- World finance bosses deny rumours of staggering bailout plan
- But sources say contingency preparations are well under way
- Loans would be from IMF and EU, leaving British taxpayers footing part
- European markets rocky: FTSE-100 plunges to year-long low
- FTSE-100 is 0.87% down; CAC 40 is 1.47% down; DAX is 2.58% down
By Hugo Duncan And James Salmon
|
British taxpayers could be forced to stump up another 5billion to rescue Spain as the crisis in the eurozone spirals out of control.
Fears are mounting that Madrid will have to ask for an emergency bailout of up to 300billion as it struggles to prop up its basket-case banks.
A third of that money could come from the International Monetary Fund – including around 5billion from the UK, even though Britain is not in the eurozone.
Scroll down for live stock market updates...
Talks: IMF boss Christine Lagarde (left) has denied rumours that Spain wants a €300billion bailout, as the nation's finance minister Cristobal Montoro (right) said the country was 'stable'
Working lunch: German chancellor Angela Merkel sits with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso Baltic Sea States leaders earlier this week
UK taxpayers have already coughed up 12.5billion to rescue debt-ridden Greece, Ireland and Portugal.
Spain’s deputy prime minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria has held crunch talks in Washington with IMF chief Christine Lagarde and US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
But the IMF denied reports that it has started to plan a bailout for Spain, while the country’s finance minister insisted it was stable.
‘The IMF is not drawing up plans that involve financial assistance for Spain, nor has Spain requested any financial support from the IMF,’ said the fund’s spokesman Gerry Rice.
Desperate: European leaders scrambled to stop the financial crisis in Spain spiralling out of control and infecting other countries such as Italy
But growing doubts over how the Spanish government will finance the 15billion needed to rescue Bankia, one of its biggest lenders, have raised fears that it will follow Ireland, Greece and Portugal in requiring a bailout from Europe and the IMF.
This week US investment bank JP Morgan warned a joint rescue of Spain could cost around 300billion.
The Spanish banking system has been crippled by nearly 150billion in toxic property loans.
Meanwhile, as Bankia announced a loss of 2.6billion, it emerged that its top bosses had enjoyed a pay bonanza totalling 18million.
Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, said: ‘It would be beyond belief if we had to help pay for Spanish so-called bankers who have run Bankia on to the rocks.’
Lagarde called her meeting with Saenz de Santamaria productive. She also denied a Wall Street Journal report that the IMF was drawing up plans for a rescue loan for Spain.
Saenz de Santamaria said that she discussed with Geithner some of the ideas being discussed in Europe about how to set up a fund to recapitalise European banks.
She said: 'The problem is not Spain as a country. But our financial system in a given moment has needs just like the other states had at other times.'
Crisis: Spain's government nationalised major bank Bankia earlier this month, and now says it needs to inject $23.6billion in public money into the bank
'EUROZONE JOBLESS HITS RECORD HIGH AND WILL KEEP ON RISING'
Eurozone unemployment has hit a record high and job losses are likely to keep climbing as the debt crisis eats away at businesses' ability to hire workers while indebted governments continue to cut staff.
Around 17.4million people were out of work in the 17-nation eurozone in April (11 per cent of the working population) - the highest level since records began in 1995, the EU's statistics office Eurostat said today.
'This 11 percent level is going to continue edging up in the coming months and probably until the end of the year,' said Francois Cabau, an economist at Barclays Capital who sees the eurozone's economy contracting 0.1 per cent this year.
'The economic activity situation tells you the story of the labour market. There's been basically no economic growth since the fourth quarter of last year and indicators are pointing to very weak growth momentum for the second quarter,' he said.
ING economist Martin van Vliet said he sees the unemployment rate reaching slightly above 11.5 per cent if the economy starts to recover later this year. But if the downturn worsens, 'the risk is for an even higher peak in unemployment,' he said.
As the debt crisis intensifies, companies in the euro zone are trying to keep their labour costs low as they struggle with falling demand and profits, while a German-led drive to cut deficits and debt is pressuring governments to shrink spending.
But some economists say austerity policies in an economic downturn are self-defeating because governments receive less tax receipts as unemployment grows and must pay out more money in jobless benefits.
The denial comes as senior European officials last night issued a grave warning that the very survival of the euro is at risk as the crisis in Spain threatens to tear the region apart.
Politicians and central bankers said the situation in the eurozone was unsustainable and drastic action was needed to prevent the ‘disintegration’ of the single currency.
They spoke out as European leaders scrambled to stop the financial crisis in Spain spiralling out of control and infecting other countries such as Italy.
The euro crashed to a 23-month low against the US dollar at $1.2335 but was up slightly against sterling having recovered from its lowest level since late 2008. Last night, 1 was worth €1.2460.
Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, said the eurozone was unsustainable in its current form.
In his sharpest criticism yet of eurozone leaders’ handling of the crisis, he said the European Central Bank could not ‘fill the vacuum’ left by governments in terms of economic growth or structural reforms.
And he called for overwhelming force to be used to shore up Europe’s battered banks to restore confidence in the financial system.
Ignazio Visco, governor of the Bank of Italy and a senior ECB member, said political inertia and bad economic decisions have put ‘the entire European edifice’ at risk.
‘There are growing doubts among international investors about governments’ ability to ensure the survival of the single currency,’ he said.
Olli Rehn, EU economic and monetary affairs commissioner, said bold action was required ‘if we want to avoid a disintegration of the eurozone’.
The apocalyptic tone from usually measured EU officials betrayed the spreading sense of panic.
Irish voters are likely to approve a European treaty on budget discipline in yesterday’s referendum – securing continued aid.
The result will be announced later today.
But the outcome of a second Greek election on June 17 – seen as crucial for the country’s future in the eurozone – is too close to call.
Money, misbehavior gushing in elections process - Worcester Telegram & Gazette
John Edwards is acquitted of using campaign cash as hush money. There's an explosion of high-dollar super political action committees in the presidential race. It's all stoking criticism of revisions and regulatory loopholes in a system that was intended to keep better control of political money after Watergate.
Loosening the law has made it easier for politicians to butt up against the legal line — if not cross it — and for wealthy Americans to influence who wins office, from the White House on down.
All told, the immense amount of money in American campaigns, the cozy relationships between candidates and their financial backers — and now, too, a seeming lack of accountability for alleged rule-breakers — is fueling the public's long-standing distrust of its politicians and doubts about the credibility of the system.
"There's not much for voters to have faith in," says Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Commission member and a proponent of campaign-finance reform. "We don't have much of a campaign-finance system at this stage, and we are wide open to the possibilities of corruption."
Spanning many weeks, the Edwards trial in North Carolina showcased what prosecutors said was a classic case of misusing campaign funds: Here was a former presidential candidate, they said, who channeled large sums of money from a deep-pocketed donor to cover up a love child and a mistress. But jurors acquitted Edwards, in part because the statute he was charged under required him to know he was breaking the law.
Jurors said the government didn't prove that. Said one, Sheila Lockwood: "I just felt that he didn't receive any of the money, so you can't really charge him for money that he got."
Campaign finance laws have changed remarkably since Edwards ran for the White House four years ago.
Had he been a candidate this year, and had his backers wanted to help him, they could have established a super PAC and donated unlimited amounts of money that could have been used in any number of ways. It's unclear if that still would have been legal for the uses in his case, although the super PACs have been able to take more risks than the campaigns they support. Super PACs are barred from coordinating with a candidate.
But it doesn't seem that clarity is coming anytime soon. The FEC can't agree on new regulations.
Take last December, when a Republican super PAC asked commissioners if it could "fully coordinate" with a Senate candidate. The commission deadlocked on a 3-3 vote after a heated discussion.
Michael Toner, a Washington lawyer and election law expert, said it would be a mistake to conclude that the failed prosecution of Edwards means that campaign finance violations will not be prosecuted.
"There's no question that there were relatively unique facts in the Edwards case," he said, and that there are other areas in campaign law where wrongdoing is clear cut — such as contributions from foreigners.
It's not just the FEC. A divided Congress has shown no appetite to take up the issue in earnest despite calls for an overhaul by Democrats after a series of federal court rulings — including the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010 — started to deregulate the system.
Political gridlock and regulatory ambiguity have paved the way for an unprecedented amount of spending from outside groups and special interests. Campaigns, political parties and super PACs supporting President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney have raised more than $400 million apiece, figures that put the election on track to cost more than $1 billion.
Despite claims of independence, super PACs have incredibly close ties to the candidates they're working to help elect.
Restore Our Future, supporting Mitt Romney, shares office space with the same consultants who help Romney's own campaign. The groups insist there is a "firewall" — the workspaces are separated, they have said, by a conference room. A former White House spokesman, Bill Burton, runs the Priorities USA Action super PAC with its goal of helping Obama win a second term.
The fuzzy rules have super PACs pushing the limits. Many have nonprofit arms that legally don't have to disclose their donors. Some mega-donors — notably casino mogul Sheldon Adelson — have said they will be giving their money to these shelters to avoid public scrutiny.
"That's exactly what the laws we have are supposed to prevent," Potter said, "that one candidate for public office is not completely beholden to an individual and his interests."
We've been here before.
Congress began to change how Americans fund their elections in the mid-1970s after slush funds and cover-ups forced Richard Nixon's resignation.
"I believe that one of the crucial factors in determining whether or not we consider a government democratic is not how much power public officials have, but rather how public officials secure and retain their offices," Lawton Chiles told his colleagues on the Senate floor in April 1974.
Since then, there's been no shortage of instances of questionable relationships between politicians and the people who bankroll their candidacies.
On the Democratic side, hundreds of Obama's major backers have had repeated access to his top advisers or have attended glamorous state dinners. The White House has declined to offer complete details on those meetings. And on the Republican side, GOP super PACs have faced their own troubles in disclosing donors required under existing rules. Some major contributors have been listed in federal data with ambiguous addresses or shell corporations.
Situations like those have fueled voter distrust of both parties.
Republican Sen. John McCain, a major player in campaign-finance reform, has warned the current system is so influenced by wealthy donors that it will require "major scandals" before it is fixed. Conversely, anti-reform advocates have said campaign-finance deregulation is more faithful to free-speech protections afforded by the First Amendment.
One thing certain in an otherwise uncertain campaign finance landscape is that no changes are imminent. This will be the system at least through the November election.
'Anything goes' now in campaign financing? - The Guardian
JACK GILLUM
Associated Press= WASHINGTON (AP) — Is it "anything goes" now in America's campaign finance system?
John Edwards is acquitted of using campaign cash as hush money. There's an explosion of high-dollar super political action committees in the presidential race. It's all stoking criticism of revisions and regulatory loopholes in a system that was intended to keep better control of political money after Watergate.
Loosening the law has made it easier for politicians to butt up against the legal line — if not cross it — and for wealthy Americans to influence who wins office, from the White House on down.
All told, the immense amount of money in American campaigns, the cozy relationships between candidates and their financial backers — and now, too, a seeming lack of accountability for alleged rule-breakers — is fueling the public's long-standing distrust of its politicians and doubts about the credibility of the system.
"There's not much for voters to have faith in," says Trevor Potter, a former Federal Election Commission member and a proponent of campaign-finance reform. "We don't have much of a campaign-finance system at this stage, and we are wide open to the possibilities of corruption."
Spanning many weeks, the Edwards trial in North Carolina showcased what prosecutors said was a classic case of misusing campaign funds: Here was a former presidential candidate, they said, who channeled large sums of money from a deep-pocketed donor to cover up a love child and a mistress. But jurors acquitted Edwards, in part because the statute he was charged under required him to know he was breaking the law.
Jurors said the government didn't prove that. Said one, Sheila Lockwood: "I just felt that he didn't receive any of the money, so you can't really charge him for money that he got."
Campaign finance laws have changed remarkably since Edwards ran for the White House four years ago.
Had he been a candidate this year, and had his backers wanted to help him, they could have established a super PAC and donated unlimited amounts of money that could have been used in any number of ways. It's unclear if that still would have been legal for the uses in his case, although the super PACs have been able to take more risks than the campaigns they support. Super PACs are barred from coordinating with a candidate.
But it doesn't seem that clarity is coming anytime soon. The FEC can't agree on new regulations.
Take last December, when a Republican super PAC asked commissioners if it could "fully coordinate" with a Senate candidate. The commission deadlocked on a 3-3 vote after a heated discussion.
Michael Toner, a Washington lawyer and election law expert, said it would be a mistake to conclude that the failed prosecution of Edwards means that campaign finance violations will not be prosecuted.
"There's no question that there were relatively unique facts in the Edwards case," he said, and that there are other areas in campaign law where wrongdoing is clear cut — such as contributions from foreigners.
It's not just the FEC. A divided Congress has shown no appetite to take up the issue in earnest despite calls for an overhaul by Democrats after a series of federal court rulings — including the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010 — started to deregulate the system.
Political gridlock and regulatory ambiguity have paved the way for an unprecedented amount of spending from outside groups and special interests. Campaigns, political parties and super PACs supporting President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney have raised more than $400 million apiece, figures that put the election on track to cost more than $1 billion.
Despite claims of independence, super PACs have incredibly close ties to the candidates they're working to help elect.
Restore Our Future, supporting Mitt Romney, shares office space with the same consultants who help Romney's own campaign. The groups insist there is a "firewall" — the workspaces are separated, they have said, by a conference room. A former White House spokesman, Bill Burton, runs the Priorities USA Action super PAC with its goal of helping Obama win a second term.
The fuzzy rules have super PACs pushing the limits. Many have nonprofit arms that legally don't have to disclose their donors. Some mega-donors — notably casino mogul Sheldon Adelson — have said they will be giving their money to these shelters to avoid public scrutiny.
"That's exactly what the laws we have are supposed to prevent," Potter said, "that one candidate for public office is not completely beholden to an individual and his interests."
We've been here before.
Congress began to change how Americans fund their elections in the mid-1970s after slush funds and cover-ups forced Richard Nixon's resignation.
"I believe that one of the crucial factors in determining whether or not we consider a government democratic is not how much power public officials have, but rather how public officials secure and retain their offices," Lawton Chiles told his colleagues on the Senate floor in April 1974.
Since then, there's been no shortage of instances of questionable relationships between politicians and the people who bankroll their candidacies.
On the Democratic side, hundreds of Obama's major backers have had repeated access to his top advisers or have attended glamorous state dinners. The White House has declined to offer complete details on those meetings. And on the Republican side, GOP super PACs have faced their own troubles in disclosing donors required under existing rules. Some major contributors have been listed in federal data with ambiguous addresses or shell corporations.
Situations like those have fueled voter distrust of both parties.
Republican Sen. John McCain, a major player in campaign-finance reform, has warned the current system is so influenced by wealthy donors that it will require "major scandals" before it is fixed. Conversely, anti-reform advocates have said campaign-finance deregulation is more faithful to free-speech protections afforded by the First Amendment.
One thing certain in an otherwise uncertain campaign finance landscape is that no changes are imminent. This will be the system at least through the November election.
---
Follow Jack Gillum on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jackgillum
With money to spend, Dodgers will seek pitcher, hitter (and keep eye on Hamels) - CBS Sports
Posted:
The financial power of the Dodgers' new ownership group could really be seen on next winter's free-agent market, where the team is expected to go all-out in an effort to sign Cole Hamels.
"They love him, and they're saying they'll do whatever it takes to get him," said one rival club official, who speaks regularly to Dodgers people.
But the Dodgers will likely try to flex their financial muscle on the July trade market, too.
With their team sitting in first place in the NL West, Dodgers officials have sent out word that they will try hard to acquire both a starting pitcher and a hitter before the July 31 non-waiver deadline.
"The one thing that won't be an obstacle for them is money," the rival official said.
The Dodger farm system hasn't had nearly as good a start as the parent club, so the team is limited in terms of prospects who would be coveted trade chips. The solution for the Dodgers could be to go after players with bigger contracts, and offer to take on more of the money.
One position player the Dodgers have scouted is third baseman Kevin Youkilis, who the Red Sox intend to trade. Youkilis is pricey, with a $12 million contract this year and a $13 million option (with a $1 million buyout) for 2013.
As colleague Jon Heyman wrote this week, the trade market looks to be strong in starting pitching. As of now, it's believed that the Dodgers are looking at multiple pitchers who could be available.
One pitcher the Dodgers could have strong interest in: Ryan Dempster of the Cubs. Before the Dodgers got Ted Lilly from the Cubs two summers ago, they initially tried for Dempster.
The Dodgers rotation has been one of the game's best for the first two months of the season, with a 3.07 ERA that ranks just behind the Nationals' MLB-leading 2.95. But Ted Lilly just went on the disabled list, and the Dodgers seem to have some concerns that the rest of their starters won't maintain their early season success.
Offensively, the Dodgers could use immediate help, with star center fielder Matt Kemp back on the disabled list and expected to miss a month. Youkilis would be a fit, because the Dodgers have been getting almost no offense out of third base.
Martin Lewis: how he built the Money Saving empire - Daily Telegraph
Mr Lewis was born in Manchester and grew in Cheshire. After attending the London School of Economics he worked in public relations in the City. He then attended Cardiff University to complete a postgraduate course in journalism.
Cardiff is famed for the number of BBC staff it produces, and Mr Lewis followed suit, work as business editor on Radio 4's Today programme.
It was after this, in 1999, that he joined Simply Money and then, the Sunday Express. A former colleague at the Express explained that Mr Lewis was not as popular as you might expect given his accessible television persona today, but was a "bit of a geek".
"Martin was quite intense, very ambitious and an excellent networker, I am not surprised he has done so well," a former fellow journalist said.
It was while he was at the Express in February 2003 he set up MoneySavingExpert – now the most popular consumer finance website in the UK, with 13 million monthly users and seven million people receiving the Martin's Money Tips email – for just £100.
While he was still at the Express, in 2007, he was rumoured to have been approached by Lloyds TSB who offered him £5m to buy the site. He turned it down on the basis that he "did not trust banks", and would worry about losing editorial control.
Before it was closed down last year, Mr Lewis had a column in the News of the World. He regularly appears on ITV's Daybreak programme, as well as Watchdog and a weekly slot on the Lorraine show.
Mr Lewis has a monthly column in The Daily Telegraph.
He is a best-selling author, titles include The Money Diet and Three Lessons & Thrifty Ways.
Commenting on todays announcement of the sale of his website to Moneysupermarket.com Mr Lewis said that he would be cutting down on the time he spends running the website to concentrate on his media work.
The website is being sold for £87m. Mr Lewis owns 100pc of the business and is expected to receive £35m in cash and around 22.1m shares in MoneySupermarket.com.
He intends to gift £10m to charity, including £1m which will go to Citizens Advice.
This is like something out of a magic show...where does the IMF get all that money.
- ivy, essex, 02/6/2012 02:11
Report abuse