Chemicals & The Economy

ICI has experience of fighting off unwelcome acquisitions. And Akzo may find itself in a difficult position if ICI wins again. Unless this bid, like Hanson's in 1991, marks the 'top' in the currrent M&A cycle.

The prices paid for Petkim and for Lustran reflect two very different perspectives on the current market:

Yesterday’s "swings in financial derivative prices were so extreme that they implied scenarios in which the core of the global liquidity system suffers a serious assault", according to JP Morgan, the investment bank. Watch out, if current US sub-prime mortgage problems turn into a more general “flight from risk”.

If you read the financial pages of your newspaper, everything sounds rosy. But if you turn to the news section, its all gloom. Both views can’t continue to exist alongside each other for ever. Whichever scenario comes out on top, will have major implications for the chemical industry. My own view is that this week’s Access deal for Lyondell will be seen, in hindsight, as marking the top. There could be storms ahead.

Bill Gross runs PIMCO, the world’s largest government bond managers with assets of nearly $700bn. In a new commentary, he pulls no punches about what he sees as the ‘gluttony’ of the super-rich amongst the private equity and hedge fund elite. He also takes aim at the lenders who, in his view, have been ‘too meek and too passive’. He sees the end of the era of cheap debt financing, and with it the boom in M&A that has sustained equity markets in recent years.

Alchemists once claimed the ability to turn base metal into gold. More recently, some bankers seem to have been claiming a similar genius, via the magic catalyst of securitisation. These bankers no longer perform their traditional role of lending on a prudent basis to good quality borrowers in the personal or corporate sector. Instead, they simply seek to lend as much and as quickly as possible, usually in areas that they do not understand. Their aim has simply been to generate significant commission income for their bank, and personal bonuses for themselves.

The head of Germany’s financial regulator is warning that US subprime mortgage problems may be about to lead to the worst banking crisis since 1931. Yesterday, WTI crude broke through its 1980’s highs to hit a new all-time record price of $78.77/bbl, and looks poised to push on past $80/bbl. And adding to the sense of ‘retro’ is the news that debt traders have revived the 1980’s children’s TV show ‘Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’ as an acronym. NINJA now stands for No INcome, Job or Assets

Normally a 275 point fall on Wall Street, and a 600 point fall in Hong Kong, would make for some headlines. But this time, the media coverage has been very muted. Presumably everybody thinks it will be another '9 day wonder', and believes with Chuck Prince of Citigroup that one simply has to keep ‘dancing'. But equally, there are some quite worrying opinions now being expressed about the underlying risks that might impact us later in the year or in 2008. I thought you might like to see them:

‘What we saw last month was a toy trainset model of what is in store for us with the unwinding of the great credit bubble’. John Dizard, Financial Times markets commentator.

(NB the first and last quotes are from the Financial Times, which unfortunately has a subscription only policy for its stories, so I haven't included the link details in order to avoid frustration if you tried to click through).

It seems from the media comment that Akzo is likely to announce an agreed bid for ICI tomorrow (in order to meet Friday’s Takeover Panel deadline) of around £6.70 plus the dividend. Will this be the end of the story?

14 August update. Yesterday saw the delayed announcement of a bid effectively valuing ICI at £6.79/share. In addition, Akzo announced a €1.6bn share buyback, and promised 'up to €3bn' of further buybacks, starting in 2008. By raising the immediate buyback amount from the expected €1bn, and offering an additional buyback next year, they clearly think they have done enough to win approval from their shareholders. Today's reaction in the financial press seems to support this judgement, as although a few shareholders seem to still oppose it, most seem to be in a mood of reluctant acquiescence. However, the share price has fallen significantly since the announcement, indicating that investors are not convinced that the deal will go ahead. The fat lady may be warming up for her performance, but has still not yet started to sing.

All the world’s media are now carrying accounts of the ‘liar loans’ and fraud that has accompanied the growth in US mortgage lending in recent years. How did this come about?

The only problem is that the whole story may turn out to have been an illusion. The CEO of Countrywide, the largest US mortgage broker, said last month that `we are experiencing home price depreciation almost like never before, with the exception of the Great Depression'.

Credit market problems intensified last week, even though stock markets rallied strongly until Wednesday. I thought you might like to see some more comments on what is going on, from people close to the action.

Ben Bernanke, Fed Chairman, ‘wrote extensively in the 1980s about the causes of the Great Depression. He argued that the Fed could have prevented the damaging bank runs if it had provided the necessary liquidity, as he is trying to do now, thus calming depositors instead of forcing banks to turn them away empty-handed’. New York Times.

The past two Thursdays have seen extraordinary things happen in financial markets.

We are not yet at the point where the real economy, in which we all live and work, is necessarily going to nosedive into recession. But a few more Thursdays like these will certainly test its robustness. We could well be close to finding out, as the old English nursery rhyme says, that ‘Thursday’s child has far to go’.

The report in today's 'Financial Times' that Barclays Bank has lost 'several hundred million dollars', means that the UK has now joined every other global financial centre in suffering from the US subprime mortgage crisis. The news followed Friday's 5% drop in the value of Bank of China's shares, after it revealed it held $9.7bn of securities backed by sub-prime loans.

The question now is whether this purely financial crisis will roll over into the real economy? So far, the signs are hopeful that it won't. The latest weekly Economic Report from Kevin Swift at the American Chemistry Council actually shows a slight improvement in its running tab of positive indicators to 16 out of 20.

And outside the USA, the ACC report shows that 'global chemical industry production expanded in July', offsetting a revised decline during June. It says that the 'improvement was broad-based and was strongest in Africa and the Middle East and in Central and Eastern Europe.'

However, Kevin does caution that key US indicators such as durable goods orders and leading economic indicators may not yet be fully reflecting recent financial turmoil. Whilst the US National Association of Realtors reported yesterday that the median US house price fell in July for a record twelfth consecutive month, and is now 0.6% lower than a year ago.

At the moment, liquidity seems to be improving again in financial markets, and some confidence has returned. But as I noted on 10 August, US house prices haven't declined nationally since the Great Depression. With median wages static, and falling house prices, will US consumers decide to cut back their spending? And will lenders be happy to continue lending to them, if they need to borrow more to maintain their spending?

The subprime crisis is too recent for anyone to know the answers to these questions. But people are already beginning to return from the beach, as the summer holiday season comes to an end in the northern hemisphere. As we move into September, we may therefore begin to discover whether the Barclays news marks the end of the current financial crisis, or is a prologue to its extension into the real economy.

I first wrote about the subprime crisis two months ago, as it began to be noticed in the press. Housing represents an important source of chemicals demand, and so it seemed to have potentially major implications for the chemical industry. Since then, it has become clear that the crisis could have far-reaching implications, if not properly handled. I therefore thought it might be useful to summarise the insights I have gained via a letter to the Financial Times, which they have kindly published this morning. I thought you might like to see it.

From Mr Paul Hodges.

Sir, There is another reason Washington should follow your excellent advice and "resist" the urge to intervene in the subprime crisis ("Subprime loans - subprime solutions", editorial September 1). This is that the scale of the problem is probably too large for any congressional action to be effective.

Even Congress would surely balk at the amount of money that this scale of intervention would require. Unfortunately, therefore, the myth behind the US housing mania is likely to become increasingly transparent, as the fallout from it widens.

Published: September 4 2007 03:00 | Last updated: September 4 2007 03:00

This week has seen more downbeat news on US auto and housing sales.

Ford said their total August vehicle sales were down 14% versus August 2006, and that their car sales were down by an amazing 34%. Toyota, who have been growing market share, said they were down 2.8% in total, and that their car sales were down 8%. GM bucked the trend with total vehicle sales up 5%, although they didn’t break out car sales, and did note there had been a ‘double digit decline in daily rental sales so far this year’. Chrysler, who mainly focus on trucks, said their sales were down 6%.

The accompanying comments to the sales figures were also concerning, with words such as ‘challenging’ and ‘competitive’ being used to describe current market conditions. Typical was Jim Lentz, EVP of Toyota, who said that ‘reduced credit tied to the subprime squeeze challenged consumer confidence this month’.

Housing is the other main driver for US chemical demand, and here the National Association of Realtors (NAR) posted a worrying 12% decline in their index of pending home sales for July, even before August’s turbulence. The NAR regard the index as a forward-looking indicator, and its fall prompted them to sound an unusually downbeat note about prospects, saying that ‘existing-home sales are likely to decline in coming months as mortgage disruptions work their way through the housing market’.

Early news on August sales from key retailers such as Wal-Mart also confirms that 'price leadership initiatives' are proving important in maintaining sales volumes. So July and August seem to be indicating that more difficult times may lie ahead. In the English countryside, the movements of migratory birds are often used as a sign of the changing seasons, although a rustic proverb reminds one that the mere sighting of ‘two swallows’ doesn’t necessarily indicate the arrival of summer.

Similarly, one does need to be cautious in predicting a downturn, based on the sighting of a slowing in retail markets over just two months. But unless there is a significant improvement in September, we will probably have to accept that the good times have already ended.

There’s an interesting indication today of the changes taking place in the Chinese economy. Bloomberg are reporting that Blackstone, the US private equity group, is to purchase around 18% of specialty chemical company China BlueStar for $500m. This will be Blackstone’s first Chinese investment, and follows the Chinese government’s $3bn investment into Blackstone in June.

The report is also interesting for the detail it provides about the way the deal has been structured. We already knew that China had decided to move some of its considerable US$ holdings into equity-type investments, via the establishment of a $200bn Sovereign Wealth Fund. The investment in Blackstone was clearly signalled as being part of a strategy to use selected Western companies to help them invest this money wisely.

And it is true, of course, that Blackstone do have a long-standing interest in chemicals. How can one forget their investment in Celanese in April 2004?

They spotted an anomaly between the ratings of chemical companies listed in Frankfurt and New York, and bought Celanese (which had 60% of its assets in the US) for $3bn. They then loaded up the company with $3.2bn of debt, before IPOing it 9 months later. According to Forbes, this meant that by June 2005, Blackstone had achieved a return of $3.1bn in exchange for its original $650m stake, whilst retaining a significant equity stake in the company.

But the structure of the deal with China is different. German investors complained bitterly after the pyrotechnics with Celanese. China seems to have played its hand much more carefully.

Blackstone may still do well, but is acting more as a ‘hired hand’ than as an individual entrepreneur. BlueStar had initially intended to raise $300m in an Hong Kong IPO, but under Blackstone this will be deferred to the end of next year (probably no bad thing given the current problems in financial markets). Blackstone will also be charged with integrating BlueStar’s French holdings (Drakker and the silicone business bought from Rhodia), before grouping the assets for a listing.

It therefore gets to do all the work, whilst paying $500m upfront for the privilege. But China National Chemical will remain the biggest shareholder in the company, and so will still reap its share of any rewards that Blackstone may generate. Whilst China’s holding in Blackstone means it will also profit from the latter’s success.

Extraordinary events have taken place in the UK since my posting on Friday:

• A bankrun took place on the 8th largest bank, Northern Rock, with lines of depositors queuing for hours outside its branches all over the weekend and Monday.
• Faced with this, the UK Finance Minister was forced to announce that the government would guarantee all deposits in the bank, regardless of size. Previously, savers would have received a maximum of £31,700 in the event of default.
• Shares in Northern Rock closed below £3 last night, having been over £12 as recently as February.
• Shares of the other two banks that have fuelled the growth in UK subprime lending, Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley, have also fallen heavily since Thursday. A&L fell 30% yesterday as the storm intensified.

On 12 July, I wrote that ‘the problems in the US subprime mortgage sector…have the potential to become a global hurricane’. The problem now is that, unlike a normal hurricane, this one seems to gather more force each time it touches down.

As I noted on 14 August, it started with ‘rolling thunder’ and its main impact was on poor Americans, who were losing their homes. Then, as it circled again, central banks were in the eye of the storm as they tried to avoid a credit crunch. I forecast that if they failed, the next impact would be on the real economy, as housing and autos have been a mainstay of chemical and polymer demand in recent years:

• The construction industry boomed in those economies where housing markets have been strong.
• ‘Equity release’ provided consumers with more money to spend on chemical-intensive purchases such as autos
• In turn, chemical demand surged in the export-oriented, emerging economies of Asia.

Since July 14, I have been advocating that CEO’s should develop ‘a major cost-leadership programme’, ready for the end of the summer vacation. Unless the US Federal Reserve can pull a rabbit out of its hat at today’s meeting, it will now be time for this programme to be rolled out.

BP and Reliance Industries are both powerhouses in their own fields. BP’s new CEO, Tony Hayward, has just given his first interview in the new job. Comparing, and contrasting, his comments with last week’s AGM statement by Reliance’s Chairman, Mukesh Ambani, is very revealing in terms of content as well as tone.

Hayward’s interview in the Financial Times showed him as making a decisive break with the Lord Browne era. He believes that the company had done a ‘fantastic job assembling a great set of assets, but a much poorer job in really making them run efficiently’. He also ‘admitted that morale at BP was poor, and that the company had been failing to recognise and reward excellence among its employees’.

Over the same period, of course, BP has divested much of their petchems business via the Innovene sale to INEOS. But according to Hayward, they have still managed to ‘increase the complexity of BP’s structure’, as a result of which ‘it is so tough to get things done’ within BP.

Ambani, of course, had no need to eat humble pie. He titled his talk ‘Towards a quantum leap’, and in it he set out the major changes now underway in Reliance’s portfolio. From small beginnings with a single polyester plant, Reliance is now the world leader. And Ambani announced a move from 1.9 MT to 4.5 MT of PX capacity, in association with the refinery expansion at Jamnagar.

The site will also feature 2 MT of new olefins capacity, with further expansion already planned. Ambani explained that the petchem business now aims to ‘follow the path to global leadership set by the polyester business’. Reliance has also become one of the top 20 private upstream companies in the world, and he revealed that they are now planning to invest a further $4bn to build on the success of the past 7 years.

But even Reliance now needs to make a number of major strategic shifts. Ambani accepts, for example, that although they have been able to focus on organic growth to date, ‘acquisition’ will have to become a more important part of their growth process. He also accepts this will require a shift in mind-set, towards ‘partnership’ and more JVs of the type carried out with Chevron in the Jamnagar refinery expansion.

What is interesting about both Hayward and Ambani’s viewpoints is the stress that they lay on operational expertise. Reliance’s success to date, like BP’s in the past, has been based upon their ability to deliver. To recapture excellence in this area must be Hayward’s objective for BP, if he is to achieve the turnaround he targets.

I mentioned PetroChina in the very first blog entry, when the stock was trading at $155 in New York. It seemed to me to typify the new mood of confidence that I was finding as I travelled in Asia on the 10th anniversary of the Asian financial crisis. Little did I think that just 3 months later, it would be trading at $260.

This meteoric rise in the Chinese stock market has left me feeling more than a little uneasy, as to whether confidence has now turned into pure speculation. And this concern has been amplified by news this week that legendary investor Warren Buffett has sold his entire 11% holding in PetroChina, for a $3.5bn profit. Agreeing that, as usual, he sold ‘a little too soon’, he told Fox Business News yesterday that the sale was due to his concern over valuation.

Buffett clearly feels that the best of the China stock market run is behind us, at least for the moment. It will be interesting to see how much longer the present surge can last, and what the impact will be if (when?) it tumbles back to reality.

And in the meantime, it was also interesting to see that in the same interview Buffett denied that he had ever been interested in buying troubled investment bank, Bear Stearns. He added that he was still steering clear of the housing market and US housing stocks, as ‘prices still didn’t seem low enough’. As Buffett tends to buy and sell early, this is a salutary warning that there may well be more trouble ahead for this critical area of chemicals demand.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a workshop organised by Pilko & Associates with leading figures from the private equity (PE) industry. It was fascinating to hear their views on how the current credit crunch is affecting M&A activity. The days when some PE players were acclaimed as geniuses simply for loading up a company with debt are clearly gone. There is a growing consensus that we are moving into a tougher climate for deals, which will probably affect M&A activity and chemical company valuations quite significantly:

• PE had lost its cost of capital advantage in M&A, with a maximum of 4/5 times leverage now being available, compared to the 8/9 times that had been common.
• Investors have also become more cautious, wanting ‘simple stories’ to support a deal, and preferring to work with known people who have good track records.
• Deal size has dropped to around $3bn - $4bn, with larger deals only being done by strategic buyers (eg major companies) who can fund via their own cash-flow.
• Valuations are therefore reducing, but PE has not yet reduced its expectations for >20% return. Bolt-on acquisitions will therefore become more common.

I also got their inside view of the US subprime crisis, where caution seemed to be the order of the day. The expectation was that this would rollover into Q4, and that even then we might not be ‘out of the woods’.

There were also a number of specific issues which have recently appeared on the radar:

• H1 saw several major deals completed, and these will take time to be digested.
• PE buyers are more wary of above ground liabilities after the Texas City refinery explosion. Issues such as process safety/maintenance spend/training are now key.
• The ‘mood music’ of management presentations is seen as critical, as whilst governance policies/systems can change quickly, cultures change more slowly.
• There is probably less sharing of HSE/EHS experience going on, due to the more fragmented nature of the industry. This is a negative step, and needs addressing.
• The majors are now imposing their own standards very quickly on new acquisitions, and taking the costs up-front as part of the deal’s overall cost.

Of course, the current problems in financial markets may all blow over in the next 6 months. But it was interesting to hear the response given to a question as to whether it would be better to issue debt now, or wait 6 months. ‘Take the pain now, and pay the extra premium’ was the advice. ‘Risk is currently increasing in financial markets, not reducing’.

The Bank of England correctly predicted in April this year that the risks associated with US subprime lending had increased, that credit risk monitoring was poor, and that markets should be prepared for liquidity to dry up in parts of the financial sector.

It must therefore, as the Financial Times said, ‘have required some restraint not to write “we told you so” at the start of the Bank’s latest report this week on Financial Stability’. This report updates its analysis, and does not provide much comfort about the near-term outlook. It concludes that:

• Lenders will become even more nervous about asset valuations if any further problems emerge in the US subprime and housing markets
• Highly-leveraged companies, including those involved in recent buyouts, could suffer from a tightening in credit availability, as banks have to absorb formerly off-balance sheet loans back onto their books
• Equity markets (in both industrialised and emerging economies) are vulnerable to any downward revision in global growth prospects
• The US$ may also be vulnerable to a downwards correction if recent changes in investor sentiment to US securities persist

The Bank believes that the cause of the recent problems was ‘a long-standing “search for yield” in financial markets – a desire by investors to maintain high returns in a low interest rate environment’. Its view is that ‘a repricing of risk was long anticipated and necessary’.

But it goes on to add that ‘the scale and breadth of the transition have caught market participants and the authorities by surprise’. It also suggests that players have become complacent, and ‘afraid to stand against the tide for fear of losing market share’.

Its warnings echo those made in early summer by the central bankers’ bank, the BIS, which I covered on July 3 in ‘4 risks to the world economy’. And judging by the Bank's tone in this week’s Report, we should remain on our guard in the coming months for signs that further problems are developing in financial markets.

What are the key questions that need to be asked when discussing any budget or strategy proposal? I have just found the answer, from a master in the field.

Sir Maurice Hodgson is recognised as one of the greatest ICI Chairmen. Under him, the company became a truly global leader, moving away from its ‘imperial’ heritage. His stepping stone to this job was in 1965, when he became ICI’s first strategic planner, and in this role he developed the concept for the whole chemical industry.

As he describes it, Hodgson decided that there were ‘3 very specific questions’ that the ICI Board needed to address:

• Where are we going if we don’t change?
• Where would we rather be going?
• How do we need to change to get from one to the other?

Unfortunately, this first question, in my experience, is almost never asked these days.

Today's ‘default’ position is that the status quo is assumed to be optimum and viable, unless concrete evidence is produced to the contrary. The beauty of Hodgson’s question is that it turns this assumption on its head.

Its ‘default’ position is that the risk of NOT changing is potentially quite high. This provokes quite a different debate, as it forces a discussion to take place on how the future might be different from the past.

Today would be an excellent time to put Hodgson’s questions to the test. As I wrote on 22 October, the consensus forecast for next year is very optimistic. And so, rather than assuming that 2008 will look much like 2007, it might be very revealing for a Board to have an open debate about where the business might be going if indeed, as many now believe, a US recession is just around the corner.

In turn, this would allow debate on Hodgson’s other two questions to take place whilst there is still time for contingency plans to be prepared. Otherwise, there could be a real risk of the company losing control of its own destiny, if circumstances do turn out to be more difficult than is currently expected.

Back at the end of August, I suggested that we had only reached the end of Phase1 of the credit crunch. I feared that it had the potential to get much worse, and to damage the ‘real economy’ where all of us in the chemical industry live and work.

This was definitely a minority view at the time, especially in financial markets. Earlier in August, I had quoted Chuck Prince, CEO of Citigroup, who expressed the prevailing mood when he said, ‘We are not scared. We are not panicked. We are not rattled. Our team has been through this before.’ We are ’still dancing’.

Yesterday, Prince resigned as CEO, following the announcement that the bank would take a $5.9bn loss on its subprime exposure for Q3. His departure followed that of Stan O’Neal as CEO of Merrill Lynch. This morning, Citi have said they may have incurred a further $11bn loss in the past month. Their shareholders are being left to pick up the bill for a very expensive period of ‘dancing’.

It is now almost certain that the current credit crisis is not going to be a ‘9 day wonder’. The problems in sub-prime apparently go too deep for an easy recovery to be possible. This is a double whammy for the chemical industry, which is already suffering from growing difficulties in passing through higher feedstock costs.

De-leveraging is an ugly phrase, and its impact on the chemical industry could be as bad as it sounds. I suggested back in mid-August that CEOs should be rolling-out ‘strict guidelines about how to manage credit risks with highly leveraged customers’. Similarly, highly-leveraged companies in the chemical sector should be conserving cash by all means possible as we come to year-end.

Black holes are an apparently empty region of space, with the power to destroy anything that comes too close. The US subprime crisis seems to be turning into their financial equivalent. It never seems to get resolved. It just gets worse. The last few days have demonstrated this key learning once again.

One might have thought that the departure of CEOs at Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, plus multi-billion dollar write-offs, might have marked the end of the story. But it seems that the more we learn about subprime lending, the more uncertain it all becomes.

The underlying issue is that there is no transparency about what has been happening. Most of the lending activity has been taking place ‘off-balance sheet’. And where this lending has been reported, it is only in obscure footnotes to regulatory filings. Even then, it has been subject to massive revision.

Consider the following table, which has been put together by the Financial Times in an excellent piece of analysis. This apparently represents Citigroup’s ‘off-balance sheet liabilities’. And just look at the numbers:

At the end of last year, Citi apparently told the US Securities & Exchange Commission in its 10Q filing that it had $228bn of such liabilities. Then it revised the number to $294bn, by deciding to include its Asset Backed Commercial Paper liabilities (ABCP). By September this year, the total figure had risen to $343bn, with increases in all categories apart from ‘Others’.

Even the FT gives up, however, when it comes to telling us what this might mean for Citi’s published balance sheet in due course. But it does comment that ‘There are questions to be raised about whether maximum loss exposure figures are set to keep rising for some banks.’

Notes:
SIVs are ‘Structured Investment Vehicles’ that make loans that don’t tie up a banks regulatory capital. ABCP conduits do the same for ‘Asset Backed Commercial Paper’. The * indicates the restated numbers for December 2006.

Our annual European conference, organised with ICIS, always provides an excellent opportunity to gain a snapshot of industry views as we move into a new year. At this week’s event in Antwerp, Belgium, the prevailing mood was uncertainty, for the first time since 2002:

• Oil prices are high, and volatile. This makes it difficult to plan ahead with any confidence.
• Feedstock markets are in a perfect storm. Shell described the major pressures on refiners, which have kept naphtha markets tight, and prices high.
• End-user demand may be weakening. Artenius and Scott Bader see increasing difficulties in passing through higher feedstock prices to end-users.
• Credit worries are increasing. Our financial speakers from ING and Barclays Capital both warned that the sub-prime crisis is far from over.

Petchems have had a great run since 2003. It is not at all clear that this will continue into 2008. Our delegates are probably very wise to be developing contingency plans, in case the next few months turn out to be the start of the long-awaited downturn.

The consensus viewpoint is an easy way of keeping up to speed on a variety of issues outside one’s daily experience. But the signs are that the consensus may be leading to complacency, when it comes to the assumptions being used to finalise 2008 budgets. There are a number of areas where some new thinking is required:

• Oil prices. Many companies are already having to revise up their budget assumptions, now that crude is approaching $100/bbl.
• Housing markets. It was said that US prices would never fall on a national basis. But they have, and other key markets (UK, Spain, France) look weak.
• Inflation. After 10 years of Great Stability, central banks were widely believed to have inflation under control. This looks increasingly unlikely today.
• US $. This was supposed to stabilise or strengthen, but is now declining quite rapidly against the Yen (109 as I write), and the euro (0.67).
• Leverage. This was thought to be ‘a good thing’, forcing managers to ‘make assets sweat’. But it also makes it easy for companies to go bust in a downturn.

The current consensus may still be right, that 2008 will be a relatively good year for the industry. But core areas for chemical demand such as US housing and autos are already looking quite difficult. Financial markets are also growing more nervous. And when things go wrong, the decline is often quite sudden, leaving little time to think.

Time spent now on preparing contingency plans, in case there is a downturn, may well prove a good investment.

Gazprom is becoming a player to watch in petchems.

For decades, observers have speculated that Russia might increase its petchem activity. A recent comment by Gazprom deputy CEO, Valery Golubev, seemed to bring this concept closer to reality. He said that Gazprom aimed to increase its ethylene production by 350% to 7.66 million tonnes (MT) by 2015. He also said Gazprom plastics production would rise from 400 KT to 1.7 MT in the same period.

Now Gazprom has announced a further initiative, this time with Dow. As Nigel Davis and Sergei Blagov reported on ICIS news, Gazprom and its petchem arm, Sibur, will study with Dow the potential for joint gas processing projects near the Valanzhinsk gas deposits in Russia's Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region, as well as a possible joint venture based on expanding Dow's petrochemical production units in Germany.

This agreement builds on an earlier MOU signed last year. And the concept seems well in line with Dow’s developing asset-light strategy for commodity businesses. Earlier this year, Dow’s CEO Andrew Liveris said that Dow could cooperate with Gazprom on the building of bulk chemical production facilities, in return for the sale of feedstock from it at a lower price. Liveris added that Dow is ‘a very advanced provider of technology. Gazprom would be able to achieve a great deal of synergy from it’.

BASF have also been talking about JV’s with Gazprom, and it is probably no coincidence that Gazprom chose the same day to announce the formation of a new JV with BASF, Gazprom YRGM Trading, which will trade gas from the jointly owned Yuzhno-Russkoye field. Earlier this year, of course, BASF’s own Solvin JV with Solvay announced a Sibur JV to build Russia’s first world-scale fully integrated vinyls plant in Kstovo in 2010.

Gazprom has been indicating since 2004 that it was interested in selling a 50.6% stake in Sibur. Dow and BASF were both said by Gazprom’s former deputy CEO, Alexander Ryazanov, to have made informal offers. Today’s announcements probably also bring this intriguing process one step nearer to realisation.

It is now almost 6 months since I started writing this blog. And I thought you might like some feedback on how it is developing.

As you can see from the green-shading on the map, it is now read in almost all of the major chemical producing/consuming areas. A high proportion of readers bookmark the site, and return to it regularly. You are also spending more time on the site, as the amount of content builds.

Certainly, there has been no shortage of issues to cover:

• Oil prices. The blog was amongst the first to suggest, on July 5, that crude prices might reach $100/bbl over the winter. At that time, the price was $71/bbl, and most forecasters were expecting a decline. The recent peak was $99.26/bbl, and the winter is not yet over.
• Credit crunch. The blog covered this from the start, just as the US subprime crisis began. And many people have kindly commented that they first became aware of its implications for the chemical industry via the blog’s commentary.
• Chemical markets have been covered extensively, with a focus on key areas such as housing and autos. These are clearly leading indicators for chemical demand, and the blog has been able to highlight potential problems before they became widely recognised.
• Regional developments. Chemicals is a global industry, and the blog has kept readers up to date on developments in all the major areas – Asia, the Americas, Europe and the Middle East.

Re-reading the blog’s Mission statement (at the top of the main page), it therefore seems to be fulfilling its role of ‘sharing ideas that may shape the chemical industry over the next 12-18 months’. We have certainly ‘looked behind the headlines’, and I have tried to provide as many links as possible to original source material elsewhere on the web.

We have also had our moments of ‘fun’ - commenting on the hedge fund trader who ‘forgot’ he owned a £80k Maserati, and on the Brazilian super-model who sparked a mini-currency crisis by revealing she preferred to be paid in euros, not dollar.

One recent change is that I am often now writing shorter summaries of issues as they develop. With 82 postings already on the site, readers can then link to more detailed background, as required. Hopefully, this makes it quicker for you to find the topics of most interest.

Thank you very much for your support and comments over the past 6 months. I’m looking forward to covering whatever 2008 may bring.

Dow has been unique amongst the world’s largest petchem companies in not being integrated upstream into oil and refining. This position will change dramatically at the end of 2008, when its newly-announced JV with the PIC subsidiary of Kuwait Petroleum opens for business.

Not only will Dow then integrate its ethylene/PE business, but it will be do so with a non-western oil company. As Dow’s CEO, Andrew Liveris, describes it, ‘the day of the NOC (National Oil Company) dominance has arrived’. The new JV will be responsible for pursuing ethylene/PE projects on its own, and will be the prime focus for Dow's Asian ambitions. Some/all of the existing PE-based JVs may also be linked to it in the future. Liveris explained that the aim is ‘to bring each one of those relationships to the table in due course’.

This deal continues Dow’s strategy of JVing its Basics business, whilst growing its technology-led performance businesses. In Basics, the aim is to anchor Dow’s technology and market knowledge with locally sourced advantaged feedstocks. Whilst the Performance businesses focus on 4 key areas – Human health, Energy, Infrastructure & Transportation, Electronics & Communication.

The deal creates a $19.1bn global JV that (if combined in due course with the existing Equate, MEGlobal and Equipolymers JVs) will create the world’s No1 polyolefins company. It will focus on plastics (PE/PP/PC/PET), and will also create the world’s largest EO/EG & derivatives company. It will have supply agreements with 3 of Dow’s crackers at Fort Saskatchewan (Canada), Bahia Blanca (Argentina), Tarragona (Spain). If combined with the existing JVs, it would have $14bn in revenue, and be largely focused on ethylene, with some aromatics involvement via polycarbonate. Dow’s other US/European crackers will remain wholly-owned.

The partners have so far concluded a non-binding MOU. Closure of the deal is expected at the end of 2008, at which point PIC will pay $9.5bn for its share of the businesses that Dow is contributing. This will provide Dow with the flexibility to move forward on the next stage of its push into a more market-facing portfolio.

Dow now plans a ‘more aggressive approach to M&A’. It will certainly have the flexibility to do this, having successfully reduced its ‘debt to total capital ratio’ in recent years from over 50% to today’s low 30%. But any prospective acquisitions will need to be aligned with the market-facing businesses, and to also meet Dow’s DCF, IRR financial metrics, as well as having a short payback period, and adding more value to earnings than a simple share buyback.

For Dow, the deal aims to preserve integration whilst mitigating cyclicality via JVs. Transfer pricing downstream will continue as today, as if they were Dow businesses. And Dow will aim to put the income from the deal ‘to better use’ in new business development. Whilst for PIC, the deal will provide 50% of the businesses that Dow is contributing, and the basis to contribute Kuwait feedstocks (eg crude/gas) to future integrated refinery/petchem projects in China and elsewhere.

Dow’s other potential JVs with Saudi Aramco, Egypt, Libya, Oman and Gazprom are all outside the new JV ‘for the moment’. And its multi-product JVs such as with Saudi Aramco will likely remain separate. Equally, the existing PS JV with CPChem will remain separate, as Dow do not see the PS/ABS area as capable of much growth, by comparison with the other polymers. Dow did however hint that they do have further plans around their existing VCM business with Shintech, but did not elaborate further.

Yesterday the European Central Bank opened its doors and lent €349bn to 390 banks seeking to shore up their reserves position for year-end. Will this help solve the credit crunch? Writing today in the Financial Times, their excellent banking editor (Gillian Tett) is doubtful. She worries that ‘the banks know something nasty that we don’t’, and that this is causing them to hoard ‘cash to an extraordinary degree’.

What does this mean for the chemical industry? Firstly, of course, it will add to CFO concerns about their ability to obtain reasonably priced loans, as I discussed last week. There are already reports of major M&A deals in the chemical sector being unable to raise long-term debt due to current market conditions.

Secondly, it seems to add to the uncertainty over the outlook for 2008. As one banker told me recently, the worry about Q1 is that auditors will not only find further problems in the lending books of some banks, but also find holes in the balance sheets of some companies, who had put subprime investments (knowingly, or unknowingly) into their reserves.

Helpfully, Gillian Tett has separately summarised the 3 major scenarios that describe how the current crisis might play out next year:

Consensus. The US narrowly escapes recession. US housing and banking markets stabilise in Q1, and there is little spillover into the rest of the economy, although auto sales growth and jobs growth decline. Emerging markets continue to boom, helping to balance slower Western growth.
Muddle through. The credit crunch slows global growth. Western economies come under pressure, and high levels of debt reduce corporate and individual flexibility. The US$ remains under pressure, as investors reallocate portfolios to other currencies.
Downturn. Today’s credit worries spread. Banks severely restrict lending as their current business model of securitising loans to 3rd parties stops working. They also suffer losses in other consumer areas (eg credit cards). A US recession leads to a second wave of financial turmoil, as highly indebted companies go bust.

What worries me about the consensus view, as with the consensus on oil prices that I discussed in October in ‘Budgeting for a downturn’, is that it is not a true base case. It is easily the most optimistic scenario. The other outcomes are both downside cases in terms of the 2008 outlook for the ‘real world’ in which the chemical industry operates.

The need for chemical companies to develop robust contingency plans, in case the consensus is wrong, is looking ever stronger.

Its always interesting to see the news stories that are slipped out just before major public holidays, when media attention is likely to be low.

Only ICIS news seemed to spot the announcement by Moody’s that they were placing SABIC Innovative Plastics (the former GE Plastics business) on watch for a potential ratings downgrade. Yet this is a story with potentially major implications for the chemical industry.

SABIC bought the GE business in July, when it was already well known to be suffering from high feedstock costs and increasingly difficult market conditions. But Moody’s felt no qualms then about issuing a provisional Ba2 rating for the debt. Yet on 21 December, Moody’s said that Q3 results might lead to a downgrade.

The key to the story is Moody’s sudden concern over the fact that SABIC used ‘a highly leveraged funding structure', which it now believes could ‘put more pressure’ on the business. In July, this structure was the norm for chemical M&A deals. But as I noted in October, the subsequent credit crisis has caused lenders to become more risk-averse.

Nobody, least of all Moody’s, is really questioning SABIC's support for its new Innovative Plastics business. But the ratings agencies, including Moody’s, were very slow to recognise the developing problems in the banking world as a result of the subprime disaster.

By rushing out news of a possible downgrade on this debt, Moody’s are making it easier for themselves to downgrade more debt issued by less well-placed companies during 2008. They can point to the SABIC example as ‘justification’ for a tougher line. Existing borrowers should therefore prepare for similar actions, as well as higher interest payments, during 2008.

For the chemical industry, much depends on whether the US economy goes into recession during 2008. The signs are not encouraging, with even former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan believing it is a 50:50 chance.

So how would any recession impact the current credit crisis? Writing in the Financial Times their banking editor, Gillian Tett, provides one answer. She has an excellent track record, as I have noted before, and in her forecast for 2008 she points out that current $100bn losses in the banking system could easily grow by a further $200bn if the housing slowdown leads to credit card and commercial property defaults. She then adds:

‘The nightmare scenario, however, is one in which risky companies start to default on their loans. Thankfully, there is no sign of this occurring yet. But if the US economy goes into recession, the chance of corporate defaults will rise - which could produce more losses for banks, and thus a second chapter in the credit crunch story.’

Finance Directors will also have taken note of Chrysler CEO Nardelli's comments recently to employees that the company is 'operationally bankrupt' and likely to have to sell assets quickly to raise funds. A policy of close monitoring of customers' financial solvency would seem to be a sensible precaution, gicen the uncertainties around.

S&P have quickly followed Moody’s in putting SABIC Innovative Plastics’ debt on creditwatch for a downgrade. As I commented with the Moody’s downgrade, this is not really to do with a newly discovered decline in the polycarbonate market. S&P have very competent chemical analysts, and must have been aware in August (when the original grade was announced), that Q3 was turning out to be a tough quarter, and that future profits were likely to slow.

Again, ICIS news have done a good job uncovering this story during the quiet holiday period. Most revealing is the comment from S&P analyst, Tobias Mack that ‘We expect that SABIC will likely have to offer some parental support in 2008 to protect its subsidiary SABIC Innovative Plastics from a distress scenario’.

SABIC is one of the strongest chemical companies around. In making this demand, S&P are clearly preparing the ground to put major pressure on less well-supported companies with high leverage. They are also signalling that life will be quite difficult for those still trying to finance deals completed towards the end of 2007.

My conversations over the holiday period suggested that lenders’ lawyers are already busy examining the fine print of loan agreements, even those supposedly ‘cov-lite’ with few covenants to enforce performance. Finance directors don’t want to be caught unaware, if a major downgrade is likely. They need to ensure their sales and purchasing teams are monitoring credit conditions at their customers and suppliers very closely.

CEOs seem to be following CFOs in worrying about the impact of the credit crunch and debt crisis. The annual CEO survey by PwC of 1150 executives shows that fears of a downturn now top their list of concerns.

US CEOs are much less confident than a year ago, with only 35% now ‘very confident’ about the short-term outlook. West European CEOs are also downbeat, with only 44% very confident about short-term prospects and just 36% confident about growth over the next 3 years.

This CEO gloom is based on a variety of factors that relate strongly to the chemical industry – the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the credit crunch, rising energy prices. It mirrors the record pessimism shown by CFOs last month in The Economist survey which (as I noted last month), found them worrying about ‘weak consumer demand, high fuel costs, rising labor costs and credit markets’.

The PwC survey is not all gloom, as it does reveal a striking difference between CEO attitudes in the western and emerging economies. PwC reports that ‘CEOs in Asia, Latin America and CEE are more confident’ than last year, and comments that this shows a belief that ‘their booming economies could insulate them’ from problems elsewhere.

However, PwC issue a mild health warning over the results, as the survey was taken at the end of last year. Since then, CEO confidence has probably declined, following recent financial turmoil. There are also growing doubts, as I discussed in December, about whether emerging economies really can ‘decouple’ from the West.

The credit crunch and associated debt crisis has elicited an unprecedented response from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Today, the head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kohn, told the Financial Times that the new IMF economic forecasts would ‘show a serious economic slowdown that needs a serious response’.

Just last autumn, the IMF was calling for ‘continued fiscal consolidation’ in the USA to reduce the budget deficit. Now, however, M Strauss-Kohn said he not only approved the US tax cut package, but also called on other countries to develop ‘a new fiscal policy to answer this crisis’.

Behind the IMF’s change of direction is a recognition that lower interest rates on their own ‘will not be enough to get us out of the turmoil we are in’. As I noted back on 7 January, many experts now believe that cutting interest rates is like ‘pushing on air’.

This is because the problem is not one of stimulating demand via interest rate cuts, but of trying to encourage lenders to resume lending. In this environment, lower interest rates may actually make matters worse, by reducing lenders’ incentive to lend.

Policy makers are therefore stuck between a rock and hard place. Higher rates might well encourage more lending, but would bankrupt all those many highly-geared people and companies who have borrowed beyond their means. The new head of Merrill Lynch, John Thain, has already ‘predicted that the problems in mortgage markets will spread to credit cards and consumer loans’.

If the IMF is right, then chemical industry sales to key consumer markets such as housing and autos look set to come under further pressure. Contagion from the growing crisis in financial markets may well now start to spread into the 'real economy' in which we live and work.

Very few non-OPEC oil projects have been financed in recent years, although market prices have risen from $20/bbl to $100/bbl. This is because oil companies and banks assumed that current prices would fall back to $40/bbl, or even lower, within 3 – 5 years.

But a new reality has been dawning, summed up by Total’s CEO last year, when he commented that major production increases from today’s $85mbd ‘would be difficult’ to achieve. Now BP have also reacted. Under new CEO Tony Hayward, they will now test projects against an assumption of $60/bbl. This 50% increase reflects a growing sense that the oil price will stay higher, and for longer, than oil companies had previously expected.

Futures markets still regard this price as too low. WTI for 2009 delivery is trading today at $85/bbl, and for 2016 delivery at $88/bbl. Buyers at these prices are aware that history would suggest oil prices should tumble in a US/western recession. But they also know that most demand growth is now taking place in Asia, and this is less price-sensitive due to subsidies.

Will the change in BP’s assumptions lead to more oil appearing? BP will certainly now invest more money, but construction costs have more than doubled in recent years. So the net effect will not be large. But at least they are investing. This was something that never appealed to Hayward’s predecessor, Lord Browne. His priority was always share buy-backs rather than investment.

‘‘I despair at times at why the equity markets can’t see how serious the credit crunch is’, said one senior credit analyst at an investment bank. ‘They just trade off the day-to-day newsflow’.

This interview from yesterday’s Financial Times reminds me of last July, when I noted how financial markets seemed to have become divorced from reality.

My musing then was prompted by the fact that Access had offered $12bn for the Lyondell business. This struck me as an extraordinary amount of money. Net debt was forecast at $22bn and 5.5 times current ebitda. And although the deal has now closed, I understand that the underwriting banks have still not been able to offload the debt into the market. This is a clear sign of the problems in credit markets to which the FT is referring.

Equally worrying is the fact that Wal-Mart, probably the best managed company in the world, yesterday reported that US sales were ‘below expectations’ during January. If Wal-Mart are now being surprised on the downside, then it is clear that things are really bad in US retail markets.

The FT goes on to warn that debt markets are growing ‘increasingly pessimistic about companies’ ability to withstand the bursting credit bubble and a possible recession’. Equally, the Wal-Mart warning means that US domestic chemical sales in the first half of the year will probably be much weaker than normal seasonal trends would suggest.

The prudent course for CEOs and CFOs must be to ignore the rose-tinted glasses still being worn in equity markets. They need to review January’s performance for early signs of weakness. They also need to test current budgets against an assumption that credit markets will get worse. Unfortunately, this week’s Plastech bankruptcy is probably not an isolated event, but just the first of many.

The Bank of England’s quarterly survey of corporate credit conditions, published today, shows that companies are finding it harder to get credit, and that rates are rising. This is in spite of the massive liquidity injections made by the Bank over the past 6 months, and its 0.5% interest rate cut.

The Bank says that ‘lenders reported a tightening of credit supply in Q4 and expect to tighten supply further in coming months’. Equally, as shown in the chart, the Bank says that ‘the effective rate of borrowing has remained elevated, despite falls in Bank Rate'. The Bank also worries that ‘although the effective rate on new business has fallen since its peak in August, this decline may be misleading, as it is likely to reflect the fact that as banks cut back on riskier higher-rate loans, the average rate on new lending falls'.

I noted 2 months ago that CFO pessimism was increasing in the chemical sector. This week’s reports from the Fed and Bank of England will do nothing to lighten their mood.

BASF Chairman Jürgen Hambrecht sounded confident last week, following their annual results.

2007 sales were €58bn (up 10% on 2006), and income from operations was €7.3bn (up 8%). However, Q4 saw sales up just 1.6% at €14.7bn, and income actually down 3.4% at €1.6bn.

The main culprit in Q4 was chemicals. Sales were marginally down on 2006 at €3.4bn (partly due to the impact of extended plant turnarounds), but income fell 50%. Unsurprisingly, N America was the problem region, with sales down 11% and income down 64%. BASF was clearly hit very hard, as one would expect, by higher feedstock costs and the downturn in housing and autos.

However, BASF was supported by a solid performance from its oil and gas business, where their main partner is Gazprom. The sector accounted for only 18% of 2007 sales, but contributed 41% of total profit. This was a very good performance given the strength of the euro, as the $7/bbl increase in the average price of Brent translated into just a €1/bbl increase for BASF.

The sector’s Q4 performance was excellent. BASF faces a headwind in its gas business when prices are rising, as it takes time to pass on these increases to customers. (Of course, it benefits from the same effect when prices fall). But although oil and gas sales were flat at €3.1bn, they still contributed €800m and represented 50% of total Group income.

BASF are continuing to reshape the portfolio, and hope to complete the styrenics sale within a few weeks. This would follow previous petchem divestments (eg Basell), and the acquisition of late-cycle businesses (eg Engelhard). BASF’s low debt ratio is also a strength as the credit crisis worsens. Whilst its Verbund strategy of highly integrated sites provides cost leadership, which is always critical during a downturn.

Chemicals and plastics will probably cause increased problems for BASF in 2008. But oil prices are already well above BASF’s budget figure of $78/bbl. So its perhaps understandable that Hambrecht felt able to tell the Financial Times he is currently still ‘sleeping well at night.’

‘If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a duck’. This simple logic probably best sums up Warren Buffett’s position on the current state of the US economy. ‘By any commonsense definition’, said Buffett yesterday, ‘the US is in recession’.

Buffett is the world’s leading investor. And key evidence from a chemical industry perspective supports his conclusion. US vehicle sales fell 10% in January, after a terrible 2007. Housing starts are 50% down on earlier peaks, and US house prices are falling nationally for the first time since the Depression. As Buffett added, ‘most people (are) experiencing recession’, and ‘their net worth (is) heading south’.

Buffett’s warning about the US$ was also worrying, with his belief that it ‘is going to get weaker over time’. Last year, the lower $ allowed US chemical companies to compensate via increased exports for slow domestic markets. But the $'s latest fall means that it is now challenging the ¥102 level, which has held for over a decade.

Equally, investors search for a reliable ‘store of value’ is causing them to chase commodity prices higher. Speculative long positions on NYMEX crude oil rose 50.4% last week, as financial players rushed to exit the US$. Many expect crude to hit the $110-$115/bbl level shortly.

The Financial Times this morning reports that the US Fed fears that ‘the economic downturn in the US could turn into a deep and protracted recession of the kind that plagued Japan’. Clearly based on interviews with senior Fed officials and other policymakers, the two articles (one for the European edition, and one for the US) provide a remarkable insight into the Fed’s current thinking:

I am indebted to Paul Krugman for passing on this piece of black humour, now going the rounds in financial markets.

Unfortunately, these problems are getting closer to home. Carlyle, who have a number of private equity investments in chemical companies, defaulted on a $16.6bn bond fund today.

We have now seen 3 financial disasters in a matter of days:

• Northern Rock, the UK’s 5th largest mortgage lender, was nationalised last month, after failing to secure sufficient funds to continue lending.
• Carlyle, one of the world’s largest private equity firms, saw their $16.6bn mortgage fund default on Thursday, due to its excess leverage.
• Bear Stearns, the 5th largest US investment bank, had to be rescued by the US Fed/JP Morgan over the weekend, as it too hit a liquidity crisis.

Bear were the subject of one of my first postings in the blog, last July, when I commented that its hedge fund troubles sent ‘a chill down my spine’. My fears have been amply justified by subsequent events. As the BBC’s business editor, Robert Peston, said on Friday, "the rescue of Bear Stearns demonstrates that the worst of the global credit crunch is not yet behind us." He added ‘that if Bear Stearns had been allowed to collapse, it could have put the whole financial system at risk’.

And although stocks rallied globally on Thursday, after S&P were reported as saying the end of subprime writedowns was ‘now in sight’, it is clear from reading the full S&P statement that their real views are quite different:

‘We believe that any near-term positive impact of reducing subprime risk in the financial system via increased disclosure and write-downs will be offset by worsening problems in the broader U.S. real estate market and in other segments of the credit markets. A major repricing of credit risk is taking place across the debt markets, with credit spreads having further widened in most segments since the beginning of 2008’

As I have noted since September, the whole zeitgeist is changing in financial markets, with lenders now focused on ‘return of capital’, rather than ‘return on capital’. Clearly, they don’t like the prospects they see ahead, and who can blame them? But with housing markets so important to the chemical industry, it is hard to believe that we will avoid major impact from the financial disasters now taking place.

Those who liked my earlier posting about Margin calling, might like to look at the new online Financial Times page devoted to subprime jokes. For example, 'What's the definition of an optimistic investment banker?' 'Someone who irons 5 business shirts on a Sunday night.'

It also mentions the prospect of a new breakfast cereal being launched, ‘Credit Crunch’. One hopes this won’t be served along the RiverWalk at San Antonio during next week’s NPRA meeting.

Readers will know that I am a great admirer of Gillian Tett’s analyses of banking issues in the Financial Times. Today, she has another thought-provoking article, this time on the emergence of Iceland as ‘the world’s first country run like a hedge fund’. The article is worth reading in itself, but also for the question that it raises in conclusion. This is whether the leverage used in recent years by some banks now means that they are ‘not just too big to fail, but also too big to rescue’?

China is well worth watching at the moment. Quietly, away from the headlines, the Shanghai stock exchange has been collapsing. It is now down 44% since its October peak, and fell over 5% on Wednesday.

This matters to the chemical industry for two reasons:

• The immediate cause of Wednesday’s fall was news that Sinopec and PetroChina lost money in January and February. Their shares fell over 8% as a result. This shows the level of ‘subsidy’ now being offered to Chinese consumers following the government’s decision to freeze oil product prices in January. It turn, this subsidy delays any rebalancing of demand (as I noted on Wednesday), putting more pressure on western consumers.

• The collapse itself indicates that the Chinese ‘growth story’ may be about to take a break. The government has been raising interest rates very steadily, because of worries about ‘over-heating’ in the economy, and rising inflation. The stock market is forecasting that these measures will work, and that we may well see a major slowdown after the Olympics. This would be extremely serious as China was the powerhouse behind the recent boom in global chemical demand.

Of course, stock market collapses do not always lead to economic downturns. But they are often linked. The establishment of contingency plans for dealing with a global slowdown is fast becoming an urgent priority for chemical industry managements.

The US Fed’s decision to keep cutting interest rates is causing a major change in Asian investment behaviour. This will slow world economic growth quite significantly, and is bad news for chemical industry sales. It also means that the informal Bretton Woods II system of currency management has broken down.

The IMF now sees a 25% chance of a world recession this year, in which global growth would fall below 3%. Its base forecast is just 3.7%, compared to 5.2% before the credit crunch began. Sales growth for most chemicals is tied to GDP growth, so companies should expect volumes to come under pressure as global growth slows.

If you would like to read my article in this week’s ICB, on the importance of contingency planning, please click this link

ICIS has just announced its annual Innovation Awards for the chemical industry. Perhaps ICIS might now consider establishing a separate award for central bankers? A rush of new lending facilities seems to be on the way, as they try to find new ways to unblock the pipes that allow money to flow between banks.

Ineos’ 200,000bpd Grangemouth refinery in Scotland is on strike today and tomorrow, over a pension dispute. This will presumably cost the workers 2 days pay. The costs for INEOS and the UK are enormous in comparison. BP, for example, has had to shut down a pipeline that carries 40% of the UK’s oil production, because it is powered from Grangemouth. Bloomberg suggests that N Sea producers alone might lose £50m/day whilst the refinery is shut.

INEOS, of course, will also lose. The refinery and associated petchem plants had to be shut down last week, before the strike started. And the company estimates that it may take up to 3 weeks for full supplies to be restored. Some financial analysts have suggested the overall cost could amount to $60m. In addition, of course, there is all the disruption caused to INEOS customers, and other parts of the industry.

The strike also creates political risk for INEOS, given the potential for it to disrupt gasoline and fuel supplies across Scotland, where it is the only refinery. This is an uncomfortable position for any company, and one that will not be helped by the coincidental publication today of the UK’s annual Rich List in the Sunday Times. This ‘sharply’ cuts INEOS’ value to £2.5bn as a result of its ‘hefty borrowings, an economic slowdown and more competition from the Middle East’. Even so, according to the Sunday Times, Jim Ratcliffe, INEOS’ owner is still in 25th place and worth £2.3bn, more than double the Times’ estimate of his worth in 2006.

Even after the plants are back online, there is no guarantee that further strikes will not occur, as the pension issue looks unlikely to disappear quickly. Whilst an interesting new note from Goldman Sachs, published before the strike was called, suggests that INEOS’ value may continue to ‘underperform over the next 12 months’. Goldman base their view on the fact that ‘Ineos has not reduced leverage ahead of the coming cyclical trough, during which we think it will be among the most highly levered commodity chemical companies.’

Archie Norman is one of the most successful CEO’s of recent years. When he joined ASDA in 1991, it was a struggling, nearly bankrupt, UK food retailer. 9 years later, it was sold to Wal-Mart, after he had transformed it. Shareholders benefited from an 8-fold increase in the share price over the period, whilst Norman earned just £300k ($600k) a year.

Looking back on the experience, Norman does not think he was treated unfairly. In an interview today with the FT, he comments:

• ‘It has never occurred to me that money would have any bearing on my pace of work. I don’t work harder or less hard depending on the amount of money I earn. You are only as successful as your last challenge. I regard the things I have done in my career as a preparation for the next project’.
• His tip for successful management is also refreshing. ‘You have to be humble. You have to be prepared to listen to people whether they are cleaning the floor or in management’.

Spare a thought for the plight of the world’s investment bankers. According to the Financial Times, some minor cutbacks are finally taking place in the extravagant lifestyle to which they have come accustomed:

• UBS, having lost $11bn in Q1, has now told its analysts to fly economy on short-haul flights.
• Merrill Lynch bankers have to work an extra 30 minutes before they are entitled to a taxi ride home after work.
• Goldman Sachs employees no longer have access to free bottled water

Deutsche Bank has gone one further, according to Der Spiegel, and will no longer ‘approve any adult entertainment’ such as hotel porn channels.

Headline interest rates are set by central banks. But the ones that we actually pay, as consumers or companies, are set by the banks themselves. And most of these are based on LIBOR - the London Inter-Bank Offer Rate - which is the main benchmark for $347 trillion of borrowing around the world. Now it seems the LIBOR rate is likely to rise by 30 May.

The background to this is slightly complex (details below), but the implications are enormous. Lending rates for 6 million US homeowners are likely to rise as a result, for example. Today the LIBOR system was discussed in the UK Parliament, and it seems a new system is likely to emerge by 30 May. Based on the evidence so far, this could increase actual lending rates quite significantly, by up to 0.30%.

Increases in Russian oil supply have played a major role in balancing world oil markets, at a time when other non-OPEC sources such as the N Sea have been declining. Production rose from 6.2mbd in 1999 to 9.6mbd by 2006. But as I noted last month, there are signs it may now have peaked.

The reason for this is perhaps to be found in a comment by Leonid Filimonov, former USSR Oil Minister, in this month's 'Petroleum Review' . He said that from 1998, Russian oil "companies were focusing on the 'easy fields', racking up tremendous production gains, leaving only the 'difficult fields' for the future".

More recently, under Putin, Russia has become much more professional in its marketing of crude. According to the Financial Times, he has re-established central control of Russian crude sales by supporting the growth of Gunvor, a Geneva based trading house now responsible for an estimated $70bn worth of Russian oil sales this year. This has helped to support oil prices, by comparison with the previous free-for-all, and is credited with helping to 'reduce the discount between Russian Urals and western Brent'.

European isomer players may recognise some of the names involved in Gunvor, as it owes its origins to the Kirishi refinery, a regular PX/OX producer for many years. Kirishi is, of course, close to St Petersburg, where Putin was formerly Mayor. And according to the FT, the relationship is still maintained via a common interest in judo, with Putin and Gunvor boss Gennady Timchenko both members of Moscow's Yavara Neva club.

Dow today announced that it is raising prices for 'all of its products by up to 20 percent - depending on their exposure to rising energy, feedstock and transportation costs - and will review all terms to all customers'. Dow CEO, Andrew Liveris, said that Dow's 'first quarter feedstock and energy bill leapt a staggering 42 percent year over year, and that trajectory has continued, with the cost of oil and natural gas climbing ever higher."

Liveris added that "the new level of hydrocarbons and energy costs is putting a strain on the entire value chain and is forcing difficult discussions with customers about resetting the value proposition for our products." Dow thus follows Rohm & Haas in taking extraordinary steps to try and mitigate current feedstock prices. The company estimates that its $8bn bill for energy and hydrocarbon-based costs in 2002 will rise to $32bn this year, if present trends continue.

As I commented back on 2 January, 'it would be a triumph of hope over experience to expect the 2007-8 surge (in oil prices) to be different' from those that one remembers from 1973-4 and 1979-80. Then, we did exactly as Dow are doing now, and raised prices as an act of desperation. I would like to believe that the next stage of the story will somehow be different this time from previous experience, but as I have been warning since the blog started last June, a major downturn in chemical demand looks increasingly likely.

For those who are interested, my New Year Outlook from 2 January is available via the January archives, and is also attached to this posting ....

Every now and then, a few interesting quotes come along, which seem to recent summarise developments, and set the tone for the next few months. Recent days have been a good example of this process at work:

'The era of cheap energy is over, as oil production isn't rising fast enough to meet demand amid a lack of spending'. Tony Hayward, CEO, BP

'A public backlash against high (oil) prices in China could have an adverse impact throughout the world'. Zhang Guabao, China's delegate to the G8 Energy Ministers' meeting

'It is not clear if the rest of the world is going to continue to fund the US current account deficit at current levels of exchange rates'. Malcolm Knight GM, Bank of International Settlements (the central bankers bank)

'The banking system might simply revert to the role of a utility, which is the way things were before the great deregulatory tide began in the 1970's'. John Plender, senior financial columnist, Financial Times.

Its now a year since the blog started. Since then, 213 postings have appeared. It is now read in 72 countries and 620 cities (shown above). Most encouragingly, readership continues to steadily increase. Since January, it has risen a further 301%.

The blog's aim is to identify 'the influences that may shape the chemical industry over the next 12 - 18 months', and to 'develop useful insights into the key factors that will drive the industry's future performance' . So a first birthday is a suitable moment to assess its success:

Dow's potential interest in Rohm & Haas had been much rumoured since December, when it announced the petchem/polymer JV with Kuwait's PIC. That deal has yet to close, but further evidence of the growing link with Kuwait comes with the news that the Kuwait Investment Authority will invest $1bn as part of Dow's financing for yesterday's $18.8bn purchase of R&H.

Last September, I wrote to the Financial Times on the subject of the US sub-prime disaster. At a time when many banking commentators were trying to minimise the problems, I suggested that 'a "buyer of last resort", such as the Federal government, would probably need to emerge if this situation is to be stabilised'.

Yesterday, 10 months later, the government took a major step in this direction with its emergency measures to support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Between them, these two lenders guarantee 47% of all US mortgages, worth over $5 trillion. That sum is equivalent to 10% of global GDP, or about the combined size of the French and UK economies.

Andrew Sentance of the Bank of England has issued a very clear analysis of current oil and commodity price movements. It rejects the view that these have been primarily caused by speculators. Instead, it points to increasing demand, and lack of supply, as the main causes of today's higher prices. The slide above sums up his case, showing recent increases in non-OECD oil demand in light blue, the OECD increase in dark blue, and supply increases in purple.

The current downturn is different from anything that has occurred in the last 15 years. Policy makers are clearly worried. The UK's Finance Minister, Alistair Darling, told Bloomberg today that 'the effect of what has happened is going to be far more profound than people predicted at the start of the year'. He added that 'conditions have become much worse across the world'.

Noting that banks have already had to raise $324bn in new capital, Darling warned that `I don't think anyone would be wise to start speculating on how long the present difficulties will last. We are dealing with them here (in the UK), and other countries are dealing them as well. If you look at the problems the banks have had, they have moved into a different phase and governments have to take account of that.'

I suppose when an industry has lost $400bn in a year, some sacrifices have to be made. In May, I documented how Deutsche Bank was no longer approving expense claims for 'adult entertainment'. Well, things have got worse since then, as the losses have continued to mount:

• Goldman staff have to contribute to repair costs for their Blackberries, if the damage is their fault
• UBS bankers in the US now fly economy if the flight is less than 5 hours
• Several banks are asking staff to use taxis rather than limousines

And the C-suite are also setting an example. After a record 4 consecutive quarters of losses, Merrill Lynch executives now have to 'seek clearance from the global head of investment banking' before using private jets.

There is little doubt that chemical growth is weakening. The above chart, taken from Kevin Swift's excellent weekly report for the American Chemistry Council, indicates that a serious downturn is underway.

I noted back in February that US banks were tightening lending standards into the housing sector. Now they are doing the same with business loans. The New York Times reports today that businesses around the country are finding it more difficult to borrow. As a result, companies that depend on bank financing are having to delay or cancel expansion plans.

The NYT reports one thriving company who called their bank for a routine loan to be told 'We're saying 'no' to almost everyone'. And their experience is not unique. In June, bank credit declined by an annualised pace of 6%, according to a Goldman Sachs analysis. This is a sharp turnaround from 2007, when credit was still growing at double-digit rates.

Back in February, one hoped that it would take 'months' rather than 'years' for domestic US chemical sales into housing and autos to recover. Now, with business loans being cut back as well as mortgages, one fears that it could indeed be years before a genuine recovery is underway.

A year ago, it was fashionable to claim that the Asian economies had 'decoupled' from the West. Any slowdown would simply pass them by. Last December, I noted a rare dissenting voice, Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, who commented that 'decoupling is a good story, but its not going to work going forward'. In March, I noted that 'away from the headlines, the Shanghai stock exchange has been collapsing', and was already down 44% from its peak.

Tighter lending standards, and higher spreads for borrowers, are continuing to create headwinds for the US economy. As far back as January, senior loan officers at major US banks were reporting that they were tightening mortgage lending standards. Yesterday, the latest quarterly US Federal Reserve survey showed that 60% of banks have now tightened their standards 'in all major loan categories'. And, the Fed reports, most expected to keep tightening into 2009, whilst 80% of banks said they had increased the spread they charged to corporate borrowers.

When you're the richest man in the world, you can generally say what you think. Thus Warren Buffett reflected reality back in March, when he commented that 'by any commonsense definition, the US is in recession'. Yesterday, he probably ruffled a few more feathers when he told CNBC that he thought the US economy was still in recession, and 'could be worse' at the end of the year.

He also remarked that a 'financial crisis reveals which players have been swimming naked, because the tide goes out'. And, he added, 'we (have) found out that Wall Street has been kind of a nudist beach'. As a result, he expects both the US mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to require 'federal government help' to survive. He also expects more US banks to collapse as a result of 'failures where the bankers were dumb in what they did'.

Housing is a vital market for chemical companies. It boomed in the US and other Western countries as credit standards were relaxed between 2003-7. Now it is at the centre of the credit crunch. Martin Feldstein, Harvard economics professor, and the man who chairs the Board that determines the duration of US recessions, is clearly very worried. Writing in the Financial Times today, he summarises the outlook as follows:

'The US economy is sliding into recession. Employment, industrial production and real incomes are declining. Monetary policy has little traction because of the dysfunctional credit markets and the collapse of housing. The fiscal policy of tax rebates failed to achieve a significant impact on consumer spending. The economy will continue to decline and the financial markets to deteriorate unless a policy is adopted to stop the downward spiral of house prices.'

Anyone preparing budgets for 2009-11 will need to include a Downside Case that covers what might happen to demand, and margins, if house prices do continue to fall.

The blog has never liked disaster movies, but it was quite a weekend for those who do. First, there was the hurricane hitting Houston and Texas. I used to live in Houston, and watching the pictures of the damage, could recognise familiar places washed away, or burnt down. The blog's sympathy goes to all those affected.

Then, the financial hurricane arrived in New York. By Sunday night, Lehman, the 4th largest investment bank in the US was preparing for bankruptcy. And the world's largest brokerage firm, Merrill Lynch, had been rescued by Bank of America. Ken Lewis, head of BofA, was quoted last October as saying that 'I've had all the fun I can stand in investment banking'. Many more people will be echoing that thought this morning.

The scale of the US banking crisis is now starting to become clear to the world. The US government last week had to nationalise the two largest mortgage lenders, Fannie and Freddie. Both Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch have had to be rescued by other banks. And now Lehman has been let go, whilst 10 of the world's largest banks have had to establish a $70bn fund to try and mitigate the fallout from its collapse.

Slowly but surely, what began a year ago as a sub-prime collapse, is becoming a financial disaster of epic proportions. As the Wall Street Journal, the house magazine of Wall Street, writes this morning, 'The American financial system was shaken to its core on Sunday'. These are strong words from a publication not given to exaggeration. And more problems are round the corner, with insurance giant AIG now seeking a $40bn lifeline from the Federal Reserve.

Chemical company CEO's need to start preparing contingency plans for surviving a major economic downturn. After the events of the last 48 hours, the chances of this occurring are becoming uncomfortably high.

'A disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility and lead to substantially higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth, and materially weaker economic performance,' according to the US Federal Reserve last night. As a result, the US government now owns 79.9% of the nation's largest insurer, in return for providing an $85bn loan.

Does this new 'rescue' mark the end of the problems? Former EPCA speaker, Martin Wolf, is not optimistic in the Financial Times today. He sees 4 major areas where 'excesses' need to be unwound:

• 'The fall of inflated asset prices to a more sustainable level
• De-leveraging of the private sector
• Recognition of resulting financial sector losses;
• Recapitalisation of the financial system'

He adds, that 'making all this worse will be the collapse in private sector demand, as credit shrinks and wealth falls'.

Another day, another rescue. This time on the other side of the Atlantic. HBOS, the UK's largest mortgage lender, with a 20% market share, announced this morning that it was being rescued via a merger with the Lloyds TSB bank. The deal was brokered by the UK government. UK Finance Minister, Alastair Darling, told the BBC that without the deal, HBOS's future 'was very bleak indeed'.

As readers will remember, Darling rather surprised financial markets last month by suggesting that today's economic times 'are the worst they've been in 60 years'. But his assessment has now been confirmed by former US Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who says it is a 'once-in-a-century' financial crisis. Greenspan added that it must have 'a significant impact on the real economy globally, and I think that indeed is what is in the process of occurring'.

Alan Greenspan's comments (below), led the blog to investigate how the world's major stock markets had moved since their recent peaks. All, as shown in the chart, are now in bear markets. Stock markets often forecast economic developments 6 - 12 months ahead, and so this represents a negative indicator for future chemical demand.

Also significant is the globalised nature of the decline. Germany and Japan peaked first in July 2007, followed by the US, UK and China in October. They were followed by India in January 2008, then Russia and Brazil in May. This pattern seems to confirm the blog's long-standing concern that we may now be facing a multi-year global slowdown, as the financial excesses of the 2003-7 boom are unwound.

Does the US Treasury read the blog? Just hours after the chart below was posted, rumours began to circulate of a major government initiative to try and stabilise financial markets.

The proposal now before Congress to authorise the spending of $700bn to bail out Wall Street contains just 849 words. It avoids the need to go into further detail via its suggestion that the Treasury Secretary should simply have unlimited authority to act as he 'deems necessary'. But 5 key questions are bound to be asked over the next few days:

What is the likely total cost? The headline number is currently $700bn, plus the $50bn spent on Friday to insure money market funds. But, of course, there is also the estimated $200bn cost for bailing out mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie, in addition to the costs of the earlier Bear Stearns bailout and of the $100bn tax rebate in May/June. So already the sums involved are more than S Korea's total GDP ($939bn).
Is this a 'done deal'? No. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) notes that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already said 'the Democrats will insist on adding measures to protect taxpayers and tighten regulation of the industry'. They also want more help for homeowners threatened with foreclosure. So the cost is bound to rise - the Savings and Loans bailout took 10 years (1989-99), and cost more than double the original $50bn estimate.
How will the money be spent? One suggestion is that the Treasury will purchase the assets via reverse auctions. This leads the WSJ to comment that 'the government may find itself in a quandary: Does it pay more than fair-market value for hard-to-assess distressed assets, putting taxpayers on the hook for any losses? Or does it drive a hard bargain, buying for pennies on the dollar? The latter approach would further hurt financial institutions, since they would have to write down the losses and take additional hits to their balance sheets.'
Who will pay the bill? The proposal calls for US national debt to rise by a further $700bn, to $11.3 trillion. There is no suggestion that taxes will rise - instead, the government will borrow more. Global interest rates will therefore end up being higher than would otherwise have been the case. And as the blog noted in September, financial institutions are already deleveraging thier balance sheets. So this new government borrowing will 'crowd out' borrowing by companies and consumers, forcing them to cut back, and further slowing the economy.
Will it solve the crisis? The WSJ notes that the proposal only deals with one-half of the current problem. 'A revival of the credit markets and a bottoming of the housing market are keys to a revival' it comments. 'The government's debt plan may reduce the level of fear in the market, enabling the credit markets to operate properly. But such a plan wouldn't do anything about the excess supply of homes and the large number of mortgage borrowers in dire straits.'

In early August, the blog noted that politicians were beginning to recognise the seriousness of the economic situation. First, China's finance minister Liu He warned that 'an economic restructuring was inevitable'. Then the UK's finance minister said the 'global economy was at a 60-year low', and France's Prime Minister added that the world was facing a 'very, very serious global economic slowdown'. Last night, US President Bush joined the chorus, warning that 'our entire economy is in danger'.

No doubt Congress will now try again to approve some form of bailout for the US banking system. And stock markets may well rally, at least briefly, in relief. But as the Wall Street Journal comments this morning, the underlying issue behind the crisis is that 'homes were grossly overpriced, fueled by binge borrowing. For that to correct, prices must return to more affordable levels'. And it adds that even with a bailout, 'it isn't clear home prices will rise. They could simply stagnate.'

This is a critical issue for chemical companies, given the importance of housing markets for chemical demand. And a new report today suggests they are getting worse, not better. Prices are now falling in 21 of the 33 countries monitored by Global Property Guide. A year ago, only 5 countries were in a downturn.

As the blog suggested 10 days ago, CEOs could be well advised 'to start preparing contingency plans to survive a major economic downturn'. The chances of this occurring remain 'uncomfortably high'.

Peer Steinbrück, the German finance minister, has joined the growing list of politicians with a view on the current economic crisis.

His analysis differs markedly from that expressed by President Bush on Wednesday. 'The financial market crisis is above all an American problem', Steinbrück told the Bundestag (German Parliament) yesterday.

He added that 'the current turmoil was allowed to develop because of a reckless pursuit of short-term profit and huge bonuses'. Policy makers had lacked the 'political backbone' to stand up to 'bankers' greed'. And Steinbrück expects the results of the current crisis to be far-reaching. 'The U.S. will lose its status as the superpower of the world financial system, and the world's financial system will become multi-polar'.

As a result, he sees a bigger role for European banks and sovereign wealth funds from the Middle East and Asia. He also expects greater regulation of the financial system, as proposed earlier this week by Nicolas Sarkozy, French President. Separately, Sarkozy again warned that 'the crisis isn't over, and the consequences will be serious'.

Another day, another bank failure. That almost seems to be the pattern in US financial markets at the moment. Yesterday the nation's 6th largest bank, Washington Mutual, was taken over by government regulators and sold to JP Morgan. The 119 year old bank, headquartered on the US West Coast in Seattle, had $307bn in assets and was brought down by its risky loans in the housing sector. Its rescue also showcased a further example of the Wall Street greed that helped to cause current problems. WaMu's new CEO, Alan Fishman, has only been in the job for 3 weeks. But apparently he will now receive $11.6m, and keep his $7.5m signing bonus.

More banks disappeared in Europe and the USA over the weekend:

• Bradford and Bingley, one of the UK's largest mortgage lenders was nationalised. The government will now pay $18bn to Spanish bank Santander to enable a transfer of retail deposits to take place
• Fortis, Belgian's biggest bank, has been partly nationalised by the Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourg governments at a cost of $11bn
• Wachovia, the leading US bank, will be rescued by Citigroup with the assistance of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

As the blog noted earlier this month, the deleveraging process is now unstoppable, and we have reached the 'Minsky moment'. Investors have recognised they overpaid for assets over the past few years, and a 'rush for the exits' is underway, causing 'distress sales' to take place due to an absence of new buyers.

Currently, this process is focused on the financial sector. The blog's fear is that investors' attention may soon turn to other areas, including chemicals and key customer industries.

Ken Rogoff was Chief Economist at the IMF, and is now a Harvard professor. His view on Wall Street's current problems is refreshingly different. Writing in The Guardian, he notes that 'efficient financial systems are supposed to promote growth in the real economy, not impose a huge tax burden'. But, he adds, 'the US financial sector, in greasing the wheels of the real economy, has been soaking up an astounding 30% of corporate profits and 10% of wages'.

Rogoff therefore wonders whether 'significant shrinkage of the financial sector, particularly if facilitated by an improved regulatory structure, might actually enhance efficiency and growth?'

Warren Buffett, the world's leading investor, was quite candid yesterday in his views on the US economy. `In my adult lifetime, I don't think I've ever seen people as fearful, economically, as they are right now,' Buffett, 78, told PBS. 'They are not wrong to be worried'. He added that a lack of short-term credit is `sucking the blood out of the economic body of the United States.'

Buffett is a long-term investor, who says his favoured holding period for stocks is 'forever'. But even he added that, whilst he assumes a bailout bill will soon pass Congress, he doesn't expect much improvement in the economy over the next 6 months.

Last March, the blog noted an excellent article on Iceland by Gillian Tett of the Financial Times. She argued that Iceland was 'the first country run like a hedge fund'. And she worried that its banks might prove not 'too big to fail', but 'too big to rescue'? Now, it looks as though we are close to finding out the answer.

In 2007, according to Bloomberg, the assets belonging to Iceland's 3 biggest banks were 9 times the country's GDP. But on Monday, the government had to bail out the 3rd largest bank, Glitnir, to save it from bankruptcy. And now the Wall Street Journal reports growing doubt about the government's ability to rescue any other large banks.

After months of denial, Iceland's government has finally begun to face facts. On Thursday, the Prime Minister, Geir Haarde, warned that 'Government, companies, households and people have seldom faced such great difficulties'. But it may already be too late, as there are suggestions that the country will soon require a rescue package from the International Monetary Fund.

'Buy on the rumour, sell on the news' is the classic definition of a weak market. So the US stock market's reaction to the passing of the US bailout is a worrying indication that further problems may lie ahead. On 19 September, the Dow rocketed to 11388 as the bailout was confirmed. Last night, as the bailout passed into law, it closed 9% lower at 10325.

Nor do we yet know all the answers to the 5 key questions that worried the blog when the proposal was first announced last month:

What is the likely total cost? We know the cost has risen by $150bn plus from the original $700bn requested, in order to gain support from the House of Representatives. But as the New York Times points out, the bailout still has to 'put a dollar value on mortgage related assets that nobody wants'. And previous bailouts in the 1930s and 1990s ended up costing at least twice the number originally proposed.
Is it a done deal? The blog was clearly right to suggest that the bill might well not pass in its original form. And even now it has passed into law, there are serious questions over how it will operate. Will Congress allow tens of $bns to be siphoned off by Wall Street in fees, as apparently proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson? And will he really be allowed to recruit former colleagues from Goldman Sachs 'to advise him'?
How will the money be spent? It is being suggested that it will take at least 6 weeks to put the necessary systems in place. But already people such as Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, are warning that 'you need to worry about conflicts of interest' when it comes to 'determining the bailout's winners and losers'.
Who will pay the bill? As expected, there are no tax increases planned. So the Treasury will have to borrow from domestic and overseas markets instead. With credit already tight, this may well 'crowd out' borrowing by companies and individuals, as happened in the 1970s.
Will it solve the crisis? The final package is clearly an effort to re-start interbank borrowing. But as the blog noted originally, nothing is being done about the underlying cause of today's crisis, namely 'the excess supply of homes and the large number of mortgage borrowers in dire straights'. Until this is addressed, it is hard to see how markets, and the 'real economy' in which the chemical industry operates, can truly recover.

Against this background, 'buy on the rumour, sell on the news' seems an entirely logical reaction.

A year ago, the blog was in a minority of one, with its forecast for 2008. Its heading was 'Budgeting for a Downturn'. By contrast, the consensus post-EPCA was for $70bbl oil, debt market problems to be contained, and for chemical margins to remain at 2007 levels.

This year's EPCA mood was different. There was an acceptance that a downturn was now underway. The only question was whether this would be short, or lengthy. The blog believes it will be multi-year, on the basis that not only are we entering a global economic downturn, but we are doing this at a time when the oil price is high, and when over-capacity is developing in almost every major product area.

As discussed in my ICIS radio interview, it is also clear that a financial crisis is already well-advanced, even before the economic downturn has really taken hold. What will happen if/when major industrial companies crash over the next few years? Experience from the multi-year recessions of the early 1980's and 1990's suggests that this is probably inevitable. We do not know how this will play out, but it is unlikely to be pleasant.

However, experience from previous recessions also shows that 'self-help' is a better policy than simply waiting for 'something to turn up'. The former allows companies to become 'players', and to retain some control over their own fate. The latter leads to the development of a 'victim' mentality, in which apathy develops and critical issues are left undecided.

It is also important to remember that economic cycles have always been a part of life in the chemical industry. The last 4 years have been amongst the best in our history, and we have enjoyed blue skies. So whilst there are now storm clouds ahead, a 3 - 4 year downturn does not mean that the industry will never recover.

Photo courtesy of www.freefoto.com

The blog has given up counting the number of US banks that have failed in recent weeks, away from the headlnes. Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America, predicted last month that half of all US banks would fail, and he is well placed to know.

Bank rescues are also rising across Europe. The German government last night supported a €50bn ($68bn) rescue for Hypo Real Estate, the country's 2nd largest real estate lender. Whilst France's biggest bank, BNP Paribas, took control of Fortis Bank in Belgium and Luxembourg for €14.5bn after a government rescue failed. Germany also followed Ireland's example in guaranteeing bank deposits, to avoid further bank runs this morning.

Against this dreadful trans-Atlantic background, the UK government is moving to address one of the fundamental issues. The Financial Times reports today that Finance Minister, Alastair Darling, is considering a taxpayer-funded 'recapitalisation of Britain's banks' as part of 'some pretty big steps which we would not take in ordinary times'.

Darling impressed the blog in August with his realisation that the 'global economy is at a 60-year low'. His move mirrors the successful Swedish response to a similar banking crisis in the early 1990's, which was also caused by a bursting property bubble.

This model only allowed the strongest banks to survive, and GDP still fell by 5% over 3 years. But its use of government money for selective recapitalisation is now viewed 'as one of history's most successful financial system bailouts'.

The moment the blog has long feared, and warned about, may be about to arrive. It appears that we may be about to revisit 1980, when for some weeks it seemed that demand for many petchem products had simply stopped. As Nigel Davis notes in an excellent ICIS insight article, we are not there yet. But the warning signs are building.

As he observes, 'the slowdown in demand growth has until now been masked by supply chain inventories, but those clouds are drawing back to reveal the true situation. Producer stocks are building as the situation deteriorates. Polymer prices have fallen sharply over the past two weeks.'

The causes are the same as in 1980:

• End user demand for polymers is focused on housing/construction and autos. As the blog has chronicled over the past year, this demand has collapsed by 20 - 60%, depending on country.
• The petchem industry, however, has been living in a 'parallel universe'. All down the value chain, buyers were instead focused on buying ahead of likely oil price rises.

As I noted in my radio interview last week, the 1980 experience tells us what to expect. First, buyers have to reduce their stocks to more 'normal' levels. This probably took place in Q3. Now, they have to adjust stocks to today's actual level of demand, which is a lot lower than 'normal'. This process will probably take most of Q4.

I remember 1980 as the scariest moment of my 30 year chemical career. We simply had no idea what was happening to us. If your Board would like to talk about the current situation, and to discuss how to manage it, please contact me. I will be happy to use my experience to try and help.

The UK is to invest £50bn ($85bn) to rescue its major banks, via part-nationalisation. In addition, it will provide unlimited amounts of cash via loans. The aim is to try and unfreeze the UK's banking system, which has been on the verge of collapse. Unlike the USA, there is no disagreement amongst the major parties over the need for the rescue.

In fact, the initial defeat of the US bailout bill last week, seemed to spur a sense of 'this mustn't happen here' amongst UK politicians. A new consensus is also beginning to form about the relative roles of government and markets. As summarised by Michael Skapinker in the Financial Times, this is based on the principle of 'the markets where possible, government where necessary'.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has now increased its estimate of total sub-prime losses to $1.4 trillion, versus $945bn in April. It estimates banks will need to raise $675bn in new capital. And Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF MD, has called for the major economies to respond to the credit crisis with 'a collective commitment by authorities to address the challenges directly'.

The annual IMF meeting of the world's finance ministers takes place this weekend in Washington DC. This would be the perfect opportunity for such a collective commitment to be made. Chemical company executives will certainly share Strauss-Kahn's view that 'the time for piecemeal solutions is over'.

The German word 'Zeitgeist' describes 'the ethos or mood' of a select group of people. Back in January, the blog noted a change underway in the financial zeitgeist. Today's Wall Street Journal, normally a cheerleader for the financial community, provides a further example. After reviewing the losses to her personal portfolio, and considering how current financial market events compare to those at the start of the Great Depression, Karen Blumenthal writes:

'For more than a decade, I have gone to my local elementary school to tutor. There I spend time reading with children who own no books of their own, whose families can't afford school supplies and who have never been to a dentist. For the price of 45 minutes a week, I return to my desk feeling as wealthy as any one person needs to be'.

Readers may remember the satirical John Bird/John Fortune video on the causes of the housing crisis. Now the Financial Times Diary has provided a satirical view of the causes of the banking crisis:

A new bank model
1) Take money from members of the public in savings accounts on pretext of keeping it safe
2) Use that money to lend to people who are unlikely to repay it.
3) When loan defaults rise and wholesale markets dry up, start refusing loans and credit to those who are able to repay.
4) Resist paying more for insurance scheme to guarantee savings accounts. You can always take money from the public, through nationalisation, as the price of keeping their money safe.
5) As investors notice structural weakness, start hoarding cash.
6) When this leads to system crisis, take money from the public by offloading bad loans by swapping for Treasury bills at Bank of England.
7) As turbulence continues, stop lending money to businesses.
8) Take more money from the public through government recapitalisation, in return for promise to keep lending people their own money.
9) Slash dividend. Create new executive remuneration scheme.

As the blog predicted, Iceland has been forced to call on the IMF for help. Finally, the country's leaders have recognised that their $20bn economy couldn't support the level of debt built up during the 'go-go' years. The pity is that it took them so long to recognise reality - and by then, any chance of avoiding disaster had long since disappeared.

Collapsing housing markets are creating major problems for chemical companies worldwide. Now JD Power, the leading auto industry research firm, is warning that 'the global auto market in 2009 may experience an outright collapse.' They add that 'while mature markets are being impacted more severely than emerging markets, no country or region is completely immune to the turmoil'. 2008 sales are already weakening:

• They forecast US volumes will be down 16%, with any recovery 'more than 18 months away'
• China's growth will be down to 10%, versus 24% in 2007
• India will grow just 5%, versus 16% last year
• Europe will be down 3% overall, with W Europe down 8% and growth in E Europe 'slowing considerably'.

CEOs will need to revisit their Downside scenario in the 2009 Budget, and check once more that it really is robust in the face of such forecasts.

Winston Churchill, a long-standing friend of the USA, once irritably but acutely observed that 'one can rely on America to get to the right conclusion, when all other options have been exhausted'. So, hopefully, it will prove with the financial crisis.

Tonight, Bloomberg and the New York Times are reporting that US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson 'is planning to buy stakes in a wide range of banks within weeks, as the credit freeze increasingly threatens to tip the U.S. economy into a deep recession'. The cost being talked is $200 - 300bn.

This has to be the right thing to do, via the purchase of preference shares. But the sum talked sounds too little to the blog. After all, the UK government is investing at least $87bn in its bank purchases, in a much smaller economy.

The purchases also need to happen much more quickly than 'within weeks'. The US$ has just slipped below ¥100: $1, and as the blog noted last November, any sustained fall below this level 'would take us into uncharted water', and create the potential to add a currency crisis to the banking and housing crises already underway.

Many new readers have turned to the blog, to better understand what is happening in the financial world, and to chemicals demand. They might like to start with the 7 September posting, which forecast the current collapse: 'The price of all assets will go down'

Also, here is a list of recent postings:
Financial crisis
US to follow UK in buying bank shares
'Incompetence and denial'
Iceland calls in IMF
Europe, N America, China cut interest rates
The zeitgeist continues to change
The time for piecemeal solutions is past
UK part-nationalises its major banks
The Swedish model
Bailout bill passes, Wall Street falls

Housing crisis and chemical demand
Credit crunch causes demand destruction
Auto markets face 'outright collapse' in 2009
'Demand and prices in free fall'Blue skies disappear
US car sales plummet, house prices fall again
Shell's priorities for the gathering economic storm
Akzo halts share buybacks

And finally, for those who would like a break from it all:
A satirical look at the banking crisis

It is nearly time for the blog's annual forecast of chemical industry prospects. Of course, past performance is not necessarily a guide to future outcomes. But it is one of the better guides that we have. So before publishing the forecast next weekend, it makes sense to assess the blog's credibility by looking back at last year's outlook.

This was titled 'Budgeting for a downturn'. It took issue with the then current consensus, suggesting that this was 'very optimistic' in its belief that 'oil would remain at $70/bbl' for the year, that 'debt market problems would be contained', and that 'margins will remain at 2007 levels'.

It argued instead that there was 'a real possibility' oil prices would reach $100/bbl, and noted the alarming parallels with 1979-80, when apparent petchem demand increased (due to stock-building ahead of likely prices increases), whilst actual end-user demand collapsed. It also worried that 'the underlying position in financial markets is clearly deteriorating', and that 'new housing starts and US house prices were already very weak'.

Its main concern was that 'the latest upward rush by the oil price will be the catalyst that that finally causes the US consumer to cut back on non-essential spending. Equally, the continuing problems in the banking sector may well turn off the tap of consumer, and maybe even corporate lending'. It concluded that 'if I was drawing up budgets for 2008, I would be putting in place contingency plans for just such an outcome'.

The whole aim of the blog is to 'share ideas about the influences that may shape the chemical industry over the next 12 - 18 months'. The blog hopes that its 2008 forecast achieved this aim, and enabled readers to better prepare for today's more difficult economy.

You're looking at the man who, according to today's New York Times, is now responsible for 'choosing which US financial institutions live, and which die'. He's 35, and the assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability, Neel T Kashkari. His qualifications? He used to be a banker at Goldman Sachs, and is 6 years out of business school.

The blog feels distinctly underwhelmed. At this critical moment, was there really nobody in Washington capable of providing sound advice based on actual experience of managing financial crises?

The UK's Sunday Telegraph newspaper reports that 'Ineos, the chemicals group which is one of Britain's biggest private companies, is considering selling assets in an effort to reduce its debt burden'. It adds that 'the company, which has expanded rapidly through debt-fuelled acquisitions, is understood to be looking at disposing of a number of businesses in the US, according to people familiar with its plans'.

Sir Fred Goodwin, CEO of RBS, was one of the poster boys of the new banking model. Along with his peer group, he preached the virtues of the 'efficient balance sheet'. Equity was for wimps. The blog warned over a year ago that the 'seeming genius' in recent years of people such as Sir Fred 'has been due to nothing more than the application of high leverage during the 'up' part of the business cycle. As and when we go into the 'down' cycle, leverage will exert its same impact on the downside.'

This morning, Sir Fred is gone. So is Sir Tom McKillop as Chairman - a very talented and friendly man, but out of his depth when he moved from running AstraZeneca to chairing the 'go-go' bankers at RBS. Instead, Gordon Brown is now effectively the blog's bank manager, as the UK government will end up owning 60% of RBS in exchange for a £20bn ($35bn) capital injection - twice its recent market capitalisation.

Financial markets currently seem to be discounting the end of the world. So it would be no great surprise if the recent panic was replaced by a more balanced outlook. But the unusual feature of this recession is that the banks have already gone bust, even before the 'real economy' has turned down. So unfortunately, as the blog warned early last month, this probably means that deleveraging still has a long way to run.

In August, the blog welcomed the statement by UK Finance Minister, Alistair Darling, that the 'global economy was at a 60-year low'. It noted that he was 'the first western politician to abandon reassurance and instead to focus on the reality of current problems'. But it still took until last weekend before all the relevant policymakers had taken this message on board.

Financial markets are now busy celebrating their 'escape' from the prospect of a major Depression. And so is the blog, as an economy without functioning banks would have been difficult indeed. It is just a pity that this situation was ever allowed to occur. I spelt out the potential problems in a series of 3 letters to the Financial Times in 2006-7, but policymakers were too busy cheerleading the boom years to listen:

• On 3 November 2006, I argued we should 'beware lending institutions bearing gifts'
• On 27 March 2007, I called for 'action, not words, to end the liquidity party'
• On 4 September 2007, I summed up the problem in 'Every mania is based on an illusion'

As is the way of large organisations, Darling's boss, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, will now probably get most of the credit for the rescue that is now underway. But the blog tips its hat to him.

And before we all get too carried away, it is worth remembering that the housing crisis is still unsolved. This is the origin of current problems, and the events of recent weeks have nothing to help stabilise them. The continuing decline in house prices also remains the single most important problem facing the chemical industry, as it weakens demand in core customer sectors.

As the aptly named Mr Darling said in his famous August interview, the coming downturn 'will be more profound and long-lasting' than most people expect. He was right about the risk of Depression and, unfortunately, he is right about this too. The blog will analyse the issues this poses for the chemical industry next weekend, in its annual Budget outlook.

On Monday, governments announced c$3.5 trillion of recapitalisation and capital injection into the global banking system. One would have then expected the major investment institutions to rally round in support.

But on Wednesday, they conspicuously failed to do this. Instead they argued that the taxpayer should provide yet more money, in the form of dividends from the bankrupt banks. Unsurprisingly, stock markets then swooned again.

It is these same shareholders, by their focus on quarterly earnings, who have completely undermined the long-term role of company Boards. They were the ones who pushed for ever higher gearing, and who tried to unseat managements at banks, such as LloydsTSB, who expressed any sense of caution about the likely consequences of such lending.

The blog increasingly suspects that today's convulsion marks the end of the 25-year bull market from 1982 to last year's final highs. It also suspects that the next 25 years will see a return to more sobriety and careful analysis amongst major investors. The bonus culture, and its focus on maximising short-term 'shareholder value' would then disappear.

In turn, this would enable Boards to return to their proper role, as defined prior to 1982, of taking stewardship of the business for the next generation.

Today sees a supportive follow-up in the Financial Times to yesterday's posting about LloydsTSB, and its willingness to rebuff those who parroted the 'shareholder value' mantra. The man who led the bank's director development programme reveals that its former Chairman, Sir Brian Pitman, 'drummed into us that the board's main focus was to ensure continuing economic value added by balancing three seemingly incompatible issues:

- the reasonable demands of the shareholders
- the cost of capital
- ensuring the long-term health of the business.

In addition we had to have the professionalism and moral courage to say "No" to any unreasonable demand of the owners and to be ready to resign if necessary.'

The blog prefers to be optimistic. But 30 years in the chemical industry has taught it to be extremely realistic. So its motto for 2009 Budgets is 'batten down the hatches'. Chemical companies are likely to be sailing in some very rough seas, with treacherous currents and plenty of dangerous rocks. Survival, not growth, is therefore the prudent objective.

The key question is whether your business is robust enough to survive an extended period of low volumes and margins, against a background of tight credit markets, and continuing volatility in oil and currency markets?

Companies therefrore need to change their 2009 budget process in response to this challenge. Normally, they would develop a 'base case', and then investigate 'upside' and 'downside' scenarios. This year, companies should instead focus on the key variables around their survival Budget, so that they are prepared for most possible outcomes.

One of the oldest rules in investment is that 'When a good management finds itself running a bad business, its the reputation of the business that survives'. Legendary US investor Kirk Kerkorian has just proved he is no exception. Back in April, he spent $1bn on buying a 6.3% stake in Ford Motor Co, and publicly supported its turnaround plan. Today, his stake is worth around 1/3rd of its initial value, and he has begun to sell. If Kerkorian is giving up, then this suggests that Ford may not have long to survive in its present form.

Many Asian companies have been cutting back petchem production in recent weeks. Now TOTAL have become the first to follow suit in Europe, with the announcement that they will shutdown the Carling No 2 cracker for a month from mid-November. These decisions are never easy. But as the blog has noted before, when times are bad, the industry looks to the majors to take a lead. The blog therefore applauds TOTAL's management for biting the bullet, painful as it will be.

It also applauds Dow CEO, Andrew Liveris, for his continued honesty about the outlook. Liveris is now warning that "we will likely see a global recession through most of 2009". BP's Steven Welch was equally candid when noting that BP are currently seeing "reduced real demand (not just destocking)". However, the blog is puzzled, to say the least, by yesterday's claim from Nova's Jeffrey Lipton that N American "customers will have to order heavily to maintain production" during Q4.

The blog first raised this issue last December, when noting that global chemical industry production growth had already "slowed significantly".

At that time, it questioned whether "central bankers will be able to wave the magic wand that restores us to a growth path". And it warned "it is hard to imagine that the chemical industry can avoid a serious downturn". The above chart, based on Kevin Swift's must-read weekly report for the ACC, shows how serious the situation has now become.

• Asia Pacific growth has fallen from 10% in June 2007 to 3% in August
• Central/Eastern Europe has crashed from 10% to -3%
• Latin America growth has fallen from 3% to zero
• Western Europe has fallen from 3% to -1%
• N America has gone from zero to -3% in September

The Middle East is the only robust region, where new capacity based on advantaged feedstocks has caused growth to increase from 5% to 13%.

World chemicals growth is usually close to GDP. So it is ominous that growth had fallen from 5% to 1%, even betore the current Crash. This must further impact demand and credit availability. The blog therefore believes that the industry needs to prepare for a serious and extended downturn.

Last week, the blog didn't know whether to laugh or cry when Alan Greenspan told Congress that he was "in a state of shocked disbelief" to find that that his self-regulation policy for banks had failed. Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times was similarly surprised to discover the former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve had really thought lenders "would rein themselves in, when there were billions to be made?"

Echoing the famous line from the 'Casablanca' movie, she adds ironically that, last week, "Mr Greenspan was shocked, shocked to find there was gambling going on in the casino".

Last week, the Financial Times tried to lighten the current mood of doom and gloom. It began a letters page discussion about the merits of humour as an antidote to panic.

Many blog readers clearly enjoyed the recent posting 'A new bank model'. They will therefore understand why the FT today carries the blog's suggestion that Robert Shrimsley's weekly Notebook deserves to be widely read.

The blog has been thinking about last week's leaked report from the International Energy Agency (IEA). This said that the world needs "to invest $360bn each year until 2030 to replace falling oil production and increase supply". The IEA based this sum on a new analysis of 500 oilfields, which showed the current depletion rate was 9.1% every year, and 6.4% even if companies invested in more wells at each field.

This means that the world is currently losing nearly 8mbd each year of current oil supply due to depletion, more than double the previous 4% assumption. Even the 6.4% rate means 5.5mbd of new oil needs to be found each year, just to keep supply stable. And, of course, demand has been growing in recent years, due to industrialisation in emerging economies in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. This demand growth means more oil has to be found.

And there is another aspect to the issue. This is that OPEC countries, who produce 44% of the world's oil, are facing major problems from the global recession. According to Bloomberg, Dubai's government-controlled companies owe "at least $47bn, more than Dubai's GDP". The money has been borrowed on the back of a huge property boom, and the expectation that tourist numbers will double to 15 million by 2015. Other oil producers, including the 2nd largest, Russia, are in similar difficulties.

This would suggest that oil prices need to rise, on a permanent basis, in order to encourage exploration and production. Equally, oil producers need higher prices if they are to balance their budgets, and avoid social unrest. But at the moment, with destocking underway around the world, prices are instead under downward pressure. OPEC has already had to announce cuts of 1.5mbd, and may be forced to announce more, just to try and stabilise prices at today's $60/bbl.

Oil prices will probably remain under pressure whilst the current period of destocking continues. But after that, they could easily spike quite sharply, even if underlying demand is actually quite slow, as OPEC is likely to be cautious about raising production once more. And longer-term, today's relatively tight supply/demand balances may well continue. Ongoing price volatility, and a global recession, will make it difficult to fund the large investments that the IEA says are needed.

Last month, the blog titled its 2009 Outlook, Budgeting for Survival. This week, the Financial Times has begun a series on developing recession survival strategy. Its key tips are:

• Manage your cash. Don't spend money unnecessarily.
• Keep a strong balance sheet. Have as little debt as possible.
• Price your products/services keenly. Be imaginative.
• Keep faith in the future. Eventually, downturns lead to an upturn.

"Our normal customers have no orders to place with us, and our credit department won't let us sell to others who might want to buy". The blog was given this plain-spoken assessment of current chemical market conditions by one of the majors yesterday.

Coincidentally, US Fed Governor Kevin Warsh was making one of his rare speeches, analysing today's "unprecedented levels of volatility and dramatic financial market and economic distress". He concluded that "we are witnessing a fundamental reassessment of the value of virtually every asset everywhere in the world".

Warsh is one of the few central bankers who tried to warn of coming problems. He pointed out in April that "liquidity should not be mistaken for capital". Now, he sees companies and investors being forced to reassess "seemingly benign risks - credit, liquidity, counterparty, and even sovereign risks". As a result, credit controllers are refusing to allow sales to be made unless they are sure the invoice can be paid.

The G-20 was created in 1999, after the financial crises that had hit emerging countries from 1997 onwards. It includes the G7 group of major industrial companies, plus the main emerging economies, including the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China). Its ministerial meeting this weekend became a preparatory session for its first-ever Heads of State meeting in Washington on Saturday, with the aim of developing "concrete policy outcomes".

Encouragingly, China used the occasion to announce a $586bn stimulus package, to be spent by the end of 2010, focusing on rural development and infrastructure programmes. As Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China, noted "if China can maintain domestic demand, its helpful for global stability". The BRIC countries also announced measures to promote trade flows between themselves, in an effort to compensate for lost exports to the West.

The background to these efforts is a forecast from the International Monetary Fund that world growth in 2009 will be at a recession level of 2.2%, and less than half the 5% seen last year. The IMF also forecasts that "output in the advanced economies (US, Europe, Japan) will contract" next year. This would be the "first annual contraction since 1945", and be "broadly comparable" to the major recessions of 1975 and 1982.

The blog's forecasting record is reviewed in ICIS Chemical Business this week. Click here if you would like a copy. The blog's aim is to "highlight relevant information for the busy executive, and to provide relevant and actionable analysis of key issues". The article particularly notes the blog's willingness to challenge consensus forecasts.

The blog has warned for over a year that the chemical industry faced a global downturn. It has developed a good track record on forecasting movements in oil prices, and it also forecast the global financial crisis in early September under the heading 'the price of all assets will go down'.

The Financial Times series on surviving the downturn focuses this week on CFOs. It includes advice from Feike Sijbesma, CEO of DSM, who suggests that "you need to see how creditable your debtors are, very quickly", and advises that "maintaining a good relationship with your creditors and banks is also critical".

The Key Tips from the article are worth considering by any CFO:

• Cash is king. Monitor it daily.
• Be visible. Raise your profile in the company.
• Rethink bonuses. Make them focused on cash generation.
• Stress test. Will oil prices stay at $50/bbl? Will we see deflation?
• Strike a balance. Be tough, but don't overreact.

CFOs have a vital role in preserving the financial health of the business. They need all the help and support they can get, at this critical time.

The first-ever G-20 meeting of Heads of State was a relatively quiet event, without the presence of President-elect Obama. Two main areas seem to have been discussed:

• Regulatory reform, where finance ministers have been given until the end of March to work out new rules for the world's financial markets
• Fiscal stimulus, where the International Money Fund (IMF) proposed countries should co-ordinate a stimulus of up to 2% of GDP via tax-cuts and spending

The scale of the current crisis means that it is going to take many months to put together a sensible and deliverable strategy for recovery. This will also require co-operation amongst all the major economic powers. The G-20 is certainly the right body to take this type of initiative, rather than the G8. The blog hopes that it is up to the task.

Current market conditions are causing problems for everyone in the chemical industry. But as the blog has long feared, they are particularly testing those companies with higher debt levels. On Friday, Moody's announced a downgrading of the Corporate Family Rating of Lyondell Basell Industries to B3 to B1, and said the outlook "remains negative".

Yesterday, INEOS asked for "a waiver on its covenants". As the Financial Times reports: "The highly indebted chemicals group is struggling with a loss on its large inventory of oil following the decline in petrochemicals prices. It is also feeling the knock-on effects of a rapid deterioration in the housing and automotive sectors, two big users of its products."

The FT says that INEOS currently has €7.3bn in net debt. Q3 EBITDA was reportedly 20% down at €402m, causing INEOS to ask for the waiver for the next 6 months "whilst we wait for the mists to clear". The FT adds that INEOS will present a new 5 year business plan to its bankers by April, and could consider selling assets to reduce leverage.

6 weeks ago, I warned that "the scariest moment of my 30 year chemical career" was about to be repeated. This had been in 1980, when "for some weeks it seemed that demand for many petchem products had simply stopped".

Three weeks later, the blog confirmed that "the moment it had long feared has now begun to happen. Everyone in the chemicals value chain suddenly realises that they have been living in a parallel universe. Whilst they have been building inventory in advance of future oil price-related increases, demand in the real economy has been collapsing."

The first company to report this "moment" was Celanese, whose chairman told analysts "basically, orders just stopped". And as the blog then forecast, this "moment" has since been "repeated in other product areas and in other regions", with the effect being magnified as "customers aim to keep working capital low for year-end reasons".

The blog went on to advise that "now, the task is simple. Those of us who had the misfortune to be around in 1980, at least know what needs to happen next. Supply and demand need to be rebalanced to today's lower level of demand as quickly as possible."

Today BASF have experienced the "moment". Chairman Dr Jurgen Hambrecht announced that "customer demand in key markets has declined significantly" since the end of October, whilst "sales volumes are being impacted by increased reduction of inventory by customers".

In response, BASF are following exactly the policy advised by the blog, and are "temporarily shutting down around 80 plants worldwide...and reducing production at approximately 100 plants".

The blog salutes BASF for their courage in taking this painful but necessary step. Clearly, there will now be a final period of inventory reduction down the chain, as CFOs insist that companies end the year with maximum cash on the balance sheet.

But the blog would counsel against keeping inventory too low. In January, the auto companies and other key industries will start operating again, after their extended shutdowns, and demand will return again.

My colleague Bob Townsend is well known to many in the chemical industry as an olefins expert. He has pointed out today's most unusual situation in olefins.

Normally, an unplanned outage by one or more crackers would cause major disruption. Yet today, 10 European crackers are down, for technical or other reasons, and many others are operating close to technical minimums.

Those offline include the Wilton and Moerdijk crackers (both technical), with planned maintenance ongoing at Repsol's Tarragona and FAO's NC1 cracker in Antwerp (and speculation another NC Antwerp cracker may also be offline). Munchmunster, Litvinov, Notre Dame de Gravenchon and Pitesti are also all reportedly offline. Priolo is due back after maintenance, whilst the Carling No 2 closure has been announced.

Other regions, notably Asia and N America are also seeing similar shutdowns. Yet Bob notes that butadiene is the only product where even minor shortages have been seen. This tells its own story about the massive clearance of inventory now underway down the value chain.

The UK's Finance Minister, Alistair Darling, was the first western leader to warn that the current recession was the worst in 60 years. He was also the first to effectively nationalise major banks, to stave off their collapse. Now he has become the first to try to tackle the real threat of deflation, by cutting sales tax (VAT) by 2.5% to 15%.

The real problem with deflation is that it rewards buyers for postponing their purchases. Why buy today, when it will be cheaper tomorrow? We are already seeing the impact of deflation at work on chemical sales, and the results are not pleasant.

Darling's £12.5bn (€14.6bn, £18.8bn) VAT initiative is an attempt to tackle this specific problem, by offering a temporary tax cut that will expire at the end of 2009. As such, the blog welcomes the move. But unfortunately, £12.5bn may well prove too small an amount to counter the deflationary danger that Darling has correctly identified.

The World Bank has cut its growth forecast for China's GDP to just 7.5% next year. Only 3 months ago, it was expecting 9.2%. And the Bank warns that the economy is dependent on "higher public spending" for more than half its forecast growth next year.

Chemical companies will also be alarmed by the Bank's suggestion that China's "export growth is likely to slow sharply", as "financial market turmoil hit the economies in other emerging markets". The blog's own forecast last month, in 'Budgeting for Survival, that China's growth could bottom as low as 5%, is no longer looking quite so unlikely.

The Queen of England recently asked "Why did nobody see the financial crisis coming?"

The Financial Times took the view that "Some did, Ma'am. Some did." It then initiated a search for these people.

Today's Financial Times now recognises some of those who correctly warned that financial crisis was close. I am sure readers will be pleased to know that it chose to highlight my analysis, and the blog itself.

Surprisingly, our 7th European conference this week in Cologne (co-organised with ICIS), was one of our most successful. Delegate numbers were down, as companies cut travel budgets. But those attending said they had gained much more, than if they had stayed in the office.

For a start, there was the opportunity to share experiences, and put today's problems in context. My colleague, John Keeley, focused on the scary nature of today's demand slump when opening the conference. But he also reminded delegates that one must remain pro-active. His "yes, we can" approach became the key theme of the event:

• Pierre-Emmanuel Goffinet of GTIS showed how companies could use trade statistics to better understand what is happening in their markets
• Phil Allen of GEMS outlined new marketing tools to maximise profit by better understanding customer needs
• Wood Mackenzie suggested that the coming gasoline glut created an opportunity for producers to obtain cheaper feedstocks

Delegates also came away with a real insight into current problems in financial markets. Nigel Davis of ICIS insight analysed the factors behind the current collapse in demand. Whilst Paul Satchell of ING, who had correctly warned last year that the crisis had hardly begun, focused this year on the problems caused by lack of visibility down the value chain.

Summing up the 2 days, I said that I hoped the New Year would see a welcome recovery in demand. Factories will reopen downstream, and customers will need to rebuild inventories. But I warned that this would provide only temporary relief, with housing and autos in recession.

My advice was therefore to use the next few weeks to develop, and implement, robust plans to survive an extended downturn.

Last March, the blog supported Warren Buffett's statement that "by any commonsense definition, the US is in recession". I also wrote an article for ICB in April, "Building your defences", to suggest how companies could develop contingency plans to deal with the "real threat" of recession.

At the time, government figures did not support Buffett's claim. But today, the official US body responsible for dating recessions has formally declared that the US entered recession last December.

As the blog expected back in May, when quoting Mark Twain's famous line "Lies, damned lies and statistics", Buffett's call has turned out "to have been right, after all".

The chart presents a sobering view of recent stock market performance. It shows (courtesy of chartoftheday.com) the Dow's performance in the first year of all bear markets since 1900. Since its 2007 peak, the Dow has fallen more than in any other bear market, even more than in 1929.

Foresight, and long-term relationships, have paid off for Dow.

Yesterday, CEO Andrew Liveris announced that a binding agreement has now been signed with Kuwait's PIC to form K-Dow Petrochemicals. PIC will pay $2bn less for their stake than originally agreed a year ago. This represents an exceptionally good outcome for Dow, given what has happened in world financial and petchem markets since then. It is also a major success for PIC, who now become a leading industry player. As the blog forecast last year, MEGlobal and Equipolymers will become part of K-Dow, taking its sales to $15bn.

Liveris and the Dow Board showed great foresight in creating the deal whilst the industry was still enjoying reasonable times. Equally, they would never have been able to conclude it, during the current meltdown, without the high level of trust developed between PIC and Dow, since the latter inherited the original Equate JV in 2001.

The blog congratulates those concerned for their ability to remain focused on the bigger picture, through all that has gone on in recent months.

INEOS is the world's 3rd largest chemicals company. Its €7.29bn debt burden ($9.2bn) means that it is also Europe's largest issuer of high yield debt. This is an unfortunate combination, given today's chemical markets.

Last month, INEOS was forced to ask its lenders for a waiver on its debt covenants. It offered to pay a 0.5% upfront fee for the waiver, plus an ongoing fee of up to 1.25%. Its lead bankers, Barclays and Merrill Lynch, offered their support immediately, but other investors have been cautious.

Bloomberg reports that INEOS has a number of US lenders, and says these are used to receiving much higher fees in return for covenant waivers. S&P data shows US companies paid an average 2.40% so far this year. And according to Reuters, "the markets' reaction shows that investors remain unconvinced that the company will be able to solve its problems by the end of May and avoid a full balance sheet restructuring".

Reuters adds that investors' concerns are also shown by the fact that insurers have recently required payments of "€7m upfront to protect €10m of the company's debt against default". INEOS senior debt has been trading around 50% of face value, whilst its junior debt has traded below 20% of face value.

INEOS has warned of an expected €400m loss on inventory write-down, if oil is $60/bbl at year-end. It announced a management restructuring of its European Olefins and Polymers businesses, and is taking a number of measures to reduce costs and improve working capital. John Reece, INEOS CFO, has also reassured investors that "the Group as a whole can produce significant profits and cash flows even at the bottom of the cycle".

Decision-time for the 233 members of INEOS's banking syndicate is 9 December, when the waiver request is likely to receive majority approval. Reports suggest, however, that the company may well have to pay an extra 0.5% in fees.

In September, the blog wondered whether "China's interest in remaining the manufacturing capital of the world may be starting to wane". Yesterday, Lou Jiwei, the chairman of China's sovereign wealth fund (China Investment Corporation) confirmed the new focus on domestic growth. He suggested that "if China can do a good job domestically, that is the best thing it can do for the world".

Lou's statement echoed last week's comments from President Hu Jintao that "difficulties in the global economy threaten to undermine growth in China". Lou also added that major losses in their western financial investments (for example, Blackstone down 82% since they bought at $29.60/share), meant they "do not have the courage to invest in financial institutions because we do not know what problems they may have".

Asian chemical demand is tied to GDP/capita growth in the West, not to domestic needs. So China's new focus means much slower growth in local chemical demand. As the blog warned a year ago ,"decoupling (of the Asia economy from the West) is a good story, but its not going to work going forward".

Yesterday, Dow announced its new structure post the K-Dow JV and the planned acquisition of Rohm & Haas. This covered two main elements:

• Implementation of November's cost reduction announcement
• Dow's new organisation (the chart above)

The cost reductions were severe, with a headline 11% of staff facing redundancy. 20 plants in "high-cost areas" will close. 2000 of the 5000 jobs lost are in businesses targeted for divestment, and this process will now be "accelerated". Another 6000 contractor jobs will also go. Research spending is being reduced by $600m, and working capital by $2bn.

"New Dow" contains "feedstock-driven" and "market-driven" businesses:
Feedstock-driven includes those areas where Dow has been pursuing its "asset-light" strategy for some years. It consists of the various JV's, including Dow's share of K-Dow, plus the remaining associated petchem and basic chemical businesses. The focus will be to maximise upstream integration and become/remain lowest cost producers.
Market-driven will be solution-orientated, aiming to anticipate and meet market needs in forecast future growth areas.

The new organisation pursues the concepts first announced back in July, at the time of the R&H deal. At that time, Dow had indicated it was expecting the industry trough to last until 2011/12, with the next peak not till 2015. This led many analysts to fear a dividend cut, for the first time since 1912. In response, Dow's CEO Andrew Liveris has had to put his job on the line, saying it would not happen "on my watch".

"New Dow" is being born at a difficult time. Global markets are in recession, causing profits to weaken. But "new Dow" cannot just cut costs, as "old Dow" would have done, pay the dividend and wait for the recession to pass. It will now have to also find a way of continuing to invest in new product development within its market-focused businesses, in order to sustain their current revenue streams.

George Soros is one of the most successful investors in recent decades. The blog came across today a report of Soros' graphic description of the dangers of having too much debt in a business, or personally:

"Leverage was like driving along a straight, clear freeway with a sharp spike pointing from the centre of the steering wheel to an inch or two above your chest. All would be fine if the road and the traffic continued as they were, but any sudden application of the brakes would stab you through the heart."

The current credit crunch is, of course, equivalent to the "sudden application of the brakes" to which Soros referred.