The futures of capitalism / A brewing fight

[Van!]

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21577408-disgraced-ex-governor-finds-redemption-polls-hes-back

South Carolina’s special election

He’s back!

A disgraced ex-governor finds redemption at the polls

May 11th 2013 | NORTH CHARLESTON | From the print edition: United States

[1] ON Election Day Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the Democratic candidate vying to succeed Tim Scott in South Carolina’s first congressional district, appeared at her local precinct to vote at 11am, threw a few platitudes to reporters and went to work the phones. By contrast Mark Sanford, her Republican opponent, made 11 grip-and-grin stops. At a Cook-Out restaurant in North Charleston during the lunch rush, he wolfed a hamburger with onion rings and introduced himself to diners, though for most he needed no introduction. He held this seat from 1995 to 2001, before serving as governor from 2003 to 2009. Phone-banking, he conceded, may seem more efficient, “but you don’t have that human dynamic”.

[2] Mr Sanford’s instincts served him well: he defeated Ms Colbert Busch on May 7th, 54% to 45%, capping one of the unlikeliest comebacks in American politics. Many, including himself, thought his political career was over. In June 2009 Mr Sanford, then governor, disappeared for several days. He told his staff he was hiking the Appalachian Trail; in fact, he had jetted off to Argentina to visit his mistress. Disgrace, divorce and censure soon followed. He retired to a family farm in rural South Carolina, where he had a “very quiet and spiritual year”. But when his old seat fell open he entered a crowded field of 16 Republicans, winning both the primary and the run-off.

[3] Just 15 days after his victory, however, the National Republican Congressional Committee withdrew its support, when news broke that he had trespassed at his ex-wife’s house. A poll taken shortly thereafter had Ms Colbert Busch ahead by nine points. Her party saw the chance to snatch a solidly Republican seat, and support flowed in from unions and Democrats around the country.

[4] But Mr Sanford pulled off a brilliant bit of political ju-jitsu: despite three terms in Congress and two as governor, he ran as a scrappy, independent underdog. While Ms Colbert Busch traversed the district in a blue bus with ELIZABETH MEANS BUSINESS painted on it, he flitted around in an ordinary SUV, often with just a driver. He was garrulous and loose, at times almost disengaged. His old-fashioned campaign signs dotted the district’s highways and rural roads: a piece of plywood with SANFORD SAVES TAX $ spray-painted in black. The support Ms Colbert Busch received from Democratic congressional organisations made it easy for him to tie her to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, and that, in the end, proved fatal.

[5] Now Mr Sanford heads to Washington to serve alongside the same people who declined to back his campaign. At least he no longer needs to answer the trespassing charges; he and his ex-wife settled that little matter on May 8th.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21577410-divisions-are-growing-americas-beer-industry-brewing-fight

Taxes

A brewing fight

Divisions are growing in America’s beer industry

May 11th 2013 | WASHINGTON, DC  | From the print edition: United States

[1] EARLIER this year when a lawsuit accused Anheuser-Busch of selling watered-down beer, it caused only a minor buzz. America’s biggest breweries have long produced flavourless tipples. And anyway, those seeking a more robust brew have plenty of options. Today’s beer market increasingly resembles that of the pre-Prohibition era, when smaller, regional breweries dotted the map. Such is the demand for good-tasting beer that, on average, more than one new brewery opened every day last year.

[2] Small and independent breweries have thrived during the recession and its aftermath, taking market share away from traditional brands like Budweiser and Miller Lite. According to Beer Marketer’s Insights, a trade publication, craft beer has grown over 13% by volume in each of the past three years. America’s two biggest brewers, Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors, still account for around three-quarters of the domestic market, to craft’s 6.7%. But even they have noticed the change in consumer tastes. Whereas sales of their big brands have dropped off, gains have been made by offerings derisively called “crafty beer”, which look and taste like craft brews.

[3] This has led to some debate over what constitutes a craft beer and an intra-industry squabble over taxes. The Brewers Association promotes the interests of “small, independent and traditional” brewers that produce up to 6m barrels of beer a year. The largest craft brewer under this definition is the Boston Beer Company, maker of Samuel Adams, which produced over 2m barrels last year. That number also happens to be the cut-off for favourable treatment by the government, which gives small brewers a break on the federal excise tax.

[4] As the craft-beer industry grows, the Brewers Association thinks more of its members will join Boston Beer on the wrong side of the tax code. So it is pushing Congress to pass a bill that would raise the excise-tax bar to 6m barrels a year. In March hundreds of small-brewery owners took their case to Congress. But the Beer Institute, which represents big and small brewers alike, unsurprisingly favours a different bill that would cut the excise tax for the whole industry.

[5] Opponents of slashing the excise tax, which has not been adjusted since 1991, note that inflation has already reduced its potency. Moreover, some see higher alcohol taxes as a way to increase revenues. But others are sympathetic to the Beer Institute’s claim that taxes have become the most expensive ingredient of beer. Hence, perhaps, the bitter taste of some brews.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21577387-biggest-financial-exchange-you-have-never-heard-futures-capitalism

CME Group

The futures of capitalism

The biggest financial exchange you have never heard of

May 11th 2013 | CHICAGO | From the print edition: Finance and economics

[1] IN THE competition for most inauspicious introduction to finance, Terrence Duffy, the executive chairman of CME Group, must surely be the winner. Soon after convincing his mother in 1981 to borrow $50,000 so he could buy a seat to trade futures on what was then known as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, he lost $150,000 because of a misheard order.

[2] The anecdote holds a number of lessons: how quickly money can evaporate in the futures market; how trivial the cause can be; and how important it is to honour an agreement (at least in this area of finance). But the most important lesson became apparent only belatedly: a disastrous trade can be offset by a big bet gone right. In Mr Duffy’s case that was joining an institution which has become one of the finance industry’s brightest stars.

[3] It did so largely unnoticed by the public. Tourists continue to line up outside the historic building of the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street, hoping to see the inner workings of capitalism—even as the NYSE is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

[4] The magnitude of CME’s success is easy to miss. Its quarterly earnings, reported on May 2nd, were mixed. Profits dipped. The fear that prompts firms to purchase futures (the contracts traded on the CME to protect firms against changes, for instance, in the level of a currency and the price of energy) was less acute. A little more havoc would have been good for business.

[5] Yet CME’s growth in recent years has been nothing short of spectacular (see chart). It now boasts a market valuation of more than $20 billion, nearly twice as much as Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), another rising star in the financial firmament. The NYSE is, meanwhile, now worth less than $10 billion.

[6] When Mr Duffy joined the Chicago Merc, relationships with key companies were considered a financial firm’s most important asset. That was certainly true for J.P. Morgan, Dillon Read and Morgan Stanley, then among the leading banks, and for the NYSE. But the fate of these firms shows that such relationships may not help much: two of the banks were absorbed in semi-distress sales; the NYSE will soon be swallowed by ICE. Morgan Stanley survives, but is in search of a viable strategy.

[7] In contrast, the Chicago Merc’s business was tied to products, not customers. At first, it was eggs and butter, then cattle and pork bellies. The Chicago Board of Trade across town, once the more successful exchange, dominated trades in wheat and corn. The two did not really compete because product-oriented exchanges in particular benefit from strong “network effects”. These mean that more members are better: the more trades exchanges handle, the more liquidity they can provide and the more activity they attract.

[8] The CME managed to benefit from the same virtuous cycle in futures. It was not the first to offer contracts on currencies, but it had the best timing. Leo Melamed, the Chicago Merc’s chairman from 1968 to 1973, had learned firsthand about the value of currency trading from the black markets in Tokyo, where he lived briefly as a refugee from Nazi Germany. When the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates fell apart in 1972, CME was quick to offer currency futures. Contracts tied to the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the Standard & Poor’s 500 index followed.

[9] This allowed CME to lead the creation of an entirely new class of securities, explains Michael Gorham of the Stuart School of Business at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Between 1972 and 1982 futures, which once locked in prices only of physical commodities, were increasingly used for financial products. These types of futures have since experienced staggering growth and today makes up more than 80% of the business.

[10] The CME also negotiated the shift to electronic trading better than its competitors. It was not particularly quick to convert, but it did move once it faced a genuine threat from European competitors. Other American exchanges, such as the once larger Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) and the NYMEX, which then dominated energy trading, were slower to change. They were taken over by CME.

[11] Leading the pack, the CME was able to benefit from powerful network effects, just as it did in its old business of handling trades in cattle and pork bellies. These effects are even stronger in the case of futures tied to copyrighted indices such as the S&P 500 and because of “proprietary clearing”, meaning contracts initiated on one futures market cannot be transferred to another—much as apps written for the iPhone only run on Apple’s devices. In contrast, options and equities can be traded on any exchange. This explains why the NYSE’s share-trading franchise has many rivals and lost much of its value.

[12] Ordinarily, a big market share supported by strong network effects—which help deter competitors—would attract the wrath of trustbusters. But CME has been left alone so far. In fact, it may now benefit from new regulation, passed in reaction to the financial crisis. Clauses in the Dodd-Frank act require more products to be cleared on exchanges, which will push business CME’s way.

[13] CME does face long-term competition: others may innovate around it. But, as in the case of Apple, the CME’s main problem is to develop new markets. It has begun offering niche products tied to areas like a single harvest or debt with an unusual term structure, such as four years rather than five or ten. That may seem trivial, but such iterations add up to something bigger: CME is evolving into an ever more sophisticated institution that plays a key role in many sorts of financing. If tourists want to get a glimpse of the inner workings of capitalism, they now have to make a trip to the lovely city of Chicago.

[Seok Ihm]

와 오늘 자료는 많네요.. 항상 수고해주시네여.. 감솨

[박지현]

이거 어떻게 공부해야좋을까요:?