If they turn it into a movie, how about: Enron -- Italian-style? The news that the financial cupboard of the Parmalat dairy group in Italy contains a bare corner where there should be US$4.8 billion in cash and securities certainly livened up the pre-Christmas financial pages.
According to Parmalat, the US$4.8 billion was deposited with the Bank of America in New York by -- wait for it -- a subsidiary (Bonlat) based in the Cayman Islands.
According to one Italian banker: "This is all financial engineering cooked up by US banks. Parmalat raised cash with bonds, then took the cash and put it all in these offshore accounts in order to borrow yet again off the balance sheet."
It remains to be seen what share of the cooking was done by whom, but the episode has immediately escalated into an Italian political crisis, involving a power struggle between the Italian treasury and the Bank of Italy as to who should be controlling financial supervision (at present it's the Bank), with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi promising a bail-out even as the administrators sharpen their red pencils.
There are question marks over other accounts, with some US$8.7 billion gone missing, according to the London Financial Times.
Wall Street and Italian banks involved with Parmalat are reported to be "bickering among themselves" and, as it were, running for cover.
Modern capitalism depends heavily on trust and goodwill, but this is a timely reminder during the season of goodwill that trust in business affairs sometimes hangs by a thread. With the Maxwell pension fund scandal in the UK and the Enron affair the anti-globalization movement should, perhaps, be paying less attention to globalization per se, and more to that very old-fashioned issue, the ethics of capitalism.
Lord Acton is often quoted on political power -- "Power tends to corrupt, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely" -- but the same applies to financial power. Often, of course, the corruption begins before the first penny is raised. There is no shortage of crooks out to deprive the public of its money.
But sometimes the rot sets in later, in apparently honest enterprises, where charismatic financiers and businessmen retain trust long after they have ceased to deserve it -- Robert Maxwell was a classic example. Indeed, in Maxwell's case, he almost certainly did not set off intending to deprive pensioners of their cash -- he just gambled on being able to use it to rescue his company. In different circumstances he might have got away with it and have been able to replenish the pillaged pension fund.
But often outside investors just don't want to know that something might be amiss. Already the Financial Times is saying: "With hindsight, signs that Parmalat might not be a good company to invest in had been growing ever since it was first quoted on the Milan stock exchange in 1987, nearly 20 years ago."
Apparently Parmalat was not too forthcoming in explaining its results, and far from keen to meet analysts. As long as the results, however dependent on financial engineering, looked good, investors did not ask too many questions.
It will be interesting to watch how the credit and blame for this fiasco is shared out between the Italian end of the job and Wall Street. It has all the makings of a great movie.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS