The China Vortex

The Chinese government’s watchdog for equities, the CSRC (China Securities Regulatory Commission) has issued an edict to local fund managers that they are not to issue any pessimistic reports about equities during the Olympics in Beijing.

My question is “Why bother?”

The Shanghai market has been down 50% in the first half of the year, and what started out as a subprime mortgage problem in the US has now morphed into a banking problem with more US banks at risk.

In the meantime, Pony Ma, CEO of Tencent has joined in the chorus with Alibaba’s Jack Ma to talk about hard times ahead. The Chinese government has signaled that the rise of the yuan against the dollar will slow down, with a very public discussion in the People’s Daily. The signs of economic deceleration are everywhere.

When there is so much public discussion about upcoming economic challenges in the Chinese and western media, what good could possibly come from telling local fund managers not to say anything bad which might upset the Chinese equities markets? While many western observers of China see this as a sign of an authoritarian regime, for many Chinese, it looks more like desperation. Instead of allaying fears, it makes those who are still in the market fear the worst, and think that the government is trying to suppress even worse news, which in turn will fuel the rumor mill and make the market even more volatile.

In short, this looks more like a desperation move than a well-thought policy move. Instead of helping the market, it’s likely to make things worse.

This is what happens when politics interfere in the markets.

Technorati Tags: alibaba, American, authoritarian, banking, banks, Beijing, China, Chinese, csrc, dollar, economics, funds, market, mortgage, olympics, politics, shanghai, subprime, tencent, yuan

Paul Midler is an experienced sourcing expert who has worked in China for many years, and publishes The China Game blog. I believe that he is the first person to coin the term “quality fade”. Quality fade is, according to this article published in Forbes:

This is the deliberate and secret habit of widening profit margins through a reduction in the quality of materials. Importers usually never notice what’s happening; downward changes are subtle but progressive. The initial production sample is fine, but with each successive production run, a bit more of the necessary inputs are missing.

It seems a long time ago, but last year, a great deal of ink was devoted to covering the issue of defective products from China. In some cases, lives were lost in the US.

If I have one criticism of Paul Midler’s criticism of this very real problem, it is the impression it gives that somehow unscrupulous Chinese exporters are deliberately seeking to cheat and harm Americans, when in fact, many more Chinese have been injured and even killed by defective products coming out of Chinese factories. It’s just that the US media does not pick up these stories because the victims are, well, Chinese.

But if we are going to be fair about this problem, then shouldn’t we talk about the Chinese and other non-American victims of this problem as well? I think so.

Now, when it comes to the credit bubble problem, the issue of quality fade becomes even more interesting. This time, the culprit is not Chinese, but American. For a problem of such immense proportions, which is getting bigger and bigger by the day, amazingly, no one has identified the human culprits responsible for the bad decisions. But then, accountability never been a strong point for this US administration.

In China, when there was a problem with deaths caused by tainted drugs, the head of the Chinese Food and Drug Administration was sentenced to death and executed. No one yet knows the size of the credit bubble, but I have heard numbers from $15 billion to $45 billion bandied about. Mind you, the US economy is a US$12 trillion a year economy, so we are basically talking about anywhere from 1 year to four years of economic output disappearing.

Americans are losing their jobs, many are losing their homes, and the Fed has been scared into a series of panic interest rate cuts and into subsidizing the purchase of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase and offering a Fed-backed unlimited credit lending facility to US investment banks.

In this article from The Washington Note, Steve Clemons talks about how the US exported poisoned financial products.

So, while Chinese factories have on occasion exported defective products, the US has exported defective financial products. And the US government participated because Treasury sold T-bills which were backed by these defective financial instruments.

Hmmm….

Now, back to quality fade. Let’s see if we can modify his definition of quality fade to capture the credit bubble situation:

This is the deliberate and secret habit of creating the illusion of increased purchasing power through the creation of fiat credit derivatives of dubious value. Exporters usually never notice what’s happening; downward changes are subtle but progressive. The initial credit derivatives are fine, but with each passing year, lose their value as more credit derivatives are created until there is a gradual collapse and new currencies and trading rules have to be established.

(The italics are where I have made changes to Paul Midler’s original text.)

When it comes to quality fade, the Americans have been wholesalers, while the Chinese are just occasional retailers.

Technorati Tags: China, credit, currencies, derivatives, economy, financial, globalization, instruments, lending, mortgage, products, qualityfade, subprime, trade, US

The past week has shown that the subprime credit mortgage crisis in the US has metastasized into something bigger, and is spreading into other parts of the economy, and is now beginning to affect bond markets in the US. This is a worst-case scenario gradually unfolding before our eyes, and the Fed under Bernanke and the politicians seem unable to do anything to stop it, which is why they talk so little about it.

The issue made me think about something. Several years ago, a report was issued (I believe it was Goldman Sachs), which said that the Chinese economy would become the same size as the US economy by 2040 based on current trends. The key term here is “based on current trends”, something which almost never happens, as things almost never continue smoothly in politics and economics.

The present crisis in the US is causing what I call a double shrinkage. The size of the economy is shrinking as highly-leveraged credit derivatives are slowly worked out of the system. As these derivatives, which were as good as cash just two years ago, creating more money in the system than the Fed are worked out of the economy, the GDP of the US economy will shrink. It is not a question of whether it will shrink, it’s just a question of how much. That is something the market, the politicians and policy-makers are figuring out.

But it does not shrink just on the GDP level, it also shrinks on the US dollar level, which has been losing value steadily, and will likely continue to lose value as US interest levels fall. (The problem for the Fed is that although interest rates have fallen, US banks have tightened up their lending qualifications.) This means that US goods will become cheaper, and more foreigners will go to the US to buy real assets.

Roger Ehrenberg has written an excellent article about what US headlines will look like over the next 2-3 years on his Information Arbitrage blog. No wonder that even companies like Apple are looking overseas for sales growth in the face of slow growth in the US market.

This takes me back to the report which talked about China overtaking the US economy by 2040. The report did not take into account the shrinking of the US economy on both the GDP and currency levels. If the Chinese economy continues to grow and the US economy shrinks, isn’t it likely that the Chinese economy will overtake the US economy much sooner than 2040?

Of course, there are a lot of variables. Can China continue to grow at a brisk pace without a healthy US consumer economy buying Chinese exports? And what can the Chinese government do to curb inflation, which is growing faster than in the past 15 years?

We will find out…eventually.

Technorati Tags: , Apple, bonds, credit, derivatives, economy, GDP, informationarbitrage, mortgage, subprimemortgage, US

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…

Technorati Tags: Apple, brand-building, brands, business, China, crisis, dollar, economic, funds, global, google, investment, media, mortgage, sovereign, subprime, US, wealth

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?

Technorati Tags: China, crisis, debt, dollar, euro, mortgage, subprime, treasuries, US