Understanding the Global Financial Crisis

October 7th, 2008

Book cover of
Book cover via Amazon

One of the greatest challenges for the American system of government, and which has been laid bare by the current financial crisis is: “What do politicians do when their constituents ask for something which will win them votes in the short-term, but will prove disastrous in the long-term?” This is a very important question which has not been discussed or debated enough. Instead, most westerners naturally assume that it is better, especially when compared with China’s form of government.

Jack Perkowski, author of Managing the Dragon, has several posts on his blog which talk about the reasons and decisions for the current global credit crisis. They are the best explanations I have seen so far for what is happening and I highly recommend reading them.

For Chinese, home ownership is very important, just as it is for Americans. But Chinese would never think of asking the government to pre-approve their purchases regardless of their credit ranking. In fact, so far, there is no national credit-ranking system in China and many families save hard to make a down-payment for their home (which most Americans would call an apartment). Along with saving for their child’s education, this is the single largest expenditure they will make in their lives. Most RE transactions are cash transactions. And what is most interesting is that the private home ownership ratio (by percentage) is higher in China (70-80%) than the US’s 69% (source: Hoover Institution), even though the US had a system which, until very recently, offered free housing to all comers, without any qualifications. Very ironic that a country which is nominally Communist has a higher rate of home ownership than a country which has a free elected government and until recently, actively subsidized home ownership up to 100%, isn’t it?

This then raises a very good question: “If China has a higher home ownership rate than the US without offering junk loans which have led to the global credit crisis, then what was the whole point of the US incentive schemes, of which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the leading investment banks were such an important part of?” Jack Perkowski’s articles answer this very well. You see, the US built an ecosystem which turned banks into sales outlets for loans, then bundled these loans up and fed them to the global markets, where they are now causing so much grief.

Politically, and on the legislative level, this was part of a complex scheme which, at the end of the day, amounted to buying off different voting constituencies to win their votes. Which is a fancy way of saying “vote buying”.

With all the overbuilding which has happened in China’s cities, I would shudder at the thought that many of these residences were pre-approved without down payments the American way. This is why although there is overbuilding, the Chinese economy can still ride out the dips better than the US and global economy can.

Looking at the US now, it shows the danger of letting legislators who do not understand the economic consequences of their actions have too much power over complex economic issues.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The New Investment Rules For China

October 5th, 2008

Following on the global credit crisis, many have come to me to ask how these changes will affect China. As I have said earlier, China and the US are two sides to the same coin, and it pays to look at them as one economy, as this Newsweek article does. It goes without saying that this crisis will have a profound effect on China, and I’m not optimistic about the capability of the Chinese central government in Beijing to deal with it as quickly as it should. Michael Pettis, who lives and teaches in Beijing, has been a persistent advocate of stimulating more domestic spending from Chinese consumers, and continues to advocate that position. I agree that this is necessary; I don’t think that this will happen quickly or on an even basis. There is a simple reason for this: stimulating consumer spending depends, to a large extent, on the rollout of a national healthcare system; this is something which Beijing has tried to do since the early 90s, all without success. When it comes to the lack of a national healthcare system, the US and China are in the same boat, and the national governments are equally ineffective.

So what are some investment rules you can use? Let me list seven below:

  • Avoid Shanghai and Beijing. Both have excellent universities, and Beijing has central government ministries while Shanghai is the commercial capital of China. In IT, companies have preferred to hire from Tsinghua for smart technology people. But there are major problems with both cities. First of all, staff turnover is too high, and costs are too high. In the past few years, staff have routinely asked for 20-30% raises just to stay in the same company! And with all the western companies constantly going into those cities, there has been a bidding war for staff. We are in tough times now, so do you really want to get involved in bidding wars over your local staff and deal with staff turnover issues? I don’t think so. And when it comes to Internet/IT, I say that the Internet already has become a platform and there is plenty of talent around. Do you really need expensive people from the very best universities in China who may prove a pain to manage? If you don’t, second-tier people who are reliable and don’t ask for huge pay raises are good enough, and maybe even better. When hiring local talent, look for tortoises, not hares. We are heading for much tougher times, and you need a good stable team. Beijing and Shanghai have too many hares. Your most loyal people will be the ones you hired and trained on the job. They will also be the ones who understand local market and conditions and connections.Another major issue about Beijing and Shanghai is that they are geared for exports, especially to the US. Do I need to tell you what happened to that export market?
  • Instead of going to Beijing and Shanghai, look at the 20 major city markets in China if you are thinking of selling to Chinese consumers. Now is a good time to get into services for Chinese consumers. Think of cities like Dalian, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Xiamen, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Nanchang, Chongqing, Chengdu, Fuzhou, Kunming, Nanning, Nanjing, etc. If you want to get into China under the radar (in my opinion, always a wise strategy), these are places to look at very seriously. If you need knowledge workers, as in programming or game production or pharmaceuticals, pay special attention to the local universities, and partnering with them to hire their graduating students. If you show the cash and commitment, and can guarantee jobs for their students, you will get multiple offers of good deals.
  • Guangdong and Zhejiang are the two largest manufacturing provinces in China. Guangdong’s factories depend on a huge pool of unskilled immigrant laborers, mostly young women, from Sichuan and other provinces. These factories and workers are going to be hit hard because of their dependency on the US market. There is too much overcapacity, too little value-added, and too little profit for most of these factories to move up the value chain. Unemployment in Guangdong and Sichuan will become a major issue. Zhejiang’s factories are mostly family-owned, and it has less reliance on immigrant workers. Because of Zhejiang’s strong private sector and private wealth, they will be able to make the adjustment in market demand from exports to domestic Chinese consumption more quickly.
  • If you are a private equity or hedge fund investor, you need to think about investment horizons. In order to make up for the dropoff in exports, Beijing and provincial governments would naturally think of investing more in infrastructure. So far, most of this money has gone into infrastructure, manufacturing and real estate. The problem is that these areas are already built up and have over-capacity. They are really at a loss about what to do. If you can help and offer investments which create jobs and upgrade the skill force, you are in a good position. Be sure to get your money and profit back within 15 years (by 2023). That is because if you are selling to Chinese consumers, you are selling to the current group who are in their 20s – 40s. By 2023, China’s demographics will fall off a cliff because of the one-child policy, and they will be in savings mode instead of spending mode.
  • When it comes to modernization, China is crossing a 30-foot chasm with a 20-foot rope, with each foot representing one year. China’s hardware development and infrastructure are very impressive and are the most modern in the world, as the Beijing Olympics showed. The hardest part to modernize is peoples’ mentality as the tainted milk scandal has shown. China’s aging demographics do not give it enough time to cross the chasm, so Chinese will get old before they get modern. When that happens, China will look like a bigger version of Japan, and will have all the problems Japan has today. Just hope that China has a national healthcare system in place by then.
  • The wealth gap will become wider over the next 10 years between the cities and the countryside, then stabilize for five years, then shrink as the city worker bees retire in 15 years. Rural infrastructure is less developed, and so far, the Chinese government has made all the wrong moves in rural development by not supporting the development of rural collectives for the farmers. There is an excellent article (in Chinese, h/t to Stan C) about the failure of China’s rural development, and how Chinese rural development will look like the Philippines with large food processing companies employing poor farmers. This organization is partly responsible for the Sanlu tainted milk scandal, and is copied from the US. But the US has a surplus of land and shortage of farmers, while China has a shortage of land and excess of farmers! If you are interested in macroeconomic issues, this is worth more study. Its view converges very well with the view of Yasheng Huang in his new book Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics, which I have also mentioned in my previous article.
  • The dumb money has already been made in China. It’s time to rebalance your portfolio to make smart money. It can be done, but it won’t be easy. Think smart, work smart, and invest for 15 years. By that time, you should be able to retire.

      • If you need more information specific to your fund/company/situation, you can contact me from the About page.

Poverty Numbers As A Chinese Social Stability Indicator

June 9th, 2008

China Poverty Numbers

Seeking Alpha has an interesting article The Power of the Market: 600 Million People Lifted Out of Poverty Since 1981. The article comes with two graphs, one of which is above.

This shows that there has been a gradual fall in numbers of poor since 1981, but there was a bump in the years from about 1988 to 1994, when the numbers of poor stubbornly resisted to fall. This was a time of high inflation in China.

Do I need to tell you what happened in China in 1989?

This graph gives a rough indication that as long as the Chinese government is able to show a descending line that poverty numbers are going down in absolute terms, then the government’s position is safe. If inflation should pick up and the number of poor goes up, then they have something to worry about.

So far, developments on the economic front have been going well in China, with the noted exception of high inflation in China, much of which is due to higher commodity costs (food and energy costs) and capital inflows. Much of the capital inflow into China is due to investors who want to get out of the US dollar, and see China as the most attractive growth market for their money.

Rising inflation is usually an early indicator of other economic and social problems to come.

A few years ago, investment money coming into China was welcomed with open arms, but now times have changed, and the government doesn’t see them nearly as favorably as they did just one year ago. Capital inflows which are liquid can come into China, and also leave it very quickly, leaving the country’s economy and society in a lurch, just as it did during the Asian financial crisis of 1997 for the countries of Southeast Asia.

With the US economy heading for the dumpster, and Europe showing signs of weakness due to rising energy prices, that is not something the Chinese government wants. It is more than likely that the Chinese government will do anything to keep those poverty numbers going down in China, regardless of what it means for the rest of the global economy.

The need for social stability in China trumps everything else. Including commitments to globalization and the WTO.

Fasten your seat belts.

George Soros Speaks Out On Current Financial Crisis

April 5th, 2008

George Soros spoke today in a talk and interview about the current financial crisis which started with the subprime mortgage crisis and has now become a global credit cresis. The event was hosted by the Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation, and which hosts a blog called The Washington Note. If you are interested in an intelligent perspective from Washington DC which goes beyond the political polemics, it’s definitely worth adding to your subscription list.

The New America Foundation has made an MP3 recording of the interview with George Soros available. If you are interested in the current financial crisis and where it may eventually go, it is definitely worth listening to.

George Soros has just written and published a new book called The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 And What It Means. Because of the rapid unfolding of the crisis, he has chosen to make the book available in digital format so that readers can get it more quickly.

Another Way To Develop Global Chinese Brands: Buy Google, Apple

October 20th, 2007

Over the past few years, one subject has dominated Chinese thinking on the government and enterprise levels: how to take Chinese brands global. During the runup to the Beijing Olympics in 2008, and then the Shanghai Expo in 2010, this subject will become even more popular, as China’s economic power grows and the US’s economic dominance gradually recedes.

So far, the thinking is that Chinese companies, with some degree of Chinese government assistance, should buy leading US brands and manage them. This was the thinking, for example, behind Lenovo’s purchase of IBM’s money-losing PC division and the Thinkpad brand in 2004. It was also the thinking behind the aborted CNOOC purchase of Unocal, an offer which had to be withdrawn because of heavy US congressional pressure over security.

Outright purchases of foreign companies, in the form of hostile takeovers and mergers rarely go well, even when the cultures of the two companies are close. When they are as far apart as Chinese and western companies, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against success.

Now there is renewed interest in buying western companies for yet another reason: the Chinese government is sitting on US$1.3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, and with the dollar falling against the euro and other major currencies, there is strong pressure to invest this money in something else besides US dollars, which will continue to depreciate. In order to slow down this depreciation, the Chinese government has announced that it will establish a Chinese sovereign wealth fund to invest about US$200-300B in higher-yield investments. Within the past year, sovereign wealth funds have proliferated as foreign governments seek to diversify their foreign-exchange reserves out of US dollars, especially as the US subprime mortgage lending crisis has spread overseas.

For the Chinese government, which likes to do great projects which it can then use in PR to the Chinese people, there is a fundamental bottleneck: there are not enough Chinese who have international experience managing global companies. And those who do have the skills usually decide to spend their time and effort in the private sector where their skills are more needed. In one article some time ago, Business Week claimed that China needed about 75,000 international executives while there are only 5,000 available.

There is another problem with creating global brands: in most sectors, it takes an awful long time to create them. If you look at Toyota in the automobile sector, it has taken the company mostly since the period from 1945 to become established as a leading quality maker. When it comes to manufacturing, global brands are not made, they are earned on the basis of quality products.

The place where brands have sprouted relatively quickly are in the computing and hi-tech sectors. Apple has been around since the 70s and has undergone a dramatic rebirth under the tutelage of its founder, Steve Jobs, who returned in 1997 after Apple’s acquisition of NeXT. Since his return, he has launched the iMac, iPod and now iPhone lines, all of which have won critical acclaim from users worldwide. Steve Jobs has shown that he is that rare type of executive, someone who learns from his mistakes and is passionate about creating excellent products. Now, even for dedicated Windows computer users, Apple’s products are something worth thinking seriously about. When it comes to evoking pure passion among users, there is no company like Apple. The way Apple has launched the iPhone globally has shown that it fully understands how to use the power of the Internet and the media to create global attraction for its new products at very little cost. On October 26, the company will launch its latest version of the OS X operating system, Leopard.

The company’s success has been rewarded on Wall Street; the company now has a market cap of more than 148.2B and its shares are trading at $172.

Another company which has succeeded in creating a global brand in a relatively short time is Google, which was founded on September 27, 1998. Google started as a technology company, and has morphed into a company which understands, and is now revolutionizing the media business. Coming from a very strong technology core base, they like to constantly talk about their technology, even though that is relatively unimportant backend stuff to most people. Very early on, Google figured out that as computing, and now mobile computing grew, more and more data would be accessed from online. The question was: “What was the economic/business models which would support it?” The answer is first search, and then other formats of online advertising. Google strived to make advertising more relevant and less disruptive, and strived to do this all with its Adwords solution.

It has also been a success on Wall Street. Even though expectations were high, it blew past the estimates with its recent earnings announcement , growing the company at twice the growth rate of the growing online ad market.

While Google has continued to have a hard time succeeding in China because of strong competition from Baidu, it is performing exceptionally well in other markets. Compared to their smaller local competitors, US companies continue to have a hard time succeeding in China. Nevertheless, Google continues to make inroads in China.

When talking about large investment amounts, it is easy to forget that the most important part of the equation in brand-building is always people, not marketing dollars or yuan. Buying into Apple and Google would get an inside view into how these leading companies are run.

So what is the best, the smartest way to buy into these companies?

My guess is that the smartest way is to buy Apple and Google shares on the open market and gradually build up enough to get a board seat, where the sovereign wealth fund’s proxies could quietly learn how these companies perform, and find out who are the people who really make contributions to the company. Steve Jobs likes to create the persona that he is Apple and Apple is Steve Jobs, but the truth is not that simple.

Be a smart passive investor, not a dumb active investor. Learn to walk before you run. While it may seem a longer, slower process in the beginning, this is actually the faster, smarter and more economical way to go. Can you think of another way where you earn money while you learn instead spending big chunks?

So to sum up, the benefits of buying into Apple and Google are:

  • Great place to park those extra depreciating dollars and get some appreciation
  • Great way to learn how digital online products and brands are made
  • Great way to find out who the smart movers and shakers are
  • Great way to learn how to become a smart passive investor

If the sovereign wealth fund is doing what they were set up to do, they are already buying Apple and Google shares.

Now that would be real smart…

How Badly Did China Get Burned By US’s Subprime Mortgage Crisis?

September 6th, 2007

An article in today’s Telegraph suggests that foreign central banks have sold US48B in US treasuries, with US32B in the past two weeks alone, according to figures released by the New York Federal Reserve. China currently holds US1,340B in reserves into other higher-yielding investments. Foremost among these newer investment vehicles is a sovereign-wealth fund.

China has bought US treasuries in order to secure its largest single export market. Effectively, China is lending money to its largest single buyer, since the American people have maxed out their credit. China is buying US treasuries so that Americans continue to have the capability to buy Chinese imports. Since the US dollar has been steadily falling in international markets, especially against the euro, this option is becoming less attractive.

In addition, China bought a large amount of US agency and corporate debt, some of which was backed by, you guessed it, subprime mortgages. For a detailed guesstimate (because it is not public information), take a look at this article by Brad Setser.

There is a good chance that there are some very senior people in Beijing taking a deep gulp as they look at their portfolio of dollar-denominated securities.

If so, that would explain the recent sell-off of US treasuries. And if they start selling, people in Washington are going to start worrying about how to handle US debt. Ultimately, Americans will have to recognize that they have lived beyond their means, and the US standard of living will have to make a downward adjustment, as is beginning to happen now.

So who wants to be president of the US in 2008?