Warren Buffett: "Economy Has Fallen Off a Cliff"

Warren Buffett is 'talking his book' for a portion of this interview, but he does have some unique insights into the real time economic conditions because of the position of his conglomerate in a number of key businesses that measure the pulse of economic activity.

He sees inflation ahead, and rightly so. The question however is, as always, when?

Adding debt capacity to the system now is useless. Yes, stabilizing the financial system is important. But the demand for debt is so lagging, and the prospects for profit so poor, that one wonders if only the desparate will cry for more credit while they drown.

The solution will be an improvement in the median wage, systemic reforms, and the orderly writedown of debt held by effectively insolvent banks. 'Saving the banking system' as it is constituted now is more than a fool's errand.

It is the path to a test of the fabric of our government not seen since the 1860's.

Bloomberg
Warren Buffett Says Economy Has ‘Fallen Off a Cliff’
By Erik Holm
March 9, 2009 09:29 EDT

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. posted its worst results ever in 2008, said the economy “has fallen off a cliff” and that efforts to stimulate recovery may lead to inflation higher than the 1970s.

The American public is fearful, confused and changing their buying habits, which is showing up at Berkshire’s operating units, Buffett said during an appearance on the CNBC television network today. While the recession will end and future generations will live better than their parents, the economy “can’t turn around on a dime,” Buffett said, adding that some inflation is appropriate right now.

“We are doing things now that are potentially very inflationary,” he said. Buffett called on Congress to unite behind President Barack Obama, comparing the economic crisis to a military conflict that needs a commander-in-chief. “Patriotic Americans will realize this is a war,” he said....

Finacial Crisis Racks Up $50 Trillion in Worldwide Losses in 2008

This is the price we pay for chronic malinvestment, unsustainable imbalances, a bubble in the world's reserve currency, and a blind eye to protracted fraud and misrepresentation of the economic reality by the financiers and their partners in government.

Staggering losses to be sure, and more to come. But what is most discouraging is that so far we have made little or no progress towards systemic reform and a return balanced global trade with organic growth, savings, and an efficient world financial flow of goods, services, and wealth.


Economic Times (India)
$50 trillion wiped off world financial assets: ADB
9 Mar 2009, 1022 hrs IST,
ET Bureau

MANILA: The global crisis wiped a staggering $50 trillion off the value of financial assets last year including $9.6 trillion of losses in developing Asia alone, the Asian Development Bank said Monday.

``This is by far the most serious crisis to hit the world economy since the Great Depression,'' said ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda. But he predicted Asia would be ``one of the first regions to emerge from it.''

In a study commissioned by the Manila-based lender on the impact of the financial crisis on emerging economies, it estimated the value of financial assets worldwide, currency, equity and bond markets, to have dropped by $50 trillion in 2008.

It said developing Asia was hit harder, losing the equivalent of just over one year's worth of gross domestic product, than other emerging economies because the region has expanded much more rapidly.

In Latin America, losses were estimated at $2.1 trillion. According to the study, the figures provide clear proof of the close connections between markets and economies around the world, leaving few, if any, countries immune to financial or economic fallout. A recovery can only now be envisaged for late 2009 or early 2010, it said.

A sprawling region, developing Asia includes 44 economies from the central Asian republics to China to the Pacific islands. The bank had earlier projected the region's growth to slow to 5.8 percent this year from an estimated 6.9 percent last year.

The worldwide downturn has hit export-driven economies particularly hard. From South Korea to Taiwan to Singapore, exports have plunged by double digits in recent months as American and European consumers spent less on cars and gadgets....

Reykjavik on the Thames: A Run on the British Pound

The British economy is mortally wounded, and Gordon Brown is quite frankly not the man to fix it.

Britain faces the real risk of a crisis in the pound that will be worse than its euro peg crisis made famous by George Soros and the gnomes of Zurich chanting "Sell 100 quid! Sell 100 quid!"

Will investors flee from currency to currency in search of a safe haven as the global financial system collapses? Who can say. But it is certainly past time to hedge one's bets with sources of alternative wealth protection.


The Independent (UK)
Run on UK sees foreign investors pull $1 trillion out of the City
By Sean O'Grady, Economics correspondent
Saturday, 7 March 2009

Banking crisis undermines Britain's reputation as a safe place to hold funds

A silent $1 trillion "Run on Britain" by foreign investors was revealed yesterday in the latest statistical releases from the Bank of England. The external liabilities of banks operating in the UK – that is monies held in the UK on behalf of foreign investors – fell by $1 trillion (£700bn) between the spring and the end of 2008, representing a huge loss of funds and of confidence in the City of London.

Some $597.5bn was lost to the banks in the last quarter of last year alone, after a modest positive inflow in the summer, but a massive $682.5bn hemorrhaged in the second quarter of 2008 – a record. About 15 per cent of the monies held by foreigners in the UK were withdrawn over the period, leaving about $6 trillion. This is by far the largest withdrawal of foreign funds from the UK in recent decades – about 10 times what might flow out during a "normal" quarter.

The revelation will fuel fears that the UK's reputation as a safe place to hold funds is being fatally compromised by the acute crisis in the banking system and a general trend to financial protectionism internationally.

This week, Lloyds became the latest bank to approach the Government for more assistance. A deal was agreed last night for the Government to insure about £260bn of assets in return for a stake of up to 75 per cent in the bank. The slide in sterling – it has shed a quarter of its value since mid-2007 – has been both cause and effect of the run on London, seemingly becoming a self-fulfilling phenomenon. The danger is that the heavy depreciation of the pound could become a rout if confidence completely evaporates....

Weekend Reading: How Wall Street and Washington Are Betraying America

The original title for this essay was "How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America." As you can see from the above, this blog has a slightly different perspective.

We would like to be able to say that this was an unfortunate problem that has occurred, and that we are dealing with its aftermath. The repair of the economy is just a matter of time and money.

It is not, and we are not.

The problem continues. This was not an exogenous event like an accident. It is a pernicious condition, a chronic wasting disease. The carriers of the infection are still at work.

The system is distorted, sick, incapable of self-cure. Feeding intravenous liquidity to obtain the appearance of health will not work, only allow the disease to progress. Strong medicine is required.

We will have no recovery until we have reform.

We will have no reform until the banks are restrained, and balance is restored.

The looting of the public Treasury will continue while the Congress and the Executive take their direction from Wall Street.

Paying for Policy in Washington
Wall Street's Best Investment
By ROBERT WEISSMAN

"The entire financial sector (finance, insurance, real estate) drowned political candidates in campaign contributions, spending more than $1.7 billion in federal elections from 1998-2008. Primarily reflecting the balance of power over the decade, about 55 percent went to Republicans and 45 percent to Democrats. Democrats took just more than half of the financial sector's 2008 election cycle contributions.

The industry spent even more -- topping $3.4 billion -- on officially registered lobbyists during the same period. This total certainly underestimates by a considerable amount what the industry spent to influence policymaking. U.S. reporting rules require that lobby firms and individual lobbyists disclose how much they have been paid for lobbying activity, but lobbying activity is defined to include direct contacts with key government officials, or work in preparation for meeting with key government officials. Public relations efforts and various kinds of indirect lobbying are not covered by the reporting rules.

During the decade-long period:

* Commercial banks spent more than $154 million on campaign contributions, while investing $383 million in officially registered lobbying;

* Accounting firms spent $81 million on campaign contributions and $122 million on lobbying;

* Insurance companies donated more than $220 million and spent more than $1.1 billion on lobbying; and

* Securities firms invested more than $512 million in campaign contributions, and an additional nearly $600 million in lobbying. Hedge funds, a subcategory of the securities industry, spent $34 million on campaign contributions (about half in the 2008 election cycle); and $20 million on lobbying. Private equity firms, also a subcategory of the securities industry, contributed $58 million to federal candidates and spent $43 million on lobbying.

Individual firms spent tens of millions of dollars each. During the decade-long period:

* Goldman Sachs spent more than $46 million on political influence buying;

* Merrill Lynch threw more than $68 million at politicians;

* Citigroup spent more than $108 million;

* Bank of America devoted more than $39 million;

* JPMorgan Chase invested more than $65 million; and

* Accounting giants Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young, KPMG and Pricewaterhouse spent, respectively, $32 million, $37 million, $27 million and $55 million.

The number of people working to advance the financial sector's political objectives is startling. In 2007, the financial sector employed a staggering 2,996 separate lobbyists to influence federal policy making, more than five for each Member of Congress. This figure only counts officially registered lobbyists. That means it does not count those who offered "strategic advice" or helped mount policy-related PR campaigns for financial sector companies. The figure counts those lobbying at the federal level; it does not take into account lobbyists at state houses across the country. To be clear, the 2,996 figure represents the number of separate individuals employed by the financial sector as lobbyists in 2007. We did not double count individuals who lobby for more than one company the total number of financial sector lobby hires in 2007 was a whopping 6,738.

A great many of those lobbyists entered and exited through the revolving door connecting the lobbying world with government. Surveying only 20 leading firms in the financial sector (none from the insurance industry or real estate), we found that 142 industry lobbyists during the period 19982008 had formerly worked as "covered officials" in the government. "Covered officials" are top officials in the executive branch (most political appointees, from members of the cabinet to directors of bureaus embedded in agencies), Members of Congress, and congressional staff.

Nothing evidences the revolving door -- or Wall Street's direct influence over policymaking -- more than the stream of Goldman Sachs expatriates who left the Wall Street goliath, spun through the revolving door, and emerged to hold top regulatory positions. Topping the list, of course, are former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson, both of whom had served as chair of Goldman Sachs before entering government. Goldman continues to be well represented in government, with among others, Gary Gensler, President Obama's pick to chair the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist now serving as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

All of this awesome influence buying has enabled Wall Street to establish the framework for debates in Washington, and to obtain very specific deregulatory actions, with devastating consequences."

Click below to find the full report with Executive Summary.

Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America

Is the Bailout of AIG by the Fed a Bailout or a Payoff to the Major Banks?

In a Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington on Thursday, Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn declined to identify AIG's trading partners. He said doing so would make people wary of doing business with AIG.

The Fed has far overstepped their bounds and are disbursing tax money in secret without the oversight of Congress.


Wall Street Journal
Top U.S., European Banks Got $50 Billion in AIG Aid
By SERENA NG and CARRICK MOLLENKAMP
MARCH 7, 2009

The beneficiaries of the government's bailout of American International Group Inc. include at least two dozen U.S. and foreign financial institutions that have been paid roughly $50 billion since the Federal Reserve first extended aid to the insurance giant.

Among those institutions are Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Germany's Deutsche Bank AG, each of which received roughly $6 billion in payments between mid-September and December 2008, according to a confidential document and people familiar with the matter.

Other banks that received large payouts from AIG late last year include Merrill Lynch, now part of Bank of America Corp., and French bank Société Générale SA.

More than a dozen firms with smaller exposures to AIG also received payouts, including Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and HSBC Holdings PLC, according to the confidential document.

The names of all of AIG's derivative counterparties and the money they have received from taxpayers still isn't known, but The Wall Street Journal has identified some of them and is publishing others here for the first time.

Lawmakers Want Names

The AIG bailout has become a political hot potato as the risk of losses to U.S. taxpayers rises. This past week, legislators demanded that the Federal Reserve disclose names of financial firms that have received money from AIG, which Fed officials have described as too systemically important in the financial system to be allowed to fail.

In a Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington on Thursday, Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn declined to identify AIG's trading partners. He said doing so would make people wary of doing business with AIG. (ROFLMAO - Wary of doing business with AIG? - Jesse)

But Mr. Kohn told lawmakers he would take their requests to his colleagues. The Fed, through a new committee led by Mr. Kohn to discuss transparency concerns, is now weighing whether to disclose more details about the AIG transactions.

The Fed rescued AIG in September with an $85 billion credit line when investment losses and collateral demands from banks threatened to send the firm into bankruptcy court. A bankruptcy filing would have caused losses and problems for financial institutions and policyholders globally that were relying on AIG to insure them against losses.

Since September, the government has had to extend more aid to AIG as its woes have deepened; the rescue package now has swelled to more than $173 billion.

The government's rescue of AIG helped prevent its counterparties from incurring immediate losses on mortgage-backed securities and other assets they had insured through AIG. The bailout provided AIG with cash to pay the banks collateral on the money-losing trades; it also bought out underlying mortgage-linked securities, many of which are currently worth less than half their original value.

Banks and other financial companies were trading partners of AIG's financial-products unit, which operated more like a Wall Street trading firm than a conservative insurer. This AIG unit sold credit-default swaps, which acted like insurance on complex securities backed by mortgages. When the securities plunged in value last year, AIG was forced to post billions of dollars in collateral to counterparties to back up its promises to insure them against losses.

More Problems

Now, other problems are popping up for AIG. The insurer generated a sizable business helping European banks lower the amount of regulatory capital required to cushion against losses on pools of assets such as mortgages and corporate debt. It did this by writing swaps that effectively insured those assets.

Values of some of those assets are declining, too, forcing AIG to also post collateral against those positions. And if the portfolios incur losses, AIG will have to compensate the banks.

AIG had seen this business as a relatively safe bet for the company and its investors. The structures were designed to allow European banks to shuck aside high capital costs. A change in capital rules has meant that the AIG protection no longer meets regulatory requirements.

The concern has been that if AIG defaulted, banks that made use of the insurer's business to reduce their regulatory capital, most of which were headquartered in Europe, would have been forced to bring $300 billion of assets back onto their balance sheets, according to a Merrill report.

FDIC Warns of Bank Deposit Insurance Fund Failure

The few banks are taking down the many because the Obama Administration does not have the will to tie off the bleeding and stitch it up.

Why? Because the money center banks are politically connected to them through a corrupt campaign funding system and lobbying effort.

One way or the other this will be resolved. It is only a matter of when, how much, who pays, and who profits.


AFP
FDIC warns US bank deposit insurance fund may tank
Thu Mar 5, 7:39 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is warning banks that its deposit insurance fund could dry up this year amid rising bank failures although the deposits would remain fully backed by the government.

The head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair, in a letter to bank chief executives dated March 2, defended the FDIC's plan to raise fees on banks and assess an emergency fee to shore up the fund and maintain investor confidence.

Bair acknowledged the new fees, announced Friday, would put additional pressure on banks at time of financial crisis and a deepening recession, but insisted they were critical to keep the insurance fund solvent and protected.

"Without these assessments, the deposit insurance fund could become insolvent this year," Bair wrote.

The FDIC chief said in the letter that the rapidly deteriorating economic conditions raised the prospects of "a large number" of bank failures through 2010.

"Without substantial amounts of additional assessment revenue in the near future, current projections indicate that the fund balance will approach zero or even become negative," she wrote.

The FDIC last Friday announced it would impose a temporary emergency fee on lenders and raise its regular assessments to shore up the rapidly depleting deposit insurance fund that insures individual customer deposits up to 250,000 dollars.

A week ago the FDIC reported a sharp depletion of the deposit insurance fund in the fourth quarter due to actual and anticipated bank failures, to 19 billion dollars from 34.6 billion in the third quarter.

The FDIC said it had set aside an additional 22 billion dollars for estimated losses on failures anticipated in 2009.

"Some have suggested that we should turn to taxpayers for funding. But banks -- not taxpayers -- are expected to fund the system, and I believe Congress would look skeptically on such a course of action," Bair wrote.

"All banks benefit from the FDIC's industry-funded status and should take pride in it. Keeping the guarantee industry funded will serve banks well once this current crisis passes. Turning to taxpayers for support, on the other hand, could paint all banks with the 'bailout' brush."

Merrill Lynch Discloses "Trading Irregularities" to Regulators in London

Plenty of smoke here, with the fire to come over the weekend and/or next week.

Why don't we hear about this sort of thing from the US media until after hours? Are they too busy asking softball questions?

The timing of this disclosure, after the BofA acquisitions and the billions in last minute bonuses paid, is priceless.


Economic Times (India)
Merrill review spots trading 'irregularity'
7 Mar 2009, 0047 hrs IST, Bloomberg

LONDON: Merrill Lynch & Co, the securities firm acquired by Bank of America Corp, said it uncovered an “irregularity” during a review of its trading operations.

The bank informed regulators immediately of the discrepancy in “certain trading positions”, Merrill Lynch said in a statement from London. The bank said it’s working with the authorities to investigate further. A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment further.

Merrill Lynch may have lost hundreds of millions of dollars on currency trading and credit derivatives last year, the New York Times reported earlier on Thursday.

The losses did not “spill into plain view” until after Bank of America investors had approved the $33 billion takeover in December and Merrill Lynch disbursed $3.6 billion in bonuses to bankers, the newspaper said. Bank of America later sought additional government funding. “Senior managers of the business are focused on the issue and believe the risks surrounding possible losses are under control,” Merrill Lynch said in the statement.

Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis is trying to rein in Merrill’s traders after their losses brought the bank to the brink of collapse, the New York Times said.

“It was always going to be extremely difficult to integrate a retail bank like Bank of America with an investment bank like Merrill because the cultures are so different,” said Richard Staite, an analyst at Atlantic Equities LLP in London. He has an “underweight” rating on Bank of America’s shares.

The Banking Crisis: Obama's Iraq Part 2

It is hard to assess who among the current DC crew are more limp when it comes to addressing the banking crisis in a meaningful and effective manner: Geithner, Summers or Bernanke.

They are all the very picture of the bureaucrat, which is a nice way of saying "systemic hacks." Have Timmy and Ben have reached their level of incompetency? Larry Summers has far exceededed his some years ago at Harvard.

It is difficult ground when one speculates on motives, but these are all rather bright fellows, albeit creatures nurtured by the system that they serve. It is hard to accept that their inability to address our financial crisis is sheer incompetency. But for now they obtain the benefit of doubt and the CEO's defense made so popular by the Enron crowd.

We wonder how bad it will get before Obama understands that his team is not working, that they have no actionable vision among them for whatever combination of reasons, and that the corruption being perpetuated is starting to stick rather handily to the Democrats.

The banking crisis is starting to look like Obama's Iraq.


Bloomberg
Hoenig Says Treasury Failed to Take ‘Decisive’ Action on Banks
By Steve Matthews and Vivien Lou Chen

March 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury has failed to take “decisive” action to address the bank crisis, pursuing an ad- hoc approach that leaves management in place and avoids necessary asset writedowns, a veteran Federal Reserve official said.

“If an institution’s management has failed the test of the marketplace, these managers should be replaced,” Fed Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig said in prepared remarks for a speech in Omaha, Nebraska. “They should not be given public funds and then micro-managed, as we are now doing” with “a set of political strings attached.”

Hoenig’s comments are the most detailed criticism of the Treasury’s actions by a Fed official since the financial crisis began. By contrast, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has endorsed the approaches taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his predecessor.

Geithner is requiring a “stress test” for the largest 19 U.S. banks to determine if they need more capital. He has stressed that nationalization isn’t the goal.

Last week, the U.S. government moved to convert some of the preferred stock it owned in Citigroup Inc. to common shares, gaining a 36 percent stake in the company and boosting Citigroup’s buffer against future losses. While authorities pushed for changes to the makeup of Citigroup’s board, Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit remains at the helm.

Hoenig said while policy makers “understandably” want to avoid nationalizing banks, “We nevertheless are drifting into a situation where institutions are being nationalized piecemeal with no resolution of the crisis.”

The Treasury’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program “began without a clear set of principles and has proceeded with what seems to be an ad-hoc and less-than-transparent approach,” Hoenig said today.

Banking regulators need to be willing to write down losses, bring in new managers and sell off businesses if institutions can’t survive on their own, “no matter what their size,” said Hoenig, the second-longest serving of the Fed district bank presidents, after Minneapolis’s Gary Stern.

The Banking Crisis: Obama's Iraq Part 1

Its a step in the right direction, but its hardly reform.

Everything about the Obama Administration to date has been 'limp,' toothless, almost apologetic.

Obama is on the road to failure, getting an "A" for rhetoric but "F's" for vision, commitment, team-building, and action.


Bloomberg
Volcker Urges Dividing Investment, Commercial Banks
By Matthew Benjamin and Christine Harper

March 6 (Bloomberg) -- Commercial banks should be separated from investment banks in order to avoid another crisis like the U.S. is experiencing, according to former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

“Maybe we ought to have a kind of two-tier financial system,” Volcker, who heads President Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said today at a conference at New York University’s Stern School of Business. (Uh, didn't we have one up until a few months ago when Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley put on the Fed feedbag? - Jesse)

Commercial banks would provide customers with depository services and access to credit and would be highly regulated, while securities firms would have the freedom to take on more risk and practice trading, “relatively free of regulation,” Volcker said. (OMG - Jesse)

Volcker’s remarks indicated his preference for reinstating some of the divisions between commercial and investment banks that were removed by Congress’s repeal in 1999 of the Great Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act.

Volcker’s proposals, included in a January report he wrote with the Group of 30, would allow commercial banks to continue to do underwriting and provide merger advice, activities traditionally associated with investment banking, he said.

Still, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, which converted to banks in September, would have to exit some businesses if they were to remain as commercial banks, he said.

‘Separation’

“What used to be the traditional investment banks, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs so forth, which used to do some underwriting and mergers and acquisitions, are dominated by other activities we would exclude -- very heavy proprietary trading, hedge funds,” he said. “So there’s some separation to be made.”

Jeanmarie McFadden, a spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley, declined to comment. A Goldman spokesman couldn’t be immediately reached.

Volcker also said international regulations on financial firms are probably an inevitable consequence of the industry’s current problems.

“In this world, I don’t see how we can avoid international consistency” on securities regulations going forward, he said. “The U.S. is no longer in a position to dictate that the world does it according to the way we’ve done it.”

Volcker’s comments come as President Barack Obama seeks legislative proposals within weeks for a regulatory overhaul of finance, especially companies deemed vital to the stability of the financial system.

Glass-Steagall

The new regulatory framework may stop short of reinstating Glass-Steagall, analysts say, though banks may separate their business lines in order to avoid strong regulatory scrutiny.

Volcker, who ran the Fed from 1979 to 1987, said the financial industry’s problems stem from larger issues. “I don’t think this is just a technical problem, it’s a societal problem,” he said. He cited bankers on Wall Street receiving multimillion-dollar bonuses for engineering failed mergers.

“There’s something wrong with the system,” Volcker said. “What are the incentives, what’s going on here?”

British Airways Cut to "Junk"

Hard times for the world's favorite airline.

We hope it endures. It was a blow to traveling civility when SwissAir closed shop.

Many fond memories of the day flight from JFK to Heathrow with the odd chance of an upgrade to the Concorde.

Still, there is always the upstrart Virgin and Branson's Heathrow Clubhouse. And First on Alitalia to Roma. La dolce vita! lol.

Do we lose the frequent flier mileage points in bankruptcy? Oh the humanity!


Reuters
British Airways debt cut to junk after profit warning
By John Bowker
Wed Feb 11, 2009

LONDON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - Moody's cut its debt rating on British Airways to 'junk' status in light of the airline's recent profit warning and future spending plans.

The agency said it expected BA's gearing to rise to more than six times earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) after warning it would make an operating loss of 150 million pounds ($216.1 million) in the year to end March -- or a record 240 million pounds in this quarter alone.

It said BA had 5.3 billion pounds in cash and committed debt facilities, but that the majority of it was tied up in spending plans. BA's rating was cut from Baa3 to Ba1 -- the difference between investment grade and junk status.

"In light of stepped up capex planned in full year 2010 and the continued weak outlook for the industry as a whole, the company will be challenged to improve its credit metrics materially," Moody's said in a statement....

"The rating downgrade reflects extremely difficult trading conditions ... we continue to review all aspects of the business to further control costs and preserve our cash position," he added.


Wall Street Journal
British Airways Warns of Revenue Drop for Next Fiscal Year
By KAVERI NITHTHYANANTHAN
MARCH 6, 2009

British Airways PLC lowered its expectations for revenue growth in the current fiscal year and warned sales would fall next year as it cuts capacity in response to softening demand.

The British flag carrier said that in the current fiscal year, which ends March 31, it expects revenue to rise 3.5%, which compares with an earlier estimate of 4% growth. Next fiscal year, the airline expects revenue to decline 5%.

At its investor day on Thursday, BA said that fuel costs for this year will rise by £950 million ($1.35 billion). However, for the coming fiscal year, the airline expects fuel costs to decline 10%, thanks to hedging at levels lower than the peaks seen in the middle of 2008....

Most Chinese Economists Favor Gold Over US Treasuries for Their National Reserves

Barbarously inconvenient to the global dollar hegemon.

Time for another announcement of an IMF gold sale? Sounds as though China would like to know when they will be able to take delivery.

Zimbabwe Ben will simply have to pick up the slack.

In all seriousness, if China starts pressing this issue the US will have no choice but engage in the long overdue revaluation of its national gold reserves significantly higher. This would be one method of reducing the national debt to China and buying back some of the Treasury bonds.

Unfortunately in this case 'higher' would be a factor of x5 at least, or as high as an order of magnitude, x10.

Perhaps the Chinese would settle for an option on West Texas, if Mexico is not interested.

And the angel shouted, "Fallen! Powerful Babylon has fallen..." Revelation 18:2


ChinaStakes
Survey: Over Two-Thirds of Chinese Economists Favor Gold Over US Bonds
by CSC staff, Shanghai
March 02,2009

In a survey of major Chinese economists, more than two-thirds are reportedly bearish on the prospect of China increasing its holdings of US government bonds, and believe instead the nation should putting more of its hard-earned into gold.

According to a China Business News survey of 70 Chinese economists (including one foreign economist), the exact figure is 71.4% anti-bonds and pro-gold.

The use of China's huge foreign exchange reserve is a topic of concern and controversy. The remaining 28.6% of those polled believe China should continue to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. 38.6% think that China should not continue to buy, but also should not to sell US bonds. 32.8% believe that China should unload the bonds, 22.8% of whom think we should have a slight sell-off, while 10% think China should drop them like a bad habit.

All this is against a backdrop of China surpassing Japan to become America's largest US bond holder and of the ever-widening global financial kerfuffle.

The survey also brings to light the question of whether China’s gold reserves should be increased. Recent gold futures prices broke through US$1000/ounce, making gold the most outstanding asset in the financial turmoil. One economist thinks China’s current gold reserve of 600 tons is an unnecessary load and that the opportunity should be grasped to sell off a bunch of it at a good price.

21.4% of economists said that the gold reserve level was fine and leave it alone.

But 75.7% of the economists asked believe that China should increase its holdings of gold, with 48.6% opting for a slight increase while 27.1% think China should pile in.

At US$1000 an ounce?!