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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TobagoJack who wrote (22617)9/17/2007 1:09:34 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 220134
 
Bernanke's Dilemma
The markets are clamoring for rate cuts, but weak U.S. productivity gains and strong global growth may limit the Fed's options

Housing is in the pits. The credit markets are in turmoil. With the loss of 4,000 jobs in August, the labor market has slowed to a crawl. And Wall Street is clamoring for Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke to cut interest rates aggressively to pump up the economy.

But investors, homeowners, and workers may be disappointed if they are hoping for more than one, or perhaps two, small cuts in the benchmark federal funds rate. In his defining moment as Fed chief, Bernanke is picking his way through an immensely complicated and uncharted economic landscape. Unless the bottom suddenly falls out of the job market or some other economic calamity unfolds, he's likely to show great restraint in the coming months.

The U.S. economy, once inward-looking and dominated by manufacturing, is now service-oriented and closely tied to the rest of the world. That means the Fed chairman's calculations will have to account for the health of the global economy—which so far has been strong. "We've been revising the growth forecast for the U.S. down, and up for the rest of the world," says Tim Condon, a top economist at ING (ING ) in Singapore.

Equally important, Bernanke is getting conflicting signals on the long-term growth rate of productivity, or output per hour, arguably the single most important statistic for setting monetary policy. Long-term U.S. productivity growth is expected to be 2.25% to 2.5% per year, according to a BusinessWeek survey of six leading economists. That's lower than the 2.75% average estimate in 2004, when BusinessWeek asked the same question, but it's still quite strong by historical standards. "The implications for the Fed are that potential output is running above actual output," says Dale W. Jorgenson, a Harvard University economist. In other words, there's enough slack in the economy that businesses can produce more without lifting inflation. As a result, the Fed can pump up growth by cutting rates.

But for Bernanke and the Fed, there are also disquieting signs that the productivity boom of the past 10 years could be coming to an end. The economists were projecting future productivity growth—but recent history has not been so rosy. Nonfarm business productivity, averaged over the past four quarters, is up only 0.5% compared with the previous year, the slowest pace since the mid-1990s. Such small gains in productivity, if they persist, will make it extremely hard for Bernanke to embark on a sustained program of rate cuts.

Indeed, the big danger for Bernanke is that the U.S. may face a reversal of the pattern of the past decade, when rising productivity was the main strength of the U.S. economy. Such increases powered rising real wages in the 1990s and rising profits in the 2000s. Strong productivity growth also drew foreign investors to the U.S. stock and bond markets, which kept interest rates low while reducing worries about the big trade deficit.

Rising productivity also greatly increased the range of options open to former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. He could keep interest rates low without worrying much about igniting inflation. Perhaps more important, rapid productivity growth gave Greenspan the freedom to cut rates aggressively in response to the financial crisis of 1998 and the dot-com bust.

By contrast, even the possibility of slowing productivity growth hems in Bernanke on two sides. Combined with the slow growth of the labor force, it puts the U.S. perilously close to stalling out. "It would not take much to tip the economy into recession," says Martin N. Baily of the Brookings Institution and former head of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton. "The collapse of the boom in nonresidential construction, for example."

But the slow productivity trend, if it continues, could also weaken the case for sharp rate cuts. Why? Because Bernanke, like all central bankers, remembers the main lesson of the 1970s. Back then, the Fed tried to make a slow-productivity economy run faster by cutting rates, and ended up instead with "stagflation"—an unpleasant combination of weak growth and rising inflation. No one wants that to happen again. Indeed, the minutes from the last meeting of the Fed's Open Market Committee, in early August, make it clear that "slower trend growth in productivity" was high on the list of concerns.

The problem for Bernanke is that long-term productivity trends can shift sharply and without warning. In the 1970s, productivity growth took a nosedive that economists simply did not expect, leading to years of weak growth and high inflation. Then, in the 1990s, information technology suddenly took hold as an economic force, and the result was the New Economy boom. There's nothing to stop productivity from decelerating again.

Still, it's worth noting that Bernanke could cut rates sharply to deal with a financial crisis even if productivity is not rising. That's what Greenspan did in the aftermath of the October, 1987, market crash. At the time, productivity growth was nonexistent and core inflation was well above 4%, but Greenspan slashed the fed funds rate by a full percentage point to help bail out the market and the economy.

After the crisis was over, however, Greenspan quickly reversed course and took back the rate cuts. Within eight months after the 1987 crash, the fed funds rate was back to the same level as before. Bernanke might have to follow the same strategy if productivity growth stays low.

If the uncertainty about productivity weren't bad enough, the new links between the U.S. and the rest of the world create more imponderables for Bernanke and for monetary policy. Strong growth in Asia and elsewhere, for instance, makes other central banks a lot less likely to cut rates in lockstep with the Fed as they have in the past. "The impact from a U.S.-originated shock wave will be much less painful now than it was at the beginning of this decade," says Lim Kyung Mook, economist at Korea Development Institute in Seoul. He notes that growth in South Korea's gross domestic product will probably exceed 4.7% this year, higher than previously forecast. Korea's central bank raised interest rates in July and August.

Such overseas rate hikes, combined with Fed rate cuts, could make it less attractive to invest in the U.S. and cause the dollar to fall further. That would make imports more expensive and send inflation higher. Already the price of non-petroleum imports is rising at a 2.8% rate, compared with 1.9% in 2006.

Bernanke also has to consider whether the new links to the global economy will moderate or aggravate a U.S. slowdown. One possibility is that consumers and businesses might cut back on imports rather than on domestically produced goods. In the past, for example, a housing downturn might have led to big layoffs at U.S. factories making construction materials, furniture, and appliances. But with much more of that manufacturing capacity outside the U.S., fewer domestic jobs may be lost. Indeed, the slight decline in the trade deficit in July may be a precursor of things to come.

On the other hand, U.S. manufacturers might possibly close down yet more domestic plants to reduce costs, especially if productivity is lagging. "When the U.S. sneezes, there's an opportunity for the rest of the world," says B.V.R. Subbu, former head of Hyundai Motor India. He recently bought the Daewoo car plant near Delhi and is turning it into an auto components shop for exports. "Once U.S. investors realize they have to make money some other way, they will push manufacturers to perform better and better, and they will push more manufacturing to India."

Bernanke also must consider the impact of globalization on the service sector. On Sept. 12, the Census Bureau released results of the latest quarterly survey of services, which showed a big gain in revenues in the second quarter in such globally oriented industries as consulting and computer systems design. But the same day, Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS ) announced it will offer early retirement to 12,000 workers in the U.S. Meanwhile, the company has been expanding operations in low-cost countries.

Bernanke came to the Fed with the idea of making monetary policy more predictable and easier for financial markets to understand. But in an unpredictable, rapidly changing world, that goal may be far out of reach.



To: TobagoJack who wrote (22617)9/17/2007 4:37:08 AM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 220134
 
TJ, a metre is just a metre. It's not good or bad whether it's moving faster or slower, thereby being inflated or deflated. It just is. Similarly, with financial relativity theory. Natural inflation isn't good or bad and neither is natural deflation. They are just movement of prices compared with the measuring stick being used, be it gold, sea shells or US$.

Prices do fall because it takes less effort for people to do things now that previously. That's the nature of progress, as you say. If the measuring stick is stable, then over millennia, prices will fall - other than in the instance of actual shortages.

Oil for example at some stage will become in short supply, or the places to put the CO2 might [doubtfully] be used up. Prices in such cases can go up. Similarly with beach-front property. There isn't enough for everyone to have a house by the sea in Hong Kong. But for the most part, prices should come down if measured against stable values such as an hour of a person's time.

Inflation isn't a disguise, it's a tax. They don't even hide it [other than ignoring M3]. We all know they are pixelating like there's no tomorrow.

Lessons ahead and now being learned en masse in Ilaine's bailiwick. Others to learn lessons too. Maybe me. There is never a shortage of lessons to learn. Fortunately, lessons are always a LOT of fun [the voluntary ones anyway].

Mqurice



To: TobagoJack who wrote (22617)2/17/2008 6:53:31 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 220134
 
`Old economy' stocks will weather the impending U.S. financial storm because of their global reach.

Coupled the other way around. If we gte a Cold US and Europe will sneeze! We are the locomotive of the world.

Globetrotters circle the world looking for new opportunities

The IMF predicts continued heady 2008 growth rates for China (10 per cent), India (8.4 per cent) and Africa (6.5 per cent), against dreary GDP growth rates for the U.S. (1.9 per cent), Europe (2.1 per cent) and Japan (1.7 per cent).
License this article

`Old economy' stocks will weather the impending U.S. financial storm because of their global reach

Feb 16, 2008 04:30 AM
David Olive
BUSINESS COLUMNIST

The coming year or two is shaping up as a tale of two global economies. One is characterized by slow and possibly "negative" growth in mature industrial nations, the other by continued dynamic gross domestic product growth in emerging-world economies.

In 2007, for the first time in history, China, India and Russia together accounted for more than half of global economic growth.

Te International Monetary Fund, or IMF, declared in its latest world economic forecast that China alone "is now the single most important contributor to world growth."

So how does an investor with all of his or her chips placed on a sluggish North American economy participate in a Chinese industrial revolution taking place at lightning speed?

The risks can be daunting. Investors in recently "privatized" Russian, Chinese and Indian companies usually find themselves in partnership with the Kremlin or a state entity that has retained majority control of the business.

And the lack of transparency and accounting lapses common to Western firms are even more pronounced in high-growth jurisdictions such as Dubai, Central Europe, Africa and Pakistan – which, for all its political upheaval, can boast a torrid 7 per cent annual GDP growth rate over the past several years.

There's a safe way to participate in the emergence of this parallel global economy, often overlooked by Western investors disappointed with the inconsistent performance of emerging-market mutual funds. Neither does it require the fortitude to invest directly in Third World firms and suffer buyer's remorse when the local currency abruptly implodes.

That safer approach is to focus on familiar, blue-chip North American firms that derive an unusually large share of their revenues from abroad. Think of it as both a hedge against recessionary winds blowing from the south, and a chance to profit from the world's second industrial revolution. With U.S. consumer confidence sinking, and U.S. corporate profit forecasts dropping in tandem, "the real defensive kicker is on the multinational side," Douglas Cohen, a managing director in equities at Morgan Stanley Co., said at a Forbes panel last month on stocks for weathering the North American storm.

"If you look at some of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), some of the Mid-East countries and other parts of Asia, there is very robust economic growth. It may decelerate, but it's not going to collapse."

The IMF predicts continued heady 2008 growth rates for China (10 per cent), India (8.4 per cent) and Africa (6.5 per cent), against dreary GDP growth rates for the U.S. (1.9 per cent), Europe (2.1 per cent) and Japan (1.7 per cent).

There's a bevy of companies that have been investing heavily offshore for a decade or more with only slender profits to show for it until recent years.

"All that stuff that people hated about GE over the last seven years, when the stock didn't go anywhere, they're starting to love it now," Shawn Campbell, who manages a $100 million (U.S.) fund at Chicago's Campbell Asset Management, told Reuters, explaining his bets on General Electric Co. and global farm-equipment-maker Deere & Co.

The Star's portfolio of 12 emerging-market plays is weighted to large firms with substantial, stable operations in North America, that also are helping build the modern banking, energy, transportation, computer-network and consumer-product-distribution infrastructure of emerging economies.

Each firm derives at least 30 per cent of its sales from outside North America. Each posted a rise in profits in a difficult 2007. And the shares of all but one have outperformed the S&P/TSX 300 and S&P 500 indexes so far this year, indicating that an investor "flight to quality" already is underway. Just the same, with an average price-earnings multiple of 21.3, and varying from a high of 53.3 (Bombardier Inc.) to a low of 11.4 (Whirlpool Corp.), these "old economy" stocks are still trading at reasonable prices.

Here's our Global Dozen, with yesterday's share price and the usual caveat that excellent companies like Deere have not made the list for reasons of space only.

Bank of Nova Scotia ($47.38 Canadian): The most international of Canada's Big Five banks. It operates in more than 40 countries outside Canada and the U.S. Over the past five years, BNS stock has outperformed all but Toronto Dominion Bank.

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. ($149.35): It's the world's largest potash supplier, accounting for roughly 15 per cent of global production. Increasingly, its output of fertilizers and related feed products is shifting to developing-world markets where rising incomes are bringing agricultural self-sufficiency within reach.

Bombardier Inc. ($5.53): As the world's largest rail-equipment maker, it supplies streetcars to Brussels and monorails in Asia. And the former stock-market darling, still recovering from the 2001-02 recession, continues to fatten its order book for private planes, despite the U.S. downturn, thanks to the recent proliferation of Russian and Asian tycoons.

Boeing Co. ($85.18 U.S.): It has reclaimed from French archrival Airbus SA the crown of world's biggest maker of civilian airliners. Its flagship 787 Dreamliner is in hot demand with Asian and Middle Eastern airlines, while Airbus struggles to find buyers for it's A-380 superjumbo.

United Technologies Corp. ($71.53): It's the world leader in elevators (Otis) and air conditioners (Carrier), and with big stakes in aircraft engines (Pratt & Whitney) and helicopters (Sikorsky), is a low-key infrastructure supplier with outsized performance, including a stock that bested the S&P 500 by a 2-to-1 ratio over the past five years, and boosted profits by 91 per cent during that time. UTC is largely insulated from the North America consumer economy, and its rising offshore profits have compensated for the U.S. housing meltdown.

Caterpillar Inc. ($69.95): Despite its exposure to the troubled U.S. construction market, it is forecasting a rise in 2008 profits of 5 per cent to 15 per cent. Offshore orders for its heavy equipment, accounting for half its total sales, have more than compensated for softer sales growth at home.

General Electric Co. ($34.37): It now derives 50 per cent of its sales of power-station generators, locomotives, lighting supplies and medical equipment from outside its home market.

Procter & Gamble Co. ($66.30): It long ago transplanted its vaunted marketing prowess overseas, and currently is threatening to push long-established rival Unilever PLC to the margins in the booming Indian market.

Coca-Cola Co. ($58.76): The cola giant, which once insisted on peddling only Coke abroad, has learned humility in recent years, building market share in the Pacific Rim and South Asia by reformulating its soft drinks and juice products to local tastes, and acquiring dominant local beverage brands.

PepsiCo Inc. ($71.73): Same story as above, except for PepsiCo's broader portfolio that includes Frito-Lay snacks, Quaker Foods and Gatorade sports drinks, all winning favour in non-North American markets.

International Business Machines Corp. ($106.16): It generated 65 per cent of fourth-quarter 2007 sales from outside its homeland and retains its near-monopoly on mainframe computers. These are much in demand from emerging-economy governments and corporations upgrading their computer networks. Lucrative contracts to service its equipment will further entrench IBM in its newest markets.

Whirlpool Corp. ($88.49): The world's largest appliance maker (Maytag, KitchenAid, Amana, Jenn-Air), which we think of as a "household infrastructure" firm, enjoyed a 2007 payoff from its assiduous studies of how consumers in Mumbai, Singapore and Rio de Janeiro use its products. (For instance, washing machines are stored in the small kitchens of Russian and Central European households, and must be small enough to tuck under the kitchen counter.) In 2007, healthy overseas growth compensated for the weakening North American demand.

Of the prospects for Western firms seeking growth in emerging markets, money manager Cohen says: "The big bellwether multinationals like United Technologies are going to work. General Electric would be another one that I think will finally have its day here."

Adding PepsiCo to his list, Cohen said: "Those are all companies that are trading at, or below, a market multiple and have good dividend yields. So those are some of the stocks I want to own."

Are those firms "keepers"? The kind you can safely stow in your safe deposit box and forget about? Or will there come a time to dump them when the infrastructure project in the developing world is completed?

We picked infrastructure firms with substantial North American operations not only for their superior governance, but for the long-term prospects of infrastructure worldwide.

When these firms get done modernizing the rail networks of India, equipping Chinese hospitals with MRI machines, and making Doritos available in every Karachi convenience store – and perhaps even before that, if we're lucky – there's an estimated $123 billion (Canadian) "infrastructure gap" in Canada's municipalities that needs attention. And a similar gap estimated at $3.5 trillion (U.S.) in America, according to the Urban Development think tank in Washington.

At least for investors, infrastructure is becoming one of the most glamorous of four-syllable words.

David Olive is a Toronto Star business columnist. He can be reached by email at dolive@thestar.ca.