More stories

  • in

    With few new cars on lots, U.S. auto sales likely fell sharply in the first quarter, analysts say

    U.S. new-vehicle sales from January through March were likely below 3.3 million, down over 14% from the first quarter of 2021, industry analysts say.
    The decline is a supply issue: Automakers continue to face production disruptions amid a global shortage of semiconductors.
    Edmunds expects General Motors, Honda and Nissan to report first-quarter sales declines of 20% or more, with Ford faring only slightly better.

    New Jeeps are displayed at a car dealership on October 05, 2021 in New York City.
    Spencer Platt | Getty Images

    Automakers will likely report sharp sales declines for March and the first quarter, industry analysts say, as an ongoing shortage of new vehicles has left car-shoppers with few – and often expensive – choices.
    U.S. auto sales forecasts from Cox Automotive, Edmunds, and J.D. Power/LMC Automotive say that first-quarter sales of cars, pickup trucks and SUVs were likely below 3.3 million, down more than 14% from the first quarter of 2021.

    For some automakers, the declines may be even worse. Edmunds expects General Motors, Honda, Nissan, and Volkswagen to report year-over-year sales declines of more than 20% for the first quarter, with Ford faring only slightly better.
    But while sales are falling, prices are rising: TrueCar analysts said that the average selling price of a new vehicle in the U.S. likely rose 15.4% in March from a year ago, to nearly $43,500.
    Consumer concerns about inflation – including higher gas and vehicle prices – likely played a role in the quarter’s projected sales decline, which includes an expected drop of at least 24% in March. But the biggest factor is the thin supply of new vehicles amid a global shortage of semiconductor chips.

    “Skyrocketing gas prices were top of mind for consumers in March, but the lack of inventory is what ultimately depressed new vehicle sales in the first quarter,” said Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds’ executive director of insights.
    Edmunds’ forecast calls for a 15.2% year-over-year decline in first-quarter auto sales. The company reported that inventories remain very thin, with just 20 days’ supply of gas-powered vehicles and 21 days’ worth of electric vehicles available. Automakers typically aim to have enough vehicles in inventory to last 60 to 70 days.

    Not only are automakers still grappling with Covid-related supply-chain disruptions, Caldwell noted, they may now be facing additional supply challenges in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
    U.S. auto sales have traditionally ramped up in March as spring weather arrives in much of the U.S., noted Cox Automotive’s senior economist, Charlie Chesborough. He thinks that consumer demand would probably be strong right now – if only automakers had more vehicles to sell.
    “Low unemployment, relatively low interest rates — the conditions are right for higher sales,” Chesborough said. But, he said, until automakers are able to boost the number of vehicles on dealers’ lots, sales will remain weak.
    “Make no mistake,” he said, “this market is stuck in low gear.”

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Stocks making the biggest moves midday: Walgreens, AMD, Dell and more

    A pedestrian wearing a protective mask walks past a Walgreens store in San Francisco, California.
    David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading.
    Walgreens — The drug store chain fell about 5% after the company reported its quarterly results. Despite recording a beat on earnings, it did not raise its forecast for the year The company’s president said on its earnings call Thursday that demand for Covid testing has slowed since January, and it could take time for its healthcare investments to pay off.

    Baidu — Shares for the tech company tumbled roughly 7%. Baidu was added to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s list of U.S.-traded China stocks that could be delisted should the internet search company fail to disclose financial audits to U.S. regulators.
    AMD — The chipmaker lost 7.1% after Barclays downgraded the stock to equal-weight and lowered its price target from $148 to $115. The bank cited “cyclical risk across several end markets,” including PC and gaming as contributors to the downgrade.
    Dell Technologies and HP — Shares of the computer equipment companies fell after Morgan Stanley downgraded Dell to equal-weight and HP to underweight. The bank cited ongoing macro uncertainty and a “cautious hardware outlook” among the reasons for the downgrade. Dell fell 5.4%, while HP shed 5%.
    PVH — Shares of the Calvin Klein parent fell 6.4% after Morgan Stanley downgraded the stock to equal-weight from overweight. “Expect the stock to remain range-bound for now,” the firm said.
    Amylyx Pharmaceuticals — The stock lost 13.5% after a Food and Drug Administration panel voted to not recommend the approval of an experimental ALS drug developed by Amylyx. The panel said study data failed to prove that the drug was effective in fighting the disease.

    Occidental Petroleum — Shares rallied about 2% after CEO Vicki Hollub purchased 14,191 of her own company’s shares. The moves come after Warren Buffett’s recent buying spree in the outperforming energy stock.UBS — The bank’s stock rose 1.2% after Goldman Sachs initiated UBS with a buy rating. Goldman said the rise of fintech is a positive for the banking industry.
    — CNBC’s Tanaya Macheel, Sarah Min and Samantha Subin contributed reporting

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    CIA Director William Burns tests positive for Covid after meeting with Biden, but is not considered a close contact

    CIA Director William Burns tested positive for Covid-19 on Thursday.
    He will continue to perform his duties as CIA Director but will work from home.
    Burns, who is fully vaccinated and boosted against Covid-19, last met with President Joe Biden on Wednesday morning.
    Also on Wednesday, Biden received his fourth dose of the coronavirus vaccine.

    CIA Director Bill Burns testifies next to Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines during a House (Select) Intelligence Committee hearing on diversity in the intelligence community, on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 27, 2021.
    Elizabeth Frantz | Reuters

    WASHINGTON – CIA Director William Burns tested positive for Covid-19 on Thursday, the intelligence agency said.
    Burns, who is fully vaccinated and boosted against Covid-19, last met with President Joe Biden on Wednesday morning during a “socially distanced meeting and was wearing an N-95 mask.”

    “Their interaction is not considered close contact as defined by CDC guidance, and Director Burns is sharing the news of his positive test out of an abundance of transparency,” the intelligence agency wrote in a statement.
    Burns will continue to perform his duties as CIA director but will work from home. He will return to the office following a negative test and after isolating for five days. The agency said that Burns has experienced mild symptoms.
    Burns’ positive test follows two other virus cases within Biden’s orbit.
    On Sunday, White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said she tested positive for Covid-19. Her positive test result came several days after White House press secretary Jen Psaki tested positive for the virus, which prevented her from traveling with Biden to Belgium and Poland.
    Psaki said at the time that Biden was not considered a close contact following two socially distanced meetings.

    Earlier this month, second gentleman Doug Emhoff tested positive for Covid-19. Following the positive test result, the White House said that Vice President Kamala Harris would skip a scheduled event “out of an abundance of caution.”
    Biden, 79, received his fourth dose of the coronavirus vaccine on Wednesday.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Why 'free' shipping isn’t free

    The big carriers such as FedEx, UPS and Amazon make lots of deliveries, and none of those packages are being shipped for “free.”
    “People like free shipping because the word free is very powerful, even if people know that it’s not really free because someone is paying for it,” Kara Buntin, owner of the Etsy shop A Cake To Remember, told CNBC.

    There were more than 131 billion parcels shipped worldwide in 2020, and parcel shipments are expected to double again in the next five years — possibly reaching 266 billion by 2026 — according to Pitney Bowes.
    “When consumers click that ‘buy’ box, they often don’t see [the] labor that leads to a box on their doorstep,” Ellen Reese, a sociology professor at UC Riverside and co-editor of “The Cost of Free Shipping: Amazon in the Global Economy,” told CNBC.
    And those shipping costs are ever-increasing.
    “Anyone can offer an Amazon Prime two-day shipping. It’s just the cost that…might incur in providing that service,” Dhruv Saxena, co-founder of third-party logistics company ShipBob, told CNBC. He estimates it may cost a company anywhere from $25 to $35 for a typical two-day shipping rate.
    Companies such as Amazon, Walmart, Target and even Etsy benefit from economies of scale because they generate mass online sales. This puts them at an advantage to achieve bulk discount rates, according to the U.S. Postal Service.

    When CNBC asked the Postal Service for information about how much money Amazon, Walmart and Target pay the Service to ship packages, the department said no contracts exist, but “there may be possibly an agreement in place with negotiated rates to deliver packages. However, we cannot confirm nor deny an agreement exists.”
    This is due to federal regulations dictating acknowledgment the existence of a specific national service agreement “would cause harm and is confidential commercial information that would not be disclosed under good business practice,” the Postal Service said.
    Amazon, FedEx and UPS either declined or could not be reached for comment for this story.
    “Many [small businesses] have been under pressure, shutting down and closing because they can’t compete, “Jake Alimahomed-Wilson, a sociology professor at California State University Long Beach and co-editor of “The Cost of Free Shipping: Amazon in the Global Economy,” told CNBC.
    In a 2019 survey, three-quarters of independent retailers said Amazon’s dominance is a major threat to their survival, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
    “You can’t really plan for how much [carriers] are going to charge or how much [packages] are going to cost when you ship them, and that makes it difficult to offer free shipping because a lot of times you end up with no profit if you’re not really careful,” Buntin said.
    Watch the video above to learn why free shipping is a myth, what it really costs companies to send parcels around the country and how it impacts consumer sentiment.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Machine-parts start-up Hadrian raises $90 million as it seeks to shake up the aerospace supply chain

    Los Angeles-based machining parts start-up Hadrian Automation raised $90 million in a new round of funding led by venture firms Lux Capital and Andreessen Horowitz.
    The company is working to build largely automated factories to transform the aerospace supply chain.
    “We’ve launched Factory #1 and proven that we can produce space and defense parts 10 times faster and more efficient than anybody else,” Hadrian founder and CEO Chris Power told CNBC.

    The exterior of the company’s factory in Hawthorne, California.

    Machine-parts start-up Hadrian Automation raised $90 million in a new round of funding led by venture firms Lux Capital and Andreessen Horowitz, as the company works to build largely-automated factories to transform the aerospace supply chain.
    “We’ve launched Factory #1 and proven that we can produce space and defense parts 10 times faster and more efficient than anybody else,” Hadrian founder and CEO Chris Power told CNBC.

    The fundraise marks Hadrian’s second round of capital. Other investors in the round included Lachy Groom, Caffeinated Capital, Founders Fund, Construct Capital and 137 Ventures. Power declined to specify Hadrian’s exact valuation after the raise, but said it is between $200 million and $1 billion.
    Los Angeles-based Hadrian is also adding Lux Capital partner Brandon Reeves and Andreessen Horowitz partner Katherine Boyle to the company’s board. Boyle said Hadrian’s ability to scale its approach is a key reason behind Andreessen Horowitz’s investment.
    “The pace at which they’ve been able to build factories has just been extraordinary,” Boyle told CNBC.
    Some of Hadrian’s new funds will go toward building Factory #2, which is planned to be nearly 100,000 sq. ft. in Torrance, California, near its current factory in Hawthorne, said Power, the CEO. The company aims to launch the Torrance factory by August, while continuing to hire quickly. Hadrian, which had six employees less than a year ago and 40 people today, expects to have about 120 employees by the end of this year, Power added.
    Hadrian has three customers. Power didn’t disclose the companies but specified that the current customers all build rockets and satellites, for which Hadrian is manufacturing aluminum components. The company aims to expand its component offering into steels and other hard metals shortly.

    “We’re not setting up factories that are like manufacturing lines – we’re building an abstract factory that you can drop any part into and it comes out the other side … as long as it fits within a certain size or certain material that we support, we can make anything within that,” Power said.

    The machining supply chain problem

    A look inside the company’s factory in Hawthorne, California.

    Hadrian is looking to centralize a supply chain that’s fragmented among suppliers who are spread across the country. Citing her firm’s experience investing in aerospace and defense companies, Boyle added that the current supply chain depends on “thousands of mom-and-pop machine shops” across the country. Hardware and aerospace companies often complain about this, she said.
    Power estimated that there are about 3,000 of these small machine shops, which in aggregate generate about $40 billion in revenue a year manufacturing high-precision components for aerospace and defense companies.
    Lux Capital partner Josh Wolfe further emphasized that these components “are not company proprietary” but vary widely in demand, from “bespoke custom” parts to “large batches.”
    As many as 2.1 million manufacturing jobs are set to be unfilled by 2030, according to a study released last year by Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute. Additionally, the average age of machinists is climbing, Boyle said, a key pressure on the labor shortage.
    “The average age of many machinists is now in the mid-50s, and many are reaching this point where they’re retiring or the shops are going to be turned over to the next generation,” Boyle said. “There is this question of: Who’s going to take over those shops and who’s going to be able to continue on supplying the defense industrial base?”
    Boyle added that a secondary theme in the machining labor market is that Hadrian’s automation approach “creates jobs for a new generation of machinist.”
    “There are labor shortages across high-skilled trades,” Boyle said.
    Hadrian is addressing this with an approach that allows the company to hire employees as machinists “who have never made a part before,” Power said. He cited examples of hires Hadrian has made from Chick-Fil-A or Walmart, with no prior experience manufacturing parts.
    “We’re getting to a point where they’re making spaceflight hardware within 30 days of joining Hadrian,” Power said.
    Hadrian is pairing those newly minted machinists with those who have extensive experience in the field or in software, having hired talent from the likes of Meta, Stripe, SpaceX, and others.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    How Atlassian's dual-CEO structure has helped the Australian software company thrive

    Atlassian held its IPO in 2015, two years after the software company was named to CNBC’s inaugural Disruptor 50 list.
    Atlassian now has a market cap of close to $80 billion, increasing 17-fold since its market debut.
    Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar, the company’s founders and co-CEOs, turn to each other for honest perspective after decades of shared experience.

    Atlassian’s founders and co-CEOs, Scott Farquhar, left, and Mike Cannon-Brookes.

    In this weekly series, CNBC takes a look at companies that made the inaugural Disruptor 50 list, 10 years later.
    In early March, collaboration software maker Atlassian published a blog post titled, “Atlassian stands with Ukraine,” laying out the company’s plans to support employees and customers in the region and announcing it was “pausing the sale of all new software to Russia.”

    The post was signed by co-CEOs Scott Farquhar and Mike Cannon-Brookes. They went back and forth on the content and the main points. But Farquhar did most of the work, freeing up Cannon-Brookes.
    That’s one of many conveniences of keeping two people at the top of a company. The atypical structure has helped propel the Australians’ 20-year-old firm into the top tier of the competitive software industry, with products so well known that big companies might find it difficult to move away.
    In 2013, Atlassian landed on CNBC’s inaugural Disruptor 50 list of private companies worth watching, ahead of its 2015 Nasdaq debut. The stock has risen almost 1,000% since then, compared with 124% growth for the S&P 500 over the same period.
    The duo have had the same job at the same company for 20 years, they were born one month apart, they became parents three months apart, they were best men at each other’s weddings, and they own property next to each other in Sydney. “Our stock ticker is TEAM, and so, yeah, that’s what we’re about,” Farquhar said.
    But they’re different people. Cannon-Brookes is a long-haired idealist, who became an owner of a U.S. basketball team and attempted a takeover of Australian utility company AGL Energy. His comments are sprinkled with obscenities. Farquhar is clean-cut and careful as he speaks. Early investor Rich Wong of Accel calls Farquhar more analytical.

    “Mike is kind of the quintessential unreasonable man,” Farquhar said. “‘The world should work this way.’ ‘Mike, it doesn’t yet.'”

    Early VC fortunes

    Farquhar and Cannon-Brookes became friends in the late 1990s after taking the same course at the University of New South Wales. The technology bubble broke around the time they graduated, and facing a dearth of job prospects, they formed a business. Initially it offered support for another company’s application server. Then it changed direction and started building its own software. The first version of Jira, a tool for tracking issues and projects, appeared in 2002.
    Within about five years, many Accel-backed start-ups had embraced Jira. “It was already the standard that you had to integrate your software with,” Wong said. The company widened its portfolio with the 2004 launch of document-collaboration service Confluence and the 2012 acquisition of team messaging app HipChat. Along the way, Atlassian released versions of Jira for different types of workers.
    Today Jira is a market leader, transcending its status as Silicon Valley darling and overtaking heavyweights with decades of experience selling to enterprises. Atlassian controlled greater share than any other company in the market for software change, configuration and process management tools in 2020, ahead of Microsoft, IBM and Broadcom, according to an estimate from researcher IDC. Atlassian’s revenue in the market grew about 22% year over year, faster than the overall category, which expanded almost 15% to $4.8 billion, based on IDC’s data.

    Part of the momentum derives from programmers getting to try out Atlassian’s software for free before they pay for it. The strategy goes back to the founders.
    “Our exposure to software started with things like games,” Farquhar said. “Back then, games had different business models. You could buy your PlayStation ones shrink-wrapped. If you look at Id Software, they came out with a shareware model, sort of try before you buy. We thought that was a great way to sell software, because of course you want to try before you buy. At SAP, there’s no trying. You get to see what it looks like, because it takes that long to implement it.” (SAP does offer free trials for some of its products.)
    Atlassian was either the first or very early to sell software with a freemium offer, Farquhar said, adding that cloud file sharing app maker Dropbox made it more popular. And in the late 1990s Red Hat, which IBM later acquired, gave away CDs containing its distribution of the open-source Linux operating system and permitted people to download it free of charge.
    Lacking a pile of money from venture capitalists for its first eight years, Atlassian skipped the custom of assembling a squadron of salespeople to score deals. Now, though, there are a few on staff who pursue select business opportunities, Farquhar said.
    Focusing less on selling hard and more on delivering products people actually want to use has given rise to a robust financial profile. Atlassian enjoys the fifth widest gross margin of all 76 constituents of the WisdomTree Cloud Computing Fund, at 83%.
    That status has caught the attention of investors.
    “In my history of 33 years of doing this, I have seen more than a handful of companies that have tried to do it without an internal salesforce, or an external salesforce, either. The thing I would say about Atlassian is they’re the most successful at it,” said Brendan Connaughton, founder and managing partner of Catalyst Private Wealth, which held $91 million in Atlassian stock at the end of 2021, its largest position at the time.

    The original CNBC disruptors: Where are they now?

    Like many other cloud stocks, Atlassian isn’t actually profitable. Connaughton said Cannon-Brookes and Farquhar would find it easier to turn Atlassian into an actual moneymaker than its peers, thanks to its relatively sparse sales team.
    A more prominent feature of Atlassian’s 7,000-person organization is the group that actually builds the company’s wares. Engineering, product and design report to Cannon-Brookes. Farquhar supervises legal, human resources, finance, sales, marketing and customer-support teams. “I’m sort of the grandparents,” Farquhar said. “I leave him to deal with the temper tantrums and the screaming.”
    When they talk about responsibility, they consider both skills and enjoyment. You don’t want someone who’s good at handling a task but doesn’t like doing it, and vice-versa, Cannon-Brookes said.
    Marketing and sales reported to Cannon-Brookes for 15 years, and engineering once reported to Farquhar. And they’ve both run the entire company at different times. They’ve gone on sabbaticals. Last year Farquhar took three months off to caravan with family around northwestern Australia. “We sort of got to travel unencumbered,” he said. “I think other CEOs would have to retire or quit to be able to take a break that long.”
    The structure has contributed to Atlassian’s success, said Gregg Moskowitz, an analyst at Mizuho.
    “I think it has helped, having two strong executives at the very top who see eye to eye, at least on all the important issues,” he said. Other technology companies have employed CEOs in pairs, including Autodesk, Ceridian, Oracle, Salesforce, SAP and Workday. Alphabet’s autonomous-driving subsidiary Waymo recently went the co-CEO route.
    The strategy has a mixed history, Moskowitz said, saying it didn’t work well at all at handset maker BlackBerry. The relationship between co-CEOs Jim Balsillie and co-founder Mike Lazaridis “had gone cold,” according to one account, and the two stepped down.

    The founder effect

    What’s different for Atlassian is both Cannon-Brookes and Farquhar are founders, said Wong, the Accel investor. Their combined knowledge helps them move faster, he said.
    Wong pointed to Atlassian’s 2017 acquisition of task-management app Trello for $384 million, still the company’s largest deal to date. At Trello it was a shock, because Atlassian’s Jira was viewed as a competitor, said Stella Garber, who ran marketing at Trello at the time.
    “I think it took conviction of the founders to say, ‘I know we could have built it, but it would take us time, and it would really expand the organization if we make the choice now and pay what it takes to get the acquisition done,'” Wong said.
    When there’s an issue on Cannon-Brookes’ turf, it’s his decision to make. But when it’s something big, he consults with Farquhar, because it’s almost certainly going to affect them both. There are plenty such examples in and around the company right now, and it’s natural that they divvy things up.
    “The pandemic and Russia and Ukraine — at the moment Sydney is under floods,” Cannon-Brookes said. “Put it all together, and there’s a lot of things you need to deal with in a growth biz that aren’t just the product.”
    Farquhar said he and Cannon-Brookes had long conversations about what to do with their team-messaging app Stride, which arrived in 2017 as Slack and Microsoft Teams were gaining momentum.
    “It was weird, actually, because everyone was talking about how good Slack is. We were using Stride internally,” Farquhar said. “The product was actually better. The Slack thing is amazing. It’s actually not as good as what we had. We had to make a decision.”
    Ultimately, Atlassian shut down Stride and HipChat Cloud and sold the intellectual property to Slack. It also bought an equity stake in Slack, which shot up in value as Slack stock appeared on the New York Stock Exchange in 2019.
    When Cannon-Brookes and Farquhar were younger, they could close the office door and have a conversation with each other about a crisis, and for fun they might go mountain biking or drink beer together. The pandemic stopped them from seeing each other in person so often. They’ve gotten good at connecting on Zoom, Farquhar said.
    Cannon-Brookes doesn’t need to massage what he says to Farquhar. Without prompting, he imagined what would happen if Farquhar were to leave.
    “I’d be constantly explaining things, which would feel like I was talking down to someone,” he said. “‘Good idea, but let me tell you what happened in 2012.'”

    Sign up for our weekly, original newsletter that goes beyond the annual Disruptor 50 list, offering a closer look at companies like Atlassian before they go public, and founders like Cannon-Brookes and Farquhar who continue to innovate across every sector of the economy. More

  • in

    America’s gas frackers limber up to save Europe

    “NO PAYMENT, NO gas”, growled a Russian government spokesman on March 29th. Angered by the West’s economic sanctions, President Vladimir Putin ordered that “unfriendly” countries must start paying for Russian natural gas in roubles, a demand that ministers from the G7 group of countries refused. Gas prices began to rise at the prospect that Mr Putin would turn off the taps. On March 30th Germany began bracing for the worst, taking its first step towards gas rationing. By the end of the day, however, the German government said it had received assurances that European firms would not have to make payments in roubles.Even if an embargo has been averted, the latest confrontation surely strengthens Europe’s desire to relax Mr Putin’s grip on the economy. The EU has vowed to slash imports of natural gas from Russia, which made up some 40% of its consumption of the fuel last year, by two-thirds by the end of 2022. Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, dreams that the EU can “get rid” of Russian imports entirely within a few years. Can America, one of the world’s largest natural-gas exporters, help fill the gap?When the Trump administration tried to persuade European officials to reduce their reliance on Russian energy by implementing policies to import more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from America—which it dubbed “molecules of freedom”—the proposal was ridiculed. Yet President Joe Biden finds himself doing something very similar to his predecessor. On March 25th he and Ms von der Leyen announced a “groundbreaking” plan to help end the EU’s reliance on Russian gas. It calls for American help in securing an additional 15bn cubic metres of LNG for Europe this year (equal to roughly a tenth of total European imports of Russian gas in 2021). It also promises to “ensure additional EU market demand” for 50bn cubic metres per year of the fuel from America by 2030.Industry insiders have greeted the ambitious plan with scepticism. One reason is that American gas companies face severe infrastructure constraints. The share of American exports going to Europe shot up from 4% in 2017 to almost 30% last year (equivalent to 22bn cubic metres), as prices soared on the continent. America “has almost 100% of its liquefaction capacity already in use”, reckons Rystad, a research firm, meaning that “there is no additional LNG to be exported” in the short term. Jack Fusco, boss of Cheniere, a big American energy company, confirms that his firm is “maxed out”. It would take four or five years and tens of billions of dollars in investment, not to mention the fast-tracking of regulatory approvals, to change that.There are also questions about whether the EU has the infrastructure to cope with the imports. Receiving cargoes of LNG and converting them into usable natural gas requires big facilities for regasification. Europe has spare capacity, but much of it is on the coasts of western countries like Spain and France. Poor interconnections mean that these are not very useful in getting imports to eastern parts of the EU, where an embargo would hit hardest. Germany, which has no LNG terminals, has vowed to build two, but that will take several years. Some European countries talk of acquiring floating LNG terminals, which can be set up more quickly—but there is a severe global shortage of them.Look to the longer term, though, and the new approach to natural gas shows more promise. That is because the EU appears ready to jettison its misguided hostility to long-term gas contracts, which it had discouraged as part of its effort to boost spot markets for gas. The intent had been to promote competition, but, as last winter’s rocketing gas prices revealed, it also left Europe badly exposed to a supply shock. As a top American LNG exporter explains, Europe focused on expanding the spot market when it should have secured “fantastic” long-term pricing instead.Now the commission says it will encourage long-term contracts “to support final investment decisions on both LNG export and import infrastructure”. That should give investors in American export facilities the confidence to spend the billions required, boosting transatlantic trade. Giles Farrer of Wood Mackenzie, a consultancy, reckons that the infrastructure needed to achieve the aim of 50bn cubic metres of liquefaction capacity in America would cost roughly $25bn, not including upstream investments and supply-chain inflation. Rystad thinks the spending needed to meet Europe’s extra demand could be in the region of $35bn.Diversification away from Russia in the long term, then, may be possible. But that does little to help with the short-term problem of an aggressive Mr Putin. A rational calculus suggests that he should be unwilling to turn off the taps, considering he profits handsomely from high prices. Energy Intelligence, an industry publisher, reckons Gazprom earned $20.5bn from European gas sales in the first two months of the year, nearly as much as it made from Europe in all of 2020. But few observers would dare to predict the actions of an increasingly erratic dictator. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, business and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly newsletter.This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “A little help from a friend” More

  • in

    Will dollar dominance give way to a multipolar system of currencies?

    IN THE WAKE of an invasion that drew international condemnation, Russian officials panicked that their dollar-denominated assets within America’s reach were at risk of abrupt confiscation, sending them scrambling for alternatives. The invasion in question did not take place in 2022, or even 2014, but in 1956, when Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary. The event is often regarded as one of the factors that helped kick-start the eurodollar market—a network of dollar-denominated deposits held outside America and usually beyond the direct reach of its banking regulators.The irony is that the desire to keep dollars outside America only reinforced the greenback’s heft. As of September, banks based outside the country reported around $17trn in dollar liabilities, twice as much as the equivalent for all the other currencies in the world combined. Although eurodollar deposits are beyond Uncle Sam’s direct control, America can still block a target’s access to the dollar system by making transacting with them illegal, as its latest measures against Russia have done.This fresh outbreak of financial conflict has raised the question of whether the dollar’s dominance has been tarnished, and whether a multipolar currency system will rise instead, with the Chinese yuan playing a bigger role. To understand what the future might look like, it is worth considering how the dollar’s role has evolved over the past two decades. Its supremacy reflects more than the fact that America’s economy is large and its government powerful. The liquidity, flexibility and the reliability of the system have helped, too, and are likely to help sustain its global role. In the few areas where the dollar has lost ground, the characteristics that made it king are still being sought out by holders and users—and do not favour the yuan.Eurodollar deposits illustrate the greenback’s role as a global store of value. But that is not the only thing that makes the dollar a truly international currency. Its role as a unit of account, in the invoicing of the majority of global trade, may be its most overwhelming area of dominance. According to research published by the IMF in 2020, over half of non-American and non-EU exports are denominated in dollars. In Asian emerging markets and Latin America the share rises to roughly 75% and almost 100%, respectively. Barring a modest increase in euro invoicing by some European countries that are not part of the currency union, these figures have changed little in the past two decades.Another pillar of the dollar’s dominance is its role in cross-border payments, as a medium of exchange. A lack of natural liquidity for smaller currency pairs means that it often acts as a vehicle currency. A Uruguayan importer might pay a Bangladeshi exporter by changing her peso into dollars, and changing those dollars into taka, rather than converting the currencies directly.So far there has been little shift away from the greenback: in February only one transaction in every five registered by the SWIFT messaging system did not have a dollar leg, a figure that has barely changed over the past half-decade. But a drift away is not impossible. Smaller currency pairs could become more liquid, reducing the need for an intermediary. Eswar Prasad of Cornell University argues convincingly that alternative payment networks, like China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, might undermine the greenback’s role. He also suggests that greater use of digital currencies will eventually reduce the need for the dollar. Those developed by central banks in particular could facilitate a direct link between national payment systems.Perhaps the best example in global finance of an area in which the dollar is genuinely and measurably losing ground is central banks’ foreign-exchange reserves. Research published in March by Barry Eichengreen, an economic historian at the University of California, Berkeley, shows how the dollar’s presence in central-bank reserves has declined. Its share slipped from 71% of global reserves in 1999 to 59% in 2021. The phenomenon is widespread across a variety of central banks, and cannot be explained away by movements in exchange rates.The findings reveal something compelling about the dollar’s new competitors. The greenback’s lost share has largely translated into a bigger share for what Mr Eichengreen calls “non-traditional” reserve currencies. The yuan makes up only a quarter of this group’s share in global reserves. The Australian and Canadian dollars, by comparison, account for 43% of it. And the currencies of Denmark, Norway, South Korea and Sweden make up another 23%. The things that unite those disparate smaller currencies are clear: all are floating and issued by countries with relatively or completely open capital accounts and governed by reliable political systems. The yuan, by contrast, ticks none of those boxes. “Every reserve currency in history has been a leading democracy with checks and balances,” says Mr Eichengreen.Battle royalThough the discussion of whether the dollar might be supplanted by the yuan captures the zeitgeist of great-power competition, the reality is more prosaic. Capital markets in countries with predictable legal systems and convertible currencies have deepened, and many offer better risk-adjusted returns than Treasuries. That has allowed reserve managers to diversify without compromising on the tenets that make reserve currencies dependable.Mr Eichengreen’s research also speaks to a plain truth with a broader application: pure economic heft is not nearly enough to build an international currency system. Even where the dollar’s dominance looks most like it is being chipped away, the appetite for the yuan to take even a modest share of its place looks limited. Whether the greenback retains its paramount role in the international monetary system or not, the holders and users of global currencies will continue to prize liquidity, flexibility and reliability. Not every currency can provide them. ■Read more from Free Exchange, our column on economics:Have economists led the world’s environmental policies astray? (Mar 26thThe disturbing new relevance of theories of nuclear deterrence (Mar 19th)How oil shocks have become less shocking (Mar 12th)For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, business and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly newsletter.This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “The once and future king” More