Thursday, 19 August 2010

Finance and Insurance Industries Led Slowdown in 2007

Revised Statistics of Gross Domestic Product by Industry

A sharp slowdown in finance and insurance, a further contraction in construction, and a deceleration in durable-goods manufacturing were the leading contributors to the economic slowdown in 2007, according to revised statistics of real gross domestic product (GDP) by industry from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Finance and insurance industries” value added–a measure of an industry’s contribution to GDP’slowed to 0.1 percent in 2007 after increasing 6.3 percent in 2006.
Construction’s value added continued to decline, dropping 11.2 percent in 2007 after falling 4.1 percent in 2006, reflecting the further decline in residential building.
Durable-goods manufacturing value added slowed to 4.8 percent from an 8.1 percent increase. Decelerations were reported in 8 of 11 durable-goods manufacturing industries.


Prices:

Slower growth in the value added price indexes for construction and utilities industries contributed most to the slowdown in the overall GDP price index in 2007. The value added price index, which measures changes in an industry’s labor and capital input prices including its profit margin, accelerated sharply in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry group.
Other highlights:

    Private services-producing industries accounted for most of the 2.0 percent growth in real GDP in 2007. Professional and business services and real estate and rental and leasing were the largest contributors to overall economic growth.
    Private goods-producing industries subtracted from GDP growth in 2007 for the first time since 2001, reflecting the 11.2 percent drop in construction value added.
    Information-communication-technology-producing (ICT) industries” value added remained strong in 2007, increasing 13.0 percent. These industries account for 4 percent of GDP, but accounted for over 20 percent of real GDP growth in 2007.

Credit Risk Evaluator

Credit Risk Evaluator

The Library of Credit Portfolio Management

With the completion of Basel 2 financial institutions have established the prerequisite of modern credit risk management.

The Credit Risk Evaluator enables financial institutions to take the next step over the rating of single customers to an integrated risk and return management of the full bank portfolio.

Internal rating methods can create additional value for banks and financial institutions beyond a more economical equity allocation.

The Credit Risk Evaluator rests upon the data foundation laid by Basel 2 and links it to the modern credit portfolio models. It delivers and reports to the bank risk and  return analyses on all portfolio levels from the single client or even the single deal over arbitrary aggregation levels to the full bank portfolio.

It creates the basis for the identification of the well diversified and the highly concentrated business and market areas up to the single client where the intended return on equity is reached or failed, respectively. From the results impulses can be derived for sales and management.

Design

The Credit Risk Evaluator is designed as an open library of credit portfolio models. It comprises today 7 models which can be applied in analyses by mouse-click:

    Credit Metrics
    The KMV model
    A copula asset value model
    Credit Risk+
    Credit Risk++ - a generalization of Credit Risk+ for rating migrations, intersectoral correaltions and variable recovery models
    A multi-period model that generalizes Credit Metrics and the KMV model.
    A model that generalizes the copula asset value model to multiple periods.


    Further models can be easily integrated.

All portfolio models can be combined with several recovery models to allow for a precise valuation of sub-portfolios and for the trading of credit risks.



Results

The Credit Risk Evaluator aims at an integrated view of risk and return. Under both aspects it delivers a number of key indicators on all levels of the analysis:

    Value at risk, shortfall, standard deviation, expected loss
    RAROC, economic value added (EVA), risk adjusted return, costs of risk, costs of equity

The results are visualized by a large number of selectable standard reports and linked to each other to make them accessible for interpretation.

Technical aspects

The Credit Risk Evaluator is componente oriented in design. Data storage, business logic and control and reporting are technically fully separated from each other and can be distributed to different computers.

The performance is model dependent. It is for the single-period models between 3-7 minutes per 100,000 clients and 10,000 simulation runs on a standard pc. For the multi-period models the runtime slightly higher. In all cases the run times scales linearly in the number of clients and simulation runs.

Analyses can be done with manual intervention as batch-processes. Reports are automatically generated and archived at runtime.

Correlations and parametrization

Credit portfolio management often requires data that is not immediately at hand.

We aid you to determine correlations and other model parameters relating to your portfolio so that you can make full use of the potential of credit portfolio models.

Your advantages

    Additional usage of the investments into Basel 2
    Bank-wide portfolio management also in large institutions possible
    State-of-the-art credit portfolio and recovery models at hand
    Extendible for bank owned portfolio and recovery models
    Simultaneous consideration of risks and returns
    Highly automatized processing with minimum manual intervention

A new way to value the market

(Fortune Magazine) -- Are stocks cheap yet? That slippery, eternal question is worth a look right now because a remarkable new set of data has just become available, allowing us to analyze the market in ways we never could before. I wish I could tell you that this new trove of numbers reveals that stocks are a screaming buy. It doesn't. But it does suggest that, amid all the recent tumult, just maybe the market is being rational.

The new data are derived from the most fundamental, capital-based way of analyzing a company's finances and value. How much capital is a company using? What is its return on capital? How much does the capital cost? Those questions hold the key to corporate performance, but finding the answers in most financial statements isn't easy, and many executives don't know the answers themselves. The Stern Stewart consulting firm began popularizing these concepts more than 15 years ago with the term EVA (economic value added), and the new data come from EVA Dimensions, a firm that is now the source of Stern Stewart's EVA data.

EVA-based analysis has proven extremely valuable in analyzing individual companies. I almost never make calls on specific stocks, but in late 1999 the EVA analysis of AOL was so compelling that I wrote a column declaring flatly that the stock price could not possibly be justified. That column was published on Jan. 10, 2000, right near the overall market peak (and the very day that AOL announced it was using its insanely overvalued stock to buy my employer, Time Warner (TWX, Fortune 500) - but that's another story). I also used EVA analysis to write last summer that Google (GOOGLE) was overpriced at $540; that call looked wrong for a while, though as I write this the stock is at $501.

One thing you couldn't do with EVA analysis was use it to value the whole market. Compiling the data for a significant number of companies used to take months. But now, through the miracles of our networked world, EVA Dimensions can compile it every day for 2,669 companies in the Russell 3000 (those for which at least two years of data are available). This is essentially the U.S. stock market. So: Is it worth what it costs?

Look first at how well the companies are doing at their most basic task, which is earning a return on their capital that's greater than the total cost of that capital. Turns out they've been doing very well. The dollar difference between their return on capital and cost of capital (their EVA) was $375 billion over the past four quarters. It was only half that much in 2005, and in 2004 it was negative, which isn't surprising. Over time, for the broader market, EVA should be more or less zero since competition is always forcing high returns down toward the cost of capital, while companies that can't meet their capital cost will eventually go under. So America's publicly traded companies did great last year; in fact, with economic growth strong through the third quarter, it's safe to say that they were at or near the top of the business cycle.

Next question: How are they being valued? On a recent day when the Dow closed at 12,265, the 2,669 Russell 3000 companies had a total enterprise value of $29.8 trillion (equity plus debt). To judge whether that's a lot or a little, consider that over the past four quarters these companies produced after-tax operating profits of about $1.8 trillion. Even if we assume that earnings will only match, not exceed, that level in future years, then the companies' aggregate market value today would still be $22.5 trillion (note to finance wonks: that's their profits capitalized at their capital cost of about 8.1%), which is about 75% of their actual market value.

So now we reach the central question. About 25% of the current market value of these companies is based on expectations of future profits above and beyond the profits they earned last year, at the top of the business cycle. Does that seem reasonable? Actually, it just might. The math gets a bit tedious, but you can assume no profit growth for the next several years and very modest growth thereafter, and the valuation still looks okay.

Canada’s natural resource exports

Introduction
The recent boom in commodity markets has returned the spotlight to Canada’s natural resources, most of which are exported. The importance of resources to our overall exports is often discussed, with a figure of 40% commonly cited.1 This share has risen to 50% of gross exports thanks to the commodity boom of the last two years. But subtracting out the higher import content of manufactured exports raises the share of resources to over 60%. This puts Canada in a unique class of major industrial nations, alongside nations such as Norway and Australia, where resource exports dominate. They are the polar opposite of Japan, which imports most of its resources and exports almost none.

These estimates are usually arrived at by calculating the share of agricultural, energy, forestry and industrial materials in gross exports. But this method does not account for the difference between gross and value-added exports. As noted in our previous studies2, firms shifted to using markedly more imports in their production process in the 1990s. This phenomenon was most pronounced for autos and machinery and equipment, which import nearly half their inputs. This reflects the greater use by manufacturers of standardized parts, often made just across the US border or sometimes overseas.

As a result, much of the growth of gross exports in the last decade reflected the increasing use of imported components, not higher value-added exports. Value-added exports, which include only inputs purchased in Canada, are the key determinant of domestic output and jobs.

Conversely, many of our leading resource products have a largely extractive production process that requires few imports apart from machinery and equipment.

The implication is clear: the importance of industries such as autos that make liberal use of imports is overstated by gross exports, while industries that import less actually have a larger role than gross exports suggest, notably natural resources. This paper looks at the true role of resources in value-added exports in Canada.

The main motivation behind the growing use of imports was the relentless drive by firms to search out the lowest possible cost for inputs. As well, the rise in the Canadian dollar in the early 1990s lowered the cost of imports, giving firms an added incentive to purchase abroad. But the steady drop in the dollar from 1997 to 2003 took away much of this latter incentive, and the use of imported inputs leveled off in recent years. The recent recovery may encourage firms to buy more imported inputs.
Sectoral share of exports

In terms of the share of gross exports, autos and machinery and equipment led with about 22% in 2004. Despite their recent surge, the four resource sectors followed, led by industrial goods3 (notably metal products) and energy at 19% and 17% respectively. Forestry and agricultural products were next at 9% and 7%. Together, these four resource sectors accounted for just under half of all exports. Consumer goods trail at 4%, although they have grown the fastest, doubling their share since 1989, led by pharmaceuticals.
Figure 1

However, this ranking changes radically when the import content of exports is stripped out (Table 1). Total resource exports dominate overall value-added exports with a 20.9% share. Energy becomes our leading value-added export. Industrial goods follow closely, just behind machinery and equipment and ahead autos. The order of the last three sectors was unchanged, with forestry, at 11% and agriculture and consumer goods less than 10%.
Figure 2


Energy moves to the forefront for value-added exports because it has the lowest import content (12%) of any sector. Within energy, the import share of crude oil and natural gas production is the lowest, followed by electricity. Apart from an initial investment in some machinery and equipment, there are few opportunities to use imported parts.

The production of oil from the tar sands is a good example. After a large up-front investment in clearing the land and building structures, the crude bitumen is moved, often by large earth removers and trucks, for processing at an upgrader, before being shipped by pipeline. Apart from some imports embedded in the upgrader, few imports are used.

Further downstream, petroleum refineries raise the average for energy with a 41% import content. This partly reflects imported machinery and equipment used in refineries. More importantly, the crude oil being processed is often imported, either because foreign sources are cheaper (especially on the East Coast) or they are grades that are easier to process for particular uses (such as gasoline versus aircraft or diesel oil)

Industrial goods move up to the third-largest export share at 18.6% due to a relatively low import content of 28%. Most metals and non-metallic minerals import less than 20% of their inputs. Fertilizers have an especially low import content of about 10%, reflecting large domestic supplies of potash. Non-metallic minerals also use relatively few imported inputs. The low value-added of goods such as cement and concrete outweigh the cost of transporting these heavy goods very far (even inter-provincial trade in these goods is limited). An exception is aluminum’s 40% import content, mostly raw bauxite to be processed with Canada’s relatively cheap electricity. Excluding aluminum, other non-ferrous metals use imports for only one-quarter of their inputs.

Machinery and equipment and autos fall from our first and second largest gross exports to second and fourth for value-added exports because they import such a large share of their inputs. Autos fell the most as over half of all auto inputs were imported in 2001, and nearly 70% were imports of vehicles or parts. This industry has long had the highest import content, having pioneered the use of imported parts dating back to the Auto Pact in the 1960s. Firms are concentrated in southern Ontario, giving them ready access to parts makers in the northeast US. The growth of transplants of overseas producers has reinforced the trend to use more imports. The import content of vehicle assemblies is much higher than for parts manufacturers (59% versus 38%).

Machinery and equipment saw a rapid increase in its use of imports during the 1990s. Indeed, much of its rising share of gross exports during the 1990s reflected this change in its production process, not increased value-added output in Canada. Almost all these industries have a large import content, ranging from over one-third for aerospace, appliances and farm machinery to nearly one-half for ICT equipment. Over two-thirds of all imports by this sector are machinery and equipment itself, presumably parts (even in capital-intensive sectors like forestry and mining, machinery and equipment accounts for less than one-third of all imports).
Figure 3


Forestry products, our largest export decades ago, have slid to fifth place with 10.9%. They have a very low import content of just 19%, reflecting the relatively simple and local nature of logging, wood and pulp and paper production. Forestry, like its cousins in agriculture and mining, uses imported machinery and equipment and mining products.

Agriculture contributes 9.3% of our value-added export earnings. It imports 22% of its inputs, led by chemicals (mostly fertilizer). Like energy, primary producers of grain, livestock and fish have the lowest import content. Food manufacturers use imports (especially processed food) for over one-quarter of all inputs. This reflects how the manufacturing process, even for food, allows firms to search out better or lower-priced alternative sources both in Canada and abroad. Fish, fruit, vegetables and sugar refiners have the highest import content, reflecting limitations on domestic supply. Dairy, meat and grain products are less reliant on imports.

Within consumer goods, clothing and textiles have a relatively high import content of nearly one-third of all inputs. Over one-half of these imports are textiles and clothing destined for further processing. These industries increasingly outsource production overseas to maintain their competitiveness in the face of rising third-world supply. Pharmaceuticals, a driving force in the growth of consumer goods exports, also have a relatively high import content of 32%.

Not all imported inputs are goods. Globalization allows most industries to use a significant amount of imported services in producing exports, especially finance and business services. The finance and business services industries themselves import nearly one-quarter of their inputs from firms abroad in the same industry. But even in most natural resource industries, imported financial and business services account for between 6% and 10% of all inputs, slightly more than autos and machinery and equipment despite the latters’ longer experience in outsourcing abroad.
Conclusion

Canada’s export base has shifted in recent years from manufactured goods such as autos and machinery and equipment back to its traditional natural resource products, notably energy. The low import content of the booming resource sector is one reason our trade surplus has hit record highs, despite the slowdown in overall export growth after 2000.

This shift means a growing part of our economy does not face the intense global competition felt by many manufacturers. This may assure that Canada maintains its market share of exports, but could also dull our appetite for productivity gains and innovation.

The last decade highlights two facets of how globalization affects our trade flows. The 1990s were dominated by the increased use of imports as inputs, especially in manufacturing. But recent years have seen this process stall, and even partly reversed. Now the growth of natural resource exports is the most revealing measure of our integration into the world economy.

Broad-Based Tax Reductions for Canadians

Broad-Based Tax Reductions for Canadians
Highlights

This Economic Statement proposes broad-based tax relief for individuals, families and businesses of almost $60 billion over this and the next five fiscal years. Combined with previous relief provided by this Government, total tax relief over the same period is almost $190 billion.

To improve productivity, employment and prosperity in an uncertain world, a bold, new tax reduction initiative will reduce the general federal corporate income tax rate to 15 per cent by 2012 from its current rate of 22.1 per cent. The general corporate income tax rate will decline by 7.12 percentage points between 2007 and 2012-giving Canada the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the Group of Seven (G7) by 2011 and the lowest statutory tax rate in the G7 by 2012.
The Government is seeking the collaboration of the provinces and territories to reach a 25 per cent combined federal-provincial-territorial statutory corporate income tax rate, to make Canada a country of choice for investment.
To support small business, the reduction in the tax rate to 11% for small business, currently scheduled to be reduced in 2009, will be accelerated to January 1, 2008.
The goods and services tax (GST) will be reduced by a further 1 percentage point as of January 1, 2008, fulfilling the Government's commitment to reduce the GST to 5 per cent.
The GST credit for low- and modest-income Canadians will be maintained at its current level even though the GST rate is being reduced. Maintaining the credit, while reducing the GST rate to 5 per cent from 7 per cent, translates into more than $1.1 billion in benefits annually for low- and modest-income Canadians.
The lowest personal income tax rate will be reduced to 15 per cent from 15.5 per cent, effective January 1, 2007.
The amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax will be increased to $9,600 for 2007 and 2008, and to $10,100 for 2009.
Together, these two measures will reduce personal income taxes for 2007 by more than $400 for a typical two-earner family of four earning $80,000, and by almost $225 for a single worker earning $40,000.
In order to make businesses even more competitive, it is essential that Employment Insurance rates be reduced for employers and employees. The Employment Insurance Chief Actuary's 2008 Report forecasts the break-even rate in 2008 will decline by 10 cents per $100 of insurable earnings for employers and 7 cents for employees.

Canada needs a tax system that rewards Canadians for realizing their full potential, improves standards of living, fuels growth in the economy and encourages investment in Canada. Actions already taken by the Government will reduce taxes on individuals, families and businesses by almost $130 billion over this and the next five fiscal years.

In total, this Economic Statement will provide almost $60 billion in additional tax relief over this and the next five fiscal years. Together, actions taken since 2006 will provide almost $190 billion over this period.

As the chart below highlights, about 73 per cent of the tax relief will have been provided to individuals and 27 per cent to businesses.

A New Era for Business Taxation in Canada

Canada needs an internationally competitive business tax system to ensure investment and economic growth, which will lead to new and better jobs and increased living standards for Canadians. Advantage Canada included a commitment to establish the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment (METR)[1] in the G7.

Chapter 1 notes the strength of Canada's economy, but also notes the risks and uncertainties we are facing. Chapter 2 points to our strong fiscal situation, illustrating that we have an opportunity few other countries have-to put in place measures that will bolster confidence and encourage investment at a time of economic uncertainty. This chapter sets out the measures the Government proposes to strengthen Canada's business tax advantage in the context of the potential downside risks to the economy.

The central element of these measures is a bold, new tax reduction initiative that will lower the general federal corporate income tax rate to 15 per cent by 2012. Broad-based business tax reductions support investment, job creation and growth in all sectors of the economy, including not only sectors with strong growth but also those facing greater challenges. Such tax reductions provide incentives for all businesses to succeed.

Broad-based tax reductions play a well-recognized role in improving productivity and economic growth, and in providing Canadians with more and better jobs and a higher standard of living.
Action to Date

The Government has already made significant progress towards making Canada's business tax environment more competitive through broad-based tax reductions:

    The federal capital tax was eliminated in 2006.
    The corporate surtax for all corporations will be eliminated in 2008.
    The general corporate income tax rate is being reduced, from 21 per cent in 2007 (22.12 per cent including the corporate surtax) to 18.5 per cent by 2011.
    The Government also established a financial incentive to encourage provinces to eliminate their capital taxes as soon as possible, and some provinces have acted to take advantage of this incentive. Since that initiative was introduced, Ontario and Quebec have legislated the elimination of their capital taxes by 2011, and Manitoba has announced plans to do so subject to budget balancing requirements.

Collectively, these actions will, by 2011, increase Canada's statutory corporate income tax rate advantage over the U.S. to 8.8 percentage points, and will allow Canada to achieve a meaningful METR advantage over the U.S. of 6.7 percentage points. Based on tax changes to date, by 2011, Canada's METR will fall to the second lowest in the G7 from the third highest.

Canada is close to achieving the Government's Advantage Canada target of the lowest METR in the G7. However, Canada's METR is still high relative to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and small developed countries, and varies substantially by province. It is important in today's globally competitive marketplace that Canada strengthen its business tax advantage not only vis-à-vis the U.S. but also relative to its other trading partners.

Other countries recognize that competitive business taxes are key to economic growth and improved living standards, and they have been reducing their tax rates. We can expect that many of the countries that Canada competes with for investment will continue reducing business taxes in the years to come. That is why it is crucial that we take the bold actions needed to ensure Canada's business tax competitiveness.
Reducing the General Federal Corporate
Income Tax Rate

To strengthen Canada's business tax advantage, the Government is putting forward a bold, new tax reduction initiative that will lower the general corporate income tax rate to 15 per cent by 2012, starting with a 1 percentage point rate reduction in 2008 beyond already-scheduled reductions, to bring the rate to 19.5 per cent in that year. With these reductions, the general federal corporate income tax rate will decline by 7.12 percentage points between 2007 and 2012, a decline of one-third, and Canada's corporate tax rate will be the lowest in the G7. In addition, we will achieve our goal of having the lowest METR in the G7 by 2011 and will have a substantial business tax advantage over the U.S.-a statutory tax rate advantage of 12.3 percentage points and a METR advantage of 9.1 percentage points in 2012.

It is estimated that the reduction in the general corporate income tax rate to 15 per cent will reduce government revenues by $14.1 billion over this and the next five fiscal years.

Interbrand's Method for Valuating the Best Global Brands

Interbrand's Method for Valuating the Best Global Brands
Criteria for consideration

Using our database of global brands, populated with critical information over the past 20 years of valuing brands and more than 30 years of consulting with organizations, Interbrand formed an initial consideration set. All brands were then subject to the following criteria that narrowed candidates significantly:

01 There must be substantial publicly available financial data
02 The brand must have at least one-third of revenues outside of its country-of-origin
03 The brand must be a market-facing brand
04 The Economic Value Added (EVA) must be positive
05 The brand must not have a purely B2B single audience with no wider public profile and awareness

These criteria exclude brands such as Mars, which is privately held, or Walmart, which is not sufficiently global (it does business in some international markets but not under the Walmart brand).
Methodology

2007 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review

Introduction

The Ontario economy has proven remarkably strong and resilient in the face of an increasingly challenging global economic environment. Since 2002, higher oil prices, a high Canadian dollar and increased competition from newly industrializing countries have tested Ontario businesses’ ability to compete and thrive. More recently, businesses have felt further pressure due to a slowing U.S. economy.

Despite these adverse developments, Ontario has seen continued strong job creation and business investment. Incomes are on the rise and the standard of living is one of the highest in the world. Ontario’s economic growth continues to exceed expectations. Private-sector forecasts of Ontario’s 2007 real gross domestic product (GDP) growth now average 2.0 per cent, up from 1.7 per cent at the time of the 2007 Ontario Budget.

The clearest sign of the Ontario economy’s resilience has been its job creation record. Since October 2003, 417,900 net new jobs have been created. Over 95 per cent of these jobs were in occupations that paid on average over $19.50 per hour, including jobs in natural and applied sciences, management, social sciences, and education.

Still, challenges remain. This strong job creation has not occurred across all sectors of the economy, and many families and communities have been affected by job losses. While total service-sector jobs (private and broader public sectors) have expanded by 10.8 per cent since October 2003, employment in the goods-producing sector has contracted.

There are continued risks on the horizon. The weakened outlook for the U.S. economy, higher oil prices and the stronger Canadian dollar have reduced private-sector Ontario economic growth projections since the time of the 2007 Budget. This also means greater pressure on Ontario businesses over the next few years as they adapt to a much more challenging economic environment.
Investments for a Stronger Ontario

The Ontario Government is taking immediate action to further strengthen Ontario’s economic advantage and help the manufacturing, forestry, agriculture and tourism industries weather economic challenges. The government’s investment strategy builds on its five-point economic plan set out in the 2007 campaign platform, Moving Forward Together. In particular, the government is taking immediate action to keep taxes competitive, support innovation and accelerate its investment in infrastructure.

Measures announced in the 2007 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review will boost Ontario’s ability to compete in the global economy by:

enhancing competitiveness through immediate tax reductions
investing in people and communities
investing in infrastructure.

In this document, the government is announcing more than $3 billion in new investments and tax reductions. These actions will boost Ontario employment by about 30,000 jobs over the next three years.
1. Enhancing Competitiveness through immediate tax reductions

The Province is proposing important new tax measures that support manufacturers and other sectors in Ontario challenged by current economic conditions. They would help Ontario manufacturers invest in their own businesses, creating and preserving jobs.

These new measures, totalling $1.1 billion in tax reductions over three years, include:

eliminating Capital Tax on January 1, 2008 for corporations primarily engaged in manufacturing and resource activities
providing a 21 per cent Capital Tax rate cut for all businesses retroactive to January 1, 2007, on the way to full elimination in 2010
increasing the small business deduction threshold to $500,000 from $400,000, retroactive to January 1, 2007.

The measures proposed would provide immediate tax relief for businesses, particularly for Ontario’s manufacturing and resource industries. This will help to further encourage business investment, strengthen manufacturing and enhance the province’s competitive position. See Annex II: Enhancing Ontario’s Tax Competitiveness for further details of these proposed tax cuts.

To assist manufacturers in acquiring new and advanced equipment and technologies, Ontario is paralleling the 2007 federal budget incentives related to accelerated capital cost allowances (CCA). A key incentive for manufacturers is the 50 per cent accelerated tax writeoff for investments in manufacturing and processing (M&P) machinery and equipment from March 19, 2007 until December 31, 2008. By paralleling the federal CCA measures, the Ontario Government will provide more than $400 million in tax relief over three years to manufacturers investing in the province. Ontario urges the federal government to quickly commit to extend this incentive for three more years to 2012.

The government has worked steadily to enhance the competitiveness of Ontario’s tax system. Since 2004, it has implemented or announced more than $2 billion a year in tax cuts for business when fully phased in. This support includes accelerating Capital Tax elimination to July 1, 2010 and reducing high Business Education Tax (BET) rates by $540 million when fully implemented in 2014.

Ontario’s current combined federal–provincial CIT rate for manufacturers and resource industries of 34.12 per cent is more than four percentage points below the average federal–state rate among its main trading partners, the U.S. Great Lakes States. Ontario’s rate is also lower than the current corporate tax rates in Japan, Germany and Italy.1 Once the proposed federal tax measures are fully implemented in 2012, Ontario’s combined CIT rate for manufacturers and resource industries will be even lower at 27 per cent.

Successful economies rely on a competitive tax and regulatory climate that supports innovation and economic growth. Modern and flexible regulation that promotes public policy goals while reducing compliance burdens can unleash the growth potential of Ontario businesses of all sizes. Ontario will continue to bring forward ways to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses to help them thrive in today’s competitive global economy.