FT : Bloomberg halts report as China clamps down on foreign media

Bloomberg halts report as China clamps down on foreign media

Bloomberg News has decided not to publish a report that alleges financial ties between China’s richest man and the relatives of top Chinese Communist party officials because of fears that the government would prevent the media group from operating in the country. An investigative team at the agency spent the past year probing links between the businessman and several current and former members of the Politburo Standing Committee – the body that ultimately rules China.

One person familiar with the circumstances said senior Bloomberg editors blocked the story at the eleventh hour. The person said Matthew Winkler, editor-in-chief, told the reporters in a conference call on October 29 that Bloomberg could not risk jeopardising its position in China by running the story. The Bloomberg spokesman denied that the group, whose main business around the world is selling financial data, had spiked the story. “We have high editorial standards and this story was not ready for publication. Any suggestion it didn’t run for any other reason is absurd,” the spokesman said. The person familiar with the discussions dismissed Bloomberg’s comments that the story was not ready for publication, saying it had been approved and just needed a Chinese government response Mr Winkler compared the situation with Nazi-era Germany where some media undertook self censorship to remain in the country, the person said. A Bloomberg spokesman did not challenge the veracity of the comment about Nazi-era Germany when asked by the Financial Times. Several people familiar with the Bloomberg story said it focused on Wang Jianlin, the founder of Dalian Wanda, real estate group, who recently paid $28.2m for Picasso’s “Claude et Paloma”. Forbes ranks Mr Wang as China’s richest man with $14.1bn. ​A spokesperson for Wanda declined to comment. The Financial Times itself has seen no evidence to indicate links between Mr Wang and party officials. Mr Wang got his start in Dalian, the northeastern city where Bo Xilai, the jailed former high-flying Chinese politician, served as mayor for a number of years. The other major Dalian property developer, Xu Ming, was detained in connection with the Bo scandal and was not seen until he appeared in court in August during the Bo trial. Bloomberg’s decision not to print the story comes as China becomes even more aggressive in clamping down on the foreign media. Bloomberg’s website has been blocked since last year when it published an exposé on the wealth accumulated by relatives of Xi Jinping, China’s president. It is also having trouble getting journalist visas for reporters. Censors have also blocked access to the website of the New York Times, which published a similar story last year about then Premier Wen Jiabao. The paper has had difficultly obtaining some journalist visas since then. In the conference call with four reporters and editors in Hong Kong who worked on the year-long investigation, Mr Winkler said the Communist party had made very clear that printing stories about the financial assets of its leaders was off-limits, the person familiar with the story said.

The Bloomberg spokesman denied that the group, whose main business around the world is selling financial data, had spiked the story. “We have high editorial standards and this story was not ready for publication. Any suggestion it didn’t run for any other reason is absurd,” the spokesman said. But the person familiar with the discussions between senior editors in the US and the team in Hong Kong said the story had been approved and just needed a Chinese government response. “We had crossed the Rubicon,” said the person. “The story was fully edited, fact checked and vetted by the lawyers.” The person added that senior editors in the US had given strong support all along to Michael Forsythe and Shai Oster, the two reporters who led the large team chasing the story. But, in October, they suddenly changed their mind, and said the story was not fit for publication. “They said they were putting it on the backburner, but it was blindingly clear that it was being killed,” the person said. On September 18, Laurie Hays, one of Bloomberg’s top editors in New York, wrote an email to the reporters in Hong Kong, which said the latest version of the story was “almost there” and that once she and other editors, including a managing editor Jonathan Kaufman, had taken a close read, they would review it with the company’s lawyers. Nine days later, Mr Kaufman emailed the reporters to say the story was “terrific”. In the email, which was obtained by the FT, he wrote: “The story is terrific. I am in awe of the way you tracked down and deciphered the financial holdings and the players. It’s a real revelation. Looking forward to pushing it up the line.” However, four weeks later, Ms Hays called the reporters in Hong Kong to tell them that the story was going to be put on the “backburner”, according to the person familiar with the situation. The spokesman declined to comment on the emails.

Mr Winkler, who founded Bloomberg News with Michael Bloomberg, did not respond to an email with questions. But his spokesman pointed to comments in the New York Times where he said the story had not been spiked and was still “active”. The spokesman declined to say why Mr Winkler felt compelled to refer to self-censorship if editors had simply decided that the story was not yet ready for publication. The spokesman also declined to say why Bloomberg had allowed the reporters to pursue the story for so long if they had harboured concerns about the potential impact on the company’s ability to operate in China. The person familiar with the dispute said the journalists on the conference call with Mr Winkler “appreciated his honesty” but disagreed that Bloomberg would be thrown out of China if the story was published. The dispute emerged in public on Friday after the pro-democracy Taiwan arm of a Hong Kong media group released an animated video that ridiculed Bloomberg and Mr Winkler for spiking the story. The New York Times also reported the dispute earlier on Sunday.

WSJ : China's Margin for Error

China's Margin for Error

Beijing Is in a Tight Spot for Managing Economy

China's economy is operating in a narrow comfort zone.

The latest October economic data show growth has stabilized since a spring slump. Industrial production accelerated to 10.3% year on year. Retail sales remained solid. Exports grew 5.6% with a noticeable pickup to the U.S. and Europe, China's most important customers.

This might be as good as it gets. China's economy can't seem to cope with the increased activity. Inflation is again on the scene, with consumer prices up 3.2% in October compared with the year earlier, the fastest rate since February and inching toward the government's full-year target of 3.5%. Vegetable prices, an important component of China's inflation basket, surged. Property prices remain bubbly.

To prevent inflation from becoming sticky, Beijing will need to keep credit scarce. The inflow of funds from a trade surplus that more than doubled in October to $31.1 billion compared with September signals the central bank has more excess liquidity to soak up. It may also mean continued currency appreciation.

Policy makers are operating in a space about as wide as a hotel corridor. Premier Li Keqiang said last month China needs 7.2% growth to achieve the government's target of creating 10 million urban jobs a year. While some quibble with the precision of Mr. Li's figure, anything much lower than that and party officials worry the masses may get restless.

On the upside, it appears China's economy can't grow much faster than the third quarter's 7.8% year-over-year pace without inflation rising. Let prices get loose, and again policy makers have to worry about social discontent.

That leaves a 0.6 percentage point range in which Beijing is comfortable. In reality, the range may be even narrower. When growth slid to 7.5% in the second quarter, talk was rife about tipping points where anything much slower could trigger problems with servicing the economy's rising debt load.

Communist Party leaders holed up in their secretive plenum this weekend are rightly contemplating what big steps need to be taken to right China's economy for the next decade. They only have to look at October's data to see why they are in a tight spot.

WSJ : Reformers Stagger Out of Gate in Beijing

Reformers Stagger Out of Gate in Beijing

With top Communist Party leaders gathered in Beijing for a pivotal meeting that promises to serve as a referendum on the reform ideas of new Chinese leader Xi Jinping and his allies, people inside and outside the party are wondering what sort of path reformers face in pushing through the sort of changes they want to see.

According to a front-page editorial (in Chinese) in Sunday’s edition of People’s Daily, it’s an uphill one.

The Party media continues to be generally quiet about the meeting, officially known as the Third Plenum of the 18th Party Congress, which is taking place behind closed doors. But the editorial offers some early clues about what’s being debated.

The editorial acknowledges the challenges to reform, admitting that “it’s difficult to walk uphill.” But it also notes that “the road of reform never did run smooth” and proceeds from there to issue a grandiose statement on the need for “a full determination and courage for reform, to summon the hearts of 1.3 billion people to a single thought, and form an effort to assemble a tremendous force.”

If the present leadership is “afraid to advance forward,” the commentary argues, “all previous efforts may have been wasted.”

To some observers, this might be the usual Party rhetoric, meant to exhort cadres to start running before they get run over. But it’s not often that People’s Daily will run such a strongly-worded commentary in one of its weekend editions, which tend to replete with middle-of-the-road coverage of specific cases of good government performance. They rarely press cadres to put their shoulders to the Party wheel with such passion.

The appearance and content of the editorial may well mean that the reform package — presumably aimed at clearing a path for the next evolution in Chinese economic growth — is already hitting some bumps.

The fact that the same day’s edition of People’s Daily carried another plea for change — in that case, arguing for a market economy that would create a more just distribution of income and assets (in Chinese) — is another signal to the cadre readership that reformers may have not moved as quickly as their conservative colleagues after hearing the starting gun this weekend.

Neither piece needed to have run with such prominence if the path to economic and social transformation by the Party leadership at the Plenum was clear and true.

Uphill or not, reform is already a tough road—and may be proving to be a tougher sell than some anticipated.

(NY Post) Short holiday shopping season adds to retailers headaches

Goodbye, Thanksgiving. Hello, Thanksgetting. The economy is still hurting, and this holiday shopping season will be hurt by another thing nobody can do anything about — it’s so darned short. Thanksgiving — always the last Thursday in November — is falling late this year, giving retailers fewer days between Turkey Day and Christmas to convince consumers they need to spend money. So you shouldn’t be surprised that stores are trying to jump the gun on sales, with many holiday discounts coming much earlier than usual. In fact, there will be virtually no advantage for consumers to wait until Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving that’s traditionally the kickoff to the holiday shopping season. Many retailers diluted Black Friday sales years ago when stores started opening on Thanksgiving evening. But this is the first year that Macy’s, the store that’s arguably the most holiday-tradition-bound, will be joining the crowd. Macy’s will barely be able to deflate its parade balloons and say goodbye to Santa — who brings up the rear of its parade — before its employees will need to prepare for an 8 p.m. Thanksgiving opening. Not to be outdone, Kmart and Sears are opening at 6 a.m. Thanksgiving morning. Nevertheless, a new study from Morgan Stanley maintains that none of it will keep Scrooge from retailers’ doors. Citing ongoing uncertainty about the economy, focus on big-ticket items, increased promotional activity, and yes, unfavorable calendar shifts, the study predicts a 1.6 percent increase in holiday same-store sales, below last year’s 3.5 percent rise. Thanksgiving is traditionally a celebration of abundance, which is one reason we stuff ourselves silly. But retailers are working their hardest (and earliest) to make sure our wallets, at least, are thinner.

(NY Post) Meet Oscar, the start-up that may revolutionize health insurance

Meet Oscar, the start-up that may revolutionize health insurance

Modal Trigger Meet Oscar, the start-up that may revolutionize health insurance Photo: Hioscar.com Starting with the premise that health-insurance companies should relieve, not create, headaches, a group of venture capitalists and health care professionals believe they have the right prescription. Josh Kushner of Thrive Capital and his partners — who this summer won approval from state regulators to open a new health-insurance company — have begun offering New Yorkers what they say is a simpler, clearer health-insurance model, called Oscar. They have been working on the idea for the last decade, raising tens of millions of dollars to start up their company. “We simply think that consumers deserve better,” said Kevin Nazemi, one of Oscar’s co-founders and a former director of Microsoft’s healthcare division. “We have found very few people who were happy with their existing experience with their health insurance. And that was the drive for us to create something that is transparent.” For example, Nazemi says, “this will include letting consumers know . . . the price of a doctor on one side of the street and the price of a doctor on the other street. We also want to use technology so that the consumer feels like he or she has a doctor in the family.” The company, which says it is the first private health-insurance company to begin operations in New York state in a decade, aims to ensure that the individual controls costs and care options. “You have the option of flicking a button to interact with a doctor and figure out what’s next,” Nazemi says. Oscar (which was named after one of Kushner’s relatives) says its network now includes 35,000 doctors and 72 hospitals that Oscar policyholders can use. The company will also have service sites at CVS Caremark pharmacies. Oscar, a privately held company, begins with considerable financial resources and expertise. Its board of directors includes billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Khosla and Charlie Baker, former head of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. But can it turn a profit? Oscar executives say the challenge of health care is the same as that of any other business — namely, finding and keeping customers. “If you are treating your members badly and a large group of them are leaving each year, and then you have to spend a bunch of money to market [to] and get new members, then it’s hard to build a viable business,” Nazemi says. “But if you deliver great consumer experience and members stay with you for the long term, then it’s a very viable business.”

(NY Post) Talent agency, IMG, expected to fetch $2.7B bid

Morgan Stanley and Evercore are getting down to business this weekend. The two banks working on the hottest media auction in town, IMG, are set to cut their list of prospective buyers after the latest round of bids was delivered late last week, sources told On the Money. Sports Business Journal reports the list of bidders will be halved. IMG, once owned by Teddy Forstmann’s Fortsmann, Little private equity shop, is being chased by some of Tinseltown’s fiercest competitors: CAA’s Richard Lovett, WME co-CEOs Ari Emanuel and Patrick Whitesell, and Peter Chernin, each of whom is paired with private-equity partners who are going to have to dig deep. The Post previously reported that bidding was in the $2.7 billion area. The pairings include CAA-TPG, WME Silver Lake, Chernin and CVC Capital. Also bidding in the second round were KKR and New Mountain, Bain, Carlyle and Rizvi Traverse Management. While the existing talent shops are the most eager bidders, management is keen to hang on to their seats and haven’t entirely opened the kimono for either CAA or WME. One name not moving forward is billionaire Len Blavatnik, who owns Warner Music Group. Blavatnik, one of the richest men in the world, had been quietly looking at the asset to bolster his interest in European digital sports agency Perform Sports, but our sources say he’s now out. Meanwhile, IMG boss Mike Dolan had a mixed bag last week. The company signed Christie Brinkley and her daughter Sailor to modeling contracts but also axed the folks producing its New York and Miami fashion shows in favor of outsourcing the event production, according to reports.

FT : Commodities: Destination Africa

Commodities: Destination Africa

An economy to fuel: heavy traffic, common on roads such as the Lagos-Abeokuta expressway, helps make oil demand in Africa among the fastest growing in the world At the food processing plant he runs in Lagos, Mukul Mathur describes the thousands of miles that his tomatoes travel. At first, their odyssey between Nigeria and California appears unremarkable in an age of globalisation. Mr Mathur would seem to be just another trader buying raw materials in Africa and selling them to distant, wealthier markets. But he actually runs a supply chain at odds with old, colonial-era trade routes.

“We farm tomatoes in California, process them into triple concentrate and ship them to Nigeria,” Mr Mathur, an Indian-born trader, says at the $12m plant that Olam, a leading commodities house that opened in Lagos this year. “We process the concentrate here and package the tomato to sell it to consumers,” he adds, holding a sachet of 70 grammes of tomato paste that fetches 25-30 naira (10 to 20 US cents) in the ubiquitous kiosk-shops in Nigeria’s biggest city. The California-to-Lagos commodities supply route would have been unthinkable only a decade ago, when international businesses still considered Africa a continent of declining economic activity. But as economic growth accelerates, driven by increasing political stability, booming populations, the spread of mobile telecommunications, high commodity prices and surging foreign direct investment, so does commodities demand within Africa. For the trading houses, this is a big new opportunity that is upending their traditional business model. “Africa is fundamentally changing,” says Ketan Patel, managing director of Export Trading Group, a commodities trading house in Tanzania which counts Carlyle Group, the private equity firm, as major shareholder. By 2020, he explains, “Africa will be majority young and urban, with an expanding middle class and they will demand energy and food.” In the jargon of the industry, Africa has been an “origination” business since colonial times, providing raw materials for overseas consumers: gold from South Africa, coffee from Ethiopia, crude oil from Nigeria, cocoa from Ivory Coast and copper from Zambia. This business model is still crucial to the big trading houses and exporting Africa’s commodities has funnelled millions of dollars into the hands of foreign tycoons. But over the past five years, a new “destination” business has emerged. The commodities traders say that this shift to supplying African consumers means that they are moving away from colonialist models. While they concede their motives are hardly altruistic, they argue that the business of selling to the booming sub-Saharan market is more of a boon to regional development, linking African consumers into broader international markets. “Africa’s potential is huge,” says Ivan Glasenberg, chief executive of Glencore Xstrata, the world’s top commodities trader. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the sub-Saharan African region will be the second fastest growing in the world in 2014, behind only developing Asia, which includes China. Such robust economic growth means that Africa is moving away from being “just a low-cost production centre” into also a demand centre, says Sunny Verghese, chief executive of Singapore-listed Olam. “Africa’s economic growth over the last decade has been above trend, only next to Asia,” he says. Olam is far from alone in its passion for Africa. Other big commodities trading groups, including Vitol and Trafigura of Switzerland, have invested billions of dollars in the continent over the past five years to cater to consumers there. Cargill, the world’s largest agricultural commodities trader, is exploring its first investment in Nigeria, looking at farming cassava locally to produce starch and sweeteners for the domestic food industry. Louis Dreyfus Commodities, its agribusiness rival, is also investing into Africa, recently forming a joint venture with the Willowton Group of South Africa to sell packaged rice to consumers there. Booming demand for commodities is not unique to Africa. Asia and Latin America also have voracious appetites for raw materials but, in their case, state-owned companies play a larger role in the commodities business. Africa gives the trading houses far greater leeway in their operations. The new destination business is creating supply chains that look a world apart from what the industry has been used to for decades. For example, Saudi fuel oil is flowing into Kenyan power stations; wheat from Kansas is arriving at flour mills in the Tanzanian port of Dar es Salaam; Chilean copper is consumed in South Africa, and Thai rice is a staple in Nigeria. Striking a note of caution, some traders observe that it would be misleading to compare Africa’s immediate needs with those of Asia. Some commodities businesses in Africa are conspicuously lagging – in particular metals and minerals such as copper and aluminium. Traders say imports of these metals will only accelerate once African countries embark on costly infrastructure programmes in power, railway and public buildings, much as India and China have. Other commodity traders are even more dismissive of the “Africa Rising” mantra, branding it hype outside a few pockets of strength in megacities such as Nairobi and Lagos. For all its recent progress, Africa remains poor and many obstacles, from rickety infrastructure to corruption, remain. But demand is only expected to rise. African countries have been growing at breakneck pace over the past decade, breaking away from a 30-year period of lacklustre performance. According to the International Monetary Fund, the sub-Saharan Africa region expanded at an average of 5.6 per cent a year between 2000 and 2012, more than double the 2.2 per cent of the 1990s. The robust economic expansion has lifted gross domestic product per capita in spite of booming population growth. In 1999, African income per capita was the same as it had been 25 years before, according to the Conference Board, a research organisation. But since then it has jumped almost 40 per cent. The commodities houses are attracted to the African destination business for three reasons. First, demand is rising fast, in many cases at double-digit annual rates. Second, many African governments subsidise basic commodities such as petrol and wheat, in effect guaranteeing a return to the traders. Third, most African countries lack the infrastructure needed to import raw materials, from silos for storing wheat and rice to terminals for unloading petrol. The commodities houses say that, as they build this infrastructure, they will be able to secure a market and benefit from years of rising demand. So far, oil leads demand growth in Africa. The International Energy Agency believes Africa is set to “provide one of the fastest paces of global oil demand growth in the medium term”, rising by an average of more than 4 per cent annually between 2012 and 2018, double the rate in Asia and far above the global average of 1.3 per cent for the period. “The region’s rapid income gain means that great leaps in demand growth may be on the cards,” says the IEA. Oil traders including Vitol, Trafigura and Oryx Energies of Geneva have positioned themselves to profit from the surge in the destination business. Jean Claude Gandur, the businessman behind Oryx, has no concerns about tempting fate with his bullish projections. “We cannot see the end of this market,” he says. This growth in oil demand comes from obvious places, such as motorists in Nigeria and Kenya. But it also hails from more obscure areas such as imports of bitumen to seal thousands of miles of roads across Africa and the millions of cylinders of liquefied natural gas that are replacing wood and charcoal for cooking from Burkina Faso to Tanzania. Vitol, the world’s largest independent oil trader that once only specialised in exporting crude oil from Africa to Europe and the US, now boasts the third-largest network of petrol stations in Africa. Its 1,400 outlets in 15 countries trail only Total of France and Engen Petroleum of South Africa. The trading house, which is based in Geneva, bought the petrol stations in 2011 from Shell for about $1bn. Vitol’s partner in the deal was Helios Investment Partners, an Africa-focused private equity group. The partners in Vivo Energy, the new company, each hold a 40 per cent stake, with Shell remaining an investor and keeping a 20 per cent stake. Vivo plans to spend over $250m in Africa during the next three years expanding its business to profit from the increase in local demand for refined oil products. “We are talking about some countries that are moving from walking and bicycles to motorbikes and cars, boosting consumption,” says Mark Ware, executive vice-president at Vivo Energy. Trafigura has followed suit, acquiring for $296m – through its subsidiary Puma Energy – the network of petrol stations that BP owned in Africa. Since then, Puma has invested another $1bn to expand its presence. Christophe Zyde, chief operating officer for Africa at Puma Energy, says the continent offers a rare combination of enticements. “Some emerging markets have either strong demand growth or [a] need for infrastructure. But it is rare to find markets where both the demand is booming and there is also a strong need for infrastructure. Africa has the two,” he says. Shipping agricultural commodities into Africa has also become a far more important business. In the 1980s and early 1990s, food traders grew exasperated with Africa due to sluggish import growth and slow economic growth. According to the US Department of Agriculture, Africa imported in 1995-96 about 27.5m tonnes of grain, the same as in 1983-84. But that changed in the late 1990s as economic growth began to accelerate. In just over a decade, grain imports jumped from less than 30m to more than 70m tonnes. Louis Dreyfus Commodities has led the food traders in building a destination business in Africa. Guy de Montule, a senior executive at the company, says starkly that the consumer market for food in Africa is “going to be giant”. Backing its optimism with acquisitions over the past three years, Louis Dreyfus has bought SCPA-Sivex International, the leading distributor of fertilisers and pesticides in west and central Africa and Gulf Stream Investment Limited, a vegetable oil storage terminal in Mombasa, Kenya. It has also recently formed a joint venture with Willowton Group, the South African crushing company to sell packaged rice. Cargill already supplies flour millers in west and east Africa. Only five years ago, very few people could have imagined that the prospect of selling all these commodities– including Mr Mathur’s tomatoes – inside Africa could have sparked such excitement. Domestic production: Needless dependency on imports The rise in Africa’s commodity imports certainly highlights the continent’s strong economic growth over the past decade. But it also exposes the weakness of local food production and oil refining capacity. Both have been hobbled by inadequate government policies and investment. Nigeria exemplifies the problem. The country is Africa’s largest crude producer, pumping about 2.5m barrels per day. With domestic consumption of about 300,000 b/d, Nigeria should be able to bypass the trading houses and instead refine enough petrol, diesel and other products at home. Instead, every day it buys about 80 per cent of its refined products from commodities trading houses because its four domestic refineries are old and in need of maintenance, according to the US Energy Information Administration. The country’s four refineries operated only at 24 per cent of their capacity in 2011. Other African countries are struggling to build refining capacity, providing exporter-oriented refineries in Europe, the Middle East and India with an outlet for their products. Oil is not the only commodity that Nigeria buys from international traders. The country is the second-largest rice importer, behind only China. Until the early 1970s, Nigeria was self-sufficient in the grain but it abandoned much of this production, using petrodollars instead to buy high-quality rice on the international market. Agronomists say that Nigeria could be self-sufficient again – and even become a regional exporter – as the country has fertile farmland and the weather could even support rice crops. Nigeria is not alone. Across Africa, countries have become dependent on imported food and, in turn, on global commodities trading houses. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Africa spent $21bn in 2000 importing food. By 2011 – the latest annual data available – the bill had grown to $81bn, boosted by both higher agricultural commodities prices and much larger volumes. The FAO estimates that Africa imports today about 40 per cent of the food it consumes, compared to just 10-15 per cent in the 1960s.

FT : Art: Lost and found

Art: Lost and found

The greatest find of Nazi-confiscated art since 1945 has been met with awe and controversy

A few weeks before it was due to go under the hammer, Markus Stötzel, a German lawyer, discovered that Max Beckmann’s “The Lion Tamer”, a gouache and pastel work on paper, was being advertised as one of the highlights of a modern art sale at the Lempertz auction house in Cologne. Mr Stötzel was astonished. The heirs of Alfred Flechtheim, an art dealer, collector and champion of German modernism who was persecuted by the Nazis, were his clients. He knew that Mr Flechtheim’s collection – most of which was confiscated by the Nazis – had included more than a dozen Beckmann works, among them “The Lion Tamer”. The public reappearance of the painting was a rare chance to get justice before it vanished once more into private hands. “It was all very tight,” Mr Stötzel said this week. “Two weeks before the auction – [we were still] going back and forth.” The owner, Cornelius Gurlitt, an elderly man from Munich, acknowledged that his father had bought the painting from Mr Flechtheim in 1934. “Mr Gurlitt was willing to accept the fact that Mr Flechtheim was a persecuted Jew who had lost his collection under duress,” Mr Stötzel says. “The Lion Tamer” was auctioned for €720,000 on December 2 2011, with part of the proceeds going to the Flechtheim heirs. It was one of Mr Gurlitt’s final sales. On February 28 last year his Munich apartment was raided by investigators from the state prosecutor’s office in Augsburg and customs officials. More ON THIS STORY Germans defend art hoard operation ‘€1bn’ Nazi art loot found in Munich Peter Aspden Catalogue lists art looted by Nazis Scandal casts shadow over Paris auction house IN ANALYSIS Argentina populism still prevails Finance Plugged into the party The Palestinian economy’s hard road out of isolation Media – Tight focus It took them three days to go through the treasure trove they discovered inside: paintings by Picasso, Renoir and Toulouse-Lautrec, previously unknown works by Marc Chagall and Otto Dix, the latter a self-portrait. There were paintings and drawings in oil, ink, watercolour and pencil, as well as lithographs. And there were works by artists the Nazis had vilified – Max Beckmann, Max Liebermann – in a Munich exhibition of Entartete Kunst, or degenerate art. Some of the work predated the 20th century, including a copper engraving of the crucifixion by Albrecht Dürer. In all there were 1,406 artworks; 121 of them stored in their frames – stacked up on a shelf as tidily as if it were a museum depot. The unframed pictures were stored in the drawers of a cabinet. All of the works were kept in their own room in the 90 square metre apartment in a 1960s concrete block a short walk from the green expanse of Munich’s Englischer Garten. The Gurlitt hoard has aroused controversy as well as amazement. Under the principles of the 1998 Washington conference on Nazi-confiscated art, accepted by Germany, every effort should be made to publicise such discoveries so that prewar heirs or owners can be located. But the greatest find of Nazi-confiscated art since the end of the second world war became public only on Sunday, almost two years after the raid, when it was revealed by Focus, a German magazine. The Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany has called for information about the Munich collection to be published immediately “so that families may determine if the discovered paintings include their lost and stolen artwork”. The German authorities’ reluctance to go public is grounded in a cautious legal culture. Prosecutors have declined even to name 80-year-old Mr Gurlitt publicly. They will only say that “a person is under investigation on suspicion of tax secrecy and misappropriation” – and are resisting international pressure to publish the seized works online. Exposing his collection in detail might leave the authorities open to a lawsuit by Mr Gurlitt, says Mr Stötzel. Not all of the works were stolen by the Nazis. Meike Hoffman, the German art historian who is cataloguing the discovery, said this week that more time was needed to untangle provenance. But this official reticence may be hard to maintain. The US is urging German authorities to publish a full list of the recovered paintings. Steffen Seibert, spokesman for Angela Merkel, German chancellor, said Berlin “is in favour of publishing information about those artworks where there are already indications that they may have been confiscated from people persecuted by the Nazis.” But there is no certainty that descendants of German Jews will be recompensed for art which was either stolen by the Nazis or sold in distressed circumstances. The Washington conference calls for a “just and fair solution” in such cases. Mr Stötzel, who acts for about 50 other claimants – chiefly of German Jewish descent – said that while Germany accepted these principles on behalf of public institutions, they did not bind private owners.  . . .  As collectors and dealers gathered in New York this week for the season’s biggest auctions of impressionist and modern masterpieces, the Munich discovery has captured almost as much attention as the Giacomettis, Picassos and Monets going under the hammer at Sotheby’s and Christie’s. The art world was gripped by two questions: what impact would a sudden influx of treasures – Focus estimated the value at €1bn – have on prices in the global fine art market? And, as families prepare for a long fight over rightful ownership, how long will it be before the works appear in an auction room? Julian Radcliffe, owner and chairman of The Art Loss Register, an international database of stolen and missing works in London, says the Munich hoard will not have much impact on values soon. “Suggestions of a flood of priceless new inventory on to the market are utterly unrealistic,” he says. “Firstly, not every work uncovered will be worth a sky-high price – current valuations are still just guesswork. But more meaningfully, it’s unlikely that many will even ever reach the auction or dealer circuit, given the painstaking decades of restitution ahead before pieces are in the hands of those legally able to sell them on.” Dealers and auction houses are under greater pressure to establish the provenance of pre-sale works. A public “taint” can make paintings difficult to sell even if a work’s legal position has been resolved and an heir has surrendered their claim. Few expect the paintings that can be returned to direct heirs to remain in the families for long. Unlike gold, works of art cannot be split. Most works are likely to be sold, with proceeds divided between descendants. There are no independent arbitrators to rule on the fairest outcome, suggesting the fate of each work will be decided in court. “The art market is still very lightly regulated in comparison to, say, the financial services industry,” Mr Radcliffe says. German authorities say the trail to the extraordinary discovery began at about 9pm on September 22 2010, when Mr Gurlitt was subjected to a routine search onboard a high-speed train from Zurich to Munich. Focus reported that Mr Gurlitt claimed his destination in Switzerland had been Galerie Kornfeld in Bern. From an inside pocket, the magazine said, he pulled out an envelope containing 18 crisp €500 notes. The gallery says it had nothing to do with the money and that its last dealings with Mr Gurlitt were in 1990. At the time, he sold works on paper for SFr38,250, “which probably came from the inventory of the Reich Chamber of Culture, of ‘degenerate art’ confiscated from German museums”, it said in a statement. “Even today, the trade [in such works] cannot be contested,” the gallery said, insisting on a distinction between looted art and works confiscated from museums by the Nazis.  . . .  Mr Gurlitt was a man who did not exist. While he appeared to be living in Munich he was not registered there. He had no German tax number, did not pay health insurance or draw a pension. In art circles, however, his surname was well known. “Of course we knew!” says Karl-Sax Feddersen, of Lempertz, when asked if he recognised the name. Mr Gurlitt’s father Hildebrand was a renowned art historian and dealer of the Weimar Republic who promoted progressive German artists. After the Nazis came to power, he was one of a handful of dealers permitted to trade in modernist artworks. The modern artworks in the collection included those for which the Nazis bore a passionate, ideological hatred – dealers such as Mr Flechtheim were labelled “agents of Kulturbolschewismus” or cultural Bolshevism. But the Reich was not averse to turning the despised art into cash. This week, researchers at the Holocaust Art Restitution Project discovered evidence that some of the artwork the elder Mr Gurlitt owned was held by the Allies after the war and handed back to him in 1950. It was the kernel of a vast, hidden collection inherited by his son. The list of 115 paintings seized and returned by the Allies included “The Lion Tamer”. Mr Feddersen recalled “The Lion Tamer” as a “wonderful” picture. “It is one of the most beautiful pictures I have ever seen. A very, very impressive, large work.” His curiosity piqued by the famous name, he asked if Mr Gurlitt might have others to sell. “He didn’t answer,” Mr Feddersen said. Mr Gurlitt’s whereabouts are unknown. He has a house in Salzburg, Austria, too – but has not been seen there either. At the press conference on Tuesday, a reporter asked if he was dead. Reinhard Nemetz, senior prosecutor for Augsburg, replied: “I can’t comment on that.” Galerie Kornfeld said it had been posting catalogues to Mr Gurlitt’s Munich address since 1990 but they had been returned marked ‘undeliverable’ for seven years. At the apartment block this week, Bernhard Eggenweiler, the caretaker, said he had seen Mr Gurlitt two weeks ago. “He was walking out of here, wheeling a shopping trolley,” the caretaker said. “He didn’t say a word.”

(Economist) Little England or Great Britain?

Little England or Great Britain?

The country faces a choice between comfortable isolation and bracing openness. Go for openness

ASKED to name the European country with the most turbulent future, many would pick Greece or Italy, both struggling with economic collapse. A few might finger France, which has yet to come to terms with the failure of its statist model. Hardly anybody would plump for Britain, which has muddled through the crisis moderately well.

Yet Britain’s place in the world is less certain than it has been for decades. In May 2014 its voters are likely to send to the European Parliament a posse from the UK Independence Party, which loathes Brussels. Then, in September, Scotland will vote on independence. In 2015 there will be a general election. And by the end of 2017—possibly earlier—there is due to be a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

Britain could emerge from all this smaller, more inward-looking and with less clout in the world (and, possibly, with its politics fractured). Or it could become more efficient, surer of its identity and its place in Europe and more outward-looking. Call them the Little England and Great Britain scenarios.

The incredible shrinking nation In many ways Britain has a lot going for it right now. Whereas the euro zone’s economy is stagnant, Britain is emerging strongly from its slump. The government has used the crisis to trim the state. Continental Europeans are coming round to the long-held British view that the EU should be smaller, less bureaucratic and lighter on business. There is even talk of deepening the single market in services, a huge boon for Britain.

London continues to suck in talent, capital and business. Per person, Britain attracts nearly twice as much foreign direct investment as the rich-country average. That is because of the country’s history of openness to outsiders—a tradition that has mostly survived the economic crisis. Although the British are hostile to immigration, they excel at turning new arrivals into productive, integrated members of society. Britain is one of only two EU countries where fewer immigrants drop out of school than natives. (Its most worrying neighbourhoods are white, British and poor.)

But this could all fall apart in the next few years. The most straightforward way Britain could shrivel is through Scotland voting to leave the United Kingdom next September. At a stroke, the kingdom would become one-third smaller. Its influence in the world would be greatly reduced. A country that cannot hold itself together is scarcely in a position to lecture others on how to manage their affairs.

The referendum on the EU was promised last year by the prime minister, David Cameron, in a vain attempt to shut up the Little Englanders in the Tory party and ward off UKIP; Ed Miliband, Labour’s leader, may well follow suit. If Britain left the EU, it would lose its power to shape the bloc that takes half its exports. And, since Britain has in the past used that power for good, pushing the EU in an open, expansive, free-trading direction, its loss would be Europe’s too. To add to the carnage, the plebiscite could break up the Conservative Party—especially if Mr Cameron fails to get re-elected in 2015.

Britain could also become more isolated and insular simply by persisting with some unwise policies. As our special report this week shows, the government’s attempts to bear down on immigrants and visitors are harming the economy. Students, particularly from India, are heading to more welcoming (and sunnier) countries. Firms find it too hard to bring in even skilled workers, crimping the country’s ability to export. Mr Cameron has made some concessions: it is now a bit easier to get a British visa in China, and he backed down on a mad plan to demand large bonds from visitors from six emerging markets, lest they abscond. But Britain’s attitude to immigration is all wrong. It erects barriers by default and lowers them only when the disastrous consequences become obvious.

No Europe, no Scotland, split party—nice one, Dave The shrinking of Britain is not preordained. In a more optimistic scenario, Britain sticks together and stays in Europe, where it fights for competitiveness and against unnecessary red tape. British pressure gradually cracks open services markets, both in the EU and elsewhere, creating a bonanza for the country’s lawyers and accountants. Britain becomes more tolerant of immigration, if not in love with it. It even stops bashing its biggest export industry, financial services.

The difference between the Little England and Great Britain scenarios is leadership. Mr Cameron should start by changing the thing over which he has most control: immigration policy. A more liberal regime would boost business, help balance the nation’s books and shrink the state, relative to the size of the economy. Immigrants, especially from eastern Europe, produce far more than they consume in public resources. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband know this, but they are cowed by widespread hostility to the influx.

Europe is another issue where they should try to lead public opinion, not cravenly follow it. Mr Miliband’s policy is unknown. Mr Cameron has lurched alarmingly, sometimes saying Britain is committed to reforming the EU for the good of all, at other times threatening to leave if unspecified demands are not met. The first course is the astute one—both less likely to lead to a calamitous British exit and more likely to succeed in making the union more liberal.

On Scotland, Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband are on the side of Great Britain. But it is a decision for Scots. Although a Caledonian state could more or less pay its way to begin with, assuming that it was able to hold on to most of the North Sea oil- and gas-fields, that resource is drying up. An independent Scotland would be too small to absorb shocks, whether to oil prices or to its banks. And the separatists cannot say how the country could run its affairs while keeping the pound. For their own sakes, Scottish voters should reject their political snake-oil.

Britain once ran the world. Since the collapse of its empire, it has occasionally wanted to curl up and hide. It can now do neither of those things. Its brightest future is as an open, liberal, trading nation, engaged with the world. Politicians know that and sometimes say it: now they must fight for it, too.

(Economist) Casino capitalism, A jumbled and confused account of the financial c

Casino capitalism

A jumbled and confused account of the financial crisis

The Map and the Territory: Risk, Human Nature and the Future of Forecasting. By Alan Greenspan. Penguin Press; 388 pages; $36. Allen Lane; £25. Buy from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk

ALAN GREENSPAN’S reputation has changed since his last book, a memoir, was published in 2007. As the man at the helm of the Federal Reserve through two decades of prosperity, he was hailed as a hero. Readers of his new book will expect him to account for the financial collapse that followed. Given Mr Greenspan’s experience controlling America’s money, he presumably knows where the buck stops.

“The Map and the Territory” could have been fascinating. The book aims to explain the economy’s recent troubles by offering a “macro view” of how everything works. A new, lucid set of macroeconomic principles would be something new for Mr Greenspan, who long eschewed grand theoretical models in favour of trends intuited from data.

But hopes for clarity prove as unjustified as 1990s share prices. This book is a difficult read, jumbled and confused. Mr Greenspan opens intriguingly, by describing the ways in which investor behaviour falls short of perfect rationality. Human “propensities” such as “fear” and “euphoria”, he writes, can drive markets and hinder an economy’s performance.

But Mr Greenspan scarcely builds on this framework. Instead he abruptly changes course, launching into a fairly conventional description of the troubles that lurked in the pre-crisis financial markets. This discussion yields a rare, tepid statement of contrition: “I have since regretted that we regulators never pursued the issue of capital adequacy in a timely manner.” Then he wanders without aim, offering a history of economic-data collection, then a detailed explanation of basic statistical techniques, followed by an analysis of the nature of productivity growth. Though occasionally arresting, these globs of discussion never coalesce into a sustained argument. Reordering the chapters or indeed removing some entirely would do little damage to the book.

If a coherent macro view never emerges, clear themes do, most of which would fit comfortably within a Tea Party polemic. The most attention-grabbing passages diagnose America’s slow recovery. Mr Greenspan blames government for weak growth. Efforts to prop up the economy—through infrastructure spending, for instance, or through aid to carmakers—created uncertainty, he argues. That, in turn, discouraged firms and households from making long-term investments.

His argument rests on a thin reed, however. By his own admission, “long-term investment” mostly means buildings. “Other than construction,” he writes, GDP has “recovered more or less as would have been expected in a ‘normal’ recovery.” Maybe the government spooked households into waiting to buy a home, but tumbling demand and stingy mortgage loans seem more likely villains.

Stranger still is Mr Greenspan’s take on what ought to have been done: the government should have allowed financial markets “to correct themselves through a selling climax”. Some readers will wonder how this squares with his earlier observations on animal spirits and the risks of investor stampedes. He assures that crashes are self-limiting—“the turn in stock prices in early 2009... was a sign of the level of human angst approaching its historical limit”. But prices fell further in the early 1930s, a fact Mr Greenspan neither acknowledges nor explains.

So how should governments handle a slump? Mr Greenspan forgives the Fed for propping up failing banks; for the rest of the economy he favours the “liquidationist” approach of Andrew Mellon, treasury secretary under Herbert Hoover. Let prices plunge enough, Mellon reckoned, and the economy will bounce back. That is a recipe for deflation and depression. Mr Greenspan’s intuition served well enough amid the macroeconomic tailwinds of the Great Moderation. America is fortunate his job passed to a scholar of the Depression before the crisis of 2008 struck.