Complete Intelligence

Categories
Podcasts

BBC: Getting aid into Gaza

This podcast is originally published by BBC Business Matters in this link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w172yzrsng5klrk.

BBC’s Description:

The World Health Organisation says it needs urgent safe passage to send supplies as people are ‘dying unnecessarily from a lack of water and medical care’.

President Biden and other world leaders have called on Egypt to open the border known as the Rafah crossing as tonnes of aid piles up.

Sam Fenwick discusses this and more business news from around the world with Tony Nash, chief economist at Complete Intelligence, in Texas, and Rachel Cartland, author, writer and expert on Hong Kong.

With CI Markets Free, our goal is to democratize financial insights. We believe that everyone should have access to powerful forecasting tools, enabling them to make informed decisions that align with their financial goals.

Transcript

BBC


Ask our guests today who join us from Hong Kong and Houston, Texas. Good evening to Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. It’s an AI forecasting firm, so you should be quite well-placed to talk to us about chips and AI.

Tony Nash


Absolutely, yes. Thank you for having me.

BBC


It’s always good to have you on the show, Tony. Thank you for joining us. I want to just come to Tony Nash on this. As we say, Joe Biden arriving in the region on Wednesday had planned meetings with Jordanian which have now been canceled, also had a meeting with President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and President CC of Egypt, all of which have been postponed according to the White House. What do you think Mr. Biden will want to achieve from this visit now?

Tony Nash


I think the biggest thing that Biden wants to achieve is the release of American hostages. And if that’s all that can be coordinated, then that’s a major win. It looks very good for the domestic population in the US, and it brings American citizens free and clear from this conflict. I really think that that’s the main priority for Biden’s visit at this moment.

BBC


Okay, thank you, Tony Nash. Let’s bring in Tony Nash. He’s the CEO of Complete Intelligence, and it’s an AI forecasting firm. He’s based in Houston in Texas. As we said, this policy has been in place 12 months. Do you think it has done anything more than just annoy chip makers in the United States?

Tony Nash


NVIDIA says that they comply with the laws that are in place, and they’ve already said that any announcement they made today really won’t have a meaningful hit on their business.

BBC


Although their shares nose-dived, and lots of other chip companies did the same.

Tony Nash


Yeah, they did. There was an estimate that it would hit about $100 billion for their business. It’s really unclear, but they’re a regulated company, they have to comply with what are called ITAR regulations, which is International Technology Regulations that the US government puts out. The real issue here is, will NVIDIA chips be used for Chinese military applications? That’s really what the US government is worried about. And so there are a thousand ways to circumvent the regulation, ship into a third country, all these sorts of things. So it’s not as if the chips won’t get into China. There have been ways to circumvent these regulations for hundreds of years. So they’ll find a way to get them. The real question is, will they get them at the scale that they want them?

BBC


We talked about this time, 12 months ago, we were having the conversations about why this policy had been brought in. And it seemed to be, prior to this, it had been about keeping China and the technology 20 years behind the advancements of the US. And now the policy had changed and they wanted to stop all advancements completely, just cut them off. It doesn’t sound like it’s working from what you’ve said.

Tony Nash


I don’t think anybody expects China’s advancements to stop completely, but I think having the state-of-the-art technology shipped into China to be placed in Chinese military equipment when China has been threatening Taiwan, they’ve been making other threats, the US has been threatening China, these sorts of things, of course, you want to hamper your adversary as much as you can. I think this is just normal technology regulation, export controls. Whoever has the leading edge technology wants to control the leading edge technology. Will China continue to develop its chips? Yeah, absolutely. Are they behind what NVIDIA is producing? Yes, they are. Will it take them a few years to catch up? Yeah, it’ll take them 5-10 years to catch up. But I think over time, China will definitely catch up with where the US is. It’s just going to take some time.

BBC


Now, apparently, NVIDIA was selling an A-800 and an H-800 type of chip, and they were able to do that because it went around the original ban, and then now those have been banned. Will it be that these chip companies will just make a chip that isn’t covered by the ban, and then the government will change the goalpost again?

Tony Nash


Well, that’s the way it works, right? That’s how regulatory arbitrage works. So NVIDIA will look to the letter of the law and conform a chip to match the letter of the law. And then if the trade regulators in the US want them to change, they’ll change. These types of regulations change pretty regularly, and technology companies have to adjust their output according to what the regulators say. This sounds extreme. It’s actually not extreme because there are ITAR regulations, technology export control regulations in most countries. It’s just because it applies to AI-specific chips that it’s really getting this level of attention.

BBC


Let’s talk to Tony Nash first. What do you make of this plan? Do you think it could rival the Panama Canal?

Tony Nash


Yeah, absolutely. I think it’s a great plan. I live in Texas, which is on the US border with Mexico. I think this railway plan is fantastic. There is already a lot of electronics manufacturing moving from Asia to Mexico to service the US. I think three years ago is the first year in 20 years that the US imported more televisions from Mexico than from China. So televisions are pretty straightforward to assemble now. And so more and more sophisticated electronics is moving to Mexico. What your guest said about obviously transiting things across Mexico, but also manufacturing things in Mexico, I think that’s very much on the table, especially as we see more trade regionalization and manufacturing regionalization.

BBC


Is that because of what we’re calling nearshoring, this thing that occurred during the pandemic?

Tony Nash


That’s right. Exactly. Similar. So the risks of having a majority of your manufacturing concentrated, I think Northeast Asia makes 35, 40 % of the world’s manufacturing goods. And so during the pandemic, we saw all the supply chains lengthened because they were bottlenecks. Whereas if we had had those, whether they’re in, say, Eastern Europe or for Europe or Mexico for the US or something like that, I think it reduces a lot of that transit risk for a lot of people. And I think East Asia is probably facing some reinvestment over the next, say, 10 years because that nearshoring or regionalization is a real… It’s definitely on the horizon.

BBC


What was interesting, Tony, is that Benjamin there was talking about investors from the US being interested in building that original rail line a century ago.

Tony Nash


Yes, and obviously, the US was very instrumental in building the Panama Canal as well. The US is very interested in developing Mexico and developing Central America. It doesn’t surprise me that that was the case 120 years ago. It doesn’t surprise me that that’s the case today.

BBC


Tony, there were concerns or have been concerns about what’s known as debt trap diplomacy, that if you borrow money off China, then they will somehow have you over a barrel. Has that come… That still a worry for the US, do you think?

Tony Nash


For the US? Not necessarily, but certainly for African countries. I remember speaking with African representatives probably six or seven years ago, talking to me about how can they restructure their debt for the Belt and Road. The really strange part about the Belt and Road is it’s fully financed in US dollars. We have a time right now where the US dollar is appreciating. Not only is that debt at a relatively high rate, I wouldn’t say it’s sky high, but a relatively high rate, but you have it in a currency that’s appreciating against most emerging market currencies. It’s very difficult for companies to pay back or countries to pay back. I think one of the things about Belt and Road that really isn’t covered that much is the Belt and Road peaked in 2017 and 2018. The funding that you have going into the Belt and Road today is about a fifth of what you had in 2017 and 2018. Construction projects like the transport construction projects that you highlighted, those things all happened in 2013 through 2018, really. The largest portion of investment coming out of Belt and Road right now today in 2023 is for mining. It’s not construction, it’s investment.

Tony Nash


When you look at what’s tabulated as Belt and Road investment, it’s really Chinese money going into mining worldwide.

BBC


Just gives us time at the end of the show to ask our two guests who’ve joined us today, Rachel Cartland and Tony Nash. What are your side hustles? Rachel, you tell me what you’re earning money from.

Rachel Cartland


What’s your side hustle? I’m retired. My husband is constantly reminding me that I’m busy all the time, but with nothing that brings in a dollar, although I have endless voluntary commitments, which are great things to do. I think it’s what they call a portfolio, isn’t it? -bits and pieces of things –

BBC


Absolutely.

Rachel Cartland


-rather than a side hustle.

BBC


-it sounds very satisfying. Tony Nash, do you have time for a side hustle when you’re doing your AI forecasting?

Tony Nash


I make time, Sam. I have to make time. So I run an AI company during the day. On the weekends, I have my own coffee roastery called Nerve Roaster, and I sell coffee as my side hustle because it’s what I love.

BBC


You love drinking coffee?

Tony Nash


Sorry?

BBC


You love drinking coffee?

Tony Nash


I love roasting coffee, so I sell roasted beans.

BBC


Fantastic. I had no idea, Tony. You are a man of many talents. Thank you very much for joining us on Business Matters. And thank you also to Rachel Cartland, author, writer, and expert on Hong Kong. That was Business Matters. Thank you so much for listening. My name was Sam Fenwick. The producer today was Hannah Malane. I’ll be back the same time tomorrow. Don’t join me if you can.

Categories
QuickHit

QuickHit: Will China Invade Taiwan? (Part 2)

This is Part 2 of the QuickHit episode on “Will China invade Taiwan?” with Chris Balding and Albert Marko. In this second part, the guys discussed Hong Kong, the semiconductor industry, and possible actions by the Biden administration. Tony Nash is hosting this show where the two experts discuss likely possibilities for China, Taiwan and other countries that may be affected by the conflict between the two countries like the US, Japan, and South Korea.

 

In Part 1, we looked at the plausibility of China invading Taiwan and what that might look like. In Part 2, we look at is Hong Kong a precedent for China potentially taking over Taiwan? We also look at the global semiconductor industry and firms like TSMC. What kind of impact would Chinese action on Taiwan have toward TSMC and also how would we expect the US to react and what would the different reactions do to US credibility in East Asia?

 

You can watch the Part 1 here: https://www.completeintel.com/2021/01/27/quickhit-will-china-invade-taiwan-1/

 

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

📺 Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

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

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

 

This QuickHit episode was recorded on January 26, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this Chinese invasion of Taiwan 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

 

CB: What you’re saying about body bags makes perfect sense. Is Xi that directly rational? Because it would seem like there would be a better way to handle Hong Kong than what has taken place?

 

AM: Hong Kong was a little financial center with no military, no nothing. There’s just a bunch of woke millennials running around, thinking they can hold off the PLA. That doesn’t work like that in real life. You got to come at them with guns to earn your freedom. It was a circle by China. It was inevitable.

 

TN: Since ‘97, there hasn’t been a question as to whether Hong Kong is China. Hong Kong is China. And people have shrugged their shoulders since ‘97 and said look, it’s China. It’s a matter of time. It’s a special zone.

 

CB: Maybe my meaning was lost a little bit. The cost-benefit of what Xi has done in China or in Hong Kong, he clearly probably could have reaped more benefit by saying we’re gonna let Hong Kong continue to be Hong Kong for another 10 years or something. There wasn’t really a need for him to move. It’s probably going to create bigger problems internationally. There’s probably assets that are going to move out of Hong Kong and other places, Singapore. So what if we look at a strict cost-benefit, there wasn’t really a reason for Xi to do that.

 

TN: There was. The protests that would come, first every five years, then every two years, and so on, it was becoming increasingly embarrassing to Beijing. The official channel to as an inward or outbound investment lane through Hong Kong, it’s still there. But Beijing couldn’t take the embarrassment of this and what they didn’t want is to have some rogue police brigade kill a bunch of 25-year-olds on accident. I believe they had to pull the trigger and I think this has been planned and architected over years and it seems like something sudden that people are like “wait, what’s going on?” They’re rolling military and this has been planned for years.

 

CB: What you’re getting at is this was embarrassing domestically and he basically said to hell with the consequences internationally? If we apply that same basic line of thinking to Taiwan, the question would then become, well, they’re willing to deal with the international consequences. We know that in colossal range barriers. What other domestic issues are at play here about Taiwan?

 

TN: I think it’s backwards. It was more embarrassing internationally because the CCP plays international media like a fiddle. Xi Jinping goes into Davos or speaks at a WEF event. Everyone walks away, enlightened and they play international media like a fiddle. They were less worried about what international media would think and even less worried about what domestic populations would think over time.

 

They just needed to rip the band-aid off so that kind of righteous reporters in Hong Kong wouldn’t keep raising this story because it’s inconvenient. They knew that at some point, they were going to take over, and so they just did it and that it’s inevitable that’s going to happen. They just did it.

 

And global media? They’ve fallen in line over the last nine months. Nobody talks about Hong Kong anymore and the rights and being trampled upon and all that stuff. International media have fallen in line on this. They don’t care. They want to make China happy. Why? Because the CCP and their companies are going to buy supplements in their newspapers and in their online forums and they’re going to pay for their think tank pieces and all that stuff.

 

CB: There are specific media outlets that are decidedly less critical of China than they used to be as an editorial line.

 

AM: I agree and I love that analogy of like ripping the band-aid off because Hong Kong was ripping a band-aid off but Taiwan would be like ripping duct tape off a Greek guy’s chest. That’s the problem here, and that’s what we think we have to understand that not only is it economically damaging, it’s politically damaging internationally, militarily. The risks, just in my opinion, way outweigh the benefits of trying to take over Taiwan.

 

TN: Let’s say this happened. Let’s say six, nine months, something happens. What happens economically? I know there’s cross holdings with CCP princes and stuff but let’s look at say semiconductors, TSMC. The otherfoundries are disrupted for a period of time.

 

AM: I know where you’re going with this and this would actually make me flip my position if I was advising China. If they wanted to hit the West and create even a bigger semiconductor shortage, then you absolutely destroy Taiwan. This is where I’m going. You absolutely would do that.

 

TN: Right. So, does it make SMIC relevant and does it make the Chinese foundries relevant? What is in that gap? TSMC, all the execs are moving to Phoenix. What happens then?

 

CB: Taiwan and TSMC are in the very awkward space. At this point, they’re probably like THE manufacturing firm. The other places do the design and stuff like that. There’s a lot of firms that are in the mid and low end. But when it comes to your high-end stuff, it’s pretty much TSMC. I think you could make a case that Beijing says, “screw it!” Forget about Taiwan. If we can capture TSMC, we’ve got it all.

 

TN: We just invade Hsinchu, right?

 

AM: The Chinese, for all the negative things that I have to say about them, are really good asymmetrically combating the West especially the United States where they’ve weaponized Caterpillar, weaponized multiple American companies within China to hit the United States politically and economically. That would make perfect sense from the Chinese perspective to just cut off the semiconductors specifically because those semiconductors go to Apple, to the big three automobile sector, which is the only thing right now that’s going to be able to get unemployment back down to a decent level for the Biden administration.

 

TN: If that did happen, would that present an opportunity for Japanese, Korean firms to fill that void to circumvent Chinese control or has that ship sailed years ago and there’s no way they can recover that?

 

AM: I don’t think that they’d be able to recover especially in the near term. I think the chip shortage would be so, so damaging to the entire global economy that it would be pretty devastating for a while.

 

CB: And the people I talk to in chips basically say, when it comes to manufacturing of higher end chips, it’s basically TSMC. Not even Intel these days is manufacturing their own chips. So even if TSMC is Chinese tomorrow, it would probably take five years before Korean and Japanese firms at the earliest would be producing high-end chips that could compete with TSMC.

 

TN: If China threatens to invade Taiwan and the West is like “look, do whatever you want, we just want to make sure we have our chips.“ Is that really a plausible negotiating point?

 

AM: I don’t think the West could even trust China in that respect. Has the Chinese ever given us assurances and anything like that ever?

 

TN: Let’s act like this happens. Something happens in June, July whatever. What does the US Navy do? Will they protect Taiwan or will they distance and reevaluate?

 

AM: The US would probably let Taiwan defend itself for a certain period of time and float in a carrier strike group just to deter China at some point. They’d have to walk defense there. That’s not an easy solution. You’re talking about going up against China within proximity of their borders, which they would have an advantage of.

 

CB: They’re not going to do something like this just launching a couple volleys of low-grade missiles. This is moving all your chips to the center of the table. And so basically, the question that the US Navy would have to ask is are we going to move all our chips to the middle of the table otherwise, let China have it.

 

TN: If the US says, “fine, we’re not going gonna move our chip to the side of the table. Let China have it,” then does that destroy US credibility in East Asia because the obligation of the US to defend Japan, Korea and so on, those are gone then, because US has an obligation to defend Taiwan.

 

AM: The South Korea would be the biggest problem immediately after that.

 

CB: One of the first comments about by the administration foreign policy was the Japanese defense minister saying China is a real problem, you boys need to get your big boy pants on. That was a month ago or a couple weeks ago. That was pretty much the Japanese saying, “you know this isn’t 2008 boys. We’ve got to be ready.”

 

The other thing was, is over the past couple years, there’s been a shift in the US Military. Basically, all the US Military in Korea is now way far down the peninsula. And South Korea knows that. The US Military is in a position where if the North Korea decides to stream across the border, they can pretty much pack up their personnel and be gone in a couple of hours. If something happens, Tokyo and Seoul are absolutely going to be paranoid. Doesn’t stand right there and start firing back.