Dubai Isn't Alone In Debt Overload

Like overstretched American homeowners, governments and companies across the globe are groaning under the weight of debts that, some fear, might never be fully paid back.

As Dubai, that one-time wonderland in the desert, struggles to pay its bills, a troubling question hangs over the financial world: Is this latest financial crisis an isolated event, or a harbinger of still more debt shocks?

For the moment, at least, global investors seem to be taking Dubai's sinking fortunes in their stride. On Monday, the American stock market rose modestly, even as share prices plunged throughout the Persian Gulf.

But the travails of Dubai, a boomtown that, with its palm-shaped islands and indoor ski slope became a potent symbol of hyperwealth, nonetheless have some economists wondering where other debt bombs might be lurking -- and just how dangerous they might turn out to be.

Big banks that have only just begun to recover from the financial shocks of last year are now nervously eyeing their potential exposure to highly indebted corporations and governments.

From the Baltics to the Mediterranean, the bills for an unprecedented borrowing binge are starting to fall due. In Russia and the former Soviet bloc, where high oil prices helped feed blistering growth, a mountain of debt must be refinanced as short-term i.o.u.'s come due.

Even in rich nations like the United States and Japan, which are increasing government spending to shore up slack economies, mounting budget deficits are raising concern about governments' ability to shoulder their debts, especially once interest rates start to rise again.

The numbers are startling. In Germany, long the bastion of fiscal rectitude in Europe, government debt is on the rise. There, the government debt outstanding is expected to increase to the equivalent of 77 percent of the nation's economic output next year, from 60 percent in 2002. In Britain, that figure is expected to more than double over the same period, to more than 80 percent.

The burdens are even greater in Ireland and Latvia, where economic booms driven by easy credit and soaring property values have given way to precipitous busts. Public debt in Ireland is expected to soar to 83 percent of gross domestic product next year, from just 25 percent in 2007. Latvia is sinking into debt even faster. Its borrowings will reach the equivalent of nearly half the economy next year, up from 9 percent a mere two years ago.

Like Latvia, the Baltic states of Lithuania and Estonia remain worryingly exposed, as do Bulgaria and Hungary. All of these nations carry foreign debt that exceeds 100 percent of their G.D.P.'s, said Ivan Tchakarov, chief economist for Russia and the former Soviet states at Nomura bank. External debt is often held in a foreign currency, which means governments cannot use devaluation of their own currencies as a tool to reduce their debt when they run into trouble, according to Maurice Obstfeld, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Few analysts predict a major nation will default on it government debts in the immediate future. Indeed, many maintain that rich nations and the International Monetary Fund would intervene if a government needed a bailout.

But there are no assurances that companies in these nations, which, like governments, gorged on debt in good times, will be rescued. Dubai's refusal to guarantee the debts of its investment arm, Dubai World, may set a precedent for other indebted governments to abandon companies that investors had in the past assumed enjoyed full state backing.

"I see very good reasons to be worried that at some point in 2010 we are going to see more cases of ring-fencing because governments realize they can't afford to guarantee the debts of these companies," said Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of the global sovereign risk group and chief economist of Moody's.

Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economist whose recent book, "This Time Is Different," chronicles 800 years of financial crises, said: "I think right now every vulnerable country has one or two deep-pocketed backers that pretty much rule out a sudden run." But Mr. Rogoff said he expected a wave of defaults about two years from now, when the countries now serving as implicit guarantors turn their focus to economic problems at home.

One feature of the financial crisis is that some governments have taken on increasingly short-term debt. In the United States, for example, Treasury debt maturing within one year has risen from around 33 percent of total debt two years ago to around 44 percent this summer, while falling slightly since then, according to Wrightson ICAP. The United States will soon have debt problems of its own.

"In another couple years as industrialized countries' own debts -- in places like Germany, Japan and the United States -- get worse, they will become more reluctant to open up their wallets to spendthrift emerging markets, or at least countries they view that way," Mr. Rogoff said.

This might spell trouble for struggling nations. Facing a need to roll over their maturing debts, emerging markets may have to borrow around $65 billion in 2010 alone, according to Gary N. Kleiman of Kleiman International.

But while government debt may be a problem, corporate debt may set off a crisis that, in some ways, is already unfolding.

Corporate borrowing surged over the last five years. According to Mr. Kleiman, $200 billion of corporate debt is coming due this year or next year. He estimates that companies in Russia and the United Arab Emirates account for about half of that borrowing.

"This is where the Achilles heel is," he said.

Companies in several countries face immediate tests. Companies in China will have to borrow $8.8 billion in 2010; companies in Mexico $11 billion.

According to an analysis by JPMorgan Chase, Russian companies borrowed $220 billion from banks or by selling bonds from 2006 to 2008. That is the equivalent of 13 percent of Russia's gross domestic product. In the Emirates, that figure was $135.6 billion, or 53 percent of G.D.P.; in Turkey, it was $72 billion, or 10 percent of G.D.P.; and in Kazakhstan, it was $44 billion, or 44 percent of G.D.P.

In the past, if companies could not meet those obligations, governments might have stepped in. But already some companies have defaulted on payments after assumed government guarantees failed to materialize.

In Russia, for instance, the foreign debt totals more than $470 billion. But only a tiny fraction of that -- about $29 billion -- is sovereign debt. The rest is owed by Russian companies, including state giants like Gazprom.

The most troubling case in Russia is Rusal, the world's largest aluminum company, which owes $16 billion and has been in a standstill on repayment this year while dealing with creditors.

A subsidiary of a Russian state aircraft manufacturer defaulted on bonds last autumn despite a presumed sovereign guarantee. In Ukraine, the state energy company, Naftogaz, and a state railroad, have restructured or asked to restructure their debt.

"This was a trail that was blazed in this part of the world," said Rory MacFarquhar, an economist at Goldman Sachs in Moscow, referring to governments retreating from implied guarantees of state company debt, as in the case of Dubai World.

The Dubai World debt restructuring is already lifting borrowing costs for Russian companies that must repay a total of $20 billion in December, according to Vladimir Tikhomirov, chief economist of UralSib bank in Moscow.

Analysis: 10 percent jobless is Obama's new world

WASHINGTON – For months he had warned it was coming but that didn't ease the political shockwaves for President Barack Obama when unemployment topped 10 percent.

A year after his election Obama finds it increasingly difficult to blame the sour economy on George W. Bush or offer reassurances that jobless Americans will soon find work.

Never mind that the economy itself grew in the last quarter, that the recession, as measured by the precise formulas used by economists, is over and that the number of jobs lost in October was less than one-third the number of job losses at the start of his presidency.

Those claims about the recession's end do not convince most people, who remain painfully aware of the unemployment rate.

At 10.2 percent, October unemployment climbed to chart-topping heights unseen in more than a quarter century. The bottom line is that more than 15 million Americans are out of work and 3.5 million lost their jobs while Obama was president. Expected or not, this is Obama's new reality.

"I won't let up until the Americans who want to find work can find work, and until all Americans can earn enough to raise their families and keep their businesses open," the president declared Friday.

That's a hopeful promise but not very realistic.

And it shows that, for the time being, action to tackle record budget deficits will simply have to wait.

Obama, appearing at the White House Rose Garden on Friday three hours after the jobless numbers were made public, said his administration was looking at additional spending for roads and bridges and energy efficient buildings. Additional tax cuts for businesses and steps to increase credit for small businesses were also on the bill.

The new unemployment rate also came on the same day Obama signed a $24 billion bill to extend jobless benefits and spur homebuying

In a sign of Democratic thinking, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who heads Congress's Joint Economic committee, said Democrats would consider new aid to states, an "infrastructure bank" to increase construction jobs and small business tax credits.

"I think we're witnessing a political renaissance about concerns about jobs," Lawrence Mishel, president of the labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute, said approvingly. "It will put the deficit concerns into their appropriate context."

What all this amounts to is another stimulus for the economy. Though don't look for Democrats to call it that; Democrats have a tough enough time debating the merits of the $787 billion stimulus Congress passed earlier this year.

Republicans were quick to pounce on the proposals. Internal polling by the Republican National Committee after Republican gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia showed that Republican candidates could do well by arguing against additional spending while promoting job growth through tax cutting alone.

But in rhetoric and in deed, Obama is being forced to address an unemployment picture his economic team had long ago expected to avoid.

Many economists predict the jobless rate will rise again, peaking at 10.5 percent sometime next year before employment makes a turnaround in the spring. That still means unemployment will remain high for some time. The administration's own projections still see unemployment at 8 percent by the end of 2011.

Such lingering discomfort can have economic and political consequences.

Consumer spending likely won't increase rapidly. Foreclosures will continue to rise, hitting not just subprime borrowers, but prime mortgage holders as well. Commercial real estate lending, already teetering, could plunge in the face of rising vacancy and loan delinquency rates.

Politically, Democrats are staring at some damage — and the fear of unemployment — themselves. Exit polls Tuesday in the New Jersey and Virginia GOP victories showed that the economy was the top issue in the minds of voters. And national public opinion surveys show that a majority of the public doesn't believe Obama's economic policies are working.

Couple that with traditional losses by the president's party during midterm elections and Democrats have cause to worry about their own fate.

The unemployment number masks the fact that job losses slowed compared to past months — the work force went down by 190,000 in October compared to 219,000 in September. What's more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said job losses in August and September had been overstated by 91,000.

In addition, the economy grew by 3.5 percent in the third quarter. And Christina Romer, a top Obama economic adviser, noted an increase in temporary service jobs. "That's often the first sign of firms kind of dipping their toe back into hiring people," she said in an interview with The Associated Press.

But since the start of the recession in December 2007, 7.3 million Americans have lost their jobs and key sectors — construction, manufacturing and retail trade — are still seeing significant declines.

The president has not been helped by reports of flaws in the administration's count of jobs created by the $787 billion stimulus.

Ten months into the job, Obama did not even try to lay the blame for the economy at Bush's feet, as he has in the past. His only criticism was implied.

"When we first came into office, our immediate goal was to stop the free fall that caused our economy to shrink at an alarming rate," he said. "We've succeeded in achieving that goal, as our economy grew last quarter for the first time in a year."

But Obama has already taken ownership of the economy.

Republicans, he noted wryly during a July speech in Michigan, were eager to blame him for the economy.

"That's fine," he added, "Give it to me!"

Four months later, it would be hard to give it back.

Bernanke's trillion-dollar decision

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke


The biggest decision of the economic recovery will be made in the next six months, and Barack Obama will have almost nothing to do with it.

Forget the debate over TARP, and never mind the questions about a second stimulus. This decision is about when to pull out $1 trillion that’s propping up the U.S. banking system. And it will be Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his Fed colleagues who make the call.

That’s hard enough for a White House that knows its political fortunes rise and fall with the economy.

What’s worse is that Bernanke and Obama – like many presidents and Fed chairmen past – won’t necessarily have the same goals for this trillion-dollar decision.

Fed chiefs worry about inflation. Bernanke wants to take the money out quickly enough to prevent the economy from overheating and causing a jump in prices that strangles growth. But move too fast, and the economic recovery runs out of fuel.

Presidents worry about jobs. Obama probably wouldn’t mind a little overheating, say, next summer – when voters are starting to make up their minds about the 2010 congressional elections, and he hopes the economy can shake the 10-percent unemployment rate doldrums.

“Any chairman of the Fed will do what’s right for the country, not what’s right for the administration,” said Ernest Patrikis, a partner at the law firm White & Case who spent 30 years at the New York Fed. “That’s his job – that’s why he’s apolitical.”

“The exit will be so difficult,” said economist Joseph Brusuelas of Moody’s Economy.com. “Bernanke wants to engineer a recovery that does not include inflation. Obama wants a more robust recovery and like many political actors may be willing to forgo a little inflation for a little more employment.”

The White House is already worried that jobs won’t be coming back fast enough next year, Fed or no Fed.

Obama economic adviser Christina Romer warned a congressional panel Thursday that the jobs picture will remain “painfully weak” through 2010, with a seriously elevated unemployment rate for another year.

So all the White House can do is watch and wait, and hope it doesn’t pay a political price for any missteps by Fed officials they can’t control.

“It’s a dicey thing to do, and they know it,” said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee. “They have to be careful.”

The Fed’s moves are shrouded in secrecy, their prerogative to move the levers of the economy closely guarded – so much so that there’s been a recent a rise in populist anger about this all-powerful agency that exists largely outside the democratic process.

But because the Fed is an independent agency, it’s even considered bad form for a president to talk much about it – and indeed, the White House refused to comment for this story.

Last fall, the Fed injected $ 1 trillion-plus into the nation’s banking system – at times, by providing financial institutions with cash to cover their losses as the global meltdown spread. Now Fed officials are already talking about the need to withdraw the funds injected into the economy during the darkest days of the crisis, moves that are credited with largely saving the United States from plummeting into an economic depression.

“Given the highly unusual economic and financial circumstances, judging when the time is appropriate to remove policy accommodation, and then calibrating that removal, will be challenging,” said Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn in a speech to the Cato Institute on Sept. 30. “Still, we need to be ready to take the necessary actions when the time comes, and we will be.”

Translation: “policy accommodation” is the cash, and “the necessary actions” are the decision to ease it out of the economy.”

And is the Fed prepared to the pull the trigger? “We will be” seems to cover it.

Already, the Fed is already showing some signs of restlessness. On Monday, the New York Fed tested its “reverse-repo” process -- one tool the Fed could use to use to pull the money out when the time comes. The test run was widely interpreted as a sign the Fed is getting ready to act – but when, nobody knows.

The Fed can also tap on the brakes at the first sign of inflation by raising interest rates, now near zero. The Fed has said it will keep the rock-bottom rates for an extended period, but it won’t be more specific when they could go up – a decision that is bound to be controversial when it comes.

Patrikis thinks the Fed will make a decision on withdrawing liquidity either during the second quarter of 2010, or after the November elections that year – but that it won’t make any dramatic moves in the run-up to Election Day.

Still, he said, it is too early to predict what the Fed might do. And Patrikis points out that Obama will have indirect input into the decision, because there are two vacancies on the Fed’s board now that Obama will fill in the coming months. The president will surely select board members whose economic judgment he trusts.

Between the two vacancies, a member who Obama appointed earlier this year and Bernanke himself, the president will likely have named four of the seven members of the Fed’s Board of Governors by the time they make the call.


But the Fed knows actions like that can have political consequences. “There are few politicians who like higher interest rates,” said one former Fed official. “And President Obama is a politician.” That said, the official continued, “I suspect they will be broadly on the same page.”

That’s because Obama, too, has a longer-term time frame in mind: 2012, when he will be running for reelection. It’s in Obama’s interest for the Fed to take inflation prevention measures now so that he doesn’t have to run a tricky reelection campaign in a high-inflation environment.

Tensions between Presidents and Fed chairmen are nothing new.

In the 1980s, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker declared war on inflation. His strategy: raising interest rates. Volcker jacked the Fed funds rate to 20 percent, which contributed to the deep early 1980s recession that caused howls of protest from the White House and incumbent Republicans on Capitol Hill. The Fed, grumbled then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (R-Tenn.), should “get its boot off the neck of the economy.”

Nonetheless, Volcker’s strategy worked, and the Fed broke the back of the inflation cycle. Ironically, Volcker is a top economic adviser to Obama today.

In the 1990s, President George H.W. Bush blamed Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan for his election loss to Bill Clinton. Bush didn’t believe Greenspan was lowering interest rates fast enough to pull the nation out of a recession – which gave Clinton, with his famous “it’s the economy, stupid” campaign, an opening to trounce the elder Bush.

Mark Gertler, a professor of economics at New York University, says the lesson of history is that politicians should not interfere with the central bank. “If the Fed doesn’t act independently, the economy is endangered,” said Gertler. “It would be dangerous if the administration appeared to be interfering with the Fed.”

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) doubts they’ll be any daylight between Obama and Bernanke – who Obama just reappointed over the summer at a time when Wall Street needed a signal that there would be continuity at the Fed.

He argues that Bernanke and Obama will have the same agenda in 2010: fixing the economy.

“I think they are very much in sync,” said Frank. Asked about potential divergence between the Fed and the White House, he said, “That reflects a journalist’s hope that there will be friction. Obama and Bernanke have both argued that at some point they’re going to unwind this.”

Utah's 4-day workweek brings some dividends

Closing Utah state offices on Fridays has delivered an unexpected bonus: a big saving on overtime pay.

New calculations show Utah saved $4.1 million in the first year of a government experiment with a four-day workweek.

State employees were eager to leave after the longer workday, and weren't inclined to work an extra hour or two.

"They're getting what they need to get done in 10 hours and going home," said Angie Welling, spokeswoman for Gov. Gary Herbert.

"The state envisioned some energy savings, but that overtime number was not anticipated," she said Wednesday.

Utah was the first state in the country to shut down most of its services on Fridays. Other states took notice. Hawaii tried a limited four-day week last fall, when a similar program was under way in Washington state. Lawmakers in at least two other states — West Virginia and Virginia — have also looked into adopting a four-day workweek.

Former Gov. Jon Huntsman made the switch for Utah in August 2008, largely to cut energy costs.

Utah, however, achieved only a sixth of the $3 million it expected to trim on energy costs.

The state couldn't shut down as many state buildings as it planned on Fridays, officials said, and it didn't save much by closing the smaller buildings.

Also, the state assumed gasoline for state fleet car use and building utility costs would soar, and it would save as much.

Both expenditures actually fell over the past year, however. Utah has some of the lowest utility rates in the country.

The energy saving came out to $502,000 for the year. The state also saved $200,000 on janitorial services. With reduced overtime expenses, the total saving was $4.8 million.

The figures were released Wednesday by Herbert's strategic planner, Mike Hansen.

The new governor — Huntsman left to become the U.S. ambassador to China — is undecided on whether to stick with the program, Welling said.

"He's still reviewing the results. He feels like we have good data on the amount of cost savings, employee satisfaction and the energy reduction. What he things is missing is input from the public," she said.

To that end, Herbert will commission a poll of public sentiment — citizens lost a day of government service with the switch.

State workers are largely happy. Another survey found 85 percent of the workers like working four longer days better than five shorter ones.

Working mothers like Carolyn Dennis — she has two young sons — found a way to adjust.

"It's actually a lot easier than the five-hour day, because I have all day Friday to clean and run errands and still have the whole weekend to spend with my kids," said Dennis, customer service manager for the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing.

"I actually found it's freed up my time. We never did anything in the evening anyway, but having that extra day has made it easier to be a working mom."

Dennis leaves the Salt Lake City suburb of West Jordan at 5:45 a.m. with her youngest, a 2-year-old, in tow. she drops him at a day care center near work in downtown Salt Lake City. Her husband, a business owner, drops the couple's 7-year-old son, a first-grader, at school.

Dennis works from 6:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., skipping lunch hour and leaving a half-hour earlier than normal. That allows her to cut down a long day for her youngest.

"I started out getting him dressed while he was still asleep, but now he's getting up early for breakfast. Ryan is still on a malleable infant schedule. He's happy and smiling when I drop him off, so it makes my day go better," she said.

All things considered, Dennis would never switch back.

"I do love the 4/10 and told my boss if they take it away, I'll probably cry," she said.

German pensioner loses 20,000 euros on motorway

A German pensioner had to scour bushes and trees beside a motorway after 20,000 euros (30,000 dollars) that he had left on the bonnet of his car during a break fluttered away, police said Wednesday.

The 64-year-old Bavarian, who has not been named, told police that he had taken the money to Luxembourg in order to buy a car and that on the way back, the deal having fallen through, he stopped at a service station.

Back on the road, the man heard something hit the windscreen but thought nothing of it, and it was only when he pulled over into a layby that he realised that the object must have been the envelope containing the cash.

In a panic, he persuaded a police officer who happened to be in the layby to help him look for the money. Together they managed to gather 18,080 euros in bushes, branches, in the central reservation and on the other side of the road.

"The elder gentleman was pleased to find his money again," police said in a statement. "What he was less happy about, however, was the fact that a receipt for a Luxembourg bank account being closed down was also found."

The man admitted that in fact, the story about the car was untrue and that he had withdrawn the money from a bank in Luxembourg. The case was then passed on to customs officials.