Can Asians replace Americans as a driver of global growth?

ASIA’S emerging economies are bouncing back much more strongly than any others. While America’s industrial production continued to slide in May, output in emerging Asia has regained its pre-crisis level. This is largely due to China; but although production in the region’s smaller economies is still well down on a year ago, it is rebounding in those countries too. Taiwan’s industrial output rose by an annualised 80% in the three months to May compared with the previous three months. JPMorgan estimates that emerging Asia’s GDP has grown by an annualised 7% in the second quarter.

Asia’s ability to decouple from America reflects the fact that the region’s downturn was caused only partly by the slump in American activity. In most Asian economies falling domestic demand was more important than the drop in net exports in explaining the collapse in GDP growth. The surge in food and energy prices in the first half of 2008 squeezed profits and spending power. Tighter monetary policy aimed at curbing inflation then further choked domestic demand.

The recent recovery in industrial production reflects the end of destocking by manufacturers as well as the large fiscal stimulus by most governments. But the boost from both of these factors will fade. Meanwhile, export markets in developed economies are likely to remain weak. So the recovery in Asian economies will stumble unless domestic spending, notably consumption, perks up.

Consumers’ appetite to spend varies hugely across the region. In China, India and Indonesia spending has increased by annual rates of more than 5% during the global downturn. China’s retail sales have soared by 15% over the past year. This overstates the true growth rate because it includes government purchases, but official household surveys suggest that real spending is growing at a still-impressive rate of 9%. In the year to May, sales of household electronics were up by 12%, clothing by 22% and cars by a stunning 47%.

Elsewhere in the region, spending has stumbled, squeezed by higher unemployment and lower wages. In Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea real consumer spending was 4-5% lower in the first quarter than a year earlier, a much bigger drop than in America. But Frederic Neumann, an economist at HSBC, sees tentative signs that spending is picking up. Taiwan’s retail sales rose in May for the third consecutive month. Department-store sales in South Korea rose by 5% in the year to May.

It is often argued that emerging Asian economies have large current-account surpluses—and are thus not pulling their fair weight in the world—because consumers like to save rather than spend. Yet this does not really fit the facts. During the past five years consumer spending in emerging Asia has grown by an annual average of 6.5%, much faster than in any other part of the world. It is true that consumption has fallen as a share of GDP, but that is because investment and exports have grown even faster, not because spending has been weak. Relative to American consumer spending, Asian consumption has soared (see chart 2).

In most Asian economies, private consumption is 50-60% of GDP, which is not out of line with rates in countries at similar levels of income elsewhere. China, however, is an exception. Private consumption there fell from 46% of GDP in 2000 to only 35% last year—half that in America. In dollar terms, spending is only one-sixth of that in America. (Singapore’s consumption is also low, at just under 40% of GDP.)

This explains why China’s government has recently taken bolder action than others to boost consumption. Over the past six months the government in Beijing has introduced a host of incentives to encourage households to open their wallets. Rural residents get subsidies for buying vehicles and other goods such as televisions, refrigerators, computers and mobile phones; urban residents get a subsidy if they trade in cars and home appliances for new goods; tax rates on low-emission cars have also been cut. There is huge potential for higher consumption in the countryside as incomes rise: only 30% of rural households have a refrigerator, for example, compared with virtually all urban households.

The government has also introduced several measures this year to improve the social safety net, such as spending more on health care, pensions and payments to low-income households. On June 19th it ordered all state-owned firms that had listed on the stockmarket since 2005 to transfer 10% of their shares to the National Social Security Fund to shore up its assets. The short-term impact is likely to be modest but if such measures ease households’ worries about future pensions and health care, it could in the long term encourage them to save less and spend more.

Another way to boost consumption is to make it easier to borrow. In most Asian economies household debt is less than 50% of GDP, compared with around 100% in many developed economies; in China and India it is less than 15%. South Korea is the big exception: households have as much debt relative to their income as Americans and their saving rate has fallen over the past decade from 18% of disposable income to only 4%. In many other Asian economies financing for consumer durables is virtually nonexistent. Promisingly, the Chinese bank regulator announced draft rules in May to allow domestic and foreign institutions to set up consumer-finance firms to offer personal loans for consumer-goods purchases.

These measures are a modest step in the right direction. But a bigger test of Asian governments’ resolve to shift the balance of growth from exports towards domestic spending is whether they will allow their exchange rates to rise. A revaluation would lift consumers’ real purchasing power and give firms reason to shift resources towards producing for the domestic market. But so far, policymakers have been reluctant to let currencies rise too fast.

Asian spending is already an important engine of global growth. Even before the crisis, emerging Asia’s consumer spending contributed slightly more (in absolute dollar terms) to the growth in global demand than did America’s. But it could be even bigger if Asians enjoyed the full fruits of their hard labour, rather than subsidising Western consumers through undervalued currencies. It is time for an even greater shift in spending power from the West to the East.
(From Economist)

Global Capital Markets

A new report by the McKinsey Global Institute highlights the impact of the global financial crisis on global capital flows.

The global financial crisis and worldwide recession abruptly halted nearly three decades of expansion for international capital markets. From 1980 through 2007, the world’s financial assets—including equities, private and public debt, and bank deposits—nearly quadrupled in size relative to global GDP. Global capital flows similarly surged.

But the upheaval in financial markets in late 2008 broke this trend. The total value of the world’s financial assets fell by $16 trillion last year, to $178 trillion, the largest setback on record. One of the most striking consequences of the financial crisis was a steep drop-off in cross-border capital flows, which include foreign direct investment (FDI), purchases and sales of foreign equities and debt securities, and cross-border lending and deposits. These capital flows fell 82 percent, to just $1.9 trillion, from $10.5 trillion in 2007. (A sharp drop in cross-border lending was the biggest reason capital flows dried up.) The trend appears to have continued in the first quarter of 2009, with global capital flows falling to an estimated $1.5 trillion on an annualized basis.

The Next Crisis: Coming in 2011

According to Anthony Tjan who is the CEO, Managing Partner and Founder of Cue Ball (a venture and early growth equity firm investing in the information media and consumer sectors), believes that the next crisis is coming in 2011.

With the Dow reapproaching a five-figure level, we have felt at least some temporary economic reprieve in recent months. But Anthony has talked to many astute people recently (both Democrats and Republicans) who question the stability of the upturn. Some of those who believe that this might be a dead cat bounce, or what economists term a double-dip recession, are pretty damn smart. Among them is Harvard University professor Martin Feldstein, who explained in a recent interview with CNBC that the massive stimulus is supporting the upturn and that support runs out by 2010. We may be in a precarious position by 2011.

Bill Achtmeyer - Chairman and Managing Partner of the Parthenon Group, agrees that macroeconomics eventually win out and we should carefully brace ourselves for what might loom ahead — the next crisis in 2011.

Flexibility within and among locations can help companies respond to changing conditions

Manufacturers of all types seek the same Holy Grail: the strategy that delivers products at the lowest possible total landed cost. In search of that goal, over the past few years companies all over the world have relocated facilities, outsourced production to low-cost countries, invested in automation, consolidated plants, or fundamentally redefined relationships with suppliers.

Establishing the cheapest manufacturing footprint becomes infinitely more elusive when basic assumptions change fast and furiously, as they have in the past year. Redesigning the footprint can be the biggest and most important transformation a manufacturer can undertake. Yet too many managers choose the footprint by using only a single set of future cost and demand assumptions. Any manufacturing footprint exposes companies to risks, such as changes in local and global demand, currency exchange rates, labor and transportation costs, or even trade regulation. A wrong bet can transform what should be a competitive advantage into a mess of underutilized or high-cost assets.

The missing ingredient in many manufacturing-strategy decisions is a careful consideration of the value of flexibility. Companies that build it into their manufacturing presence can respond more nimbly to changing conditions and outperform competitors with less flexible footprints. To capture this value and gain the best position for responding to future economic changes, all companies should integrate flexibility into their manufacturing-footprint or sourcing decisions.
(From McKinsey Quarterly)

New Financial Power Brokers

Let me share the abstract from a recent article published in Mckinsey Quarterly. Last year’s events have altered the fortunes of the four large groups of investors—oil exporters, Asian sovereign investors, hedge funds, and private-equity firms—described as “the new power brokers” in a 2007 report from the McKinsey Global Institute. That MGI study analyzed their rapid rise in wealth and clout at a time of soaring crude prices, expanding trade, and cheap credit. Although the boom years ended in late 2008 as the financial crisis escalated and the global economy slumped, new MGI research shows that the power brokers fared relatively well. But their future paths have diverged: petrodollar and Asian sovereign investors are more influential than ever, while the rapid growth of hedge funds and private-equity firms has halted abruptly.

What’s the difference between the chicken and the egg?

What’s the difference between the chicken and the egg? The chicken is a lot more work to eat — feathers and such — but offers a lot more opportunity for a good meal.

Which came first? It really doesn’t matter, although first-mover advantage is a great thing to have. But, how much risk the chicken faced crossing the road is a pretty big deal, and stops many from choosing the chicken. So, whether you pick the chicken or the egg, you face some pretty tough decisions.

This is a simplistic way to think about opportunities and rewards, market choices and risk. However, meeting change head-on, making tough choices and assuming risk seems to be the only constant among today’s most successful businesses.

Risk aversion is part of human nature. There is comfort in knowing your surroundings, knowing what is safe, and knowing what works and what doesn’t. Unfortunately, businesses today trying to play by yesterday’s rules are in a difficult position.

All is not lost — many companies have developed ways to cope with today’s environment, and the most successful have figured out their identity is tied to serving their customers.

Shifting to a focus on what customers want instead of on what a company is comfortable making is a good first step toward adapting to today’s marketplace. Second, fostering an accountable entrepreneurial environment seems to be a must. Third, investing in the pursuit of markets, wherever they are, is a strategy full of uncertainty, but often presents the opportunities with the highest rewards. And, finally, marketing, marketing, marketing — it builds brands, protects all the effort that has gone before and leads to new opportunities.

Agreements are dictated more by politics than by economics

Something is usually better than nothing. Shorn of all of the economic jargon and legal niceties, that is the logic behind the booming business in bilateral trade deals that is sweeping Asia. As the Doha round of world trade talks languishes, Asia’s trading nations say that they cannot afford to sit on their hands and wait for Doha to revive. Better, they argue, to loosen up trade with simpler deals between a couple of countries or, if you are truly ambitious, a handful.

Some regional trade deals in the right circumstances have indeed added to economic well-being. But the sorts of deals that are now being signed in Asia, just when multilateral trade desperately needs supporting, are likely to do less for their countries’ economies than for the egos of the politicians who sponsor them. Taken as a trend, they amount to a dangerous erosion of the system of multilateral trade on which global prosperity depends.