Turkey's Erdogan: Go Ahead, Junk Our Credit Rating

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 9/25/2016 11:35:00 AM
"Go ahead, make my day by junking Turkey's credit rating."
Following the hateful rhetoric unleashed by Philippine President Duterte, it appears bashing the West is back in fashion as Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan does pretty much the same--to equally debatable economic consequences. There is a tendency for developing countries to blame destabilizing events on Western powers, and Erdogan is no exception in this regard when it comes to the coup attempt against him earlier in the year.

On a related note, Erdogan sees a combined political-economic effort to knock Turkey down a peg as the dominant credit rating agencies--all Western, obviously--have put the nation on notice for downgrades to its sovereign debt. Following Erdogan's conspiracy-minded logic, it is of a piece with the white man trying to undeservedly humiliate Turkey:
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he is not worried if his country is rated below investment grade as credit rating firms are making wrong decisions because of their political bias. “I don’t care at all, they’re making mistakes and they’re doing it intentionally,” Erdogan said in an interview in New York on Thursday. “Whether you’re honest or not, Turkey’s economy is strong.”
This after Standard and Poors cut Turkey two notches below junk, while the others have placed a negative outlook following the coup:
S&P Global Ratings lowered Turkey’s rating immediately after the July 15 attempt to topple Erdogan citing greater political risks. It was cut by one notch to BB, or two steps below investment grade. Last month, Fitch Ratings maintained its BBB-, the lowest investment grade, while reducing the country’s outlook to negative from stable. That is in line with Moody’s Investors Service, which has placed the country on review for a possible downgrade to junk.

The ratings companies are acting “contrary to economic ethics,” making political statements, Erdogan said. “They’re raising economies that have collapsed, that are finished, on the other hand, they’re either freezing or going towards cutting a country that’s standing on its feet, that’s upright, and where investments are continuing.”

“This is not a respectable stance,” he said. “I’m inviting them to be honest.” Moody’s, which rates Turkey at Baa3, has placed the country on review for a downgrade within 90 days from the day of the statement on July 18. Back in August, Fitch cited “the potential for further disruption from those behind the coup attempt.”
By way of comparison, the Philippines whose GDP per capita is about 36% of that of Turkey receives investment credit ratings from all three. You have to wonder if Duterte keeps acting like, well, Duterte how long it will be before it joins Turkey in junkland. Having striven to reach investment grade ratings for their sovereign debt, loose cannon leaders can hasten their banishment from international economics' promised land.

Philippines' Duterte: Killer of Druggies...& Foreign Investment

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,, at 9/23/2016 03:51:00 PM


Damage control surpasses the realm of art into science when the person whose offensiveness you're trying to contain is the Philippine President Rodrigo "Digong" Duterte. Despite the woeful history of a zero tolerance approach to narcotics worldwide--nowhere has the "war on drugs" worked as intended--Duterte is intent on learning this the hard way. Being very think-skinned, Duterte takes any perceived slight very badly, hurling insults at any and all critics.

As it so happens, those who have raised concern about human rights abuses as the body count piles up via extrajudicial killings in his "war on drugs" represent the world's most powerful countries.
President Barack Obama refused to meet Duterte at an ASEAN gathering in Laos after being cursed as a "son of a whore" over possibly raising the issue of human rights. More recently, Duterte threw the  middle finger at the European Parliament over mentioning similar human rights concerns, adding an f-bomb to get his point across.

While the shallow and stupid are doubtlessly happy about Duterte sticking it to leaders of wealthy countries--screw the imperialists and so on and so forth--the sensible are left holding the bag in mending relations with increasingly antsy international counterparts. Consider that, for every single day in September so far, foreign investors have reduced their holdings of Philippine equities. This turn of events has prompted Philippine central bank officials to come out en masse to downplay Duterte's offensive outbursts. These include eight-time [!] best central banker in the world awardee Amando Tetangco:
Philippine central bank Governor Amando Tetangco sought to soothe investors spooked by President Rodrigo Duterte’s rhetoric around his anti-drug war, with stocks poised for the longest outflow since 2007.

“If you take out the noise and look at the fundamentals, look at the economic program, look at the quality of the members appointed to the economic team, then these are all solid,” Tetangco told bankers, traders and fund managers late Thursday in Manila.

Tetangco joins a host of economic officials including Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez, who on Wednesday said economic policies have been clear and consistent since Duterte took office in June. S&P Global Ratings this week warned of “rising uncertainties surrounding the stability, predictability, and accountability” under the new government.
Meanwhile, money is leaving the country continuously:
Money that flowed into the Philippines after the May elections is drying up. Philippine stocks slid 0.7 percent on Friday, and foreign funds have been selling for 21 straight days as of Thursday, the longest outflow since 2007.

The peso slumped to an eight-month low against the U.S. dollar and is the worst-performing Asian currency after the yuan this year. Foreign direct investment shrank 41 percent in June from a year earlier.
The irony remains that, if you make the reasonable assumption that this "war on drugs" will be as futile as every other, he will have given his country significant political and economic handicaps besides by acting this way. Who benefits?

Correlation Between Mexican Peso, Trump Poll Numbers

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 9/18/2016 02:05:00 PM
The Mexican peso seemingly moves in the opposite direction to Trump's poll numbers these days.
America's Mr. Nasty is apparently making his presence felt south of the border. With Mexico being on the receiving end of a lot of his isolationist (he suggests leaving NAFTA), protectionist (ditto) and racist (characterizing the Mexican people as "rapists") rhetoric, the political fallout of a Trump presidency (heaven forbid) have not gone unnoticed in the markets. The far right has well and truly established a presence in North America.

Bloomberg offers the chart above in relation to the performance of the Mexican peso, whose fortunes as of late mirror those of Trump's polling numbers in the upcoming US presidential elections. The write-up suggests as much. Also, revisit NAFTA:
Concern Trump will follow through on his promises regarding Mexico if elected has helped the peso weaken 10 percent this year, the worst performance of any major currency apart from the U.K. pound. It was last week’s biggest loser, sliding 1.7 percent, and has since dropped to the lowest since June after Democratic presidential nominee Clinton’s campaign announced she was ill.

The peso’s status as the most-liquid emerging-market currency after China’s yuan has left it particularly vulnerable to selling, sending it to repeated record lows and forced the central bank to raise interest rates.

Mexico is arguably the major world economy most dependent on the U.S. Trade between Mexico and the U.S. has grown fivefold to more than $500 billion in goods annually since Nafta took effect in 1994, making the Latin American nation the largest U.S. trade partner after China and Canada, according to data from the International Monetary Fund. While Mexico has also strengthened its trade ties with other nations and has a free-trade agreement with the EU, it still sent 73 percent of exports to the U.S. in 2015, compared with 79 percent the year before Nafta was implemented.
There's also Trump's talk about holding Mexican expatriates' remittances hostage to building his now-infamous wall which the Mexican government would pay for:
In addition to ending Nafta, Trump has said he’ll make Mexico pay for the wall -- a proposal that the government has repeatedly said is a non-starter -- by holding remittances from immigrants in the U.S., which play an important role in bolstering the peso.
It's no surprise that nasty things happen when the topic turns to the nasty guy.

Do Saudis Dump '$750B' After US 9/11 Bill Passes?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 9/10/2016 06:03:00 PM
Saudi Arabia vowed to slash '$750 billion' worth of US assets if 9/11 victims' families were allowed to sue it. We'll see.
Back to the realm of geopolitics: Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia warned that they stood ready to unload hundreds of billions worth of American assets were the US congress to pass a bill allowing families of victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for damages. Maintaining that their country had no direct involvement in the attacks, Saudi officials threatened to sell off up to "$750 billion" in American assets. From the NY Times in April:
Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks...

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.
OK, that was the story in April. Fast-forward to the present time and US lawmakers have not taken Saudi threats seriously as the bill passed unopposed through the lower house:
The unopposed House vote Friday to allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia begins a diplomatic nightmare for President Barack Obama.

The legislation is sure to antagonize a key U.S. ally in the Middle East which already has tense relations with the administration. While Obama is likely to veto the bill, the House’s passage by voice vote raises the possibility Congress could override him, for the first time in his presidency, and make the measure law. The bill passed the Senate by a voice vote in May.

"The Saudis will see this as a hostile act," said Dennis Ross, Obama’s former Middle East policy coordinator. "You’re bound to see the Obama administration do everything they can to sustain a veto."

The bill would carve out an exception to sovereign immunity -- the legal doctrine which protects foreign governments from lawsuits -- if a plaintiff claims to have suffered injury in the U.S. from state-sponsored terrorism.
My belief is that the Saudi government did not directly fund the 9/11 attackers. However, that monies it has spent buying off hard-line extremists could have indirectly funded the attacks is not out of question. It would be up to the 9/11 victims suing KSA to demonstrate culpability via a money trail, which appears difficult to establish. What is more immediately interesting though is whether the Saudis merely bluffed about dumping American assets. Treasury records indicate that the country holds $98.3 billion in US Treasuries as of June 2016. Saudi Arabia may hold more though through indirect purchases:
Saudi officials have said enactment of the law could lead them to sell off the kingdom’s U.S. Treasury debt and other American assets, which totaled $750 billion, the officials told U.S. lawmakers and others in the government, according to the New York Times. The Saudi government held $117 billion in U.S. Treasury debt in March, according to Treasury figures obtained by Bloomberg. The kingdom may have additional holdings not included in the data on deposit with the New York Federal Reserve Bank, in entities in third countries, or through positions in derivatives.
Saudis can also sell off tangible investments in the US, though the stock of FDI of Middle Eastern countries as a whole in the US appears to make $100B a stretch. Moreover, hard assets are not as liquid and take time to sell.

So the questions for Saudi Arabia over the next few days are as follows: First, US lawmakers having called their bluff, will the Saudis really unload hundreds of billions worth of assets? Second, do they really have $750B to unload in US assets? Saudi Arabia officially states that it has $572B in reserves, but it's a dwindling amount as low oil prices take its toll on the nation's coffers. Accelerating the reduction of its rainy-day funds at the current time would seem an unwise move.

I'd say it's the Saudis' own exercise in Trump-style hyperbole, but we needn't wait much longer to see how things pan out.

9/12 UPDATE: Obama intends to veto, to no one's surprise:
President Barack Obama will veto legislation that would allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, a measure vehemently opposed by the U.S. ally, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Monday.

The measure passed both the House and Senate unopposed by voice votes, with the House acting on Friday to send the bill to Obama just ahead of the 15th anniversary of the terrorist attacks. The lack of public opposition suggests Congress could override Obama’s veto for the first time in his presidency and make the measure law.

"The president does intend to veto this legislation," Earnest told reporters on Monday. The administration had opposed the legislation, arguing it would set an international precedent that would expose the U.S. government and American soldiers to legal jeopardy in foreign courts.

Spain Beats EMU Growth Without a Government

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 9/05/2016 12:17:00 PM
Maybe Spain is outdoing its EMU peers because of--and not in spite of--having no government.
Rational choice theory holds elected officials in disdain as self-interested in political and economic gain ahead of serving the public good. Today's Spain might be an appropriate test of rational choice theory insofar as the country has not formed a government in eight months and counting. With the current caretakers having failed to do so again, never-ending elections are set to be held once more in December.

What's notable though is that government-less Spain has actually outdone its EMU peers' overall economic performance:
In Spain, nurturing the economy is so far proving easier than forming a government. Corporate investment has helped sustain growth this year, even as efforts to establish a government continue to stumble eight months on from a first round of general elections in December. With the political deadlock set to drag on after Acting Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy lost a confidence vote in parliament on Friday, the strength of the recovery may be put to the test.
Economic actors appear to be shrugging off the lack of a government:
Investment in capital stock such as factory equipment jumped 2.2 percent in the second quarter as exports climbed 4.3 percent. The economy grew 0.8 percent -- more than twice the euro zone’s pace of 0.3 percent -- while adding 484,000 full-time jobs compared with a year earlier. More flexible employment laws and falling labor costs have helped Spanish companies to grow as they also benefit from external factors including lower oil prices and European Central Bank stimulus.
In the rest of the article, there are warnings that a protracted process of sorting out Spanish leadership may (finally) hurt Spain. Consider, though, the opposite rational choice theory-esque argument: Perhaps it's the lack of government--gridlock at its finest--that is economic actors to thrive in the absence of state interference?

While the cat's away...

French Trade Minister: Call TTIP Off

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 8/30/2016 06:15:00 PM
No translation required, eh?
The mood towards trade is well and truly souring among the United States' negotiation counterparts for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Just a day or two ago, the German trade minister said that the negotiations should be halted already since nothing was happening. We made mention of the French as among those particularly opposed to it on the grounds that the ever-sensitive French agricultural sector would be hurt. All the while, the French would supposedly gain few reciprocal benefits in accessing the US market.

Well, here we have the French trade minister now calling for scrapping current negotiations as well:
French Trade Minister Matthias Fekl said he would request a halt to TTIP talks at next month's EU trade ministers' meeting in Bratislava after German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel declared at the weekend that talks were "de facto dead".

Observers say both are responding to public mistrust of a deal that critics say would lower environmental and food standards and allow foreign multinationals to challenge government policies. 
The crux of the matter is that politicians in European countries are simply responding to trade-weary electorates--who are in imminent danger of being voted out of office should they be seen as more pro-trade than the public mood:
Ahead of elections in France and Germany next year, politicians are keenly aware that TTIP is not a vote winner. The Bertelsmann Foundation poll showed only 17 percent of Germans saw TTIP as a good thing in April, down from 55 percent two years earlier.
It may not yet be over for the TTIP, but like the TPP--and the WTO Doha Round which spawned both since due to its protracted nature--TTIP is looking quite unlikely.

After TPP Impasse, TTIP Failure is Close at Hand

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 8/28/2016 05:55:00 PM

With US ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in huge trouble, we receive word that things are even worse with the proposed US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). At least an international deal was hammered out with the TPP. With the TTIP, its negotiations have already stalled, leading German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel frankly assessing that these negotiations have failed:
The free trade negotiations between the European Union and the United States have failed, but “nobody is really admitting it”, Germany's Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has said. Talks over the so-called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, also known as TTIP, have made little progress in recent years. The 14th round of negotiations between American and EU officials took place in Brussels in July. It was the third round in six months. 
As always, the French are wary of relenting on agricultural protectionism, all the while accusing TTIP of being too favorable to American multinationals (isn't that always the case with these American-led negotiations?) In contrast, the Europeans supposedly don't gain much access to US government procurement:
At the time, the talks were thought to be in trouble after a number of leading European politicians expressed concern about TTIP’s effects and the US’s reluctance to accept changes to the proposed deal. In May, cracks emerged when France threatened to block the deal. President Hollande said he would "never accept" the deal in its current guise because of the rules it enforces on France and the rest of Europe – particularly in relation to farming and culture – claiming they are too friendly to US businesses.

“We will never accept questioning essential principles for our agriculture, our culture and for the reciprocity of access to public [procurement] markets,” Mr Hollande is reported as saying at a meeting of left-wing politicians in Paris. “At this stage [of the talks] France says, ‘No'.” Speaking on Sunday, Mr Gabriel, who is also Germany’s Economy Minister, said: “In my opinion, the negotiations with the United States have de facto failed, even though nobody is really admitting it."
With regard to public procurement, the EU and US are each bragging that they are more open to buying foreign-made supplies. However, the EU points out the difficulties of those wishing to participate in American public contracts--especially at the sub-national level:
According to US Trade Representative Michael Froman, the Federal Government spends approximately $500 billion annually for a wide range of goods and services and the EU has guaranteed access to approximately $200 billion – or two-fifths of federal procurement. This $200 billion is not subject to restrictions like the Buy American Act, the Berry Amendment and the US SME programme.

But here is the [catch]. The EU says European firms face discrimination even on those two-fifths of accessible public procurement. A source in the European Commission’s trade directorate told EurActiv that even though some European companies have found a way to comply with the stringent domestic restrictions and win public contracts in the US, they have been obliged to change their supply chains and even establish their production in the US.

For example, the US procurement market for buses and public transportation is severely restricted for European suppliers, the EU official said. These restrictions are linked in particular to the Buy American Act, which requires that all steel and iron is produced in the US.

Things get even more complicated when going to the sub-federal procurement level, which stands at 60% of total public procurement in the US. While US officials say they provide guaranteed access to EU companies for $120 billion annually worth of contracts, the EU contends that the figure is overestimated.
American inability to ratify the TPP would further discourage its EU counterparts: Even if an international deal is struck, what are the chances of a trade-weary America signing on to TTIP after TPP has been shelved? Slim to none, and the US is becoming a less credible negotiation partner each day TPP is not ratified at home.

£4M Per Olympic Medal: UK's Cost of Success

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,, at 8/26/2016 03:59:00 PM

The United Kingdom's unprecedented feat at the 2016 Rio Olympics--winning more medals [67] in the event following the one they hosted [65 at London 2012]--has not gone unnoticed. Far more populous China is contemptous, having been beaten into second place overall going by gold medals won. Near-neighbor and constant reference point France [in 7th place] regards the UK's performance with a mixture of disdain and envy (as usual). But what are factors went into it beating more populous competitors with presumably more talent to draw on and cash to spend--especially freed of democratic constraints on public expenditures like China and Russia?

1. The establishment of a national lottery to funnel cash to sports programs, whose funding has greatly increased as a result in the new millennium -

Former UK Prime Minister John Major is little remembered outside of the UK since he served between two much more globally-recognized figures: Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. However, his government's decision to launch the National Lottery right before Blair's New Labour era came into power may have set up the UK's run of successes at the Olympics.
Reportedly, the UK government spent just £5m per year funding Olympic sport before the 1996 Atlanta games. But UK Sport spent £54m on elite sports in the run-up to the Sydney games in 2000 - where Team GB won 28 medals and ranked 10th. By the time of London 2012 it was spending £264m, and Team GB came third in the medal table, with 65 medals. 
2. Selectivity is funding sports programs -

It is, yes, performance-based funding. In the absence of a prevailing record, they went on forecasts targeting the overall medal haul (which the Chinese have practiced, of course):
Before the beginning of each funding cycle, all sports present to UK Sport a detailed, costed strategy and agree a range of medals which they will aim to achieve at the following Olympic or Paralympic Games. UK Sport scrutinises all the strategies and allocates funding on a "top-down basis". As a spokesperson puts it: "We start with the sports which are targeting the most medals and work downwards i.e. we do not 'salami slice' funding and give some to every sport." The level of funding in each sport is assessed annually and benchmarked against results at milestone target events in each year, to determine whether they are on track for the next Games.
3.Attention to detail -

Those working with the athletes sweat the details that may lend the Brits an advantage come competition time. Three examples are given:
In the build-up to these Olympics, a PhD student at the English Institute of Sport named Luke Gupta examined the sleep quality of more than 400 elite GB athletes, looking at the duration of their average sleep, issues around deprivation and then individual athletes' perception of their sleep quality. His findings resulted in an upgrading of the 'sleep environment' in the Team GB boxing training base in Sheffield - 37 single beds replaced by 33 double and four extra-long singles; sheets, duvets and pillows switched to breathable, quick drying fabrics; materials selected to create a hypo-allergenic barrier to allergens in each bedroom.

In track cycling, GB physio Phil Burt and team doctor Richard Freeman realised saddle sores were keeping some female riders out of training. Their response? To bring together a panel of experts - friction specialist, reconstructive surgeons, a consultant in vulval health - to advise on the waxing and shaving of pubic hair. In the six months before Rio not a single rider complained of saddle sores.

Then there is the lateral thinking of Danny Kerry, performance director to the Great Britain women's hockey team that won gold in such spectacular fashion on Friday. "Everyone puts a lot of time into the physiological effects of hockey, but what we've done in this Olympic cycle is put our players in an extremely fatigued state, and then ask them to think very hard at the same time," Kerry told BBC Sport. "We call that Thinking Thursday - forcing them to consistently make excellent decisions under that fatigue. We've done that every Thursday for a year."
So it's not just about the money. Although it undoubtedly helps, it needs to be spent in a way that maximizes medal chances based on realistic projections and delivering on real-world results if further funding is to be received. Plus, there is much attention paid to things which may give athletes a competitive advantage from suggestions from coaches and players to applying sports research. Actually, the GBP 4M per Olympic medal looks more affordable if divided per capita per year, upon which the tab comes to £1.09.

Let Team GB show us the way in cost-effective sporting expenditures which burnish national pride..

Remembering When Concordes Flew to Venezuela

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 8/21/2016 03:57:00 PM
Remembering when Venezuela wasn't a Chavista hellhole: Of Concordes and oil wealth.
The international humiliation of Venezuela illustrates how far it has fallen in the global pecking order in terms of economic significance. A few months ago, I wrote about how international airlines have begun dropping flights from Caracas paid for in local currency since the government is not exchanging (near worthless) bolivars into foreign exchange--namely, US dollars. Contrary to what is happening to the rest of the world, international flights to Venezuela are disappearing fast. Once a gateway to the region, it's now shunned by most of the world's airlines:
Perched on a coastal plain at the very northern tip of South America, Caracas’s Simón Bolívar International Airport was once the aviation gateway to the continent. Charles Lindbergh scouted the airport’s location in 1929, according to Venezuelan aviation lore, and by 1959, Pan Am was routing its New York-Buenos Aires flights with a stop in Caracas. By the late 1970s, Venezuela was so rich in oil wealth that Concorde jets were swooping in to whisk shoppers off to Paris.

These days, the Caracas airport is a depressing, lonely place, and Venezuelan air travel has shriveled. International carriers have about $4 billion stuck in virtually worthless Venezuelan bolivars that government banks won’t let them convert into hard currency, so they are cutting their losses and dropping Caracas flights. LATAM, the largest carrier in Latin America, took off down the runway this week and isn’t coming back.

By most accounts, Venezuela’s economy is the worst-performing in the world, with the International Monetary Fund predicting a 10 percent contraction this year[...]Since 2013, when the bolivar started its steep drop, the number of passengers traveling to and from Venezuela has fallen nearly 30 percent, according the International Air Transport Association, a leading airline trade group. That is an especially large drop, according to spokesman Jason Sinclair, given that commercial air travel is rapidly increasing almost everywhere else.
I was particularly intrigued by the Concorde stopping over in what has since become a pinko wasteland. Did the world's fastest passenger jets really go to Caracas once upon a time? It's true; they did. Adding to the exotica, the famously range-limited, fuel-hungry jets made stopovers in the Azores:
In 1976 BA launched the jet to Bahrain on a convoluted route down the Mediterranean, while Air France began with Rio – but not non-stop. Due to the distance and Concorde's commercially debilitating lack of range, it had to refuel at Dakar in Senegal. A few months later, the people of the Azores found themselves on the route map; the island of Ponta Delgada served as a pit stop between Paris and Caracas – which was in the middle of an oil boom.
Nowadays, of course, the country is reliant on forced labor in the absence of any real incentives to work. From Concordes to slavery--that doesn't seem like progress, but maybe that's just me. 

How Brexit May Slow Global Overfishing

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 8/16/2016 03:43:00 PM
The fish trade fell in 2015 for the first time in a long time. Will Brexit affect 2016 and beyond?
Here's another of those stories in which a global economic slowdown is helpful to the cause of environmental preservation. Like reduced global carbon emissions in the wake of the global financial crisis, Brexit may be aiding another environmental cause: slowing overfishing. You see, the UK is both a major consumer and exporter of fish--the world's most-traded food commodity. Brexit impacts not only consumer demand in the UK itself as Britons feel the impact of reduced incomes, but UK fish exports to the EU may be hit as well after losing tariff-free privileges for these agricultural products:
Brexit is likely to cast a shadow over the global trade in fish in 2016, as the fall in the pound depresses the UK’s purchasing power as well as the value of the country’s seafood exports, according to officials at the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation. The UK is a leading exporter of salmon as well as being a top 10 importer of fish and fishery products.

“Brexit could depress seafood trade, especially in the short term, but also in the longer term because of more difficult market access for UK exporters to the EU,” said Audun Lem, deputy director of the FAO’s fisheries policy division. His comments came as world seafood trade fell in 2015 for the first time since the financial crisis as economic weakness in emerging markets, particularly Brazil and Russia, hit consumption and fish prices.
If the FAO is right, then combining reduced demand for fish in LDCs like Brazil and Russia coupled with the aforementioned UK dislocations may be beneficial for fish stocks--especially in waters near the UK. Some research suggests the UK is the worst offender among (current) EU nations in overfishing.

That said, some environmental activists claim that, unshackled from the restraints of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), there will be little to prevent the UK from overfishing even more after it leaves the EU:
That is not what the history of shared resources tells us, instead the result will be a tragedy of overfishing. The reformed Common Fisheries Policy represents the best solution to overfishing in Europe with many stocks already showing improvement. Leaving it would send us back to the drawing board and the likelihood is that the environment (and fishers’ livelihoods) would suffer during years of bureaucratic wrangling.
We'll see...