As a follow-up to a recent journal entry on rising petrol prices, I found an article this morning that forcasted a possible very chilly winter for consumers. Analysts have warned that a 15 per cent increase in gas bills in the new year may be the result of higher wholesale gas prices. Suppliers such as Npower and British Gas are expected to start raising charges in February, while Russian gas giant Gazprom, which supplies a quarter of Europe's gas, announced last week that European consumers should expect prices to rise by almost a fifth.
Title: Cold comfort for gas customers with bills set to soar
Date: 12/02/07
Source: The Observer
Allan Asher, chief executive of consumer group Energywatch, thinks raising the prices is a scam. He accused the industry of 'tacitly colluding' to talk up the price of wholesale gas to justify charging higher rates. Tactics included exaggerating the possibility of cold weather or supply problems, he said. 'Warning of higher prices becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a way of softening the market ahead of a rise.' Also, it may be interesting to learn that in the past year, wholesale gas prices have fallen by 50 per cent, with wholesale electricity costs down by about 30 per cent. Yet utility bills have only fallen by a fraction of that amount. The average gas bill for an Npower customer is only 15 per cent less than a year ago and British Gas, the UK's the largest gas supplier, charges 20 per cent less than last year.
A spokesman for parent company Centrica said: 'British Gas intends to remain competitive as we have been all this year after leading the industry down in March and April.' Gazprom negotiates its annual gas export contracts in December. Two years ago it threatened to turn off the taps after gas negotiations with neighbouring Ukraine broke down, sending prices in Europe soaring.
Whether raising the gas prices is a scam or not, an increase in gas bills is going to happen. If it indeed happens to be a scam, I personally think its a shame to make consumers suffer just so the gas industry can soften the market ahead of a rise. If gas companies wanted to remain competitive, as British Gas intends to be, shouldn't they work to keep gas prices lower while all of the other companies raise their prices? That way more people would switch to their company therefore making them successfully competitive. On top of remaining competitive, everyone would benefit: consumers would be getting gas at a lower price and the gas company would still be able to soften the market without raising prices because of their increase in clientele. This method makes more sense to me rather than talking up the raise in wholesale gas prices to justify raising prices. Perhaps the increase in wholesale gas prices is more severe than I am making it out to be, but I just don't see the sense in increasing gas bills when it could be avoided.
Sunday 2 December 2007
Saturday 1 December 2007
12/01/07
Given that the European Union (EU) has been a major topic of discussion in our UK economy class, I found it very suiting to write a journal entry about a problem UK business leaders currently have with the EU. The Portuguese presidency of the EU is devising plans for a temporary and agency workers directive, which proposes that temporary workers, after just six weeks in a job, should be given the same pay and benefits as full-time staff, including pensions, sick pay and holiday entitlements. Worried that this will decrease the flexibility of the UK labor market as well as create obstacles to getting people back into work, British employers have called on Gordon Brown to stand firm against these attempts by the European Union. According to UK business leaders, temporary and agency workers should occupy the same job for at least six months and not six weeks before being given the same rights as their full-time colleagues.
Title: Employers attack EU workers’ rights plan
Date: 12/01/07
Source: Financial Times
Apparently, British employers are not alone in their disapproval of the proposed directive. David Frost, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, says: “It is quite clear that the economic position is likely to deteriorate in the coming months. So it would be crazy to do anything to make the UK a less competitive place.” The CBI, which also opposes the proposals, has estimated that up to 250,000 jobs could be jeopardized if employers were inhibited from using agency staff to fill temporary employment gaps and meet seasonal peaks in demand or one-off orders and contracts. John Hutton, business and enterprise secretary, told the TUC annual conference in September that ministers would not give in to demands on temporary workers’ rights if it damaged Britain’s flexible labor market.
Even though employers have plenty of support in their opposition of the directive, they still have legitimate fears. For instance, while the government seems to agree with employers and have resolved to stand firm against the proposal, employers are concerned that ultimately the government may be tempted to make concessions in return for an offer from the Portuguese presidency to secure permanent exemption for the UK from the EU working time directive limiting the length of the working week to 48 hours. Business leaders also fear that Mr. Hutton, who is expected to attend Wednesday's meeting of EU employment ministers, may be unable to gain sufficient support from other member states to block any “unwelcome” measures included in a temporary and agency workers directive. To add onto this, there are doubts about the continued support of both Poland and Germany for the British position. Until Wednesday after the conclusion of the meeting, business leaders will be on edge about this new workers' rights proposal.
I was interested in this article not only because the EU is a major topic of class discussion but also because of my involvement with workers' rights for my common course final project. After reading this article, I honestly don't see how this proposal would make the UK labor market less flexible, create obstacles to getting people back into work, or make the UK a less competitive place. If anything, it should make it more competitive and create less obstacles in getting people back into work because more people will want to join the labor force as temporary or agency workers to reap the benefits. Maybe this is just my ignorance in economics talking, but it seems to me like the main reason as to why business leaders are opposing this proposal is because they don't want to dish out any more money and/or benefits than they already have to.
Title: Employers attack EU workers’ rights plan
Date: 12/01/07
Source: Financial Times
Apparently, British employers are not alone in their disapproval of the proposed directive. David Frost, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, says: “It is quite clear that the economic position is likely to deteriorate in the coming months. So it would be crazy to do anything to make the UK a less competitive place.” The CBI, which also opposes the proposals, has estimated that up to 250,000 jobs could be jeopardized if employers were inhibited from using agency staff to fill temporary employment gaps and meet seasonal peaks in demand or one-off orders and contracts. John Hutton, business and enterprise secretary, told the TUC annual conference in September that ministers would not give in to demands on temporary workers’ rights if it damaged Britain’s flexible labor market.
Even though employers have plenty of support in their opposition of the directive, they still have legitimate fears. For instance, while the government seems to agree with employers and have resolved to stand firm against the proposal, employers are concerned that ultimately the government may be tempted to make concessions in return for an offer from the Portuguese presidency to secure permanent exemption for the UK from the EU working time directive limiting the length of the working week to 48 hours. Business leaders also fear that Mr. Hutton, who is expected to attend Wednesday's meeting of EU employment ministers, may be unable to gain sufficient support from other member states to block any “unwelcome” measures included in a temporary and agency workers directive. To add onto this, there are doubts about the continued support of both Poland and Germany for the British position. Until Wednesday after the conclusion of the meeting, business leaders will be on edge about this new workers' rights proposal.
I was interested in this article not only because the EU is a major topic of class discussion but also because of my involvement with workers' rights for my common course final project. After reading this article, I honestly don't see how this proposal would make the UK labor market less flexible, create obstacles to getting people back into work, or make the UK a less competitive place. If anything, it should make it more competitive and create less obstacles in getting people back into work because more people will want to join the labor force as temporary or agency workers to reap the benefits. Maybe this is just my ignorance in economics talking, but it seems to me like the main reason as to why business leaders are opposing this proposal is because they don't want to dish out any more money and/or benefits than they already have to.
12/01/07
Reading through today's business section of the Guardian online newspaper, I was particularly drawn to a specific article which was located in the upper left-hand corner. It of course deals with the current credit crunch turmoil as well as rising petrol prices, and is also a topic we have been discussing in class. Because of the concern caused by the two factors named above, consumer confidence has been pushed to its lowest level since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Title: Consumer confidence at four-year low
Date: 12/01/07
Source: The Guardian
The leading market research organization, GfK/NOP, released a survey yesterday morning which showed that consumer confidence fell for the third consecutive month in November. The five core measures that make up the monthly index also all showed a decline, falling to -10 in November from -8 the previous month, even though analysts only predicted a drop to -9. In addition to these findings, the major purchases measure, which records whether people feel the time is right for a large acquisition, fell to its lowest level since 1995. As a result, GfK/NOP warned that the drop in confidence could be bad news for retailers this Christmas.
The fall in confidence stems from people's pessimism about both their personal finances and the general financial situation over the last 12 months, and also in the year ahead. "With petrol prices racing past £1 a litre, food prices on the increase and the prospect of higher mortgages and loan fees on the horizon resulting from the credit crunch, even the most optimistic seem to view their glass as half empty," said Rachael Joy. To add to this, on Thursday the Bank of England governor Mervyn King warned MPs that the short-term outlook for the economy was "rather uncomfortable" and "highly uncertain."
For any UK citizen, regardless of their background or profession, this is bad news. As a result of everything being at their lowest levels, the economy is only going to suffer more than it already has. The credit crunch and rising petrol prices have done an incredible amount of damage already and, unfortunately, I don't see conditions improving anytime soon. In a rather recent article, King said that the long-term outlook for the economy is one of a return of growth to its average rate and the lowering of inflation back to its target. With his dire short-term outlook of uncomfortableness and uncertainty, however, it's rather hard to have any hope for the future. With the holiday season right around the corner and GfK/NOP's warnings, hopefully it will still be a Merry Christmas.
Title: Consumer confidence at four-year low
Date: 12/01/07
Source: The Guardian
The leading market research organization, GfK/NOP, released a survey yesterday morning which showed that consumer confidence fell for the third consecutive month in November. The five core measures that make up the monthly index also all showed a decline, falling to -10 in November from -8 the previous month, even though analysts only predicted a drop to -9. In addition to these findings, the major purchases measure, which records whether people feel the time is right for a large acquisition, fell to its lowest level since 1995. As a result, GfK/NOP warned that the drop in confidence could be bad news for retailers this Christmas.
The fall in confidence stems from people's pessimism about both their personal finances and the general financial situation over the last 12 months, and also in the year ahead. "With petrol prices racing past £1 a litre, food prices on the increase and the prospect of higher mortgages and loan fees on the horizon resulting from the credit crunch, even the most optimistic seem to view their glass as half empty," said Rachael Joy. To add to this, on Thursday the Bank of England governor Mervyn King warned MPs that the short-term outlook for the economy was "rather uncomfortable" and "highly uncertain."
For any UK citizen, regardless of their background or profession, this is bad news. As a result of everything being at their lowest levels, the economy is only going to suffer more than it already has. The credit crunch and rising petrol prices have done an incredible amount of damage already and, unfortunately, I don't see conditions improving anytime soon. In a rather recent article, King said that the long-term outlook for the economy is one of a return of growth to its average rate and the lowering of inflation back to its target. With his dire short-term outlook of uncomfortableness and uncertainty, however, it's rather hard to have any hope for the future. With the holiday season right around the corner and GfK/NOP's warnings, hopefully it will still be a Merry Christmas.
Friday 30 November 2007
11/30/07
Surprise surprise...the crisis has hit yet again. Zoe Cruz, the most senior woman on Wall Street, became the latest high-profile casualty of the US subprime mortgage meltdown when she lost her job Thursday as co-president of Morgan Stanley. Ms. Cruz’s counterpart at Bear Stearns has also been ousted. This news came three weeks after Morgan Stanley revealed it had lost more than $3.7bn on a subprime mortgage bet that went disastrously wrong. Along with Cruz and her counterpart, the jobs of the chief executives of UBS, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup have also been claimed as a result of the crisis.
Title: Subprime crisis claims top Morgan banker
Source: Financial Times
Date: 11/30/07
Ms. Cruz, 52, who ran Morgan Stanley’s fixed income business, was made co-president in 2005 by Philip Purcell, fuelling the revolt that eventually led to his ousting as chairman and chief executive. Cruz's promotion prompted the departure of Vikram Pandit, who had been her boss, and several other senior executives who refused to return following Mr. Purcell’s departure unless she was removed. John Mack, Morgan Stanley’s chairman and chief executive, initially decided to take no action against Ms. Cruz after discussing the matter with his board. Mr. Mack said Cruz had made enormous contributions to the company in her 25 years of service. “She has helped to build some of our most important and successful businesses and worked tirelessly to strengthen and grow our global franchise.” But after a longer “post-mortem," he concluded that changes were needed. The new co-presidents are Walid Chammah, a former head of investment banking who recently moved to London to head Morgan Stanley International, and James Gorman, who joined from Merrill Lynch last year and now heads the wealth management arm.
As a result of the subprime mortgage crisis, the market has deteriorated further in recent weeks, increasing the potential loss on Morgan Stanley’s remaining mortgage-linked investments. However, insiders say no further problems have been uncovered and the maximum potential loss from its subprime exposure remains at the stated $6bn.
After I read this article, I couldn't help but think that Ms. Cruz's ousting was a result of discrimination. The article gave no concrete reason(s) as to why she was fired besides the crisis, and it was also stated that after her promotion, several male executives refused to work under her. Although several other employees were listed as being fired, it became especially apparent to me that Cruz's departure was unfair and unjust. Maybe there has been some past problems with Cruz that I am unaware of, but judging by Mr. Mack's comments, I find that highly doubtful. To further my opinion, two new male presidents were hired. Now I am not some gung-ho feminist that thinks every little thing is an injustice to the female gender, but this case just strikes me as being particularly discriminating. The article also stated that she was approached about becoming chief executive of Merrill Lynch, but that job went to John Thain. Every piece of evidence here screams injustice. From what I've read Cruz is an extremely brilliant female who is capable of many things, so I do not understand why she was fired. Yes, the crisis has caused a great amount of turmoil and it could be the reason as to why she was ousted, but something just doesn't feel right to me here. I hope to do some more investigation into this topic and will hopefully get back to you soon about any findings I come across.
Title: Subprime crisis claims top Morgan banker
Source: Financial Times
Date: 11/30/07
Ms. Cruz, 52, who ran Morgan Stanley’s fixed income business, was made co-president in 2005 by Philip Purcell, fuelling the revolt that eventually led to his ousting as chairman and chief executive. Cruz's promotion prompted the departure of Vikram Pandit, who had been her boss, and several other senior executives who refused to return following Mr. Purcell’s departure unless she was removed. John Mack, Morgan Stanley’s chairman and chief executive, initially decided to take no action against Ms. Cruz after discussing the matter with his board. Mr. Mack said Cruz had made enormous contributions to the company in her 25 years of service. “She has helped to build some of our most important and successful businesses and worked tirelessly to strengthen and grow our global franchise.” But after a longer “post-mortem," he concluded that changes were needed. The new co-presidents are Walid Chammah, a former head of investment banking who recently moved to London to head Morgan Stanley International, and James Gorman, who joined from Merrill Lynch last year and now heads the wealth management arm.
As a result of the subprime mortgage crisis, the market has deteriorated further in recent weeks, increasing the potential loss on Morgan Stanley’s remaining mortgage-linked investments. However, insiders say no further problems have been uncovered and the maximum potential loss from its subprime exposure remains at the stated $6bn.
After I read this article, I couldn't help but think that Ms. Cruz's ousting was a result of discrimination. The article gave no concrete reason(s) as to why she was fired besides the crisis, and it was also stated that after her promotion, several male executives refused to work under her. Although several other employees were listed as being fired, it became especially apparent to me that Cruz's departure was unfair and unjust. Maybe there has been some past problems with Cruz that I am unaware of, but judging by Mr. Mack's comments, I find that highly doubtful. To further my opinion, two new male presidents were hired. Now I am not some gung-ho feminist that thinks every little thing is an injustice to the female gender, but this case just strikes me as being particularly discriminating. The article also stated that she was approached about becoming chief executive of Merrill Lynch, but that job went to John Thain. Every piece of evidence here screams injustice. From what I've read Cruz is an extremely brilliant female who is capable of many things, so I do not understand why she was fired. Yes, the crisis has caused a great amount of turmoil and it could be the reason as to why she was ousted, but something just doesn't feel right to me here. I hope to do some more investigation into this topic and will hopefully get back to you soon about any findings I come across.
Thursday 29 November 2007
11/29/07
Reading through the Guardian online this morning I came across a very interesting article concerning three British bankers, nicknamed the "Natwest Three." Less than 18 months after their extradition to America prompted a political storm and allegations of injustice, David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby abandoned their declarations of innocence and pleaded guilty to stealing $7.3m (£4m) in a highly sophisticated transatlantic fraud linked to the collapse of the infamous and controversial energy trading powerhouse Enron. Although only owning up to one of seven charges of wire fraud under a deal struck with the US government, the men face 37 months in prison and must also pay back the $7.3m gains to the owner of Natwest, the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Title: Natwest Three plead guilty to $7.3m Enron-linked transatlantic fraud
Source: The Guardian
Date: 11/29/07
As I mentioned before, the charges stem from a highly sophisticated transatlantic fraud linked to Enron. In 2000, the men, who previously worked for Natwest's investment banking arm, concocted a deal with two senior Enron executives (who have since been jailed). In this deal, Natwest sold its stake in an Enron-related venture in the Cayman Islands for a knockdown price, and the men shared a secret profit on the side of $20m with their Enron counterparts. After being found out and extradited to America, the men were electronically tagged, restricted from working, banned from associating with each other and subjected to a curfew. Because these restrictions were emotionally and financially draining, Bermingham, Mulgrew and Darby decided to plead guilty to their charges and face jail time. Kenneth Kaiser, assistant director of the FBI's criminal investigative division, said the guilty pleas showed "the extent of the fraud at Enron went well beyond US borders."
This case involving the "Natwest Three" has prompted a debate about the fairness of Britain's extradition arrangements with the US. According to critics, Britain requires only basic information from foreign law enforcement agencies to send its citizens abroad. In contrast, though, the US demands evidence of "probably cause" and suspects are screened by a grand jury. Eoin O'Shea, an extradition expert at Simmons & Simmons in London, said: "It's a far less rigorous test in England now for extradition than it used to be. British defendants are at much greater risk than they once were." Supporters of Bermingham, Mulgrew and Darby argue that the men should have been tried in Britain instead of the US, but the electronic nature of international business has made the jurisdiction of fraud an argumentative basis. O'Shea added, "We're in a much more globalized world and crime is one of the most globalised of industries."
Since the initial hearing, Bermingham, Mulgrew and Darby remain on bail pending a formal sentencing hearing in February. The men have also applied for a prisoner exchange program in the hope of spending their sentences in a British jail.
It is now 2007 and the deal the "Natwest Three" made with executives of Enron occurred in 2000. The collapse of Enron occurred several years ago, and these men are only now being prosecuted? Am I the only one who sees a slight problem with this? Shouldn't the men have been found guilty years ago? Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me like their charges of fraud are long overdue. These men, in conjunction with directors at Enron, cheated many people out of money and pocketed ill-gotten gains as a result. I don't care how emotionally or financially draining this whole process has been for these men, they deserve their punishment. In fact, I believe they should be jailed for way longer than 37 months and be required to pay back way more money than $7.3m. These men have committed a crime of upmost significance and as such should be handled in such a way that requires them to pay back all of their wrongs. As the saying goes, "what goes around comes around," and the "Natwest Three" are finally getting the come around.
Wednesday 21 November 2007
Lehman Brothers
This morning, the Bucknell in London UK economy class visited the Lehman Brothers office where John Candillier, a Bucknell Alum, is a managing director for European equity sales trading. While there, Mr. Candillier took us to his desk (which, by the way, had three separate computers-as did every other desk) and explained in detail how the trading business worked. To further explain himself and demonstrate his points, Mr. Candillier showed us several company's trading portfolios. To further our experience, Mr. Candillier took two calls from clients. Since he is a MD, he had several of his workers run shares for him, which I found to be very interesting; the teamwork involved in sales trading is phenomenal. Everyone works together as a team to make profits not only for their clients but also for themselves. I'm not quite sure of the exact number, but I do know Mr. Candillier said that they do millions of trades a day and make/lose millions of dollars/pounds while doing them. By the end of his talk it was obvious that Mr. Candillier was extremely intelligent and talented and was very passionate about his profession.
After our lecture by Mr. Candillier's desk, we were then shown a presentation on exactly what the Lehman Brothers company did and all of the success it has acquired over the years. Two recruiting employees also spoke at the presentation about possible summer internships.
Even though I am most likely not going to have a career in sales trading, I still greatly enjoyed my visit to Lehman Brothers. I learned a great deal about this realm of economics and got to experience first-hand what it's like to be a sales trader. It got quite noisy in room with all of the yelling and telephones ringing, but nonetheless it was still exciting, although that kind of profession would be way too stressful for an already stressed-out person such as myself. Mr. Candillier was an excellent host and lecturer and was extremely helpful in explaining equity sales trading and all of the other aspects of Lehman Brothers.
After our lecture by Mr. Candillier's desk, we were then shown a presentation on exactly what the Lehman Brothers company did and all of the success it has acquired over the years. Two recruiting employees also spoke at the presentation about possible summer internships.
Even though I am most likely not going to have a career in sales trading, I still greatly enjoyed my visit to Lehman Brothers. I learned a great deal about this realm of economics and got to experience first-hand what it's like to be a sales trader. It got quite noisy in room with all of the yelling and telephones ringing, but nonetheless it was still exciting, although that kind of profession would be way too stressful for an already stressed-out person such as myself. Mr. Candillier was an excellent host and lecturer and was extremely helpful in explaining equity sales trading and all of the other aspects of Lehman Brothers.
11/21/07
Among all of the mayhem and madness that is the current financial market crisis, perhaps there is one glimmering light. While virtually every other share has lost pretty much all of the gains they made yesterday, the oil sector has continued to rise and make profit. BG is 2.5% higher at 997p, Royal Dutch Shell is up 1.5% and BP is up 0.5%. The fact that the crisis has not damaged oil shares (yet--who knows, it may strike them eventually) may come as no surprise given the price per barrel, which is nearing $100.
Title of Article: Oil gleams in the gloom
Source: The Guardian
Date: 11/21/07
As oil shares continue to do well, banks and other companies are meanwhile still facing incredible pressure because of the crisis. The stricken mortgage bank Northern Rock has gone down another 14%. While they have received an offer from both Cerberus and JC Flowers, one of the offers was pitched well below yesterday's closing price. Alliance & Leicester, who recently had to dispel rumors about funding problems or a black hole in its accounts, went down another 5%. Buy-to-let lender Paragon, which revealed the scars of the credit crunch yesterday, fell another 25p to 100p. Credit Suisse today cut its price target for the company to 145p from 225p. As the increase in oil shares may have come to no surprise, with all of the above mentioned it may also come as no surprise to hear that the FTSE (Financial Times Stock Exchange) was sitting 90.8 points lower at 6135.7 by mid-morning.
This morning, the Bank of England minutes revealed a 7-2 vote in favor of keeping rates on hold this month. Martin Slaney, head of spread betting at GFT Global Markets, said: "The closeness of the vote suggests rates will be kept on hold for a few more months as the Bank hovers in wait-and-see mode to monitor whether the negative effects of the credit crisis on growth are outweighing inflationary concerns over food and energy prices."
In summation, I could not have put it any better than David Buik at Cantor Index. "Fear, uncertainty, sub-prime lending, credit crisis, downgrading of growth in the US, oil towards $100 a barrel and sentiment shot to ribbons makes a rather toxic and unpalatable cocktail for investors to digest." The fact that one sector of the market is continuing to thrive (oil) means that virtually every other sector is in turmoil on account of the financial market crisis. Investors, among others, are getting nailed, shares are decreasing, people are losing a great amount of money, and, in some cases, companies are going out of business. The crisis has caused a great amount of trouble not only for those in the economic world but also for society as a whole. There's hardly any consumer confidence anymore and, unfortunately, there are no quick and easy resolutions. Getting out of this crisis alive is going to take a lot of time; I've read articles that estimate two to three years until start conditions improve. However long it takes, I'm sure even more problems are going to arise, which will require strategic recovery planning and preventative measures for the future.
Title of Article: Oil gleams in the gloom
Source: The Guardian
Date: 11/21/07
As oil shares continue to do well, banks and other companies are meanwhile still facing incredible pressure because of the crisis. The stricken mortgage bank Northern Rock has gone down another 14%. While they have received an offer from both Cerberus and JC Flowers, one of the offers was pitched well below yesterday's closing price. Alliance & Leicester, who recently had to dispel rumors about funding problems or a black hole in its accounts, went down another 5%. Buy-to-let lender Paragon, which revealed the scars of the credit crunch yesterday, fell another 25p to 100p. Credit Suisse today cut its price target for the company to 145p from 225p. As the increase in oil shares may have come to no surprise, with all of the above mentioned it may also come as no surprise to hear that the FTSE (Financial Times Stock Exchange) was sitting 90.8 points lower at 6135.7 by mid-morning.
This morning, the Bank of England minutes revealed a 7-2 vote in favor of keeping rates on hold this month. Martin Slaney, head of spread betting at GFT Global Markets, said: "The closeness of the vote suggests rates will be kept on hold for a few more months as the Bank hovers in wait-and-see mode to monitor whether the negative effects of the credit crisis on growth are outweighing inflationary concerns over food and energy prices."
In summation, I could not have put it any better than David Buik at Cantor Index. "Fear, uncertainty, sub-prime lending, credit crisis, downgrading of growth in the US, oil towards $100 a barrel and sentiment shot to ribbons makes a rather toxic and unpalatable cocktail for investors to digest." The fact that one sector of the market is continuing to thrive (oil) means that virtually every other sector is in turmoil on account of the financial market crisis. Investors, among others, are getting nailed, shares are decreasing, people are losing a great amount of money, and, in some cases, companies are going out of business. The crisis has caused a great amount of trouble not only for those in the economic world but also for society as a whole. There's hardly any consumer confidence anymore and, unfortunately, there are no quick and easy resolutions. Getting out of this crisis alive is going to take a lot of time; I've read articles that estimate two to three years until start conditions improve. However long it takes, I'm sure even more problems are going to arise, which will require strategic recovery planning and preventative measures for the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)