Forbes published an article listing 5 countries that, in their opinion, were not affected by Lehman Brothers’ collapse and the subsequent credit crunch. I guess the main factor that the author of the article takes into consideration is GDP growth in 2009 and 2010.
The countries are as follows:
- Australia 1.3% growth in 2009, 3% forcasted for 2010,
- Colombia 0.1% for2009, 2.3% for 2010,
- Singapore 2.0% for 2009, 5.7% for 2010,
- Peru 1.0% for 2009, 6.0% for 2010,
- Uganda 7.0% for 2009, 6.0% for 2010.
The article goes on by stating why the countries partially escaped the crisis. The Australian economy benefited from the Chinese hunger for energy,while the Ugandanian banks were less exposed to toxic assets. Columbia benefited from reforms that lured foreign invesmtents, especially in natural resources. Singapore is a shipping hub, while Peruvian banks have been prudent and simple in their investments.
What do you guys think?
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
On a related note check out this great article in Vanity Fair by Michael Lewis (of Liar’s Poker fame):
“Beware of Greeks Bearing Bonds”
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010
Ironically, the Greek banks didn’t get involved in whole sub-primed/leverage mess. Unlike pretty much everywhere else it wasn’t the banks that were taking the country. In Greece it was the country that was taking down the banks.
[Reply]
Australia will have to deal with the repercussions of a property bubble.
I might add they will have to deal with a potentially vicious collapse in demand in some natural resources should China slow down “faster” than we think.
Peru, I hear their stats are usually suspect, unlike Colombia.
Interesting to note Uganda, thanks.
[Reply]