“MOST UNEASY WEEK”

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 111, 4 February 1935, Page 9

“MOST UNEASY WEEK”

London Stock Exchange Trading DISTURBING FACTORS Basic Soundness of Markets Illustrated By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. (Received February 3, 4.30 p.m.) London, February 2. The Stock Exchange passed through a most uneasy w’eek in a" manner which affords a splendid illustration of the underlying soundness of the markets. The principal cause of anxiety was a disturbance in the Baltic Exchange and in commodity markets, the first resulting from the, failure of the Strauss Company, with liabilities amounting to nearly £1,900,000. News of this disaster naturally had a depressing effect, but it was soon ascertained that the losses had fallen principally on big banks and companies which were able to bear them. Following this came news of difficulties in the markets of two such widely diverse commodities as shellac and pepper. Meetings of bankers and others interested in these affairs are being held. It is generally expected that matters will be arranged without untoward results. The last disturbing element was a slump in the Yellowdine group of mines in West. Australia, following a disappointing cable ■’which damped the ardour of speculative operators in more than one market, but after two days of excitement, with considerable panic selling, the market grew calmer, and yesterday there was general steadiness in West Australians. EXPORTS INCREASE Cotton and Artificial Silk Goods (British Official Wireless.) (Received February 3, 5.5 p.m.) Rugby, February 1. Figures published by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce show a further increase during December in British exports of cotton and artificial silk and mixed piece goods. The total for the year amounts to 48.541.737 square yards valued at £2.152,588. This is an increase of 5.629,073 square yards valued at £149,163 over the previous 12 months. NATIONALISATION OF BANKS Comment by “The Times” (Received February 3, 6.35 p.m.) London, February 2. Speeches by the chairmen at the of the “Big Five” banks have as usual been read with much interest, particularly the remarks made in respect of the nationalisation campaign. Commenting editorially thereon “The Times” says: There can hardly be a competent critic familiar with the history of central banking who would regard nationalisation as understood by the Labour Party as anything short of a calamity. Subordination of monetary policy to the exigencies of party politics would inevitably lead to immediate disaster, and who could guarantee that the protagonists of Socialism, once in power, would be immune from such temptation? Nor would nationalisation of the joint-stock banks prove any less damaging to the interests of the nation, for what motive can lie behind this clamour for nationalisation except a desire to effect violent changes in the manner in which these, institutions conduct business—changes which would definitely bo directed to political ends?