European hieroglyphics

You can find anything on the Internet, even a site that translates English into hieroglyphics.  According to Quizland.com, the tablet at left says “We do not understand financial markets”, and it could be the motto of the Eurozone leaders.

In its rejection of Anglo-saxon free markets, Europe has been under the delusion that these can be willed away or bent to the wishes of political and other leaders.  One can recall Mr. Trichet, then president of the European Central Bank, flatly stating that Greece would not restructure its sovereign debt, and his “ruling” being repeated by a large chorus of European politicians; or President Sarkozy, after each summit with Chancellor Merkel, declaring that the debt problems had been solved by the negotiation of a new memorandum of understanding and that markets would thus have to fall in line.

When this didn’t work, several futile ideas were proposed, like creating local credit rating agencies (presumably under close scrutiny from eurozone governments) to write credible reports yet refrain from calling for unwanted debt downgrades.  As pressure kept mounting, intricate rescue plans were offered, which had the principal merit of multiplying euros earmarked for intervention funds as if they were fish and loaves of bread.

This state of mind isn’t unique to politicians and bureaucrats; it is shared by bankers as well.  For years, the top banks of Europe have operated under the guidance and protection of their governments.  In so doing, they ended up believing the messages delivered to the “gullible masses”, that the state always gets it way, and that, by staying in the governmental wake, so would they.  This led many banks to rely excessively on wholesale funding, to under-reserve, to feel comfortable with lopsided loans-to-deposits ratios and to be undercapitalized. 

Eurozone banks believed that they could bluff their way through the current crisis.  Indeed, only one, Unicredito from Italy, had the courage to raise $10 billion of fresh capital at a huge discount to market price.  But markets quickly wised up, forcing a liquidity crisis at the same time as a solvency one was worsening.  By then, the most exposed Spanish banks couldn’t access the markets.

The solution to the latest Iberic crisis is true to form, so far: opaque, uncertain as to timing and bound to close markets further.  Opaque because such terms as interest rate, final maturity and conditions have not been disclosed; uncertain as it is not clear whether Spain has formally asked for a rescue package for its banks and what the trigger for recapitalization would be; finally, the recapitalization will be funded by loans to a Spanish agency, thereby increasing that country’s debt burden, and will be chanelled through the ESM to assure seniority over private creditors; this will make future access to the markets that much more difficult. 

The causes of Greece and Spain’s financial troubles are different, but in both cases the eurozone rescue packages, while clearly designed to reduce risks for the institutions that provide help, in effect raise them.  Greece private creditors were handed a 75% effective loss (which has risen to 80% since) to insulate official creditors, and official creditors gained preferred status on the money they lent to Greece.  The private creditors’ loss is greater than the 75% one forced a decade ago by Argentina which was (rightly) characterized as an effective spoliation. Greece abandonned a very reasonable €50 billion privatization program.  Sovereign  bond contracts were retroactively amended by the state.  Net net, financial markets have no rational motivation to return to Greece any time soon and eurozone states are now ‘it”.

In Spain, the sovereign debt will be raised by some 12% to fund the bank rescue, it is not clear what reforms will be required of the recipients, whether the bad banks will be liquidated and how much further help will be needed by the government.  If the bank rescue loans rank ahead of regular sovereign bonds, it is pretty clear that any holder of Spanish, or maybe even Italian, government bonds better sell them in a hurry.  This will leave the eurozone countries to hold the bag, except that their bag of tricks will soon be too small.  At the end of the day, a lack of capital in Spanish banks was remedied with an increase in debts of the Spanish state.

As the eurozone dithers, risks of implosion are rising.  When one country after the other receives financial assistance, it drops out from the pool that will fund the next sovereign borrower in need.  Clearly, Germany, being the last one in line, is on the hook to fund everybody unless the process is changed. 

Spain is make-or-break for the eurozone.  If it fails, Italy gets into the line of fire and, in my opinion, Germany leaves the eurozone because it would have neither the means nor the desire to mortgage its future to save everybody in the eurozone.

What can be done?  If I were head of government in the eurozone, I would try to prepare for the day when Germany refuses to help out.  This means controlling public spending in a way that is politically acceptable: means testing programs, reducing civil servant headcount through attrition and, inevitably, across the board spending cuts as well as some tax increases.  More controversial would be labor laws reform to foster hiring of the young and, yes, pension reform.  These last two issues are hazardous to a president job security, but the payoff is worth a try.  Mr. Hollande has demanded that the CEOs of public sector companies limit their salaries to 20 times that of their employees and that the CEOs in the private sector likewise restrain themselves.  This may be nothing more than demagoguery, or it may be the necessary first step to ask everybody to share in the pain. 

Finally, the deleveraging pain could be alleviated by privatizing public assets.  According to Mr. Stark, ex-board member of the ECB, Greece has over €300 billion in public assets it could sell.  It was supposed to sell €50 billion.  Spain, Italy and France have much more to sell.  Markets can be of great use in gathering funds and setting fair prices for public assets.  Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the UK did it not so many years ago.  It could and should be done today. 

Perhaps another reason why I think that it is crucial that European countries accelerate reforms on their own NOW is that I have real doubts about the future of the eurozone: I am pretty sure that if it survives it will be as a reduced group of more homogeneous countries. Even then, I wonder if ”deep integration is possible”. 

Are most of the eurozone inhabitants willing to let Brussels bureaucrats run their lives?

Are the French willing to align their labor laws and retirement age and benefits on those of Germany?


Short of a full federation US-style, how much, or little, integration do you need to run a common currency alliance on a sustainable basis?  The truth is that we don’t know. 

There is a big world out there, and if it is that big it is thanks to free markets.  Europe's mistake has been to be built to keep the barbarians out, so to speak.  Relatively less effort was dedicated to pool resources and compete on the world stage.  If the eurozone is to succeed, it needs to be redesigned to make a core Europe as competitive as it can be on the world stage.

By the way, the Tweety Bird standing over the English lawn means “no” in hieroglyphics. 

“We are not on the edge of a precipice”

Thus spoke Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister, this weekend.  As Wile-e-Coyote often demonstrates, our senses can easily be fooled; once a country enters the danger zone, circumstances can change very rapidly, so rapidly that reasonable plans are rendered obsolete and rational expectations turn to panic.

Unlike the US, Spain avoided the CDO and off-balance sheet madness.  Unlike Greece or Italy, Spain didn’t suffer from excessive sovereign indebtedness.  However, it built a huge real estate bubble financed with bank loans.  When the bubble popped, loans soured and banks became undercapitalized. 

Crucially, Spain let the problem fester for more than two years, failing to merge or close underperforming banks or to force the viable ones to recapitalize.  In that it was not alone in Europe; to this day, the only large bank that has had the courage to go to the markets for a large capital raising exercise at a huge discount to market price was Unicredit from Italy.  That share offering took place earlier this year, when markets were very difficult but still open at a (steep) price.

Having failed to recapitalize to absorb the impact of deteriorating real estate portfolios, the Spanish banks entered 2012 facing a new challenge:  sharply falling prices of their sovereign bond holdings (over 8% year-to-date) against which they had not been required to carry any capital.  By now, markets are closed and the capacity of the State to implement, on its own, a large forced recapitalization is doubtful.  ECB assistance alleviated the Spanish banks funding difficulties and gave Spain some time to prepare a new plan, but it didn’t improve solvency.

The problem is that markets may be slow to grasp what is actually going on, but once they do, they are likely to overreact.  As if this were not enough, it has transpired that some €97 billion of bank deposits left the country during the first quarter.  If the situation doesn’t improve quickly, that number is likely to rise much higher.  I remember a Brazilian lawyer I worked with, back in the 1980s, telling me that he kept essentially all of his money abroad in US dollars save for some minimum in local currency.  Right now, and unlike Brazil in the 1980s, it is perfectly legal for Spanish locals and multinationals operating there to transfer or hold money outside the country.  It is also much easier for individuals to drive across the French-Spanish border if need be.

Faced with this crisis, the Spanish government has made the surprising decision that it wouldn’t let any bank fail.  Why shouldn’t unviable banks be closed after paying off their depositors?  How does the government expect to keep all afloat when it doesn’t have the necessary money?  And if it needs to get funds from fellow eurozone members or the ECB, how can it expect to do so without signing a formal agreement carrying tough conditions?  Even if it is a partial simplification, I don’t think that German or French taxpayers will advance money to Spanish banks to, in effect, fund capital flight.

Clearly, the Spanish government has to do some thinking and needs to act quickly and decisively.  In my view, to be credible, it cannot maintain its stance of blanket support for its banking sector: it doesn’t have the money to back it up, is not likely to get it, and I don’t think that it should either: not all banks are systemically important and some examples must be made of the most egregious abuses.

Other European governments are also in the line of fire.  By now, an exit by Greece from the eurozone would likely be greeted with relief by the markets IF it were handled properly, meaning decisively and credibly.  For the eurozone to survive, the line has to be drawn somewhere, which means exercising solidarity.  If it is drawn to include Spain, Spain has to convince the likes of Germany, France, Italy and Benelux that it means business.  The firewall built by the core countries must also be credible.  This means that France in particular must provide a clear set of spending controls as well as growth-inducing policies.  And Italy needs to convince that it can take care of its own debts as well as shouldering its share of firewall building.

I am not convinced that the euro is viable long-term, whether its member count is reduced or not, but I think that a disorderly breakdown can be avoided. 

Back in the 1980s, faced with a mounting financial crisis, a well known Mexican finance minister said that the country was on the edge of the precipice but that it would overcome by taking a decisive step forward.  That particularly step was not taken, thank God, but Mexico did much to transform itself into a successful economy; the EU would benefit from studying how Mexico overcame its crises, in particular the so called tequila crisis of 1994.

I could have been a contender!

Bummer, they cut me, I’m off the team.  It was a blast while it lasted though.  Imagine, on the same 4x100 free relay with Michael Phelps, Ryan Lochte and Nathan Adrian!  I thought it was a long shot, a good joke really, but no, I got to be part of the team and practice with these guys in Colorado Springs for almost a week before I got the word, you’re out.

It all started on a whim; I sent to the powers that be a photo of a CTS scoreboard with my name on it and my time for the 100, 48”60.  I guess they were real impressed because they sent me an email, backed by a written invitation via Fedex, to come up.  Sure, I looked older - actually I could have been the grandfather of any of my team mates - and as muscular as Popeye before he gulps down his spinach, but hey, 48”60!

I did explain that I needed to use flippers for kicking sets because it helped build up lactic acid faster and therefore was more challenging;  I also avoided racing sets because of a tender rotator cuff.  I got some strange looks, but in the end, they let me do my stuff.  The food was great, I really liked my Ralph Lauren USA sweatsuit, and being with the guys was a blast.

I guess the fun could have gone on for a while longer had we not been dragged to a charity event to race a strong local team of Boys 10 and Under, and lost.  Michael stormed out of the pool, Ryan had a good laugh and Adrian’s eyes rolled back into their sockets.  The coaches were not amused and got real unpleasant: 

-          “What the heck were you doing out there, looking for clams!  And what’s your name again?”

-          “Euh, well …. I can explain but no need to blow a fuse …”

So I did explain; the CTS photo was real enough, except that I had photoshopped it a bit; you see, the actual time was 1’08”46, and no, it wasn’t a long course meter time but a short course yard one.  Anyway, there were pissed and I thought it was unfair because they were all of a sudden nitpicking everything when they had welcome me as one of the boys, as a real contender.

That’s why I do feel great sympathy for the Greeks, I mean, they photoshopped some stats and reports and the like, but it was all in good fun and the Europeans should have realized it from the start, and now the poor Greeks are the butt of unseemly sarcasm and threats of expulsion.  Christine Lagarde of the IMF is even demanding that they pay their taxes!

But you know, there is life after the Eurozone just like there is after Colorado Springs.  Greece is no more competitive within the EU than I was in the pool.  When you “restructure” your privately held sovereign debt and your creditors take an 81%[1] loss, and you still can’t carry your remaining debt, you don’t really belong in the same club as the AA and AAA rated members.  More importantly, you need a break, a devaluation, to adjust your costs, otherwise, you starve yourself to death and/or you have a revolution on your hands.  During the Asian crisis, the Russian ruble devalued 333%, from 6 to 26 to the dollar, making exports of goods very competitive, and while inflation shot up in the fourth quarter of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999, it then slowed down considerably.

While Greece should exit the Eurozone, it doesn’t need to leave the European Union.  Some may argue that Greece should stay within the Eurozone and carry out the reforms needed to regain competitiveness.  The problem is that these reforms, politically and socially, would take years to be implemented (more time than financial markets would allow), and success would not be assured.  Even then, given its demography, economic structure and size, Greece can’t rely solely on cost cuts to be competitive with the likes of Germany, Holland and France; so it still needs a one-time large devaluation to close the gap, and perhaps a continuing one to stay within range.  Either way, it would be a hard slog, and it may be that Greece chooses to follow a different path, of less stress and slower growth.

A good relay must be made up of swimmers of comparable caliber who also get along well together.  The same goes for a political and economic federation of countries.  People point out to the example of the USA at the end of the 18^th century as a possible model for the Eurozone.  I would say that the (voting) Americans of that time had more much more in common than the EU today:  they were Anglo-Saxon, spoke English and had left Europe to found a new country common values.  The Europeans of today are far more diverse, don’t speak the same language and don’t (yet) want to be governed by bureaucrats from Brussels.

Perhaps a smaller eurozone will survive, with the necessary fiscal and political integration. This may not be the best outcome, as it may not respond to popular aspirations and would codify a two or three-speed EU.  A better solution may be a Europe of Nations, as envisaged by de Gaulle back in the 1960s, but one accepting enough fiscal and monetary coordination so as to facilitate a system of floating currencies whose exchange rates will be confined to a wide band that will accommodate some differences in policies and economic cycles; an improved “snake in the tunnel” of the 1970s if you wish (it is interesting to note that, in the end, only Germany, the Benelux and Denmark stayed in the tunnel).

Step up …get set …

---

[1]  It was estimated at 75% initially, but since then, Greek yields have skyrocketed.

A few thoughts on JP Morgan’s hedging loss

JP Morgan announced yesterday that its Chief Investment Office had incurred a loss of $2 billion on derivative trading undertaken for the purpose of hedging its loan portfolio.  This loss in turn had been partially offset by $1 billion of realized gains in regular trading.  JPM’s Jamie Dimon further warned that the CIO loss could rise or fall substantially until the derivative positions were undone.

As a shareholder, I was surprised by the announcement and I am not happy.  In the charged regulatory and political climate of Washington, we can expect all kinds of theater; Congress has already announced hearings on the matter; the SEC and the New York State Attorney have announced inquiries.  While the stock has fallen 9% already, it could fall further.

There some troubling aspects to this loss:  (1) how could these derivative positions lose so much money in so little time? (2) market rumors of excessive position building seem to have preceded JPM’s top management awareness of the magnitude of the problem, (3) how could anyone believe that building a position, big enough so as to be illiquid, be a good way to hedge a portfolio? (4) if indeed the short hedges lost money, there should have been a commensurate gain on the asset side JPM balance sheet.

Beyond the above questions, there are some more fundamental issues: (1) is this incident evidence that JPM has become too big to manage, even for as detailed-oriented a manager as Mr. Dimon, or is this proof that even the best falter sometimes? (2) there have been reports, unconfirmed so far, that those responsible for hedging at CIO had recently been expected to show a profit as well; (3) old-time bankers like me remember when the kind of derivatives JPM used didn’t exist, yet banks tried to protect against portfolio losses by having ample capital and  building general loan loss reserves in good times; shouldn’t regulators and banks take another look at these remedies?

I will close with two observations:  having pulled through the crisis unscathed, JPM has not been bashful about its prowess.  Its CEO can come across as arrogant at times, and I can see how many officers at the bank, by assimilation, could consider themselves as the new masters of the banking universe; hubris can be as dangerous, in its own way, as lack of competence.  Although it is purely a personal speculation of mine, I believe that the huge cost of litigation and regulation is pushing banks to make up for lost profits in every nook and cranny, in the case of JPM in what used to be a hedging activity.  Ironically, Congress and state attorney generals have some paternity in the JPM loss.

Clearly, JPM has built huge derivatives positions that it can’t easily close.  Market participants will quickly figure out which these are, if they don’t know already, and bid against JPM.  This is why Mr. Dimon warned about volatility and his determination to use his balance sheet not to be forced into untimely liquidation.  Consequently, it is prudent, in the absence of detailed information which is unlikely to be aired publicly, to assume that JPM could incur a bigger loss than the above gross $2 billion.

Even if the gross loss number were doubled to $4 billion, or about $1.05/share , pre-tax, the tangible book value at the end of the year is likely to be close to $36 [1] per share.  I would think that buying below that level would represent an interesting opportunity.  After all, the bank is well diversified, has plenty of capital and, despite this embarrassing loss, well managed.

---

[1] $34.5 tangible book at 3/31 + $4.7 of earning - $2.1 of net loss - $1.2 of dividends.  Book value would rise to $49.1.  I have assumed no net share buyback for the rest of the year.

Presidential aftermath

François Hollande won the 2012 presidential elections, which was not a surprise.  As I anticipated in my previous blog, the score was much tighter than expected, 51.6% to 48.4%.  Also, people who had voted for the Front National in the first round largely voted for Mr. Sarkozy in the second.

I thought that, with a good debate performance, Mr. Sarkozy could squeak by.  Unfortunately for him, while he assumed the role of the underdog, he was too often on the defensive and his overly aggressive style grated on many.  Mr. Hollande held his own, looked more composed, and in my view won.

Indeed, Mr. Sarkozy may have lost his reelection on style rather than substance.  Many would acknowledge that he did his best to undo some of the anti-competitive measures that prevented France from keeping up with the likes of Germany – the infamous 35 hour week, retirement at 60, an ever growing public sector – and he tackled some other issues – such as wearing the burka in public – that risked poisoning social relations.  But his often rough tone, cavalier treatment of his cabinet, apparent fascination with billionaires and hyperactivity gained him many detractors and won him few allies.  When he needed the votes, supporters didn’t materialize and opponents felt energized.

Obviously, other factors were at play.  First, many felt that after 17 years of center right government, there was a need for change.  Second, the incumbent was penalized for the economic crisis which happened on his watch.

What next?  As Mr. Sarkozy steps out of politics (at least for now), the political debate will focus on issues.  It will be interesting to see what Mr. Hollande proposes, but as I pointed out in the past, the actor to watch is Italy: in my view the dual leadership of France and Germany is fading, to be replaced by a troika of France, Germany and Italy.  And while Italy is sympathetic to greater emphasis on growth, it is doing the heavy lifting in the area of reforms and will not support mere deficit spending, if it were proposed.  Besides, Italy doesn’t have the financial resources to fund such an EU-wide program.

Yes, difficult times lie ahead, but failure is far from being a foregone conclusion; on the contrary, there are elements in place to produce a sounder, better balanced EU.  Markets, for the time being, sense this and are giving European politicians the benefit of the doubt.

French silver linings

The first round of the French presidential elections held its promises; it showed that opinion polls were no substitutes for actual vote counting and that the second round is more open than ever. 

To begin, voter participation was very strong at 80%.  Second, while Francois Hollande won, his lead over president Sarkozy was smaller than expected, 28.6% vs. 27.2%.  The National Front scored strongly at 17.9% but that was no surprise.  The biggest surprise was that Jean-Luc Melanchon, the candidate from the far Left scored only 11.1%, well below expectations. Finally, Francois Bayrou, the centrist, also disappointed with a 9.1% showing.

Clearly, this first round was a protest vote (massive participation, strong aggregate showing by the non-center parties), but it was not an outright rejection of the current political system as traditional candidates scored 64.9%.  Perhaps political commentators forgot that the median age of the French population is 39.4 years, not 20.

Two factors will determine the ultimate winner: how will the votes of the candidates eliminated after the first round be redistributed, and will there be a clear winner of the forthcoming debate(s).

Marine Le Pen, the Front National candidate, has been a very strong critic of Mr. Sarkozy.  She is highly unlikely to urge her supporters to vote for him.  She will probably prefer to retain the FN’s cohesion to win seats in Congress at a future date.  The FN is not unlike the Tea Party, but with a French flavor.  Immigration, big business, big government, diktats from far away seats of power (Brussels, Washington) are its bugaboos; as such, it is not easy to forecast how FN voters will cast their vote, and whether they will choose to abstain.  Hollande is loath to court them, while Sarkozy is doing it, but in coded language.  What these voters do will be determinant.

Jean-Luc Melanchon measured the limits of French appetite for insurrection (his own words).  In my view, both Hollande and Sarkozy are relieved that he underperformed.  Having declared that it was crucial to stop Sarkozy, he added that his support for Hollande in the second round would only be tactical as he would continue the “uprising” afterwards.  These are not the words that will fire his supporters to massively vote for Hollande.  Some degree of abstenation is likely.

A few weeks ago, Francois Bayrou was seen as a possible king maker, being a moderate centrist.  His low score was quickly noted, and with it, all rumors that he could make a good prime minister were quashed.

At this point, I would expect 60% of the Melanchon votes to go to Hollande and the rest to abstain; 60% of the Bayrou votes to go to Sarkozy and the rest to Hollande; 67% of the Le Pen votes to go to Sarkozy and 33% to Hollande.

This would give us:

Hollande: 28.6 + 6.7 + 3.6 + 6= 44.9 or 50.17%

Sarkozy: 27.2 + 5.5 + 11.9 = 44.6 or 49.83%

Clearly, Sarkozy cannot win unless he can convince a strong majority of FN supporters to vote for him, and even then, he would need extra help.

Which is where the debates come in.  True to form, Mr. Sarkozy asked for 3 debates with Mr. Hollande, while the tradition is for just one.  He may get two if he can pressure Hollande enough by painting him as afraid to debate.  He will then have to be persuasive but restrained, going for the jugular yet gentlemanly.  Mr. Hollande will have to convince voters that he can hold his own, be presidential, and yes, come up with strong arguments as to why he would be a better president than Sarkozy.  We may finally get what has been sorely lacking so far in this election: a serious debate on economic policies.

In sum, this election has tightened considerably and the incumbent could win.  Heavy betting against French stocks and bonds seem premature to me.

YPF

The recent announcement by the Argentine government that it would seize control of both YPF and YPF Gas came as a surprise to many.  Rumors that the move was imminent had been discounted as out of sync with an increasingly progressive Latin America and globalized economic relations.

Yet it did occur, and it was preceded by a seemingly concerted action on the part of some provinces to cancel YPF’s concessions.  As of yet, there is no detail as to how such government control will be instrumented nor how much YPF intends to pay for it. 

Readers may remember that when Bolivia expropriated foreign oil and gas companies, it paid nothing for the assets it took; the expropriation decree specifically stated that only the foreign oil companies that accepted the government action and agreed to stay on and cooperate would receive some share of future revenues to be negotiated.

In retrospect, the Argentine government action was not totally surprising.  After all, in 2005, Argentina basically reneged on its external debt by imposing a 75% haircut.  It also took over some $25 billion of domestic private pension funds and recently appropriated the foreign exchange reserves held by the Central Bank.  Nationalization is within a country’s rights (whether it is a good choice or not) provided that proper compensation is paid.  I do not know what the government will decide in this respect, but if it depends on international pressure, it may be little.

Indeed, the reactions from fellow Latin countries have been mixed and in some regards, surprising.  Quite naturally, “fellow travelers” such as Bolivia and Venezuela applauded the move; the Uruguayan president was on the whole sympathetic without endorsing the decision; his Chilean homologue was non-committal (which is surprising since Chile suffered from the Argentina decision, a few years ago, to renege on its obligations to supply it with natural gas).  Perhaps more unexpected was the reaction from the Mexican president who declared that, after such a move, any foreign investor contemplating putting money in Argentina would need to have his head examined.  Just as startling was the comment by Haroldo Lima, Head of ANP (the Brazilian National Petroleum Agency) that the move was excellent news for Latin America.

What to make of all this?  One conclusion is that bad habits die hard.  This is clearly the case with Argentina, and oil continues to provoke irrational reactions in many quarters.  Another, more controversial perhaps, is that with some notable exceptions, Latin America’s seeming economic miracle has had more to do with huge demand for its raw materials than with profound and durable internal reforms.  I am thinking about Brazil in particular where President Cardoso’s reforms have not been pursued and, in several instances, have been partially reversed.

Chile continues to have the most transparent economy and rule-book, but after some 30 years, it shows some signs of free market fatigue that bear watching.  Peru has achieved the fastest and most consistent growth in large part thanks to its mining industry; but it has also diversified and President Humala has so far surprised the skeptics, me included.

The two most interesting success stories are Mexico and Colombia. 

Having boosted its economy thanks to maquiladoras on the border with the US in the 1980s, Mexico’s industry then suffered from the competition from China.  But the trend has reversed in recent years as the US and Mexican economies integrated ever more.  Indeed, as Argentina nationalized YPF, Mexico may be about to open Pemex to minority investors.

Colombia’s recovery started when President Uribe regained control over the security of the country.  It was then sustained by a large domestic market, the country’s position between North and South America and by intelligent development and monetary policies. 

In a sense, I think that Colombia, barring unforeseen setbacks, is in the third inning of a virtuous economic and political cycle while Chile is late in the sixth.  I am not sure where I would put Brazil (fourth, eighth?) and Peru (second, seventh?).  Mexico is probably in the fifth.

In sum, political and cultural factors continue to be greatly underweighted in assessing sovereign risk and this YPF episode is a vivid example of that.  But the YPF crisis also helps highlight some countries which have been misjudged in my view.