More stories

  • in

    Jerome Powell Is Popular. His War on Inflation Could Change That.

    Jerome H. Powell, who is well liked across the political spectrum, is presiding over the fastest interest rate increases in generations, with another one expected this week.Jerome H. Powell has for years enjoyed something rare in a politically divided Washington: widespread popularity.While officially a Republican, Mr. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, is a political centrist who has been nominated to prominent jobs at the central bank by President Biden as well as Presidents Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump. When Mr. Trump attacked Mr. Powell on Twitter in 2018 and 2019, criticizing him for not doing enough to stimulate the economy, liberal and conservative commentators rushed to his defense. When he was up for renomination, people across the political spectrum argued his case.The acclaim has extended beyond the capital. After delivering an economics-heavy speech on the labor market to a crowd of businesspeople in Rhode Island in 2019, Mr. Powell received a standing ovation — not a typical response to central bank oration.But the applause could soon stop.That is because Mr. Powell, who is in his fifth year of leading the world’s most important central bank, is presiding over the fastest interest rate increases in generations as the Fed tries to wrestle rapid inflation under control. The Fed is expected to raise rates by another three-quarters of a percentage point on Wednesday. And by next year, borrowing costs are expected to climb to nearly 5 percent, up from near zero as recently as March.The last time the central bank adjusted policy that quickly, in the 1980s, it inflicted economic pain that inspired intense backlash against the sitting chair, Paul A. Volcker. And while the rate increases were more extreme back then, the Fed’s moves were under far less public scrutiny than they are today, when global financial markets hang on every word coming from the central bank.Mr. Powell, 69, is acutely aware of his own reputation and that of the institution he leads. He reads four newspapers every morning, along with a set of news clips about the Fed that his staff sends him by 6 a.m. He keeps a careful eye on the debate economists are having on central bank policy, including the recent back-and-forth on Twitter between Lawrence H. Summers, a former Treasury secretary, and Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, about whether inflation is poised to subside so much that the Fed risks overdoing it.His consciousness of how the Fed’s moves are being received has at times prompted Mr. Powell to adjust course. He pivoted toward a gentler policy stance in early 2019 after markets reacted sharply to his Dec. 19, 2018, news conference, at which the Fed forecast that it would keep removing its support from the economy. And his awareness has shaped his communication style: Mr. Powell has tried to reach ordinary Americans, delivering plain-spoken remarks that acknowledge how economic developments shape their lives.Mr. Powell’s responsiveness has often been viewed as one of his strengths — but it is now prompting some economists and investors to question whether he will be able to stick by the central bank’s plan to wrangle inflation.Once today’s rate increases translate into palpable financial or economic pain, criticism is likely to come in hard and fast as recession risks intensify and as everyday Americans find their jobs at risk and their wage growth slowing. Already, some lawmakers and progressive economists are urging Mr. Powell to stop his rate campaign for the good of the American worker.Fed policy is made by committee, but the chair is the central bank’s most visible and powerful policymaker, and complaints are likely to be lobbed at Mr. Powell personally. As markets and the public react, some Fed watchers think he will back off before inflation is well and truly stamped out of the system.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • in

    Why Ukraine tariffs cause friction in EU-US talks

    Good morning and welcome to Europe Express.Many capitals will be taking half of the week off thanks to public holidays, but not the EU’s doughty trade ministers, who are gathering in Prague for an informal council today. We’ll examine why lifting tariffs on Ukrainian imports is adding to the pile of disagreements between the EU and the US.Speaking of US customs, Halloween was the most discussed topic in Romania yesterday, as Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk was reported in local media to have rented the so-called Dracula castle in Transylvania for a star-studded party. We’ll also hear from the EU’s cohesion commissioner, Elisa Ferreira, who is no big fan of having structural funds used as a stop-gap every time the bloc faces a crisis.Awkward lunchMilitary and financial aid has been the focus so far when it comes to US support for Ukraine. But on trade, notably on tariffs, the EU is keen to point out that Washington has been less generous, writes Andy Bounds in Prague. EU trade ministers gather in the Czech capital today to discuss prolonging the suspension of tariffs, and some will have questions for Katherine Tai, the US trade representative, who is joining them for lunch. After all, many in the US are quick to criticise Europe’s smaller contribution to arming Kyiv and paying its bills. The EU suspended all tariffs and quotas from June 2022 until June 2023. The US, however, has removed only anti-dumping duties on steel. Commission officials have been urging the US to follow the EU’s lead for months. But the Biden administration fears being attacked by Republicans for allowing cheap imports to threaten American jobs, EU diplomats say.“The EU is trying to get the US on board with a tariff waiver,” said one diplomat. With the midterm elections taking place next week, it is unlikely to see any movement from the Biden administration at this point.Tai signed a G7 trade ministers’ statement promising “potential further trade-related steps to aid the Ukrainian economy” but has done nothing since. The EU, meanwhile, will consider at today’s informal meeting how to extend its suspension, especially as Ukraine is now in negotiations to join the bloc.“The question is whether we keep prolonging them or start to talk about something more permanent,” said one senior EU diplomat. The diplomat admitted issues such as agriculture were sensitive — French chicken farmers have complained of an increase in Ukrainian imports — so a decision would fall to the Swedish presidency of the EU, in the first half of next year. Johan Forssell, Stockholm’s new trade minister, told the Financial Times that Ukraine would be a top priority. “In Sweden we feel very strongly about Ukraine. We believe all available instruments should be used [to support it].” He said he would listen to others’ views as an “honest broker” but added: “We are very much pro-trade.”Chart du jour: Tracking thievesThis FT investigation into the illicit grain trade out of occupied Ukraine reveals a complex shadow operation managed by private companies and arms of the Russian state itself.Count Elon?While Twitter users were grappling with Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform, Romanian media, tourists and local businesses went into overdrive yesterday when it was reported that the Chief Twit may have been the host of a billionaire’s Halloween party in Transylvania, write Marton Dunai in Budapest and Valentina Pop in Brussels.Never mind that the links between the Bran castle and the fictional character of Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula are tenuous at best. Or that Halloween is a very recent cultural import to a country that has its own traditions when it comes to the deceased (or, indeed, the undead/vampires). The castle was most certainly the site of a costume party with international stars, but whether Musk was there or not remains a mystery. A lawyer for Musk contacted last night declined to comment.Guests who posted videos on social media and made brief statements to television crews posted outside the castle kept mum on who hosted the party. The manager of the castle, Alexandru Prișcu, told ProTV broadcaster that guest lists were confidential and “it wouldn’t be the first time when big names come here without us knowing . . . Elon Musk would be unbelievable, not just for Bran castle but also for Romania.”A giant “welcome Elon Musk” balloon was spotted on the makeshift helipad and a four-hour traffic jam had formed as onlookers, service providers and guests started arriving at the party. Greenpeace also chimed in with a message projected on to the castle’s facade, reading “SOS Carpathian Forest. Tweet that, Elon!”Europe Express was able to confirm that longtime Musk associate and billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel was present, as well as his husband. So was Swedish actress Julia Sandstrom, who posted about her trip to the castle on Instagram, including descriptions of being shuttled from Bucharest to Bran by helicopter and having dressed up as a vampire.Cohesion fighterThe EU’s cohesion funds, intended for long-term investments in poorer regions of the single market, must not be “killed” by unexpected crises, warns the commissioner in charge of the policy, writes Alice Hancock in Brussels.Earlier this month the commission announced that €40bn from the 2014-2020 cohesion funds would be put forward to shore up small businesses and households struggling with their energy bills. This follows a pattern of cohesion money being used during the Covid-19 pandemic (€23bn) and to help countries that took in Ukrainian refugees earlier this year (€10bn).Elisa Ferreira, the Portuguese commissioner who oversees cohesion funding, told Europe Express that it was the “right question” to ask if the financing mechanism, designed to boost the economies of poorer parts of the EU, should continue to be tapped to provide money during crises.She argued that the bloc would need to reassess the overall size of the EU budget if there were further such crises or if lower-income countries — for example Ukraine or countries in the western Balkans — were admitted to the union.“The European budget does not encompass anti-cyclical or anti-crisis margin because it is very, very constrained,” she said,Since the commission announced it might withhold funds from Hungary over issues such as corruption in awarding public contracts, all eyes have been on its policy towards Poland, which is also accused of rule of law violations such as compromising the independence of its judiciary.Ferreira said that “each country is a different situation” and that Poland’s funds would be disbursed on a case-by-case basis so long as each application complied with conditions on transparency, human rights and environmental law.Poland’s overall investment proposal, which amounts to €76.5bn for projects including renewable power and healthcare, was approved by the commission in June. But Ferreira warned, “we have got to make sure that all the requirements are fulfilled before the money is transferred”.What to watch this weekTrade ministers meet for an informal council in Prague todayDenmark holds general elections tomorrowItalian PM Giorgia Meloni meets top EU officials in Brussels on ThursdayWestern Balkan summit takes place in Berlin on ThursdayGerman chancellor Olaf Scholz visits China at the end of the weekNotable, Quotable

    Pulling the plug: President Vladimir Putin’s decision to suspend a deal that unblocked the passage of millions of tonnes of grain via southern Ukraine will lead to a fresh jump in price, with “catastrophic consequences” for poorer nations.Mink election: Denmark’s ruling Social Democrats have urged voters to look past their botched handling of a mass cull of farmed mink at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, ahead of general elections tomorrow. More

  • in

    We must prepare for the reality of the Chip Wars

    There has been widespread portrayal of President Joe Biden’s recent semiconductor export bans on China as America’s declaration of economic war with the country. But, in fact, Washington is merely reacting to Beijing, and it is a late reaction at that.It is worth recalling that China actually paved the way for formal supply chain decoupling with the Made in China 2025 programme. This was announced seven years ago (before the Trump presidency) and explicitly spelt out the country’s desire to be free of western technology — chips in particular — within the next few years. The Communist party quickly retired the Made in China phrase after some backlash from the west, but the policies largely continued. More recently, a new emphasis from Beijing on the Military-Civil Fusion strategy added fuel to the fire, with economic and military development goals, particularly around technology, becoming more closely aligned.I find it hard to believe that anyone who has spent time in China in recent years could have thought that it would be otherwise. Like the US, the country has a military industrial complex with strong roots in technology development. It is also a big, single language market with room to grow and loop other countries into its regional economic orbit, just as America did in the post-second word war period. You can like or not like the Chinese system, but there is no denying that it has worked well for China. Indeed, it has worked so well that the top beneficiaries of globalisation over the past half century or so have been China, and big multinational companies. The amazing thing is that some people at the top rungs of those companies, as well as in policy circles, still think that the US should continue to pretend that technology decoupling isn’t a fait accompli. Think about it. In an era in which it is nearly impossible to disentangle military and civilian uses of high-end chips, do you continue to ship those products to your biggest strategic adversary? Many of the complaints about Washington aggression, and much of the continued reluctance to confront the reality of the new trade paradigm, have come from Europe. I can understand that. Both the UK and the EU are stuck literally in between the two superpowers. It is not surprising that they would like to put off choosing between the two, at least in terms of which technology ecosystem to pick, for as long as possible.But most Americans (and most Chinese for that matter) tend to prefer plain talk to diplomatic can-kicking. US companies and staff in the chip sector are moving out of China. But many CEOs of American consumer-facing brands that use chips are starting to ask policymakers just how far decoupling will go, and just how quickly. What exactly will US companies be able to sell in China?The answer will depend on how porous the new rules are, and how many exemptions are given. It will also depend on China’s next move, which may be to restrict some exports of rare earth minerals, the bulk of which it controls. Those are used in the defence industry, as well as in electric vehicles. The US military could cope, since it has been stockpiling for some time, and allies such as Canada and Australia are also starting to mine more of these materials. The hit to the burgeoning electric vehicle industry, which the Biden administration is trying to encourage, would be harder, since they would be second in line for supply. What is more, says Christopher Gopal, a veteran supply chain expert who teaches at the University of Southern California, the Chinese could restrict the export of lower-end chips made in the country, which are used in both traditional automobiles and EVs. Even on the most accelerated timetable, it would take the US, in his estimation, at least two years to produce or acquire those from allies in bulk. This would mean that “cars would go up in price, and down in functionality”. China could also cut exports of various electronic components, contributing to inflation in a broad variety of goods. The bottom line? Countries and companies need redundancy in sourcing. One obvious step would be to ramp up production of low-end chips and components in friendly nations such as India and parts of eastern Europe. Executives will also have to rethink the idea that inventory is bad, which is a big shift from several decades worth of just-in-time supply chain management.Cost per unit will no longer be the sole metric for any wise purchasing decision, be it public or private. There is now a risk calculation that must incorporate the cost of higher inventories, the amount of time and working capital it will take to build that inventory, and the price of distributing and replenishing crucial goods across new supply chain configurations. Policymakers must continue to refine their lists of the most critical supply chains, including not just chips, but food, antibiotics and other key pharmaceuticals, energy, PPE and base apparel. I’d argue the commerce department should take the lead on that information gathering. Is all this disturbing to contemplate? Yes. But the only thing worse than wilful blindness is not being prepared for [email protected] More

  • in

    FT readers — what is your favourite book of 2022?

    Late November heralds one of the highlights in the FT Weekend calendar — our annual Books of the Year series — in which FT writers and critics choose their favourite titles of the past 12 months on subjects ranging from politics, economics, science and history to art, tech, food and the environment. Novels, poetry and audiobooks too, of course. We can’t wait.As always, we like to make our discerning readers part of the series. Do you have a favourite book or audiobook that was published in 2022? And would you like to know what books your fellow FT readers are enjoying? We would love to hear from you. Comment below to tell us your choice, plus a few sentences about why others should read it. We’ll publish a selection of the best responses on FT.com.Join our online book group on Facebook at FT Books Café More

  • in

    BoJ’s inevitable pivot looms as a risk for markets

    The writer is president of Queens’ College, Cambridge, and an adviser to Allianz and GramercyAfter occupying a central role in international trade and currency developments in the 1980s and 1990s, Japan’s influence on the global economy and markets gradually declined. “What happens in Japan stays in Japan” became the mantra for many. But this could change if the Japanese authorities do not prepare well for what increasingly looks like an inevitable exit from its “yield curve control” policy.YCC is a monetary policy regime introduced in 2016 under which the Bank of Japan caps a key longer-term interest rate by buying bonds when the market yield tests that level. By capping this, and by influencing short-term bond yields through the setting of benchmark policy rates, the central bank seeks to stimulate growth and counter deflation.Whatever your views on the effectiveness of YCC (and this is subject to debate), rising yields around the world make it hard to maintain the policy without intensifying collateral damage and unintended consequences. This has included a rapidly depreciating currency, large central bank foreign exchange interventions, and recurrent stress in market functioning for Japanese government bonds (including days with little if any trading).The longer Japan sticks with YCC in the current global context, the more the authorities will have to spend to resist a depreciation, and the greater the structural damage to the core of the country’s financial system.No wonder most observers expect Japan to have to exit this policy — a view reinforced by higher inflation and the mounting wage demands from the major labour unions. When it comes to the timing of this, the consensus forecast is after the second five-year term of the current governor, Haruhiko Kuroda, ends in March of next year. If correct, this gives the Japanese authorities months to prepare for what is an inherently tricky policy manoeuvre.Time and time again, history has shown that exiting a protracted fixed price regime is full of complexities, whether it involves the currency, interest rates, or domestic prices and subsidies. This is particularly true when the peg in question has already caused multiple distortions.We should expect a good part of the Japanese interest rate structure to move significantly higher when YCC is removed. The impact would be particularly acute for the domestic large holders of Japanese government bonds who, long confident in the longevity of the interest rate cap, had found ways to leverage their “safe asset” holdings in order to increase returns.On the surface, this is the type of behaviour that was adopted by UK pension schemes. Its viability was turned upside down by the sudden increase in market yields caused by the “mini” budget debacle.I say “on the surface” as there are three notable differences. First, while the UK situation predominantly involved the leveraging of government “interest rate” risk, that of Japan appears to involve more “credit risk”. Second, a good portion of that risk has been obtained through claims on entities outside Japan such as companies or sovereigns. Third, the Bank of Japan would face many more obstacles in pursuing surgical interventions to calm markets if this were required.The risk scenario here is the possibility that large losses and margin calls pressure certain overexposed Japanese entities to dispose of assets in a disorderly manner. Given the extent of crossholdings, this would fuel contagion across markets and borders which would be felt notably in places such as US and European investment grade corporates, high yield, leveraged bank loans, and emerging markets. It would come at a time when US Federal Reserve’s now-rapid rate hikes to tackle rising inflation has contributed to large losses for investors and unsettling volatility. There has been a sense of nowhere to hide.The importance of minimising this risk scenario is heightened by the existing concerns about liquidity and the orderly functioning of other markets in advanced countries. It is even more vital at a time when a slowing global economy can ill-afford contamination from market accidents.The policy approach for Japan involves the early identification of “pain trades”, the encouragement of pre-emptive orderly deleveraging, and clarity on the nature and duration of an emergency intervention if needed, including the degree of acceptable regulatory forbearance. None of this is easy, and it is not guaranteed to work immediately. Yet the alternative of letting markets do it their way would be more problematic for both Japan and the rest of the world. More

  • in

    Egypt and the IMF: Will Sisi take the economy out of the military’s hands?

    When Egypt was forced to go cap-in-hand to the IMF as it struggled with a foreign currency crisis and dwindling reserves in 2016, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was adamant that he would take the “hard decisions” that his predecessors avoided in order to turn round the ailing economy.Knowing he would have to push through politically sensitive reforms that would heap pain on millions of impoverished Egyptians to secure a $12bn loan from the fund, he insisted the Arab state had to bridge the gap between resources and spending. “We borrow and we borrow, and the more we borrow the more the debt grows,” Sisi said. “All the hard decisions that many over the years were scared to take: I will not hesitate for a second to take them.”Yet six years on, Egypt is once again depending on IMF support as it grapples with another foreign currency shortage, with the fund agreeing last week to a new $3bn loan package. It is the fourth time Cairo has sought the fund’s help since Sisi seized power in a coup in 2013, with Egypt holding the unwanted mantle of being the second biggest debtor to the IMF after Argentina. In total, it owes multilateral institutions $52bn. In part, Egypt’s woes have underscored the vulnerabilities of poorer nations to the repercussions of Russia’s war in Ukraine after it triggered capital flight from emerging markets and caused food and energy prices to soar — raising import costs just as a vital source of foreign currency dried up. But economists and Egyptian businessmen say that there are more fundamental issues at stake, arguing that the global crisis has magnified the fragility of Sisi’s state-driven economic model. Workers collect wheat at the Benha grain silos, in Al Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt, in May. Before Russian president Vladimir Putin launched his offensive, Egypt depended on Russia and Ukraine for about 80 per cent of its imported wheat © Mohamed Abd El Ghany/ReutersUnder Sisi’s watch, Cairo became increasingly dependent on hot money flowing into domestic debt to finance its current account deficit as the central bank propped up the pound and kept interest rates in the double digits. One result is that Cairo had until recently been paying the world’s highest real interest rates on its debt. At the same time, Sisi relied on the military to drive growth as it was put in charge of scores of infrastructure projects and encouraged to spread its economic footprint across myriad sectors, from pasta to cement and beverages, crowding out the private sector and dissauding foreign direct investment. The complaint is that the hot money was used to support massive state spending, much of it through the military, that soaked up the foreign currency. Now, the question Egyptian businessmen and analysts are asking is whether the shock of the past six months will be sufficient to force Sisi to take arguably his toughest economic decision: rolling back the army’s role in the economy. That, economists say, will be crucial if the private sector is to flourish and for the country to attract greater levels of FDI to bring in more sustainable sources of foreign currency. “We need to stop the bleeding,” says a business owner, who, like many others, wants to remain anonymous given fear of repercussions in an autocratic state. “If we carry on this way it’s to the Paris Club [for debt relief], haircuts, selling assets and in a state of bankruptcy.”Some businessmen cautiously hope that the rattled government has finally woken up to the precarious path the economy was heading.“It [the crisis] could be a blessing in disguise,” says another executive. “There seems to be a consensus and an understanding that things have to change because there’s no other solutions.”Others remain wary. If Sisi is to reduce the military’s footprint, the former army chief will be taking on his core constituency and the nation’s most powerful institution with all its associated vested interests. “It will be very difficult,” says the business owner. “You give your kid a toy and how do you take it away? It will take a lot of courage to take back from the army and I worry about this. If you think privatisation in the public sector is difficult, what about a military factory?”Jason Tuvey at Capital Economics says “the military is not going to give up its interests very quickly, and we have to bear in mind the military is very close to Sisi, it could put pressure on him if it feels its interests are coming under pressure.”Michael Wahid Hanna, an analyst at Crisis Group, says that reducing the role of the military “would require a rewiring and reordering of large parts of the economy.” He adds: “And that’s hard.”The ‘crisis committee’Egypt’s leaders were jolted into action almost as soon as Russians invaded Ukraine in late February as they braced for the global repercussions of the conflict. The regime swiftly established a “crisis committee” to meet weekly and focused on ensuring food security for its 100mn population, tens of millions of whom rely on subsidised bread.The army was ordered to supply millions of heavily discounted “food boxes” to vulnerable families, while officials sought to diversify sources of imports for the world’s top wheat importer. Before Russian president Vladimir Putin launched his offensive, Egypt depended on Russia and Ukraine for about 80 per cent of its imported wheat, and the fear was that it would be one of the countries most exposed to supply shortages and increases in food prices.“I worry about Egypt,” Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the IMF, said in March.But it was not food security that would prove to be the state’s Achilles heel. Instead, it was wary foreign fund managers pulling about $20bn out of Egyptian debt in February and March, triggering the foreign currency crisis.Sisi, who brooks zero dissent, was shocked to discover the weaknesses in the system, people briefed on government discussions said. Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, welcomes Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on his arrival to Riyadh in March © Saudi Press Agency/Handout/ReutersOn March 8, he jumped on a plane to Saudi Arabia, one of Cairo’s traditional backers, and by the end of the month Riyadh had deposited $5bn in Egypt’s central bank. It was part of a wider Gulf bailout, with the United Arab Emirates depositing $5bn and Qatar $3bn. “I dread to think,” says an Egyptian banker, when asked what would have happened if the Gulf states had not ridden to Cairo’s rescue. “Sisi was very unhappy and it took him by surprise — the degree of fragility in the financial system.”The three Gulf states also committed to investing billions of dollars to acquire state holdings in Egyptian companies through their sovereign wealth funds. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and Abu Dhabi’s ADQ fund have already spent about $4bn this year acquiring stakes in companies, including a bank, and chemicals, fertiliser, logistics and tech firms. It was also in March that Cairo turned to the IMF for support, finally sealing the $3bn loan last week. In addition, Egypt will receive another $5bn from multilateral and regional donors — likely to be the Gulf states again — this financial year, the fund said. Even officials are acknowledging that the crisis was a wake-up call.A state official says that it was always the government’s goal to “unlock FDI”. But “maybe people got a bit relaxed and didn’t put the plan to work properly.”“Did we learn from the lesson? Yes . . . the guys at the central bank understand it’s not easy money,” says an Egyptian banker. “My feeling is, at the top, people understand we have a challenge, that challenge is we overspent in a short period of time.”Military forces in North Sinai, Egypt. Sisi has relied on the military as the prime vehicle to drive his economic plans © Mohamed Abd El Ghany/ReutersBut the critical test will be whether the regime seriously addresses the overbearing dominance of the state in the economy, particularly the military’s role.“The fundamental problem is Egypt has been living beyond its means. It produces and sells to the rest of the world significantly less than it imports, which it finances through debt,” says an Egyptian economist. “A lot of the state consumption comes outside the budget in the form of military investment. If you look at a lot of these megaprojects it’s the military financing it . . . they are adding to the import bill and creating a net outflow of dollars.”Rhetorically, at least, the leadership has signalled it is ready to act. Speaking to businessmen and government officials at an economic conference held earlier this month in response to the crisis, Sisi gave mixed signals, defending his record while also suggesting he was willing to reduce the state’s role. “I solved the problem of the ports and of the infrastructure of the state in a different way. The route that you suggested offering [projects] to the private sector and offering it to the foreigners, I’m with you, but I didn’t have the time for more delays,” the president said. “Are state companies on offer [for sale]? Yes . . . . By God, by God, by God all the companies of the armed forces are with you [available for sale].”Two months earlier, Sisi had accepted the resignation of central bank governor Tarek Amer, who many criticised for his role in the malaise. “The governor was very close to the army and was satisfying all the military’s needs with no strings attached,” says the Egyptian executive.The central bank has since said it would allow a flexible exchange regime, something the fund was demanding. The loan package was intended to help Egypt “push forward deep structural and governance reforms to promote private sector-led growth and job creation,” the IMF said.A currency exchange office with an image of the US dollar in Cairo. Egypt is depending on IMF support as it grapples with another foreign currency shortage © Khaled Elfiqi/EPA-EFE/ShutterstockAs far back as April, Sisi had announced that the government would raise $40bn over four years through the sale of state assets and said it would start selling stakes of military companies on the stock exchange “before the end of year”. In the same speech, he also called for “political dialogue” with youth movements and political parties, a surprise move for a president who presides over a regime that has jailed tens of thousands of people and is accused of being Egypt’s most oppressive in decades.Hanna, the Crisis Group analyst, says while the dialogue is limited in nature, the regime is “doing some things we didn’t think possible not so long ago”. “There’s a lot of scepticism and frustration with it, and concerns that it’s a PR exercise,” Hanna says. “But it’s reflective of the fact there’s pressure; they recognise this moment is different and they need to respond differently.”The government is also working on a “state-ownership” document intended to outline sectors in which it envisages a role for state entities, including the military, and where their presence should be reduced or completely withdrawn.In drawing up its plans, the government has engaged with the IMF, the World Bank and businessmen as it targets more than doubling the private sector’s role in the economy to 65 per cent over the next three years. But months after the initiative was first announced, the final document has not been published. Sisi has previously made pledges to sell-off stakes in military companies over the past three years, but the rhetoric has yet to be matched by asset sales on the ground.“It’s a hard thing to unwind; it would be in a sense a major ideological reversal,” Hanna says. “During the Sisi era, military privilege has increased; their role in the economy has increased and that has created real winners, including within the military and former military. It is its own kind of patronage.”Leaning on the militarySisi has relied on the military as the prime vehicle to drive his economic plans since he inherited a broken economy after ousting Islamist leader Mohamed Morsi, the country’s first democratically elected president, nine years ago.His government earned plaudits from the IMF, businessmen and bankers in 2016 after pushing through tough reforms, including slashing energy subsidies and trimming the state’s wage bill, to secure that year’s $12bn loan and bring fiscal stability. It also allowed the pound to devalue, with the currency losing half its value that year.However, the regime did little to improve the investment climate in a country long blighted by an unwieldy bureaucracy, poor logistics and corruption, businessmen and economists say. Instead, the president forged ahead with an estimated $400bn worth of infrastructure projects as he promised to build a “new republic”. As the country morphed from being a police state to a military-led state, the army extended its reach across the economy, from steel and cement to agriculture, fisheries, energy, healthcare, food and beverages. The economy went on to post some of the region’s highest growth rates, but economists cautioned that it was mainly driven by construction, the energy sector and real estate. While some of the infrastructure projects were deemed necessary, critics view others as vanity projects that the country could ill-afford. Poverty rates rose after the devaluation and private sector investment remained below historical averages. Many businessmen who had welcomed Sisi’s coup for returning a semblance of stability to the country, also believe he entered office suspicious and disdainful of the private sector. As the military’s presence in the economy expanded, whispered concerns grew that it was putting off both local and foreign investment. Egyptian employees in an industrial zone for exports and the domestic market near the Suez Canal and East Port Said, Egypt, in June last year © Sherif Fahmy/ReutersThe issue was not just the scale of the military’s ever growing reach, but fear among businessmen that they would wake up and find themselves competing with an untouchable institution that controls much of Egypt’s land, can use conscript labour and is exempt from some taxes.Two years ago, there were tentative signs that the regime was beginning to listen to businesses’ concerns when the Sovereign Fund of Egypt was tasked with selling stakes in 10 military-owned companies. It identified two, Wataniya, which operates about 200 service stations, and Safi, a water bottling and food company, as the first assets it would privatise but neither has been sold-off.Ayman Soliman, the fund’s chief executive, says there is a “slew” of companies ready for a listing, adding that the fund was corporatising the companies to get them ready for sale, either through listings or selling stakes to strategic investors pre-IPO. “The programme hasn’t changed, but as we build our learning curve, we are educating our counterparts; we are building a road map,” says Soliman. “We have had companies earmarked for IPO for long, but there’s no market out there even if you have the best product.”He says state-owned entities being lined up for privatisation also includes those in financial services, infrastructure, energy and agriculture.But even if the regime is serious about selling off military companies, it will face myriad challenges attracting investors, experts say. And economists caution that asset sales alone will not solve Egypt’s deep problems as the social, economic and demographic pressures mount, with an estimated 60mn Egyptians living below or just above the poverty line.The regime’s priority during the past nine years has been maintaining social stability and crushing dissent to prevent any repeat of the 2011 popular uprising that toppled former president Hosni Mubarak. It has ruthlessly muzzled any hint of unrest. Many Egyptians who remember the chaos that came in the wake of the revolution have also been wary of either taking on the regime or triggering instability. But the latter sentiments could dissipate over time, experts say.“The younger people, who are 18, 19, 20, hardly remember the revolution, they don’t remember the chaos [that followed], so that institutional memory fades over time and people will become more willing to rock the boat when they are impoverished,” says the Egyptian economist. “So there’s a finite time period when you can be complacent about the risk that high discontent will lead to political instability.”In theory, those concerns should prompt the regime to act. But others worry that complacency could set in with the belief that Egypt is too important geopolitically to be allowed to fail, and that it can rely on bailouts from its neighbours.Sisi himself warned at the conference last week about the risk of relying too heavily on its Gulf allies. “Even the brothers and friends, they are now convinced that the Egyptian state is unable to stand up again and that years of support and help has led to the creation of a culture of dependency on them to resolve crises and problems,” he said.“We believe in this fiction we are too big to fail, that’s not true. For them [Gulf donors], failure is the Muslim Brotherhood taking over again,” says an Egyptian academic. “Short of this, there are all sorts of disasters that can happen which our brother Arabs can happily live with . . . [Egypt] stagnant, impoverished and getting worse and worse.”“The crisis acts as a wake-up call,” he adds. “But will they wake up in the right place?” More

  • in

    OECD tax chief warns of trade wars if global deal is not implemented

    The OECD’s departing tax chief, who masterminded the most radical reforms to corporate taxation for almost a century, has warned that the US and Europe risk reviving trade wars and face hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue if they fail to implement last year’s global deal. Some 136 countries have backed a two-pronged deal that aims to address public outrage over multinationals not paying their fair share of tax. But progress on both pillars of the reforms has stalled, despite OECD calculations that show governments could collect more than $150bn in additional taxes annually from the world’s largest corporates. Pascal Saint-Amans, who was head of the tax department at the Paris-based organisation for the past decade, said in an interview with the Financial Times: “I see some serious risks of unilateral measures, and therefore trade sanctions, at a time when countries which are allies, in a difficult political context, may not want to trigger trade wars for a tax issue.”One of the measures, which seeks to force the world’s 100 biggest multinationals to declare profits and pay more tax in the countries where they do business, is unlikely to achieve sufficient support in the US Senate to be implemented before an OECD-imposed deadline of mid-2023. However Saint-Amans said that the US would eventually sign up, or it risked returning its Big Tech giants to a scenario in which they would face a web of separate digital services taxes from multiple countries. “The alternative is so bad,” he said, adding that he expected such taxes to extend beyond Big Tech to multinationals in other sectors such as the pharmaceuticals industry.The US has in the past threatened to impose sanctions on European countries that introduced digital services taxes.The other part of last year’s deal, which imposes a 15 per cent floor on effective corporate tax rates affecting all multinationals with revenues over €750mn, has also stalled.The US attempted to introduce it earlier this year but disregarded important elements of the rules, while Brussels has faced opposition from member states Poland and Hungary. The EU has been attempting to bring the minimum tax reform into EU law, but this requires unanimous approval of member states and Budapest continues to object. Saint-Amans said the measure had been “held as hostage”. “It seems that Hungary seeks to unleash some EU funds which are blocked by the EU Commission because of rule of law issues,” he said. Many tax professionals are sceptical that the deal will make it into other national legal codes without the support of important jurisdictions such as the US and major European economies. Saint-Amans said implementation was “not losing impetus” and that elements would start to be legislated for in Europe within “a couple of months”. Hungary’s refusal would not stop the bloc’s biggest member states from going ahead with the plan by introducing their own national legislation.“If there is no agreement, countries will move. They will move unilaterally, because they can. That’s our legal and political assessment,” Saint-Amans said. Germany has in recent months signalled it is willing to go it alone, if necessary.He argued that investors would support a broader tax base, saying markets had sent a clear signal that former UK prime minister Liz Truss’s attempt to turn Britain into a low-tax “Singapore-on-Thames” was “not the right thing to do”. The deal followed years of painstaking negotiations led by Saint-Amans, who leaves the OECD on Monday.He had originally planned to leave when the deal was reached last autumn, but stayed to help the new secretary-general, Mathias Cormann, appointed in June last year, launch the work of implementation.Saint-Amans came under fire from the Financial Transparency Coalition, a network of campaign groups, after it emerged that he would join advisers Brunswick. Saint-Amans denied there was a “revolving door” between the OECD and the private sector, saying he was neither joining a tax firm nor working on behalf of clients with his soon-to-be former employer. “What’s the counterfactual — that I die on my job and I can’t do anything else?” he said.The deal is the most radical tax reform since the League of Nations developed its first model treaty to prevent double taxation in 1928. The OECD previously estimated it would bring in an extra $150bn a year in taxes from multinationals, but it will shortly publish updated estimates which Saint-Amans said would show “much bigger numbers”. Critics such as the Tax Justice Network pressure group have claimed the minimum tax rules discriminate against lower income countries, which have few major multinational companies headquartered there.Saint-Amans argued the opposite, saying the minimum tax would generate “very significant revenue” for developing countries because it would force them to put an end to “wasteful” low-tax incentives to entice companies to set up there. A central concern among companies and tax administrations is that the rules are fiendishly complicated. Auditor EY estimated that a company would need to source about 200 data points from subsidiaries around the world to work out if more revenue was owed under the global tax floor rules — a “huge amount of work”, according to the group’s tax policy leader Chris Sanger. OECD officials are working on administrative guidance to simplify the implementation process, but have not produced estimates of how much it would cost companies to prepare. More