majesty – and indeed others – will find our letter informative.”
The academy plans to hold a second seminar later in the year to ask how best to prevent another such crisis occurring. Besley denied that economics as a profession had been discredited by the scale of the crisis, but admitted that unconventional ideas – about how herd psychology and bouts of irrationality can grip financial markets, for example – had sometimes received “less play” during the boom years.
He said the academy hopes to provide a forum for airing economic differences: “What we need is a forum where people can come together on a very open basis, to provide challenges and have a debate.”
Professor Luis Garicano, to whom the Queen directed her question when she visited the LSE in November last year, said: “She seemed very interested, and she asked me: ‘How come nobody could foresee it?’ I think the main answer is that people were doing what they were paid to do, and behaved according to their incentives, but in many cases they were being paid to do the wrong things from society’s perspective.”
The end of the City’s boys’ club?
Years of macho culture ended in financial implosion. Now MPs are to examine sexism in the Square Mile, but is it ready to change, asks Katie Allen
They call it Hermione Granger syndrome. Harry Potter’s sidekick is the brains but not the hero, and women in the City know how she feels. The big investment banks are ripe ground for tales of glass ceilings, strip club outings and hugely unequal pay. The upper echelons are dominated by men and the City has some of the starkest gender pay gaps in Britain. But now those big earning, predominantly male, stars of the financial boom and the maverick ways that took them to the top are under scrutiny.
In the post-mortem of financial meltdown, one question is growing louder. If more women – who many see as more risk aware, less short-termist – had been in senior positions at banks, would the credit crunch have been so severe?
In its bid to prevent another banking crisis the Treasury select committee has made the role of women in the City its latest focus. Chairman John McFall wants to provoke a debate about how many women are in top jobs, pay inequalities, flexible working practices and how sexist the general City culture is. The committee (its only female member is Northampton MP Sally Keeble) is also looking for evidence of the prevalence of sexual harassment and exploitation.
Harassment is something Kate Smurthwaite knows all too well. She was a 21-year-old Oxford maths graduate when she went into the City in the late 1990s. Over seven years in the Square Mile she changed roles several times to escape the worst offenders, but sexist taunts and a macho culture never really went away.
“It was everywhere, every day,” she says of her time at top investment banks and a hedge fund. “People were always going to strip clubs and lapdancing clubs after work. Sometimes with clients, sometimes without just to socialise. You can say you can choose not to go but you know that next time there’s a round of promotions the guy that’s less qualified will get promoted because he goes out.”
Smurthwaite, who has left the City behind to become a stand-up comedian, says she was jeered at for her clothes. If she wore something too modest, she was labelled “shy and embarrassed”: in lower-cut clothes she clearly “fancied” someone in the office. Colleagues regularly mailed pornographic pictures to each other and put lewd pictures on to her computer screen.
Then there were the twilight hours, which earned a special title between female allies: “We knew we had to work harder and be better than everyone else. The trading floor would empty out and after 7pm or 8pm only the women would be left. We would joke we were doing our ‘vagina tax’ work.”
Of course lapdancing clubs and lewd jokes are not entrenched in every City institution and many women bankers say they have never felt disadvantaged.
“I’ve worked in the City since 2001 and would say I have never felt I was discriminated against for being a woman. I don’t hear complaints from my female colleagues, so in my opinion the [select committee] investigation is not warranted,” says one female trader. “I don’t agree that more women in senior positions could have avoided the current crisis. Senior women I have known in management roles would have been just as likely to make the same risk assessments as their male counterparts.”
But independent pensions expert Ros Altmann thinks men would have done well to seek some female input long before the banks headed into crisis.
“Very much of City business is still done in a kind of boyish club – going out, drinking people under the table,” says Altmann, who has worked at a number of investment banks. “I am very much persuaded by the argument that if you had had more women at the top of the investment banking industry we would not have reached the excesses that we reached. There would have been more of a moderating influence, there wouldn’t have been this overriding, testosterone-fuelled, macho ‘my risk is bigger than your risk’ type thing.”
Researchers at Cambridge University have found that testosterone levels among City traders were higher on days when they made more than their average profit. French business school Ceram has asked if women are the “antidote” to the global financial crisis. Its study found that the fewer female managers a company had, the more its share price had dropped since the start of last year.
Alison Maitland, co-author of Why Women Mean Business and a visiting fellow at Cass Business School, points to studies showing women are not necessarily risk averse, but they do tend to be more risk aware when it comes to making their own personal investments. She argues a better mix of men and women at the top of banks could help avoid in future the pitfalls of “groupthink” – when everyone starts to believe the same bad idea.
“If you get people all from the same background and who have had the same experiences and are on a board or in a team working together, they are less likely to challenge each other and they are less likely to ask difficult questions because they are all thinking in the same way,” says Maitland.
With 60% of graduates being women there is another urgent reason to change. “If investment banks go back to the way they were before and don’t take this issue on of gender diversity, then they are going to miss out on more than half of the talent and are going to be very unattractive as well to generation Y, the new generation coming into the workforce. They risk becoming dinosaurs.”
In a sign of how sensitive the topic is for investment banks, none of those we called would comment on steps they have taken to improve gender equality or the need for the select committee’s investigation. Barclays responded briefly that it was “looking at formulating a response” to the committee’s announcement.
The Fawcett Society, the UK’s leading campaign for women’s rights, says the probe is particularly timely, coming ahead of the equality bill’s scheduled move to the House of Lords this winter.
“The committee’s investigation will provide extra impetus and evidence of the need for the government to take tough action on the pay gap,” said Kat Banyard, who leads the society’s Sexism and the City campaign. The group hopes that lifting the veil of secrecy over pay will help to eradicate a gender pay gap, which it says is twice as big at financial institutions than in the wider economy.
Campaigners hope the government-backed review of banking corporate governance published by Sir David Walker this month could prove another catalyst on gaining pay transparency. He argued that exposing pay structures for highly paid staff in the City and putting an end to short-term bonuses would help prevent a repeat of the financial crisis.
That is not the only positive spin-off for women, says former investment banker Kate Grussing. She now runs London headhunting firm Sapphire Partners, which specialises in finding and filling senior jobs with flexible working hours, and predicts a post-crisis era of better work-life balance. With women the primary child carers, that could usher in a far more gender-balanced City.
“Everyone is going to be paid a lot less, so individuals are going to apply a better speedometer; they can’t work 24/7. The silver lining of the downturn is going to be helpful for women in the long term.”
Water bills to fall due to five-year price cap
Ofwat’s initial decision is likely to spark protests from water companies, which called for an average £28 above-inflation hike in their business plans
Households will benefit from a £14 fall in average water bills to £330 before inflation over the next five years, industry regulator Ofwat said today.
The 4% fall was announced in Ofwat’s “draft determination” on price limits for water and sewerage costs in England and Wales for 2010-15.
But the regulator’s initial decision is likely to spark protests from water companies, which called for an average £28 above-inflation hike in their business plans.
Ofwat’s chief executive, Regina Finn, said: “We understand times are hard and we have listened to what customers have told us.
“They want a safe, reliable water supply at a reasonable cost. People can shop around for the best deal on many things, but not water.”
The regulator said its draft determination would still allow water companies to “invest extensively” in the network and spend almost £21bn over the five-year period.
More than £4bn will be invested in improving drinking water and protecting the environment, Ofwat said.
Spending plans will also reduce the risk of extreme weather – such as 2007′s floods – disrupting supply for around 10 million people, it added.
The regulator will make its final decision on prices in November before the new regime comes into force next April.
Before then it faces talks with water firms which had called for a more generous deal to reflect tougher conditions – such as rising bad debts in the recession – and higher financing costs following the credit crunch.
Finn added: “Our decisions allow efficient, well-run companies to invest in the right place at the right time for the right price.”
Morgan Stanley plans $4bn bonuses
Morgan Stanley is setting aside a huge sum to pay out bonuses despite posting its third consecutive quarterly loss and admitting it is disappointed with key departments.
The US bank’s latest results show it is allocating $3.9bn (£2.36bn) for paying out to staff, 72% of its net revenues. That dwarfs the percentage of revenue set aside by arch rival Goldman Sachs, where workers are on track for large bonuses after record results last week.
Morgan Stanley extinguished the tentative flames of optimism among US banks today when it posted a loss of $159m for April to June and said it was not satisfied with its performance in fixed income trading and in asset management.
News of the bank’s loss unsettled traders on Wall Street, whose view of the banking sector’s prospects was brightened last week by Goldman’s surge in profits and further upbeat news from JP Morgan, Citigroup and Bank of America.
Goldman said last week that it was dedicating 49% of its revenue to paying its staff, amounting to a compensation fund of $6.65bn.
Further reading of Morgan Stanley’s results showed its compensation pot was not only much bigger as a percentage of net revenues of $5.4bn, but that it had jumped 26% from $3.1bn a year ago.
“It was a very good quarter to be a Morgan Stanley employee,” said analyst Brad Hintz at Sanford C Bernstein & Co. “I’m not so sure it was so good to be a Morgan Stanley shareholder.”
Although big bonuses to bankers are arousing controversy in the wake of the credit crunch, bumper payouts seem here to stay as firms continue to battle to attract the most talented staff.
The hefty bonus pot at Morgan Stanley echoes its comments that it needs to woo more top performers to its trading floors.
John Mack, chairman and chief executive, said that it was one way the loss-making bank was “taking steps to deliver better results” in its underperforming departments.
“These initiatives include hiring to add key trading and investment management talent,” he said.
The bank was hit in the latest quarter by a charge related to repaying government loans known as Tarp. The disappointing performance from Morgan Stanley was accompanied by downbeat news from San Francisco-based Wells Fargo and tempered optimism about a recovery in the financial sector.
Das It Girl among latest words to enter German language
<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46100000/jpg/_46100923_world_afp_226.jpg" align="left" width="226" height="170" alt="People walk past an oversized Duden dictionary at a Frankfurt book fair in October 2006″ border=”0″ vspace=”4″ hspace=”4″>
Around 5,000 new words have been officially added to the German language – many of them from the English-speaking world.
The newcomers appear in the latest edition of the respected German dictionary, Duden.
Germans can now go to "eine After-Show-Party", as long as it is not "eine No-Go Area", and meet "das It Girl" – if she does not have "der Babyblues".
Fans of social networking can also "twittern", which means to Twitter.
The financial crisis has inspired many of the new entries in the 135,000-word dictionary.
‘Kreditklemme’
Appearing for the first time are "Kreditklemme" (credit crunch), "Konjunkturpaket" (stimulus package) and "Abwrackpraemie" (car scrappage bonus).
The word "Ehrenmord" (honour killing) also makes it into the dictionary, which was published on Wednesday.
The German language is known for its extremely long compound nouns.
And the new edition includes a 23-letter example: "Vorratsdatenspeicherung", which means the saving of data relating to supplies.
The first Duden dictionary was produced in 1880 and consisted of just 27,000 words.</p
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
UN faces $5bn aid gap in recession
Half-yearly report says members countries have less funds to spare while poverty is on the increase in developing world
The United Nations is warning of a $4.8bn (£2.9bn) shortfall in funding to tackle humanitarian crises in the world’s poorest countries, as the credit crunch leaves developed world governments with little cash to spare.
Delivering its half-yearly update about emergency fund-raising, John Holmes, of the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said that while the UN’s emergency appeals had received more funds than at the same time last year, the economic crisis was exacerbating poverty and increasing need.
“It is clear that the global recession puts pressure on the aid budgets of all donor governments, but of course it puts immeasurably more pressure on crises-stricken people in poor countries,” he said.
The UN has raised a total of $4.6bn over the past six months for its humanitarian appeals – but Holmes said it had identified $4.8bn of “unmet needs” – the biggest gap ever.
Holmes compared the shortfall in funding for the world’s poorest people with the vast sums spent by the US, UK and other developed countries on bailing out their banking sectors.
“If just a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars recently committed by governments to private financial institutions were allocated to humanitarian action, these appeals could already be fully funded, and those in need could be getting the best available protection and assistance, on time,” Holmes said.
He singled out Kenya, Palestine and Zimbabwe as states whose financing needs have become more severe over the past six months, and said the UN is keen to raise more resources during the rest of the year.
Holmes said humanitarian needs in just one country, Somalia, had decreased recently – but only because a food aid project had been cancelled due to rising insecurity for the staff working on the ground.
Aid agencies have repeatedly sounded the alarm since the global downturn began last year about the disproportionate impact on poor countries, which often rely heavily on export earnings.
World trade volumes have collapsed over the past six months, and unlike their richer counterparts, governments in the developing world find it hard to raise funds on international capital markets. Only a small proportion of the funding pledged at the G20 summit in London earlier this year to combat the impact of the crisis was targeted at the world’s poor.
Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi came under international pressure in the run-up to the G8 summit he hosted in L’Aquila earlier this month, after cutting Italy’s aid budget.
At a recent conference in New York, organised by the president of the UN general assembly, member-states pledged to offer extra aid, but little has so far been forthcoming.
Budget deficit hits record June high
Total government spending in June hit £49bn, up from £44.2bn a year earlier
Opposition parties were last night piling pressure on the government over Britain’s deteriorating public finances after falling tax revenues from recession-hit companies and consumers pushed the budget deficit to its highest for any June on record.
With tax and spending at the heart of the political fight between now and the general election, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives called on Alistair Darling to come clean about the options facing the country in the next parliament.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said public sector net borrowing – the gap between the exchequer’s tax take and its spending – stood at £13bn in June, slightly lower than City forecasts of £15.5bn, but the highest June deficit since records began in 1993. The £41.2bn borrowing in the three months to June was higher than for the entire year before the credit crunch started, and brought the total deficit over the last year up to £107bn.
The ONS said the corporation tax take from UK companies was down 14.1% in June from the same month last year, while VAT receipts fell 15.9% and income tax dropped 3.9%. While tax receipts have fallen, more and more people are claiming unemployment benefits. Government spending on social benefits has shot up 9.7% in the year to June.
The Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, said the figures suggested that “even the chancellor’s eye-watering prediction of £175bn borrowing this year could be an understatement”.
He added: “With such a mismatch between government spending and receipts it is clear that in the longer term these levels of borrowing are not sustainable. If the chancellor expects to have any credibility, both with the markets and the public, he must be brutally honest about how he intends to deal with levels of borrowing. However, such a commitment to deal with the deficit cannot come from salami slicing key public services, but through an honest debate about what the state can and cannot afford to do.”
Philip Hammond, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “Gordon Brown’s debt crisis is getting worse by the month. With borrowing at record levels, why can’t he finally be straight with people and admit there will have to be public spending cuts?
“In just the last month alone, Gordon Brown has increased every person’s share of the national debt by £213 each.”
A Treasury spokesperson said: “Our plans to halve the deficit within five years are based on cautious assumptions about share prices, unemployment and the loss of output from the shock to the economy built into the budget forecasts. The latest monthly figures for public sector borrowing are in line with our forecast.”
Public sector net debt as a proportion of GDP now stands at 56.6% – the highest since records began in 1974.
David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, said: “It would be wrong to tighten policy while the recession continues, but maintaining Britain’s international credibility requires a robust plan for restoring our public finances over the medium-term. This must focus on curtailing public spending across the board, while avoiding damaging measures that would harm wealthcreating businesses.”
Custom Software Development in a Credit Crunch World Posted By : Blueberry
If your business depends on technological systems for its survival, the last thing you should be doing is suspending crucial development work that could give you the competitive edge. Or if youre a newbie with a bright idea, holding fire on your dreams could mean someone else beats you to the punch by the time you decide to act. This article examines how business survival depends on evolution and those that decide to wait out the credit crunch could find themselves obsolete.




