Saturday, 4 July 2015

Would euro departure help or hurt Europe's currency union?-By David Mchugh

Up-front losses would be large for Greece, long-term consequences uncertain for Europe



Would euro departure help or hurt Europe's currency union?
.
View photo

A demonstrator shouts slogans during a rally organized by supporters of the Yes vote in Athens, Friday, July 3, 2015. A new opinion poll shows a dead heat in Greece's referendum campaign with just two days to go before Sunday's vote on whether Greeks should accept more austerity in return for bailout loans. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)



FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) -- With aid negotiations off and ATMs running out of money, it's not speculation any more. Greece could leave the euro. And soon.
What would that mean for the Greek people and for the European Union's 16-year-old shared currency — the crown jewel of a six-decade-old project in binding Europe's countries closer together?
For Greece, the short-term pain and turmoil could be extreme whereas the currency union would likely survive the initial shock.
The longer-term costs — and any possible benefits — could take years to become apparent.
Ironically, a few experts think one of the most devastating outcomes for the euro would be if Greece leaves and, against all expectation, thrives. That would undermine claims for the euro being a key to prosperity.
On Sunday Greeks are asked to vote on the painful demands made by creditor countries for desperately needed bailout loans. The vote could be the turning point. A "no" could mean no more loans, leaving Greece little choice but to print its own currency after running out of euros needed to pay government wages and pension and to refloat troubled banks.
Here is a look at some of the possible damage — and any benefits — of a Greek-euro divorce.
___
FORTRESS EUROZONE?
There's a widespread view among analysts that the eurozone would not collapse in the short term if Greece left. There would be turmoil. Stocks would fall. Borrowing costs for the weaker eurozone members, such as Portugal or Italy, might rise for a while.
But, this view has it, the European Central Bank could handle it. The ECB is already pouring 1.1 trillion euros ($1.2 trillion) of monetary stimulus into the economy through regular bond purchases and stands ready to do more. Since the Greek crisis started in 2009, the governments that use the euro have come up with crisis backstops. Those include tougher banking supervision and a pot of money to bail out troubled governments.
Other voices say the short-term implications are scarier. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has persistently warned that the global economy, currently enjoying an uneven recovery, doesn't need the uncertainty of a Greek euro exit, or "Grexit."
___
THE HOTEL CALIFORNIA
For the long term, a Greek exit would disrupt the euro's "Hotel California" principle: that, as the Eagles put it, you can "check out any time you like, but you can never leave." It is supposed to be permanent.
But if it turns out that one country can leave, investors might think, so can others.
They might demand more interest for the risk of lending to countries such as Portugal and Italy. A market crisis could drive another country out.
Some think such higher rates would be beneficial, by forcing countries to shape up their finances. The euro would in fact be stronger. Greece was an anomaly, a backward economy that didn't belong in the club in the first place, the thinking goes.
A number of economists, however, think a Greek exit could cause long-lasting damage to the euro.
As analysts at Standard & Poor's put it, "the permanence of the monetary union will have been proved false, and this could throw into question assumptions underpinning more than two decades of economic and political policy."
Ben May, chief European economist at Oxford Economics, says that the worst blow Greece could deal to the eurozone "would be if Greece left and its economy quickly started to grow strongly."
The example would not be lost on other weak members of the currency union.
"For perennial slower growers such as Italy and Portugal an exit, devaluation and default strategy would now become a credible alternative option."
___
THE BILL AT THE TAVERNA
There's little doubt that leaving the euro means imminent disaster for Greece.
"In the short term, which may in fact last a couple of years, the process of exit would be extremely messy," said Zsolt Darvas, senior fellow at the Bruegel research institute in Brussels. The start would be a banking collapse that would make normal commerce impossible. Greece's new currency would plunge, meaning default on its bailout loans denominated in euros.
The economy would plummet — some say by 10 or 20 percent. That's on top of a fall of 25 percent in the six years, about the drop the U.S. suffered during the Great Depression.
And there's more. Greece imports energy and medicine, so those essentials could double in price. Greek companies that owe money to foreigners would be unable to pay. Many would go bankrupt. With no lenders and tax revenue plunging, the government would have to slash spending even more sharply than under the hated bailout deal. Greece might even need humanitarian aid.
Inflation could run out of control, especially if the central bank has to print money to rescue banks and fund the government.
___
A BETTER FUTURE?
The larger question is whether Greece would benefit much from a sharply devalued national currency, which in theory helps exports. To do that, you have to have something valuable to export and sell — and to be able to do so efficiently. Olives and nice vacation beaches aren't enough.
Economist Darvas says the demands of Greece's lenders have pushed the country to reform some aspects of its economy, making it somewhat more competitive. Labor contracts are more flexible now, for instance.
Greece has risen from 108th before the crisis on the World Bank's ease of doing business index to 62nd — not great, but progress. If it cuts excessive regulation and bureaucracy, that might improve further.
But that might prove more difficult if Greece was no longer a part of the euro — and did not face external pressure from fellow eurozone states to modernize its economy.

Culled from AP

Friday, 3 July 2015

UK sells more of Lloyds bank stake, 12.5 billion pounds raised so far-By Matt Scuffham


A man walks past a sign outside Lloyds Banking Group's headquarters in the City of London
A man walks past a sign outside Lloyds Banking Group's headquarters in the City of London 27 February, …

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain has cut its stake in Lloyds Banking Group to below 16 percent, taking the total raised through the sale of the government's shares in the bank to more than 12.5 billion pounds ($19.5 billion).
Lloyds said on Thursday that Britain's finance ministry had reduced its stake to 15.9 percent, from 16.9 percent, in a further step towards its full privatisation which is expected next year.
The bank was rescued during the 2007-9 financial crisis at a cost of 20.5 billion pounds, leaving taxpayers with a 43 percent stake. Britain's finance ministry began selling its stake in September 2013.
The government mandated Morgan Stanley to sell its shares and its stake has been cut from 24.9 percent through the plan, which was launched last December and is due to carry on until the end of 2015.
In the past 4-1/2 months alone the government's holding has been reduced by 9 percentage points.
"I am determined to build on this success, and to continue to return Lloyds to the private sector and reduce our national debt," said finance minister George Osborne.
The government's remaining stake is worth 9.9 billion pounds at current share prices. It is expected to offer retail investors the chance to participate in an offer of several billion pounds worth of Lloyds shares next year.
(Editing by Sinead Cruise and David Holmes)

Culled from Reuters

Thursday, 2 July 2015

6 money mistakes that newlyweds make Kiplinger- By Lisa Gerstner



Wedding
Getty Images
After getting married last year, I've become familiar with the complexities of merging my finances with those of another person. Everything from filing a joint tax return to figuring out how to manage checking accounts together is a new challenge to tackle. And let's call it like it is: Most newlyweds would rather spend their free time socializing or snuggled up in front of Netflix than plotting out a financial plan.
But money affects your marriage in a big way, in terms of meshing your financial personalities and creating a secure future together. It's a downer to bring up the d word as wedding season blooms, but 56% of divorcees say that money issues contributed to their split, according to a Credit.com report. "If people talk about money as newlyweds, they may avoid some of those major issues down the line," says Aaron Hatch, a certified financial planner and co-founder of Woven Capital, in Redding, Calif.

I talked with several financial planners and other experts about money mistakes they see newlyweds make. Here are common problems, as well as tips on how to conquer each.

1. Avoiding basic money conversations.

All the experts agree that communication is crucial--and that couples should start talking about money before they tie the knot. Yet many couples focus far more on planning the wedding than mapping a financial strategy. Some questions you and your spouse should discuss: What was your family's attitude toward money as you were growing up? How do you feel about taking risks with your investments? What are your short-term and long-term financial goals? How comfortable are you with merging your bank accounts and investments? What should the budget look like?

2. Failing to address divergent attitudes about money.

If your views toward money are on opposite ends of the spectrum, take steps to meet in the middle. If one spouse prefers to save every extra penny and the other is willing to drop hundreds of dollars on gadgets or clothes without a second thought, agree on a budget that outlines how much money you'll save each month and how much is for fun. Working toward common goals--say, saving enough for a vacation to Europe--can help you stick to your budget. Keeping separate pots of money that each partner is free to use as he or she sees fit can also relieve tensions about spending.
Even if your attitudes about money are well-aligned, designate a maximum amount that each of you can spend without consulting your partner, suggests Susan Carlisle, a certified public accountant in Los Angeles. If you're on a tight budget, maybe that amount is $50 to $100; if cash is more readily available, the threshold may be a few hundred dollars or more.

3. Leaving one partner in the dark about household finances.

If you love crunching numbers and your spouse cringes at the sight of a spreadsheet, then it makes sense for you to manage the budget and fill out the tax return. But that doesn't mean your spouse should be clueless. If one partner pays the bills and makes trades in the brokerage accounts, the other should review those accounts and actions, says Marcio Silveira, a certified financial planner and founder of Pavlov Financial Planning, in Arlington, Va.
Make a regular appointment--say, every month or quarter--to go over your finances together and discuss whether you're staying on track. Give yourselves a reason to look forward to it by going out for coffee or cracking open a bottle of your favorite wine, suggests David Weliver, founding editor of finance blog Money Under 30. It's also a good idea to keep a master list of account information, such as usernames and passwords, that both partners can access in case the person who usually manages an account is unable to do so.

4. Spending too much on a house.

When you and your spouse combine incomes, your newly increased purchasing power may tempt you to shop for the priciest house (or car or other big purchase) you can afford. (You deserve to have a swimming pool!) But instead of dropping most of each of your paychecks on a new home, aim for a monthly payment that's about 25% of your monthly income, suggests Andrew McFadden, a certified financial planner and founder of Panoramic Financial Advice, in Fresno, Calif.
If you spend a lot more than that on your home, "you lock yourself into a lifestyle that doesn't give you much flexibility down the road," says Kitrina Wright, a certified public accountant and cofounder of UniteWright, an Indianapolis financial planning firm for young couples. Think about the future. Do you plan to have kids? Do you or your spouse want to pursue a graduate degree or start a business? Will your hypothetical kids wind up going to college? If you want to keep any of those options open, you need to have the cash flow available to support them.

5. Hiding or ignoring credit and debt issues.

Whether couples purposely veil information or simply forget to grant full disclosure, they often neglect to share information about their debts, says Charles Donalies, a certified financial planner and founder of Donalies Financial Planning, in Washington, D.C. Though it can be uncomfortable to tell your partner that you're paying off a pile of credit card debt or that your credit score is in the doldrums, getting it all on the table is best both for your finances and for building trust in your relationship.
Review all your debts, and decide how you'll repay them. Some financial experts say that although one person may be bringing debts into the relationship, they become the responsibility of both partners once they marry. And it may make the most sense for your overall balance sheet to direct as much of both of your incomes as possible toward shrinking the debt. For example, paying off credit card debt with an 18% interest rate is more beneficial than investing money in the stock market and getting a return of 8% to 12%, says Silveira.
Check your credit reports together to get a handle on what accounts each of you has and to spot any problems, such as debts listed that aren't yours (it could be a sign of fraud or an error on the lender's part). You can each get a free credit report from each of the three major credit agencies--Equifax, Experian and TransUnion--once a year at www.annualcreditreport.com. Check your credit scores, too. Credit.com, CreditSesame.com and CreditKarma.com all offer free credit scores that will give you an idea of where you stand.

6. Being underprepared for the worst.

Few of us want to think about what would happen if we died or became incapacitated. But preparing for such situations can save a lot of headaches during a difficult time. After they get married, couples often forget to update the beneficiaries on retirement accounts, such as IRAs and 401(k)s, as well as any life insurance policies they have. By law, a spouse is the automatic beneficiary for most 401(k) and other workplace plans, unless you indicate otherwise. But you'll have to designate your spouse as an IRA beneficiary. Whether you want the money to go to your spouse when you die, make sure you update the accounts and policies, as necessary.
Couples should also compose wills and advance medical directives (such as living wills and health care powers of attorney) that state their wishes. It's often best to consult an attorney, but online templates at such sites as Nolo.com and LegalZoom.com may do the job if your estate plan is simple.

Culled from Kiplinger