Germany

Latest story

100 Shares70 Views

Investors Seeking Safety Look to German Government Bonds

by

Germany has long taken flak from Wall Street and financial capitals around Europe for the extreme fiscal conservatism that has kept the country’s debt levels low. But as global markets convulsed this week, investors rewarded Germany’s caution by snapping up its government bonds, which are known as bunds.Investors have reeled after President Trump imposed 10 percent tariffs on nearly every trading partner, temporarily rescinded even higher “reciprocal” tariffs hours after they came into effect and steadily ratcheted up tariffs on China to well above 100 percent.The resulting tumult hit U.S. assets hard, including Treasuries and the dollar, normally considered haven assets. That sent investors seeking other places for safety, such as gold, the Swiss franc and German bunds.The 10-year yield on German bunds, which moves inversely to prices, fell to 2.56 percent, near its lowest level in more than a month. That is notable relative to the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, arguably the most important interest rate in the world, which has soared higher. On Friday, the 10-year U.S. yield was around 4.5 percent, climbing nearly half a percentage point in one week, a huge move in that market.Germany’s strict limits on government borrowing have given the country a stellar AAA credit rating. But last month, lawmakers decided that the next government could abandon the borrowing limit and take on trillions of euros in fresh debt to bolster the country’s military and crumbling public infrastructure. Germany’s export-driven economy is also heavily exposed to tariffs, given the large amount of trade its automakers and other industrial companies do with the United States.The prospect of extra borrowing and a slowing economy had begun to put pressure on German bunds. But the turmoil elsewhere in recent weeks prompted investors to turn back to the country’s debt as a source of safety.This week, Germany’s expected next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, also announced the blueprint for his government, which included an economic plan to jump-start the ailing German economy. And ahead of its planned borrowing binge, Germany benefits from low debt relative to the size of its economy, at about 60 percent of gross domestic product. By comparison, U.S. debt is about 120 percent of the size of its economy.It was “very striking” that in a moment of stress German bunds were acting as the “haven of choice” instead of U.S. Treasuries, said Sander Tordoir, chief economist at the Centre for European Reform, a research institute.“There does seem to be a real safety premium now being place on German government debt,” he said. More

More stories

  • 163 Shares144 Views

    in Economy

    After Trump Tariffs, Volkswagen to Add ‘Import Fees’ to Cars Sold in U.S.

    by

    Volkswagen, the German automaker, has told its car dealers that it plans to add an import fee later this month to the price of imported cars sold in the United States.The company’s move is one of the first and clearest examples of automakers using price increases to deal with the 25 percent tariffs President Trump imposed on car and auto parts imports. The tariffs on vehicles went into effect on Thursday and the levies on parts will become effective on May 3.In an April 1 memo to dealers, Volkswagen said that the exact fees would be determined by the middle of April. The New York Times reviewed a copy of the memo. The automaker also told dealers it planned to cut back on sales incentives and had halted rail shipments of cars to the United States from its plants in Mexico, although shipments by sea continue.Volkswagen plans to hold cars that are subject to the tariffs in port for “the near term.” It also told dealers that the price of the Volkswagen Atlas sport utility vehicle, which is made in Chattanooga, Tenn., could be affected by the tariffs because it includes important imported components. The extent of the impact most likely will not be known until May, the memo said.The automaker, including its Audi and Porsche brands, imports almost all the cars it sells in the United States. Besides the Atlas, Volkswagen also assembles the ID.4 electric sport-utility vehicle in Tennessee.In a statement, Volkswagen confirmed it had sent the memo to dealers because it wanted to be “very transparent about navigating through this time of uncertainty.”“We have our dealers’ and customers’ best interest at heart, and once we have quantified the impact on the business we will share our strategy with our dealers,” the company said.Other automakers are also making adjustments to respond to the tariffs. Stellantis, which owns Jeep, Ram, Dodge and Chrysler, said on Thursday that it is temporarily halting production at a plant in Mexico and another in Canada in response to the auto tariffs.The company said that a factory in Windsor, Ontario, that makes the Chrysler Pacifica minivan and the Dodge Charger muscle car will shut down for two weeks. And a plant in Toluca, Mexico, that makes the Jeep Compass and Wagoneer S will be idled starting on April 7 for the rest of the month.Stellantis said that the production stoppages in Canada and Mexico would force it to lay off about 900 workers in Indiana and Michigan. More

  • 125 Shares175 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Tariffs Pose a New Threat for Germany’s Stagnant Economy

    by

    Germany had hoped that a new government would revive its stagnant economy, but President Trump’s sweeping new tariffs are stoking worries that the country will fall short of its 0.3 percent growth expectations this year.Calling the tariffs “an attack on the rules of global trade which created prosperity around the world,” Olaf Scholz, Germany’s chancellor, stressed on Thursday that his country was counting on cooperation among the European Union members to defend their interests.Mr. Scholz, whose government lost an election in February but is still operating in a caretaker capacity, is limited in his ability to act as the country awaits the formation of a new government, expected in the coming weeks. The timing couldn’t be worse for Germany, Europe’s largest economy, to respond to the tariffs without clear leadership.Germany could be the hardest hit of all 27 members of the bloc, given the large amount of trade that Germany does with the United States. Last year, Germany exported goods worth 161.4 billion euros, or $178.4 billion, to the United States, according to the country’s federal statistics office.Last month, Germany’s Parliament agreed to loosen the country’s restrictions on debt in an effort to juice the economy, which contracted for the past two years. The move allowed lawmakers to create a new infrastructure fund worth €500 billion (almost $550 billion), which restored some optimism to markets and businesses.But economists at Morgan Stanley warned that the impact of the tariffs could threaten prospective growth sparked by the package and the possibility of increased spending on defense.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    What Germany’s Election Result Means for Its Economy

    by

    The next German government faces calls to loosen borrowing rules, slash energy costs and spur innovation. It won’t be easy.Friedrich Merz and his center-right Christian Democrats emerged victorious in Germany’s election on Sunday, but the celebrations may be short. The next government, almost certainly led by Mr. Merz as chancellor, faces a stagnant economy, President Trump’s threat to put tariffs on the country’s crucial export industries and a fourth year of war in Ukraine.What’s more, the ability to address these issues is hamstrung by strict limits on government debt and deficits, making it difficult to finance higher military spending, update crumbling infrastructure and carry out other initiatives that economists say are crucial to spur growth.A dispute over this rule, known as the debt brake, brought down the government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz of the center-left Social Democrats, paving the way for Sunday’s early election. But relaxing the rule would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament to amend the Constitution, and the election outcome suggests it would be difficult to muster that much support.Already on Monday, Mr. Merz was facing calls from other politicians, economists and even the traditionally conservative central bank for the new government to find a way to adjust the spending limits to fit the country’s urgent economic demands.“In principle,” the Bundesbank wrote in a report on Monday, “it is entirely justifiable to adapt the debt brake’s borrowing limit to changing conditions when the public debt ratio is low.” German government debt is just over 60 percent of gross domestic product, far lower than in countries like Britain, France and the United States, where debt is near or above 100 percent of G.D.P.But after Sunday’s election, the two-party coalition that Mr. Merz hopes to form between his Christian Democrats, which won 208 seats, and the Social Democrats, with 120, will have to rely on other parties to achieve the two-thirds majority in Parliament necessary to change the Constitution.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Why Mergers of Carmakers Like Honda and Nissan Often Falter

    by

    The Japanese companies are considering joining forces to survive in a rapidly changing auto industry, but auto history is filled with troubled and failed marriages.The Japanese automakers Honda and Nissan are discussing a possible merger, in a bid to share costs and help themselves compete in a fast-changing and increasingly competitive industry.But a merger, even of two companies from the same country, is no guarantee of success, and the history of automotive deals is littered with failures and disappointments.Combining two large, global manufacturing operations is an incredibly difficult feat that involves reconciling different technologies, models and approaches to doing business. A merger’s success rests on getting ambitious managers and engineers who have spent decades competing with one another to cooperate. Teams and projects have to be scrapped or changed, and executives must cede power to others. In some cases, the merging companies are hamstrung by elected leaders who force them to keep operating money-losing factories.Thomas Stallkamp, an automotive consultant based in Michigan, was involved in the struggles of one of the biggest auto mergers, the 1998 merger of Chrysler and the German company Daimler. Mr. Stallkamp spent years in senior roles at Chrysler and DaimlerChrysler.“Car companies are big, complicated organizations, with large engineering staffs, manufacturing plants all over the world, hundreds of thousands of employees, in a capital-intensive business,” Mr. Stallkamp said. “You try to put two of them together and you run into a lot of egos and infighting, so it’s very, very difficult to make it work.”Honda and Nissan announced plans this year to work together on electric vehicles, and on Monday they formally began talks about extending that cooperation to a merger that could also include Mitsubishi Motors, a smaller manufacturer that works closely with Nissan. A pairing would unite Japan’s second- and third-biggest automakers, after Toyota, and create a company that would be the third largest in the world by number of cars produced, after Toyota and Volkswagen.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How China Pulled So Far Ahead on Industrial Policy

    by

    For more than half a century, concerns about oil shortages or a damaged climate have spurred governments to invest in alternative energy sources.In the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter placed solar panels on the roof of the White House as a symbol of his commitment to developing energy from the sun. In the 1990s, Japan offered homeowners groundbreaking subsidies to install photovoltaic panels. And in the 2000s, Germany developed an innovative program that guaranteed consumers who adopted a solar energy system that they would sell their electricity at a profit.But no country has come close to matching the scale and tenacity of China’s support. The proof is in the production: In 2022, Beijing accounted for 85 percent of all clean-energy manufacturing investment in the world, according to the International Energy Agency.Now the United States, Europe and other wealthy nations are trying frantically to catch up. Hoping to correct past missteps on industrial policy and learn from China’s successes, they are spending huge amounts on subsidizing homegrown companies while also seeking to block competing Chinese products. They have made modest inroads: Last year, the energy agency said, China’s share of new clean-energy factory investment fell to 75 percent.The problem for the West, though, is that China’s industrial dominance is underpinned by decades of experience using the power of a one-party state to pull all the levers of government and banking, while encouraging frenetic competition among private companies.China’s unrivaled production of solar panels and electric vehicles is built on an earlier cultivation of the chemical, steel, battery and electronics industries, as well as large investments in rail lines, ports and highways.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Europe Wants to Build a Stronger Defense Industry, but Can’t Decide How

    by

    Conflicting political visions, competitive jockeying and American dominance stand in the way of a more coordinated and efficient military machine.France and Germany’s recent agreement to develop a new multibillion-dollar battlefield tank together was immediately hailed by the German defense minister, Boris Pistorius, as a “breakthrough” achievement.“It is a historic moment,” he said.His gushing was understandable. For seven years, political infighting, industrial rivalry and neglect had pooled like molasses around the project to build a next-generation tank, known as the Main Combat Ground System.Russia’s invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago jolted Europe out of complacency about military spending. After defense budgets were cut in the decades that followed the Soviet Union’s collapse, the war has reignited Europe’s efforts to build up its own military production capacity and near-empty arsenals.But the challenges that face Europe are about more than just money. Daunting political and logistical hurdles stand in the way of a more coordinated and efficient military machine. And they threaten to seriously hobble any rapid strengthening of Europe’s defense capabilities — even as tensions between Russia and its neighbors ratchet up.“Europe has 27 military industrial complexes, not just one,” said Max Bergmann, a program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which will celebrate its 75th anniversary this summer, still sets the overall defense strategy and spending goals for Europe, but it doesn’t control the equipment procurement process. Each NATO member has its own defense establishment, culture, priorities and favored companies, and each government retains final say on what to buy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    ‘Strike Madness’ Hits Germany While Its Economy Stumbles

    by

    A wave of strikes by German workers, feeling the sting of inflation and stagnant growth, is the latest sign of the bleak outlook for Europe’s economic powerhouse.For those striking at the gates of the SRW scrap metal plant, just outside Germany’s eastern city of Leipzig, time can be counted not just in days — 136 so far — but in the thousands of card games played, the liters of coffee imbibed and the armfuls of firewood burned.Or it can be measured by the length of Jonny Bohne’s beard. He vows not to shave until he returns to the job he has held for two decades. Wearing his red union baseball cap and tending the blaze inside an oil drum, Mr. Bohne, 56, looks like a scruffy Santa Claus.The dozens of workers at the SRW recycling center say their strike has become the longest in postwar German history — a dubious honor in a nation with a history of harmonious labor relations. (The previous record, 114 days, was held by shipyard workers in the northern city of Kiel who struck in the 1950s.)Jonny Bohne has vowed not to shave while on strike. It’s been awhile.Ingmar Nolting for The New York TimesWhile monthslong strikes may be commonplace in some other European countries like Spain, Belgium or France, where workers’ protests are something of a national pastime, Germany has long prided itself on nondisruptive collective bargaining.A wave of strikes this year has Germans asking whether that is now changing. By some measures, the first three months of 2024 have had the most strikes in the country in 25 years.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    The ‘Peace Dividend’ Is Over in Europe. Now Come the Hard Tradeoffs.

    by

    Defending against an unpredictable Russia in years to come will mean bumping up against a strained social safety net and ambitious climate transition plans.In the 30 years since the Iron Curtain came crashing down, trillions of dollars that had been dedicated to Cold War armies and weapons systems were gradually diverted to health care, housing and schools.That era — when security took a back seat to trade and economic growth — abruptly ended with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year.“The peace dividend is gone,” Kristalina Georgieva, the head of the International Monetary Fund, recently declared, referring to the mountains of cash that were freed up when military budgets shrank. “Defense expenditures have to go up.”The urgent need to combat a brutal and unpredictable Russia has forced European leaders to make excruciating budgetary decisions that will enormously affect peoples’ everyday lives. Do they spend more on howitzers or hospitals, tanks or teachers, rockets or roadways? And how to pay for it: raise taxes or borrow more? Or both?The sudden security demands, which will last well beyond an end to the war in Ukraine, come at a moment when colossal outlays are also needed to care for rapidly aging populations, as well as to avoid potentially disastrous climate change. The European Union’s ambitious goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 alone is estimated to cost between $175 billion and $250 billion each year for the next 27 years.“The spending pressures on Europe will be huge, and that’s not even taking into account the green transition,” said Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard. “The whole European social safety net is very vulnerable to these big needs.” After the Berlin Wall fell, social spending shot up. Denmark doubled the money it funneled to health care between 1994 and 2022, according to the latest figures compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, while Britain increased its spending by more than 90 percent. Over the same period, Poland more than doubled funding for culture and recreation programs. Germany ramped up investments in the economy. The Czech Republic increased its education budget.President Biden with NATO allies in Warsaw in February. Military budgets started to rise after Russia annexed Crimea. Doug Mills/The New York TimesMilitary spending by European members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Canada reached a low point in 2014 as the demand for battle tanks, fighter jets and submarines plummeted. After Russia annexed Crimea that year, budgets started to rise again, but most countries still fell well below NATO’s target of 2 percent of national output.“The end of the peace dividend is a big rupture,” said Daniel Daianu, chairman of the Fiscal Council in Romania and a former finance minister.Before war broke out in Ukraine, military spending by the European members of NATO was expected to reach nearly $1.8 trillion by 2026, a 14 percent increase over five years, according to research by McKinsey & Company. Now, spending is estimated to rise between 53 and 65 percent.That means hundreds of billions of dollars that otherwise could have been used to, say, invest in bridge and highway repairs, child care, cancer research, refugee resettlement or public orchestras is expected to be redirected to the military.Last week, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that military spending in Europe last year had its biggest annual rise in three decades. And the spendathon is just beginning.The demand for military spending will be on display Wednesday when the European Union’s trade commissioner, Thierry Breton, is expected to discuss his fact-finding tour to determine whether European nations and weapons manufacturers can produce one million rounds of 155-millimeter shells for Ukraine this year, and how production can be increased. Poland has pledged to spend 4 percent of its national output on defense. The German defense minister has asked for an additional $11 billion next year, a 20 percent increase in military spending. President Emmanuel Macron of France has promised to lift military spending by more than a third through 2030 and to “transform” France’s nuclear-armed military.Some analysts argue that at times cuts in military budgets were so deep that they compromised basic readiness. And surveys have shown that there is public support for increased military spending, pointedly illustrated by Finland and Sweden’s about-face in wanting to join NATO.Polish military units train Ukrainian soldiers on the German-made Leopard tanks at a military base, in Poland in February.Maciek Nabrdalik for The New York TimesBut in most of Europe, the painful budgetary trade-offs or tax increases that will be required have not yet trickled down to daily life. Much of the belt-tightening last year that squeezed households was the result of skyrocketing energy prices and stinging inflation.Going forward, the game board has changed. “France has entered into a war economy that I believe we will be in for a long time,” Mr. Macron said in a speech shortly after announcing his spending blueprint.But the crucial question of how to pay for the momentous shift in national priorities remains. In France, for instance, government spending as a percentage of the economy, at 1.4 trillion euros ($1.54 trillion), is the highest in Europe. Of that, nearly half was spent on the nation’s generous social safety net, which includes unemployment benefits and pensions. Debt has also spiraled in the wake of the pandemic. Yet Mr. Macron has vowed not to increase what is already one of the highest tax levels in Europe for fear of scaring off investors.Debates over competing priorities are playing out in other capitals across the region — even if the trade-offs are not explicitly mentioned.In Britain, on the same day in March that the government unveiled a budget that included a $6.25 billion bump in military spending, teachers, doctors and transport workers joined strikes over pay and working conditions. It was just one in a series of walkouts by public workers who complained that underfunding, double-digit inflation and the pandemic’s aftermath have crippled essential services like health care, transportation and education. The budget included a $4.1 billion increase for the National Health Service over the same two-year period.Romania, which has been running up its public debt over the years, has pledged to lift military spending this year by 0.5 percent of national output. And this month it agreed to buy an undisclosed number of F-35 fighter jets, which have a list price of $80 million a piece. While the increase will enable the country to hit NATO’s budget target, it will undercut efforts to meet the debt limits set by the European Union.Romania has pledged to lift military spending this year by 0.5 percent of national output.Andreea Campeanu for The New York TimesThe shift in government spending is perhaps most striking in Germany, where defense outlays plunged after the reunification of the former East and West German nations in 1990.“Defense was always the place to save, because it was not very popular,” said Hubertus Bardt, the managing director of the Institute of the German Economy.Germany, the largest and most powerful economy in Europe, has consistently devoted less money to the military as a percentage of gross domestic output than either France or Britain.It’s a “historic turning point,” the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said when he announced a special $112 billion defense fund last year. Yet that pot of money did not include any spending for ammunition. And when the fund is depleted, Germany will need to find an additional $38 billion to level up with its NATO partners.Mr. Rogoff, the Harvard economist, said that most Europeans have not yet absorbed how big the long-term effects of a fading peace dividend will be. This is a new reality, he said, “and governments are going to have to figure out how to rebalance things.”Melissa Eddy More