SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (5616)5/5/2004 1:40:24 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
Asia Pacific: The Coming Profit Shock

Andy Xie (Hong Kong)

China’s slowdown should have a greater impact on profits than on volumes. China’s investment surge has created temporary bottlenecks and inflated commodity prices. Also, the investment bubble supercharged China’s consumption, especially demand for luxury goods, artificially inflating profit margins for such products.

The unit import price for minerals/metals rose by 57% between 1Q02-1Q04, while the volumes rose by 81%. The price change was global and, hence, redistributed income from consumers, and downstream industries to upstream ones. In other words, it has acted as a global tax.

As China cools its investment bubble, most of the price gain in commodities would be reversed, removing the inflation tax and, hence, reversing the profit gains of the upstream industries that we have seen in the past two years.

The Commodity Linkage

China’s imports are one-third those of the US, but grew by more than that last year. About half of China’s imports are raw materials and equipment for capital formation. Another one-third are components for export processing. Thus, China’s slowdown should mainly affect these two sectors.

Because construction of infrastructure, property and factories dominates China’s investment, any investment boom would trigger massive increases in imports of minerals and metals. China accounts for roughly for 70% of the global incremental demand for hard commodities.

As China’s fixed investment accelerated from 13.1% in 2001 to 43% in 1Q04, the demand for such commodities skyrocketed. The greater impact, however, was felt in prices. China’s unit cost of imports for such commodities rose by 57% during 1Q02-1Q04. A similar increase also occurred in 1993.

The main reason for the rapid price rise is that China’s investment occurs whenever there is liquidity and is not sensitive to price, as local governments just want to see capital formation. Thus, a liquidity boom can push up commodity prices very rapidly. However, when the liquidity tide recedes, the process reverses, i.e., the investment doesn’t react to cheap commodities, and, therefore, the price correction undershoots.

There is an argument that the demand recovery in the US, Europe and Japan would offset China’s weakness. This argument does not work for two reasons, in my view. First, the interest rate-sensitive or commodity-intensive sectors (i.e., housing and autos) were never weak during the economic downturn, because the Fed cut interest rates more aggressively than in the past. Thus, the current economic upturn in these economies has not boosted commodity demand that much.

Second, the incremental demand for most commodities has come from China. This is why commodity prices correlate closely with China’s investment cycles. It would be surprising if this linkage didn’t work this time. Further, China’s current investment bubble this is much bigger than the one 10 years ago in absolute volume. Thus, the reversal for commodity prices should only be more dramatic.

The Consumer Linkage

The investment bubble has exaggerated China’s income growth. As income growth in bubbles tends to be concentrated among a few people in the center of the bubble, China’s demand for luxury goods has been rising rapidly over the past two years. While the secular trend is positive, China’s demand for such goods would likely stagnate or even decline in the coming quarters.

Luxury automobiles, for example, have seen very rapid sales growth. While there is a secular growth trend in the size of China’s wealthy class, the bubble has exaggerated its ranks and purchasing power. Hence, auto demand has grown rapidly while prices have been high. As China’s bubble deflates, this industry has to sell to less wealthy people, but with much more capacity. A major price war is looming, in my view.

Another example is the consumption of Chinese tourists in Hong Kong. Shanghai and Beijing account for most of the big Chinese spenders in Hong Kong. But their purchasing power has been exaggerated by the property boom in their cities, partly funded by Hong Kong and Taiwan investors purchasing properties there. Thus, Hong Kong’s retail sales to Chinese tourists partly reflect Hong Kong investors buying Shanghai and Beijing properties. In other words, it is Hong Kong money coming back. When the property bubble deflates, this flow will also diminish.

The Regional Linkage

Asian trade has been reorganized in the past five years with China replacing others in the OECD consumer market, and other Asian economies supplying equipment and consumer goods to China. China/Hong Kong accounted for half of the export increase of other East Asian economies in 2001-03. What it means is that East Asia can only grow when China grows. This change is inevitable as it reflects the relative competitive advantages of the economies. However, it also means that East Asia’s business cycle correlates with China’s and with the US’s only indirectly through China.

Equipment demand is the most obvious linkage. China’s equipment imports, especially from Japan, grew by over 40% in value last year. The growth will likely be in single digits or worse in the coming six quarters.

The most important linkage may be profits from selling goods and services inside China. Korean, Taiwanese and Japanese companies have done an outstanding job of turning China into a market as important as their home markets. In the long term, this strategy could work well. However, their profits in China have been exaggerated by the bubble.

China’s credit surge has been the most important source of profit growth for Asian companies in the past two years, either through higher commodity prices or stronger Chinese consumption. The reversal would come as a negative profit shock. The market still underestimates this effect, in my view.

morganstanley.com



To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (5616)5/5/2004 1:53:58 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
CHINA CONCERNS TRIPPED UP THE MARKET!

Over recent months I’ve noted in this column how, even as the U.S. seems not to care what the rest of the world thinks of it, the rest of the world is becoming much more powerful in its own right, at least economically. So while it used to be said that when the U.S. economy sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold, it has been just as accurate over the last five or six years to say that when Asia, or South America sneezes the U.S. economy catches a cold. That is the downside as the world more and more becomes one economy.

In 1998, the roaring 1990s bull market in the U.S. came very close to ending with a plunge into a bear market, through no fault of its own, but due to the crash of overheated economies in Asia; which quickly spread to South American countries, and seemed headed for U.S. shores. The Dow plunged 19% in a matter of weeks on that fear, almost reaching the 20% decline that officially defines a bear market, raising fears that panic might set in and bring on a market crash. The problem was solved by swift action by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which immediately and aggressively cut interest rates, while the International Monetary Fund dispatched $billions in emergency loans to Asian countries. With that encouragement the U.S. stock market took off again, unfortunately into what became its own bubble a year or two later.

Memories of 1998 plagued the U.S. stock market this week, as it declined sharply, in spite of a continued stream of better than expected economic numbers and 1st quarter earnings reports. The market’s new worry was concern over the economy in China , half a world away.

As I noted in this column two weeks ago, the Chinese economy has been thriving for several years and is significantly overheated, perhaps even in a ‘bubble’. Concerned, the Chinese government is taking steps aimed at slowing it down by adopting a tighter monetary policy. The U.S. market caught up to that concern this week. Its new worry is that the Chinese government may have as big a problem slowing its economy as other countries frequently do, and may overcorrect, and drive its economy to the opposite extreme, into recession.

China is not as important a trading partner with the U.S. as we may think when we see all the ‘Made-in-China’ labels on WalMart products. But that’s where this one-world economy comes into the picture in a big way. Too much of an economic slowdown in China would spread to Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and other Asian countries that are large trading partners with China, which in turn would keep the dominoes falling, into Europe, South America, and the U.S. And so the U.S. market worry has become whether China’s communist government, still learning the ways of a free enterprise economic system, can pull off the difficult stunt of bringing an overheated economy in for a soft landing, without overshooting the runway and bringing it down into a recession, which in turn would have a domino effect on the rest of the world’s economies.

It’s a legitimate concern, since even the U.S. Federal Reserve, which has often seemed to pull economic rabbits out of its hat to stimulate slowing economies or faltering stock markets, has just as often failed at the opposite task of slowing an economy that’s growing too fast, too often bringing such economies into recessions.

Keeping in mind how much more it has become a one-world economy even than in 1998, the U.S. stock market was crossing its fingers this week that China has better luck.

Speaking of how quickly and to what extent it has become even more a one-world economy, on Saturday, May 1, another already sizable economic force outside of the U.S. , the European Union, became an even larger behemoth. Ten more countries, Slovakia , the Czech Republic , the Baltic states , Cyprus , Malta , Hungary , Poland , and Slovenia , became members. That will be of as much importance to the U.S. down the road as the coming out of China into a world economic power.

With the addition of ten more countries, the European Union now numbers 34 countries, united as a single international market. It encompasses 455 million people. Not as large as China , but 55% larger than the U.S. As China did when it moved to a free enterprise economic system, each country within the European Union maintains its own political and cultural integrities. But there will be no trade barriers between them. The thirty-four countries of the EU will use a single currency, the Euro, which has already been coming on strong as an international currency, providing considerable competition to the U.S. dollar. Therefore, selling, shipping, manufacturing, and payments between the countries, will be far less complicated for their corporations, and banking relationships.

This week the U.S. market seemed to worry that while the U.S. is otherwise occupied protecting itself militarily, and focused on changing the political systems in other countries, the rest of the world, has not worried about political differences but focused on economic alliances, and the resulting one-world economy may be facing its first big test. Can China slow its economy without affecting the U.S. market?


streetsmartreport.com



To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (5616)5/5/2004 1:57:26 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Employment Report

The group's measure of new orders increased to the highest level since August of last year. The employment index rose to 54.5 in April, the highest since 54.6 in November 2000.

The Labor Department is forecast to report on Friday that 168,000 jobs were created in April, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg survey. John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York, said the ISM's ``employment component suggests some possible upside risk to our forecast for 180,000 payrolls for April.''

The economy added 308,000 jobs in March, the largest gain in almost four years, and 759,000 in the last seven months. Last year the U.S. lost an average of 5,000 jobs a month.

``The job market globally has been picking up all year,'' said Paul Reilly, chief executive officer at the executive search firm Korn/Ferry International, in an interview. ``We see CEOs budgeting for capital expenditure and employment. We are seeing the numbers. We have seen it since late summer and since the first of the year really picking up. It will be steady job growth for the next year.''

quote.bloomberg.com