More stories

  • in

    Block shares surge as much as 14% after company announces surprise profit

    Block reported strong revenue growth in Cash App and Square revenue.
    The company saw $5.77 billion in revenue for the fourth quarter.

    Jack Dorsey, co-founder and chief executive officer of Twitter Inc. and Square Inc., listens during the Bitcoin 2021 conference in Miami, Florida, on Friday, June 4, 2021.
    Eva Marie Uzcategui | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Block stock rose as much as 14% in extended trading Thursday after the payments company reported fourth-quarter earnings that beat analyst estimates on gross profit and showed strong growth in its Square and Cash App revenue.
    Here’s how the company did, compared to an analyst consensus from LSEG, formerly Refinitiv:

    Earnings per share: 45 cents, adjusted. Not comparable to estimates.
    Revenue: $5.77 billion vs. $5.70 billion expected

    Block posted $2.03 billion in gross profit, up 22% from a year ago. Analysts tend to focus on gross profit as a more accurate measurement of the company’s core transactional businesses.
    The company raised its adjusted EBITDA forecast to at least $2.63 billion from $2.40 billion.
    Block, formerly known as Square, ended the year with 56 million monthly transacting actives for Cash App in December, with most of those customers using it for either peer-to-peer payments or the Cash App Card.
    Its Cash App business reported $1.18 billion in gross profit, a 25% year-over-year rise.
    The company, which is run by Jack Dorsey, said its Cash App Card has 23 million monthly actives in December, up 20%. That is more than two times the growth rate of total monthly actives.

    “We believe this strategy will enable us to build the largest network in the long run, with a highly engaged customer base using Cash App as their primary banking solution,” Dorsey said in a note to shareholders.
    The payments firm has focused on slimming down operations in recent months. In January, the Block CEO reportedly said in a note to staffers that the company had laid off a “large number” of workers. This followed another round of layoffs in December. More

  • in

    Stocks making the biggest moves after hours: Block, Carvana, Booking Holdings and more

    In this photo illustration, the logo for the US tech firm “Block” is displayed and reflected in a number of digital screens on March 03, 2023 in London, England. 
    Leon Neal | Getty Images

    Check out the companies making headlines in extended trading.
    Intuit — Shares pulled back roughly 1% after the financial software company posted revenue of $3.39 billion in its fiscal second quarter. The result was in line with what analysts polled by LSEG had expected. Adjusted earnings came in ahead of Wall Street’s estimate at $2.63 per share, compared to $2.30 per share anticipated by analysts.

    Live Nation Entertainment — Shares added about 1% in extended trading. Live Nation reported revenue of $5.84 billion, surpassing analysts’ estimates of $4.79 billion, per LSEG. The entertainment company also posted fourth-quarter operating income that was slightly below consensus.
    Booking Holdings — The online travel company fell more than 4% even after reporting a fourth-quarter earnings and revenue beat, while room nights booked increased by 9%. Booking Holdings also announced it would initiate a quarterly cash dividend of $8.75 per share.
    Insulet — The medical device company fell more than 5% after issuing a lower-than-expected revenue growth forecast. Insulet expects revenue to increase by 17% to 20% on a year-over-year basis in the first quarter, while analysts polled by FactSet expected 24.3%.
    Block — Shares of the payment company soared nearly 11% on the heels of a fourth-quarter revenue beat. Block reported $5.77 billion in revenue while analysts surveyed by LSEG expected $5.70 billion. The company is calling for gross profit of at least $8.65 billion in 2024, up at least 15% year over year.
    Carvana — Shares climbed more than 20% after the car resale company said it expects to grow the number of retail units sold for 2024, but did not offer specific numbers. Carvana posted a fourth-quarter loss of $1 per share on revenue of $2.42 billion, missing the estimates of analysts polled by LSEG.
    MercadoLibre — The e-commerce company tumbled 8% after it posted fourth quarter earnings of $3.25 per share, flat from the year-ago period. Operating income, excluding items, came in at $572 million, while analysts polled by FactSet called for $668.5 million. More

  • in

    Capital One’s acquisition has $1.4 billion breakup fee if rival bid emerges, but none if regulators kill deal

    Capital One’s blockbuster takeover proposal for Discover Financial includes a $1.38 billion breakup fee if Discover decides to go with another buyer, people with knowledge of the matter told CNBC.
    But there’s no such fee if regulators kill the deal, the people said.
    While Discover can’t actively solicit alternative offers, it can entertain proposals from other deep-pocketed bidders.

    Capital One headquarters in McLean, Virginia on February 20, 2024. 
    Brendan Smialowski | AFP | Getty Images

    Capital One’s blockbuster takeover proposal for Discover Financial includes a $1.38 billion breakup fee if Discover decides to go with another buyer, but no such fee if U.S. regulators kill the deal, people with knowledge of the matter told CNBC.
    Capital One said late Monday it had an agreement to purchase rival credit card player Discover in an all-stock transaction valued at $35.3 billion.

    While Discover can’t actively solicit alternative offers, it can entertain proposals from other deep-pocketed bidders before shareholders vote on the transaction.
    In the unlikely event that Discover decides to go with another offer, it would owe Capital One $1.38 billion, which aligns with the typical breakup fee in bank deals of between 3% and 4% of the transaction’s value, said the people.
    Breakup fees are an industry practice designed to motivate both sides of an acquisition to close the transaction. They can result in massive payouts when deals sour, like the estimated $6 billion AT&T paid to T-Mobile after giving up its 2011 takeover effort because of opposition from the U.S. Department of Justice.
    Watchers of the Capital One agreement are taking particular interest in whether U.S. banking regulators will allow it to happen. Regulators have blocked deals across industries in recent years on antitrust grounds, and getting a transaction done during an election year in an environment considered hostile to bank mergers has been called uncertain.
    Neither side will owe the other a breakup fee if regulators block the acquisition, which is said to be typical for bank deals. Still, last year Canadian lender TD Bank agreed to pay $225 million to First Horizon after its takeover collapsed amid regulatory scrutiny of the larger firm.

    When asked about the “intense regulatory backdrop” for this deal during a conference call Tuesday, Capital One CEO Richard Fairbank said he believed he was “well-positioned for approval” and that the companies have kept their regulators informed.
    Capital One needs to get approvals from the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for the deal to go through. The Justice Department also has the right to comment on the acquisition, and can litigate to block the transaction.
    The deal happened after Capital One approached Discover, and didn’t include a wide search for all possible bidders, according to one of the people.
    — CNBC’s Alex Sherman contributed reporting More

  • in

    Gucci, Prada and Tiffany’s bet big on property

    From the corner of Fifth Avenue and 57th Street the facade of Tiffany’s looks just as it did in 1961 when Audrey Hepburn, dressed in a long black dress and pearls, nibbled on a croissant outside it. Inside, however, things are rather different. After a four-year, $500m renovation, shoppers are greeted by a more modern experience.Everything shines: the rocks, the metal and marble display cases, the ceilings. What, at first glance, look like arched windows are really 7m-high LED screens showing a diamond bird flitting over Central Park. Lifts at the rear take shoppers to ten floors: one for silver, one for gold, one for “masterpieces”. A three-storey extension, with views over Fifth Avenue, now sits atop the building. These levels are appointment-only. “We call it the diamond on the roof,” quipped Alexandre Arnault, son of Bernard, who owns LVMH, a French conglomerate that bought Tiffany’s in 2021.It is the most glittering example of a luxury trend: huge bets on retail properties. LVMH has bought on Bond Street in London and the Champs-Elysées in Paris. There has been a flurry of deals on New York’s Fifth Avenue. In December Prada purchased its current store, 724 Fifth, and nabbed 720 Fifth, the shop next door, for a total of $835m. On January 22nd Kering, which owns Gucci, announced that it had bought the retail space in 715-717 Fifth for $963m. LVMH is rumoured to be eyeing up 745 Fifth, the space next to Louis Vuitton.These deals are being sorted at breakneck speeds and for record prices. From a handshake to completion, some come together in weeks. The Kering and Prada purchases were, unusually, both “sign and close” deals—entire cash payments were made on the day the contracts were signed. The Kering deal is America’s largest ever high-street retail-property deal.Why the rush? Tiffany has owned 727 Fifth for decades, but most brands have been happy to lease. Will Silverman of Eastdil Secured, an investment bank that advised Jeff Sutton, the developer who sold to both Kering and Prada, points to growth in luxury sales and shifts in interest rates to explain the change of approach.High-end goods began to fly off the shelves during the covid-19 pandemic, when people where flush with cash and had nowhere to go, and the frenzy has not abated since. Beautiful handbags that were once the privilege of the few are now bought by the many. Indeed, last year LVMH’s sales of fashion and leather goods were 40% higher than in 2021.Luxury goods still tend to be sold in person, meaning that retailers are spending eye-watering sums to tempt people into their stores. And the arrival of the masses means they need more space for plush private rooms in which to make sales to their old clientele. “Manhattan might be getting taller,” notes Mr Silverman, “but it’s not getting any wider.” There is a finite amount of truly high-end space.Alone this might be enough to tempt retailers to purchase rather than rent—and buying becomes the clear choice once interest rates are taken into account. Most property owners finance their buildings using a mixture of equity and mortgage debt. In America mortgage rates on commercial buildings are around 6-7%. The cost of equity is higher still. For an investor to buy a space and cover his costs, he might need to charge annual rent worth perhaps 8% of the building’s value.Paying these rates would be foolish for a luxury firm. Since they make so much money, they can issue debt at a yield only slightly above that on German government debt. LVMH’s most recent bonds were oversubscribed at 3.5%. Thus fancy retail spaces are a luxury it can easily afford. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More

  • in

    Europe faces a painful adjustment to higher defence spending

    With vladimir putin issuing threats and Donald Trump musing about withdrawing support, everyone agrees that Europe needs to spend more on its armed forces. What is less widely recognised is how wrenching the shift will be for a continent that has grown used to outsourcing its defence to America. Over the past three decades, politicians have enthusiastically spent the peace dividend on everything bar pilots, sailors and soldiers (see chart).Some European leaders are already making commitments. Germany has created a fund of €100bn ($108bn) to bolster its armed forces and aims to meet the nato target of spending at least 2% of gdp on defence immediately. In France Emmanuel Macron has promised to reach the target this year. Compared with their pre-pandemic average, the continent’s NATO members (and Canada) have already increased defence spending by about 0.26 percentage points of GDP, together hitting a new average of 1.7% of gdp last year.image: The EconomistYet in most cases even 2% will not be enough. Decades of miserliness take a toll: many armed forces across Europe are in a sorry state. According to calculations by Marcel Schlepper and colleagues at the Ifo Institute, a think-tank, the EU’s NATO countries have accumulated underinvestment in equipment of about €550bn (or 4% of the bloc’s GDP) since 1991. Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defence minister, has said that his country’s spending might need to reach 3.5% of gdp in order for its armed forces to rebuild their fighting capabilities.Spending requirements would be lower were it not for fragmentation among the eu’s 27 armed forces, which all favour different kit, and different ways of buying it. Manufacturers will struggle to leap to attention. As Christian Mölling of the German Council on Foreign Relations, another think-tank, notes: “Europe‘s bonsai armies have nurtured bonsai industries.”How will countries meet their more ambitious commitments? Those currently failing to reach NATO’s 2% target, which include Belgium and Spain, as well as France and Germany, tend already to have higher taxes. Therefore they will have to reprioritise, moving spending from, say, health and welfare into defence. According to the Ifo Institute’s calculations, in order to spend 3% of GDP on defence, spending on everything else will have to fall by 3% in Germany and Italy, and 2% in Britain and France. Voters may object to having their pensions cut to buy more tanks.Another option is to borrow. Although few economists would normally support funding armed forces via debt, since it is just the sort of regular spending for which taxes are designed, the current shock may warrant bigger deficits. The euro zone’s fiscal rulebook might even make a modest allowance for them. In theory, borrowing would not be a problem in low-debt countries such as Germany and Netherlands. But there are obstacles: Dutch coalition talks have just collapsed over spending differences; German reformers run up against a constitutional debt brake. And additional borrowing would not be wise in much of southern Europe, including Italy and Spain, which last year both spent more on interest payments than their armed forces.That leaves a final option if spending is to rise: EU funding. Kaja Kallas, Estonia’s prime minister, is arguing that the bloc should establish a debt-funded defence budget along the lines of its covid-19 recovery fund. The logic that underpinned the fund—of common EU spending in return for mutually beneficial reforms—would seemingly also apply now, perhaps with reforms this time concerning defence procurement. Yet there is a problem. For the moment, finance ministers in Europe’s north and south remain to be convinced by a fund that would mostly benefit the east. The sad truth is that another shock might be required to prompt them into action. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More

  • in

    Trump wants to whack Chinese firms. How badly could he hurt them?

    A few months before America’s presidential election in 1980, George H.W. Bush paid a visit to Beijing. He got a frosty reception. Days earlier, Bush’s running mate, Ronald Reagan, had angered China by saying that he wanted an official relationship with Taiwan, which China claims as its territory. America should stay out of China’s “internal affairs”, said its foreign minister—just as China would not meddle in America’s presidential race.The prospect of a Reagan victory worried not only China’s leaders but also its exporters. Under President Jimmy Carter, Reagan’s opponent, America had done them the favour of establishing “normal” trading relations, meaning that they faced the same low tariffs America charged most other trading partners. There was, however, a catch. Normal relations had to be approved each year by the president and Congress. Would Reagan revoke them?Chinese exporters, as well as the American companies that buy from them and invest in them, now face a similar threat from another loquacious and charismatic presidential contender: Donald Trump. If he wins in November, he has threatened to escalate the trade war he started in 2018 by imposing tariffs of 60% or more on Chinese goods. His allies have also advocated repealing normal trading relations with China, which became “permanent” in 2000. A new paper by George Alessandria of the University of Rochester and four co-authors suggests that the way exporters responded to the Reagan threat may hold lessons for new trade wars.Entering a foreign market is costly for any firm. It must first establish a “beachhead”, as Richard Baldwin of IMD Business School in Lausanne has written, building distribution channels, advertising itself to potential buyers and bringing products into conformity with local regulations. Many of these upfront costs are fixed (they must be paid even if sales are small) and sunk (they cannot be recovered if the firm packs up and leaves).This has two consequences. Exporting, even in an era of globalisation, is surprisingly rare. A study of French manufacturers in 1985 found that only 15% sold to foreign markets. The figure in a study of Colombian factories was 26%. Even in China in the mid-2000s, a time of hyper-globalisation, the prevalence of exporting varied from 59% (in furniture-making) to 12% (in paper and printing), according to Mr Alessandria and his colleagues. Another consequence is that exporting is persistent. Once a company has established a beachhead, it rarely evacuates from a country.Firms must believe that the rewards will be large enough and last for long enough to justify upfront costs. The prospect of tariff hikes and trade wars makes such calculations harder. Even after Mr Carter lowered tariffs on China, the country’s exporters had to weigh the chances that they would go back up. The fear was acute in industries like toys where the pre-1980 tariffs were much higher than the “normal” tariffs that applied thereafter. Likewise, even after Mr Trump raised tariffs on China in 2018, exporters had to weigh the chances that they would go back down.Exporting from China to America was and remains, in effect, a bet on American trade policy. The pattern of bets reflects firms’ beliefs about the tariffs they will face. Although economists cannot directly observe these beliefs, they can observe the export decisions that reflect them. By examining how trade between America and China has evolved over time and differed from product to product, Mr Alessandria and his co-authors can therefore infer what firms must have believed about future American tariff policy.They find that the tariff cuts in 1980 took time to become credible. For several years, exporters from China acted as if the chances of their reversal were 70% or more. The risks ebbed later in the decade after Reagan made his own visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Xi’an in 1984. (It was a “breathtaking experience”, he said, although it took him two stabs to snare a quail’s egg with his chopsticks.) By the time China joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001, the probability had fallen to about 5%.The dynamics of the trade war in 2018 look similar “but in reverse”, write Mr Alessandria and his co-authors. Despite Mr Trump’s fiery rhetoric, Chinese exporters did not act in anticipation of his tariffs. When the war arrived, they expected it to culminate quickly. Judging by their actions in 2019 and 2020, they perceived that the probability the war would soon end was over 90%. When Mr Trump left office and the tariffs did not go with him, their hopes evaporated. The probability of an end to the war fell to 46% in 2021 and to 24% by 2024. The results have a paradoxical implication: entrenchment of tariffs under President Joe Biden did more harm to trade than their imposition under Mr Trump.Bigger and worseWould a second trade war be as damaging? The sheer recklessness of Mr Trump’s latest threat is double-edged. On the one hand, a sweeping 60% tariff would be far more disruptive than the targeted 25% tariffs he imposed in 2018. But their vertiginous height may make them harder to sustain. If they annoy too many consumers, hurt too many American firms or exact too big a toll on the stockmarket, they may prove relatively short-lived. Chinese exporters did not take Mr Trump’s trade threats seriously before 2018. Although they will not want to make the same mistake again, the most damaging of Mr Trump’s policies are ones that outlive his time in office, becoming a permanent feature. And not everything Mr Trump says in his presidential campaigns comes to pass.The same was true of Reagan. He never followed through on his desire to restore official relations with Taiwan. In Beijing, Bush tried hard to quell the anger his remarks had caused. “I certainly respect your views on wanting to stay out of the American election,” he said in response to China’s foreign minister. “I’d like to stay out of it myself sometimes, because it gets pretty hot in the cross-fire.” For China’s exporters and the American firms that buy from them, this year’s election will be just as uncomfortable. ■Read more from Free exchange, our column on economics:In defence of a financial instrument that fails to do its job (Feb 15th)Universities are failing to boost economic growth (Feb 5th)Biden’s chances of re-election are better than they appear (Feb 1st)For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter More

  • in

    As the Nikkei 225 hits record highs, Japan’s young start investing

    Saito Mari, a 28-year-old nurse, was frustrated. Her pay, at just ¥160,000 ($1,100) a month, was meagre; after bills, rent, shopping and a few holidays, she had little left over. So in 2020 she decided to buy some stocks. “I used to think it was too risky,” says Ms Saito, who learned about investing via books and YouTube. “But it was amazing to see my assets grow.”Although Ms Saito’s story would be unremarkable anywhere else, it is part of a sea change in Japan. According to surveys by the Investment Trusts Association, 23% of people in their twenties invested in mutual funds last year, up from 6% in 2016. So did 29% of people in their thirties, up from 10%—a bigger rise than in any other age group. Those with exposure to the Nikkei 225, which on February 22nd passed a record high set in 1989, are reaping the rewards.image: The EconomistJapan’s officials, who want to boost economic growth, have long desired such a shift. The public’s previous aversion to retail investing dates back to the early 1990s, when a stockmarket bubble burst. In the ensuing decades, with inflation minimal or non-existent, low-risk saving came to be seen as virtuous. Some 54% of Japanese household assets are in cash or deposits, against 31% in Britain and 13% in America.Kishida Fumio, Japan’s prime minister, outlined an “Asset Income Doubling Plan” in 2022. This aims to create a virtuous cycle: companies will grow by making use of funds from retail investors; individuals will enjoy the benefits of their growth. As part of the initiative, in January the government improved the terms of its NISA programme, modelled on Britain’s ISA, which exempts retail investors from capital-gains taxes. The same month 900,000 new NISA accounts were opened with the country’s five biggest investment platforms.Mr Kishida’s push has been given extra oomph by economic developments. Under Japan’s zero-interest-rate policy, hoarding cash in a bank brings almost no return. This has been true for a while, but inflation now stands at around 3%—a three-decade high—meaning the value of cash not put to work is being eroded. Young generations, who do not share the trauma of the burst bubble, are more inclined to act.The number of students at ABCash, a financial school in Tokyo targeting millennials, has doubled since 2022, reaching 40,000. Shinjo Sayaka joined after seeing an influencer mention it on Instagram. “It’s hard to talk about money with my family,” she reports. One problem for Mr Kishida is that many youngsters favour international markets over domestic ones. For instance, Ms Saito’s investments include Apple (an American tech giant), the s&p 500 (an index of big American firms) and BioNTech (a German vaccine-maker). Yet perhaps she and others will change their approach if the Nikkei continues to soar. ■ More

  • in

    Russia outsmarts Western sanctions—and China is paying attention

    Nazem Ahmad, an art collector and financier, who owns work by Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso, has been under American sanctions since 2019. That may sound like a problem, but it has not stopped him from smuggling half a billion or so dollars for Hizbullah, a Lebanese militant group, according to America’s Treasury. He moves art, cash and gems across borders via galleries in the Ivory Coast, family offices in the UAE and portfolio firms in Hong Kong. His financial tapestry is underpinned by bank accounts in America.All of this displeases Western policymakers, who are trying to make sanctions more stringent. Mr Ahmad is one of several magnates on whom sanctions have been adjusted. The EU’s 13th wave of measures against Russia, agreed on February 21st, will punish Chinese and Indian firms for supplying Vladimir Putin with weaponry and other banned goods. President Joe Biden has announced that foreign banks settling payments for such goods could be next, and is planning more sanctions on Russia after the death of Alexei Navalny, an opposition politician, on February 16th. In recent years measures have been applied to everyone from Houthis holding up Red Sea traffic to Israeli settlers building illegally in the West Bank and companies helping strengthen China’s armed forces.Thus the world is witnessing an unprecedented surge in financial warfare. But just as the West rachets up sanctions, ways to circumvent them are becoming more sophisticated. Visit any country that courts the West’s business without buying into its principles, and you will find companies and people—hailing from China, Russia and the Middle East—under sanction and getting business done. Since the West first retaliated against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is places such as India, Indonesia and the UAE that have thwarted America and Europe’s aims, and have done so without giving up access to the dollar.Any enemy of the West faces a mixture of measures. Most common are trade embargoes, under which Iran and Russia labour. American companies are banned from exporting anything that could be repurposed by Russia’s army, which includes everything from drones to ball-bearings. Import restrictions on commodities, such as the $60 a barrel price cap imposed on Russian oil by American and Europe, are meant to weaken hostile powers. Bans on doing business with governments, as also apply to Iran and Russia, are supposed to further cripple their ability to fight.On top of these are financial sanctions. Western officials keep blacklists, which apply varying restrictions to how their citizens may deal with designated firms and people. Ships that carry Iranian oil are on America’s list, as are Hamas’s leaders and financiers for Latin American drug empires. Sometimes individuals’ assets are frozen; sometimes entire banks are banned. Russia’s central-bank reserves in Europe (half its total) have been frozen, 80% of its banks are subject to sanctions and seven are locked out of SWIFT, a messaging service used to make transactions.Yet all these measures must contend with the growing prosperity and financial sophistication of “third countries”—those that neither impose American and European sanctions, nor are under sanctions themselves. The 120 members of the “non-aligned movement”, which include Brazil and India, produced 38% of global GDP in 2022, up from 15% in 1990. They are home to five of the world’s 20 most important financial hubs, based on the number and variety of banks, and churn out lots that a modern army might need. Whereas financial crises in the 1980s and 1990s drove entire continents to borrow from the IMF, today these countries have robust financial systems. With international firms trying to avoid tensions between America and China, sitting on the fence is not only possible, but often profitable.Brazil, India and Mexico all declined to participate in the West’s economic war soon after Russia invaded Ukraine. Indonesia’s foreign-affairs spokesman explained that the country “will not blindly follow the steps taken by another country”. Yet neutrality is a delicate game. Although, for instance, America can do little about Russia importing more tech from China, it can make life difficult for some financial institutions that might help the trade. Hostility to America’s actions among third countries combines with reliance on the superpower’s financial system to produce a strange patchwork: in some places sanctions are insurmountable; in others they may as well be non-existent.Bite the bulletCommodity-import bans are the measure most obviously hindered by non-aligned countries. Although the purchase of Iran’s oil is restricted by America, its exports are nevertheless at an all-time high. Countries that are not party to the West’s price cap on Russian oil, which are together home to half the world’s population, are willing to pay more than $60 a barrel. Brazil, China and India have all bought more since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Many of the country’s biggest customers, including the UAE and Turkey, import its cheap fuel for domestic use at the same time as exporting their own more expensive non-embargoed oil. In 2022 China, India, Singapore, Turkey and the UAE together imported $50bn more oil from Russia than in 2021. Meanwhile, the value of the EU’s oil imports from these countries increased by $20bn.image: The EconomistLegitimate trade helps hide goods that end up furnishing a bomb or tank. As a result, half the military equipment gathered by Russia last year contained some Western tech. Indeed, Russia imported more than $1bn-worth of chips designed in the West—all of which should have been beyond its reach. European exports to Central Asia more than doubled from 2021 to 2023. The region’s fastest-growing industry is logistics, which expanded by 20% in 2023. It is not difficult to guess the final destination for many of these goods.America’s recent tougher stance has made dodging trade sanctions harder. It helps that earlier rules are also starting to bite. Half the ships that belong to Western firms and once ferried Russia’s oil have turned to new work. And Mr Biden has now given officials authority to put “secondary sanctions”—that apply to outfits outside either America or its adversary—on banks which help smuggle military tech to Russia. According to Bloomberg, a news service, two state-owned Chinese financial institutions have since stopped taking Russian payment for forbidden items.image: The EconomistYet lots of business has moved beyond the West’s reach. When America and Europe banned firms from insuring ships that carry Russian oil if it sells above their price limit, India and Russia established their own insurers. Russia’s shadow fleet now carries 75% of its oil shipments. At the same time, trade between Russia and the West via places such as Central Asia to Thailand is only growing as firms have more time to set up shop.When it comes to financial measures, third countries facilitate sanctions-dodging in two ways. The first is by expanding the options open to the West’s enemies. Institutions in America and Europe are banned from settling transactions that involve anything on blacklists, on pain of incurring sanctions themselves. Yet, in most cases, once cash leaves the West, blacklists carry no threat. Dubai’s financial industry has grown faster than any other over the past decade, with the exception of Shenzhen, and its expansion has been fuelled by grey money. Other important hubs include Hong Kong and São Paulo.Many third countries participate in rouble- and yuan-based payment systems—efforts by Russia and China to build dollar alternatives. The UAE and Russia have teamed up to work on a rouble-based payment system that will be regulated from Dubai. And Indonesia is participating in trials for China’s international digital currency. Although these efforts sound fearsome, the reality is less terrible. Just as many of the world’s transactions are settled in dollars and euros as on the eve Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is often seen as a victory for the West: the dollar, and therefore surely the West’s arsenal of financial weaponry, remains dominant.Yet there is a second, increasingly important way in which third countries thwart the West: they facilitate evasion while still using the dollar. Some foreign banks are much more relaxed about scrutiny than their American and European peers, and more of their business is now done without touching American shores. Whereas they used to rely on American branches for dollar funding, now they have $13trn—equivalent to more than half of the dollar liabilities of America’s banking system—borrowed from offshore sources. Without co-operation from these institutions, it is difficult for Western banks to work out when something is off, meaning that sanctions fail to make use of the West’s financial sprawl. Rules often contain carve-outs: funds are allowed to reach Iran for humanitarian aid, for instance, and Russia for agricultural transactions. Several people under sanction report that it is common practice to mislabel funds. America has accused Kuveyt Turk—among the biggest banks in Turkey—of similar tricks, which it has denied. The EU reckons that Varengold Bank, a German institution, allowed millions of dollars to pass to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps through third countries, on the grounds it was food aid. Varengold denies wrongdoing and says that the money was desperately needed to alleviate suffering. Botched identification checks also help. More than 1,000 Russian firms have set up shop in Turkey since 2022, as well as 500 in the UAE, many of which Western officials think are fronts for others under sanctions. As lots are registered in “free zones”, meant to tempt business with a lack of red tape, it is hard to know for sure. Two years ago, a Singapore-based network of firms was punished for ferrying billions of dollars of payments for Iranian oil. It re-emerged in Dubai, using a mixture of Turkish, Singaporean and UAE-based firms to open American bank accounts.Many third-country governments have a laissez-faire attitude to sanctions-breaking, or even tacitly approve of it. Indonesia and the UAE are on the greylist of the Financial Action Task Force, an international regulator, in part because they are accused of knowing about the bad behaviour of local banks. When asked whether the UAE thinks that some of its 500 new firms could be evading sanctions, a European official shrugs: “They know, they just don’t care.”The increasing commercial importance of these countries has both raised the costs and lowered the benefits of Western sanctions. American and European capital can now take advantage of investment opportunities abroad. Companies and individuals under sanction now have more places in which they can do business. What, then, can the West do?Western leaders have so far shied away from the most drastic measures. Mr Biden has said that he will eject foreign banks from America’s financial system if they help provide Russia with weaponry. But he has declined to issue the same threat over anything else, and the willingness of his officials to enforce it remains to be seen. Similar moves in the past have targeted tiny banks and been enforced in conjunction with local authorities. Doing the same with big banks over which America has no legal power would mean lots of guesswork. European officials say that it often takes 30 steps along a financial chain to trace the owner of a foreign bank account—ten times more than a decade ago. And if America made greater use of such measures it would risk brutal fights with allies such as Turkey and Indonesia.More American action might reduce evasion in places that use the dollar, but at the cost of encouraging it everywhere else. During, say, the 1990s, countries relied on America’s financial system because it reached everywhere in the world, imposed relatively few costs and there was no alternative. All three reasons have become less convincing as financial warfare has become more intense. They would become still less convincing should American policymakers begin to intervene more often beyond their jurisdiction. Not all that much capital needs to flee to alternative financial systems built by rival countries, such as China, for sanctions, which already target a tiny portion of the world’s transactions, to lose even more power. The West’s campaign to reassert its dominance over the global financial system could see it lose control, once and for all. ■ More