from MacroScope:
Central bank balance sheets: Battle of the bulge
Central banks across the industrialized world responded aggressively to the global financial crisis that began in mid-2007 and in many ways remains with us today. Now, faced with sluggish recoveries, policymakers are reticent to embark on further unconventional monetary easing, fearing both internal criticism and political blowback. They are being forced to rely more on verbal guidance than actual stimulus to prevent markets from pricing in higher rates.
How do the world’s most prominent central banks stack up against each other? The Federal Reserve was extremely aggressive, more than tripling the size of its balance sheet from around $700-$800 billion pre-crisis to nearly 3 trillion today. Still, the ECB’s total asset holdings are actually larger than the Fed’s – it started from a higher base.
The Bank of England, for its part, went even deeper into uncharted territory, with its assets as a percentage of GDP surpassing the Fed’s. By the same measure, the ECB has overtaken the Bank of Japan, which has been grappling with deflation for some two decades and started from a much higher level.
Taken together, the expansion in reserves is impressive – and speaks to just how deep the global recession proved to be.
Can Eastern Europe “sweat” it?
Interesting to see that Poland wants to squeeze out more income from its state-owned enterprise (SOE) sector in the face of slowing economic growth and financing pressures.
Warsaw wants to double next year’s dividends from stakes in firms ranging from copper mines to utility providers to banks.
Fellow euro zone aspirant Lithuania has also embarked on reforms aimed at increasing dividends sixfold from what UBS has dubbed “the forgotten side of the government balance sheet”. It wants to emulate countries such as Sweden and Singapore where such companies are managed at arm’s length from the state and run along strict corporate standards to consistently grow profits.
The impetus isn’t entirely ideological. Poland and Lithuania are desperately trying to balance their books and under European Commission rules, privatisation proceeds cannot be taken into account when calculating the budget deficit but SOE dividends can.
But “sweating” government assets to yield higher profits doesn’t always come easy for central and eastern Europe. After all, this is a region where state ownership has been synonymous with inefficiency and stagnation.
Even so, the track record of emerging European governments on privatisation is mixed.
The haste at which state resources were sold off following the collapse of the Soviet Union had disastrous repercussions for economies such as Russia and Croatia. Recent efforts at state divestment from Poland to the Czech Republic to Romania have run aground on unrealistic price expectations, corruption or regulatory obstruction.
Hungary and the euro zone blame game
More tough talk from Hungarian officials on the ‘unjustified’ weakness of the country’s currency, which has dropped 11 percent against the euro this year to all-time lows.
This time, it’s central banker Ferenc Gerhardt arguing that the weakness of the forint is out of sync with economic fundamentals and blaming it on the debt turmoil in the euro zone.
Perhaps he should look a little closer to home.
Hungary’s drift from orthodox economic policy since the centre-right government took over the reins last year has made it the most exposed of eastern European economies.
The ruling party Fidesz swept into power promising to create a new social contract that would subject the economic system to the “popular democratic will”. Ironically, the policies of Prime Minister Viktor Orban have made Hungarian markets more sensitive to the global sentiment than ever.
Domestic investor participation in local bonds and stock markets has fallen since the government controversially seized private pension fund assets to boost state coffers this year.
Average daily trading volumes on the Budapest stock exchange have slipped 25 percent this year while non-resident ownership of local-currency bonds are at elevated levels — as high as 40 percent — and estimated to be worth a considerable 4.8 trillion forints ($20 billion)
@ Intriped
Buffet said to CNBC that he was looking to buy up equity of large eurozone companies if the price was cheap enough.
The bearish eurozone headline splatter is the usual market fodder directed towards softening those prices.
Wouldn’t get too excited unless you are a shareholder.
from MacroScope:
Give me liberty and give me cash!
Come back Mr Fukuyama, all is forgiven.
In his 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man", American political scientist Francis Fukuyama famously argued that all states were moving inexorably towards liberal democracy. His thesis that democracy is the pinnacle of political evolution has since been challenged by the violent eruption of radical Islam as well as the economic success of authoritarian countries such as China and Russia.
Now a study by Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital into the link between economic wealth and democracy seems to back Fukuyama.
Looking at 150 countries and over 60 years of history, RenCap found that countries are likely to become more democratic as they enjoyed rising levels of income with democracy virtually 'immortal' in countries with a GDP per capita above $10,000.
" Only five democracies above the $6,000 income level have died. Even democracies above the $6,000 level have a 99 percent chance of sustaining their political system each year. The only exceptions were the military coups in Greece in 1967 ($9,800), Argentina in 1976 ($8,180) and Thailand in 2006 ($7,440), and the events in Venezuela in 2009 ($9,115), as well as Iran in 2004 ($8,475)," RenCap global chief economist Charles Robertson writes.
The $6,000 per capita GDP seems to be a crucial level, marking the point where a country is likely to shift to democracy. Tunisia, which early this year triggered the wave of uprisings against autocracy across the Arab world, recently crossed that threshold.
Conversely, democracy is most fragile at the lowest income levels and when incomes are shrinking. The world's populous democracy, India, is a notable exception as its per capita income was under $800 from 1950-1967, and only exceeded $2,000 in 2003.
from MacroScope:
The iPod – the iCon of Chinese capitalism
Walking past Apple's sleek shop along London's Regent Street on Sunday, my wife asked me what I wanted for Father's Day.
"An iPad?" I ventured, half-jokingly.
"Are you sure you want one? Don't you care how they're made?" came her disapproving reply.
She was, of course, referring to the rash of suicides among Chinese workers at Foxconn, the Taiwanese manufacturer of Apple's much desired iPads and iPhones.
The deaths prompted the company to raise salaries and cut working hours but lingering concerns over conditions for its over 1 million workers in China were underscored by a plant explosion last month that killed at least 3 people.
Workers like those who live and work in Foxconn's sprawling Chinese facilities have long been the backbone of the country's vast manufacturing sector which churns out a torrent of consumer goods for export.
But the recent labour unrest that has erupted in parts of China suggests that this low-cost export-fuelled growth model may be wheezing towards its expiry date.
Thank you for your comment.
Apple is working with Foxconn to prevent more worker suicides, including auditing the Chinese plants of its supplier to ensure conditions comply with its standards.
The point of my blog is that the iPod is an interesting prism through which to view China’ economy and gauge its shift in emphasis from manufacturing and exports to domestic consumption.
At first glance, the iPod encapsulates China’s manufacturing prowess. It is able to assemble very sophisticated products at a cost that is low enough to attract global companies. So much so that these Made-in-China iPods and iPad contribute to the trade surplus in China’s favour against the U.S.
But a closer examination of the iPod story also reveals the limitations of the Chinese model. The country remains far behind in innovation and doesn’t own the intellectual property behind many of the products it exports.
A University of California study, for instance, found that the iPod accounted for almost 41,000 jobs worldwide in 2006, of which only 30 jobs were in manufacturing in the US.
But more than two thirds of all the wages paid to workers in the iPod value chain were estimated to have been paid to US workers.
from MacroScope:
The wavering faith of capitalism’s high priests
Yet another guardian of market orthodoxy has uttered what was once an unspeakable heresy.
This week, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's (EBRD) acknowledged that its old approach of encouraging growth in client economies by reducing the role of the state and fostering private ownership was "simplistic".
"The problem with this view is that markets cannot function properly unless there are well-run, effective public institutions in place," the London-based development bank said in its annual transition report.
The EBRD was set up at the end of the Cold War to help former Soviet bloc economies make the transition to free markets so this admission is startling to say the least.
Barely three years ago, the belief that untrammelled free markets were anything but a force of good was unassailable. Other tenets of this creed were that market forces could best allocate resources and that 'light-touch' regulation of the financial industry ensured growing prosperity for all.
Then the world economy was pushed to the brink. The proliferation of barely regulated financial derivatives amplified the spectacular housing bust in the U.S. globally, shaking faith in free markets to the core so much so that then-U.S. President George W. Bush was prompted to mount an extraordinary defense of capitalism.
from MacroScope:
What emerging animal are you?
Ever since Goldman Sach's Jim O'Neill came up with the idea of BRICs as an investment universe, competitors have been indulging in a global game of acronyms. Why not add Korea to Brazil, Russia, India and China and get a proper BRICK? Or include South Africa, as it wants, to properly upper case the "s" - BRICS or BRICKS?
Completely new lists have also been compiled -- HSBC chief Michael Geoghegan has championed CIVETS to describe Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa (ignoring the fact, as Reuters' Sebastian Tong points out here, that a civet is a skunk-like animal blamed for the spread of the deadly SARS outbreak in Asia).
Fun though some of this is -- and no one can argue that BRICs has not had an impact -- there is a danger that the acronym could become more relevant than the actual countries involved. For example, imagine Mexico, Uruguay, Panama, Philippines, Egypt, Turkey and Sierre Leone being lumped together because they spell MUPPETS.
With this in mind, the Spanish bank BBVA is now arguing that what is needed is a more dynamic concept, one that can remain in place acronymically, so to speak, but allow for new entrants without the need to rewrite everything. Enter BBVA's EAGLEs -- an Emerging And Growth-Leading Economy, defined by its incremental GDP rather than absolute size. The founding 10 are China, India, Brazil, Korea, Indonesia, Russia, Mexico, Turkey, Egypt and Taiwan.
But BBVA reckons that is not enough. It also has an EAGLE's nest, which included fledglings that might soon grow up to soar -- Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, Thailand, Colombia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Argentina, Peru and the Philippines.
MacroScope likes the idea of animals coming to the aid of investors and economists. It would like to suggest FERRETs -- Fast Emerging, Relatively Robust Economic Treasures. But it encourages anyone who feels inspired to submit their own suggestions.
Why not just rummage around in the ATTIC? Top performing regional fund sectors this year: ASEAN, Thailand, Turkey, Indonesia, Chile. (we’ll conveniently ignore the fact the Philippines is actually at the very top)
from Jeremy Gaunt:
The rule of three
It is beginning to look like financial markets cannot handle more than three risks. First we have, as MacroScope reported earlier, Barclays Wealth worrying about U.S. consumers, euro zone debt and Asian overheating.
Now comes Jim O'Neill and his economic team at Goldman Sachs, with three slightly different notions about risks in the second half, this time in the form of questions. To whit:
1) How deep will the U.S. economic slowdown be and what will the policy response be? (That's two questions, actually, but let's not nitpick).
2) How much decoupling is possible between the U.S. economy and others, notably China?
3) Will sovereign and systemic risks intensify again or settle?
For what it is worth, Goldman reckons none of the three should be too damaging:
"Our own forecasts envisage a period of some muddiness in the near-term that ultimately resolves towards a more positive global view. But given the fragilities in the system, we will be watching our various proprietary tooks ... and trying to stay open-minded."
Emerging markets pull through
Emerging market stocks have been a big favourite among investment managers this year, based on the view that long-term growth patterns remain in place despite the wobbles in developed economies. But it has not been an easy ride. MSCI’s emerging market stocks index has been in an out of positive territory for much of the year. It has just moved back into the black after a rally of more than 16 percent since late May.
from MacroScope:
What are the risks to growth?
Mike Dicks, chief economist and blogger at Barclays Wealth, has identified what he sees as the three biggest problems facing the global economy, and conveniently found that they are linked with three separate regions.
First, there is the risk that U.S., t consumers won't increase spending. Dicks notes that the increase in U.S. consumption has been "extremely moderate" and far less than after previous recessions. His firm has lowered is U.S. GDP forecast for 2011 to 2.7 percent from a bit over 3 percent.
Next comes the euro zone. While the wealth manager is not looking for any immediate collapse in EMU, Dicks reckons that without the ability to devalue, Greece and other struggling countries won't see any great improvement in competitiveness. Germany, in the meantime, has sped up plans to cut its own deficit. It leaves the Barclays Wealth's euro zone GDP forecast at just 1 percent for next year.
Finally, Asian growth is under threat from tightening policies. Dicks says this is the least problem of the three, but there are indications that powerhouse China needs a period of slower growth to get things under control.
So, there are three problems -- and a not very bright outlook. Are there any others? Or are these three all being overstated?
