Complete Intelligence

Login

Month: October 2020

Categories
Podcasts

BBC Business Matters: Purdue Pharma pleads guilty to criminal charges for opioid sales

Tony Nash joins Rahul Tandon at the BBC for Business Matters podcast where they discussed the opioid sales and crisis in the United States as the maker of OxyContin painkiller, Purdue Pharma, agreed on a plea bargain and an $8 billion settlement. They also discussed Tesla’s rise in the market, the different protests in the world like in Hong Kong, Thailand, and the US, social gatherings in the COVID era with hockey, football, the Indian festival called Durga Puja, and dogs VS cats.

 

This podcast was published on October 22, 2020 and the original source can be found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172x18zvp5cvgn

 

BBC Business Matters Description:

 

The maker of OxyContin painkillers has reached an $8.3bn settlement and agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges to resolve a probe of its role in fuelling America’s opioid crisis. Purdue Pharma will admit to enabling the supply of drugs “without legitimate medical purpose”. The deal with US Department of Justice resolves some of the most serious claims against the firm. But it still faces thousands of cases brought by states and families. We hear from Pete Jackson, who got involved in advocacy after losing his daughter in 2006. He thinks that only jail time for those responsible can bring any sense of justice to bereaved families.

 

Also in the programme, Kolkata in India is celebrating the Hindu festival of Durga Puja. Millions of people normally go to temporary temples or pandals that are set up as the city shuts down for four days, and it’s an important part of the city’s economy. But as the BBC’s Rahul Tandon reports, it’s now at the centre of a court battle over striking a balance between saving the economy and saving lives.

 

Plus – we discuss Tesla’s tremendous results as well as football finance. Premier League football club Manchester United registered a $30m loss in the pandemic. Kieran Maguire wrote The Price of Football and is a lecturer in sports finance at Liverpool University, and tells us what’s behind the loss. Meanwhile, there is talk of Manchester United being one of the clubs in a proposed new European Super League. Tom Greatrex of the English Football Supporters Association is a member of the FA Council, which oversees the game in England, and gives us his reaction to the idea.

 

With guests Jodi Schneider in Hong Kong and Tony Nash in Houston

 

Show Notes

 

RT: Tony, this is an important settlement, isn’t it? Because the scale of the opioid crisis in the United States is huge.

 

TN: Yeah, it’s terrible because Purdue was pushing doctors to prescribe this medicine to people knowing that it was addictive. So there is culpability through the company and into the shareholders. They need to do what’s called piercing the corporate veil. They need to go to the investors behind it, which is the Sackler family. And they are culpable because, as your guest said, they were pulling the strings. So there has to be accountability. Otherwise, why have a legal system? Why have any consumer protections?

 

RT: You say that the fact that they are culpable, obviously, they would deny that. But as we heard from the father there who lost his daughter, he wants to see further justice. Do you think that’s going to happen? And if that is the timing of this settlement significant coming before the elections? Because we know President Trump had said that he wanted to deal with the opioid crisis. Are you surprised that when this judgment has been now reached, this settlement has been reached?

 

TN: I really don’t know. It may be meaningful. I really haven’t thought about that. But you’re right. President Trump really has focused on the opioid epidemic and partly because a lot of his voters are people who’ve been affected by it. For them to see some sort of accountability is critically important. But do I think there will be? I think almost everybody is skeptical that there will actually be accountability for anybody who’s a billionaire. Like nobody who’s a billionaire pays for anything. So in America, it doesn’t happen. So until the Sangar family is bankrupt, I don’t think most Americans will be happy.

 

RT: Do you think the opioid crisis has been overshadowed, obviously, this year because of the coronavirus that to some extent people have forgotten about it?

 

TN: It hasn’t necessarily played high within media, but I think those families who are affected, they’re affected by it every day of the week. So I don’t think on a personal level it’s disappeared. But certainly in terms of kind of column space and air time, it’s disappeared.

 

RT: As Jodi said, it’s not just Hong Kong. It’s not just Thailand. We’ve seen these huge protests in the US. Black Lives Matter protests taking place there as well. Some thought the year of the protests was over. Clearly not.

 

TN: Thailand is a different case because this is a continuation of probably 20 years of protests in Thailand, going back to Thaksin, coming to power. And when you think about Thailand presently, General Pride has been in power for years. He wasn’t elected. He was installed by the monarchy and by the military to rule over Thailand. So you have a Thai population that’s become accustomed to democracy, who is outspoken enough to say we actually want democracy back. And it’s different. Hong Kong is similar, but it hasn’t quite gone as far as Thailand. The CCP hasn’t necessarily installed generals overseeing Hong Kong yet, but Thais want their democracy back.

 

RT: Elon Musk is somebody of really out of the news. But it is one of the business stories of this year that the rise and rise of Tesla.

 

TN: Tesla now trades at about 1,100 times earnings, which is incredible. Maybe a 30 times earnings, but not one thousand one at a time. What’s really interesting to note is Tesla’s chief accounting officer just filed an insider sales record to sell thousands of shares. I think it’s 50 some thousand shares. It’s interesting that their chief accounting officer is actually selling. It’s a sign that the price is very high. It’s great that they’re reporting earnings. That really hasn’t been enough time to look at their books to understand what’s been done. But I’m glad Tesla is making money. It’s just hard for them to do it in a consistent way.

 

RT: Tony, I think you are you’re a fan of the Navratri festival, are you not?

 

TN: Absolutely, yes. We celebrate every year, and I’m not Hindu, but my youngest son is Indian. And so we always try to make a point of the cultural festivals and we just love it. It’s fantastic.

 

RT: Social gatherings have become part of the presidential election campaign, haven’t they? We’re seeing two very contrasting strategies here from Donald Trump, who has larger gatherings, and Joe Biden who doesn’t.

 

TN: It’s interesting to see the turnout, it’s interesting to see the response and I think in most places, getting crowds together is really important with elections. In the US, elections have become somewhat sanitary. We saw this really start with Obama and we saw it accelerate with Trump, where people get together in big crowds in a way that they haven’t for quite some time. So it’s become important to the US election cycle.

 

RT: As we come out of the pandemic, many things are going to change. We’re probably going to do a lot more online shopping than go to shops. Is that something that we’re going to see with sports? It’s something that clubs are going to get going to have to get used to, which is maybe less fans in the stadium. And it is going to become more of a televised experience, even if that’s difficult for some of the smaller clubs.

 

TN: I’m not an ice hockey fan, so I don’t know what Manchester United is so tired.

 

RT: They’re a football club. But I’m glad that you confirmed what I’ve always thought that they played.

 

TN: I’m an American football fan, college football fan, very avid. I’ve been to the stadium to see college football games. And and it’s great. I think to take measures, you wash your hands and nobody got sick and nobody died. It was great. As people socialize, this can happen. And if people need to increase the state attendance at stadiums from 25 percent and then ramp it up, that’s fine.But we’ve got to re-socialize. We have to redo this stuff. And I’ve done it. I’m going to do it again in a couple of weeks. There is such a thing as normal and we can get back there.

 

RT: Dogs and cats, huh?

 

TN: Dogs, definitely dogs. I actually got a new dog just before Covid hit. He’s a beautiful pound puppy and his name is Buddy. It was the perfect timing. I understand all these people getting dogs during Covid and other pets, although not cats, but definitely dogs during Covid. And it‘s just a great companion to be around.

 

RT: Has that helped you during this period a lot?

 

TN: I lived in Singapore for 15 years and we got a dog there that was a smaller dog back here. Our new dog is bigger and he makes me walk him twice a day. So it’s good. I haven’t been able to lounge around from sunrise to sunset. And he’s very needy, which is necessary. I’ve got three kids and they’re needy, but the dog is needy in a different way. So I’m more determined and more selfish about behavior, actually. So it’s been really good to have him because he doesn’t stop.

Categories
QuickHit

QuickHit: The Great Decoupling and the Future of US-China Relations (Part 2)

This is Part 2 of the first ever QuickHit #CageMatch with political-economic advisor Albert Marko and China expert Christopher Balding on the great decoupling of US and China. The second part of this is on the Belt And Road Initiative and the answer that the US may have to the BRI. We also talked about the corporate activities — are the US and China targeting corporates? How does that work and how would that play within the environment of decoupling.

 

For the first part, we’ve covered the US foreign policy, looking at Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia. We looked at US-China trade and a number of other aspects around the US-China relationship. 

 

💌 Subscribe to CI Newsletter and gain AI-driven intelligence.

📺 Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.

📈 Check out the CI Futures platform to forecast currencies, commodities, and equity indices

 

This QuickHit episode was recorded on October 14, 2020.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this QuickHit episode are those of the guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any content provided by our guests are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any political party, religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.

 

SHOW NOTES

 

TN: Now let’s let’s move along a little bit more into economics and talk about the Belt and Road Initiative, which something that I actually worked on for about a year and a half. There’s been some talk in the last few months about the anglosphere and will the West have an answer to the BRI. Does the US need a response to the BRI as a government initiative and if so, do you think they can do it? That question is from @Sw33tYams.

 

CB: Just as rappers get shown to the VIP room, if you’re a country and you are offering goodies, you’re gonna get shown to the VIP room in whatever country you go to. That doesn’t mean it has to be the Trump and air initiative. We do need to think about and we should absolutely put effort into how can the US provide positive things to countries.

 

Why don’t we set up an office that says, I have a company in China that makes XYZ product and they want to move out of China. We have a database of where to go. I know bankers in Vietnam that we’re like, “hey we’re just getting slammed. Why doesn’t the US have an office of infrastructure for emerging markets like Vietnam to help get migrating Chinese companies, those types of goodies, even in a lot of different forms it could take, are going to open a lot more doors than just saying it’s the right thing to do.

 

AM: I agree. But it’s also gonna need a little bit of help from our partners specifically Australia, the UK plus Japan. Basically five I’s plus Japan. It’s going to need shared cost. Supply chains have to move. It’s going to take a little while. It’s going to take a little bit effort from everybody.

 

TN: So it’s basically a government kind of somewhat directed but not necessarily directly involved. What you’re saying is Americans will take a a little easier hand than the Chinese kind of very direct hand in say
these multilateral or multi-country activities. Is that fair to say?

 

CB: I can give one example I was told about and this is something I’m surprised hasn’t gotten more attention. The Commerce Department apparently has a tariff waiver program where if you say, “look, we have this plant in China. It’s facing tariffs. Here’s our 180-day plan to get to move our production to Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Africa wherever.” The Commerce Department will give you a waiver for, whatever time period if you give them a plan. That’s the kind of stuff that should be more publicized and the US government is taking an active role to partner with business to say, “you take the lead and if you’re doing it, we’ll help you.”

 

TN: Let me throw you the next question, Albert. This is from @Ellis_Greenwood. How long will it take the US to decouple from China? So if we assume what Chris just talked about with some of the say Commerce Department activities, these other things, does the US really wanted to decouple from China fully and if so, how long will it take to get either to that level or to say a desired level that that US companies would want to?

 

AM: A desired level is the right term. We’re not going to fully decouple from China. That’s just absurd. When they’re talking about moving supply chains, I’ve heard all sorts of 15, 20 years to one year and it actually depends on each sector. It’s a lot easier to move a software gaming company rather than a pharmaceutical manufacturing company. It can take anywhere from one year to ten to fifteen years.

 

TN: What do you think about that, Chris?

 

CB: I think that’s generally accurate. A lot of the stuff that China was known for over the years, like let’s say low-wage manufacturing, assembly, that type of stuff… I mean Apple set up, a plant in India, which can make iPhones in about 18 months. As Albert pointed out, people think of decoupling as there’s not going to be trade between the US and China. I think what you’re really seeing is this move to bipolar supply chain worlds especially in tech. So there’s going to be a China-specific manufacturing world for tech stuff and a non-China because, you can already see the US government and other governments and even companies saying, “hey, your tech is not been touched by China.”

 

TN: Frankly, I believe that’s what China has wanted all along is their own Chinese ecosystem and then a rest of world ecosystem so they can control that technology and the messaging over that technology. That’s what they had 20 years ago, and there’s been the things overlapping for the last 10 years and I believe that deep down, they really want a separation of those things.

 

This is @candideXXI, “what will be the political and economic pressures outcomes produced by the ending of Chinese investment and the debt expansionary cycle,” which is an interesting question but maybe going to one or two things. Underlying that question is, is that expected to happen? A lot of people have this question on their brain but I don’t necessarily see that happening in the next three to five years. These things tend to go a lot longer than many people assume.

 

CB: Let’s assume that China went to 0% debt growth right now. Honestly, China would be in flames by the end of the day. It would explode. Xi would be lynched by the end of the day. The number that I saw and it’s a staggering number, is debt to GDP in China this year is going to increase by upwards of 30%. So it’s going to go from 300% to 330% in one year. That’s a staggering number. I don’t see they’re going to keep this going as long as possible. For them to get this under control is going to be at least a 10, 20 year cycle at best. And in all likelihood, they’re headed for North Korean financial system with Japanese debt. That’s the only logical outcome. Because if they were to open up the capital markets, the RMB would drop 50% easy.

 

TN: So what you’re saying is, there’s a possibility that CNY could be a global currency?

 

CB: That’s exactly what I’m saying, yes. Exactly what I’m saying.

 

AM: Yeah I agree with Chris here. China’s well within the Euro Dollar system. They need dollars. They can’t get away from Dollars. They need it for their debt. They multiply it out to issue more Renmimbis out to the emerging markets. They’re not leaving and they’re not getting out of the system.

 

TN: Let’s take it more into the corporate realm as well. When we look at like Huawei and Tiktok and some of the Chinese companies that have a large international presence, given the dynamics at home, if the US continues to cut off these companies and some of their crucial activities overseas, how does that bend back onto China? How dire is it? Is it not a big deal or is it pretty dire not just in terms of acquiring technology but in terms of actually making money and keeping the home markets floating?

 

AM: That’s the name of the game is making money for them. They need dollars from overseas desperately. Without that, their entire financial system implodes. They go out to Africa and then they loan out Renminbis and they expect money paid back in dollars at all times. So without the dollar, they’re just buying time.

 

CB: Especially in the tech sector, these are guys that maybe have been abroad for a fair amount of time. They want to emulate the Googles. They want to be international. They think of themselves as cosmopolitan even if they grew up in the system. And so, even though they might be pro-China, which is different than like pro-CCP, they want to be a part of that global tech scene. To have those limitations on them is a constraint that they don’t necessarily like. But that’s the reality of the system that they find themselves in.

 

TN: So will they change their behaviors to align with the constraints outlined by the US or will they remain true to what the CCP tells them to do and their business will suffer internationally?

 

CB: Business will suffer internationally because the reality is, as a Chinese business, you can’t get away from that. As soon as Jack Ma says I’m gonna obey the SEC and file this type of audit, they get blown up in China.

 

AM: They can walk a tight rope until they absolutely get pressured by the Chinese government and then they have to fall in line. There’s no other choice for them.

 

TN: We’ve seen more Chinese IPOs in the four years of Trump than we saw under the eight years of Obama. First of all, why is that? Are they just trying to cash in and get dollars into their companies or is there some other reason? Is it possible to continue that pace?

 

AM: I think they’re just taking advantage of the market and being able to cash in and cash out as fast as they possibly can. Do I think it’s sustainable? Absolutely not. This market’s overbought and eventually there’ll be a correction and on top of that I think that the US government needs to have some reasonable accounting standards for Chinese companies that refuse to open their books for transparency. It boggles my mind. At this point, why should I just go to China, buy a company and list it on the NASDAQ for some absurd amount of money. There’s nothing saying that I need to open my books. It’s absolutely crazy.

 

CB: This is one of the most frustrating arguments by the China apologists because when you make the same argument that Google, Goldman whoever is not subject to the SEC or US jurisdiction on US financial markets, you make that argument, then I will entertain your argument about Chinese companies. Until then, it’s nonsensical.

 

TN: Okay. So let me just sum this up. China is the biggest US foreign policy issue. China is in an untenable position of having their companies locked down or some of their companies locked down by the US. They have a shortage of dollars. They have unsustainable debt and if the current US policies continue, at least Albert thinks that Chinese leadership is in peril. So, what glass half full view am I not seeing?

 

CB: This is in a way very predictable in the sense that they sit down in November, December and they say, “Okay this is our target for 2021” whatever it is. And because you can see that those numbers are almost so stunningly predictable and what’s amazing is they have a very good idea of what their leakages are going to be. That money that gets leaked out in Macau gaming chips or Bitcoin and all that other good stuff, they know what they have to hit. My favorite thing of all this is that almost nobody knows that they’re already rationing US dollars. Most banks in China have the one-to-one rule that you have to bring in a dollar to send out a dollar. As long as they can continue to balance those books through, it can keep up for a while.

 

AM: I’m at a loss for words almost on that one. For the Chinese, you would hope that they understand how bipolar systems work and understanding the Apple versus Microsoft component as like let the one guy be big and you fill in the gaps and everybody be copacetic. I don’t know if I can buy that for very long. But
that’s my only hope is Xi, if Trump is elected, which I am speculating that he is, comes to this realization and says, “let’s tone down the pressure. Let’s fulfill the Phase One Deal, Phase Two Deal” whatever they want to go into. Make inroads and just ratchet down the tensions.

 

TN: Last question guys. Albert, I know you’ve done a lot of forecasting for the presidential election. What do you think is going to happen? You have some really interesting views and I’d love to hear why and Chris also as he’s talking, it’s your first time to be back here. What are some of your observations and expectations as well.

 

AM: I know we’re seeing all sorts of polling numbers that are just eye-popping and just I cannot believe publishers actually put this out to print. 15 points for Biden. 11 points for Biden.

 

CB: Just today, I actually saw this poll saying Biden up 17.

 

AM: It boggles my mind how these people just either they miss statistics class or just don’t know how to add. But for Biden to be up 17 points, you would have to assume the Democrats come out in some kind of record 80 turnout and on top of that have the republicans, 15 of them either not show up or vote for Biden.

 

TN: But even Reagan’s 84 blowout wasn’t a 17-point win, was it?

 

AM: No. This is what’s boggling to me. I just don’t understand it.

 

We know what California is going to do. We know what New York’s going to do. We just toss those aside. If you look at Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona, those are the states that you really have to look at and in almost every single state, the Republicans have gained hundreds of thousands of new registrations. And even in the polling that’s done out there, there’s a few pieces of data that 96 or 94 of Republicans have an approval of Donald Trump. How do you get to 17 point lead, when 94% of Republicans support Donald Trump. That’s just unbelievable to me. The Economist has been my favorite lately of the 99.9% victory for Joe Biden over Donald Trump.

 

These are just silly numbers people throw out there. Coming out of lockdowns, they’re doing 100 phone polling so they have no opportunity to go out to the public and see who they’re talking to. And study after study has shown that Republican voters have been not just shy vote, but actually spiteful of the pollsters and purposely saying that they’re going to vote for Biden. That’s how you get to these 17 point numbers.

 

CB: I try to stay away from politics as much as possible especially on China and stuff like that because whether it is Trump or Biden, I see what we’re in with China as a 20 to 40-year type of challenge. So at some point, there’s going to be Republicans, at some point there’s going to be Democrats. Just from a social perspective and Tony I think you can identify with this. Man, America’s crazy.

 

TN: Democracy is messy, right?

 

CB: I’m a live and let live kind of guy. So if you’re a Democrat, if you’re a Republican, if you’re a Green or a Libertarian, I don’t really care. We can still sit down and smoke a cigar. And I think the thing that just amazes me is America just seems angry and it seemed really angry for a long time.

 

We can all talk about Trump, but both parties can point to things that the others have done that is unethical, that is abnormal. We need to be better citizens to each other. We need to accept losses that, it’s not going to be our time all the time. The political golden rule is don’t advocate a policy that you don’t want used against you.

 

AM: I attribute the hate that we’re seeing now, the polarization, squarely on the weaponization of social media. Completely. Because we can sit there and put out a viral post of someone, take a phrase taken out of context and making that person look like just a demonic figure and then dox the guy, show him his address and have 15 people show up to the house with pitchforks and and torches. It’s just insane. There’s got to be some kind of accountability on social media by either the government or social media standards themselves.

 

TN: Social media doesn’t have standards, Albert, because I know you’re both active on social media.

 

CB: The way I always think about it is, a country or a political party is like a family barbecue. We’ve all gone to those family barbecues and go, “who are these losers that are at this family barbecue?” And if you aren’t going to your own political party or your own country and going, “dang these are some losers I’m hanging out with,” okay I mean, you’re doing it all wrong.

Categories
Podcasts

Markets Pause As Wells, BOFA Miss And Stimulus Remain Distant

In this discussion with BFM 89.9, Tony Nash shares views on the recent bank earnings, update on Brexit and why it’s stalled, the future of Hong Kong and how vaccine news play for markets.

 

This podcast first appeared and originally published at https://www.bfm.my/podcast/morning-run/market-watch/markets-pause-as-wells-bofa-miss-and-stimulus-remain-distant on October 15, 2020.

 


BFM Description

 

The diminishing likelihood of stimulus and poor bank earnings have paused stock markets for now, as electioneering ramps up ahead of November polls, according to Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, who discusses bank earnings, market expectations as well as Brexit.

 

Produced by: Mike Gong

 

Presented by: Khoo Hsu Chuang, Wong Shou Ning

 

Show Notes

 

KHC: On the line with us now is Tony of Complete Intelligence for some clarity on markets. Tony, thanks for talking to us. Now, obviously, the Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs have all reported results so far. What is your take on the financial sector earnings thus far?

 

TN: Goldman obviously reported really well, Bank of America is down five percent. There was a huge disappointment there. Could get worse. A lot of that had to do with these penalties that were levied several weeks ago. But it looks like the investment banks are doing much better than the consumer banks. And until we get a next round of stimulus and we start to see money moving into the accounts of those guys who are unemployed, which is not a small number in the US, I think consumer banks will continue to suffer.

 

KHC: On that particular issue of the impasse in terms of a stimulus being introduced before elections, what is the biggest deterrent to consensus being reached on that front?

 

TN: One of the biggest issues is that you have a lot of states, all of them that are Democrat states that are heavily indebted. So what the House majority leader is pushing is a bailout program for those Democrat states like California, New York, Illinois, that have have billions of dollars in debt that have been racked up over the last 10 or 20 years. What are typically Republican states typically have balanced budgets. It would effectively be the Republican states bailing out the Democrat states. It’s a problem here in the US.

 

The other item is the House majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, wants to give stimulus checks to illegal immigrants in the US. She wants to give a few thousand dollars to people who are in the US illegally. And the Republicans are saying, no, why would we do that? So those are two of the things that are really holding things up in terms of the stimulus plan. And it’s electioneering. Democrats want to give money to the party faithful in their heavily indebted blue states. And they also want to try to get some votes from the illegal aliens who aren’t legally allowed to vote. But they want to get some loyalty from those illegal immigrants who are in the US.

 

WSN: Another thing that seems to be having an impact on markets is vaccine news. So every time we hear of a vaccine trial feeding, markets correct. Is it possible at all to quantify how much of this is in the markets really in terms of optimism?

 

TN: Remember, in 2019, every day, whenever we needed a bump in markets, Trump would tweet, a trade deal is near. And then we finally had the phase one deal in December. It seems like whenever there’s a tweet or some news about a vaccine, it’s because a bump in markets is needed. There’s a lot of cynicism among traders about vaccine. Until we see something actually proven and actually in a market, you’re not going to see a real firm belief in the difference it can make. So it’s going to be at least Q1 or so before we see things deployed.

 

We don’t necessarily expect the benefits to happen until 2021. But the problem, at least here in the US, is that nobody wants to be the guinea pig. At least half of Americans surveyed don’t want to be the first one. They’re going to have to see some high-level politicians go in, roll up their sleeves, get the job and and really face the consequences, if there are any negative consequences, because a lot of Americans just aren’t believers and they’re really worried about the effects of it.

 

KHC: OK, switching to the UK, if the UK fails to negotiate a Brexit deadline deal today, how should investors position themselves? And would you recommend shorting sterling assets?

 

TN: I think it’s a possibility. I don’t know if I’d necessarily recommend it, because I think the status quo is baked in to expectations. We haven’t necessarily had a positive outlook to negotiations for two or three years now. I think the expectation is that things will continue to muddle through and markets will fold that end. So I don’t know. Outside of a very positive agreement for the UK, I don’t necessarily think there’s huge upside anywhere.

 

And outside of a very negative concession given by the UK, I don’t think there’s huge downside anywhere because the EU is just intransigent there. They’ve been embarrassed by this whole process. They don’t want to negotiate and they’re not moving at all. So I think we’re in the range of where things will be outside of a major announcement somewhere.

 

WSN: Looking at China yesterday or a few days ago, his speech has outlined a comprehensive vision of for Shenzhen. What does this mean for Hong Kong’s economic future? Do you see a bright, a bleak one for the city street?

 

TN: Hong Kong’s fate was sealed in 2014 with the demonstrations. And I’ve been saying this since twenty fifteen. At that time, the MDC and the folks in the central government were planning on other options for the activities that were happening in Hong Kong. What we saw with the announcement in Shenzhen yesterday was simply cementing Shenzhen’s place, the central city at the end of the PRD, right at the end of the Pearl River Delta.

 

And so Hong Kong is no longer the central location. It is a place to get hard currency. But it’s no longer an industrial location. I believe we’ll start to see financial services move to other places over the next ten years. Not an overnight activity, but it’s something that certainly the central government wants to happen.

 

KHC: OK, Tony, thanks so much for your time. That was Tony Nash of Complete Intelligence.

 

His comments in terms of of China also resonate because we’ve got certain diplomats, a top ranking government officials coming to the Asian region for a charm offensive, but also his comments on banks, a tale of two halves, really, consumer banks that well said Bank of America really failed to meet expectations. They did beat expectations, but they felt some way of sort of you and your performance numbers. But then the investment banks like Goldman Sachs have done really well because of the trading desks and the stimulus checks that were written in the third quarter.

 

WSN: Yeah, actually, 2020 is the reverse of 2008 during the great financial crisis. If you remember then American banks itself, all the investment banks. Right, because of the derivative losses in the books exposed to the shuffle in equity markets. But this time around, actually, the volatility has really helped them. So for a change, they’ve seen incredible jumps in trading investment income. But it’s the main street banks which are feeling the pinch. So, yes, there’s an increase in deposits for these banks.

 

But for the consumer banks, for the main street banks, nobody or less people are taking out loans, is less credit cut usage as a result. So, you know, no such not such good times for the consumer banks. Better for the. And bad guys out there.

 

KHC: Now, of course, and Morgan Stanley reports tomorrow we saw net interest margin set wells and Bank of America really being crushed as well. And not many, not many companies reporting earnings are giving outlook statements.

Categories
QuickHit

QuickHit: The Great Decoupling and the Future of US-China Relations (Part 1)

This is the first ever QuickHit #CageMatch with a returning guest, political-economic advisor Albert Marko, and China expert Christopher Balding with us for the first time. This is Part 1 of a 2-part discussion. Visit this page for the second part.

 

Albert Marko helps a couple of financial firms, members of congress, and a couple governments  to manage and navigate their way through the beltway and the legislative issues and the politics and how the economic, how the federal reserve and all the economic policies filter down. Albert is also the co-founder and COO of Favore Media Group.

 

Christopher Balding spends most of his time on the phone talking to people about the data about China. He is a two-time winner of Lifetime Achievement awards and a Professor at Fulbright University Vietnam.

 

Subscribe to CI Newsletter and gain AI-driven intelligence.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.

Check out the CI Futures platform to forecast currencies, commodities, and equity indices

Follow Tony on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd

Follow Albert on Twitter: https://twitter.com/amlivemon

Follow Chris on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BaldingsWorld

 

This QuickHit episode was recorded on October 14, 2020.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this QuickHit episode are those of the guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any content provided by our guests are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any political party, religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.

 

Show Notes

 

TN: We’ve got a bunch of questions off of Twitter and the first one is from @AxeRendale: If you were in charge of U.S. foreign policy. What are the top things you would change from the status quo? They asked about five things. I don’t think we have that much time. So, what are a couple things? Let’s say two things in terms of U.S. foreign policy that you would change. Of course we have the election coming up but regardless of the individual. We’ve seen some status quo upheaval over the past few years but what would you really change not just the top line but the way the U.S. acts?

 

AM: I would immediately start looking at South America and Africa and identifying and eliminating or at least hampering Chinese and Russian interests there, specifically Venezuela would be my number one choice right now. The Chinese and the Russians, they have a field day there. There’s almost no U.S. intervention in there and the same goes for parts of Africa. I know we have troops in Mali and Niger and a couple places to deal with terrorism but just solidifying some of the countries out there like Morocco, Angola and preventing the Chinese from making inroads. I would put make that a priority.

 

CB: So I would agree with Albert in general terms but maybe take it in a slightly different direction. The Trump administration has done a good job shifting the focus to the larger problems and China and taking those policy steps that are well within their grasp.

 

What needs to be the next step, and whether this is under a Trump administration or Biden administration, is the reality is that you can’t handle these issues on the cheap. The Germans and Asian countries are not just going to be persuaded by the moral rightness of confronting China.

 

Just to give you two examples of where you might see something. If the U.S. was to offer even to European countries to fund 5G rollout at like 0% interest loans because that what China is doing. This the way they run the finances is basically giving away the 5G gear. If the U.S. made like 0% interest loans, you could fund that if it was in some type of like a levered development finance corporation structure, where with a couple billion dollars a year honestly, globally. You could do that entire project globally and on the U.S. budget, a couple billion dollars a year is almost couch cushion money.

 

TN: Right, and this is similar to how Japan is competing with China for infrastructure in parts of Asia, right? They’re giving no interest or extreme like 0.3% interest loans for infrastructure, right?

 

CB: Yeah, exactly. Like in Vietnam, where I can speak a little bit more authoritatively, they’re not fans of China. At the same time, they recognize they have to work with China. It’s a very pragmatic approach. At the same time, they we want to give the French certain pieces of the pie, also the Americans. Vietnam is actively trying to balance where their economic investment comes from so that they don’t become too dependent on any one source.

 

TN: Yep, it’s smart.

 

AM: The only issue I have with that is that you’re absolutely correct and that’s exactly what should be done  but it’s depending on the European partners to even come to play ball. Because, within the European Union themselves, there’s competing interests on all sides. And it’s difficult for the United States to try to compete with the Chinese who give 99-year loans for infrastructure in Africa to dictate which European Nation gets a slice of the pie when they’re all conflicting with themselves to begin with. So that’s the only thing I’d have to
say about that.

 

TN: That’s an interesting point. China is very successful in terms of foreign policy by peeling off one member of a block at a time and there’s no better example than the way they peeled off Cambodia from ASEAN in order to break the voting block that’s necessary to get anything through there. They’ve done the same with the E.U. with say Portugal or Greece, right? Do you see the U.S. being able to do that, go and interrupt a block by getting say a single or a couple of allies there? Because I haven’t seen the U.S. do that all that successfully say for 20 years. Do you think we can do that successfully again?

 

AM: I think that we absolutely can be that successful if we actually had the will to do it. The problem is the Chinese are just literally filling in the gaps. The vacuums that the United States have left, and this is something that the United States just needs to get over the dirty word of intervention and just get on with business and solidify U.S. interests abroad.

 

CB: I would actually slightly differ from Albert on this and I see it in a very structural in a very structural way. If you take the E.U. to basically take to move against Chinese interests in Europe, there’s an asymmetry here. The U.S. has to get everybody to agree. China only has to get one to disagree, okay?

 

TN: Why does the U.S. have to get everyone to agree?

 

CB: Because basically, if the E.U. for instance is going to pass a let’s say a regulation blocking Huawei gear, it’s a unanimous vote, okay? That’s the only way it gets through the E.U. is through a unanimous vote. So the U.S. has to get everybody to agree. China only has to get one to disagree.

 

If you look at like the U.N. with the human rights council, we can talk about the U.S. should do this or that with the human rights council. The reality is that China till the end of time is going to have enough votes to put Russia, Venezuela, Libya, etc. on the human rights council because of the the number of countries that there are in the number of countries that they can get to agree with them. So people talk about, “well, it’s a Trump issue.” No. That’s the reality that’s the systemic nature of the international system.

 

AM: And one of the things that the United States has absolutely not done is use the United States Dollar as a weapon to combat that. But that’s a whole different topic and we can get all sidetracked on that one but…

 

TN: Yeah, we can spend a lot of time on that. Here’s a question from @RemaniSrikanth: How much is China policy hinged on who wins the U.S. election? Do you believe that fundamentally the democrats and republicans would have different China policies?

 

CB: After the Russian debacle that they had in the Obama administration and the people that came out of that, I would be surprised if they did like a complete reset, okay? I don’t think democrats really have any real agreement about what they want to do with China. Even within people within the Biden administration or what would supposedly be a Biden administration. You have people that are people that honestly I think would be, if they weren’t democrats, would probably fit well within a Trump administration and you have people that would practically be German in their approach in that there’s no concession. You’ve heard things about well they want to focus on climate change and this 2060 promise is great. We have something to go with here. I don’t think anybody really has a good idea.

 

My own personal suspicion would be more than anything the Trump administration has actually been very deliberate in turning up continuing generally speaking across policy domains and turning up continuing to turn up the pressure slowly, like a pressure cooker. I don’t think you would see that under Biden administration. I don’t think necessarily you would see a rollback of most Trump policies.

 

TN: Albert, do you agree?

 

AM: Yeah, I agree with Chris wholeheartedly. Xi is at a do or die moment with Trump being re-elected. If trump is re-elected and the pressure’s maintained or even raised, I do not think he lasts two or three years in there. As for a Biden presidency, what it would look like? All we have to do is go back to the track record of the Obama presidency and see what they’ve done. They just ignore whatever China does and let them run around the world and do whatever they want. We sat there for two years in 2013 watching China militarize islands while there was absolutely no response. Having Samantha Power back, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice doesn’t give me any confidence whatsoever into dealing with dealing with the Chinese.

 

TN: I was in Asia during that time jumping up and down and was told that I was overly aggressive so I share your frustration. Here’s a question from @JamesRoberta7: What does a Xi Jinping and China situation look like if Trump is elected and Pompeo stays at state? What does that look like the first say 24 months of of that type of situation?

 

AM: It really depends on the actions of the Trump administration. Do they ramp up tariffs again? Do they start pressuring them in China? Do they pressure them in Vietnam, in the Philippines? I think they do.

 

The Chinese are going to have to respond to safeguard their own interests. What do they do? Maybe cause a skirmish with the Indians again. Threaten the Taiwanese a little bit more. They can’t really act militarily. They just don’t have the capacity to do that and they’d be completely embarrassed. That’s a whole different argument to itself but like I said, the days are numbered, if Trump is reelected, for Xi. I don’t think the elite families within the Guangdong province would put up with further losses of their wealth.

 

TN: I think that’s something that’s lost on a lot of the American analysts. There is not a monolithic kind of Chinese Communist Party. There are facts within the CCP. There are different power centers. A lot of even the think tankers in America act as if there is this single head at the CCP. He has definitely solidified some power but there are still some very powerful factions. Chris, what do you think about that if there’s a kind of a Trump-Pompeo, that partnership continues, what do you think that looks like for China and the CCP?

 

CB: So, I’m going to slightly diverge from from Albert here in that what we’ve basically seen in the first four years of Trump, especially in the past two years is that Trump is taking a lot of things that are well within the executive purview that he can do. Whether that’s sanctions of different kinds. Although you know in a way the amount of pain that he can cause China within that basket of tools is at this point, it’s increasingly limited. In different ways probably, the biggest thing that he could do is do something that really blocked like IPO or really crimped dollar access.

 

Crimp dollar access is an enormous weapon. But I think the next step is, and you’re actually seeing a lot of groundwork being laid is and you just saw for instance some comments out of India where the U.S. state department is talking about really ramping up its alliance with India. And you’re starting to see a lot of these very foundational type of stuff. So whether it’s increased congressional spending to military things, alliances, different stuff like that, that would be likely where you would see a lot of the focus, especially, legislatively to get authorization to do those types of activities.

 

TN: Okay, that’s a great point as you bring up India to ask this question from @dogthecynic: “How durable do you think the China-Russian alliance is?” And I bring that up because India and Russia traditionally have had a strong alliance post-war. If the U.S. and India continue to get closer at some point, will Russia have to choose between China and India as an ally? Is that even a choice? Let’s start with how strong is that China-Russia alliance? Is it just a resources for weapons type of alliance or is it really a tighter alliance?

 

AM: If you look at it historically, it’s nothing more than cyclical friends with benefits, if you want to call it that. It comes and goes. Their interests are aligned in one area, they conflict on another. Right now, they’re conflicting in Africa quite a lot more than people understand. The Indians, they’ve used Russia as a counter balance to the to the Chinese for decades. It’s quite clear.

 

I don’t think the Chinese and the Russians trust each other. They never will. The Chinese have been encroaching on their borders. Is it strong? No. Can India-U.S. alliance possibly tip it more in their favor? I really don’t think so. I don’t think the Indians are ignorant to the fact that they need Russia as a counterbalance just as much as they need the United States security blanket.

 

CB: The way I would phrase it is that there is what is the honor among thieves. They clearly are frenemies. The Russians know that China is stealing plane designs and engine designs and all this kind of good stuff at the same time, Huawei is working with Russia to hire local hackers and setting up things in Russia to engage in cyber warfare and whatnot because they have a very common enemy. As long as there’s a common enemy for them to focus on and it benefits them to fight that common enemy, I think absolutely that partnership is at least to a plausible degree is going to exist for the sake of the kids, for lack of a better term.

 

TN: Okay, I’ve got some very similar questions from @gabrielfox1 @jschwartz91 and @americacapitalone about Taiwan. So China, Taiwan, U.S. pretty delicate relationships and a lot of the questions are really about the kinetic conflict but also the business aspect of China-Taiwan relations and increasingly Taiwan-U.S. relations with some of the semiconductor activity that the U.S. has undertaken against China. So can you open that up a little bit for us?

 

First of all do you think a China-Taiwan conflict in the next say 24 months is more than say 30% possible? Which it’s just a hedge right? I mean is it realistically possible? That’s kind of a yes or no. But do you think there will be more difficult commercial relationships between China and Taiwan or do you think this is just something that is kind of window dressing and they need each other?

 

AM: Do I think there’s a conflict brewing in the next 24 months? Absolutely not. I don’t think the Chinese have the capabilities. I don’t think they want to be embarrassed furthermore. The Chinese elite, they have money wrapped up in Taiwan. They’re not going to sit there and cut off their their money supply just because Xi wants to prove a point that I don’t believe they can win a war quickly. It would hurt.

 

CB: I will disagree with with Albert here. My understanding of the military capabilities actually align with Albert and what the people I trust have basically said, it’s really going to be 2022, 2023 before they probably have the capabilities necessary.

 

Albert said something very interesting, which I think is worth repeating. They don’t want to be embarrassed. Well let’s look at how China’s behaved in the past year, okay? I don’t think you can project that level of rationality on Xi Jinping. Why the hell are they fighting over some frozen tundra in the Himalayas? It logically makes zero sense, right? I’m not saying that there’s going to be a war. It could be some type of low-level conflict. There’s a lot of different ways that it could be. This doesn’t necessarily mean full-scale invasion
but I would definitely put some type of event conflict distinctly higher.

 

TN: I think it’s unlikely but given my exposure to mid-levels of Chinese ministries they are not the rational, thoughtful, wise organizations that many Americans think and Xi Jinping as you say Chris, why are you fighting over some icy hills in northern India? It’s just stupid, right?

 

So I don’t believe the Chinese government is as thoughtful and wise as many westerners suspect. They make stupid mistakes like everyone else. I’m not saying they’re more stupid than anyone else. I think they’re just as they’re human beings.

 

Now let’s move along a little bit more into economics and talk about the Belt and Road initiative, which something that I actually worked on for about a year and a half. There’s been some talk in the last few months about the anglosphere and does the west have an answer to the BRI? This is really aN eight-year-old question, but my first question is, does the U.S. need a response to the BRI as a government initiative and if so do you think they can do it?

Categories
Podcasts

BBC Business Matters: President Trump announces new US sanctions on Iran

Tony Nash joins Fergus Nicoll at the BBC for Business Matters podcast where they discussed about US sanctions on Iran, the battle for the new head of World Trade Organization, Texas’s stand on green technology, and the coronavirus update right in Houston, Texas.

 

This podcast was published on October 9, 2020 and the original source can be found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172x18z44jxg52

 

BBC Business Matters Description:

 

The US has imposed sweeping new sanctions on Iran, this time targeting its major banks as the Trump administration continues its strategy of “maximum pressure.” We’ll hear from Barbara Slavin, Director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council. Also in the programme, the selection of a new director general of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is entering its final stage and with both the final candidates being female, whoever gets it, it will be the first time the job has been taken by a woman. We’ll hear from Annamie Paul, the new leader of the Green Party of Canada on her vision for how the economy can be overhauled to create sustainable jobs. And we’ll hear from one entrepreneur who has taken the pod-serving idea of coffee machines like Nespresso, and used it to serve different kinds of whiskey.

 

All through the show we’ll be joined by financial professional Jessica Khine in Malaysia and Complete Intelligence economist Tony Nash in Texas.

 

Show Notes

 

FN: On US sanctions on Iran: it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t, I guess at this kind of fervid election time, you’ve got to have a foreign policy and yet you get a slamming if it comes up at what looks like a cynical moment.

 

TN: I just want to clarify something that your guest said. The U.S. Treasury Department made a specific statement about agriculture, food, medicine and medical devices and said that they specifically don’t apply to those commodities. This applies to 11 Iranian banks. The U.S. is working on peace agreements across the region. They’re working on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year. Saying that this is whipping up disagreement in the region, I actually don’t think is the case. The U.S. is proving with the actions that it’s really going to great lengths to bring peace to the region.

 

FN: So you would say presumably that when we heard Barbara say that Mike Pompei just kind of looking busy for busy’s sake, you’d say the State Department, Foggy Bottom is much more active, proactive.

 

TN: Well, if Mike Pompei wants to just look busy, there’s plenty of other stuff we can do. It’s not as if Iran is just something on the edge waiting to happen. There’s a lot going on with the US State Department, quite frankly, a lot more than has gone on for years.

 

As you know, I lived in Asia for 15 years. I lived in Europe for a spell before that. I’ve seen the U.S. State Department in action in these cities. Although the U.S. State Department has become quite assertive over the last two or three years, at least they’re doing something productive. There wasn’t much going on previously aside from upholding status quo, kind of rigid lines.

 

FN: OK, Tony, thanks. Great to have you with us. Now, I’m hoping are we going to bring you a first time appearance on Business Matters on the part of the financial professional? Jessica Khine’s with us from Nusajaya in southern Malaysia. Jessica, you’re hearing us okay? I know we’ve had a little bit of difficulty establishing connection. Good morning.

 

JK: Good morning, gentlemen. Glitches are over and delighted to join you.

 

FN: Well, that’s fantastic. Tell us a bit about Nusajaya. I had to admit I had to look it up, but it looks to me about perfect for commuting over the strait to Singapore.

 

JK: Yes. That is provided that the pandemic does not frighten the two governments, Singapore and Malaysia. And once upon a time, I was able to pop into my car, drive down with a special cash card to pay the Singapore Transport Authority as I crossed the causeway, you know, quickly flashed my passport at both customs and Immigration and pop into a meeting in the central business district in Singapore. But sadly, that has now been prevented and forbidden since March the 18th. And if you think that today where, you know, October the 9th in Asia, it has been an absolute business killer.

 

FN: In what sense? A business killer?

 

JK: No physical driving over a causeway for a meeting with a client, an institution, you know, a lunch with a friend. It’s quite frustrating to be a mere 10 kilometers north of Singapore. Tony, you have your Asian experience. I don’t know if you ever knew that the tip of southern Malaysia was so close to Singapore.

 

TN: Of course, I was actually in Nusajaya for one of the launch events years and years ago, and the intention was that it would be kind of a suburb to Singapore.

 

JK: Something like that, I think. Was it was it Mark Mobius who identified the state called Leisure Farmers as somewhere where, you know, the sultan had provided affordable land and wanted to have a lot of Singaporeans have a decent second weekend home?

 

TN: I’ve had a lot of friends who lived in that area and in those developments, and the plan was that they would commute into Singapore. Of course, that’s been very difficult in 2020.

 

FN: Jessica, what’s the state in Malaysia? Across Malaysia, if you look north to Kuala Lumpur, what is the state of the domestic fight against coronavirus? Because I’ve seen a spike in the last week or so, I think.

 

JK: Yes, indeed. They badly calculated the outcome after holding some elections in the state of Sabah, which you might know is to the east of the of peninsular Malaysia. And I think where you have a lot of people congregating together, insufficient ventilation. I actually even found out that a particular NGO had lured Sabah citizens to fly back by subsidizing their flight tickets, saying, come on, come back and vote for us, etc.. So that was slightly poorly planned. Numbers of new cases which had been, you know, a very proud single digit for a thirty four point six million population nation, suddenly got catapulted right up into 600, 400, 300. And it’s quite a sort of a, you know, quote unquote horror movie situation at the moment.

 

FN: Go on, finish that. And then just tell us quickly whether there’s been an impact within Malaysia on business and the way people travel around to do business.

 

JK: I think the complete lockdown in the first quarter was grim. And now interstate travel is not banned. But is business choked? Absolutely. And I think, you know, it’s such a global pattern that, you know, I couldn’t beg to differ in any way. But I think we we are already aware that many governments have not been able to implement, you know, the best policy. And the continuing discussion does seem to be, do we sacrifice growth or do we pander to the the virus?

 

And and it’s, you know, unique, unique nature.

 

FN: And a quick word. Bring us up to date. And in Texas, Tony, how do things stand since we last spoke?

 

TN: I think they stand pretty well. The governor here just started to lift even more restrictions here. We’re in the top five states in terms of the the lowest R0 contagion rate in the U.S. It’s very low here. We may hear case numbers, but the hospitalization and casualty numbers are very, very low here. So things here seem to be getting much, much better and have done so over the past six to eight weeks very much. And so it’s getting better. I just hope things move on.

 

FN: Tony Nash on Texas of course, you know, massively organized around the petroleum industries. What is the tolerance or or interest in Green Party as such a green new deal as such in Texas?

 

TN: I’m in Houston. It’s not very high at all. Obviously, that endangers a lot of jobs here. What’s happening in Canada is slightly different with the Tarzans and the cost of getting crude out of the ground there versus shale in west Texas, which is cheap on a relative basis. We produce much less expensive from a cost perspective, hydrocarbons in Texas. In parts of Canada, you have to have crude trading at relatively high levels for it to be economical. I can understand why it would be more interesting there. Here in Texas, we get out of the ground a lot cheaper. So it makes kind of less sense here.

 

FN: We’ve got to go to a break in a moment, Tony, but what’s been the impact. Has the coronavirus shut down earlier in the year? What happened with with fracking and so on in Texas?

 

TN: Coronavirus is one blow, but what we had about three or four weeks before coronavirus was, if you remember, the Saudis and the Russians did an OPEC deal where they really crushed the price of crude. The crude markets were oversaturated on the supply side and the price was down already. And then we had a second blow with a coronavirus. The oil and gas sector is really damaged this year, not only because of COVID, but also because of what the Russians and the Saudis did to prepare crude markets for this, meaning oversupply in a market where demand just evaporated.

 

FN: Tony, how on earth do you pick between two talented, experienced, clever people of this in a competition of this kind?

 

TN: Yeah, they’re both great. I think we have a trade expert against a reformer expert. And I think the question really is, what does the WTO need right now? Do they need trade expertise or do they need reform? Given that Azevêdo regime at Servicio has been pretty lackluster and so well, I would love to see an Asian head at the WTO. At this point, a reform is much more important because issues like nontariff barriers continue to allow countries to circumvent trade rules. And until there is reform to actually track and name the names of that stuff, we’re going to continue to see massive problems in trade.

 

FN: Will come to Jessica in a moment on that desire for an Asian head of the organization. But, Tony, just amplify that point about reform, because both candidates use that word. Everybody says the WTO is seriously wanting. But what are the most egregious problems and who’s standing in the way of this reform?

 

TN: I think it’s an institutional problem more than an individual problem. What is it? I think it’s the ability for countries to try to circumvent the rules. The WTO hasn’t necessarily kept up with technology and kept up with trade policies and the value buildup of goods. And this is why, like in the U.S., I moved to the U.S. three years ago. I spent most of my life in Asia.

 

This is why the U.S. has done things like the USMCA to really prepare for re-regionalization of trade patterns. What we saw from 1990, 2000 until 2015 was the clustering of trade power in Northeast Asia. And that has led to a lot of concentration of risk and supply chains. What we’re seeing, especially in the wake of coronavirus, is a desire for companies and countries to de-risk their supply chains by re-regionalizing, their supply chain.

 

So in the late 80s, early 90s, we saw regionalization of supply chains with the E.U., with NAFTA and with other regional agreements. It’s only when China came into the WTO that you saw this real dash for a hard centralized concentration in Northeast Asia.

 

FN: Very interesting, Jessica. I’m not sure what whether you want to add to that. But just let’s start at least with this point about maybe it’s a myth, Asian solidarity for an Asian candidate. Would you assume that across Southeast Asia, for example, there would be enthusiasm for the candidate presented by Seoul?

 

JK: I think the important point is that just to honor someone we have recently lost Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Women belong in places where decisions are being made. So I, for one, am absolutely over the moon about the two candidates. It is true that there is some tension from China and Japan regarding a union, his candidacy. But I think that it’s time to grow up. I fully concur with Tony that, you know, in. The whole organization called WTO, I think reform is crucial, the ability to track name and shame, you know, perpetrators who are consistently breaking rules and laws and policies is absolutely important.

 

But the other the counter weight to that is that I think we’ve also got to fight this big move, which has been reinforced post pandemic of kind of globalization. Tony used the word re regionalization. But I think the supply chain issues, I think there’s whoever comes in is going to have, in a way, a sort of a poisoned chalice. There’s got to be a lot of work that’s done to clean the house. I’m delighted that its two strong candidates, but I might agree with Tony that the reformer might possibly win over the candidate with a strong color and background in trade.

 

TN: And Tony, it’s worth noting that, you know, we should probably just stop. You know, it is no longer a remarkable thing for a woman to head such an organization. We have Christine Lagarde at the ECB. We have Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF chief economist, the IMF, Gitter Gopinath, and so on. We had the former head of the Fed, of course, was a woman. So is this now normalised?

 

TN: I think it’s great that we’re in this position. But I don’t think anybody is as shocked that there are two women battling to enter the WTO. I don’t think this is the 1980s. It’s in 2020. I think it’s definitely normalize.

 

FN: These guys do Martin and their colleagues. These are the dreamers who who just turn everything over, reinvent things and and who’s who’s to who’s to quibble about that centuries old tradition, whatever these guys are doing something radical and new.

 

TN: It’s a tough hill to climb because the whiskey drinkers that I know like the tradition and they like the process. Your comment about the chemistry set was pretty apt, actually, because it’s for anybody who has a taste for any certain kind of food, it doesn’t matter what can be done super quickly. The enjoyment is in the process. It’s in the refinement and it’s in the care that it takes for that stuff to come to market.

 

FN: That’s what they say about Business Matters. Thank you very much, guys. Great pleasure. Good to have you with us, Tony, as always.

 

Categories
Podcasts

Signs of Broader Recovery

Tony Nash joins BFM 89.9 The Business Station to discuss possible broader recovery. Where are the markets heading? In which direction will U.S. equities likely trade for the rest of the month? How much will that impact the ongoing debate on further fiscal stimulus? And how about the US unemployment data and is China on the recovery path?

 

This podcast first appeared and originally published at https://www.bfm.my/podcast/morning-run/market-watch/signs-of-broader-recovery on October 1, 2020.


BFM Description

 

US jobs data will be released tomorrow but are we expecting better numbers? Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence sees a stronger pace of recovery for the US economy with improving macroeconomic data. He however does not expect a recovery in oil prices as demand remains weak while there are no supply shocks.

 

Produced by: Mike Gong

 

Presented by: Wong Shou Ning, Roshan Kanesan

 

Show Notes

 

 

WSN: But the question is where our markets are heading? So to help us answer that question, we have on the line with us Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Good morning, Tony. Now the question, in which direction will U.S. equities likely trade for the rest of the month? Is risk aversion making a comeback to financial markets given the political and economic uncertainties?

 

TN: We expected a down month in September and that’s what we got. We’re also looking for a pretty difficult month in October, not quite as far down as September has been. But I think you’re right on the uncertainty side, one of the big unknowns is stimulus coming out of the US government. And obviously that would help move markets in other countries as well.

 

We should know by the end of this week if there will be more stimulus or the magnitude of that stimulus coming out of the U.S. So the real question around whether things will rally or fall is when the US will open up and when other countries will kind of fully open up, not partially open up. We look at, you know, Europe’s doing pretty well actually in opening up. Asia is doing pretty well. The U.S. is still kind of a patchwork.

 

So we won’t really know the near-term direction. But I guess I think over the next month we’re looking at at a bit of a fall.

 

WSN: And meanwhile, the Fed is extending the dividend by that limit with Wall Street banks till 2021. The announcement came out last night. So what does it tell us about the finance sector?

 

TN: We’ve been expecting a rotation into financials for some time, and that tells us that if dividends and buybacks are limited, those banks, obviously there’s a risk factor there, meaning that the regulators want those banks to hold on to their cash. But it also means that that the regulators also aren’t sure about when things will be back to normal. So that conservative approach forcing banks to hold on to their liquidity tells us that there’s not a lot of confidence in the next quarter or two. So we’ll really have to see the pace of recovery here in the U.S..

 

WSN: And Tony, just one more question on the U.S. and that’s the job data that’s coming out later today. Right? So there is out on Friday and it’s going to be the last one before elections. Are you expecting a good number? And how much will that impact the ongoing debate on further fiscal stimulus?

 

TN: You know, we do expect it to be a good number, the ADP number was out today and it kind of usually comes before the U.S. government’s non-farm payrolls number. The labor number. It was 750000 jobs added. That was one hundred or more thousand greater than was expected. Now, the U.S. Labor Department typically is higher than ADP. We expect the Department of Labor report on Friday to be about 900,000. So this is really good. Companies are coming back online. They’re employing there are fewer people out of work. That’s good for the recovery.

 

We keep hearing hesitation about the pace of recovery. We’re not sure of the pace. But from an employment perspective and even things like retail sales, the indications are good. So, you know, we’re hoping for the best. And unemployment is telling us that things are moving in the right direction.

 

WSN: And if you look at the recent EPA and EIA inventory reports are telling us that all demand tells us about the oil demand projections for the rest of the year. So what do you think? Do you think recovery’s a long way off?

 

TN: We do, actually. So production is up about 15 percent or so. Demand is still down 20 to 30 percent. So, you know, it’s not a good pricing environment for crude or for petrol. Downward pressure will still remain in those markets. We won’t see, say, Brent, north of 50 for some time. We won’t see WTI north of 45 for some time. There is a possibility we keep hearing we’ve heard for months about the possibility of a supply shock as demand comes back, which would push prices up. We’re just not seeing that at this point. And it’s going to be several months. If that does happen, it’ll be several months before it happens.

 

WSN: And one last question on China. The manufacturing PMI for September came in at 51.5 higher than market forecast. How much should investors consider a place in this figure? Does this number suggest that China is well and truly on the recovery path?

 

TN: I would be really careful of I’m looking at a China PMI. I’m aware of PMI generally, but I’d be I’d be careful of the China PMI. I haven’t believed it well, for years, if it really is ever, partly because it’s a kind of a second derivative of real data. It’s an opinion survey of future expectations and it’s an index of that opinion survey.

 

I know that sounds confusing, but you’re really far away from real data when you’re looking at a PMI number. And with China, the uncertainty and murkiness around Chinese economic data is something to be careful of.

 

So I would say if I’m investing in China, if I’m looking at data in China, the stuff that I’ve always found more important was first-hand information. What’s actually happening on the ground with your vendors, what’s actually happening in cities on the ground?

 

I’m not saying that China is suffering. I’m not saying China’s experience a massive pullback. I’m just not sure about the rate of recovery in China.

 

WSN: All right. Thank you for your time. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us a somewhat optimistic view of the U.S. economy, saying that all the indicators are that recovery is their unemployment numbers should improve.