(TheHill) Trump team wildly underestimated the costs of tariffs

Trump team wildly underestimated the costs of tariffs

When the Department of Commerce opened up the section 232 tariff exclusion request process in March, they did not expect it to be so popular. They did not expect that so many manufacturers in the United States would ask for an exclusion from the 25-percent and 10-percent tariffs on steel and aluminum. They were wrong.

At the time of its announcement earlier this year, the Commerce Department estimated that it would receive 4,500 exclusion requests from the steel tariff and 1,500 from the aluminum tariffs.

Fast forward to today. U.S. manufacturers so far have filed over six times that amount and are still filing. Commerce wildly underestimated the number of exclusion requests they would receive.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross went on TV in early March to defend the tariffs and proclaimed they would be “no big deal.” The tariffs, he maintained, would have a “broad” but “trivial” impact on prices.

While holding up a can of Campbell’s soup on live television, Secretary Ross asked, if a can of soup goes up by 2.6 pennies worth of steel, “Who in the world is going to be bothered?” Clearly, a lot more than he thought.

Ask any U.S. manufacturer, and they’ll tell you they need access to competitively priced raw materials to stay viable in the U.S. market and their export markets.

Some U.S. manufacturers need specialty steel, and the only place they may be able to get that from is abroad. It should come as no surprise that U.S. firms have filed thousands of requests to be excluded from these tariffs.

The process Commerce designed requires a separate request document for each single type of product, so a manufacturer that uses a variety of steel and aluminum can quickly find itself filing several requests.

Data from regulatory.gov show the average number of requests per firm is 43 for steel and 22 for aluminum. For steel, three firms have filed over 1,000 requests for tariff exclusions, and one firm has filed 2,563 (voestalpine High Performance Metals Corp). For aluminum, three firms have filed over 100 requests, and one firm has filed 639 (Mandel Metals, Inc.).

All of this paperwork takes staff time to process, and there’s a huge backlog. As of Sep. 10, U.S. manufacturers from across the country have filed 28,769 exclusion requests for steel and 3,674 for aluminum.

Steel and aluminum producers can file objections to a request, and each one of those must also be handled. There have been over 12,000 objections filed for steel and 285 objections filed for aluminum. That comes to 44,539 filings in total.

Commerce estimated it would take 24,000 hours of Commerce staff time to process these requests (four hours per request). By our count, and using Commerce’s own calculations of four hours per request, it would take 178,000 hours, which is equivalent to over 50 people working full time for nearly two years. And the requests are still coming in.

A cursory glance at Commerce’s own data would have contradicted these predictions. There are 6.5 million American workers in steel-consuming sectors, about 40 times the number working in the steel industry. Increasing the price of something that so many manufacturers need is obviously going to cause grief.

Even some in the legal world saw this coming: “It is highly likely that there will be a flood of exclusion requests,” wrote the international firm of Foley and Lardner LLP.

We have been here before. The number of jobs lost to the March 2002 steel tariffs exceeded the entire number of people in the steel sector. As documented by the Trade Partnership, “[M]ore American workers lost their jobs to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).”

Wilbur Ross is not the first to fall for the fallacy of protectionism, and he won’t be the last. But there is a reason for the consensus among economists that increasing costs to trade causes more harm than good.

Just as we have seen before, these tariffs increase the costs of doing business, hurt investor confidence, disrupt efficient international supply chains and stoke a protectionist and populist backlash among some of our greatest allies.

Commerce wildly underestimated the number of exclusion requests, because they wildly underestimated the costs of the tariffs.

Christine McDaniel, a former senior economist in the White House Council of Economic Advisors and deputy assistant secretary with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

FT : The flaw in ‘no deal’ planning

The flaw in ‘no deal’ planning
Businesses wish the UK and EU could face reality and agree contingency measures now

If Britain crashes out of the EU next March without a deal, what would be the immediate impact on business? Most corporate leaders believe the implications would be pretty catastrophic. But a lot depends on what kind of “no deal” we have.

One possibility is that the UK and EU immediately descend into total acrimony, with huge disruption to air travel, freight transport and numerous economic sectors.

Alternatively, the immediate impact of no deal could be mitigated if the UK and EU were to draw up emergency plans in advance to ensure that planes keep flying and trucks keep moving — at least for a while.

Over the past few weeks, it has become increasingly clear that the UK government wants to get the EU to agree mini deals on the side to help mitigate the immediate damage if the Brexit talks collapse. But Britain does not seem to be getting very far.

Chris Grayling, UK transport secretary, recently wrote to EU member states asking them to engage with the British in side deals on aviation and haulage to allow key trade flows to continue if no Article 50 treaty were signed. But Mr Grayling was apparently rebuffed by the European Commission.

Whitehall’s latest batch of no-deal technical papers also shows how the UK hopes the EU will act helpfully on day one of a no-deal Brexit. One paper on road haulage, for example, expresses the hope that the EU will recognise UK-issued operator licences for truck drivers. But it admits this “cannot be guaranteed”.

Much of the responsibility for the failure to agree contingencies seems to lie with the EU. “Some on the EU side are quite dismissive of the mini-deals idea,” my colleague Alex Barker tells me from Brussels. “They say ‘no deal’ means ‘no deal.’ They will, of course, take contingency measures to manage disruption. But these would be unilateral and only in the EU interest. Discussing it with the Brits implies they would take action to help out the UK and that’s not on the cards.”

However, the UK is not exactly blameless in this whole affair either. On the one hand, the UK is asking Brussels for mini deals that help mitigate the damage of a disorderly Brexit. On the other hand, UK ministers are ramping up the pressure on Brussels by warning that, if no deal is signed, Britain will not pay the £39bn divorce settlement to the EU — at least on the agreed schedule. There is a lack of consistency there, to say the least.

Many businesses wish the UK and EU could face reality and agree some contingency measures now, in case we end up confronting the worst-case scenario.

“The commission should take the lead on this and find a way to work on mutual preparedness,” says Pauline Bastidon, head of European policy at the UK-based Freight Transport Association. “It doesn’t mean things will be OK after a no-deal. But it’s dangerous for both sides to go on as they are without putting in place any contingencies at all.”

That plea seems likely to fall on deaf ears. If we get to a no-deal outcome next March, relations between London and Brussels would have probably broken down pretty badly. It is not clear why the EU would want to help Britain out of a hole — whether it is before or after Brexit day.

>>> US Gapping down

Gapping down
In reaction to disappointing earnings/guidance
:

  • CTAS -3.6%, NKE -2.7%

Other news:

  • UPL -18.1% (Ultra Petroleum and Lenders were unable to reach agreement on the terms of senior secured first lien term loan; talks have ceased)
  • CONE -4.5% (prices public offering of 8 mln shares of its common stock at a price to the public of $62.00 per share)
  • NITE -4.4% (commences underwritten public offering of 4.0 mln ADSs)
  • ROL -0.5% (Rollins to replace Andeavor [ANDV] in the S&P 500)

Analyst comments:

  • LRCX -1.6% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at UBS)
  • CIEN -1.6% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at UBS)
  • PAYC -1.3% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at BofA/Merrill)
  • SYF -0.9% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at BofA/Merrill)
  • DWDP -0.8% (downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Nomura)

TechCrunch : The death of once high-flying VC funds

The death of once high-flying VC funds
With the winding down of Social Capital, a particular era of Silicon Valley comes to a close

hey all started with the best of intentions. Formation 8 talked about bringing “smart enterprise” to the corporate world. Social Capital talked about how to “fix capitalism” and Binary Capital wanted to “affect global behaviour change.” Rothenberg Ventures set out to “work on the biggest problems that change the world.”

Young founding partners debuting change-the-world funds were irresistible for chroniclers of the venture world, who too often had been forced to chat with balding and aging managing directors while hitting the links at resplendent country clubs. Everything was going to change in the venture world, and here was a new guard of progressive-thinking talent that would transform Silicon Valley forever.

Then it all came crashing down.

Social Capital fired nearly its entire remaining staff last week after seeing a mass staff exodus over the past few months. Formation 8 suffered deep acrimony between its founding partners, and its successive funds continue to deal with new challenges, such as a new, unreported lawsuit in California. Binary faced the Caldbeck sexual harassment situation, while Rothenberg imploded with allegations of financial fraud and mismanagement.

Some of the tales are sordid, while others are clearly the result of inexperience and hubris. But together, they weave a narrative for us that shouldn’t surprise anyone: giving hundreds of millions of dollars to neophytes wasn’t perhaps the best plan to build long-lasting funds.

The lessons though are myriad and broad. For founders, receiving investments from same-age peers may have made board meetings more relaxing, but at the cost of experience and oversight. Journalists who sat by while VCs built founding fables about themselves should have done more to pierce these reality distortion fields.

But perhaps most of all, the lessons need to be learned by limited partners. As LPs continue to lower their guard and drop due diligence in the race to get into the next hot fund, perhaps the combination of these stories can serve as a warning against rushing to write a check and being thoughtful about who to partner with in business.

The Valley finds its glamour

Sand Hill Road was the epicenter of venture capital. Its monopoly is increasingly being lost to downtown Palo Alto and SF. (Photo by Steven Damron used under Creative Commons).

It’s almost impossible to imagine today, but venture and the broader startup ecosystem used to be decidedly uncool. In the early 2000s, before the rise of blogs like TechCrunch and the breathless coverage of thousands of tech startups, Silicon Valley startups worked in the relative obscurity of the South Bay — the actual Silicon Valley of lore. A boring suburban hell of sorts, startups attracted the misfits and the communalists, and most definitely the engineers who saw in the internet the future of human society.

Things changed as the global financial crisis struck in 2008. The startup world began to migrate north, to San Francisco. Technology went from a backwater industry to the forefront of global power and commerce. Once the bastion of nerds, the MBAs and other pretty people started pouring in, ready to seek out fortune — the tech that might drive it be damned.

Perhaps most importantly, glamour hit the tech world hard. Conferences like Disrupt and AllThingsD propelled formerly unknown entrepreneurs to the heights of fame. Exec comms became de rigueur for founders, and venture firms equipped themselves with some of the best communications talent they could find.

Yet, while the entrepreneurs were increasingly speaking about “saving the world,” the venture firms were not. Stodgy, venerable and just plain old (and white and male), the stalwarts of Sand Hill Road (the epitome of a suburban hell street complete with a full-service gas station) struggled to adapt their boring Excel number crunching thinking to this new world.

Their firms — and LPs — noticed, and responded by trying to hire a new crop of partners, operators with the cachet to win over founders and snare the next great deal. Operators had very different mentalities from traditional venture folks, but that was okay in the competition for the next hot startup.

But as any Silicon Valley enthusiast knows, the path to disruption doesn’t lie through evolving incumbents. Instead, it’s about founding startups, or in this case, new venture firms with fresh perspectives that connect with founders looking for a friend on their board rather than competent but mature directors who were older than their grandparents.

The best-laid plans of mice and VCs…

Joe Lonsdale of 8VC. David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

And so we get Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of Palantir, who left and eventually started Formation 8 at age 30 with Brian Koo, age 33, scion of the Koo family of South Korea, which owns the LG conglomerate, along with long-time VC investor Jim Kim. They raised $448 million for their first fund in 2013, the largest debut in the history of venture. Lonsdale described the firm’s investing style simply: “First and foremost, we invest in driven entrepreneurs who we believe will change the world.”

We get Jonathan Teo, aged 34, and Justin Caldbeck, aged 37 (and the oldest of the pack!), two young but reasonably experienced venture capitalists peeling off of their venerable funds (General Catalyst for Teo and Lightspeed and Bain for Caldbeck) to start Binary Capital, which began with a debut fund of $125 million in 2014 and raised another $175 million just two years later. Teo, speaking to a Singaporean magazine, explained that “We are at the centre of the tech ecosystem, and consumer technology is the highest leverage a company has to affect global behaviour change.”

(That same article noted in its intro that “It is not every day that someone buys a Boeing 747 as a gift. But that was exactly what Jonathan Teo did last year, when he gathered a group of Silicon Valley tech titans to purchase a used plane and donated it to Burning Man, an annual experimental art festival held in Black Rock Desert, Nevada.” Burning Man may well be one of the most inter-connected events for all of these folks).


Justin Caldbeck, formerly of Binary Capital. Michael Short/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Chamath Palihapitiya, who spent four years at Facebook early in that company’s history and eventually headed growth, would start Social+Capital Partnership in 2011 and synced up with experienced hands Ted Maidenberg and Mamoon Hamid. Palihapitiya, aged 34 and a self-described “Merchant of Progress,” said that he wanted to “fix capitalism.” In an interview with Fast Company’s Ainsley Harris, he said, “But you can fix capitalism. And the reason you can fix capitalism: It is inherently numerical, and as a result, it is inherently objective. It can be done objectively.”

Rothenberg may not have raised the same kind of moolah, debuting with a $5 million seed fund in 2013, but Rothenberg spread his wings far and wide in San Francisco, opening up his apartment and co-working facilities to create a community of entrepreneurs. He loved the press and media attention and outlandish behavior, eventually hosting a now infamous field day at the SF Giants baseball park in SoMa. As he explained during an interview at Stanford, “…we can build and create awesome experiences, people care about that and then we can actually work on the biggest problems that change the world and that’s awesome…”

These four firms flouted venture conventions, and sought out the path-breaking investments that would drive returns. Formation 8 struck a bit of gold with its exit of Oculus to Facebook and RelateIQ to Salesforce. The rebranded Social Capital bought into high-flying startup Slack, and also led the Series A into Intercom. Binary invested in young consumer startups like Bellhops and Shoptiques and Havenly according to PitchBook. Rothenberg invested heavily in VR and also in popular companies like Boosted, Apartment List and Chubbies, albeit with mostly tiny checks.

These firms were designed to cultivate the next generation of founders, and on that front, they succeeded. If only that was the sole benchmark for success.

… often go awry

Chamath Palihapitiya of Social Capital. (Photo by Brian Ach/Getty Images for TechCrunch)

Tolstoy begins Anna Karenina with the line that “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

The same is true of venture firms. Portfolio returns can easily make everyone happy, but when firms blow up, they all blow up in their own, idiosyncratic ways.

Formation 8 was the first of the set to disintegrate. Part of the equation was accusations and a lawsuit against Joe Lonsdale around a sexual assault — allegations that were in the end dismissed. But the challenges internally at the firm far pre-dated those challenges. As William Alden at BuzzFeed chronicled at extreme length, Lonsdale and Brian Koo were at loggerheads over investment strategy, and even the geography of where the Formation 8 offices should be located in the Bay Area. Plus, they had a fight over a Korean restaurant Koo tried to open in Palo Alto. There were also the lurid details of the Hyperloop One imbroglio, where Lonsdale was a board member.

The two ended up separating, with Lonsdale creating 8VC and debuting with a $425 million fund and Koo starting Formation Group with a $357 million fund.

Yet, the troubles continue. A lawsuit — so far unreported — was filed in the United States District Court for Northern California this past June, alleging that Koo and Formation Group and its affiliates committed “fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing…“ by failing to pay a partner named Martin Robinson and a principal named Selvam Moorthy. That litigation remains ongoing according to district court records, where the parties are due to discuss a motion to move the matter to arbitration.

Lonsdale, for his part, has certainly shied away from the media, and has been in a rebuilding phase, eventually nailing a second fund for 8VC of $640 million earlier this year.

Partner fallout is one version of an unhappy venture firm, but Binary Capital disintegrated due to alleged sexual harassment by Justin Caldbeck from multiple women in Silicon Valley. He would eventually come to be the Silicon Valley poster boy for the MeToo movement, and was sued by a former employee of Binary. The firm’s assets were sold to LHV earlier this year, and it is now essentially a non-entity.


Rothenberg Ventures team

Meanwhile, Rothenberg has been facing tougher challenges. He faced a litany of investigations over his fiduciary responsibilities to his fund, eventually being charged by the SEC last month for fraud. That criminal trial is ongoing.

And then we get to Social Capital, whose troubles appear to be more managerial. Palihapitiya’s two early partners, Maidenberg and Hamid, both decamped to other firms. There has now been a complete exodus of partners and staff at the firm, with even more layoffs taking place just in the last few days. The fund is no longer raising outside capital.

Outside of Palihapitiya, the math on who is left remains decidedly unclear. The Information quotes Palihapitiya as saying that “I would rather spend time with the people that are 100% aligned with what I want to do and the person that’s most aligned with what I want to do is me.”

That shouldn’t be a problem when there is no one else in the room.

Lessons for founders, VCs and LPs

Silicon Valley loves a great story. We love the entrepreneurs who fight like hell to build their companies, who beat the odds against incumbents and competitors. We love the drama of business, of Uber against Lyft and Airbnb against city governments. We want the underdogs to win.

At some point though, we need to evaluate our own narrative fetishes. We need to see through the loud pronouncements, the ambitious quotes, the glossy marketing. Especially in venture capital, where excuses for poor performance are a common trade, we need to resurrect the age-old skill of simply looking at the numbers and evaluating quality. As my VC mentors over the years have consistently said: VC is not an investment business, it is a returns business.

We also need to reevaluate our patience. Startups take 12 years or more to build and exit, but VC firms have a much longer cycle. They are meant to last, because they owe broad obligations to so many other firms through the board seats they hold.

Partner turnover is up at many firms, despite the damage that does to startup governance. Even worse is when a firm disintegrates entirely. We should celebrate the slow and steady on the finance side, and leave the quick growth to the startups.

In a region that reveres the young, we also need to remember that many jobs are ultimately dependent on experience, and venture capital is certainly one of them. VC is its own trade, with learnings and techniques that build up over a lifetime of investing. That doesn’t mean that young people have nothing to offer — far from it. But it does mean that our indexing should not just assume that a 30-something automatically has the capacity to manage a complex front and back office team and invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a few short months.

LPs face the greatest challenges in this area. They are the guardians of their funds, since after all, it’s their money that will be lost. But the timing to get into a hot investor’s hand can be extraordinarily limited, and even asking a question or two could lead them to be cut out of a fund’s subscriptions. LPs need to band together and refuse to concede to these demands. Due diligence doesn’t have to be exhaustive on a debut fund, but it should also not be de minimis. Some coordination here is just absolutely needed to ensure a basic level of integrity.

It’s said that new VCs need to down an F-16 in order to learn the trade. Together, Formation 8 raised $1.39 billion, Social Capital $1.3 billion, Binary $300 million and Rothenberg $70 million, according to PitchBook.

That’s a $3 billion education for these partners, and for all of us.

FT : Why Emmanuel Macron is taking a tough line on Brexit

Why Emmanuel Macron is taking a tough line on Brexit
French president is alarmed at no-deal scenario and deferring difficult issues

Last week’s acrimonious Salzburg summit made it seem to some that the biggest obstacle to a Brexit deal is Emmanuel Macron.

The French president’s blunt criticism of Theresa May’s plans — and his broadside at the “liars” who told British voters it would be easy to leave the bloc — only reinforced the longstanding British impression that Paris is to blame for the UK’s problems with the EU.

But the Elysée sees things very differently. It argues that Salzburg was a reality check for Mrs May, one that was necessary to prevent a close ally from crashing out of the bloc on the 29th of March next year.

Paris has become increasingly frustrated at the slow pace of the negotiations and the risk of a chaotic exit. In particular, French diplomats complain about the UK prime minister’s refusal to take the EU’s “red lines” into account.

Mrs May, who needs to win support from both the hard Brexit and pro-EU wings of her warring Conservative party, wants to keep the UK signed up to the EU’s rule book for goods, but not for services or people.

In response, the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier has repeatedly warned that this so-called “Chequers” plan poses an existential threat to the single market. Bruno Le Maire, France’s finance minister, says it will amount to “the end of Europe”.

In August, over dinner at the presidential residence of Brégançon on the Riviera, Mr Macron reiterated to Mrs May that the EU would not allow the UK to cherry-pick the “four freedoms” — free movement of goods, services, capital and persons — that form the pillars of the single market, because it would give an incentive to other members to do the same.

French diplomats add that it was vital to make absolutely clear at Salzburg that Chequers was not an option before Mrs May attended the Conservative party conference next month.

They argue that allowing Mrs May to return to the negotiating table with her party’s backing for Chequers only a few months before Brexit could have increased the likelihood of an impasse or an ambiguous agreement that deferred painful discussions into the transition period.

Neither outcome is acceptable for Paris. With its large expatriate community in London and northern ports that heavily rely on trade with the UK, France has much to lose economically in case of a “no-deal” scenario. Similarly, it fiercely opposes a “fudge” or a “blind Brexit”.

Populists such as the far-right politician Marine Le Pen would seize on a vague deal to rally support for their Eurosceptic ideas in EU elections in May, undermining Mr Macron’s political standing and his push to reform the EU.

“Brexit cannot be painless, we can’t reward the one who is leaving,” a French aide remarked.

That is why the French president was irked when before the Salzburg gathering even started, Donald Tusk, EU council president, announced plans for a special Brexit summit in November to finalise a deal. EU leaders are already scheduled to discuss the issue at another meeting next month.

A Paris official said Mr Tusk’s move was “absurd tactics”. “If we don’t have a deal in October, it’s getting very dangerous,” a French aide added. Other EU officials are more wary of the risk of demanding a breakthrough in the next few weeks.

But Mr Macron’s public activism does not mean the other EU leaders are any softer or more sympathetic to Mrs May’s difficulties. In Salzburg, Angela Merkel used more diplomatic wording than her French counterpart.

But, speaking to German business leaders on Tuesday, she requested a Brexit deal lay out a clear framework for the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Paris also relies on the firm albeit discreet support of the bloc’s free-trade minded members, including Dutch premier Mark Rutte.

The Dutch, like the Scandinavian countries, are Britain’s traditional allies in the bloc. But they will never approve a deal giving UK companies a competitive edge in the single market. That is Mrs May’s problem: it is not just the UK that has red lines. On the most fundamental issues, the EU shows no sign of retreat.

>>> US Gapping up

Gapping up
In reaction to strong earnings/guidance
:

  • KBH +6.1%, AIR +3.2%, KMX +2.4%

M&A news:

  • NLSN +2.2% (attributed to PE interest)

Other news:

  • ALDX +55.6% (extended higher after confirming it will host call Sept 26 at 8am ET to provide the results from its dry eye disease Phase 2b clinical trial)
  • EGY +15.8% (granted 10 year extension of Exclusive Exploitation Authorizations in the Etame Marin Permit)
  • VSTM +9.8% (Verastem and CSPC Pharmaceutical Group enter into exclusive licensing agreement for the development and commercialization of COPIKTRA in China)
  • VNDA +4.8% (ticking higher; to join S&P SmallCap 600)
  • AUPH +3.1% (higher after completing enrollment for AURORA Phase 3 trial ahead of schedule)
  • IGT +2% (Intl Game Tech and William Hill US (WIMHY unit) entered into multi-year agreement to offer US lotteries a full service solution for sports betting)
  • GLOP +2% (to sell 2,250,000 common units at a price of $23.60 per common unit to funds managed by Tortoise Capital Advisors for gross proceeds of $53.1 million)
  • ZLAB +1.8% (presents results of its open-label study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profile of ZL-2306)
  • ANAB +1.6% (prices offering of 2.2 mln shares of common stock at $94.46 per share)
  • PHM +1.4% (in sympathy with KBH)
  • AINC +1.3% (prices offering of 270,000 shares of common stock at $74.50 per share)
  • PTLA +1.1% (ticking higher; FDA has granted Orphan Drug Designation to cerdulatinib)
  • TOL +1% (in sympathy with KBH)

Analyst comments:

  • GPRO +5.3% (upgraded to Outperform from Perform at Oppenheimer)
  • IBM +1.6% (upgraded to Buy from Neutral at UBS)
  • MTB +1.4% (upgraded to Buy from Neutral at Goldman)
  • VIAB +1.4% (upgraded to Buy from Neutral at B. Riley FBR)
  • LNG +1.1% (upgraded to Overweight from Equal-Weight at Morgan Stanley)
  • FCFS +1% (initiated with a Overweight at Barclays)
  • GOOS +0.9% (initiated with a Buy at DA Davidson)
  • TJX +0.6% (initiated with a Buy at DA Davidson)

FT : UK Brexit proposal would spell ‘end of Europe’, says Le Maire

UK Brexit proposal would spell ‘end of Europe’, says Le Maire
French minister warns EU cannot support blueprint that would weaken bloc

France’s finance minister has insisted that Theresa May’s blueprint for the UK’s future relationship with the EU is unacceptable because it undermines a central tenet of the bloc and would spell “the end of Europe”.

Bruno Le Maire warned that the British prime minister’s proposal, dubbed the Chequers plan, “doesn’t add up” in its current form because it would send a damaging signal to the rest of Europe.

“If we give the idea that we can exit the European Union and keep all of the benefits of the single market then it is the end of Europe,” said Mr Le Maire at the finance ministry in Paris on Tuesday.

“Sorry to put it bluntly, but what is more important for us than the future of the UK is the future of Europe, and so we will take no decision that could weaken the future of the EU,” he added.

His comments come the week after EU leaders at a summit in Salzburg told Mrs May that her economic plan for Brexit “will not work” and gave her four weeks to save the exit talks.

The centrepiece of the prime minister’s proposal is an EU-UK free trade area covering goods and agriculture. 

Mrs May said EU leaders had not fully explained their rejection of Chequers, which the British government says provides the basis for a final deal with the EU.

“It is not acceptable to simply reject the other side’s proposals without a detailed explanation and counter-proposals,” she said after returning from Austria.

However, Mr Le Maire made clear that the Chequers plan crossed “red lines” for the French government, saying an “agreement that deals just with goods is not feasible”.

“We require a comprehensive agreement, not one just on goods,” said Mr Le Maire. “All decisions that give European citizens the suggestion that they can leave the European Union and keep all the advantages of the European Union would be suicidal. So we don’t take them.”

His comments echo previous warnings from Emmanuel Macron, the French president, that Brexit was “not without cost. It’s not without consequences.”

They also follow remarks from Angela Merkel requesting “clarity” on the future relationship with the UK. “You cannot be part of the internal market when you only want to be part of one part of the internal market but not the other three parts of the internal market,” the German chancellor told business leaders. A deal on future relations with the UK needed to be “written as precisely as possible”, she added, backing Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, who has said that Brussels could not accept any proposal that split up the bloc’s single market.

However, Mr Le Maire did not shut the door on a UK exit deal and said “Chequers is a move in the right direction”, while saluting the “courage” of Mrs May. The prime minister has to face Eurosceptic critics at the Conservative party conference at the end of the month.

If Mrs May modified her proposal to address EU concerns, further discussions were possible, said Mr Le Maire. “We want a deal with the British, and I think it is in everyone’s interest to have a good deal,” he said.

Mr Le Maire said the French government was working to prepare for the potential of a hard Brexit, including guaranteeing supplies to small companies. But he said analysis suggested “the impact [of a hard Brexit] on French growth would be weak”.

“That’s what our British friends have to understand. It is primarily in their interest to find a solution,” he said.

>>> US Early premarket gappers


Gapping up:

  • EGY +19.7%, VSTM +11.3%, KBH +7.5%, ALDX +6.1%, VNDA +5.1%, ANAB +3.2%, AIR +3.2%, AUPH +3.1%, NLSN +2.2%, IGT +2%, PHM +1.4%, AINC +1.2%, PTLA +1.1%, TOL +1%, LULU +0.9%, ITB +0.7%

Gapping down:

  • UPL -19.7%, NITE -4.4%, CONE -3.7%, CTAS -2.8%, NKE -2.1%, UAA -0.8%, ROL -0.5%

>>> Europe : Brokers Upgrades & Downgrades - 26th of September 2018

>>> Up
* Basic-Fit Upgraded to Neutral at Kempen & Co; PT 30 Euros
* Bouygues Upgraded to Overweight at JPMorgan; PT 46 Euros
* Next Upgraded to Neutral at Goldman; PT 58 Pounds
* Randgold Upgraded to Sector Perform at RBC; PT 50 Pounds
* Scandic Raised to Equal-weight at Morgan Stanley; PT 105 Kronor

>>> Down
* Deutsche Boerse Downgraded to Sell at Bankhaus Lampe
* Grammer Downgraded to Sell at Quirin Privatbank AG; PT 43 Euros
* Iliad Downgraded to Neutral at JPMorgan; PT 135 Euros
* Kier Downgraded to Neutral at JPMorgan; PT 10.42 Pounds
* Telenet Downgraded to Equal-weight at Barclays; PT 54 Euros

>>> Initiation
* Aker BP Rated New Buy at William O'Neil & Co Incorporated
* Aqualis Rated New Buy at SpareBank; PT 7 Kroner
* Cellnovo Group Rated New Add at Gilbert Dupont; PT 3.10 Euros
* DIA Rated New Hold at Bankinter Securities; PT 2.01 Euros

>>> Call

>>> What to look at today - 26th of September 2018

Asian stocks were mixed as traders awaited the Federal Reserve meeting. U.S. Treasuries were steady, with yields near the seven-year highs reached in May.
Japan’s Topix index retreated from its highest in almost eight months. Stocks rallied in Hong Kong as traders returned from a holiday. Chinese stocks advanced after MSCI Inc. said it’s considering increasing the weight of the shares in its global indexes from next year. U.S. stocks were mixed as oil drillers rallied with crude while industrial shares lagged. President Donald Trump told the United Nations that the trade deficit with China “is just not acceptable,” in a reminder of deepening trade tensions. The dollar weakened slightly. Brent crude stabilized just below a four-year high.
US After Hours KBH +6.4%, AIR +3.7%, NKE -3.9%, CTAS -3.5% following earnings/guidance

Nikkei +0,36% Gang Seng +1,80% CSI +1,92% Shanghai +1,51% Shenzen +1,24%

Eur$ 1,1763 CNH 6,8714 CNHY 6,8733 JPY 112,91 GBP 1,3173

S&P +0,21% EuroStoxx +0,17% FSTE +0,06% Dax +0,30% SMI +0,01%

Macro :
- Pensions May Pull $20b From U.S. Stocks by Friday: Wells Fargo
- Pharmacy ‘Gag Clause’ on Cheaper Drug Prices Barred by Congress

Keep an eye on :
- ABI BB : AB InBev to Be Exclusive Distributor for Sapporo Beer in China
- BEN FP : Bpifrance Joins Up With Groupe Beneteau’s Family Shareholder
- ACA FP : Credit Agricole Said to Appeal ECB Fine on Wednesday: Les Echos
- DBK GY : Deutsche Bank Covered UBS, Commerzbank Merger Scenarios: HB
- DB1 GY : Deutsche Boerse Benefits All Priced In, Time to Sell: Lampe
- EDF FP : EDF Suspends 1 GE Turbine at Bouchain After U.S. Shutdowns: Rtrs
- ENGI FP : Engie Has Offered to Sell 7 Belgian Nuclears to EDF: L’Echo
- FB US : Instagram Founders’ Exit Means No One to Challenge Zuckerberg
- HSBA LN : HSBC Singapore to Hire Over 400 Staff Over Next Five Years: BT
- MCHN SW : Raymond Weil to Snub Baselworld, Le Temps Says; Watch MCH Shares
- MB IM : Italmobilare Exits Mediobanca’s Shareholders Accord
- NEO FP : Neopost Trims FY Current Ebit Margin Forecast
- NOKIA FH : Dagens Industri Recommends Readers Buy Nokia, Not Ericsson
- OMV AV : Austria’s OMV to Expand Oil Trading Activities in Asia (1)
- ORP FP : Orpea Reiterates 2018 Forecasts
- ROG SW : AbbVie Gets Canadian Approval for Venclexta With Rituximab
- ROTH FP : Rothschild’s M&A Revenue Rebounds Amid Dealmaking in Europe
- SAN SM : Santander Picks Dealmaker CEO to Do What, Exactly?: Edward Evans
- SAN SM : Orcel’s Arrival at Santander Fuels Speculation of Deals to Come
- SNAP US : Amazon Is Unlikely to Be Interested in Buying Snap: SunTrust
- G24 GY : Scout24: Tobias Hartmann Will Take Office Jan. 1 as New CEO
- SHP LN : Shire Sues CSL Behring for Patent Royalties on Haegarda Drug
- TEN IM : Tenaris to Acquire Saudi Steel Pipe Stake for $144M
- UCG IM : UniCredit Could Weigh Mergers With Lloyds Bank, ABN Amro: Sole
- VOW3 GY : Retrofits Not With ‘Public Money,’ Germany’s Scholz Tells DPA