The China Vortex

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.

Rebecca McKinnon has a very interesting post at her blog “Thomas Friedman gets the middle finger in the Middle Kingdom”, which was part of her coverage of the World Economic Forum at Dalian.

During a panel, Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat, accused China of being a “free-loader” while the US carried the heavy load of being a “global guardian”. I really love the term “global guardian”; what does it mean? Does it mean that the US is protecting the globe
from an attack by Mars? Or Jupiter? Or is it some unknown Deathstar which we don’t know about? Does it mean that Beijing is keeping this a secret from the rest of the world so that it won’t have to publicly acknowledge this enormous debt to Washington DC?

Who defines the role of “global guardian” and the role it involves? It takes a lot of hubris even to bring the phrase up. How would you react if your spouse calmly announced that he was the “global guardian of our world against evildoers who want to destroy our way of life”? I think you get the drift…

Then in the post,

Friedman also argued that it’s in China’s interest to work more directly with the U.S. on geopolitical issues because if the U.S. fails, then China will have to pick up the pieces. “If there is too little American power China will be forced to respond to that,” he said.

Now I get it, Beijing is supposed to change Washington DC’s diapers when it makes a mess! So now Beijing is going to be the “global diaper changer” when the “global guardian” has… well, nevermind.

Unfortunately for Friedman, Sha Zukang, told the audience that the Chinese government is not anxious to assume this new role.

Sha rejected the whole idea of “soft power,” calling it a “condescending approach” and “notion created by Western developed countries.” When it comes to world leadership, he said the world’s leaders should not be “self-proclaimed” - he said they should be elected. China, he said, would not self-proclaim itself a world leader, because China’s policy is always to treat other countries as “equals.”

Translation: “Let’s take responsibility for changing our own diapers, instead of expecting someone else to do it for us.”

Another very interesting viewpoint put forward by Clay Chandler of Fortune magazine is that now that China is a world power (I really love the way the words “world” and “global” are thrown around), Chinese politicians are still giving boring speeches. Of course, American politicians never give boring speeches; I’m sure that any intelligent reader of this article can recite all the speeches of George W. Bush and the Senate and House heads by heart. Yes, I too, am deeply disheartened that Beijing has not announced plans to stage a pre-emptive attack against Mars so that the “global guardian” can at least take a small rest and enjoy a cup at Starbucks.

Seriously though, Friedman’s criticism of Chinese policy is, at its very least, an acknowledgement that the US has not been able to carry all its burden by itself and needs help. In this light, it should be interpreted more as a plea for help and assistance for the global guardian than as a rebuke of current Chinese policy.

In the article, Rebecca recalls:

A couple years ago a Chinese academic who advises the Chinese government on foreign policy issues told me that the best way for China to build global power, good will, and international credibility over the long run is to mind its own business, avoid criticizing the U.S. whenever possible, sit back and let the U.S. destroy its own power and credibility by itself.

There is a strong argument to be made that it isn’t so much that China has risen quickly out of seemingly nowhere, but that China’s growth appears accelerated because of rapid American decline. Put it this way, if China is riding an up escalator, and the US is riding a down escalator, at some point they will pass each other at an intersection point.

The only question is “When?”

Now the question becomes whether it is a good thing to accelerate decline. Wall Street routinely rewards companies which make dramatic management changes when they are in decline. The thinking is that it is better to make dramatic, even wild, changes in the face of falling sales and market share. Share prices go up even before the results of those changes become apparent, based on the hope that the new management can make the changes necessary. Wall Street is hoping for a happy ending, even though most of the time it doesn’t work. Doing something, even if it is madly wrong, is better than doing nothing when confronted with a bad situation, according to Wall Street. Then, when the company has hit bottom, it can either be acquired or claw its way back to recovery.

My question is whether this same rule should be applied to countries and governments? If the US is in a state of systemic decline, is it better to accelerate the decline, so that the country can eventually climb out of the mess it is in? The problem with this approach is that when a company screws up, a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs.

The problem with a country, especially one as big and powerful as the US, is that no one knows what the bottom looks like.

For this reason, the slow erosion and decline of American power will continue.