The opposition is gearing up to take on the Modi government in the budget session of Parliament on the key issues of rising prices, inflation and the rail fare hike: indeed, opposition sources told The Hindu that these subjects may even be raised as soon as Parliament convenes on Monday for Question Hour.

If the government’s focus in the session starting Monday will be pushing through the general budget and railway budget, the opposition made it clear on Saturday at an all-party meeting convened by Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan that in the just over a month long session it plans to raise not just the price rise issue, but also the rail hike, the plight of Tamil fishermen, and Iraq.

The NDA government, on its part, will make a statement in both Houses on the condition of Indians in war-torn Iraq, union Parliamentary Affairs Minister M Venkaiah Naidu told journalists after the luncheon meeting.

At Saturday’s meeting, the government came under attack on the federalism issue: “Though the government is saying that they have great respect for federalism but in essence and effect we don’t see any signs of such federalism,” Trinamool Congress leader Kalyan Banerjee said, citing letters despatched by various ministers to states. He also expressed displeasure at the fact that the Trinamool hadn’t been given a room commensurate with its parliamentary strength.

Ms Mahajan, responding to a demand made by an opposition leader, agreed that since the Standing Committees for various ministries are yet to be constituted, the demands for grants for various ministries will be passed by both Houses by July 31 after discussion in Parliament instead of in the committees.

After the meeting, she said the meeting was held in a very cordial atmosphere: “The Government is willing to give full time to discuss any issue. Different suggestions have come and they will be decided after the meeting of the Business Advisory Committee,” she said.

Ms. Mahajan also said that the Lok Sabha proceedings this session will have a new feature where the picture of members speaking will be shown on the screen to enable all members sitting even on front benches to see those speaking from the rear benches.

Banks can now set their own exchange rates for the yuan against the dollar in over-the-counter transactions – another step toward freeing the exchange rate from government control.

Banks were previously required to price the yuan/dollar rate they offered retail clients within 3 percent in either direction of the Chinese central bank’s daily middle rate.

“The liberalization of the retail market implies that the People’s Bank of China believes that the yuan has now reached equilibrium,” said Cao Yang, an analyst at the Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Co Ltd.

The move is aimed at further perfecting the mechanisms to establish a market-oriented exchange rate for the yuan.  The world’s second-largest economy is seeking to increase the use of the yuan in global trade and investment to reduce China’s dependence on the US dollar. The move is also aimed to reduce the exposure to the economic policy decisions made by global financial institutions, in which Washington has a big influence.

It has been a good six months for borrowers in the high yield market who raised a record $180bn in the period. Two-thirds of that has gone to refinance debt at ever lower yields, and another 16 per cent to help finance new mergers and acquisitions.

Still, although there is virtually no sign that the Federal Reserve has any intention of exiting its easy money policy any time soon, the congenitally pessimistic denizens of the bond markets are already fretting that when rates rise, the process will be far more painful than in the past as investors all decide to hit the sell button at the same time. Many hedge funds hold short futures positions in a bet that rates will rise in the middle of 2015,

Demand for credit has grown far faster than equities, according to analysts. Indeed, since the end of 2008, the three fastest growing asset classes have been fixed income exchange traded funds, emerging market corporate debt that is dollar denominated, and US high yield.

Meanwhile, spreads to Treasuries continue to grind tighter. All this makes these asset classes, and high yield debt in particular, more vulnerable to outflows with even a small move up in rates.

In other words, the longer easy money continues, the trickier the exit and more dire the consequences in the eyes of the debt markets. The end of easy money will hit bond markets hard if not timed right

It has been a good six months for borrowers in the high yield market who raised a record $180bn in the period. Two-thirds of that has gone to refinance debt at ever lower yields, and another 16 per cent to help finance new mergers and acquisitions.
Still, although there is virtually no sign that the Federal Reserve has any intention of exiting its easy money policy any time soon, the congenitally pessimistic denizens of the bond markets are already fretting that when rates rise, the process will be far more painful than in the past as investors all decide to hit the sell button at the same time.  The problem is that the Fed seems to want to begin tightening (at some stage in the future) without bringing asset prices down, since the whole point of the QE exercise was to raise asset prices in the first place.

The stock market continues to set new highs, though corporate earnings do not warrant those gains. Meanwhile, with growth down almost 3 per cent for the first quarter, GDP for the first half will probably be close to zero. Corporate investment in anything other than share buybacks is minimal. Indeed, the Fed policies give companies every incentive to indulge in share buybacks rather than investing in plant and equipment, let alone in hiring.
Meanwhile, speaking at the International Monetary Fund on July 2, Janet Yellen, chairwoman of the Fed said that “financial stability risks shouldn’t have a central role in monetary policy decisions, at least most of the time.” For financial stability, substitute asset price inflation. What she implies is that there is not enough of a bubble to warrant a departure from easy money. The desperate search for yield is considered an affirmation of Fed policies.

Does the Fed wants to have its cake and eat it too?

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. was accused of widespread gender discrimination and a “boy’s club” atmosphere that included bouts of binge drinking and trips to strip clubs, as two former female employees seek to expand their lawsuit against the firm with new evidence.

The women asked a federal judge in Manhattan to let them sue on behalf of current and former female associates and vice presidents. Support for their claims includes statements of former Goldman Sachs employees, expert statistical analyses and evidence on earnings and promotions from the firm’s own records, they said in a court filing.

The two women, H. Cristina Chen-Oster and Shanna Orlich, sued in 2010 and are seeking to broaden the case to include more than a decade of claimed discrimination at Goldman Sachs. A decision by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres to allow the women to sue as a class would increase the risk to Goldman Sachs.

In the lawsuit, filed in 2010, the women seek unspecified damages and an order requiring Goldman Sachs to fix the alleged gender bias at the firm.

Female vice presidents earned 21 percent less than men and female associates made 8 percent less, the former employees claimed. About 23 percent fewer female vice presidents were promoted to managing director of the New York-based bank relative to their male counterparts, they said.

Goldman Sachs has denied the women’s claims and is fighting the case.

“This is a normal and anticipated procedural step for any proposed class action lawsuit and does not change the case’s lack of merit,” David Wells, a Goldman Sachs spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement.

Chen-Oster and Orlich are seeking to persuade Torres that their claims are sufficiently similar to those of other Goldman Sachs women so they can represent them in a single case.

They’re asking Torres to certify a class of female associates and vice presidents who worked for Goldman Sachs in the U.S. in its investment banking, investment management and securities divisions beginning Sept. 10, 2004. The start date for employees who worked in New York City would be July 7, 2002.

Denise Shelley, a vice president who left the firm in 2009, said in a court filing that men at Goldman Sachs repeatedly called women “bimbos,” mocked a new hire who had won a beauty pageant and took clients to strip clubs. Shelley said in the filing that she sat on the steering committee of the firm’s network for women and, after joining colleagues at a bar, was called a “party girl” by a managing director.

The case is Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 10-cv-06950, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).