-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ Click Here: <A HREF="http://www.aci.net/kalliste/">The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe</A> ----- Currency Markets The Triple Whammy 1 dollar = 1 euro = 100 yen The "E1-$1-�100 triple whammy" of exchange rate parity between the euro, the dollar and the yen came near to reality on the foreign currency markets yesterday. The euro dipped to its lifetime low against the US dollar at $1.004 during trading in New York and London, while the dollar again weakened to below �102 following an ineffective intervention by the Bank of Japan during Tokyo trading hours. The Japanese central bank was seen in the market selling yen for dollars at around the �103 level. Keith Edmonds, chief analyst at IBJ International in London, said: "The intervention was not backed up by comments from [European Central Bank] members and the BoJ was clearly playing a lone hand. "As a result, the gains in Tokyo for the dollar have been given back," Mr Edmonds said. The yen recovered following the intervention, and ended trading during London's active hours at �101.9 against the dollar. The euro also touched a new lifetime low against the yen since its launch 11 months ago, for a nadir of �102.3 - raising the possibility of the three currencies converging at E1 equal to $1 and �100 precisely. Nick Parsons, currency analyst at Commerzbank in London, said the three major currencies converging was "quite possible," but could cause problems of its own. "It would be neat - but also a nuisance given that the scope for confusion, errors and misunderstandings could be enormous," he said. Other traders said the market had "made up its mind" that it wants to see the dollar reach one-to-one parity with the euro. Trailing in the euro's wake, the Swiss franc dropped to its weakest level against the dollar for 10 years. Traders blamed a thin market and the euro's weakness for the franc's fall. The euro's cause was not helped by comments from members of its central bank and the Euro-11 council of finance ministers. The finance ministers put out a statement at the start of the European lunch-hour, saying that the fall of the single currency was not a concern unle ss the weakness damaged the confidence of the markets in the euro. The currency was not moved by a strong set of M3 money supply figures, showing the three-month rate of growth at 6 per cent, nor by the publication of the official statement from the ministers' meeting in Helsinki, which said: "The euro has potential for appreciation. This is firmly based on internal price stability and a sound current account". Wim Duisenberg, the ECB's president, weighed in with his testimony to the European parliament's monetary affairs committee. But even at the same time as he told the committee: "Ultimately, there is one way the euro will and shall go, and that is up," the euro was scraping against $1.003. His later comments - suggesting active buying of euros by the ECB as a "potential weapon" to rescue the currency - did appear to help the euro pull back from the brink of parity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Bank of Japan's intervention came as a surprise and a puzzle for the market, and possibly to the central bank's counterparts in Washington and Frankfurt. Neither the Fed nor the ECB appeared to aid the BoJ. The intervention was the BoJ's first for two months, and sent the yen above �104 briefly before normal service was resumed. Tony Norfield, global head of research at ABN Amro in London, said the intervention may only serve to hold back traders wanting to short the yen for a while, "especially those in Europe and the US who will fear going home blind of BoJ action." Japan's fundamentals remain good, with the latest figures pointing to an economic rebound in the fourth quarter. But Keith Edmonds at IBJ said Japan's experience in January 1995, when the dollar went through �100 and quickly down to �80, will worry policymakers, given the tentative recovery at this stage. The Financial Times, November 30, 1999 Gold Market UK Sales Depress Gold Price Better public than secret. There are three questions to ask about the British government's decision, announced on Friday, to sell more than half its gold reserves over the next few years. Does the decision make sense? Is the timing right? And is the Treasury going about the job in the most sensible fashion? It is hard to be entirely rational about the case for holding gold bullion, as is evidenced by some of the comments over the weekend about this move. For example, there is no merit in suggestions from the Conservative opposition that the sale represents in some way a plot by the government to drag the UK into the single currency by stealth. Instead, it is just the latest in a series of decisions by central banks around the world - the Netherlands, Belgium, Argentina, Australia and Canada, to name just five - to reduce their bullion holdings. Central banks everywhere are seeking to improve the return on their reserves: for those within the single currency, this is one of their few remaining roles. Gold generates no income directly. And the scope for capital appreciation is limited by the probability of further official sales into the foreseeable future from, among others, the International Monetary Fund and from those members of the European Union that find themselves with more reserves than they need after consolidation of monetary affairs into the European Central Bank. The ECB has said it intends to hold 15 per cent of its reserves in the form of gold. By this benchmark the UK, which holds more than two fifths of its net reserves in bullion, can comfortably afford to cut back its holdings. As for the timing, the bullion price is close to the low point of a broad range spreading back over the past dozen years, and although the UK Treasury is by no means the last in the queue of likely sellers, that prospect is presumably already reflected in the price. But there is no reason to think that it would have done better by waiting. At least there were no leaks ahead of the event, and perhaps the worst that can be said about the timing is that the government appears to have been up to its old tricks of short-term news management. There were other things to excite the headline writers on the day after crucial elections across the UK. The decision to sell the gold by way of auction, and to announce the news in advance, is entirely to be welcomed. Gold auctions work well, as the US government showed back in the 1970s. Far better to conduct them in a transparent fashion than to allow the sales to be conducted in secret by a group of insiders. And with annual mining output running at more than 2,500 tonnes, the market is well capable of handling a sale of 125 tonnes from the British in 1999-2000. The Financial Times, November 30, 1999 Bank Takeovers Royal Bank of Scotland Makes High Bid for NatWest The end of British banking? LONDON - The battle for control of National Westminster Bank PLC intensified Monday as Royal Bank of Scotland PLC offered �26.4 billion to acquire Britain's third-largest bank, exceeding a rival offer from Bank of Scotland PLC. The new bid, equivalent to $42.3 million, appeared to signal the beginning of the end for National Westminster. It also marks the culmination of a revolution in Britain's banking industry, which has seen longtime leaders such as NatWest and Barclays Bank PLC lose market share to new entrants and become vulnerable to takeover bids. NatWest grew through mergers to become one of the dominant players in the industry in the 1970s and 1980s, but the bank's profitability has stumbled in the past decade as its diversification efforts failed and nimbler rivals - including the two Scottish banks as well as upstart telephone and Internet banks - have won market share. Both of the Scottish banks are much smaller than NatWest. The combination of NatWest with either would create the second-largest bank in Britain, behind HSBC Group and ahead of Barclays. ''We're probably coming to the endgame,'' said Alan Beaney of Investec Guinness Flight, a London-based fund manager. ''It looks as though NatWest is not going to be independent. It's a question of which of these two is going to get it.'' Royal Bank of Scotland offered 0.968 of its shares and 305 pence in notes for each share in NatWest, valuing the bank at �15.90 a share, or �26.4 billion based on Friday's closing stock price. Bank of Scotland's offer, which was rejected by NatWest on Friday, is worth about �26.3 billion. NatWest's board, which turned down an informal approach from Royal Bank over the weekend, rejected the formal offer as ''inadequate.'' Sir David Rowland, chairman of NatWest, had left open the possibility of endorsing a higher offer over the weekend, however, and Royal Bank executives said they remained optimistic they could reach an amicable agreement on a takeover. NatWest shares closed down 68 pence at �14.57 in London, below Royal Bank's offer. Analysts said that signaled a belief among investors that NatWest would be acquired. Shares in Royal Bank of Scotland dropped 88 pence to �12.41, reflecting concerns among some investors that the bank might overpay to win over NatWest's board. Bank of Scotland shares rose 6.5 pence to 729 pence. The bank started the battle in October with a hostile offer of stock and notes worth �14.57 a share for NatWest. It also has promised an added dividend of 120 pence a share from the proceeds of NatWest businesses it intends to sell. With �186 billion in assets, NatWest is much larger than either Royal Bank (�75 billion) or Bank of Scotland (�60 billion). But NatWest has posted an average return on equity of only 14 percent over the past years as mistakes, such as its failed attempt to build an investment bank, reduced profits. Royal Bank of Scotland, meanwhile, has an average return on equity of 25 percent. It has expanded market share and profits through ventures like a low-cost telephone banking subsidiary, Direct Line, a low interest-rate credit card and a financial services tie-up with Tesco PLC, Britain's largest supermarket chain. Royal Bank said it would leave NatWest as a separate subsidiary but cut costs by nearly �1.2 billion a year by eliminating 18,000 of the bank's 64,000 jobs and merging the two banks' computing and information technology systems. Royal Bank also claimed that it would generate �390 million a year in increased revenue by selling more competitive loan and financial service products through the branch networks of the two banks. ''Our proposal is creative, not destructive,'' said Sir George Mathewson, chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland. The bank also enlisted the support of a Spanish bank and a British insurer to bolster the credibility of its offer. Royal Bank said Banco Santander Central Hispano SA, Spain's largest bank and Royal Bank's largest shareholder, would buy �1.2 billion worth of Royal Bank stock to help finance the purchase, leaving it with a 6.5 percent stake in the enlarged bank. The Spanish link would give Royal Bank chances to expand in Europe, Sir George said. CGU PLC, Britain's second-biggest insurer, agreed to invest as much as �300 million in Royal Bank stock and buy 50 percent of its life insurance unit, Royal Scottish Assurance. Both Scottish banks have proposed similar plans involving sharp cost cuts at NatWest, which has the highest cost-to-income ratio, at 65 percent, of any major British bank. Both plans involve the sale of NatWest businesses like Gartmore, the fund-management arm, and Greenwich NatWest, a capital markets subsidiary. But many analysts said Royal Bank's larger size could permit it to raise its offer higher than Bank of Scotland. The Financial Times, November 30, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
