As markets tumble, users are left unable to withdraw from some exchanges, and a leading hedge fund prepares to enter liquidation. Is crypto in terminal decline? Scott Chipolina, correspondent for the Financial Times, says investors are well used to challenging conditions.
Sri Lanka is among the countries to be worst hit by inflation, and living standards are falling. Joseph Stalin of the Ceylon Teachers’ Union, and Steve Hanke from Johns Hopkins University, tell us why a solution may be some way off.
It’s a host’s worst nightmare: an out-of-control party in your Airbnb. As the platform cracks down on gatherings, we hear the story of a rental gone wrong in the Bahamas.
Also on the programme, a boss at H&M explains why leaving Russia was a tough decision; and it’s happy 15th birthday to Apple’s iPhone.
We’re joined throughout Business Matters by financial consultant Jessica Khine in Malaysia, and economist Tony Nash in Texas.
Show Notes
BBC: Tony Nash, the CEO at the finance forecasting platform, complete intelligence in the US. State of Texas. How’s your day been, Tony?
TN: Great, thanks very much.
BBC: Good to hear. All right, well, thank you for joining us too. Tony Nash in Texas. I wonder what’s your overview of all this? I mean, it’s obviously bad news for crypto investors, but is it also a warning for other people who might have been entertaining the idea of getting into the crypto market?
TN: Yes, it is. The whole kind of crypto fallout that’s happening right now, it’s not the funds that I worry about. It’s the individual investors who have been investing in crypto that really worry me. And that’s the really kind of sad part of this crypto kind of drama is you have crypto assets that have fallen by 70%. People have put their savings and their hard earned money into crypto. And so I do worry about those guys because there are a lot of people, individuals who have lost a lot of money because they believed the narrative about crypto.
BBC: And I think during the pandemic, we saw a lot of people sitting at home starting to think, oh, maybe I’ll give this a go. They’re the most recent entrance into the market. I guess they’re the biggest losers.
TN: They are. So I did have a crypto journey where I invested in something called dogecoin, and I bought it at like four cents, and I ended up selling it at like 68 or $0.70, something like that. So it was just a small amount of money I didn’t want to put very much at risk, but I did, I wanted to understand what that was like, so I put like $50 into it or something like that and then just saw it go up to $70 or something and then sold it. But I think a lot of people thought that it would continue going up not just dogecoin, but a lot of the cryptos. So it’s not like your guest said, I don’t think this is the end of crypto. It is what they call crypto winter, and it’s probably going to last a couple of years. I don’t think we’re going to see crypto bouncing back immediately.
BBC: Presumably that experiment was enough for you. You’re not tempted to get back in, given the latest news?
TN: I don’t like volatility that much. At least with those assets, like your guests said, there’s nothing underlying those assets. There’s not a company, there’s not a physical commodity. There’s nothing underlying them. It’s just trust. And so I can sell sales in my excel workbook and have the same amount of assets underlying as any crypto asset does.
BBC: Listening to that in Texas, do you agree? Did governments like the US. Government make a mistake with all those support programs?
TN: I think they did, but I respect Steve. Thank you a lot. I follow him on twitter. I think they did make a mistake, but I honestly think that governments at the time were just afraid. I don’t think it was necessarily intentional that they overstimulated. I think they were not aware of what was going to happen around the corner, and I think they panicked. They were just afraid. It’s easy to look back from this point in time and say what they did was wrong and other stuff, but I actually think giving them the benefit of the doubt and saying they just panic, they were afraid and they didn’t want people to starve or suffer or lose jobs or whatever, and they stimulated way too much in hindsight.
BBC: Tony is this enforceable from Airbnb, do you think? Can they really stop people having parties? What if they just clean up really well the next day?
TN: Well, I think part of what happened through the pandemic is a lot of Airbnb hosts started charging exorbitant cleaning fees. And no matter how clean or dirty you left the place, the cleaning fee was applied to your Airbnb fee. I stay in Airbnb, or did stay in Airbnbs pretty regularly, but the cleaning fees became so large that I won’t stay in them anymore.
BBC: I didn’t realize the cleaning fee was at the prerogative of the host. I imagine it was like a blanket 10% or something.
TN: No, they’re huge. And so I have no issue with Airbnb enforcing a no party’s rule, but they really have to have a trade off and put a cap on the cleaning fee for Airbnb hosts because they in some cases are as much as the nightly rental.
BBC: Oh, wow.
TN: And these are things that you don’t see when you do a search in Airbnb and you see a nightly price, it does not include the cleaning fee. So if Airbnb is to put on this ban on parties, they really need to put some pressure on their hosts to reduce the cleaning fees.
BBC: It is a kind of fine line, though, isn’t it? I mean, I’ve had friends rent Airbnb and there’s been a few of us and there’s been drinking, but I guess what they’re talking about is when you invite strangers, or not necessarily strangers, but people who are not staying the night or booked in to stay, that’s when it becomes a party. Is that how they’re going to define it, do you think? Tony
TN: Yeah, I don’t know. If I’m staying in an Airbnb and I want to have some people over for dinner, is that a party if I want to cook for some friends and have them over? I don’t know. I think it could be, obviously loud music, drunk people, that sort of thing. Of course that’s a party, right? So they have to define it. I’m not a lawyer. I’m sure they can find a way to define it legally so that fees can be kept or whatever.
BBC: Tony you’re in Texas, not far from California. Have you heard of this issue before of land being seized from African American owners? I must admit it’s the first time I’ve heard of it.
TN: I’ve probably seen it in movies. I’ve seen it elsewhere. I think I’ve run across it, but I don’t remember it. But when I read this story today, it was great. It was great to hear and really interesting to dig into the story. And it was terrible that people had to suffer with that for 80 years.
BBC: It does say a lot, though, doesn’t it? If neither you nor I, you’re there in the States, have heard of this issue, I mean, from what Alison was saying, this wasn’t the only case. Has it been underreported, do you think?
TN: I don’t know. I don’t know how much property African Americans were allowed to hold before a certain point in time. I’m just not really sure. My family that settled in New Amsterdam when the Dutch still ruled America, had some property that was seized by the British in 1671. So it happened.
BBC: How did you find that out?
TN: We know our family history pretty well, but this was land in lower Manhattan, right around where Wall Street is, and so it was seized. These things happen. I’m not in any way trying to take away from the racial injustice that was done in California, not at all. But these things happen occasionally, and I’m just glad that these guys could get their land back and benefit from it eventually.
BBC: Tony, you’ve been looking at hmmm. We’ve been hearing there about its planned expansion into Latin America, but at the moment you’ve been looking at where their product is sourced. And we were just speaking about Myanmar. It’s Myanmar, sure.
TN: Yeah. Asian sources quite a lot in Myanmar. And part of the problem they’re facing is a lot of the manufacturers in Myanmar are being driven to insolvency because of energy prices. And so H and M doesn’t only have a problem generating revenue to replace Russia, but they do have a supply chain sustainability problem with matching the costs they can get in Myanmar, but also replacing that manufacturing pretty quickly as those manufacturers are driven to insolvency.
BBC: Tony, listening to that, how much has the iPhone changed your life, do you think?
TN: I have never owned an iPhone.
BBC: Smartphone. Do you own a smartphone?
TN: I do. Yeah. Of course I do.
BBC: So do you think iPhone opened the door to that?
TN: Of course it did. But I just never got into the Apple ecosystem. And I just haven’t owned an iPhone anti Apple. I just haven’t been I’m just waiting for it to get a little better. But of course, it’s influenced phones and it’s influenced the way we engage with technology. And it was a great product at the time. It was revolutionary. I remember I was using a Nokia phone at the time. Keep in mind, this is 2007, and you could play your music on that phone and have conversations, and I thought that was pretty cool. But that was before the iPhone came out. The navigation the interface. Everything just really changed the way people interact with phones. It’s great.
BBC: I think that’s all we have time for on this edition of business matters. Thank you so much to Tony in Texas and Jessica in Malaysia. And thanks to Joanna Stern from the Wall Street journal, who brought us up to date on iPhone’s 15th birthday as well. This has been business matters with me, Vivian Nunes. Thanks for listening. Bye.
The number one issue for Americans is inflation. As long as this is a top consideration, the pressure will be on the Fed to bring it down. Sam has been pretty consistent with 3 x 50 rate hikes in May, June, and July. What changed in trading today? Is everyone still bearish? Samuel Rines explains.
Also, what’s next for crypto? Luna fell from $90 last Thursday to $0.00005952 on Friday. Their circulation went from 4 billion yesterday to 6.5 trillion today. Watching the crypto fallout is terrible – lots of people have lost lots of money in this supposedly immutable “currency”. Albert Marko explains what happens next.
Lastly, is China really falling apart? We’ve seen some unsettling posts over the past several weeks out of China. From lockdowns to port closures to gossip that Xi Jinping has been sidelined.
Key themes:
Is everyone a bear now?
What’s next for crypto?
Is China really falling apart?
This is the 18th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
TN: Hi and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash, and as usual, we have our team, Sam Rines and Albert Marko. Tracy, who’s not with us today.
Before we get started, I’d like to ask you to subscribe to our YouTube channel. It helps us a lot get visibility, and it really helps you get reminded when a new episode is out so you don’t miss anything.
Gosh. Big week for everyone. I wish I had fallen asleep a week ago and just woken up now after Friday’s trading. But it’s been a big week all around for everyone.
Guys, we really have a lot to talk about this week. We’re covering the markets. Is everyone a bear now? That’s one of our big topics that we’ll have Sam lean on. Next is what’s next for crypto? A lot of action on crypto, a lot of scary things happening with crypto and then some news out of China or speculation out of China. We’re asking, is China falling apart?
So Sam, let’s start with you first. I guess one of the most relevant items I’ve seen circulating and it was in your newsletter today is the top issues for Americans on the screen right now.
It’s clearly inflation. As long as that’s a top consideration. The pressure on the Fed to bring inflation down is huge. So you’ve been pretty consistent with three times 50 basis point hikes for May, June and July. What’s really changed in trading today? And is everyone still bearish?
SR: Yeah. I mean, everyone still seems to kind of be floating a little bearish, but I kind of like to go back to the number one concern is inflation. We shot ourselves in the foot and then the second one is getting shot in the head, right. It’s violent crime and crime. You add those two together and it’s even larger portion of inflation. So it’s safety and food. Right.
People like to eat and they want to be able to eat and they want to feel safe. I think it’s that simple. Those should be the top two concerns in this type of environment when you have the data pointing towards continuing higher inflation numbers and continuing crime.
On the is everyone a bear front? I think it’s a little complicated, right.
Because if you look at the flows into and out of indices and into and out of fixed income, and when you look at the flows, it’s easy to kind of say everyone’s a bear. Right. Pouring money into Treasuries, taking money out of indices. But at the same time, underneath the surface, you really want to be careful on what you’re a bear on and what you’re not.
There’s a lot of things that can still make money in this environment, oil, food, etc. can still make money. And there’s a lot of things that are probably still going to get torched. Anything that’s a little high beta is probably not the place you want to be for the whole time. Tradable but unlikely to be a long-term type trade.
TN: Like, I noticed some of the techs coming back today, and that’s great. And I hope people don’t lose more there. But is that something that you would consider kind of be careful if you’re going back in type of trade?
SR: Some of it. Not all of it. There’s a lot of tech that actually looks fairly attractive here, whether it’s from a valuation perspective or whether it’s from a very long term perspective.
A lot of stuff re-rated, re-rated fast, and it looks attractive. And there’s a lot of stuff that looks like it’s probably going bankrupt. Right. I wouldn’t be trying to bottom tick Carvana.
AM: Actually to expand on that, Sam, about who’s a bear and bears or Bulls or whatnot. I kind of think that we have to separate the higher great institutions versus the retail dip buyers that are just looking for that get rich, quick return. Many of the institutions, the ones I’ve talked to, are absolutely still bearish. They don’t see real value in this economy until the market until 3700.
Coincidentally, one of the hedge fund guys told me at 3500, you have an actual financial crisis in the United States just because everything’s leveraged up. So I don’t think that the Fed was even going to want to afford or going down past the 38, 3700, in my opinion.
SR: In 100% of that, Albert. Right. You have to separate those two teams of people. Right. The dip buyers are going to try every single time to get rich quick. Real long term allocators are going to take their time here. They’re not going to rush and, those are very large positions they have to take. And they don’t get to move in and call it for two or three weeks. They have to move in for very long periods of time.
So it’s Albert’s point. I don’t think that should be underrated, period.
AM: You can just look at the valuations of some of these companies that are still out in the stratosphere, like one of the ones I’ve recommended, Mosaic, Tight and Tire. They’re just ten fold of what they were in 2020. How do you buy these things? You can’t buy these things.
TN: Right. We’ve seen a lot of chatter about margin calls over the past week and a half. Obviously, that’s been scary for the first wave of kind of people going in. But when that second wave hits, when does that start to hit that second wave? Once we go 3800 or lower? So is that when things get really scary?
AM: Actually, I think part of the margin calls happened this week, today, actually Friday. I think a lot of guys had a liquidate positions and cover shorts and whatnot. And we got a little bit of a squeeze of a rally. I didn’t really feel like a Fed was pumping just thought like people short covers and people trying to get stuff off the board.
TN: Right.
SR: 100%. That’s where I think. I don’t think you want to be in front of a wave of liquidation for let’s call it sun and Ark, right? You do not want to be in front of either one of those two right now, period.
TN: Yeah, it was nice to have a Green Day, but it didn’t necessarily feel like a strong Green Day.
Okay, guys, let’s move on to crypto. Albert, I think you’re the man here. You’ve talked about crypto for a long time. It’s bad. This week is bad. And we’ve got a chart for Luna.
Luna fell from $90 last Thursday to 5, 10 thousand of a cent today, I think. Their circulation went from 4 billion yesterday to 6.5 trillion today. So it doesn’t sound very immutable to me. So the watching crypto fallout, it’s been pretty terrible. Lots of people have lost lots of money and people are questioning and cynical about words like immutable now.
This is something that I think experienced people have expected. But what happens next? Do we have a clearing out of some of these currencies? Do people just hold at 5, 10 thousand of a cents? Do we see some of these actually become currencies or is it all just going to get regulated and kind of thrown out the window?
AM: Well, are they going to be currencies? No, they’ll never be currencies. The dollar is going to be the currency of the world status for trade for the remainder of our lifetimes, whoever is alive today. That’s just the basic fundamental fact that you have to come to grips with.
This is like part one of the closing call for cryptos in my opinion. They got a good dose of the reality that when things need to get liquidated, you’re not liquidating residential towers in Miami on your portfolio. You’re liquidating some Ponzi scheme cryptos that are in your pocket that your clients really made you get into to begin with.
From the retail side, as much as I want to gloat, because I’ve been saying that this was going to happen for years, it’s really not that funny because you had guys out there pushing these crypto things and saying the dollar is dying, gold is dying, digital future, blah, blah, blah. Look at this chart, look at that chart. But the reality is there are nothing but pump and dump schemes. And people lost a lot of money.
I had a friend that goes to school, his daughter goes to school with my daughter. And he told me months ago I put everything to Litecoin for the College fund. I tried to reason with this guy.
TN: Please don’t do that.
AM: Yeah, well, community college for that kid.
TN: Albert, they’re following the lead of some, analysts are credible. They have a credible history and they’ve really started pushing this stuff. Now they’ve dialed it back. But some people who had previously been credible analysts were pushing this stuff.
AM: They’re liars. They’re all liars.
SR: Had been.
AM: They’re trying to get services sold and people to watch their YouTube channels and get subscriptions up. So of course you’re going to go and sit there and try to pump crypto to the retail crowd because they don’t know any better, right?
SR: And anyone who looked if you really dug into the Luna situation, you could understand very quickly how that could unwind in a way that was dramatic. This wasn’t even constructed as well as a pre 2008 money market fund. At least you knew what the money market fund held behind it and how it was going to actually return money to you.
With Tether, it’s supposed to be a crypto ish money market fund. We still don’t know what that actually holds. The whole thing to me is regrettable to Albert’s point, right. The two of us kind of got picked on when we giggled off paying for oil in crypto earlier this year. But the two of us have been kind of like, “no, not so much.” So while it’s tempting to kind of have that little bit of a cocky grin.
It’s a really sad situation and there’s a lot of money that got shredded very quickly there.
TN: Very quickly in less than a week. It’s insane how much money. If anybody who follows me on Twitter knows that I invest in some Doge last year, stuck with it for a few months, got out I did it because it was a joke of a coin. Everyone knew it was a joke of a coin. I wanted to be on part of the joke, and I made some money at it. And that’s it, right? That’s it. You can’t necessarily think of this stuff as a serious investment because it’s so highly unregulated and people engage in this pump and dump stuff.
AM: Yeah. We can have a conversation on this for hours. This is actually at the heart of the problem of the US economy at the moment. All these gig employee, all these gig employees service industry and jobs and whatnot, they left work got into crypto. Got stimulus checks, sat at home, kept getting unemployment, not going to work, and now we’re stuck with the labor shortage in reality. I don’t care what the Fed says and what Yellen says about the market. The labor market is good. The labor market is absolute trash right now. We have no workers anywhere right now. And because. Yeah, this is part of it.
TN: So that’s a good question. With crypto, kind of at least temporarily, maybe permanently dying, does that help the employment picture? Does that help people come back to market even a little bit?
AM: People had tens of thousands of dollars in a Coinbase account that are now $500. They’re going to have to go back to their jobs. And that’s just the reality of it. If you want me to go even a step further, this is probably the intent of the Fed and the treasury is to start eliminating this excess money, forcing people back to work.
SR: Yeah. Oh, 100%. In one of my notes this week that Tony, I think you saw, I sent out the video from SNL of Jimmy Carter saying, hey, get 8% of your money out of your account and light on fire. Guess what? The Fed just did that for millennials.
TN: Yeah.
SR: It’s that simple. The Fed just lit at least 8% of millennial money on fire, generally. Right. And it’s unlikely to come back that quickly. And I think if it wasn’t a direct policy, it was a side effect that the Fed sitting there going, oh, well, that works.
AM: I guarantee I talk to a lot of people. It was a direct policy. I don’t care. I’ll throw the Fed under the bus. They deserve to be thrown under the bus anyways.
TN: Well, yeah, it is where it is. And I would assume more regulations coming at some point because people will scream, especially with Coinbase.
I think it’s Coinbase or one of the exchanges saying that they’re going to undo a lot of the trades over the last two or three days.
AM: Okay.
TN: There are no regulations at all.
SR: Just call them the LME.
TN: Yeah, exactly. So crypto is the LME now, and it’s insane. So a lot of consumer protections are going to be talked about. A lot of regulations going to come in. I think that party is pretty much over.
AM: Yeah. Once the regulations started coming in from Congress and different governments in the world, they’re going to see how false their idea of decentralization really was.
TN: Yeah. Okay, guys, let’s move on to China. We’ve seen a lot over the past few weeks and really gossipy stuff about China. But today I saw a note from Mike Green on Twitter, which is on screen talking about Xi Jinping and Li Kaqiang, and Xi basically being sidelined on May 4.
I also saw another tweet yesterday, a guy going through Shanghai during the lockdown. If you haven’t seen it, the first of the thread is on the screen now. Check it out. It’s really interesting.
China is empty and it’s really sad.
So we’ve seen these really unsettling posts over the past several weeks out of China, from lockdowns to port closures to gossiping Xi as sidelined. So to you guys, what does that all mean? Is it something you’re taking seriously? Do you think it’s something that will have immediate effects? What does that look like to you?
AM: China. China is a big quagmire in itself. It’s such a large country. You’re going to have all sorts of rumors of Xi being sidelined and unrest in different cities like Shanghai and whatnot. But the Chinese are pretty pragmatic. They know that things are not going really well. So they’re going to have to lift off they’re going to have to lift off some of these just draconian policies with locking down people because it’s going to really hurt their economy. And part of it’s probably because they’re fighting inflation, too. They’re trying to cut down demand until supplies catch up. I mean, they got problems over there with inflationary issues.
TN: Also with the deval, with the port closures, with a lot of other stuff that’s happening there, their economy is already host. Right. They’re definitely not hitting 5.5, which is their target this year. And I think they’ll be lucky to have a zero growth year.
But I think Albert, on the political side, a lot of this kind of theater that we’re seeing play out on Weibo and Twitter and other things. Do you think this is plausible?
AM: Of course it’s plausible. I mean, you have the vultures circuit around Xi right now. They want him out. You have one elite group keeping him in power. But most likely have three or four other elite groups within the CCP that want him out. There’s no question about that. He can’t even go out in public.
TN: That’s an important thing that many people don’t think about is there are parties within the party. The CCP is not a unified party. There are factions within the party. Many Westerners don’t understand that. There are definitely factions within the party, and they’ll stab each other in the back in a second.
AM: There’s factions everywhere you go. People try to, China as a one rule or one party, one system, but even the United States, you have the Tea Party, the Freedom Caucus, the Progressive, so on and so forth. I mean, it’s all fragmented no matter what you do.
TN: Yeah, Sam. So China is second largest economy, ports closed, people in their houses, all of that stuff. So how long can they do this before it affects everybody or has it already started doing?
SR: Oh, it’s already affecting everything. The supply chains are already completely ruined because of it. There’s no question about that. I think the real question is what happens when they reopen, right?
We’ve got oil sitting at $109 and half a China is shut down. That is something that doesn’t, I mean, it’s kind of scary, right? You have a bunch of people that aren’t using as much as they should be right now. You begin to spin that back up. That could be a really interesting scenario overall. I don’t know.
AM: You know, Sam, that actually loops back to what you were talking about the Fed trying to fight inflation. No matter what policy they come up with, there’s still supply chain shortages and labor and everything that no matter what they do, they can’t fix.
SR: Their host. It’s an amazing world where you have half the Chinese, let’s just click through. Half the Chinese economy is shut down. You have the US dollar sitting at 105, 106 somewhere in there, and you have oil sitting at 110. Anybody who’s saying oil prices look a little toppy here might want to look at what happens when the dollar falls and China’s going.
AM: That’s what we’re going to have inflation in the five to 7% range for the next 18 months. I can’t say lower than that.
TN: 18 months, you say?
AM: 18 months. How are they going to get it lowered? China opens and then what? You know what I mean? And then you still have shortages everywhere. I mean, go to some of the stores. They have baby formula shortages.
On any given day, you have small materials you need from the home short. Everywhere. That’s going to create artificial inflation. On top of that, you have wage inflation. How do you get that down?
SR: The only way you get it down is having less employees. Look at Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley has started laying people off, and that’s not getting enough. It’s more than just Carvana.
AM: And then that’s the thing. Later in this year, Democrats and Joe Biden can have a real big problem unemployment numbers, starting to creep up. They can’t hide that forever with the BLS manipulation.
SR: Look at the household number. The household number is already not looking great. And that’s the one that they choose not to hide for a reason. Yeah, sure, the establishment is up, but you look at that household number and it’s printing negative already, guys.
TN: Yeah. One more thing I want to cover is this has to do with China shut down and it has to do with the possibility of political instability in China. So there are two separate issues. The newsletter today talked about reshoring.
So these things seem to provide more instability and a lack of reliability of Chinese sourcing. So what are you seeing to support the reshoring argument?
SR: Oh, lots of things. I mean, you have Hyundai. That’s likely to announce a pretty big factory next week in Georgia. You have everyone from Micron to a bunch of other call it higher tech firms beginning to announce that they’re moving back here. They’re building here and they’re going to manufacture here or they’re going to manufacture in Mexico. One of the other.
If you want to have China like characteristics without supply chain issues, you go to Mexico and that re regionalization trend. That’s the theme of mine. Is beginning to pick up steam and it’s going to pick up much more steam, in my opinion.
North America is going to be basically, in my opinion is going back to being the world’s, not manufacturing hub, but the world’s high end manufacturing hub. If you want something that it’ll be like big Germany.
AM: Yeah, I mean that’s just the most logical thing to do is to start putting your supply chains closer to your luxury consumers and you have to do that. But I’ve been high on the Canadian economy and the North American economy.
I think Europe absolutely they’re in deep trouble at the moment. So is Asia. But Europe especially.
TN: On the reshoring note, guys, if Germany can’t get power, will we start to see some German manufacturing firms potentially moving to the US?
SR: You already make AMGs here. Mercedez Ben’s AMGs.
TN: Yeah.
SR: They’re made in Alabama. But they’re made in Alabama.
AM: Yes. But Tony to your question, actually, I do have a colleague that works for Austrian driven outfit and they have been buying factories in the United States specifically for this reason. It’s the only place that people are going to be buying things or has money at the moment. Their entire export industry in China is dead and they’ve sat there and been lackadaisical and never sat there and tried to put their networks back into Africa where the real emerging market should be focused on Africa. It’s going to be bigger than Asia anyway.
SR: Let’s also be honest, they just got done pulling out of Africa in some ways. A couple of decades ago. They missed that boat.
TN: They did. And so did the Americans. So. Hey guys, thank you very much. Really appreciate this. If you’re watching please like and subscribe have a great weekend and have a great week ahead. Thank you.
We’ve seen so much about oil for rubles, gas for bitcoin, etc this week. Does it represent a fundamental shift for energy markets? And is the dollar dead? The yen fell pretty hard versus the dollar this week. Why is that happening, especially if the dollar is dead? Bonds spike pretty hard this week, especially the 5-year. What’s going on there and what does it mean?
Key themes from last week:
Oil for rubles (death of the Dollar?)
Rapidly depreciating JPY
Hawkish Fed and the soaring 5-year
Key themes for The Week Ahead:
New stimulus coming to help pay for energy. Inflationary?
How hawkish can the Fed go?
What’s ahead for equity markets?
This is the 12th episode of The Week Ahead in collaboration of Complete Intelligence with Intelligence Quarterly, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
0:00 Start 0:34 CI Futures 1:22 Key themes this week 1:48 Oil for rubles (death of the Dollar?) 3:15 Acceptance of cryptocurrency? 5:34 Petrodollar Petroyuan? 7:32 Rapidly depreciating JPY 10:12 Hawkish Fed and the soaring 5-year 11:58 Housing is done? 13:10 Stimulus for energy 15:53 How hawkish can the Fed go? 17:34 What’s ahead for equity markets?
Transcript
TN: Hi, everyone, and welcome to The Week Ahead. My name is Tony Nash. I’m here with Albert Marko, Sam Rines, and Tracy Shuchart. Before we get started, please, if you can like and subscribe to our YouTube channel, we would really appreciate it.
Also, before we get started, I want to talk a little bit about Complete Intelligence. Complete Intelligence, automates budgeting processes and improves forecasting results for companies globally. CI Futures is our market data and forecast platform. CI Futures forecasts approximately 900 assets across commodities, currencies and equity indices, and a couple of thousand economic variables for the top 50 economies. CI Futures tracks forecast error for accountable performance. Users can see exactly how CI Futures have performed historically with one and three month forward intervals. We’re now offering a special promotion of CI Futures for $50 a month. You can find out more at completeintel.com/promo.
Okay, this week we had a couple of key themes. The first is oil for rubles and somewhat cynically, the death of the dollar. Next is the rapidly depreciating Japanese yen, which is somewhat related to the first. But it’s a big, big story, at least in Asia. We also have the hawkish Fed and the soaring five-year bond. So let’s just jump right into it. Tracy, we’ve seen so much about oil for rubles and Bitcoin and other things over the past week. Can you walk us through it? And is this a fundamental shift in energy markets? Is it desperation on Russia’s behalf? Is the dollar dead? Can you just walk us through those?
TS: All right, so no, the dollar is not dead. First, what people have to realize is that there’s a difference. Oil is still priced in USD. It doesn’t matter the currency that you choose to trade in because you see, in markets, local markets trade gasoline in all currencies. Different partners have traded oil in different currencies. But what it comes down to is it doesn’t matter because oil is still priced in dollars. And even if you trade it in, say, the ruble or the yuan, those are all pegged to the dollar. Right. And so you have to take dollar pricing, transfer it to that currency. And so it really doesn’t matter.
And the currency is used to price oil needs three main factors, liquidity, relative stability, and global acceptability. And right now, USD is the only one that possesses all three characteristics.
TN: Okay, so two different questions here. One is on the acceptance of cryptocurrency. Okay. I think they specifically said Bitcoin. Is that real? Is that happening? And second, if that is happening and maybe, Albert, you can comment on this a little bit, too. Is that simply a way to get the PLA in China to spend their cryptocurrency to fuel their army for cheap? Is that possibly what’s happening there?
TS: It could be. Russia came out and said, we’ll accept Bitcoin from friendly countries. Mostly, they were referring to Hungary and to China. Right. And I don’t think that is a replacement for USD no matter what because not every country except for perhaps China really accepts or El Salvador really accepts Bitcoin or would actually trade in Bitcoin. Right.
TN: In Venezuela, by the way. I think. Right. So on a sovereign basis. Okay. So Sam and Albert, do you guys have anything on there in terms of Bitcoin traded for energy? Do you have any observations there?
AM: No, this is a little bit of… This is even a serious conversation they’re having? With El Salvador going to be like the global hub for Russian oil now because they can use Bitcoin?
TN: That would be really interesting.
AM: But this is just silly talk. Every time there’s some kind of problem geopolitically and they start talking about gold for oil or wine or whatever you want to throw out, they start talking about the US dollar dying and whatnot.
I mean, like Tracy, I don’t want to reiterate what Tracy said, but her three points were correct. On top of that, we’re the only global superpower.
TN: Okay.
AM: That’s it.
SR: Yeah. My two cent is whatever on Bitcoin for a while.
TN: Right.
SR: Cool.
TN: I think that all makes sense now since we’re here because we’re already here because we all hear about the death of the petrodollar and the rise of the petroyuan and all this stuff. So can we go there a little bit? Does this mean that the petrodollar is dead? I know that what you said earlier is all oil is priced in dollars. So that would seem to be at odds with the death of the petrodollar.
AM: Well, Tony, in my perspective, the petrodollar is a relic of the 1970s. Right. Okay. Today it’s the Euro dollar. It’s not the petrodollar that makes the American economy run like God on Earth at the moment. It’s the Euro dollar. Forget about Petro dollar. Right. Because it’s not simply just oil that’s priced in it in dollars. It’s every single piece of commodity globally that’s priced in dollars.
TN: And Albert, just for viewers who may not understand what a Euro dollar is, can you quickly help them understand what a Euro dollar is?
AM: They’re just dollars deposited in overseas banks outside the United States system. That’s all it is.
TN: Okay with that. Very good.
SR: And the global economy runs on them. Full stop.
AM: It’s the blood of the global economy.
TN: So the death of the petrodollar, rise of the petroyuan and all that stuff, we can kind of brush that aside. Is that fair?
TS: Yeah. I mean, even if you look at say, you know, China started their own Yuan contract rights, oil contract and Yuan futures contract. But that still pegged to the price of the Dubai contracts. Right. That are priced in dollars.
TN: Let’s be clear, the CNY and crude are both relative to dollars. Right?
TS: Right.
TN: You have two things that are relative to dollars trying to circumvent dollars to buy that thing. The whole thing is silly.
TS: Exactly.
AM: Yeah, of course. Because Tony, the thing is, if China decides to sell all their dollars and all their trade or whatever, everything they’ve got, they risk hyperinflation. What happens to the Renminbi and then what happens in the world? Contracts trying to get priced right.
TN: Exactly. It’s a good point. Okay. This is a great discussion.
Now, Albert, while we’re on currencies, The Japanese yuan fell pretty hard versus the dollar this week. Do you mind talking through that a little bit and helping us understand what’s going on there?
AM: Yeah, I got a real simple explanation. The Federal Reserve most likely green light in Japan To devalue their yen to be able to show up the manufacturing sector in case China decides to get into a bigger global geopolitical spat with the United States. Simple as that.
TN: Great. Okay. So that’s good. This is really good. And I want people to understand that currencies are very relevant to geopolitics or the other way around. Right. Whenever you see currency movements, there’s typically a geopolitical connection there.
AM: Of course. And on top of that, if it was any other time and they started to devalue the currency like this, the Federal Reserve where the President would start calling the currency manipulators. And there’d be page headlines on the financial times.
TN: Right.
AM: And because that didn’t happen, It’s an automatic signal to me that this is what’s happening at the moment. Right.
What’s also interesting to me, Albert, is we’ve seen last week we saw Japan approach the Saudis and the Emiratis about oil contracts. We saw Japan call. There’s a meeting in Japan next week, I think, with China. So Japan is becoming this kind of foreign policy arm, whether we want to admit it or not, they’re kind of becoming foreign policy arm for the US. Because the US is not well respected right now. Is that fair to say?
AM: It’s more than fair to say, I believe Biden’s conference with South Asian leaders was just canceled on top of everything else.
TS: Sorry. And we saw this week Japan and India just signed, like, a $42 billion trade deal. So it kind of seems like they’re smoothing over the rough edges because the United States kind of came after India a little bit earlier about two weeks ago.
TN: Yeah, that’s a good call, Tracy. I think Japan and India have had a long, positive relationship. It’s especially intensified over the past, say, seven or eight years as China has tried to invest in India and the Japanese have kind of countered them and giving the Indians very favorable terms for investment and for loans. And so this is kind of a second part of that investment that was, I think, announced in, say, 2014 or 2015, something like that. And again, as we talked about it’s, Japan intervening to help the US out and obviously help Japan out at the same time. Thanks for that.
Now, Sam. We saw bonds spike pretty hard this week, especially the five year. I’ve got a Trading View source up there on the five year up on the screen right now. So can you walk us through what’s happening with US bonds right now, especially the five year?
SR: Sure. I mean, it’s pretty straightforward. The Fed is getting very hawkish and the market is adopting it rather quickly. And I don’t know how forcefully to say this. The current assumption coming from city is four straight 50 basis point hikes and then ending the year with just a couple of 25. That is a pretty incredibly fast off zero move time, some quantitative tightening, and you’re somewhere around three and a half percent to 4% worth of tightening in a year. That’s a pretty fast move.
So the two year to five years reflecting that the Fed is moving very quickly, you’re likely having the long end of the curve is lagging a little bit. You saw flattening, not steepening this week. The long end of the curve is telling you that the terminal rate may, in fact, actually be at least somewhat sticky around two and a half and might actually be moving a little bit higher. And that terminal rate is really important because that is how high the Fed can go and then stay there. It is also how fast the Fed can get there and how much above it the Fed is willing to go. So I think there’s a lot of things that happened on the curve this week.
TN: Okay. Albert, what’s in on those? Yes, go ahead, Albert.
AM: Oh, I’ve heard whispers that the long bond is going to 2.8% and maybe even 3%. That’s what the whispers have been telling me about that, which is going to absolutely devastate housing.
TN: But that was my actual idea.
SR: Oh, yeah. Housing is done. I mean, you saw pending home sales were supposed to be up a point and down 4%. That’s the first signal. The next signal will be when lumber goes back to $300.
TN: Okay. It seems to me you’re saying by say Q3 of this year we’re going to see real downside in the housing market. Is that fair to say?
SR: Oh, in Q2, you’re going to see real downside in the housing market. Yeah.
TN: Wow.
SR: Pending sales are, I think, one of the most important indicators of how the housing market is going. Right. It’s a semi forward looking indicator. If you begin to see a whole bunch of these homes in the ground stay as homes that are not being built. Right. So if you begin to see just a bunch of pads out there, it’s going to become a significant problem considering a lot of people have already bought the materials to build it off. And you’re going to begin to have some really interesting spirals that go back into some of the commodity markets that have been on fire on the housing front.
TN: Wow. Okay. That’s a big call. I love this discussion. Okay, good. Okay. So let’s move on to the week ahead. Tracy, we’ve had some stimulus announced to help pay for energy. Can you help us understand? Do you expect we’ve seen California and some other things come out? Are more States going to do this or more countries going to do this, and what does that do to the inflation picture?
TS: Well, absolutely. We saw California, Delaware, Germany, Italy talking about it. Japan already. They’re coming out of the woodwork right now. There’s actually too many to list. It’s just that we’re just now this week just starting to see the US kind of joining this on a state to state basis. The problem is that this is not going to help inflation whatsoever. You’re literally creating more demand and we still do not have the supply online. So all of these policies are going to have the opposite of the intended effect that they are doing. Right. It’s just more stimulus in the market.
TN: Do we think there’s going to be some federal energy stimulus coming?
TS: They’ve talked about different options. I mean, really, the only thing that they could do right now is get rid of the federal excise tax, but that’s only really a few cents. And they kind of don’t want to do that because that goes towards repairing roads, et cetera. That doesn’t fit into their plan that they just passed back in the fall. Right. We had infrastructure plan, so they need to pay for that. That’s already passed. So they probably won’t do that.
The other options that they have that they’re weighing are more SPR release, which is ridiculous at this point because they could release it all and it would still not have a long lasting effect on the market. And that’s our national security. It’s a national security issue. And we’re experiencing all these geopolitical events right now. We have bombs in Saudi Arabia. We’ve got Russia, Ukraine. So I think that’s like a poor move altogether.
TN: So if more States are going to come in, is it suspects like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, those types of places?
TS: Yes.
TN: Okay. So all inflationary, it’s going in the wrong direction.
TS: It’s going to create demand, which is going to drive oil prices higher because we still don’t have the supply on the market.
TN: Okay. Wow. Thanks for that. Sam. As we look forward, you mentioned a little bit about how hawkish the Fed would be. But what are you looking at say in the bond market for the next week or so? Do we expect more activity there, or do you think we’re kind of stabilizing for now?
SR: We’re going into month end. So I would doubt that we’re going to stabilize in any meaningful way as portfolios either head towards rebalancing or begin to rebalance into quarter end. So I don’t think you’re going to see stabilization. And I think some of the signals might be a little suspect. But I do think back to the housing front. I’m going to be watching how housing stocks react, how the dialogue there really reacts, probably watching lumber very closely, a fairly good indicator of how tight things are or aren’t on the housing front.
And then paying a little bit of attention to what the market is telling us about that terminal rate. If the terminal rate keeps moving higher, to Albert’s point, that’s going to be a big problem for housing, but it’s going to be a big problem for a number of things as we begin to kind of spiral through, what the consequences of that are. It will be for the first time in a very long time.
TN: Okay. So it’s interesting. We have, say, energy commodities rising. We have, say, housing related commodities potentially falling, and we have food commodities rising. Right. It seems like something’s off. Some of it’s shortages based, and some of it is really demand push based. So energy stuff seems to be stimulus based or potentially so some interesting divergence in some of those sectors.
Okay. And then, Albert, what’s ahead for equity markets? We’ve seen equity markets continue to push higher. How much further can they go?
AM: Last week they eliminated, I think, up to about $9 trillion inputs, short squeeze, VIX crush. I mean, they went all out these last two weeks. It’s absolutely stunning. From my calculations, I think they expanded the balance sheet another $150 billion. Forget about this tapering talk. There’s no tapering. They just keep on going. How high can they go? That’s anybody’s guess right now. I think we’re like 6% off all time highs. On no news.
TN: So potentially another 6% higher?
AM: Honestly, I know that there’s hedge funds waiting, salivating at 4650. Just salivating to short it there. So I don’t think they can even get close to that, to be honest with you. So I don’t know, maybe 4590 early in the week before they start coming down.
TN: Okay. Interesting. So you think early next week we’ll see a change in direction?
AM: Yeah, we’re going to have to this has been an epic run, like I said, 90% short squeeze, 10% fixed crush. You don’t see this very often. Okay, Sam, what do you think, Sam? Similar?
SR: On equities, I like going into the rip higher. I’m kind of with Albert, but a little less bearish. I think you chop sideways from here looking for a catalyst in either direction. Bonds ripping higher today, yields ripping higher today. Bond prices plummeting. That I thought was going to be a catalyst for equities to move lower. It wasn’t. That kind of gives me a little bit of pause on being too bearish here, but it’s hard for me to get bullish.
TN: Okay.
TS: What’s interesting? I’ll just throw in like, Bama, weekly flows. We actually saw an outflow from equities for the first time in weeks. It wasn’t a lot 1.9 billion. But that says to me people are getting a little nervous up here. Profit taking, as they say on CNBC.
TN: All right, guys. Hey, thank you very much. Really appreciate the insight. Have a great week ahead.
AM, TS: Thanks.
SR: You too, Tony.
TN: Fabulous. Look. I’m married. I’m a man. I don’t notice anything. I noticed the other guys laughed at that. Uncomfortably. That’s great. Okay. I’m just going to start that over, guys. And we’re going to end it.
Tony Nash joins the BBC Business Matters podcast for a discussion around what’s happening in the world right now: Malaysia’s working class, Tesla’s new branch in Germany, Biden’s recent visit to Europe, lifting of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, energy crises in Europe, and so much more.
ST: Tony Nash, economist in Texas, CEO of Complete Intelligence and host of The Week Ahead, a weekly YouTube show on markets and geopolitics. Hello. Good evening, Tony.
TN: Hi. Good evening. Good morning.
ST: Tony, let me bring you in here on this one as well. I mean, you may be living in Austin, Texas, at the moment, but is there anything you want to pick up on because you grew up in this area?
TN: Sure. Yeah. I think what Jessica says about the migrant labor is a key issue because it prices a lot of Malaysians out of working class jobs. So if those minimum wages apply also to migrant workers, then it presents a fairer playing field for Malaysians. Without that, it’s a labor arbitrage and it’s a domestic labor arbitrage. So I think the Minister has a tough job ahead of him in that respect. I do think, though, as you mentioned in your interview, it’s a good time for energy. And I think if Malaysia can swing the current energy prices into investment and technology, I think they could look at some seriously interesting opportunities.
ST: Yeah, indeed. As he said, he was being helped by the price of oil at the moment. All right, Tony and Jessica, for the moment. Thank you both very much. Tony, let me come to you on this one. You’re based there in Austin, in Texas. So is Tesla. Now, when are they opening their big factory there?
TN: First, I want to say I love the statement that Germany is not known for risk affinity. I thought that was a highlight, but the Tesla factory in Austin started production in December of 21, and they have a grand opening on April 6 of this year. So they’ll start rolling cars off the factory line. It should be in April.
ST: Okay.
TN: So it’s a hugely optimistic statement by Tesla to do all of these openings. It’s fantastic.
ST: Yeah. We have to wait and see where the plans are for the next one then. Tony Nash in Austin, Texas, what do you make of this? How is this going to go down with American producers?
TN: I think when these restrictions were put in by the Trump administration, the sense that I always got was that the UK got caught up within some of its Brexit and immediately post Brexit issues. My understanding of that time, that era was that the tariffs were really focused on countering subsidies and nontariff barriers. And the UK steel industry is not as reliant on subsidies and nontariff barriers as the European steel industry is. Of course, there are some, but my understanding was that that wasn’t as big of an issue for UK steel. So I was always confused why the UK got caught up in this. So since it’s out, I don’t think specifically UK steel is the issue. I think Chinese steel is the bigger issue by American producers, and the dumping of Chinese steel on global markets is really the main focus.
ST: Just as a quick aside, the other items that got caught up in this. I don’t know whether they’re sort of like a little footnote and almost like an aside to this, the jeans, the whiskey and the Harley Davidsons.
TN: Look, the UK is suffering on that side of the deal, right? I mean, if you can’t get American. I’m sorry. I’m just kidding. So anyway, once it’s done, all that stuff will go through, which is great. So a little bit of bourbon next time I visit London would be great.
ST: Oh, no, we need to take you to enjoy some Scottish whisky, I’m sure. But that is the other question that’s always in the background now of this one now coming through to the forefront is now this is out the way. Could there be talks again, restarted again on that sort of full scale free trade deal with the US? Do you see that as happening anytime soon?
TN: I think Americans would welcome it. Absolutely. I think there is a warm spot in many Americans heart for the UK, and I think Americans would absolutely welcome it. There would be almost zero opposition to it.
ST: All right, Tony, for the moment. Thank you. Tony. Let me bring you in. Now, President Biden is traveling to Europe in the next few hours. He’s starting with a NATO meeting, also meeting with EU, European Union and G7 leaders. They’re now to Poland for discussions about the humanitarian response. What do you expect from this felt that this is more of a signal that he’s actually there. He’s made the trip or something more significant?
TN: Well, I think he has an opportunity to do something very significant when he speaks to the European Council. The EU right now is developing a defense plan and putting together plans for hundreds of billions of euros worth of spending on defense. And if Biden were to endorse that at the European Council, it would send the message that the US is very supportive. Unfortunately, within US government, within State and Department of Defense, there are career bureaucrats who are opposed to Europe defending itself. So if Biden were to make a very clear statement at the European Council that he supports Europe putting this debt package together to put its own very strong defense together, it could be a significant trip.
ST: How is this playing back at home for him? I was looking at his approval ratings earlier. He’s a new low of 40% as according to a poll conducted or in the last couple of days. Is that as a result of what he is saying or what he is doing at the moment or anything else?
TN: The biggest thing that’s dragging him down right now is inflation. And the White House has really tried to say that inflation started when Russia invaded Ukraine, and Americans know that it started much earlier. And so Americans have been very skeptical since the White House has tried to say that inflation lays at the feet of Russia. They’re very skeptical. His polling has really declined over the past, say, two months, partly because Americans feel like they’re being misled on that, and it hits people’s petrol tanks and it hits their pocketbooks and everything else. That’s the biggest issue that can make him unpopular.
ST: But I mean, just staying, though, with his stance on Russia and Ukraine, how is that particularly playing out at home? Would people like him to get more involved or less involved? And is it purely just domestic matters that they have on their minds at the moment?
TN: I think people see the news and hear the news on it and kind of the headline, Putin is a bad guy. It’s hard to disagree with that. But I think many Americans that I speak it to and many who I see say in social media and other forums, they just don’t want to get directly involved. Americans are happy for Europe and happy to support Europe to solve this problem. But Americans generally, from what I can tell, just don’t want to get involved. So we’re happy to send aid, we’re happy to send materials and so on and so forth. But most of the Americans, at least that I talk to, maybe I’m only talking to a minority of people, but they really don’t want to see American personnel on the ground there.
ST: Yeah. There are suggestions that he will announce measures to end European reliance on Russian energy, or at least some sort of plan or ideas or opinions on that. What could he possibly suggest? What could he put on the table, throw on the table for that?
TN: Texas where I’m living, we have a lot of gas in Texas, a lot. We flare a lot of it, which means we burn it at the well, that will require many more vessels to transport liquefied natural gas, sure. But we’re very happy in Texas to support the energy to Europe. So I would think that part of a plan has to include US energy going to Europe. It may not be all of it, but it surely should be part of it.
ST: Not just the tankers, but obviously the ports that are able to take that on board and then the infrastructure that would be needed there. Tony, it’s cost of living that’s dominating the headlines for you, isn’t it?
TN: It is, yeah. I’m really curious to see what Jessica is going to say after that. So we live in Texas for the energy capital of at least the Western Hemisphere, if not the world. So seeing, say, WTI and Brent at the prices they are is really helpful to my neighbors. It’s really helpful to the state government here and the taxes that we raise. Unfortunately, there has also been a massive influx of people into Texas over the past year or two years. So I have a friend who’s selling a house right now in Houston, and the price has risen by 30% in the past six months or something like that. So real estate inflation here. It’s not just petrol or gasoline, it’s not just energy, it’s real estate. It’s everything. As I said, we’re seeing an influx of people from outside California, New York, other places coming into Texas and they’re used to paying a lot more for things. So people moving here will find a house online without seeing it and buy it. And the prices are relatively cheap to what they’re paying in wherever they’re from. So Texans are facing what people in Idaho and Oregon and some of these other States where Californians have moved in the past.
We’re starting to face some of those issues and the cost of living is becoming a real issue here.
ST: Totally cutting out people who now can no longer afford to buy them where they’ve been born and grown up. Tony Nash. Joining us from Austin, Texas and you, wherever you are in the world, listening to us today on Business Matters. Thank you very much for your company. This is Business Matters here on the BBC. See World Service. Until next time, thanks for listening. Bye.
We’re dissecting Jerome Powell’s latest announcement — what does that mean to markets this coming week? Will we see Powell’s inner Volcker this year? What are we expecting to happen in the energy markets considering the geopolitical risks in Russia and Ukraine? Has the White House and Treasury told the Fed to fight inflation as its top priority?
This is the fourth episode of The Week Ahead in collaboration of Complete Intelligence with Intelligence Quarterly, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
TN: Hi, everyone, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. And I’m joined by Nick Glinsman, Albert Marko, and Tracy Shuchart. Before we get started, I’d like to ask you to subscribe to our YouTube channel. It helps us with visibility, helps you get reminded of our new episode. So please do that.
While you’re thinking about it, this week was all about the Fed. Of course, we expected Monday and Tuesday to be choppy. We told you that on our last Week Ahead, which they were. We talked about it last week. We talked about the said meeting last week. And as Wednesday got closer, it appeared that Powell would be more bearish. And that seems to be exactly what we got.
So today we’d love to focus on a few things. Nick, let’s start with you. What were your main takeaways from the Fed?
NG: Okay, I’ve got three takeaways, most of which came after the Fed. Okay. The statement was sort of bland, almost appalling in terms of, it felt like it was leaving the risk markets to determine the Fed’s policy. And then, boy, Powell come out hawkish. He refused to give any direct answers but never denied any of the points and the questions such as how many rates, how many it takes?
So what was interesting is today, we had the first Fed Speaker, Neil Kashkari, the Uberdam for the FOMC.
TN: That’s right.
NG: And he basically came out and said whatever it takes, we’ve got to get inflation. I mean, shocking. Now where Powell got confirmed in his hawkishness came today with the ECI data. The base figure was slightly less than expected. But lift the bedsheets up and you are seeing major wage pressures.
If you look at some of the increases in wages and salaries, four and a half percent for all civilian workers, 5% for private sector workers, up from 4.2 and 4.6% respectively. If you go deeper, hospitality, health care, you’re looking at 7% and 8% increases.
TN: Nurses in many cases are making as much as doctors now in a number of cases.
NG: Exactly. So that basically confirmed Powell’s words of a rapid pace of wage grip. Okay. And I think that was a very key piece of data, which in fact, a Bongi like me would have been waiting for. Right now.
TN: We don’t see them bonds today, did we?
NG: What’s that?
TN: We didn’t see the action in bonds today, did we?
NG: They were down initially and then after the day, they rallied a bit. But I think that was more to do with reversing a very successful week of your well positioned. And what’s interesting, though, this came after that hawkish press conference. So typically what you have is the yoke of mutually reinforces the relationship with the Fed’s monetary policy. So simplistically, when an economy is strong and in danger of overheating, you are going to see the yield curve steeper. Long end, higher rates relative to the short end.
Now that then reflects that the rates have to rise, that’s the historical perspective. What was interesting this time was the curve was bare flat, and it was headed towards an inversion, the consensus. That’s a really bad signal of an approaching recession.
What it’s basically suggesting at that point, historically, the bond market tends to suggest Fed’s tighten too much. We’re going to get a recession. It needs to stop. Reassess, perhaps even cut. So what’s startling about this whole move is you got yield curve flat, bear flattening, coming so soon before the Fed has even started raising rates.
TN: Right.
NG: So if you have a Swift move to inversion, it’s going to be slightly, somewhat harder for the Fed to carry out its hiking program over time. That tells me that you’re going to have it front loaded. It also suggests to me, which is what you got from Powell’s press conference, it may not be 25 basis points each hike. It may be 350s. Right. Especially with this inflation.
He was all about inflation risks to the upside and a very strong labor market.
TN: 350 basis point hikes. I just want to make sure we make sure that we know what you said.
NG: Yes. Basically the Yoker is suggesting that. But some of his comments were this is a labor market that’s rocketing. This is inflation that still has risk. The upside. We saw a bit of that today. He also said supply chains are not going to get resolved this year. We’re going to have to wait till next year.
TN: Okay. Let’s stop there, because I want to ask you something, and this may be an overly simplistic way of asking the question and Albert and Tracy jump in here.
But it seems to me that kind of what he’s saying indirectly is, hey, there are supply side inflation, okay. And we as the Fed can’t control the supply side, we can only control the demand side to some extent. And so what we’re going to do is we’re going to put a stopper on demand so that demand can come down to match up with the available supply. And that’s how we’re going to we don’t have the tools to put the kibosh on the supply side inflation. So we’re going to bring the demand down.
First of all, does that seem to be what he’s saying?
NG: I think that’s probably what he’s trying to say. I would add one other point. So we were all thinking that after the big rise in crude oil and energy prices last year, we would get some beneficial payback by the comparison, but we’re not oil still going up, so we’re not getting that.
And the most extreme version is, for example, Europe. These have all got to feed through from wholesale to retail.
AM: Yeah.
NG: I think it was 95% of surveyed American CEOs. I can’t remember the sort of survey, but I can dig it out. Are expecting to raise prices.
AM: Yeah. The problem with them trying to limit demand, though, is it’s going to start affecting jobs. Labor market’s certainly going to weaken if demand starts to fall off. Because wage inflation is going nowhere. I’ll tell you that right now. Wage inflation is here to stay politically is absolutely just not going to ever come back down. So that’s going to be sticky for quite a while.
NG: But I think Powell was implying that where he basically said the labor market is super strong. So I don’t disagree with it will dampen it. The question is whether it turns around.
Remember, we’re getting all these people retiring and dropping out. Yes, that was your data, Albert.
TS: He kept reiterating the labor market is super strong. But the labor market really, if you look under the hood of it, it’s not really super strong. We all know that.
TN: That’s true.
NG: Yeah. Agreed. But it’s perceptions. Remember, these guys are basing their work off their forecasts. One of their forecasts have ever been right. Okay. Even worse in Europe. So the point I’m making is they have their parameters. They have the data that they look at and monitor and whether we agree with that data or not. And I mean, I would always disagree with the way the Fed measures, the BLS measures CPI, but it was impacted by Arthur Burns of the Fed in 1970s. Right.
So the point to be made is they have their data sets that they watch, and according to those data sets, they may be wrong. I don’t disagree.
TN: So just yes or no, because you’re implying some things that two weeks ago we talked about or last week we talked about, yes or no. Will we see J. Powell’s innver Volcker this year?
NG: Yes.
TN: We will?
NG: In the short term.
TN: Albert, what do you think? Yes or no? Will we see J. Powell’s inner Volcker?
NG: Mini Volcker.
AM: Mini Volcker, I agree with. One and done Volcker, a one week Volcker, yes, I agree with.
NG: If he does the one and done, the bond market will riot. If you look at the Fed meeting. But look at the statement. That statement said, basically risk assets will determine the level of Fed funds, right?
AM: Yeah.
NG: Bond market’s sold off. Hold on. The bond market’s sold off, aggressively. Sold off all across the curve and particularly the long end. It didn’t start to flatten in a bare manner until that press conference.
TN: Sorry, guys, let me stop you both just for a second. Tracy, will J. Powell show his inner mini Volcker this year?
TS: I said this last week. I’m in the one and done camp, maybe two, but I’m cutting it out there. I know Bank of America came out today and said seven. They said the “seven” yes, today, which I think I don’t know what they’re smoking exactly. But I’ll go with max two on this one, even though I said one and done. I’ll stretch that out.
Maybe one more, but that’s where I stand on that one.
TN: Okay. So while we’re with you, Tracy, can you give us a quick view on what did markets get right and wrong this week from your perspective? What do you think is a little bit out of whack?
TS: Well, I mean, I think energy markets obviously remain elevated because of the Russia-Ukraine risk, right? Because Russia’s 10 million barrels per day, they produce a lot of gas. That’s here with us to say we have a northeastern so that kept a bid under at least the energy markets, right. I think last week we were talking about continued volatility all around in, say, the indices and obviously that trend is continued and probably likely will continue into next week.
Again, looking ahead to next week, I expect that probably we’ll still keep a bid under oil, but we did go kind of sideways this week. Even though we got new highs, I still think we’ll stay in that $82 to $87 range, probably for the next week or so, and then probably get a little bit. If nothing happens with Russian and Ukraine, we’ll get a little bit of pullback there. But still looking at the overall fundamentals of the market, they remain very strong. So I don’t think we’ll see any kind of material.
TN: Okay. This is on the commodity side. On the commodity side. Okay. What about the equity side?
TS: Well, it’s. Far as equities indices are concerned, I think that we’re again going to see continued volatility. What I think is very interesting. As long as the market is pricing in rate hikes, that’s going to put pressure on growth versus value. Right.
And so I think that trend will continue. I think we’re in for a rough note. Until that March meeting, until we actually hear an actual decision, we could be setting up for another volatile month in February.
TN: Okay. That’s fun. Right. Okay. So let’s take that and let’s swing over to geopolitics for a minute. And Albert, I want to ask you a couple of things about geopolitics. Tracy mentioned Kazakhstan, which we’ll get to in a minute. But has the White House told the Fed and treasury that inflation is a top priority? Is that what you’re hearing out of DC? Are they getting political pressure to make inflation their top priority?
AM: Oh, absolutely. Inflation is a nuclear bomb for politicians. I mean, gas prices rising, food prices rising. The job market is they can say it’s strong, but it’s not. I mean, realistically talking about 15%, 20% unemployment, so it’s not strong. So, yeah, inflation is absolutely priority number one for the next couple of months.
TN: Right. Okay. And then as we move into a little bit more on geopolitics, so we got a viewer question from at 77, Psycho Economics. He says, has Russia’s stabilization of Kazakhstan increased their influence over energy exports to Europe?
So give us a little bit of kind of overview of what you see happening in Kazakhstan. And then if you and Tracy can help us understand what’s happening with the energy exports to Europe, that would be really helpful.
AM: Yeah. Kazakhstan has been stuck between Russia and China for a couple of years now. But realistically, that’s Russia’s backyard. They control the area. Ever since the United States was booted out of Uzbekistan, they’ve lost a lot of sway in the region. So the energy sector from Kazakhstan all the way to Turkey and into the Mediterranean is pretty well dominated by the Russians right now.
TS: And I would agree with that. I would also like to mention just as an energy producer, I mean, Kazakhstan doesn’t produce all that much.
So if you’re looking at the commodity side, I would say Ukraine would have more of a dent because of how much they’re involved in the cereals markets. How much do they export in the cereals markets, how much they export in the uranium market. So that’s definitely more commodities heavy area that I would be concerned about then Kazakhstan, just from the energy standpoint.
AM: Yeah. And when you’re looking at Russia and talking about energy, it’s not necessarily you don’t single out just Russia’s energy production. They go out and they meddle everywhere they possibly can, whether it be Libya, Kazakhstan, Turkey, everywhere they can to sit there and depress those energy exports so they can pump out there. So that’s what I mean by Russian dominance in the sectors. Sure.
NG: Will Russia attack the Ukraine?
AM: You’re looking at maybe 1020 thousand conscripts that Russia probably hasn’t paid in a while to go and loot the countryside of Ukraine where it’s already Russian dominated speakers.
Biden comes out and talks about sacking Kiev as if it’s Hannibal on the gates of Rome. This is just absurdity. Russia has no military, nor does he want to go into Kiev and hold it. What’s the point of bombing the thing? Of course, they can go in and destroy Kia if they wanted to overnight, but that serves absolutely zero purpose. So are they going to invade? Yeah. I mean, I would give it a 60 70% chance, but would it be something some big kind of issue at. No, the market is looking at this issue as World War II. And it’s just nothing more than a little bit of a skirmish that’s kind of kinetic.
TN: But they’ve already invaded the economy. They’ve already invaded any investors who want to go into Ukraine, that nobody’s going to touch Ukraine for at least the next year. Right.
AM: Well, Tony, listen, I’ve been to that region, worked there for years in Georgia and Ukraine. I mean, Ukraine has corruption issues, of course, aside from the Russian problem. Right. They’ve got legal framework problems and corruption problems that it makes investing there quite difficult.
TN: Right. Okay, so you’re saying no, not going to happen. You’re saying maybe some looting in Eastern Ukraine.
AM: But they’ll reinvent the same areas that they did in 2014. They’ll make Biden and the west look inept, and that’s their goal. That’s it.
TN: Great. Okay. Sounds fun. As we look ahead, what milestones are you looking for? The week ahead, Nick, what are you expecting to see next week in markets?
NG: I’m fascinated to see the next bunch of Fed speakers come out. If we had the Uber Dove, very hawkish. That’s as hawkish as he’s ever spoken, Kashkari. I’m fascinated to see what the others are going to say.
What I can’t get a handle on is whether this is a genuine bear market inversion or flattening going on the bomb market. I still maintain the point that you’ve got to look at the market and watch what’s going on. Okay.
So I’ll be interested to see whether that continues. If it doesn’t continue, that tells me that it was actually a bit half partly people reversing bad positions on the Euro curve because really traditionally we should be having your curve deepening.
And then next week, well, we’ve got unemployment coming out on the Friday, so that’s going to be pretty fascinating. And then we’ll have the following week, all that inflation data starting to come through, and we won’t have the favorable comparisons from a year ago.
The banks have all jumped on like Tracy said, bank of America seven hikes. Goldman is four to five hikes. They are jumping on this. This did surprise the banking community, with maybe the exception of Goldman, who came out beforehand and said this is what I was thinking. So it’s a pull and push between what we’ve just been discussing. How many heights have we got a minivolk building up here in the Fed? If he’s got the support of the White House and treasury, then maybe we have. Right. I think he had to have that before he came out with that sort of speech.
So the question I mean, I looked at today’s equity market. To me that started off as a okay, let’s cover the shorts because we’ve had a good week and there’s no liquidity. So the market just carried on popping up be interesting to see what happens on Monday. And remember, we have holiday, new lunar year, holiday in the Far East. So the forest is shut, as it were, even less liquid.
TN: Right. So, Tracy, you’ve said for a long time that Yellen is a strong dollar Treasury Secretary. And so what Nick is saying about the Fed and the treasury and the White House being in sync, it seems to make sense if they’re tightening that that is certainly something that Yellen might want.
TS: Obviously, you’re going to see a strong dollar. The Feds raising rates, they’re taking liquidity out of the dollar market. Right. So in that environment, we are going to see a rising dollar. What we should be looking at, though, is emerging markets. Right that nobody’s really talking about. How does this affect emerging markets? Emerging market debt that’s denominated in USC as a dollar gets higher, that puts pressure on emerging markets, even though a lot of banks came out and said emerging markets should do better this year than DM markets, but in my opinion, not in an environment where we see a rising US dollar. So that’s something to look forward to.
TN: In the biggest emerging market. We saw the Euro really taken to the shorts this week. Right. So the Euro is really problematic and it’s probably the newest of the emerging markets, in my view. So they’ve got real problems. But yeah, I think watching emerging market currencies is something that we really need to do over the next probably month to see how dramatic will the shift that we saw this week, will that remain? Will that get even more dire? I think it will. Yeah.
And Albert, what are you watching for the next week?
AM: I have to reiterate what Tracy just said. Literally, it’s the US dollar in the first half of the week and then this bonds the second half of the week.
I think if the US dollar gets over 98, it’s a real problem for emerging markets.
TN: Yeah.
AM: Especially the Europeans. You’re talking about the Euro. But the Europeans like the Euro suppressed right here because it’s boosting the manufacturing sector. So it’s like it’s a give and take with them. But yes, the dollar gets over 98. Start looking at problems.
TN: Well, and my big question is when will the CNT break? When will they finally say uncle and I’ve been saying for a while it’ll happen after lunar new year. They just can’t keep this up. And with an appreciated dollar, it becomes even harder for them to keep that CNY at six point 35 or whatever it is right now.
NG: Did we see a few little twitches of weakness today and yesterday?
TN: We did, yes.
AM: Just remember, Tony, October is a big meeting for the party in China and they are going to stimulate that economy sometime this year. It’s just a matter of when it starts and when you’re talking about the currency. Yeah. That’s going to be a problem that we have to tackle pretty quickly.
TN: Well, it’s monetary policy. Q one, Q two and it’s a lot of spending in Q two. Q three, right?
AM: Absolutely.
TN: They’re going to play with the currency in Q one. Q two and play with the triple R and all this other stuff in Q one, Q two. And then spending is going to rip starting in June.
AM: Oh, yeah. Full disclosure. I’m building big position in China names as we go here.
TS: And commodities will benefit from that as well. They start spending right. And you’re going to see commodities rip as well, which also hurts the inflation picture.
NG: I was going to say that will be a negative for the bond market.
TN: Okay, guys. On that note, thank you very much. It’s been great and have a great weekend. Thank you.
This is the most recent guesting of our CEO and founder Tony Nash in CNA’s Asia First, where he shares his expertise on inflation and the US economy. Will consumers continue to spend to help the economy? What’s his view on Biden’s call to boost oil supply to ease prices? Where does he think the US dollar is headed and how will that impact Asian currencies?
The full episode was posted at https://www.channelnewsasia.com. It may be removed after a few weeks. This video segment is owned by CNA.
Show Notes
CNA: What’s still ahead here in Asia First. We’ll check if US companies continue to charm investors with some big earnings in focus. Plus, to give us a stake on markets inflation and the US economy, we’ll be joined by Tony Nash from Complete Intelligence.
US stocks closed in the red overnight as lingering inflation concerns continue to dog investors. The Dow ended lower by six tenths of one percent, dragged down by a four point seven percent. Drop in visa the S&O 500 slipped 0.2 percent. And the NASDAQ fell by 0.3 percent.
Now after the bell, we also had some US tech earnings. NVIDIA shares rose after it beats on the top and bottom lines. The ship maker saw its revenue jump 50 percent on year on strong gaming and data center sales. Cisco shares tumbled and extended trade after missing on revenue expectations before the quarter. The computer networking company also issued a weaker than expected guidance.
For more on the broader markets and economy. We’re joined by Tony Nash is founder and CEO of Complete Intelligence speaking to us from Houston, Texas. So Tony as we heard their inflation fears seem to be back despite better expected earnings but CEO’s are starting to warn of more pain when it comes to supply chains. And that could put a damper on in that could lift inflation. Do you think the US consumers will continue to spend despite all this and will that help the recovery of the US in the next year?
TN: Yeah, I think the real issue here is that inflation is rising faster than wages. And what we’re seeing with oil prices. These oil prices are not terrible given kind of historical prices but it’s oil prices within the context of everything else. Obviously, the supply constraints really are pushing up prices of food and other activities as well as say goods that are imported for say the holiday purchases that Americans will make.
So Americans have absorbed a lot of those price rises to date. They’ll continue to absorb some but I think they’re almost at their limit in terms of what they can tolerate without getting upset.
CNA: Yeah, Do you think there’s a disconnect here when it comes to energy because Biden administration is hoping to boost supply to ease that oil price pressure but OPEC and its allies expect surplus into the next year. So, do you think they’re looking at it differently? And who has it right here and where oil prices headed?
TN: Yeah, I think part of the issue in the US with crude oil is the Biden administration restrictions on pipelines and on the supply side in the US. So, Joe Biden is asking other countries Russia, Saudi Arabia, other OPEC members to supply more oil yet he’s restricting the supply domestic supply in the US. So, I think what’s happening with those other suppliers they have customers who are buying their crude oil. They don’t necessarily want to have to produce more because they want slightly higher prices. They don’t want things too high but they want slightly higher prices and so they’re pushing back on on Joe Biden and saying look you really need to look at your own domestic supply. You really need to look at at those issues yourself before we start to open up our own market.
So you know, the current administration is trying to have it both ways. They’re trying to restrict supply within the US. They’re trying to bring in more supply from overseas. Americans see this and they understand kind of the incongruent nature of that argument from the administration.
CNA: I want to get your thoughts on the US dollar, Tony. Because that hit a 16-month high amid his expectations of more aggressive policy from the Federal Reserve. Where do you think the US dollar is headed and how will that impact us here in Asia, especially Asian currencies?
TN: Sure, it’s a great question. We saw a lot of action with the US dollar yesterday. The dollar index as you said reached highs for in the last say 18 months, two years. And that is on Fed action but one thing to consider is we’re looking at potentially changing the Fed chairman later this year.
So, if the current Fed chairman is exited. There is an expectation of a more dovish Fed chair coming in that’s one possibility. I think people are really trying to… While there is upward pressure on the dollar. People are trying not to get too far too much behind it because there could be a more double dovish Fed chair coming in. So, we think the dollar is overshot just a little bit in the short term.
We don’t expect it to continue rallying at its current pace. We expect say the Euro has fallen quite a bit and depreciated quite a bit in the last say three weeks. It’s going to appreciate just a bit a couple cents over the next month or so. Asian currencies, we think the CNY will stay strong. We think CNY will remain strong through say March, April as they start a devaluation cycle to help exporters. We think the Singapore dollar is going to stay in the same range that it’s in about now. We don’t see much policy change in Singapore and we think with a stable dollar at these levels. We think the same dollar will stay at about the same exchange rate of Scott now.
CNA: All right. We’ll keep our eyes on those currency exchanges and who becomes the next Federal Reserve Chairman. Tony Nash thanks for joining us. Tony Nash there founder and CEO of Complete Intelligence joining us from Houston, Texas.
CEO Tony Nash joins CNA’s Asia First program to explain the logic behind the US market’s performance. Will the better-than-expected retail sales continue to the Christmas season? What is his outlook for Q3 and what’s hampering the economic recovery in the States? And what are at stake around the success of the $3.5T infrastructure bill?
CNA: Well, Wall Street closed mixed in the State overnight as the major indices fail to build on Wednesday strong performance, while for the session, the blue chip Dow closed lower by two tenths of 1%, and the S&P 500 fell by a similar percentage.
However, the Nasdaq managed to eak out second consecutive day of gains. Well, this after investors digested mixed economic readings released before with the opening Bell when August retail sales surprised the market and rose 0.7% from the month prior, with analyst expecting a decline. But on the downside, jobless claims rose from last week’s pandemic low.
Of course, to help us understand the logic behind all the market movements were joined by Tony Nash, founder and CEO with Complete Intelligence, speaking to us from Houston, Texas. Very good evening to you, Tony.
So we’re looking at the better than expected retail sales number. And do you expect that momentum to continue given that we are 100 days away to Christmas in the State side and 99 days away from here in Singapore side.
TN: And we certainly hope that continues. But it’s really uncertain, given some of the corporate outlooks and given some of the other indicators that we’ve seen: purchasing managers indices and the regional Fed reports, Fed Manufacturing reports.
The port hold-ups in Long Beach are not helpful either. It’s really hurt supply chain. So we could see that spending tick up. But we do expect prices to continue to rise. And so there’s really a trade off there in terms of the volume that’s sold and the value that’s sold. And when we’re looking at, say a 1% rise in value of retail sales, that’s quite frankly, not even keeping up with inflation.
CNA: In the meantime, we’re also seeing that the weekly jobless claims increased. And of course, before that, many economist with organizations like JP Morgan has downgraded their third quarter economic growth outlook. So what is your outlook there and what is hampering economic recovery over there in the State Side?
TN: Well, it’s really companies are not seeing great investment opportunities. So the demand for credit in the US, just like in China, and just like in Europe, the demand for credit is really declining.
So we’re not seeing companies spend on big ticket items. They’re not investing on new equipment, they’re not investing on new projects. And so that’s hurting everything downstream because there are impacts across the economic spectrum when companies decide to spend on big ticket items. This is hurting the US. It’s hurting China. It’s hurting Europe.
So between now and you mentioned the end of the year, we expect that corporate spending to have an impact, the damper in corporate spending. We expect the supply chain difficulties and inflation have impacts as well. And if unemployment continues to tick up like it did, we could have a very difficult Christmas season. And the Fed and city administration here in the US are really contending with that, because as they go into the last quarter of the year, they’d really like to see things tick up.
CNA: And talking about those spending of course, there’s one catalyst that investors are watching out would be the passage of the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill. But given the situation that a Biden is facing now, do you think that this increasing likelihood that this bill can’t be get past?
TN: Yeah, I think you’re right. With the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden has really lost a lot of the support from Democratic moderates. And so he’s got the support of the extreme left Democrats. But a lot of the Democrats in the middle are really starting to say, “Hold on a minute. We need to be really careful about how much we support Biden,” because those guys have to be reelected in November of ’22. So from here on out, the voters in their respective districts will be paying a lot of attention to what they’re doing.
This 3.5 trillion infrastructure plan, only 1.2 trillion of it, I say “only” but 1.2 trillion of it is dedicated towards real hard infrastructure. The rest of it is a lot of social spending, a lot of pet projects, and that’s a lot of money. 2 trillion plus dollars.
So Americans are really tired of seeing big stimulus programs put out, and they’re really tired of seeing the pork going to people connected to politicians. So they’d much rather see the lower $1.2 trillion program. It’ll go direct to infrastructure. They’ll see it. It’ll be a very tangible spend.
One other thing to keep in mind is there is still $300 billion that haven’t been spent from the stimulus program that came out in Q1 of 2021. So a lot of Americans are asking, why do we need to green light another three plus trillion dollars in spending if we still have $300 billion that’s unspent?
CNA: All right, Tony, thank you so much indeed, for your analysis. Tony Nash, founder and CEO with Complete Intelligence.
This week’s QuickHit, we have Isaac Stone Fish of Strategy Risks to talk about how western companies and other companies around the world should deal with China and compromises that you need to do for that. He also shares the status of Hong Kong as a gateway to China. How about the environmental and human rights violations of China and how the US companies can make sure they are running an ethical business? And what is the status of non-profit organizations in China, especially those that are environment and human rights focuses?
Strategy Risks quantifies corporate exposure to Beijing. This was started because Isaac got frustrated at the way that ESG environmental, social and corporate governance providers were ranking Chinese companies and US companies that had exposures to China. Isaac thought it would be fun and interesting and hopefully very useful to have a different way of measuring and quantifying this exposure.
Isaac grew up in Syracuse, a nice little place but basically about as far away from the center of anything as possible. He started going to China when he was 16 for something different. He started in Western China and ended up living in Beijing for about six years. He also worked in journalism mostly, it was the Asia foreign policy. Spent a few years doing a mix of public affairs, commentating, bloviating, writing, and then started Strategy Risks roughly six months ago.
📊 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.
This QuickHit episode was recorded on February 3, 2021.
The views and opinions expressed in this Normalization of China 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: It’s really interesting looking at ESG and public markets and I think we’ve seen over the past few years a lot of tensions between China and the U.S. They’ve been there for 10 years but they really took shape over the last few years. If you’re a publicly traded company today in the U.S. or traded on a U.S. exchange, what are the things that you need to really think about with regard to China? What are the biggest risks and biggest considerations that you’re talking to your clients about?
ISF: One thing that people overlook is the risks of their China strategy. Not in China itself but globally and especially in the United States. The rules for engagement in China are so different for these corporations in China than they are in the United States. And the U.S. is drawing some pretty thick regulatory lines especially around Xinjiang, the region of northwest China where there are roughly a million Muslims in concentration camps. That a lot of times, these major corporations, their China offices will ignore or overlook or not put nearly enough attention on.
The messages that we’re communicating and the things that luckily are starting to bubble up into these board rooms is the understanding that to have a China strategy, you need to have a global strategy that is very aware both of what Beijing wants but also what the Biden administration and many American people want.
TN: For the last 15, 20 years it almost seems like companies have had a global strategy and then they’ve had this China strategy off to the side because it was such a big market, growing so fast. It seems to me like you’re talking almost about the normalization of China in terms of performance expectations, social expectations, those sorts of things. Is that right? Is that kind of what you’re implying?
ISF: One of the smartest ways of the Chinese communist party, which has ruled China since 1949, were the smartest things they have done is made it seem like their country was a normal country. And there’s nothing aberrant about China or the Chinese people. But there’s something quite apparent about the Chinese Communist Party.
And the rules for playing in China are quite different than they are in basically everywhere else. What we’re starting to see is the realization that companies need to do something to limit the influence of Beijing on their corporate headquarters, on their products and on their decision making.
TN: But can you do that actually? Because if you’re saying an automotive company and most of your revenues come from China, and the Chinese government says something, it seems really hard. And companies have been awkward about doing that for the past say 10, 15 years. Really changing how you help companies treat them like any other country? I think what you raised about what the CCP has done since 1949 is amazing. It’s great perspective. But can the CCP understand that they’re being normalized as well?
ISF: The CCP are doing this as an active strategy in as much as such a complex institution has a single strategy. They’re certainly trying to make people think that they are normal in our sort of western liberalism definition of that. Most of the companies that we talk about in this space, the U.S. is a far more important market for them than China. NBA is a great example.
China is its growth market. The USA is its most important market and what companies are starting to realize is that what happens to them in China and what touches China doesn’t just touch on their business in China but affects their business in the United States as well.
What we do at Strategy Risks is less working with the companies like the NBA that are having these problems, but work with other people in the financial chains, institutional investors, pension funds, endowments and explain to them the different risks and exposures that they’ll have with the companies in their portfolio and some of the problems they might have with being overweight in certain companies about Chinese or American that are complicit in Chinese human rights abuses.
TN: From a portfolio investor’a perspective, until very recently, you could park a whole lot of money in Hong Kong and then dip into China as needed. But it seems that that’s becoming less of an easy strategy since the crackdown in Hong Kong last year. Is that the case or is Hong Kong still in a pretty good place to take advantage of mainland stuff?
ISF: From a pure markets perspective, Hong Kong is still an excellent place for that. What’s really changed is the safety and the rule of law and the feeling of security for people doing deals in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is still an excellent window into China and we’re seeing Shenzhen and Shanghai supplanting a lot of what Hong Kong is doing in Seoul to agree. But the issue with Hong Kong is much more for the people there as opposed to the people who are using it as a conduit.
TN: That’s really interesting what you say about Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Seoul because I’ve been seeing that take shape over the last five or six years and it’s interesting that it’s getting a lot of traction.
With Xinjiang and with other things happening socially in China, what about things like non-profits? Issues that they have to raise in China? How can you operate a non-profit in China and stay true to your mission if it’s kind of awkward with Beijing or with the CCP, which are one and the same?
ISF: Most times, you can’t. What’s been happening is that a huge amount of western nonprofits have, sometimes it’s this evangelical view and sometimes it’s just well this is a very important country filled with a lot of lovely people and we want to come here and do good. But they find that knowingly or unknowingly, their message and their mission gets corrupted because they need to work with their government partners. And sometimes, their mission is totally at odds with the mission of the party. And so, they have to make sacrifices that I would say perverts what they’re doing.
We see this perhaps most intently in both the very human rights focused nonprofits and in the environmental focused non-profits. A lot of whom have found themselves being very praiseworthy of what Beijing is doing even though China’s far and away the worst polluter and the worst carbon emitter. They take signs coming from top leaders that Beijing is committed to making these changes even though the changes often don’t get made. But they are finding themselves in a position where in order to be there, they have to sacrifice some of their credibility. A very heartening sign I’m seeing is people saying, maybe I don’t actually need to be in China in order to do something that’s positive for the world.
TN: Do you see a path to China having that type of environment in 5, 10, 20 years time? Or do you think we’re kind of on this this really is it slower than that?
ISF: It’s such an important question and I wish I had some good way to answer it. In China, as Chinese officials love to say, has 5,000 years of history. The Communist Party has been in power for what, one and a half percent of that time. At some point, in the near future, the party will no longer rule China. Will that be next year? Will that be 30 years? Will that be 200 years? It’s so hard to say, but it’s certainly not inevitable.
