US default, China decoupling hang heavy over Hiroshima

TOKYO — Japan’s decision to hold this weekend’s Group of Seven (G-7) summit in Hiroshima is appearing more and more “on the nose” with each passing day.

Worries that Russia might use nuclear weapons on Ukraine were part of Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s calculus in choosing the city that was the first military target of such armaments in human history. Since that call, though, two economic nuclear options have emerged to fuel a bull market in Hiroshima symbolism.

One is the default drama that risks restoring the US to developing nation status. Republicans toying with financial Armageddon have US President Joe Biden truncating his Asia trip, scrapping stops in Australia and Papua New Guinea.

The other is how to play the China “decoupling” dynamic threatening to blow up world markets — and the Global South nations that host Kishida is inviting to the G-7. Along with Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the US, Japan has invited leaders from India, Brazil, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and African Union and Pacific Islands nations.

Yet try as they may to send a clear message of unity versus China, G7 officials are likely to find that domestic disunity undermines any grand pronouncements, let alone bold joint actions.

Biden is sure to confront a torrent of questions about default risks. In just a matter of weeks, says US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Washington will run out of cash. If so, all hell would break loose for every economy represented in Hiroshima – and those far beyond.

“If it does ultimately default on US Treasuries this would undermine the integrity of the world’s most popular ‘risk-free’ asset used in central bank reserves, low-risk private investments and as collateral,” says economist Will Denyer at Gavekal Research. “It would disrupt the global financial system and undermine the reserve status of dollar-denominated assets.”

Between Japan, China and other major Asian holders of US government debt, this region is sitting on somewhere near US$3.5 trillion of Treasuries. Yet Asia’s real exposure is its trade-reliant economies, which would be completely upended by the resulting surge in global bond yields, plunging share prices and gyrating exchange rates.

Even just the risk of the US missing a bond payment would do monumental damage. Joseph Abate, strategist at Barclays Plc, thinks US coffers might dip below $50 billion between June 5 and June 15. “Even this amount is too close for comfort a week or so ahead of mid-June tax date,” Abate says.

Adding to the dramas facing the G-7, this is a 100% self-inflicted threat to the global system manufactured in Washington by craven US lawmakers.

Craven: US Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy could soon preside over the first ever US debt default. Image: CNN Screengrab

Sushil Wadhwani, chief investment officer at PGIM Wadhwani, notes that “in an increasingly polarized environment, politicians will need to see significant market turbulence in order to reach an agreement.”

As such, Wadhwani adds, “there’s a concern that the market is being complacent and that investors could be in for a sudden shock. Investors would not want to see unexpected fiscal tightening at a time when the risks of a US recession are already rising, and the possibility of a hard landing is increasing.”

All this plays right into China’s hands. To be sure, Chinese leader Xi Jinping won’t welcome how a US default derails his economy’s ability to meet this year’s 5% growth target. Nor would Beijing be happy suffering epic losses on the $865 million worth of US Treasury securities it owns.

Yet Kishida’s Japan would lose more on its $1.1 trillion of US government debt. And by playing Russian roulette with America’s credit rating again, the Republicans led by US House of Representative Speaker Kevin McCarthy would make Xi’s case for him that the global economy needs an alternative to the dollar.

“Again,” because the last time Republicans played games with raising the debt ceiling on Washington’s ability to borrow, in 2011, Standard & Poor’s yanked away its AAA credit rating.

As this reckless game plays out anew, Xi’s pro-yuan lobbying effort gets that much easier. If not the yuan, perhaps a “BRICS” currency, as Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and other anti-dollar-hegemony factions join forces.

One could argue decoupling efforts are a nuclear option all their own. The trade wars that former president Donald Trump launched against China from 2017 to 2021 disrupted US-China dynamics plenty. But Biden’s surgical focus on Chinese companies’ access to vital technology – and US prodding of allies to join in – accelerated the decoupling train.

This weekend’s stop in Hiroshima is an opportunity to gain broader clarity on what would constitute an economic divorce from China Inc and, more importantly, how to do it without wrecking Asia’s 2023 and beyond. Even the basic terminology is complicated, with some G-7 members and other leaders visiting Hiroshima favoring “de-risking” phraseology.

Biden’s White House has ambitious plans for the weekend. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “the US and its allies are poised to increase pressure on China” with “an expected joint statement rejecting use of economic retaliation against nations over policy disputes and other disagreements.”

The WSJ adds that “the anticipated statement isn’t expected to mention any country by name” but “comes as concerns mount among the US and its allies over Beijing’s increasing use of what its critics call ‘economic coercion’ to show its displeasure with other countries.”

US-China decoupling’ is gathering pace as global nations are pressured to take sides. Image: iStock

A wrinkle that few saw coming is how Europe’s position toward China has in many ways become more adversarial than Biden’s. This might open an opportunity for the US to take something of a middle ground. Even so, leaders of the largest and mid-size industrialized economies will find severing commercial ties with China all but impossible.

Even just discerning where G-7 economies end and China begins will be a Herculean task. Chatter about reshoring industry, ring-fencing supply chains and tech self-sufficiency makes for great politics but precarious economics from Washington to Berlin to Tokyo.

Yet a recent report from S&P Global Ratings calls the process “unavoidable” despite the growing knowledge that it “will be costly” for the global economy.

“Global tech’s transition away from China will strain efficiencies and may consume much management focus over the next three to five years,” argues S&P credit analyst Hins Li. “Moreover, firms that move capacity out of China risk losing some access to that market, which many entities rely on for much of their growth.”

Nevertheless, Li points out, all available data show that the tech industry’s biggest global players are loosening their China ties. The catalysts range from China’s production disruptions amid Covid-19, geopolitical tension and a sharp escalation in curbs on tech exports. This generated a bull market in “concentration risk” in boardrooms around the globe.

In its report, S&P zeroes in on global laptop production. In 2021, China’s share of global laptop production topped 80%. By 2025, S&P thinks that share will fall by at least 10-20 percentage points. This will be a direct result of tech’s biggest names redistributing manufacturing capacity out of Xi’s economy.

For handsets, S&P estimates China’s share of production will drop by between 5 percentage points and 15 percentage points by 2025. The proportion of iPhones that Apple Inc makes in China will drop as rivals like India raise their manufacturing games. S&P notes that India’s iPhone industry will likely at least double by 2025. That compared to today’s mid-single digit percentage of total production.

“Spreading out operations won’t be as efficient as utilizing giant factories in China, which maximize economies of scale and draw on existing robust supplier networks, infrastructure, and talent pools,” S&P writes. “Some companies may retain redundant capacity in China in case they encounter production hiccups while ramping up new sites.”

Even so, this weekend’s G-7 talks are just as likely to get bogged down in petty infighting and a torrent of sideline topics that leaders will bring to Hiroshima. In addition to Biden’s debt default nightmare, French President Emmanuel Macron faces public outrage back home over steps to raise the national retirement age from 62 to 64 later this year.

Macron’s team, meantime, is feuding with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, which it has called a “far-right government” with a policy mix “incapable of fixing Italy’s migration problems.”

Ukraine says it needs bigger and better weapons to defeat Russia. Image: Twitter / New Statesman

The G-7 confab also comes as Ukraine seeks additional aid, both financial and military, and Russia continues to dig in for the long haul. Along with worries about Vladimir Putin’s threats to use tactical nukes in the conflict, G-7 leaders are sure to be questioned about how Moscow’s economy is skating around global sanctions quarter after quarter. Support for Taiwan will come up early and often, too.

Also likely to come up in G-7 discussions and press conferences: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s political survival instincts ahead of a May 28 runoff election. This drama in Turkey, a NATO member, will matter greatly for the course of everything from Russia-Ukraine dynamics to the state of play in the Middle East.

Still, the 800-pound gorilla in the room during any of these discussions will be the default insanity following Team Biden at every turn. Defusing that existential threat to global stability 7,000 miles away in Washington will be easier said than done.

Follow William Pesek on Twitter at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

War rooms and bailouts: How US is preparing for a default

Convening war rooms, planning speedy bailouts and raising house-on-fire alarm bells: Those are a few of the ways the biggest banks and financial regulators are preparing for a potential default on US debt.

“You hope it doesn’t happen, but hope is not a strategy – so you prepare for it,” Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, the nation’s second-biggest lender, said in a television interview.

The doomsday planning is a reaction to a lack of progress in talks between President Joe Biden and House Republicans over raising the US$31.4 trillion debt ceiling – another round of negotiations took place on May 16, 2023.

Without an increase in the debt limit, the US can’t borrow more money to cover its bills – all of which have already been agreed to by Congress – and in practical terms that means a default.

What happens if a default occurs is an open question, but economists – including me – generally expect financial chaos as access to credit dries up and borrowing costs rise quickly for companies and consumers.

A severe and prolonged global economic recession would be all but guaranteed, and the reputation of the US and the dollar as beacons of stability and safety would be further tarnished.

But how do you prepare for an event that many expect would trigger the worst global recession since the 1930s?

‘Default doomscrolling’ again, Mr. Powell? Photo: Kimimasa Mayama / Pool Photo via AP / The Conversation

Preparing for panic

Jamie Dimon, who runs JPMorgan Chase, the biggest US bank, told Bloomberg he’s been convening a weekly war room to discuss a potential default and how the bank should respond. The meetings are likely to become more frequent as June 1 – the date on which the US might run out of cash – nears.

Dimon described the wide range of economic and financial effects that the group must consider such as the impact on “contracts, collateral, clearing houses, clients” – basically every corner of the financial system – at home and abroad.

“I don’t think it’s going to happen — because it gets catastrophic, and the closer you get to it, you will have panic,” he said.

That’s when rational decision-making gives way to fear and irrationality. Markets overtaken by these emotions are chaotic and leave lasting economic scars.

Banks haven’t revealed many of the details of how they are responding, but we can glean some clues from how they’ve reacted to past crises, such as the financial crisis in 2008 or the debt ceiling showdowns of 2011 and 2013.

One important way banks can prepare is by reducing exposure to Treasury securities – some or all of which could be considered to be in default once the U.S. exhausts its ability to pay all of its bill. All US debts are referred to as Treasury bills or bonds.

The value of Treasurys is likely to plunge in the case of a default, which could weaken bank balance sheets even more. The recent bank crisis, in fact, was prompted primarily by a drop in the market value of Treasurys due to the sharp rise in interest rates over the past year. And a default would only make that problem worse, with close to 190 banks at risk of failure as of March 2023.

Another strategy banks can use to hedge their exposure to a sell-off in Treasurys is to buy credit default swaps, financial instruments that allow an investor to offset credit risk. Data suggests this is already happening, as the cost to protect US government debt from default is higher than that of Brazil, Greece and Mexico, all of which have defaulted multiple times and have much lower credit ratings.

But buying credit default swaps at ever-higher prices limits a third key preventive measure for banks: keeping their cash balances as high as possible so they’re able and ready to deal with whatever happens in a default.

Four white men sit on white couches in a large office filled with presidential portraits.
Little has come out of fiscal negotiations between Mitch McConnell, left, Kevin McCarthy, second from left, President Joe Biden, second from right, and Chuck Schumer. Photo: AP via The Conversation / Evan Vucci

Keeping the financial plumbing working

Financial industry groups and financial regulators have also gamed out a potential default with an eye toward keeping the financial system running as best they can.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, for example, has been updating its playbook to dictate how players in the Treasurys market will communicate in case of a default.

And the Federal Reserve, which is broadly responsible for ensuring financial stability, has been pondering a US default for over a decade. One such instance came in 2013, when Republicans demanded the elimination of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Ultimately, Republicans capitulated and raised the limit one day before the U.S. was expected to run out of cash.

One of the biggest concerns Fed officials had at the time, according to a meeting transcript recently made public, is that the US Treasury would no longer be able to access financial markets to “roll over” maturing debt.

While hitting the current ceiling prevents the US from issuing new debt that exceeds $31.4 trillion, the government still has to roll existing debt into new debt as it comes due. On May 15, 2023, for example, the government issued just under $100 billion in notes and bonds to replace maturing debt and raise cash.

The risk is that there would be too few buyers at one of the government’s daily debt auctions – at which investors from around the world bid to buy Treasury bills and bonds. If that happens, the government would have to use its cash on hand to pay back investors who hold maturing debt.

That would further reduce the amount of cash available for Social Security payments, federal employees wages and countless other items the government spent over $6 trillion on in 2022. This would be nothing short of apocalyptic if the Fed could not save the day.

To mitigate that risk, the Fed said it could could immediately step in as a buyer of last resort for Treasurys, quickly lower its lending rates and provide whatever funding is needed in an attempt to prevent financial contagion and collapse. The Fed is likely having the same conversations and preparing similar actions today.

A self-imposed catastrophe

Ultimately, I hope that Congress does what it has done in every previous debt ceiling scare: raise the limit.

These contentious debates over lifting it have become too commonplace, even as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle express concerns about the growing federal debt and the need to rein in government spending.

Even when these debates result in some bipartisan effort to rein in spending, as they did in 2011, history shows they fail, as energy analyst Autumn Engebretson and I recently explained in a review of that episode.

That’s why one of the most important ways banks are preparing for such an outcome is by speaking out about the serious damage not raising the ceiling is likely to inflict on not only their companies but everyone else, too. This increases the pressure on political leaders to reach a deal.

Going back to my original question, how do you prepare for such a self-imposed catastrophe? The answer is, no one should have to.

John W Diamond is Director of the Center for Public Finance at the Baker Institute, Rice University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

In Taiwan, former UK PM Truss warns against appeasing China

TAIPEI: Former British prime minister Liz Truss will say in Taiwan on Wednesday (May 16) that the West must avoid appeasing China and show unwavering support for the self-governed island, in a speech that risks further damaging Britain’s relations with Beijing. Truss is the most well-known British politician to visitContinue Reading

China’s great bond market opening leap forward

Beijing regulators are leaning into a seven-week rally in China’s sovereign bond market by widening access to onshore interest-rate swaps. Yet what sounds like a rather technical turn of the screw is a huge and timely reform win for institutional investors keen on trading Asia’s biggest economy.

“Timely,” because it coincides with Group of Seven (G7) members heading to Hiroshima, Japan to contain any number of financial troubles. They include runaway inflation, failing Western banks, the specter of a US default and desperate attempts to woo Global South countries.

In China, though, the vibe is more about opening a recovering financial system to global investors hungry for growth and higher-yielding assets as the post-Covid-19 trade gains momentum.

Here, the new “Swap Connect” program between China and Hong Kong is wisely timed. It opens the way for overseas funds to access derivatives vital to hedging bets in China’s bond market. The dearth of hedging tools has long turned off the biggest of the big money.

The swap scheme will enable punters to deal in key money-market rates tied closely to People’s Bank of China (PBoC) policies. This will likely deepen institutional investors’ involvement in China markets, building on the existing Bond Connect plan. The move dovetails with a powerful bond rally driven by expectations that the central bank will add more liquidity this year.

For Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Swap Connect helps fulfill a pledge to open mainland capital markets to international funds. It turns the page, to some extent, from the regulatory crackdowns of 2020 and 2021. It also reminds top investment banks that geopolitical turbulence between Beijing and Washington isn’t getting in the way of market reforms.

The program “will be a huge leap forward in developing the domestic derivatives and bond markets,” says Rose Zhu, chief China country officer at Deutsche Bank, which Beijing named as a key market maker for Swap Connect.

“Leveraging our cross-border strengths, we look forward to playing an active role in helping international investors get a head start via Swap Connect” and “helping accelerate the opening up of China’s financial markets and RMB internationalization.”

Monish Tahilramani, head of Asia Pacific markets at HSBC, says the hedging tool marks “an important complement to Bond Connect and a positive sign that onshore markets continue to open up.”

It’s not that simple, of course. Nicolas Aguzin, CEO of Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, is absolutely right to call Swap Connect “the latest chapter in our ‘connect’ story.”

The reference here is to Xi’s habit of connecting markets to Hong Kong’s first-world system to increase China’s financial street cred. First it was Stock Connect, then Bond Connect. Now, Swap Connect rounds out Xi’s regional ambitions.

Yet the question is whether this time financial reforms will keep pace with rising investor optimism? Or will this be another episode of China over-promising and under-delivering?

Li Qiang is promising big market reforms. Image: Screengrab / NDTV

New Premier Li Qiang has signaled the former. Since March, when he formally took over as Xi’s No 2, Li seems to have hit the brakes on the tech company crackdown that in recent years has sent foreign capital fleeing.

In March, for example, Li said that “for a period of time last year, there were some incorrect discussions and comments in the society, which made some private entrepreneurs feel worried.

“From a new starting point, we will create a market-oriented, legalized and internationalized business environment, treat enterprises of all types of ownership equally, protect the property rights of enterprises and the rights and interests of entrepreneurs.”

The plan, Li explained, is to “promote fair competition among various business entities and support the development and growth of private enterprises” and to “shore up” investor confidence.

Hence the importance of Swap Connect. It’s equally important, though, that Li’s reform team ensures that China follows through this time.

Earlier episodes of market opening saw Xi’s government putting the proverbial cart before the horse. In 2014, for example, the Stock Connect program lured tidal waves of capital but steps lagged to increase transparency, level playing fields and reduce limits on yuan convertibility.

The same with Bond Connect in 2017. Regulatory upgrades lagged as capital zoomed in. In between there, in 2016, China gained access to the International Monetary Fund’s “special drawing-rights” program.

That came after years of lobbying by former PBoC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan. The yuan’s inclusion in the IMF’s club of reserve currencies along with the dollar, euro, yen and the pound signaled China was achieving prime-time status.

Unfortunately, seven years on, the yuan still isn’t fully convertible. That’s limiting the yuan’s appeal as a rival to the dollar — even as the US government does its worst to damage the reserve currency’s credibility.

Part of the problem, though, is what this state of affairs says about Xi’s first 10 years in power: China doesn’t trust markets to decide the yuan’s value. If so, the thinking goes, why would investors trust Team Xi?

Still, the Swap Connect narrative is a powerful one if Li can reinvigorate the reform process as Xi’s third term heats up. It’s a “northbound” trading system enabling dealing in mainland yuan-denominated contracts with a net cap of 20 billion yuan (US$2.9 billion) per day. Next, a “southbound” channel might be added from China to Hong Kong.

As Hong Kong’s Chief Executive John Lee said this week: “The new scheme will strengthen Hong Kong’s role as an offshore yuan trading center and as a risk-management center.”

Julia Leung, CEO of the Securities and Futures Commission, added that Swap Connect “deepens connectivity between mainland and overseas capital markets and bolsters Hong Kong’s position as a risk-management hub.”

In a note to clients, HSBC argued that “compared to offshore interest-rate swaps, onshore interest-rate swaps are less volatile and correlate better with onshore bond yields. This makes onshore interest rate swaps more efficient interest rate hedges of onshore bonds. The other benefit of entering the onshore swap market is having access to SHIBOR interest rate swaps, which are rarely quoted in the offshore market.”

China has big plans to rein in local government debt. Image: Screengrab / CNBC

HSBC analyst Candy Ho notes that “Swap Connect has immediate value for global investors and is a timely move in China’s ongoing commitment to its markets opening up.” She adds it will make “participating in the world’s second-largest fixed-income market more attractive by introducing a central clearing model and providing better access to the deep onshore liquidity in financial derivatives markets.”

A deep and vibrant bond market is needed to finance everything from the growth of the private sector to adjust to an aging and shrinking population to funding bigger social safety nets so China can pivot to a consumption-led growth model. Beijing is expected to rack up a record 3.88 trillion yuan ($557 billion) deficit this year.

A more resilient debt market would help PBoC Governor Yi Gang’s team gain greater traction when it tweaks monetary policy. The odds of more assertive PBoC easing may have increased Tuesday with news that retail sales, industrial output and fixed investment expanded much less than hoped in April. The youth unemployment rate meanwhile hit a record high of 20.4%.

“China’s activity indicators missed expectations by a wide margin even with a favorable base,” says economist Xiangrong Yu at Citigroup. “With China now out of the sweet spot of reopening, hope of further sentiment repair could be diminishing in the absence of decisive government actions.”

Such trends may be more positive for Chinese bonds than stocks in the short-to-medium term. And here, news that Beijing is stepping up efforts to develop a more developed bond market to provide the economy with a bigger shock absorber if global markets go awry will bolster confidence. The ability to hedge is an important step in that direction.

The new risk-hedging instrument is being introduced just as rising US interest rates put foreign outflow pressure on China’s bond market, with overseas funds cutting their holdings by $169 billion over the past five quarters. At the same time, global investors still own 10 times as many of the securities as they did a decade ago.

Before May 15, Beijing only allowed foreign funds to access onshore interest-rate swaps via the China Interbank Bond Market framework. Swap Connect vastly broadens access at a moment when G7 members are giving investors reasons to seek opportunities elsewhere – not least China.

Follow William Pesek on Twitter at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Exchanging views on crypto: Exclusive interview with Coinhako’s co-founder and CEO, Yusho Liu | cryptocurrency, crypto, coinhako, founder, exclusive interview, yusho liu, singapore, digital assets | FinanceAsia

From the fallout of FTX in November 2022, to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and other US lenders associated with start-up clients, the last few months have been challenging for the crypto industry.

Singapore-based cryptocurrency exchange, Coinhako, however, remains optimistic in terms of its industry outlook as sector participants focus on “rebuilding trust and faith” across the digital asset universe.

Coinhako was conceptualised in 2014 and started off as a bitcoin wallet service for Singaporeans. Today, it is a multi-currency trading platform for cryptocurrencies and is licensed, regulated and headquartered in the city-state.

Receiving its Major Payment Institution licence from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in May 2022, the firm is one of nine financial institutions in the market permitted to provide Digital Payment Token (DPT) services.

Confident about Singapore’s future as a Web3 hub, its team wants to play a part in growing the market’s ecosystem. To do so, the company founders recently launched Berru.co, a separate entity that seeks to support Web3 start-ups as they navigate setting up in the city.

In this interview, Coinhako’s co-founder and CEO, Yusho Liu speaks to FinanceAsia about the challenges faced by the crypto industry; the future of Singapore as a digital asset hub; and where exactly the company has its sights set on next.

Excerpts from the interview have been edited for clarity and brevity.

FA: What’s your take on the cryptocurrency market and what developments are you focussed on?

2023 is the year of reset. With the developments of the last few months and bad actors bringing the industry back several steps, we need to rebuild trust and faith in the sector.

Beyond this, we are seeing more regulatory clarity from the likes of the Hong Kong and EU authorities, which paves the way for Asia and Europe to lead when it comes to innovation in the space.

Given that Washington’s current regulatory environment is less hospitable – coupled with the issues faced by the wider US tech industry, it will be challenging for innovation to emerge from the market.

FA: Was Coinhako exposed to any of the US banks that recently collapsed?

We had zero exposure to Silvergate and SVB. We did have some exposure to Signature Bank, but no money parked there. The collapse of these banks has affected many companies but thankfully, our strongest banking relationships are based in Asia.

FA: Is Coinhako looking to raise funds to expand further? How do you view the fundraising environment?

Overall, global and regional venture capital (VC) firms have poured record amounts of money into Southeast Asian technology companies because they consider them to be at the next frontier of growth and these countries have shown very high rates of adoption and interest in digital assets. They have focussed less on companies based in more mature, traditional markets, such as the US, Europe, China, South Korea or Japan.

However, it is currently a challenging climate and investments into crypto start-ups or in the broader technology space have slowed down. While we are continuing conversations with investors, we do not think this is the right timing or environment in which to be actively fundraising.

FA: Do you have any expansion plans?

We do have plans to expand, but this year our focus is on embedding deeper into Singapore, because we think the city-state is going to be a relevant crypto hub, regardless of what the rest of the world is doing.

We see a lot of Web3 founders building a nexus in the market. There is an influx of start-ups looking to establish their presence in Singapore and we’ve set up a separate, professional advisory entity, Berru.co, to support them. Since inception this year, we’ve connected with 10 or more clients and hope to grow this multi-fold further down the road.

Drawing on Coinhako’s experience since entering the market in 2014, we want to help founders navigate the crypto landscape. We’ve done the legwork and we know what works and what doesn’t – whether that be related to finance, accounting, tax or legal considerations. This is in line with Singapore’s status as a hub, and as such, we want to make sure that companies can develop easily. A bad user experience would likely make these founders consider going elsewhere.

FA: Where else in Asia do you see opportunity?

We are watching developments in Hong Kong, with the government having recently come up with a crypto framework to foster growth in the industry. But Hong Kong is just one of the markets we’re looking at for expansion, alongside other countries in Southeast Asian and the broader Asia region.

Coinhako has a domicile-registered licence in Singapore and the beauty of being based here, is that we can use it as a centre from which to reach the rest of the region.

FA: What’s your view on Singapore’s future as a crypto hub, given that many peers have relocated to Dubai?

I’ve always said that time will tell the story.

Dubai was a hot spot when its authorities announced updated licensing frameworks. But I think that, to date, we haven’t really seen or heard much about crypto exchanges moving to the market, except for Bybit, that is trying to establish global headquarters there.

The reality is that Dubai is a regional hub for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), but if you’re trying to establish a global or Asian base, Singapore might be more suitable.

FA: Is Dubai perceived to be friendlier from a regulatory perspective, compared to Singapore?

I think it’s important to differentiate between what people say, versus what people do.

From our perspective, we don’t see many licensed entities going to Dubai, but we’re seeing unlicensed entities go there to try to obtain a licence.

FA: How optimistic are you about the growth of the Web3 and crypto industries in Asia?

We remain optimistic about the growth of the Web3 sector, in general. Yes, the industry is volatile, but most nascent industries are.

Of course, where money is involved, so too will there be bad actors. And indeed, we are seeing more overlap between the tech and finance industries.

However, as long as builders continue to come in to develop purposeful technology and applications – and good people enter the space, we remain positive.
 

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Biden taps communicator to replace Milley

US President Joe Biden has reportedly picked the charismatic US Air Force General Charles Q Brown to replace the all-but-disgraced chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Army General Mark A Milley.

Brown will become Biden’s top military adviser, whose mission will be to help achieve an unambiguous victory of Ukraine over Russia and deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

YouTube video

[embedded content]

US Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Q Brown Jr speaks to Capitol Intelligence/CI Ukraine on Ukraine and China threats at The Brookings Institution and The National Press Club in Washington, DC.

The decision by President Biden to pick Brown over a traditional military strategist such as Marine Commandant General David H Berger underlines what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has shown the world: Communication defeats brute military strength.

Brown, a black fighter pilot, never hesitates to recount how differently he was treated versus an archetype, Tom Cruise, in the Hollywood blockbuster Top Gun/Maverick and notes that in real life, only 2% of US fighter pilots are black.

“I’m thinking about my Air Force career where I was often the only African-American in my squadron or, as a senior officer, the only African-American in the room. I’m thinking about wearing the same flight suit with the same wings on my chest as my peers, and then being questioned by another military member, ‘Are you a pilot?’” Brown said in an interview with Defense One.

Brown, unlike Milley, is a maverick, having become the first black to be Chief of Staff of the US Air Force and then the second chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after the late US secretary of state General Colin Powell.

Brown matches his words with actions. He’s currently organizing a monument dedicated to the Tuskegee Airmen, the black fighter aces of World War II later immortalized by George Lucas’ film Red Tails, at the Ramitelli Airfield in Campo Marino in the southern Italian region of Molise and the political heartland of the now pro-American, pro-Ukraine Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

YouTube video

[embedded content]

Tuskegee Airman William T Fauntroy Jr speaks to Capitol Intelligence/BBN using CI Glass on Tuskegee Airmen and his and brother, Pastor Walter Fauntroy’s, experiences with Dr Martin Luther King on October 26, 2018.

The Tuskegee pilots are a living symbols of the sacrifice and heroism black Americans have given to the United States in all its wars. Living Tuskegee Airmen include William T Fauntroy, brother of a key Martin Luther King supporter, the Reverend Walter Fauntroy, while the late Emmett John Rice was father of former White House national security adviser and now domestic policy adviser to Biden, Susan Rice. 

Not only does Brown front USAF recruiting ads but he shakes up the chain of command by acting as an “undercover boss” by engaging in no-holds-barred conversations with enlisted ranks whenever he visits US Air Force bases, to the great chagrin of the accompanying brass.

Brown is fully aware that he must be effective in the near term in Ukraine and Taiwan to prevent the US arms industry from pushing Congress to balloon military spending to levels not seen since World War II.

Major US defense groups such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamic have spared no expense on lobbying Congress that the United States needs to re-create a new “industrial military complex” – producing arms for arms’ sake as criticized by the late president Dwight Eisenhower – so that in the next two years the military will have enough weapons to challenge China and defeat Russia in a new world war.

YouTube video

[embedded content]

Leonardo DRS CEO William J Lynn III filmed by Capitol Intelligence/CI Ukraine using CI Glass discussing opportunities for defense collaboration in light of the Russo-Ukrainian war at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on April 5, 2023.

Such a military buildup risks in effect bankrupting the United States, but would be little help to Ukraine’s efforts to defeat Russia this year and probably not arrive in time for an eventual ground war with China.

Instead, Brown can use his power as presidential adviser to have President Biden order defense companies either to acquire private-sector Ukrainian arms companies or create joint-venture companies, as Germany’s Rheinmetall AG did with Ukraine’s state defense holding Ukroboronprom, which envages an initial US$200 million investment to build and repair Panther KF51 battle tanks in Ukraine.

The White House and Congress can effectively force other European arms companies dependent on US Department of Defense contracts such as Italy’s Leonardo SpA and the UK’s BAE Systems to shorten the supply chain by acquiring Ukrainian defense and dual-use companies.

South Korea also indicated its willingness to join forces with US arms companies to produce weapons for the Ukraine war and a military conflict involving China and North Korea during President Yoon Suk Yeol’s state visit with President Biden on April 26.

L3 Harris chief executive officer Chris Kubasik is also looking at taking a page from Microsoft president and vice-chairman Brad Smith in making a significant Ukraine investment to put public pressure on US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairwoman Lina Khan to approve its $4.67 billion acquisition of US rocket=fuel supplier Aerojet Rocketdyne. The takeover already has the full approval of the Pentagon.

This year Microsoft announced that it had signed a wide-ranging partnership agreement with Kiev-based Boosteroid, the world’s third-largest cloud gaming company, as part of its proposed $70 billion takeover of Activision.

YouTube video

[embedded content]

[Microsoft president and vice-chairman Brad Smith speaks to Capitol Intelligence/BBN using CI Glass on its $70 billion takeover of Activision under antitrust scrutiny by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the European Commission at the National Governors Association Winter Meeting in Washington on February 11, 2023.

In fact, Brad Smith is preparing a trip to Kiev joining Boosteroid CEO Ivan Shvaichenko to highlight the transformational partnership agreement to the world’s media and also highlight the arbitrary opposition to the Activision takeover by Lisa Khan and her “allied” authority, the UK Competition Market Authority (CMA). On Monday the European Union approved Microsoft’s takeover of Activision.

Microsoft’s footprint with Activision/Xbox in the gaming industry would be half the size of its nearest rival, Tokyo-based Sony unit PlayStation. PlayStation has spent millions upon millions to lobby Khan and the CMA to block the merger.

It will be to everyone’s benefit if General Brown can fully exploit his talent as a communicator – in the same way Zelensky has used his gift as a political satirist to unite his country – to advise Biden on how to defeat Russian aggression in Ukraine and prevent any land war with China.

Peter K Semler is the chief executive editor and founder of Capitol Intelligence. Previously, he was the Washington, DC, bureau chief for Mergermarket (Dealreporter/Debtwire) of the Financial Times and headed political and economic coverage of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Continue Reading

Winners: FinanceAsia Awards 2022-2023 Southeast Asia | awards, financeasia awards, southeast asia, sustainability, impact, esg, flagship awards, annual winners, 27th iteration | FinanceAsia

Still reeling from the effects of last year’s supply chain woes, energy disruptions and geopolitical tensions, financial markets are now also contending with the impact of consecutive interest rate hikes and uncertainty following recent banking turmoil.

While 2023 may not deliver the capital markets rebound we were all hoping for, it is worth pausing to recognise leading financial institutions that have forged through and made waves in these volatile times.

Marked progress and innovation across deals continues to demonstrate regeneration and resilience. After all, the goal posts have not changed: each of Asia’s markets is bound by net zero commitments; and digital transformation continues to drive regulatory discourse and development around emerging sectors and virtual assets. As a result, sustainability and digitisation continue to be underlying themes shaping a new paradigm for deal-making in the region. 

The FinanceAsia team invited banks, brokers and ratings agencies to showcase their capabilities to support their clients as they navigated these uncertain economic times. Our awards process celebrates those institutions that showed determination to deliver desirable outcomes, through display of commercial and technical acumen.

This year marks the 27th iteration of our FinanceAsia awards and celebrates activity that has taken place within the past year (2022).

To reflect new trends, this year we introduced an award for Biggest ESG Impact (encompassing all three elements of ESG strategy) and updated our D&I award to include equity: Most Progressive DEI Strategy.

Read on for details of the winners for Southeast Asia. Full write-ups explaining the rationale behind winner selection will be published in the summer edition of the FinanceAsia magazine, with subsequent syndication online.

Congratulations to all of our winners!

 

*** SOUTHEAST ASIA ***

CLM (CAMBODIA, LAOS, MYANMAR)
Domestic
Best Bank: Cambodian Public Bank
***

INDONESIA
Domestic
Best Bank: PT Bank Central Asia
Best Broker: PT Mirae Asset Sekuritas
Best DCM House: PT Mandiri Sekuritas
Best ECM House: PT Mandiri Sekuritas
Best ESG Impact: PT Bank Mandiri
Best Investment Bank: PT Mandiri Sekuritas
Best Sustainable Bank: PT Bank Mandiri
Most Innovative Use of Technology: PT Bank Mandiri
Most Progressive DEI: PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia

International
Best Bank: BNP Paribas
Best Investment Bank: BNP Paribas
Best Sustainable Bank: MUFG
***

MALAYSIA
Domestic
Best Bank: Public Bank Berhad
Best DCM House:
Winner: CIMB Investment Bank
Finalist: Maybank Investment Bank
Best ECM House: Maybank Investment Bank
Best ESG Impact: Public Bank Berhad
Best Investment Bank:
Winner: Maybank Investment Bank
Finalist: CIMB Investment Bank
Best Sustainable Bank:
Winner: Public Bank Berhad
Finalist: Maybank Investment Bank
Most Progressive DEI: CIMB Bank

International
Best Bank: Citi
***

PHILIPPINES
Domestic
Best Bank: BDO Unibank
Best DCM House:
Winner: BPI Capital Corporation
Finalist: China Bank Capital
Best ECM House:
Winner: First Metro Investment
Finalist: China Bank Capital
Best ESG Impact: Bank of the Philippines Islands
Best Investment Bank:
Winner: First Metro Investment Corporation
Finalist: SB Capital Investment Corporation
Best Sustainable Bank: Bank of the Philippine Islands

International
Best Bank: HSBC
Most Progressive DEI: Citi
***

SINGAPORE
Domestic
Best Bank: DBS Bank
Best Broker: CGS-CIMB Securities
Best DCM House: United Overseas Bank
Best ESG Impact: DBS Bank
Best Investment Bank: DBS Bank
Best Sustainable Bank: DBS Bank
Most Innovative Use of Technology: DBS Bank

International
Best Bank: Citi
Best Investment Bank: Citi
Best Sustainable Bank: MUFG
Most Progressive DEI: Citi
***

THAILAND
Domestic
Best Broker: InnovestX Securities Co., Ltd.
Best ECM House: Kiatnakin Phatra Securities PCL
Best DCM House: Kasikornbank
Best Investment Bank: Kiatnakin Phatra Securities PCL
Best Sustainable Bank: Bangkok Bank PCL
Most Innovative Use of Technology: InnovestX Securities Co., Ltd

International
Best Bank: HSBC
Best Investment Bank: Citi
Best Sustainable Bank: MUFG
Most Progressive DEI: Citi
***

VIETNAM
Domestic
Best Bank: Techcombank
Best Broker: SSI Securities Corporation
Best Investment Bank:
Winner: Viet Capital Securities Corporation
Finalist: SSI Securities Corporation
Best DCM House: SSI Securities Corporation
Best ECM House:
Winner: Viet Capital Securities JSC
Finalist: SSI Securities Corporation
Best ESG Impact: Saigon-Hanoi Commercial Bank
Most Innovative Use of Technology: TechcomSecurities

International
Best Bank: HSBC
Best ESG Impact: HSBC
Best Investment Bank: HSBC
Best Sustainable Bank: Citi
Most Innovative Use of Technology: HSBC

***

For other winners:

Click here to see the winners across North Asia.

Click here to see the winners across South Asia.

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

A brief, chaotic history of US debt ceiling crises

There have been numerous fiscal crises in the United States where Congress has either failed to pass a budget on time or there were doubts that the federal debt ceiling would be raised, which could cause the US to default on its debt.

These two kinds of crises can sometimes play out at the same time. A federal budget was not adopted in time, for example, and there were threats of not increasing the debt ceiling.

I worked as the deputy director of the Congressional Budget Office and the executive director of the National Governors Association, and I witnessed firsthand much of the wrangling in Congress during these crises.

Since 1976, there have been 22 shutdowns of the federal government due to lack of a federal budget.

While these were very disruptive and damaged the economy and employment, they pale in comparison to the potential effects of failing to lift the debt ceiling, which could be catastrophic. It could bring down the entire international financial system. This in turn could devastate the world gross domestic product and create mass unemployment.

Fortunately, the US has never experienced a default. The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1917 and currently stands at US$31.4 trillion.

Here are three debt-limit crises I watched play out – which not only had economic consequences, but political ones as well.

1995: A GOP revolution – and blunder

Often, a debt-limit crisis is preceded by an election that produces a major shift in who controls Congress.

In the 1994 midterm election, during President Bill Clinton’s first term, the Republicans gained eight Senate seats and 54 seats in the House, flipping both chambers. The election was seen as a Republican revolution. Bob Dole became the majority leader in the Senate, and Newt Gingrich became the speaker of the House.

GOP lawmakers pledged to pass a balanced budget as part of what they named their “Contract with America.” House Republicans sent Clinton a budget that cut spending on domestic programs, which he vetoed. This in turn led to a five-day shutdown of the federal government.

Gingrich then threatened not to increase the debt limit. A Washington Post story described the House leader’s actions as “House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) threatened yesterday to take the government into default for the first time in history unless President Clinton bows to Republican demands for a balanced budget.”

Clinton responded to the latest GOP budget offer with a second veto, which led to a longer government shutdown of 21 days.

In the end, the Republicans passed a budget offered by Clinton and also lifted the debt ceiling.

There were unique aspects to this standoff. Dole was not interested in continuing the negotiation, as he was running for president. Gingrich made comments about being snubbed by the president while traveling with him on Air Force One, and the press had a field day with those comments, linking the shutdown to the snub.

Polling increasingly showed that the Republicans were getting blamed for the shutdown – a 1995 ABC poll indicated 46% blamed the Republicans and only 27% blamed the Democrats.

YouTube video

[embedded content]

The press and Democratic lawmakers made fun of House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s pique at what he said was a presidential snub.

2011: Budget reductions and reforms, with a side of financial chaos

As in 1995, the 2011 crisis happened after an election and a major power shift on Capitol Hill.

The election of 2010, in the middle of President Barack Obama’s first term, saw the Republicans gain seven Senate seats, but not yet a majority, and a net gain of 63 House seats, making the GOP the majority. The House then demanded that Obama negotiate a deficit reduction package in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

As the deadline for increasing the debt limit approached, both the U.S. domestic and even international financial markets became chaotic. The S&P 500 fell by 17% and bond rates spiked. On August 5, 2011, the Standard and Poor’s rating agency reduced the rating for long-term U.S government debt, which could result in higher interest rates on that debt.

On July 31, 2011, only two days before the US government ran out of money, an agreement was reached between Congress and Obama that, once enacted, became the Budget Control Act of 2011. It reduced spending over the following 10 years by $917 billion and authorized raising the debt ceiling to $2.1 trillion.

The act also included several budget reforms – a concession to Republicans by Obama and the Democrats – including creating a congressional joint select committee to make recommendations on deficit reduction. It also included an automatic provision to cut the budget should Congress fail to act.

2013: ‘We got nothing’

A middle-aged man in a suit, standing in front of several US flags with his eyes closed, looking glum.
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, on Oct. 8, 2013, the eighth day of a government shutdown over the debt limit crisis. Photo: Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images / The Conversation

In January 2013, the debt ceiling that was established in 2011 was hit and the Treasury Department began extraordinary actions to continue funding necessary spending.

This included not paying into retirement funds of federal workers and borrowing from trust funds such as Social Security.

Treasury told Congress that those extraordinary measures to avoid default would be exhausted by mid-October 2013, and the debt limit would be reached then, meaning the US could not borrow any more money to pay its bills.

At the same time, Republicans, who controlled the House, had demanded budget cuts as well as policy changes. They wanted Obama to eliminate the funding for his Affordable Care Act, which was considered his major legislative achievement.

The government was shut down once more, for 16 days. Again, public support for the Republican approach began to erode. That led the GOP to capitulate and adopt a budget that did not include significant cuts, and raised the debt ceiling, all in a vote the day before the government was slated to run out of money.

We got nothing,” said conservative Republican Representative Thomas Massie from Kentucky.

Risks to both sides

It is difficult to predict how the 2023 potential crisis over the debt limit will be resolved – each crisis is unique and depends on the specific leaders on both sides as well as how the public reacts to the crisis.

History indicates there are substantial risks to both parties as well as their respective leaders as the nation heads for the early June showdown. The 1995 crisis did not benefit Republicans, and some even argue it contributed to Clinton winning reelection.

In 2011, I would argue that the Republicans gained substantial budget reduction and budget reform concessions from Democrats. But lack of support for the Republican position in 2013 saw them concede.

The 2023 crisis that is unfolding is like 1995 and 2011 in that it was preceded by an election that flipped the House majority. But it differs substantially in the size of that majority. With only a four-seat majority, the risks to the Republican leadership are high.

If this standoff is long and financial markets react as they did in earlier crises, the stakes for the two parties and their respective two leaders are huge and will grow over time. This could well affect President Joe Biden’s reelection and the longevity of the current Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy.

Raymond Scheppach is Professor of Public Policy, University of Virginia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading