Complete Intelligence

Categories
QuickHit

The Fed & ECB Playbooks: What are they thinking right now? (Part 1)

Geopolitics experts Albert Marko and Nick Glinsman are back on QuickHit for a discussion on the Federal Reserve, the ECB, and central banks. What are they thinking right now?

 

Albert Marko advises financial firms and some high net worth individuals on how politics works in D.C.. He worked with congressional members and their staff for the past 15 to 20 years. In his words, Albert basically is a tour guide for them to figure out how to invest their money.

 

Nick Glinsman is the co-founder and CIO of EVO Capital LLC. He does a lot of writing and some portfolio management. He was a macro portfolio manager in one of the big micro funds in London for quite a few years. Prior to that, Nick was with Salomon Brothers. Now, he concentrates on providing key intel, both economics and politics on a global level to finance managers and politicos.

 

You can go here for Part 2 of the discussion.

 

 

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

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

📊 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 July 29, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this The Fed & ECB Playbooks: What are they thinking right now? (Part 1) QuickHit episode are those of the guest and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any contents provided by our guest 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: Today we’re talking about central banks and given where we are in “the cycle”, whatever that means at this point, post or late Covid, we’ve had waves of support coming from finance ministries and treasuries and central banks around the world. Central banks seem to be in a very weird position right now. So I’d really love to understand your point of view particularly what the Fed and the ECB thinking about right now and what are some of the biggest dilemmas they have? Nick, if you want to go first and frame that out a little bit and then Albert, will obviously go to you.

 

NG: Well, given how long I’ve been doing this, I’m more of a traditional, black coated central bank watcher. And I would say a couple of key comments to make right now is I think they’ve lost their independence to a large extent. Harder for the ECB to lose its independence. But with the commission, you have that loss.

 

I also think that we are, defective monetary financing. And again, I’ll go back to the ECB, who literally for the last month, for everything that was issued in Europe and this reluctance by the Fed to, even they admit talking about talking about tapering, but this reluctance to even consider a pullback on the mortgage-backed securities. The jest, pretty much the same, and it’s very clear with a lot of the actions that I’m in, my interpretation is, one, they’re working in cahoots with the political arm.

 

So treasury in the US, commission in Europe. Bank of England is a slight exception about to happen, but we can cover that later. So that’s clearly going on. And I think now Albert might do a lot of work together and I think this Albert came out with a comment a while back saying Yellen wants six trillion dollars fiscal. And the excuse that was given, aside from the political bias, was the Treasury market needs it.

 

And interesting enough, we saw the change to the Repos yesterday. This was after criticism by a committee that was published in the F.T. yesterday. And even Bill Dudley’s commented on Today suggesting that a lot more work needs to be done to ensure that the normal functioning of the plumbing behind the form of safe assets.

 

So it’s clear to me that things are being worked on in a politically coordinated way that impacts monetary policy. Now, I think they’ve got themselves into an economic or policy black hole. I think the mind set, and it’s been like this since probably ’08, which is they’re not prepared to accept the economic cycle anymore.

 

So back to one of my previous appearances on on your pod, the Fed not doing anything? Yeah, it seems to me that that’s an acceptable process, regardless of inflation is way above their forecast. And forecasting that’s a whole ‘nother bad area for the… Fed’s forecasts are terribly wrong. The ECB’s forecasts have been wrong for, you know, since time immemorial.

 

The ECB is more dangerous because they have a bias that keeps them on their policy’s wreck.

 

TN: So first on forecasts, if any central bankers are watching, I can help you with that. Second, when you say they don’t believe in the business cycle anymore, do you mean the central banks or do you mean the political folks?

 

NG: The central banks and government. I mean, funnily enough, I’m reading a biography on Jim Baker right now. And when you look at Reagan, when he came in and Volcker, economic data was pretty bad back at the beginning of the 80s. That. No way, no politician is prepared to accept that anymore. To be honest, I think the central bankers are prepared to accept that anymore. Any of the people leading the central banks being political appointees, of course.

 

TN: So this is kind of beyond a Keynesian point of view, because even Keynesians believed in a business cycle, right?

 

NG: It’s a traditional Keynesian point of view. The modern day, neo Keynesian, yes, you’re right. Way beyond what they’re thinking.

 

TN: There’s a lot of detail in that, and I think we could spend an hour talking about every third thing you said there. So I really do appreciate that. Albert. Can you tell us both Fed and ECB, what are they thinking about right now? What are the trade offs? What are the fears they have?

 

AM: We’ll start with the ECB. The ECB is not even a junior player right now in the central bank world. I know people want to look at the EU and say, oh, it’s a massive trading bloc, so and so. But the fact is, that it’s completely insolvent. Besides the Germans and maybe the French in some sectors, there’s nothing else in Europe that’s even worth looking at at the moment.

 

As for the ECB’s standpoint, you know, they’re still powerless. I mean, the Federal Reserve makes all the policy. They first will talk to the Anglosphere banks that are on the dollar standard basically. I mean, the Pound and the Australian dollar and whatnot. They’re just Euro Dollar tentacles. But, for the ECB, they’re frustrated right now because they see that the Euro keeps going up and their export driving market is just taking a battering at the moment. But they can’t do anything because the Fed goes and buys Euros on the open market to drop the price of the Dollar to promote the equities in the United States. And that’s just happening right now.

 

When it comes to the Fed, we have to look at what is the Fed, right? Normally what everyone is taught in school is that they are an independent entity that looks over the market and so on and so forth. Right. But these guys are political appointees. These guys have money and donors. They play with both political parties. Right now, the Democrats have complete control of the Federal Reserve. And everyone wants to look at Jerome Powell as the Fed chair, but I’ve said this multiple times on Twitter, the real Fed chair is Larry Fink. He’s got Powell’s portfolio under management of BlackRock. He’s the one making all the moves on the market, with the market makers and coordinating things behind the scenes. He’s the guy to look at, not Jerome Powell.

 

I mean, have anyone even watched Jerome Powell’s speech yesterday? It was appalling. He was overly dovish. That’s the script that he was written. He’s not the smart guy in this playing field, in this battleground.

 

TN: He needs a media training, actually. I think.

 

AM: He’s being set up to be scapegoated for a crash. He’s just no one to show. He’s a Trump appointee. So next time there’s a crash, whether it’s one week from now or one month from now, it’s going to be pointed on him that, you know, he’s the Fed chair. Look at the Fed chair. Don’t look at everything else that the political guys have made and policies in the past four or five years that have absolutely just decimated the real economy.

 

TN: This time reminds me, and I’m not a huge historian of the Fed, but it really reminds me of the of the Nixon era Fed where Nixon and his Fed chair had differences and they were known, and then the Fed chair ended up capitulating to do whatever Nixon wanted to get back in his good graces. Does that sound about right?

 

AM: No, that’s a perfect example. I mean, this idea that’s floated around by economists that economics and politics are separate entities is absolute fantasy. And it just it doesn’t exist in the real world.

 

NG: Just to pop in on this one because actually there is a new book out which I started three days at Camp David. Because it’s coming up to 50 years since that decision of the gold standard. Now, it’s just interesting you brought it up, because if you think of one of the rationales for coming off the gold standard, there’s several, but one that struck me as I was reading actually the review, the back cover show Percy.

 

This enables the government to stop printing in terms of fiscal, fiscal, fiscal. That’s what it did in effect. First of all, that’s one of the biggest arguments against people who argue for a return to the gold standard because that would decimate things or cryptos being in a limited supply of crypto as the new reserve currency because the gain that would be pulling against the elastic and you wouldn’t get, the economy would just boom. Right.

 

So that’s where I think it’s just huge, you know. I’ve always said that actually what we have is what we’re going to ultimately see is exactly the same cost that came with Lyndon Johnson paying for the Vietnam War, Covid. And then the Great Society, which is Joe Biden’s what I call social infrastructure and green ghost plan. So. Going back to that, Nixon was paying part of the price for all of that. With Volcke right. So I actually sit there thinking, well. There are similarities right now, and we’re seeing effectively a central bank and the Treasury, wherever you want to look, untethered from what used to be, well before I started in this business, to be part of the discipline. But even when they came off the gold standard, there was discipline. As you referred earlier, to, traditional Keynesians believed in the economic cycle of boom, bust. You know, boom, you tap the brakes a little bit, take the punch all the way. That’s gone.

 

That is to me what’s gone on recently, I don’t know whether you would say since the 08 or more recently is the equivalent of that ’73 meeting where they came off the gold standard. People just said no more cycles. Tapping the brakes and now the central banks are in a hole and politicized, they’re not independent because there are no.

 

AM: Yeah, yeah, that that’s real quick, Tony. That’s exactly right. I mean, even like, you know, I was on Twitter saying we’re going to go to 4400. We’re going to go to 4400 and people are like “No way. We’re in a bear market. This thing’s going back down 37, whatever charts and whatever Bollinger bands they want to look at. But the fact is because of the politics has a necessity to pump the market and then crash it to pass more stimulus packages. The only way was to go up to 4400 plus, right.

 

TN: Right. OK, now, with all of that in mind, Nick, you did a piece recently about the Fed and housing and some of the trade offs that they’re looking out looking at with regard to the housing market. Now, housing is an issue in Australia. It’s an issue in the UK. It’s an issue in the US and other places. Can you walk us through a little bit of your kind of reasoning and what you were thinking about with regard to the Fed and housing?

Categories
QuickHit

OPEC+, JCPOA & Delta Variant: Strength or weakness for oil & gas prices?

Energy commodities experts Tracy Shuchart and Sam Madani joined forces in this special #QuickHit episode to talk about crude, OPEC+, JCPOA, and how lockdowns will affect the market this year. Most importantly, how investors should plan?

 

Tracy writes for a Hedge Fund Telemetry, where she is the energy and material strategist. She also manages an energy and materials portfolio for a family office. Meanwhile, Samir Madani is the co-founder of TankerTrackers.com. They’re an online service that keeps track of oil that’s being shipped around the world. His specialty is the tricky tankers, the ones that like to play according to the rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

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

📊 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 July 17, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this OPEC+, JCPOA & Delta Variant: Strength or weakness for oil & gas prices? QuickHit episode are those of the guest and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any contents provided by our guest are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any political party, religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.

 

Show Notes

 

TN: We’ve seen kind of an uplifting crude prices. We’ve seen things like copper prices come down, natural gas prices really start to see some upward pressure recently. At the same time, we’re seeing talk about the JCPOA and some other Middle East type of changes with OPEC+ and UAE and Saudi. What’s your thoughts on the crude and natural gas markets? We can talk about commodities generally.I know that’s a big, wide open question. Tracy, do you want to give us generally your view and some of your positioning at the moment?

 

TS: Well, I’m very bullish on commodities, particularly industrial metals, base metals and minerals needed for this energy transition. So copper and things of that nature.

 

COMEX Copper forecasts for 2021

This is CI Futures July forecast for COMEX Copper this YTD.

Discover the forecasts for nearly 1,000 other assets.

Book a demo and get a free trial here.

We have seen a little bit of a pullback in a lot of commodities, which is not surprising. We had such a large move up. However, everybody’s looking at this as a group like the CRB index rate has pulled back. But if you look at individual commodities, you’re still seeing iron ore still at highs. So it’s not like a whole commodity collapse. You’re still seeing strength in a lot of different areas.

 

So my positioning is instead of index, I’m positioned in individual stocks and particularly on the minor side, because minors are going to have the same capex problem that oil is having.

 

TN: OK, that’s a great point. Sam, what’s your view like generally with with energy?

 

SM: I remain bullish when it comes to oil in particular, and I pat myself on the back for having gone long in at the end of March last year, when the the mutual funds were at the all time lowest in regards to oil. And that’s come up quite a lot since then.

 

I do believe that we will probably find a good footholding now in the 70s. And in order for that to remain, I think something drastic is going to have to happen on the upward probably scathe $100 and come back down so that the OPEC can look like the good guys in the mid 70s. So I think also because of the fact that there’s a capex shortage in the oil sector, they need this revenue to come in order to sustain production as well.

 

My original intended investment horizon was around three to four years. I’m going to be cutting that short until September of next year because the issue that we have now is that the lockdowns are still in effect in many areas, but also when it comes to Europe where I’m situated, most of the inoculations have only gone through the first phase. So we’re still waiting for the second shot and therefore this summer will be delayed. We’re not going to be traveling everywhere like we were in 2019. Instead, that will happen most likely next summer.

 

There’s still one big run up towards the three-digit oil price and that would be most likely to happen next year rather than now.

 

WTI Crude Oil Forecast for 2021

This is CI Futures July forecast for COMEX Copper this YTD.

Discover the forecasts for nearly 1,000 other assets.

Book a demo and get a free trial here.

 

TN: So you brought up OPEC. There’s been news this week around OPEC+ and a deal with Saudi and UAE and some other Middle East dynamics. What’s your view on that? How much downward pressure will that put on crude markets?

 

TS: Because of those factors in the Middle East, because I am of a belief we will see a deal and we will get some more barrels on the market, the market is actually very tight right now. But we’re also having lockdowns in some places in Asia. So right now, we already are seeing a pullback in crude. Until we get a little bit more certain that 65-75 range will probably hold us for a while, I see some consolidation there and after $115 move from the lows last year, it makes sense for oil to chill out, consolidate here a little bit.

 

TN: Sam, what’s your view on the kind of OPEC+, Saudi, UAE and other kind of OPEC countries wanting to tag along on the UAE?

 

SM: I think one issue that they themselves want to know is status of the JCPOA. They really want to know how much of an issue Iran would be if their balance come back to market. Now, that’s a big if.

 

But if we look at what happened during the Trump administration, the United States pulled out of the deal and that was not good optics for the U.S. side. But now what’s happened is that Iran is not complying with the deal. So the ball is now in their court instead. So the Biden administration is saying, yes, the United States wants to be part of the deal, even though it’s not a very popular deal in the US. I don’t see any popular support for it. It’s more of a let’s just get back in there so Iran can improve its compliance. But they’re not improving their compliance. Instead, what they’re doing is going the other direction and they’re increasing their enrichment. They’re becoming more brazen about how they move around the world with Navy vessels and so on.

 

And now, of course, there’s an Iranian president that’s going to take office in August. So I think the deal will play fall apart instead because of the fact that Iran is not complying.

 

TN: If the deal falls apart, does that chaos help oil prices, meaning rise or does it create the perception that there will be a dramatically larger supply in the market?

 

SM: I think the initial reaction will be that, “Oh, these barrels are not going to be reentering the market, therefore the price will go higher.” So that’s the first automated response. But then, you know, the dust will begin to settle after a while when there’s an understanding of what kind of barrels are not entering the market.

 

So in Iran’s case, they are shipping sour crude. Whether it’s light or heavy, it’s sour. In order for that oil to become sweet, which is more attractive, you have to de-sulfur the oil. And so Iran, what they do is they give you a discount if you want to buy light sweet oil, but then they’re buying like sour oil. Iran gives $10 discount, for instance, and then they just remove the sulfur at the refinery at their own expense. And that’s what’s causing, for instance, West Africa to lower their exports. So moving out a lot less oil now out of Africa than before on account of China buying more Iranian oil instead.

 

TS: I think what people forget, there’s already a lot of Iranian oil on the market. So even if they came back at production of 4 to 4.5 million, it’s not really a lot of extra added barrels that are not already on the market.

 

SM: Exactly. And it will be absorbed by the demand that’s coming of course.

 

TN: But it seems to me the kind of perception of legitimacy that would come through JCPOA may calm prices down a bit through the kind of perception of legitimacy of that supply?

 

TS: Yeah. I mean, if it came to fruition, which I don’t foresee it, I have to agree with Sam on this point. But yeah, the market would think, oh, OK, we have all these barrels coming on even though there isn’t, and that it would be a numbers game from there, then you’d have to see supply and demand numbers from the various agencies monthly reports.

 

SM: And the thing also does not happen overnight. So even if the process of JCPOA happens and Biden finally signs, for instance, initially a waiver, the whole process takes forever to reboot again. We saw it last time. Remember Tracy back in years ago, it took many months.

 

And also in the case of Iran, most of their domestic national fleet is tied up containing gas condensate. So they have around 70 million barrels of gas condensates floating. And that used up nearly all of the VLCC supertankers, the ones that can carry two million barrels. So what Iran has done is they put additional vessels, vintage VLCC. So now they have 200 vessels as opposed to 70. And those are the ones, the foreign flagged vessels that are moving the oil mostly to China.

 

TN: You both mentioned lockdowns earlier in the conversation. And I think the tone here is that we have a pretty strong basis for rising crude prices. But we’ve seen some moves over the last week in the Netherlands and California and other places for maybe not full lockdowns, but more severe compliance with masks and other things and that seems to be leading toward potentially some lockdowns. First of all, if there are lockdowns coming, what would be driving that? And we all know about the Delta variant and stuff. But are there political factors that would be driving that? Second of all, if there were, how would that impact the six to nine month view of crude markets for you guys?

 

TS: The United States is so big, I don’t believe that they’re going to lock down the whole country again. It just won’t happen. You would literally have riots on the streets in some places. So I don’t foresee that happening. I could see some of the states like California just reinstated their mask mandates. I’ve been watching those states that kind of had more severe lockdowns to begin with like Michigan. If they’d lockdown again in the fall, that would probably be more politically motivated, but we’ll have to see what the numbers are and whatnot.

 

As far as my crude view, I’m very bullish on crude. But that doesn’t mean like I’m expecting a $100 tomorrow. How I’m invested is longer term. So I’m invested for at least the next five years or so.

 

And I do believe that if we get through the fall and we don’t have lockdowns in the United States, Europe and Asia, then I definitely think six to nine months, we’re back in the swing of things, because that’ll put us right to basically next spring when oil demand really starts.

 

TN: Sam, what’s your view in Europe on lockdowns? Do you see that stuff coming back and how do you see that impacting consumption?

 

SM: I would think that it would be mostly in the countries with the high population density. Germany is obviously one of those countries and the UK is another. In other countries, not so much the case. I live here in Sweden. We never had lockdowns. So we had seniors living in retirement homes and so on. But then, we pretty much met the same statistic level as every other country — 10% population suffer through it, 1% or so perished as a result. But I don’t think that we’ll be seeing any big efforts on locking down countries again.

 

And what’s more interesting now is schools are coming up in a couple of months or at least a month and a half. Here in Sweden, life will pretty much continue as is. I have four kids and none of them missed more than a week of school, throughout the entire ordeal since 2020.

 

TN: So it sounds to me like you both see there may be some lockdowns at the edges, but it doesn’t sound like it’s something you expect to affect the mainstream. Maybe we see a slight dip in the rate of rise of demand. But it doesn’t sound like it’ll have a huge impact to the downside on energy prices generally, whether it’s crude or natgas or something like that. Is that fair to say?

 

SM: Yep.

 

TS: Absolutely.

 

TN: When it comes to natural gas, Tracy, I know you’ve been talking about that a lot lately. Can you tell us a little bit about your observations and your thesis and and what you’re seeing there?

 

TS: For natural gas, the reason I like it is it’s the great transition fuel especially for emerging markets, because it’s very inexpensive than to go straight into something like solar or wind just because the cost of those minerals and metals can make those are skyrocketing right now. So natural gas is abundant. It’s a great transition fuel. It’s cleaner burning than oil.

 

We just saw the EU green deal, they just stepped back and now are including that gas, whereas before there was no oil or gas, because I think they’re also realizing that it’s inexpensive, it’s a good transition fuel. If you look at Germany, there’s still a lot of coal going on in Germany. So for Europe, it’s not like fossil fuels are gone.

 

I think they realize also it’s an inexpensive transition fuel. In particular for the United States, what I like right now is we’re seeing European natgas ETF and JKM, which is the Asian natgas, are trading at significantly higher than the United States is right now. And so I think there is opportunity there because the US can export and still come in at a lower cost, even with the cost of transportation to Europe or to Asia.

 

TN: Interesting. Living in Texas, I have to say that I love that message. Sam, what about the tanker fleet? Is the global tanker fleet ready to to provide the capacity needed to power EMs with, say, American natgas or Middle Eastern natgas?

 

SM: So natgas, I haven’t checked too much. But tankers in general, the demand is not that great right now. When I say that, I mean that usually, they really step up to the plate whenever there’s a floating storage opportunity to talk about. So you had that case in Q2 of last year, and that really drove up the prices from the growing normal rate of 20,000 barrels a day to 500,000. That spike.

 

And it’s come down so much. Complete occupancy is far lower than what I normally see if I talk about the tonnage and it’s around under 40%, which is very little. We were looking at April of last year, it was around north of 55, close to 60%. So that’s a big swing. And that really crushed the prices for tanker rates. They’re even negative. Below zero. But when I look at the transfers of illicit oil, it’s around $38,000 a day. So there’s a lot lot of money to be made in those transfers, unfortunately. But for nat-G, I’m not entirely sure. So I can’t say for sure.

 

TN: OK, very good. Guys, thank you so much for your time. This has been really helpful. I’m really intrigued by kind of the long bull thesis for energy because we hope that we’re going to start recovering much quicker than we had been, which is fantastic. So thanks for your time. I really appreciate. Always, I really appreciate talking with you guys. Thanks very much.

Categories
News Articles

“Take a tooth for a tooth”: Is it possible to use the “American version of the Belt and Road” to counter China?

This article originally published at https://www.voachinese.com/a/beat-china-at-its-own-game-will-us-belt-and-road-work-20210224/5792031.html on June 3, 2021.

 

WASHINGTON — The former U.S. Secretary of the Navy and former Senator Jim Webb recently issued an article in which he put forward an interesting proposal in which he called on the Biden administration to launch the “American version of the Belt and Road Initiative” to counter China’s influence in the world. Weber believes that the United States can do better than China. This proposal has sparked a lot of debate. Some scholars believe that the United States encourages free competition and that the “Belt and Road” initiative is not the way the United States does things.

 

Weber published an article in the Wall Street Journal on February 17 advising the Biden administration to consider launching the “US version of the Belt and Road.” “China invests in large-scale infrastructure projects all over the world to increase its influence, and the United States can do the same,” he said.

 

Weber pointed out that as an important part of China’s global strategy for hegemony, the Chinese government has established economic and diplomatic ties with developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America through the “One Belt, One Road” project, and conducted military infiltration on the grounds of protecting the interests of these projects. However, public discussions in the United States have not paid enough attention to this.

 

Weber believes that the Chinese government’s escalating military, diplomatic provocations and human rights persecution in recent years have made many developing countries hesitate to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative. He called on the Biden administration to seize this opportunity and begin to attach importance to the “often neglected countries” in U.S. foreign policy, and to give these regions the opportunity to choose the U.S. in order to counter China’s influence and prevent the world system from being coerced by authoritarianism. This is conducive to the “diplomatic and economic health” of the United States.

 

“This is not a doomed career, but an unrecognized opportunity,” Weber said.

 

Weber proposed that the Biden administration implement a comprehensive and coordinated policy in Asia, Africa and Latin America, integrating thoughtful diplomacy, security commitments, and project investment and participation by the American business community to fill the vacuum.

 

Weber also believes that the United States can do better than China. “The U.S.’s major investment in this—without colonial motives and based on a more credible and more time-tested business model—will forcefully start developing economies, and at the same time boost the U.S. economy, and inspire further progress in a global free society. Pre-development,” Weber said.

 

The United States encourages free competition, “One Belt One Road” is not our way of doing things

 

As soon as the article came out, supporters called Weber a “visionary pragmatist”, and the United States urgently needed to implement it, and it was not too late. Jose Manuel, a student of international relations at King Juan Carlos University in Spain, said on Twitter: “If the United States wants to prevent China from winning the title of world superpower, it will be able to retaliate and support the Asian and African countries. Investment projects in Latin America.”

 

However, American liberal economists urged that the United States should not follow China in its competition with China.

 

Tony Nash, founder of the data analysis company Complete Intelligence, told VOA: “The Belt and Road Initiative or the Made in China 2025, this is not an American way of doing things.”

 

Nash believes that the best way for the United States to deal with competition among major powers is to encourage free competition. The United States’ world influence should come from an international system that advocates transparency and free competition.

 

On February 23, John Tamny, editor of RealClearMarkets, a US economic news website, pointed out that “the influence of the United States is freedom.” He believes that projects such as the “Belt and Road” highly dependent on government regulation will only waste huge amounts of resources. , And damage the United States’ world image of advocating free competition.

 

In an interview with VOA, Michael Kugelman, director of Asian projects at the Wilson Center in Washington think tank, said that the United States’ number one strategic competitor, China, is exerting its influence on a global scale through the Belt and Road Initiative. It is true that the United States has increased its investment in overseas infrastructure projects. There is strategic value, but now is not the time. Currently, the focus of the Biden administration is to revitalize the US economy.

 

However, Joyce Mao, a professor of history at Middlebury College in Vermont and an expert on U.S.-Asia relations, supports the United States’ overseas infrastructure investment. She told the Voice of America that the US foreign policy that integrates mature diplomacy and strategic intervention is inseparable from the domestic development of the United States. But she also pointed out that it is a challenge to obtain sufficient American public support and bipartisan consensus on this point.

 

Whether the proposal can be supported by the American public

 

Henry Blodget, the founder of the news website Business Insider, said on Twitter: “Good idea, but the United States has not yet reached an agreement on investment in domestic infrastructure.” Independent media “Chinese “Non-projects” also said on Twitter: “U.S. taxpayers’ own roads, bridges, and airports are in a state of disrepair. It is hard to imagine that they will support huge investments in infrastructure construction in developing countries to compete with China.”

 

Nash of Complete Intelligence believes that the American public cannot accept spending trillions of dollars on overseas projects right now. Under the impact of the epidemic, there are too many places to spend money in the United States. If the US government spends money and energy on this knot to form a global infrastructure investment plan, it will certainly make many taxpayers angry.

 

Kugelman of the Wilson Center said that the top priority of the Biden administration is obviously to restart the motor of the US domestic economy. Investment in overseas infrastructure is a strategic issue worth considering in the future, but at least it will have to wait a few more months. “If you do this at the same time, Two things become a situation where you have to keep the cake and eat the cake,” Kugelman said.

 

“People who are struggling in the’rust zone’ due to industrial decline will not have a good response if they hear that their government will launch such a huge plan to develop infrastructure projects thousands of miles away,” Kugelman said.

 

Professor Mao of Mingde College said that Weber’s proposal while the U.S. economy is still trapped by the epidemic is worthy of scrutiny. She pointed out that there are many debates about where the health and well-being of the American economy come from. This has always been a classic political issue that has divided opinions between conservatives and liberals in the United States. At this special moment of the epidemic, this disagreement focuses on what kind of economic plan is the one that will enable the United States to recover from the epidemic.

 

Weber said in the article that US investment in infrastructure projects in developing countries not only helps to counter China, but also benefits the US economy. But Professor Mao pointed out that Weber’s proposal seems to “assume that most Americans can understand and agree that the future of the US economy depends on the existence of internationalism and interventionism”, but the reality is not the case. She said that although there is a lot of political support in the United States, especially within the Republican conservatives, in the fight against China, investing in large-scale overseas infrastructure projects may not be consistent with their political priorities.

 

“What benefits will the U.S. version of the Belt and Road Initiative bring to ordinary U.S. citizens? How will employment opportunities be realized? To what extent can it help develop overseas markets and other resources for U.S. goods?” Professor Mao believes that this proposal is necessary Get enough support. These are the basic questions that need to be answered to the American public and policymakers.

 

Kugelman: There are ready-made investment frameworks available

 

Kugelman pointed out that although a large-scale plan such as the “US version of the Belt and Road” should first give way to the restoration of the domestic economy, Biden’s policy can make good use of the relevant institutions and tools that have been established during the Trump administration to implement Related investment commitments.

 

In 2018, Trump signed the “Good Use of Investment Guidance and Development Act” (referred to as the BUILD Act), which merged the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Development Credit Administration (DCA) under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to form a new establishment The United States International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) was established to enhance the United States’ international development financing capabilities, and expanded financing and financing tools to coordinate and promote the participation of the U.S. private sector in the economic construction of developing countries.

 

Under the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Policy”, the Trump administration signed a memorandum of cooperation on a trilateral infrastructure investment partnership with Japan and Australia in 2018 to jointly encourage and support domestic private companies to build high-tech projects in the Indo-Pacific region that meet international standards. Quality infrastructure construction project.

 

In 2019, the United States, Japan and Australia jointly launched the Blue Dot Network (Blue Dot Network) to counter China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative in Asia. The plan unites the government, enterprises and civil society to evaluate and certify infrastructure projects under “common standards” to promote high-quality projects for sustainable development.

 

David Dollar and Jonathan Stromseth, fellows of the Brookings Institution’s China Program, also called on the Biden administration to implement a series of infrastructure investment commitments in Southeast Asia during the Trump administration. They pointed out that nearly 42,000 U.S. companies export products to 10 member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), supporting approximately 600,000 jobs in the U.S. However, the U.S.’s economic position in the region is facing the erosion of China, and Southeast Asia has become Beijing. A hotbed of strategic competition with Washington.

 

Nash: Government-supported projects shouldn’t be a way of American competition

 

Nash, who had provided consulting and assistance to China’s National Development and Reform Commission on the “Belt and Road” project, told VOA that China’s “Belt and Road” operation principle is to transfer funds from banks that carry out overseas business in China to China, which invests in infrastructure projects around the world. Among state-owned and semi-state-owned entities, it is a way of financing overseas and domestic debt. Although the United States also has international financing institutions such as the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), its scale of operation is unlikely to support large overseas investment projects such as China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative. In addition, China can provide loans with negative interest rates for certain projects, but US financial institutions that have always focused on risk management standards are unlikely to do so.

 

Nash also said that the best way for the United States to compete among major powers is to compete freely. Whether it is China’s “One Belt, One Road” or “Made in China 2025” industrial policy, it should not be the way the United States follows. These projects are highly dependent on the role of the government, and the government has invested heavily to support the technology industry or support domestic companies to invest in overseas projects. Doing so may nourish a group of companies and industries whose actual competitiveness is not up to the standard.

 

“The best way is to let American construction companies and infrastructure companies go out to compete for projects. If they can’t compete, then they should fail because they are not competitive enough,” Nash said.

 

At a seminar last month, Clyde Prestowitz, a well-known American expert on globalization and Asian issues and director of the Institute for Economic Strategy, said that the Biden administration should have a far-reaching industrial policy. “China has their Made in China 2025, and we should have our Made in America 2025,” he said.

 

Nash believes that the way for the United States and China to maintain influence and leadership on a global scale is to uphold the values ​​of transparency and free competition. He believes that the United States previously required NATO allies to be open and transparent in defense spending as a manifestation of leadership.

 

He believes that the United States should also continue to pursue transparency against government subsidies and non-tariff barriers, so as to ensure that the World Trade Organization can effectively perform inspections in this area, so that the world can see how the industries of various countries are protected. of. At the same time, the United States should also call on the international community to pursue transparency in foreign aid. Where does the money go?

 

“The United States has come forward to demand transparency in multilateral organizations, transparency in foreign aid, and a free competition environment for international bidding for infrastructure projects. This is the best way for the United States to demonstrate and maintain leadership,” Nash said.

 

How to do the “US version of the Belt and Road Initiative”?

 

Kugelman believes that the United States is still gaining the upper hand in the competition between the United States and China, whether it is military strength or a leading advantage in high-tech fields. Like Weber, he also believes that although the United States has faced some setbacks in soft power in recent years, it is still ahead of China.

 

Kugelman therefore emphasized that the United States should have its own pace and expectations in terms of overseas infrastructure investment, and there is no need to equalize with China in the order of magnitude. After all, China has already led too many steps in this area. “With some progress in the field of infrastructure investment, instead of investing heavily in this to catch up with China in vain, why not focus more on maintaining the United States’ competitive advantage and comparative advantage in its traditionally leading field?” Kugelman said.

 

Kugelman partially agrees with Weber’s view that the United States can do better in infrastructure investment. He said that the quality of many of China’s Belt and Road projects has been criticized, such as financial opacity, the breeding of corruption, damage to the local environment, and the substandard rights of workers. The United States can provide a higher standard and high-quality options for these issues. China has built surveillance systems through infrastructure projects in some areas to export authoritarianism. The United States obviously can also provide less intrusive options in this regard.

 

Like Weber, Kugelman also believes that China’s “wolf war diplomacy” in recent years has opened up opportunities for the United States. Kugelman cited, for example, that China’s aggressive strategy of flexing muscles in the South China Sea has sounded the alarm for many countries in the region, and began to question whether the consistent attitude of “asking the United States for security and asking China for money” should continue. He believes that the United States should focus on investing in countries like the Philippines that hesitate to China and are a key regional ally of the United States.

 

前美国海军部长也是前参议员吉姆·韦伯(Jim Webb)最近发文,提出一项有意思的建议,他呼吁拜登政府启动“美国版的一带一路”来抗衡中国在世界的影响。韦伯认为,美国可以做得比中国更好。这项建议引发不少议论,有学者认为,美国鼓励自由竞争,“一带一路”不是美国的做事方式。

 

韦伯2月17日在《华尔街日报》上发文倡议拜登政府考虑启动“美版一带一路”。“中国在世界各地到处投资大型基建项目以增强影响力,美国也可以这么做,” 他说。

 

韦伯指出,作为中国争霸全球战略的重要部分,中国政府通过“一带一路”项目与亚非拉发展中国家建立经济和外交联系,并以保护这些项目利益为由进行军事渗透。但美国的公共讨论对此重视不足。

 

韦伯认为,中国政府近年来不断升级的军事、外交挑衅和人权迫害已让许多发展中国家开始对参与一带一路产生迟疑。他呼吁拜登政府抓住这一时机,开始重视在美国对外政策中“常被忽视的国家”,给这些地区选择美国的机会,以此抗衡中国影响力,防止世界体系为威权主义所胁迫,这有利于美国的“外交和经济健康”。

 

“这不是败局注定的事业,而是没被认识到的机会,” 韦伯说。

 

韦伯提议拜登政府在亚非拉地区实施一项各领域通力协调的全面政策,融合深思熟虑的外交、安全保障承诺和美国商界的项目投资和参与,填补真空。

 

韦伯也认为美国可以比中国做得更好。“美国在这上面的重大投入——不带殖民动机且基于更具信誉度、更久经考验的商业模式——将强力启动发展中经济体,同时提升美国经济,激励全球自由社会的进一步向前发展,” 韦伯说。

 

美国鼓励自由竞争 “一带一路”不是我们的做事方法

 

文章一出,支持者称韦伯是“有远见的实用主义者”,美国急需践行,为时不晚。西班牙胡安卡洛斯国王大学国际关系专业学生何塞·玛努埃尔(Jose Manuel)在推特上表示:“美国若想阻止中国夺得世界超级大国的头衔,就得以牙还牙,支持在亚非拉国家的投资项目。”

 

然而,美国自由派经济学家呼吁,美国不该在与中国的竞争中效仿中国的做法。

 

数据分析公司Complete Intelligence创始人托尼·纳什(Tony Nash) 告诉美国之音:“‘一带一路’或‘中国制造2025’,这不是美国式的做事方式。”

 

纳什认为,美国应对大国竞争的最佳方式是鼓励自由竞争,美国的世界影响力该来自于倡导透明和自由竞争的国际体系。

 

美国经济新闻网站RealClearMarkets编辑约翰·塔姆尼(John Tamny)2月23日发文指出,“美国的影响力就是自由”,他认为“一带一路”这类高度依赖政府调控的项目只会浪费巨额资源,并损害美国倡导自由竞争的世界形象。

 

华盛顿智库威尔逊中心亚洲项目主任迈克尔·库格尔曼(Michael Kugelman)在接受美国之音采访时表示,美国的头号战略竞争对手中国在全球范围内通过一带一路施展影响,美国增强海外基建项目投资固然有战略价值,但现在不是时候。疫情当前,拜登政府的重心是重振美国经济。

 

不过,美国佛蒙特州明德学院(Middlebury College)历史系教授、美亚关系专家乔伊斯·毛(Joyce Mao)支持美国的海外基建投资。她对美国之音表示,融合成熟外交和策略性干预的美国对外政策和美国国内的发展密不可分。但她也指出,要在这一点上获得足够的美国公众支持和两党共识是个挑战。

 

提议能否获美国公众支持

 

新闻网站商业内幕(Business Insider)的创始人亨利·布拉吉(Henry Blodget)在推特上说:“好主意,但美国都还没能在投资国内基础设施上达成一致。” 独立媒体“中非项目”也在推特上称:“美国纳税人自己的道路、桥梁和机场处于年久失修状态,很难想象他们会支持巨额投资发展中国家的基础设施建设以与中国竞争。”

 

Complete Intelligence的纳什认为,美国公众现下不可能接受花几万亿美元在海外项目上。疫情冲击下,美国国内有太多地方需要花钱。美国政府如果在这个节骨眼上花钱和精力组建一个全球基建投资计划,肯定会让很多纳税人生气。

 

威尔逊中心的库格尔曼表示,拜登政府的当务之急显然是重启美国国内经济的马达,投资海外基建是今后值得考虑的战略议题,但至少也得再等几个月,“若此刻同时做这两件事,就变成又要留住蛋糕又要吃蛋糕的局面,” 库格尔曼说。

 

“因工业衰退而挣扎在‘铁锈地带’的人们,如果他们听说自己的政府将启动如此庞大的计划,以发展千里之外的基建项目,不会有好反响的,”库格尔曼说。

 

明德学院的毛教授表示,韦伯在美国经济仍为疫情所困之际作出这样的提议有一定值得推敲之处。她指出,有关美国经济的健康和福祉从何而来有很多争论,这历来是个让美国保守派和自由派意见分歧的经典政治问题。在疫情这一特殊时刻下,这种分歧就聚焦在到底怎样的经济计划才是能让美国从疫情中恢复的计划。

 

韦伯在文章中说,美国在发展中国家投资基建项目不仅有助于抗衡中国,而且也有利于美国经济。但毛教授指出,韦伯的这一建议似乎是“假设了大多数美国人能理解和认同美国经济的未来依赖于国际主义的存在和干涉主义的存在”,但现实并非如此。她说,尽管在对抗中国方面,美国国内尤其是共和党保守派内部有很多政治支持,但投资海外大型基建项目可能与他们的政治优先项并不一致。

 

“美国版的‘一带一路’会给普通美国公民带来哪些实惠?就业机会将如何实现?能在多大程度上帮助开发美国商品的海外市场和其他资源?” 毛教授认为,这份提议若要获得足够支持,这些是需要向美国公众和政策制定者回答的基本问题。

 

库格尔曼:有现成投资框架可用

 

库格尔曼指出,虽然“美版一带一路”这样大规模的计划该先让位于恢复美国国内经济,但拜登政策可以利用好从特朗普政府期间已经设立的相关机构和工具,落实相关投资承诺。

 

特朗普于2018年签署《善用投资引导发展法》(简称BUILD法),将海外私人投资公司(OPIC)和美国国际开发署(USAID)下属的发展信贷管理局(DCA)合并,新成立了美国国际发展金融公司(IDFC),以增强美国的国际发展融资能力,对融资力度和融资工具都进行了拓展,统筹并促进美国私营部门参与发展中国家的经济建设。

 

在“自由开放印太政策”下,特朗普政府在2018年与日本和澳大利亚签署了三边基础设施投资伙伴关系合作备忘录,共同鼓励和支持本国私营企业在印太地区建设符合国际标准的高质量基础设施建设项目。

 

2019年,美国与日本和澳大利亚共同推出蓝点计划(Blue Dot Network),在亚洲地区抗衡中国的“一带一路”。该计划联合政府、企业和民间社会,在“共同标准下”评鉴和认证基建项目,助推可持续发展的高质量项目。

 

布鲁金斯学会中国项目研究员杜大伟(David Dollar)和周思哲(Jonathan Stromseth)也在2月17日呼吁拜登政府将特朗普政府期间一系列针对东南亚地区的基建投资承诺落实。他们指出,近4.2万家美国公司向东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN)10个成员国出口产品,支持美国约60万个就业机会,但美国在该区域的经济地位正面临中国的蚕食,东南亚已成为北京和华盛顿之间战略竞争的温床。

 

纳什:政府扶持项目不该是美国的竞争方式

 

曾在“一带一路”项目上为中国国家发改委提供咨询帮助的纳什告诉美国之音,中国“一带一路”的运行原理是将资金从中国开展海外业务的银行输送到在世界各地投资基建项目的中国国有和半国有实体中,是一种为海外和国内债务融资的方式。美国虽也有像美国国际发展金融公司(IDFC)这样的国际融资机构,但其运行规模不可能支撑像中国“一带一路”这样庞大的海外投资项目。此外,中国能向某些项目提供负利率的贷款,但一向注重风险管理标准的美国金融机构不太可能这么做。

 

纳什同时表示,美国进行大国竞争的最佳方式就是自由竞争。不管是中国的“一带一路”还是“中国制造2025”这样的产业政策,都不该是美国效仿的方式。这些项目都高度依赖政府角色,由政府出巨资扶持科技产业或扶持本国公司进行海外项目投资。这样做有可能滋养一批实际竞争力并不达标的公司和产业。

 

“最好的方法是让美国的建筑公司和基础设施公司自己出去竞争获得项目。如果他们竞争不到,那他们就该失败,因为他们没有足够竞争力,” 纳什说。

 

在上个月一场研讨会上,美国知名全球化和亚洲问题专家、经济战略研究所所长普雷斯托维茨(Clyde Prestowitz)曾表示,拜登政府该有一个影响深远的产业政策。“中国有他们的中国制造2025,我们应该有我们的美国制造2025,” 他说。

 

纳什认为,美中在全球范围内维持影响力和领导力的方式是秉持透明和自由竞争的价值理念。他认为美国之前要求北约盟国在国防开支上做到公开透明就是领导力的体现。

 

他认为,美国也该继续针对政府补贴和非关税壁垒等现象追求透明化,确保世界贸易组织能够切实做到这方面的督查工作,以让全世界都能看到各国的产业是如何被保护的。同时,美国也该呼吁国际社会在对外援助方面追求透明化,出去的钱到底流向何方?

 

“美国站出来要求多边组织的透明度,要求对外援助的透明度,要求基建项目的国际竞标有自由竞争的环境,这才是美国展示和保持领导力的最佳方式,” 纳什说。

 

“美版一带一路”怎么做?

 

库格尔曼认为,美国目前仍在美中竞争中占上风,不管是军事实力还是高新科技领域的领先优势。和韦伯一样,他也认为尽管美国近年来在软实力上面临一些挫折,但仍然领先于中国。

 

库格尔曼因此强调,在海外基建投资方面美国该有自己的步调和预期,没必要非得在数量级上和中国平分秋色,毕竟中国在这上面已经领先太多步了。“在基建投资领域取得一些进展的情况下,与其在这上面投入巨资徒劳追赶中国,何不更加专注于保持美国在其一贯领先的领域的竞争优势和相对优势呢?” 库格尔曼说。

 

库格尔曼部分认同韦伯对于美国可以把基建投资做得更好的看法。他说,中国不少一带一路项目的质量收到批评,比如财务不透明、腐败滋生、破坏当地环境、工人权益不达标等等。美国可以针对这些问题提供一个更高标准高质量的选择项。中国在部分地区通过基建项目大造监控系统,输出威权主义,美国在这方面显然也能提供侵入性更小的选择项。

 

和韦伯一样,库格尔曼也认为中国近年来的“战狼外交”给美国开创了机会。库格尔曼举例说,中国在南中国海愈加秀肌肉的蛮力战略给该区域的许多国家敲了警钟,开始质疑“向美国要安全,向中国要钱”的一贯态度是否还该继续。他认为,美国该重点投资像菲律宾这样又对中国产生迟疑又是美国关键区域盟友的国家。

Categories
QuickHit

Ag’s Perfect Storm: Tight Supply, Strong Demand and Weather Uncertainty

Joining QuickHit for the first time is the commodities expert Kevin Van Trump of The Van Trump Report, helping us understand ag’s supply, demand, and clarifying uncertainties. Why are we seeing so much attention to agriculture right now? What’s contributing to the tightness in the ag market? How long will the corn rally last? How about wheat? What can we expect for the foreseeable future? And protein, how delicate is this with all that’s happening with ASF, cyber attacks, etc.?

 

The Van Trump Report, a very large agricultural newsletter and analysis service. Kevin Van Trump started trading in the 90s in Chicago. Switched over, traded Notes, 10 years, five years. And then really got more heavily into ag. He’s from a small rural town outside of Kansas City and I was really interested in corn, beans, wheat, cattle, livestock. They started putting together a newsletter 10, 15 years ago when ethanol started to become more prominent and it started to travel around the circuits with some of the bigger hedge funds and some of the bigger money managers.

 

💌 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 June 2, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this Ag’s Perfect Storm: Tight Supply, Strong Demand and Weather Uncertainty QuickHit episode are those of the guest and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any contents provided by our guest 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: There’s a lot of attention on ag right now. And can you just kind of give us a little bit of a set up of what’s happening in the ag markets, everything from the volatility of corn to, you know, what’s happening in wheat, a little bit of kind of protein, a little bit of beef activity. And that sort of thing. Can you tell us just generally why are we seeing so much attention on ag right now?

 

KVT: Well, I think you see the funds take a more proactive risk on approach. You know, just in commodities in general, we’re seeing location from Covid and things of that nature. And most people thought as we ramp back up, we’re going to have a pretty strong demand for, like you said, proteins bring in some of the livestock back on, just demand in general.

 

So we’ve seen more fund interest and more money flow into the space. Like you’ve seen the rebound in crude. You’ve also seen this rebound and in the ag and the commodity world. So China’s got a big appetite. They’ve been a huge, huge buyer of corn and have led the way. Beans as well on the protein side, as you and I will discuss here in a little bit. But yeah, basically, you know, we’ve we’ve gone from a oversupplied market for the last four, five years to all of a sudden we’ve got tight supplies. We’ve got record strong demand and some uncertainty into weather. So, you know, everything all said ripe for a possible rally.

 

TN: And is that tightness? Is that on, say, processing? I know with some of the protein, it’s processing concerns. But what is that tightness? Is it say, weather, drought in Brazil, that sort of thing, too much weather, too much rain, in the Midwest or what’s contributing to that tightness in the market?

 

KVT: Yeah, I think you had, you know, we really rarely get good numbers out of China from a supply or demand, especially a supply standpoint. They were supposedly sitting on a ton of corn and a ton of supply. All of a sudden they come online as a big, big buyer, you know, whether it’s maybe lack of quality with the storage of their corn, maybe the numbers just weren’t there all along. Maybe the supply wasn’t there. But it feels like they want to import the corn down into the southern part of China, maybe get away from.

 

We think Covid really exposed the rail dislocation. And when they had that rail shut down and dislocate, it probably crimped a lot of movement of corn supply and the Chinese government is looking at that and saying, hey, we can’t have that happen again if we’re going to see more possible problems. So they want to be a big buyer of corn from the US. They want to buy as much beans as they can from South America. And so so here we sit trying to juggle that. I think the world wasn’t really prepared for the size of buying that they were going to step in and do.

 

TN: OK. And how long specifically with corn, how long do you think that buying lasts? Is that kind of a three month phenomenon or does that go, say, for years?

 

KVT: Well, Tony is kind of how it played out for us in the soybean market years ago. China was what we would call a price buyer of beans. They would buy beans on the breaks and then they became a quantity buyer of beans, where it didn’t matter if soybeans were traded in five or six dollars a bushel or sixteen or eighteen dollars a bushel. They were going to buy beans every month. And so we see China as a quantity buyer of soybeans.

 

And we’ve predicted… Now, I hate to say this because we’ve made this call before. It’s OK. Own it. That China was going to become a quantity buyer of corn eventually. And like I said, we’ve heard guys in the market say this for the last 20 years and it never really came to fruition. They’ve continued to be a price buyer of corn.

 

We feel we’re at a tipping point and we believe they’re going to continue to be a quantity buyer of US corn for the foreseeable future as they try to transition, open more ethanol facilities, try to transition to cleaner energy. And some of those types of place, I think they’re buying corn longer term.

 

TN: So we’ve hit. It sounds to me like we’ve hit almost a semi-permanent new price level. Is that, would that be fair to say?

 

KVT: Probably not, I would say, how would you say? The grain markets in general and farmers in general. They’re going to plant from fencerow to fencerow. They’ll be planting acres on their back patio if they can, and they’re going to roll out more acres in South America. And so you’re going to see a lot of supply really come on with technology changes that can come on fairly quick.

 

 Even though I think China, you know, is going to be a continued buyer and demand is going to remain strong. I bet we really start to increase some of this production and we’ll probably balance it back out here. So that’s you know, they’ve caught us a little offsides right now. You got the price of corn at seven, close to seven dollars. And then we, barring any weather incidents or craziness that would really upset production, we probably trade here well, and then we start to ramp up supply and balance or back out.

 

TN: Very good. OK, interesting. Can we move on to wheat for a little bit? There’s been you know, we saw wheat come on strong and then come off and there’s expectations of wheat prices rising again. And you’ve covered this in detail in your daily newsletter. Can you talk a little bit about the wheat market dynamics and kind of what you’re seeing there?

 

KVT: Yeah, you know, wheat has become a big follower of corn, so to speak. We’ve seen, especially in China, you’re seeing a lot more wheat substituted into feed rations. So you’re getting a, you’re getting a bigger demand for wheat as a feed ration, but of corn, more to fizzle out. We probably see wheat drop off as well just because its demand is kind of correlated right now to being substituted in for the higher prices and corn. There are some pockets where we have some weather stories.

 

Spring wheat seems to be in short order here in the US. Some of those acres didn’t get planted, probably were planted to corn. You’re seeing those conditions problematic in, say, North Dakota, which is our biggest spring wheat producing state. They’re having problems with the drought and dry conditions. You’re having some pockets of some concern in parts of Canada, Canadian prairies, southern prairies, where also big spring wheat producing areas. So that, you know, spring wheat, maybe a little hot right now. But we see wheat is mainly a follower to corn at the moment.

 

TN: Very interesting. OK, let’s move on to proteins, because I think that’s a really interesting story. We had this cyber attack on the largest beef or one of the largest beef processors in the US this week. And we already had some tightness in the beef market. The inventories, the frozen inventories, from what I learned from your newsletter, were already low, other things. So how delicate is that market and will we see that follow on effects come later into the market or will that be sooner?

 

KVT: No, I think, you know, there’s going to be, there’s massive dislocation right now across the board still, and I think you can see that and we could talk about. I’m sure your follow up into the hog space. But I mean, you’re seeing that with both cattle and hogs. If you recall, back early in Covid, they had to shut down a lot of processing plants because workers were getting sick and they had to take precautions.

 

Now, on the hog and poultry side, as I’m sure as we were going to discuss, those shutting of the plants, whether it be a Tyson or whoever it may have been at the time. I mean, that really backed up supply or the herd. Now, you had producers had to call the herd and they pulled back and reduced the size of the hog or quite a bit or with cattle or things of that nature. Well, then all of a sudden, corn prices and feed prices take off to the upside. And you have a producer or rancher who just really doesn’t want to expand his herd because he’s not certain about the processing plant if they’re going to stay in his local area because it Covid and now he sees corn take off and the feed take off to these extreme highs. You’ve got them caught where there were a little bit short supply and all of a sudden demand coming back like gangbusters.

 

All the restaurants, or people around the world are starting to try to get out and about more. And so, like you said, you guys, you got surging demand right here and you got the supply pipeline dislocated a little cut off size.

 

TN: And then when we see things like ASF, African Swine Flu in China and the calling of the even the breeder hogs, that sort of thing, how global is that dynamic? Does not present pressure on, say, US pork prices or or is that really just a regional Chinese pork price phenomenon?

 

KVT: No, we think it does. I mean, we’ve seen as it creates ripples in China and they try to get on top of it. I mean, it’s a crazy dynamic. They cut their hog order in half. But as they tried to get on top of it, they’ve had to be bigger buyers of importing of pork and the United States has been a beneficiary. And I think that could continue to be the case. You know, God forbid that we were to get a case here in the United States that’s always kind of the last few years, the big wild card in the mix.

 

If we were to spot something like that here in the US, know probably the knee jerk immediately as to the downside. Just because prices probably break because people are going to want to eat the hogs. You’re going to kill a lot. But I think longer term, that creates a supply shortage and we rebound back in the opposite direction. So it could be a double edged sword.

 

TN: OK, so we’ve seen a lot of volatility in these markets. What are you looking for kind of for the remainder of 2021. Do you see these prices elevated, say, until Q3? Do they come off in Q4 or do you see these, the kind of the volatility and elevated prices continuing through the end of the year?

 

KVT: You know, kind of like we talk in crude, we probably see demand outpace supply through Q3, Q4, maybe even a little later if you get some dislocation. In our sector, if you’re talking corn, beans, wheat, things like that, it’s really right now about US weather.

 

In Brazil, they’ve had some real rough patches of dry, dry and hot weather and we continue to see their corn crop get smaller in size. The USDA was talking they had lowered it down to one hundred and two million metric tons for corn. Now they’re talking some guys in the 95 to 90 million metric tons. And so that that’s going to take more corn out of the supply pipeline or are available for exports. And now here in the US, we’ve got the drought that’s lingering and could, it just sit, we’re just right here on this tipping point, Tony, where if it turns hot and dry within the next 60 days, corn, beans and we take off. I’m talking we’ll probably go all time record highs. If you see what I’m saying.

 

So and you remember back to the 2012 drought, the USDA had the crop rated about the same condition as it does right now. Things were similar, but all it takes, Tony, and corn, is for you to get really hot and dry right around the pollination period, which will be the end of June, first week of July somewhere in there. And boy, I tell you what, the market will add a ton of risk premium and, you know, a lot of fireworks take place.

 

So that’s kind of what we positioned ourself for. If we get that story, we take off to the upside because demand’s so strong. OK, so we’re looking for hot and dry potentially in late June, early July. And that would really set things on fire and in ag markets.

 

TN: Right. Very good. Kevin, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate this. This is a real pleasure to have you here. You know this stuff inside and out and we’re really grateful for all of the insights you’ve given us today. Thanks so much. For everyone watching, please like the video, please subscribe. That helps us out a lot. And we’ll see you on the next one. Thanks very much.

 

KVT: Thanks, Tony. Appreciate it.

Categories
QuickHit

Crude oil: New super cycle or continued price moderation? (Part 2)

This is the second part of the crude oil discussion with energy markets veteran Vandana Hari. Tony Nash asked if the political tensions in the Middle East will affect oil prices in this environment, and how soon can we see the effect in oil prices if the Iran agreement is made? She also discussed her views on the Texas shale industry and when can we see a bounce back, or if we’ll ever see one.

 

The first part of this discussion can be found here.

 

Vandana Hari is based in Singapore. She runs Vanda Insights and have been looking at the oil markets for about 25 years now. She launched Vanda Insights about five years ago. The company provides timely, credible, and succinct global oil markets, macro analysis, mostly through published reports.

 

💌 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 May 19, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this Crude oil: New super cycle or continued price moderation? 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

 

VH: And then, of course, we have Iranian oil and we could talk about that separately. So there’s plenty of supply.

 

TN: Let’s move there. So let’s talk a little bit about the Middle East with. First of all, with the political risk around Israel Palestine. Is that really a factor? Does that really impact oil prices the way it would have maybe 20, 30 years ago?

 

VH: OK, so with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that we’ve seen flare up in recent days, the short answer is no. Oil, it’s not even a blip on the radar of the oil complex. Now, obviously that’s because those two countries are neither major producers or consumers of oil. It is also not affecting shipping, the kind of fear that was in the markets, for instance, when ships were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz or the Red Sea.

 

But having said that, generally the oil market is keeping an eye on how that region, the tensions have been escalating. The Iranian and Arab tensions have been escalating. We have seen more attacks over the past few months. It seems to have died down a little bit recently, but more attacks from by the Houthi rebels just managing to miss white facilities in Saudi Arabia. So, yes, it is an area of concern. But somehow the oil market, maybe because there is enough oil available against demand, but the oil market has sort of almost gotten into this pattern of, that’s a knee jerk reaction. Every time, it looks like a supply might be affected from that region. But the oil complex has just been generally reluctant to price in on a sustained basis of geopolitical fear premium.

 

TN: Yeah, I can see that. That’s very evident. With the JCPOA, with the Iran agreement, how much of a factor would that be to supplies and over what timeframe would it be a factor? Would it be an immediate factor? Would it be something in six months time from if an agreement is made?

 

VH: We know the indirect talks that have been going on between the US and Iranians the past few weeks, and then there’s been a bit of confusing signals as well in terms of news emanating earlier this week. We had a Russian diplomat say that, oh, it’s on the verge of a breakthrough and then retracted so it doesn’t help the oil market of anybody as opposed to have that adding to the confusion. The oil market has made its calculations.

 

First of all, Iranian oil production as well as exports have been edging up. That’s a fact. Now, obviously, there’s no clearly transparent data, but there’s plenty of ship tracking companies, all of which have very clear evidence that there’s more oil going into China.

 

So to some extent, you could argue that crude prices today have factored in a little bit of extra Iranian oil coming back into the market. Just to remind our viewers that it never went down to zero. There was always Iranian in oil flowing into and we’ll not go into the details of that. But basically it’s sort of bypassing the US sanctions. So the question now is how much more Iranian oil can come into the market and when it could come into the market?

 

And I would add a third point to that is that what will OPEC+ do to that if it ends up pressuring prices? So how much more oil could come into the market? An estimated 1.2 million barrels per day additional oil could come if the sanctions are removed. When it could come back into the market? I’m no more privy to what’s going on behind closed doors in the discussions than the next person. But my personal feeling from reading what’s coming out of these talks is that it’s a very complex set of issues.

 

There’s a lot of politics going on when people come out and say, oh, we’ve made progress and so on. But it’s a complex web. It’s multilayered. I personally don’t expect sanctions to be removed before next month’s Iranian elections. So sometime this year, yes. But not right away.

 

And here’s the point I would make as well, is that I don’t think OPEC-non OPEC alliance will sit on their hands and see, especially if crude starts spiraling downwards with the Iranian oil more than Iranian oil coming back into the market. I think they will make adjustments accordingly. If the market can absorb it without a big hit to oil prices, well then good, you know, which is what was the case with Libya last year. But if it can’t, I think they’ll just redistribute that sort of cut back a little bit more or taper less basically. So either way, I don’t see that putting a huge downward pressure on crude.

 

TN: I’m in Texas and so we haven’t really seen a lot of new capacity come online with the with the Texas plays over the past few months as prices have risen. So what will it take for Texas to kind of install new rigs or re-open rigs and get things moving here? What are you looking for and what do you think the magic number is? I mean, if it hasn’t been hit already? What do you think needs to happen for Texas to kind of reopen some of these fields?

 

VH: Yes, we saw oil rigs across the US, which is a very crucial measurement of the activity in the shale patch, especially. We saw that number crash last year. And I look at the fracturing fleet count as well, which tells you exactly how much oil is being drilled out of those wells. But not just how many wells are being drilled. So both of those have been creeping up from from the crash of last year. I think since about August last year, they they have been moving up. But if you compare year on year still, that the total rig count is just half of the levels before Covid last year. Overall, US oil production and shale is the lion’s share of it has dropped from about nearly 13 million barrels per day to about 11. Two million barrels per day of capacity has basically disappeared from the shale patch.

 

And for OPEC, as well as for the oil market, I think it’s a key area to keep an eye on because we have seen in the previous boom and bust cycles and oil price up and down cycles, that shale was very quick to respond to oil price recovery. I think the story is very, very different this time. There’s a few influencing key factors, which are all pulling in the same direction.

 

So first of all, on a very sort of global level, we know that generally, funding is drying up in fossil fuels. OK, so that’s a baseline. That’s affecting conventional fuel. It’s affecting shale equally. The second is that we see and this has been an ongoing trend over the past few years, more and more majors have made inroads into majors are now independent players still produce the majority of the tight oil from the US shale. But the majors have become quite significant players as well. And almost every major that you tune into is saying that we are going to be very, very cautious in… We’d rather return money. We’d rather pay down debt, cash discipline, essentially. We would rather return money to our shareholders than invest in just growth at any cost. That’s happening.

 

When it comes to independence. I think they’re going their own ways, basically. You can’t say all independents have the same philosophy. But again, when I listen to the major independent players, they pretty much are also into cost discipline strategy. If you aren’t, are going to just have a tough time, far tougher time than than the previous down cycles in getting funding. So we generally see that funding for the shale sector is also starting to dry up.

 

I suppose banks and lenders and shareholders probably just seen enough of that, how sales fortunes go up and down. If you’re a long term investor, it’s not really an area of stability. So all of these put together to lead me to conclude that the EIA thinks shale production will creep up a little bit this year. But of course, compared with 2019, they’ll still remain low. It’s predicting quite a big bounce back in ’22. But I’m not that sure about it. I have a feeling that it’s probably going to sort of plateau from here on.

 

TN: OK. Really interesting. So it sounds like kind of that marginal barrel that would come from shale to be honest, isn’t really that necessary right now given the cost that it would take to reopen the rig. Is that fair to say?

 

VH: Yeah. And then you have to remember that the OPEC is sitting on that marginal barrel of supply as well. And that has to come back into the market. And you have to see prices supported, let’s say WTI, well above sixty dollars. And then ask yourself that have any of these, the three conditions that I outlined earlier changed substantially enough for shale to go into a boom again? So I think the answer is pretty clear.

Categories
QuickHit

Crude oil: New super cycle or continued price moderation? (Part 1)

Energy markets expert Vandana Hari is back on QuickHit to talk about crude oil. Brent is nearly at the $70 psychological mark and is also a 2-year high. However, demand has not picked up to the pre-Covid levels. Vandana explained what happened here and what to look forward to in the coming year. Also, is crude experiencing supply chain bottlenecks like in lumber and other commodities and how oil demand will pick up around the world?

 

Vandana Hari is based in Singapore. She runs Vanda Insights and have been looking at the oil markets for about 25 years now. The majority of those were with Platts. She launched Vanda Insights about five years ago. The company provides timely, credible, and succinct global oil markets, macro analysis, mostly through published reports. They are also available for ad hoc consultations and research papers.

 

💌 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 May 19, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this Crude oil: New super cycle or continued price moderation? 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: I want to talk about crude oil, because if we looked a year ago and we saw where crude oil prices were a year ago because of the Covid shock and we look at where crude is today, it’s something like two-year highs or something like that today. And we still have kind of five or six million barrels, we’re consuming about five or six million barrels less per day than we were pre-Covid. Is that about right?

 

VH: Yeah, absolutely. So we have had a Brent flood with the $70 per barrel psychological mark, it has not been able to vault it in terms of, you know, in the oil markets, we tend to look at go-buy settlements. So we’re talking about ICE Brent Futures failing to settle above 70 dollars a barrel? But it has settled a couple of times so far this year, just below, which was two-year highs.

 

And the man on the street, as you quite rightly point out, does end up wondering. And I’m sure people at the pump in the US looking at three dollars a gallon prices that hang on like the global demand is yet to return anywhere close to pre Covid. So why are prices going to two-year highs?

 

So two fundamental reasons. If you talk about supply and demand in the oil markets, the first one is the OPEC – Non OPEC Alliance is still holding back a substantial amounts of oil from the markets. If you hark back to last year when they came together in this unprecedented cutback, almost 10 million barrels of oil per day, cumulative within that group, they said they’re going to leave it in the ground because of the demand destruction.

 

Now, starting January this year, they have begun to so-called “taper.” Yes, people borrowed that as well in the oil market. All over the place. Yeah. So they’re tapering. But they’re doing it very, very cautiously.

 

So where do we stand now? They are still holding back almost six and a half million barrels per day. So basically two thirds of the oil that they took out of the market last year is still, they’re still keeping it under the ground. So that’s one main reason.

 

The second one is a bit, of course, demand has been picking up as countries and globally, if you look at it, I mean, we can talk about individual countries, but globally, you know, the world is starting to cautiously emerge out of Covid-related restrictions.

 

Economies are doing better. So oil consumption is moving up. But but some of, it’s not entirely that. I would say some of the the buoyancy in crude of late, and especially when it was, you know, Brent was a two-year highs, is because of a forward looking demand optimism. And when it comes to that, I think it’s very, very closely connected or I would say almost entirely focused on the reopening of the U.S. economy.

 

TN: OK, so. So this is a forward looking optimism, is it? I know into other areas, like, for example, lumber, which has been there’s been a lot of buzz about lumber inflation is because of the sawmills and with other, say, commodities, there have been processing issues and with, you know, meat and these sorts of things that have been kind of processing issues and bottlenecks in the supply chain. But with crude oil to petrol, it’s not, it’s not the same. Refineries are doing just fine. Is that, is that fair to say?

 

VH: That’s a very good point, Tony, to to just kind of unpick a little bit. Because what happens is when you hear talk of super cycles, commodities, bull run, and then, of course, we have a lot of indexes and people trade those indexes, commodity index, we tend to lump together, you know, commodities all the way from copper and tin, lumber and corn all the way to crude oil and gasoline and gas oil and so on.

 

But, you know, here’s what. You know. We could spend hours talking about this. But, but just very quickly to dissect it, I would say look at it in terms of you have commodities. And I would sort of lump metals and to some extent agricultural commodities in this one Group A and Group B.

 

So as I mentioned earlier, Group B, which is which is oil. Well, crude oil and refined products, to a large extent, the prices are being propped up by OPEC, plus keeping supply locked out of the markets. It’s very different from, as you mentioned, what’s happening in metals and ags and these kind of commodities where it just can’t be helped. So there’s supply chain issues, this production issues all the way from from Chile, where copper production all the way to even here in Malaysia, you know, palm oil, because workers are unable to return fully. Or in terms of even the the packaging, the storage and the delivery of it. So I think there’s a major difference there.

 

Now, the commonality here is, of course, all of these are seeing demand rebound. You know, that I agree as a commonality. Demand is rebounding. But I think it’s very important to remember. And why is it why is this distinction important is that you could argue that, well, if demand continues to sort of go gangbusters in terms of copper, tin, lumber, it will, for the foreseeable future, meet against supply constriction. So you cannot.

 

So accordingly, you can assess what might be the prices of these commodities going forward. They may remain elevated, but it would be wrong, I think, to sort of draw a parallel between that and oil, because in oil, I do believe OPEC non-OPEC are waiting. In fact, I don’t think they can hold their horses any longer, waiting to start putting that oil back into the market. So, you know, keep that distinction in mind.

 

TN: So there’s an enthusiasm there. So let’s say we do see demand kind of come back gradually, say, in the U.S., a little bit slower in, say, Europe. But China is moving along well and say Southeast Asia, east Asia is coming along well. The supply from the OPEC countries will come on accordingly. Is that fair to say?

 

VH: Absolutely. And when you talk about demand, again, I think there’s a sort of a bias in the crude futures markets, which tend to be the leading the direction for the oil complex in general, including the Fiscal markets, is that there’s definitely a bias to looking towards what’s hot right now, at least looking towards what’s happening in the US and getting carried away a little bit. Because when you look at the US, it’s a completely positive picture, right?

 

You base that, you see things around, you see how people are just kind of moving away. You’re removing mask mandates, people are traveling. And, of course, we’re getting a lot of data as well. The footfall in your airports. The other thing about the US is you have good data, right. Daily, weekly data. So that continues to prop up the market. But if you just cast your eye, take a few steps back, look at the globe as a whole. And, you know, sitting here in Asia, I can shed some light about what’s happening here.

 

No country is opening its borders in Asia, OK? People are, for leisure. If people are even not even able to travel to meet their family, you know, unless it’s in times of emergency, unfortunately. So nobody’s traveling. The borders are sealed very, very tight.

 

There is an air bubble, travel bubble between New Zealand and Australia. But, you know, nobody’s bothering to even check what that’s doing to jet demand. What do you think it will imagine? You imagine it will do.

 

And then you have Europe in between, which is, yes, again, it is reopening very cautiously, though. We’ve had the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, cautioning that the travel plans for the Brits might be in disarray because of this so-called Indian variant. I don’t like to use that term, but this virus more transmissible virus variant. So it’s a very patchy recovery. It’s a very mixed picture, which is why I’m not that bullish about global oil demand rebound as a whole. You know, at least the so-called summer boom that people are talking about.

 

TN: Do you do you see this kind of trading in a range for the next, say, three or four or five months or something? Demand come, supply come, demand come, supply comes something like that.

 

So there’s not too much of a shortfall for market needs as kind of opening up accelerates?

 

VH: Very much so. I think, first of all, unfortunately, I mean, as individuals, of course, we like to be positive and optimistic. But with an analyst hat on, we need to look at data. We need to use logic. We need to overlay that with our experience of this pandemic, the past one and a half years.

 

Somehow, we’ve had a few false dawns, unfortunately, during this pandemic. We’ve seen that right from the start. When you remember the first summer, 2020 summer, some people said, oh, the heat and all that, the virus will just die away.

 

So, again, I think we need to be very, very cautious. I do think, unfortunately, that this variance and as you and I were discussing off air earlier, this is the nature of the virus. So I think there’s going to be a lot of stop, start, stop, start. The other thing I see happening is that it’s almost like, I imagine the virus sort of it’s moving around. And even if you look at India now, it’s just gone down in the worst hit states of Maharashtra and Delhi. But now it’s sort of moved into the rural area.

 

So I think sort of, unfortunately, is going to happen globally as well. The other important thing to keep in mind is, is vaccinations, of course, is very, very uneven. You know, the ratio of vaccinated people in each country so far, the pace at which the vaccinations are going and, you know, not to mention the countries, the poorer, the lower income countries.

 

So we’re probably going to see, you know, maybe a bit of start. Stop. Definitely. I don’t think we’re going to see national boundaries opening up to travel any time soon. And then exactly as you pointed out, we have this OPEC oil and then, of course, we have Iranian oil and we can talk about that separately. So there’s plenty of supply.

 

TN: So let’s talk a little bit about, let’s talk a little bit about the Middle East with, you know, first of all, with political risk around Israel Palestine. Is that really a factor? Does that, does that really impact oil prices the way it would have maybe 20, 30 years ago?

Categories
QuickHit

Inflation: Buckle up, it may get worse (Part 2)

Nick Glinsman and Sam Rines are back in this QuickHit episode special Cage Match edition about inflation, part two, where we start looking into things like raw materials cost versus processing and manufacturing bottlenecks. Also discussed are the wage inflation and labor availability and how long these impacts will last. And finally, we start talking about central banks. What will the Fed do? Will it do anything? When will it do it?

 

For those who prefer to listen to a podcast, here’s the Spotify link for you: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3CK3SNwMK97oWLy1DMRQnD?si=uV1As8VsTxSVrQNE0iYuiA You can also find us in other podcast audio streaming services. Just search “QuickHit”. Thank you!

 

Part one covered a lot around specific commodity inflation and why it’s happening.

 

💌 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 April 28, 2021.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this nflation: Buckle up, it may get worse 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: What the people in the middle. So the manufacturers, what capacity do they have to absorb these price rises? What are you guys seeing when you talk to people when you read? Are you seeing that manufacturers can absorb the lumber prices, the copper prices and other things, or are they passing that directly along?

 

NG: Sorry, Sam. I’m jumping in here. The beauty of that question right now is there was a major headline, the Financial Times talking about margin compression of how US corporates are going to be increasing prices. It was today. You have the likes of Chipotle. We’ll go on to that. That’s a labor cost issue. But the other company, you know, J&J, various bare necessities manufacturers for nappies for kitchenware also they’re saying they’re going to have to put price pressure through to the consumer and as we were discussing just before we started, there’s the elasticity of price increases is very high.

 

The elasticity of price decreases is extremely low. And I would contend that this becomes a rolling, snowball effect as these prices get passed through to the consumer. There are other costs that will be passed through to which we can talk about later on labor side. But this clearly, one of the signals that our well worth watching, on the margins in the corporate reporting, and all of them are suggestive of higher prices to the consumer.

 

Then you look at the ISM prices paid. I have a chart, a model that looks at that versus the CPI. And if that sticks to what it’s done over the last couple of decades, it’s indicative of CPI, actually, the big figure having a getting up to somewhere around four, maybe even higher.

 

TN: Which was kind of a China 2011 scenario of four to six percent CPI.

 

NG: Correct. But also also the the process of decoupling, as long as it may be, that process has created a demand because of the supply shock.

 

There’s a supply shock in the system. The demand is adjusting there, too, so that work as additional demand to fill in the gaps, so if the decoupling replacement process is long standing, the demand is still there, it’s a matter and then catching up. There’s a price disparity caused by that.

 

TN: Yeah, we definitely have a mismatch, at least in the short term. And will those supply chains catch up? That’s a real question. Sam, what’s your view on that in terms of manufacturers being able to absorb these cost and margin pressures?

 

SR: So I’ll jump to the housing market as my example, which I think is one of the more interesting ones filtering, filtering through down into lumber.

 

A very close friend of mine in Houston is delaying the start of one hundred and ninety homes that were supposed to be going into, well… He has the pads laid. He won’t build those homes until lumber prices go down. It’s the largest backlog he’s ever had. And that got us talking and kind of working through the market. And when you look at the market for pine studs in the US, it’s an intriguing look into kind of where the cost pressures are coming through, where mills are making mills that make the two by fours are making an absolute fortune off of the disruption.

 

But if you own a pine stand of several thousand acres, the tree that you are cutting off of it is the exact same price that it was a year ago. You have seen none of the prices at all.

 

TN: So there’s not a supply, a raw materials supply issue. It’s a processed materials issue.

 

SR: Yes. Exactly. So it’s the supply chain breaking down. You didn’t have enough. You didn’t have the mills up and running for a couple of months. You had about 40 percent of the capacity offline. And that created a shock to the system that eventually will be sorted out at some point.

 

We didn’t destroy any capacity for two by fours. We’re building even at the current rate, we’re building one point seven million homes. That’s nowhere near what we were doing in 2005. And yet lumber is four times where it was. So, yeah.

 

NG: May I ask a question because you’re obviously in touch with that level on a micro basis? So one of the things that I’ve been told by several different sources is they don’t disagree with your number coming down eventually. The problem the homebuilders now have is labor shortage.

 

SR: That might be a problem in the northeast. That might be a problem in a kind of coastal problem in the US, where I have fewer contacts in construction. But in the south, there’s no labor shortage. Wages are still very strong. You have some projects that were delayed for large oil which created a supply of able bodied plumbers, electricians, where there’s a shortage elsewhere. So I would say that’s probably very true for parts of the country.

 

There’s anecdotally, Beth. Beth Iron Works? One of the major boat docks in the north, northeast is driving around an RV trying to recruit people to come, trying to recruit welders. That was a problem before Covid that was and will remain a problem. The trades will be a big issue. Common labor, particularly in the South, does not appear to be an issue. That is an issue in the north.

 

NG: I’ve heard it’s an issue in Florida, actually, which is back to you point about coasts. Sorry, I interrupt.

 

TN: We’re in Texas. It’s the Promised Land. I mean, I think you…

 

NG: Would agree with you on that one.

 

TN: OK, so we’ve gone long. I know these are very detailed issues, but I’m going to ask another question. I did ask for some questions over Twitter.

 

So one of them came in from Brent. This was around supply chain disruptions, which we’ve already talked about. There’s another from Jerrett Heath. He says, “Will it be velocity or magnitude that causes the Fed to react to inflationary pressures?”

 

So what do you guys think? Are we going to see kind of the magnitude inflation push the Fed to react or what’s going to push the Fed to react to start to taper a little bit, if they do at all?

 

NG: I would say both at the same time. My great fear is that there is, and this was actually covered by the Wall Street Journal, but I’ve written and spoken about this as well. I sit there looking at the Fed becoming reactive rather than proactive, and the punch bowl analogy is gone, and that worries me enormously because they have great confidence in something that they’re forecasting as transitory and we know what their forecast record is, and if you really want a bad forecast record, just go to Frankfurt and see what the ECB is all about.

 

Now, it’s interesting to me that the conventional wisdom, the consensus forecast is for tapering to the end of this year as opposed to next year. It seems like the more people talk about the inflation pressure, the greater it is. But I wonder whether we will get tapering. That’s what worries me about the Fed.

 

I’ve been really working hard on looking at what Claudia Sahm has written and said over the last couple of weeks. She wrote an op ed in The New York Times and Bloomberg. She’s said… She’s an ex-economist for the FOMC and the Board of Governors, actually. And you get the feeling that the priorities are unemployment with equity, racial equity as opposed to equality. Furthermore, you get the feeling that financial stability… Both of those more important than inflation.

 

Now, if that’s the case and we start to see any signs of a taper tantrum, I worry that this Fed is going to do a proactive. Either stop the idea of tapering or do a twist or something that eases this market. I think they’ve got themselves, we have a very political Fed that, if it’s reactive by nature, it could be procyclical by action. And that’s where I find I really worry about it.

 

Then, we’ve got Powells term expiry February. Well, Lail Brainard is one of Janet Yellen’s favorite people. And if she gets in, we’re going full MMT. So those are my concerns about the tapering, its focus on financial stability and the risk that reactive policy will be procyclical.

 

TN: Interesting. OK, that’s great. Thank you. Sam. Help me understand, what’s your point of view on this? What gets the Fed to react and how do they react?

 

SR: Yeah, so I would go with neither of those will get the Fed to react. It’s not a question of should they or, you know, what they think they should do. But it’s a question of will they. And they won’t react to inflation. They do not care about the magnitude. They do not care about the velocity. And they won’t care for at least another nine months because we know the combination that they’re going to look through, the combination of basic facts and supply chain disruptions, at least through the end of the third quarter. They do not care. And then they will start the clock on their four quarters of inflation above or at two percent, and they want full employment before they raise. That’s four percent at least on measured unemployment.

 

So I would say, it, whatever you want to look at for inflation numbers, they don’t care. And maybe they should, but they don’t.

 

TN: So they don’t care yet. Or they don’t care period?

 

SR: They don’t care, period, until it’s been until it’s been a year of around 2 percent in this summer and fall don’t matter to them.

 

NG: Let me add one or it’s too late.

 

SR: Yes.

 

NG: I’m with you. You and I seem to agree. I mean, that is exactly the impression I got from Claudia Sahm’s words. I mean it was just straight up. And that’s where I worry, you know, I have a huge respect for Lail Brainard. She is a very, very accomplished economist. But she’ll go full MMT is what Janet Yellen wants. It’s what the Democrats want and I really worry about that.

 

Plus, you combine this with here we go back to Larry Summers. You combine this with this fiscal effort and one thing that, so in American terminology, progressive policies typically have historically been inflationary. In English terminology, is what I am, these socialist policies have a history of inflation. More government intervention, more pushing against the string of inefficient allocation of resources. Labor restrictions, minimum wage, universal basic income. It all leads to in one direction.

 

So I agree with you, Sam. I think the Fed doesn’t care and I think, hence, the reactive. When they react, it’s going to be, in my view, potentially too late. It’s already started.

 

TN: So I just sent out on Twitter a chart that Sam published about three weeks ago from another source on the negative impact of fiscal stimulus, and as we end up ’21, like in Q3, Q4 of ’21, that fiscal stimulus starts to have a negative impact. And certainly in ’22, the US fiscal stimulus has a negative impact.

 

So, you know, there are a number of things to worry about, not just with inflation, but with the efficacy of some of this fiscal stimulus that’s going into the market.

 

So with that, I want to thank both of you guys. Honestly, we could talk about this for hours. I would love to have this discussion with you guys again, you know, even in a couple of weeks to talk about other issues. So let’s see where this goes. But thank you so much. Thank you very much for your time on this. I really appreciate it.

 

We’ll get this out as quickly as possible. Thanks to everyone who’s watching this. Thanks for everyone who submitted questions. For those who did submit questions, for the questions we used, we’ll give you guys a month of CI Futures and look forward to the next time. Thanks for joining us.

 

Categories
Visual (Videos)

A Mission-Critical Focus to Enable Growth

This article originally published at https://www.admentus.com/podcast/a-mission-critical-focus-to-enable-growth-with-tony-nash-of-complete-intelligence/ on March 26, 2021.

 

 

Every company wishes they have a crystal ball when it comes to making business decisions, and while a physical iteration of that wish is not possible, Tony Nash has developed the next best thing for his clients at his startup, Complete Intelligence.

 

Tony is the CEO and Founder of Complete Intelligence. Before founding Complete Intelligence, Tony was the global head of research for The Economist and the head of Asia consulting for IHS Markit.

 

Complete Intelligence is a fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue proactive planning. Using advanced AI, they provide highly accurate cost and revenue forecasts fueled by billions of enterprise and public data points.

 

Key Takeaway: As a growing, scaling business, you must know what you are good at, what you do, and what you do not do. Maintain your mission-critical focus on the most important aspects of your business and outsource the parts that you are simply not good at or are outside of your mission.

 

Lessons Learned:

 

• Put Significant Thought into Your Senior Hires – hire low first, then hire the upper levels as they will be the ones that have to share your mission and must be the right hire.

• Know what You Do Not Do – Knowing what you don’t do is just as important as knowing what you do do.

• Define Your Culture – Define the culture you are building and continually and intentionally reinforce it.

 

Show Notes

 

JC: Hello everybody, Jeff Chastain here with the building to scale podcast again, where I get the opportunity really to speak with entrepreneurial business leaders growth-minded leaders who are working to grow and scale their own companies. And some of the we’ll discuss some of the challenges. Some of the successes as they’ve had over the years working through that.

 

Today’s guest with me here is Tony Nash with Complete Intelligence out of the Houston, Texas area. So first off Tony welcome to the show and thank you for taking a few minutes out of your busy day to join us here.

 

TN: Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate the opportunity.

 

JC: So give us a little bit about what Complete Intelligence is and what you guys have got going on there?

 

TN: Sure. We run an artificial intelligence platform. We use it to forecast market activity say currencies, commodities, equities for investors. We also help people companies understand their costs and their revenues which are really important on the budgeting side. So we help people de-risk their future business decisions by understanding where their costs are going to go and where their revenues will likely go.

 

JC: Okay, so I’ve got a background in technology and we kind of talked about AI and stuff beforehand but if we were to bring that down. And say okay I put you on the spot here but it was well the networking questions I’ve heard before like. Okay, if you describe that to a five-year-old what do you really do? So I know we kind of talked beforehand that this is typically big enterprise focus but for those that are not into that industry or not dealing with 9 10 figure dollar budgets, kind of a thing. Proactive budget planning. What does that really mean from a obviously from a company your size or your perspective?

 

TN: Sure, if I have to describe it to a five or ten year old. It’d say look, if you run a lemonade stand you have to understand how much the lemons are going to cost. How much the water is going to cost. How much the sugar is going to cost you. Also want to understand how many customers you’re going to have. How much money they’re going to spend. How much money you’re going to take in through the lemonade stand, right?

 

So we work with customers to understand all of those things. Now when companies themselves forecast this stuff and we know this from talking to our clients. They typically have 30 error rates or worse, even for raw materials costs. So their planning is way off, okay? When you look at industry experts investment banks economists, industry experts, these sorts of things. Their error rates are typically 20% off, okay? Our error rates are typically about around 4.6 percent, okay? And that’s on an absolute percent error basis. So we’re not gaming the pluses and minuses, okay?

 

So if you’re buying those lemons and that sugar and that sort of thing you can pay a dollar 20 for it. For us maybe a dollar five or something like that, right? So we’ll help you save 15 cents a lemon, okay? And you’ll understand where those costs are going. And so when you scale that up to very large customers who have you know 2 billion, 5 billion, 20 billion dollars in turnover or more. They’re buying in tens and hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

So let’s say a 17% improvement in their ability to forecast things, those are very large numbers. And so we’re working with enterprise scale data in the cloud and helping them understand where their business is going. And I would say probably better than just about anybody else out there. And so it doesn’t have to be the biggest company in the world doing this stuff. We work with mid-sized companies as well, okay? Because we’ll take data out of their enterprise planning system or something like that. And we’ll use it on our platform to help them make better decisions. We’re not telling them what to do, we’re just telling them where the data tell us that things are going to go.

 

So the real problem we’re solving aside from the obvious of what’s going to happen in their markets and their costs. Every company has a very painful budgeting process, okay? Some companies it takes a month or two or three months. Some companies some of our customers it takes six or seven months. And they’re going through in a very meticulous way of proactive planning their budgets. And there are hundreds of people involved and at the end of the day it goes up to the CFO and the CPO the chief procurement officer or the CFO and the head of sales and it’s a verbal agreement on what’s actually going to happen. This is actually one of the CFO pain points.

 

Not all that data driven, right? And so what we do is we give them a straw man to base it on so they can a very meticulous and detailed straw man. So that seven month process is taken down to a couple days, okay? From data transmission processing to sending back. And they also get a continuous budgeting exercise, okay? Every month we’ll reforecast their budgets for them so if something like Covid happens as it did last March, April. We help them understand what’s likely to happen uh in their business.

 

JC: Now that makes sense and that’s really one of those things that regardless of the business side that it’s like, okay having actual real data not seven month old data actually having it on a monthly basis or even closer kind of a thing. You can actually make real decisions on it at that point rather than just thinking like you said one code would happen. Everybody had their budget set January, February for what 2020 was going to be. And now two months later they’re completely invalidated that either the like you said earlier some some businesses are up, some are down, some are pulling back the the expenses. So it may have turned out okay but all the proactive planning they did initial on is completely out of window at that point.

 

TN: Right and most of those guys their revenue budgets were blown out like they had no idea what was going to happen there. They were saddled with their cost budgets that they had to continue paying for all this stuff. They didn’t know what was coming in on the top line. And so they then had to be very reactive on the on the cost side. And initially it was just a lot of you know arbitrary cost cutting and no disrespect to anybody. They were doing the best they could right but a lot of these big companies initially were just like, we don’t know what what we’re going to be in three months.

 

We were initially told covered was four to six weeks. And you know it’s still going on right and so what we saw is a lot of companies cut costs in the second quarter and the third quarter and by the end of the third quarter the management views looked up and said, well we’ve cut it as much as we can through the first three quarters let’s not release any more budget in Q4. So that just helped them on the income side so that they you know their bottom line looked better than it probably would have if they would have been a status cooperation.

 

JC: Yeah

 

TN: But still what we’re doing is using actual live data to help clients make the actual decisions that they need to make to run their businesses.

 

JC: Yeah and that’s really to me the key whether you’re got the small business that you simply just don’t have that much data to be processing all the way up to the enterprise. It’s still the same thing of saying, okay making those decisions on the numbers rather than, like you said with with Covid where it’s almost an immediate knee-jerk panic reaction of, hey we’ve got to cut things or hey everything’s going to be down. It’s like okay let’s look at the numbers and hopefully by a Q2 Q3 et cetera we’ve got some actual real data that we can start looking at.

 

So but yeah that’s that’s interesting so going back to Complete Intelligence then take us back. And say I think you said it 6 to 7 years old for the company itself. So how did this how did this kind of come about from a entrepreneurial standpoint.

 

TN: Sure, yeah, I used to run global research for a company called The Economist based in the UK, publishing company. And then I moved to a company called IHS Market which was just bought by S&P about six months ago. I was their Asia head of consulting. I was working with clients on a lot of data-driven decisions. And what clients were telling me were two things first the forecast that everyone was doing not just stuff, us were wrong and there was no accountability for that, okay?

 

The second is they could never get a forecast for their exact decisions. Forecasts were always too high level or not the right thing or something. So I rolled out of IHS market saying I want to have a data driven company that actually helps people make real decisions about their business. And so we started as a consulting firm for our first few years we were a consulting firm. And I was trying to understand the types of decisions that people needed to make I knew it from my consulting days with bigger firms but I wanted to understand what we could actually do.

 

About three years in we decided to turn into a product firm. Which is a very different type of business and so you know we built an initial platform that was very customizable but then to productize it out to build it to scale really is a very different skill set. Aside from a little bit math and a little bit of code it’s a very different same marketing and sales operation. It’s a very different you know infrastructure and all that stuff, right?

 

So a couple years ago we decided to productize with some subscription online subscription data products. And then we’ve got more specific with say cost and revenue products. So, I started the company in Asia in Singapore and then in 2017 we moved to Texas. So part of our, my calculation there was the talent in my mind is better here in the US. The customers are much easier to access here in the US and the business environment is pretty friendly. So it was a pretty easy decision for us to decide to come to Texas.

 

JC: Interesting. Okay. So what kind of challenges or what did you face in going from I guess I don’t necessarily know what your role was when you were saying with the economist except I’m assuming you’re you’re managing a team but you’re not necessarily managing a company. At that point to now owning and running your own company here with you said what 10 11 something employees up to now?

 

TN: Yes, that’s right that’s right, I think. So you know first is always the administrative part of it, right. I mean I think every new business owner just isn’t aware of the administrative stuff. And also the fear of missing something, right. What have I not done. what what tax filing have I not done or you know something like that, right? So there’s always that which was not a major issue but it was an additional burden.

 

When I think the biggest part of it was, I was just doing everything. And you come as a as a business owner you come to a point where you’re doing everything and you’re involved in everything. And then you’ll come to a point where you have to delegate stuff. And finding the right balance of when to do that and how to do that is I would say it’s more art than science. And other things like scaling RIT infrastructure that’s never really a decision I’d make before. I’m a math nerd and economics and data nerd, right.

 

So you know those types of decisions were really new but also on the customer side. Although, I had been customer facing when and this is kind of a no-brainer of course but when you don’t have a big brand behind you. Getting to the right people is a much more difficult process. And so we, I knew that coming out of the gate but I underestimated how hard it would be.

 

We started talking with some of our sales partners right away. Knowing that they wouldn’t give us a yes, right away but starting the relationship so guys like oracle guys like Bloomberg, Microsoft, Refinitive Tompson, Reuters these guys are all major partners for us now. Major sales channel partners and it took us four to five years to get those relationships moving and commercialized. So for a small business owner who is looking at channels as a major part of their business strategy. I would recommend you have to start talking to those partners right now like a year or two or three before you intend on getting your first dollar.

 

And so the other part as we’ve grown is we’ve had to think through, what do we do well as a company. And what’s best for us to outsource so things like HR. You know what, we don’t have an HR team. We have an outsourced HR firm, right, that’s a no-brainer but you know I can’t do it all myself. I don’t know the laws and stuff so we have outsourced HR. As I said with our channels we are scaling up our sales force but to have that as a kind of a force multiplier is huge for us, right. And things like marketing we have a marketing team in the Philippines and we have some marketing here but where can we get great skills at the best price really, right. And so we have to look around to find out you know what that stuff looks like.

 

We don’t have any of our data science team or any of our developers offshore. They’re all here in the US and part of that is for our client base. We don’t want things going to Eastern Europe or Asia or whatever but where we can push things off and make sure that we keep our core business. We’re happy to push things off. And so what I mean is we are a technology company, okay. We are not a human resources company we are not a marketing company and we’re not a consulting firm. And so we partner or outsource so that we can stay small and scale but do it very very well.

 

JC: Yeah and really even still that’s giving you the ability to scale because you’re not having to hire in like you said a whole team of HR. It’s a lot more cost effective especially for a smaller business to say hey we’re going to go pay a much smaller fraction of that to an outsourced group still allows you to scale and grow the business but at a much slower cost at that point.

 

TN: Right.

 

JC: So kind of what was that did you just walk into that and say day one we’re just not going to do HR. We’re just not going to do marketing etc. or was that kind of a a transition process because I know a lot of people will try to do some of it before they finally throw up their hands. And say okay, yeah this is not us or how quickly did you make that handoff there.

 

TN: That was immediate. I knew we didn’t want to do that from the start. Just from my corporate experience I knew that that wasn’t something I knew that we would spend a lot of money there not necessarily get good value. And so when somebody is a vendor you can you know you need some output, you need some outcomes. And so we just chose to make some of those guys vendors instead of making them full-time employees.

 

JC: So I’m curious since obviously you’re a numbers driven company accounting stuff like that. What does your relationship with some of these vendors look like how much of a numbers kind of basis relationship are you doing with them or are they is that more free flowing?

 

TN: Well, U think when you say numbers basis what what do you mean by that? I’m sorry.

 

JC: A lot of times. I’ll work with companies to sit here and say okay we’ve still got to measure our return on ROI kind of a thing on everything. So do we have specific numbers do we have specific milestones measurables et cetera tied to outside vendors the same way as we’d have tied to an employee?

 

TN: Oh, yeah absolutely. So like with our HR you know our outside stage our vendor. What we get from them on a monthly basis, I would probably have to hire a couple people to do internally. It just doesn’t make sense for us the the fully loaded FTE costs are just way too much. On the marketing side, unless somebody has absolutely stellar marketing skills, a lot of the direct marketing campaigns, social media marketing all that stuff for a firm our size at least it just doesn’t make sense to hire somebody. We can direct that activity manage it every day that sort of thing but the execution of it is better outsourced because we can do better with an outsourced vendor like dramatically better than we can by hiring those people directly, right. And so and so and we’re not talking a small kind of we’re saving 20% we’re saving a lot more than that by hiring marketing people directly.

 

JC: Yeah, that makes sense.

 

TN: Yeah and so I think again with most of the decisions we make. We really question how core is that to our business does it add to the technology, does it add to the customer relationship? And that’s really what it comes down to so I think we’re you know we’re at a place with things like video calls. And with a lot of the other technology that’s come around over the last 10 years. Where you don’t necessarily need that you don’t need everything in house it’s just not necessary. And if I have a vendor then I don’t necessarily have to pay for them to learn. If somebody is on staff I have to pay for them to learn. And so it’s not necessarily all fully productive time, right. And so again we’re very results oriented company. And so again we think through all that stuff. So for the guys who are watching your podcast. I would say look you know if you’re growing a company you really need to think through what your head count expectations are. What are they doing can you get that outsourced do you absolutely need to hire that person or can you turn it into an invoice.

 

JC: Yeah and that’s that’s really the the key because I see a lot more today of having a lot more availability and options of those outsourcing kind of a thing. That it’s not just necessarily the one big accounting firm that you had to be local face to face meeting somebody with the technology these days. I can have my account on the other side of the country kind of a thing and it’s just no big deal or I can have a marketing firm like you said all the way over the Philippines. It’s no big deal at that point so it’s almost it’s driven competition in those fields for sure. So it’s really almost like you said a no-brainer that okay why would you why would you want to go build your own in-house marketing firm when you’re a technology company or when you’re a financial services company something like that. It’s like that’s not your core business but still really identifying that core business is obviously the key there.

 

TN: Right.

 

JC: So talking about that core business you said you kind of made a an evolutionary change there with within your own company of saying okay consulting to now today being the the 100 product focus. What did that process look like or I guess for that matter? Why did you necessarily say because a lot of people I was that was my own background coming out of corporate America was, okay we’re going to be a consultant kind of thing. So how did you go from the consultant to saying okay we need to do something different or something transitioning towards the product side?

 

TN: Yeah, it’s very simple. As a consultant my upside is limited. I only have so many hours in the week and I can only bill against those hours. And if I hire people the upside is limited for them, right. So and if I want to grow a large revenue base I then have to hire a lot of people and then add x percent on top of their cost. And you know if their time isn’t sold then I can’t hire them anymore, right.

 

So I just got really tired of being the main guy consulting and you know billing against my hours. And so we productized because you know I wanted to make sure we could scale the kind of intellectual property that was in my head. And build that out as much as possible. Now that process was a it took a lot longer than I thought and a lot longer than I had hoped. That transition really took 18 months to two years. So you because you know, I had resources that were helping us on client engagements. I had to take them off of client engagement so they weren’t revenue generating to develop the IP around our product business because they can’t do both, okay. They can’t serve clients and develop IP because the development of  IP always gets put off. And so I had to make as a business owner, I had to make a very hard decision to say we’re going to stop you know selling, right now, okay.

 

And I’m going to pay the cost on these resources to develop this capability so that we can then productize it in 18 months time. And that was a very very hard decision but we did it because we had to otherwise I would have been flying all over working you know 90 hours a week, all that stuff. And we did it we bit the bullet and we came out with some pretty amazing capability.

 

JC: Oh and that’s really the key to me of saying, yes it’s a longer term vision you’re playing the longer game there even like you were talking about with the channel partners. Okay, you gotta start investing in things now looking towards that that longer term goal. And if you’re only looking towards next quarter, next month even next year. You might not necessarily have made that change to go product because you’re just looking at okay how can we get more billable revenues here in the next quarter.

 

So yeah it’s looking at that so kind of going down that direction. What does what does the vision look like for Complete Intelligence? Well how do you define vision from a company perspective and what’s your what’s your bigger picture vision there since it obviously sounds like you’re one to look longer term than just focusing on the immediate short term?

 

TN: Yeah I think so so our focus is really to continue to build out what we’ve started to do which is licensing sales for our core capability and aligning with other products. So how do we get built into core let’s say core erp software or core e-procurement software or you know something like that. So that a client doesn’t even have to think about working with us it’s just all baked into that software, right. And so that’s part of the vision.

 

The other part of the vision is how do we ensure that the results of our efforts are easy for a client to work into their internal processes. So just producing data or just producing something. If it’s an extra step then it’s a hassle for people, right. So how do we make sure and part of this is integration with other software that sort of thing but how do we make sure what we’re doing is really really easy for our customers to use. So that it helps them rather than adds more tasks to their day.

 

JC: Makes sense. So a lot of times I’ll see this where the the company owner. I’m not saying you are but the company owner has the vision there the ideas going forward how do you bring that down or how how do you bring that down in your own company to the team to say okay there. How do you get them bought into that vision or them understanding that vision internally?

 

TN: I think anybody doing that has to be comfortable with a lot of kind of a lot of mistakes and ongoing iteration of processes. I may have a short-term view of things that may not be right my team may be doing stuff that ends up wrong. I have to be okay with that and we have to learn. So and it’s not that’s not a luxury if you’re doing something like we’re doing we have to be a learning organization that is always seeing things that aren’t just right. And say okay that’s not right let’s take a couple days fix it. And then we’ll you know we’ll roll it out again or something like that, right. So as a software company we can do that. If we were making something physical it could, it would be different.

 

JC: Yeah.

 

TN: But as a software company we can iterate as we’re going, right. And so I think delivering that vision is really helping people understand on an ongoing basis. What the original vision is but then adjusting incrementally on a regular basis. And those regular adjustments they may be technology issues where we can’t actually do what I want to do, okay but that’s fine we iterate and we move along toward that path.

 

JC: Makes sense. So running a little long here running out of time. I always like to kind of come back and we we’ve talked about a bunch of different things over time but still what is kind of the best tip the best strategy that hey if I had known this six years ago. When we started the company or if I had this in mind this path in mind things might have been easier? What comes to mind as being your kind of your top idea here that wish I’d known this or thought about this or done this earlier?

 

TN: I think you know the biggest thing that I would have done is really thought through what I needed in a management team. If you’re scaling and you’re building the people who you put in place in a management team are really really critical. So what I would say is higher lower levels first and then make sure that the senior level management team that you’re hiring is somebody that you can really trust and someone who can really manage a team.

 

So put off those senior hires as long as possible. And it’s going to be painful and it’s going to mean you’re going to have to work a lot. And you know that sort of thing but higher low first then higher the upper levels, okay. And that’s almost the opposite of what say a venture capital investor or something would tell you. They want to see a management team but the fact is you need execution and then you need to build into those senior people that you can really trust to execute on the vision.

 

JC: That makes sense that’s interesting since we hadn’t touched on that one yet. I was figuring you’d go different directions but yeah I know a lot of times I’ll see that especially with the small ones if you’re don’t not having to do venture capital or stuff like that because I do agree there but a lot of times it is. Still it’s almost more the challenge that was what I run into of you start building out the lower levels. And you’re still trying to wrap your arms around it for honestly too long before you start introducing that management but yeah it’s doing that lower level and really understanding what’s going on first. And making sure you’ve got to keep handle on it before you can start bringing in people and really focusing at that point on.

 

Okay, what even going back to like what you were saying. Okay, what’s our core focus in the business this turns into. Okay, what’s your core focus as a leader to say. Okay, what are the aspects that I don’t want to do that I don’t enjoy doing that I don’t do well etc to hire on but yeah I like that from the focus on on building out the lower level team first that makes a lot of sense because a lot of times you’ll see startups said hey here’s our full sweet sea level
suite all these people we brought in it’s like. Okay, who’s actually doing the work at this point so yeah very cool, right?

 

TN: That’s right.

 

JC: So the listener wants to learn more about uh your company about Complete Intelligence about yourself where can they go find some more information here?

 

TN: Sure, so you can find us on on the web at completeintel.com. On social media on twitter we’re @complete_intel and you know just look us up online and we have a lot of interviews. A lot of resources on our website to find out more.

 

JC: Okay, we really appreciate it so thank you for taking time out.

 

TN: Thanks Jeff.

 

JC: Thank you.

 

TN: Thanks have a great day.

 

Categories
Podcasts

Synthetic Economy

Tony Nash joins the BFM Morning Run podcast from Malaysia and explained why we have synthetic economy and how to navigate through this. Also discussed are tech stocks — is this the end for them?

 

This podcast first appeared and originally published at https://www.bfm.my/podcast/morning-run/market-watch/synthetic-economy on March 4, 2021.

 

❗️ Check out more of our insights in featured in the CI Newsletter and QuickHit interviews with experts.

❗️ Discover how Complete Intelligence can help your company be more profitable with AI and ML technologies. Book a demo here.

 

 

Show Notes

 

WSN: Nasdaq closed sharply down last night, continuing a trend that sees it almost erased all its year-to-date gains led by declines in Apple, Amazon and Tesla. Is this the end of big tech?

 

TN: I don’t think it’s the end of big tech. I think investors are taking a pause. We saw tech jump a lot in the wake of Covid. Investors are really starting to wonder how much additional growth is there over time. We’ve seen the work-from-home stocks and other things really get lifted through Covid. But how much immediate rapid growth is left is where a lot of the investor questions lie.

 

WSN: Is this also the beginning of a trend where we really see the rotation from growth into value?

 

TN: “Value” is a scary word right now. It has been for a long time. We have a ways to go, but I think we could get there. We’ve been talking for a few months about a pullback in March and we expect the pullback to continue and will begin to recover in late March, April. So we think this has a little ways to go unless there’s dramatic intervention by central banks and other things. But we think this pullback is not ideal but it’s necessary given stretched valuations and stretched expectations. So this is healthy for us. We just need to figure out what to do with it.

 

PS: Just give me another angle that instead of looking at it from values about sector specific, because yesterday, energy and financials did do relatively well. But was the energy upside due to the rising prices? And how does that correlate with OPEC’s decision coming soon with respect to oil production?

 

TN: I don’t think it gets really much more complicated than rising oil prices. These energy companies generally are still extremely bloated, extremely inefficient. Aside from the crude pressurizing, there really isn’t a lot that we see driving it. So we do expect commodities to take a pause. We’ve expected this for some time. We’ve seen copper come down by five percent or something.

 

Over the past few trading days, crude oil has leveled off in general. It’s not rising as fast as it was. Some of this has to do with CNY starting to weaken a bit. Chinese and the U.S. Dollar to start to strengthen their sort of related, but they’re not necessarily one and the same. So as we see some of that, an unraveling of some of that, Kerry, we’ll see some commodities start to come off of it as well.

 

WSN: BDA shows that the U.S. manufacturing grew at its fastest pace in three years. So are we really on the road to recovery?

 

TN: I don’t necessarily think that the economic growth expectations that we’ve seen from economists saying seven percent growth or something like that are necessarily the right way to go. When we look at the growth that we saw in Q4 and the growth that we’ve seen in Q1, I’m not sure we’re already back, at least in the U.S., to where we were before the virus. And so it’s really questionable for an economy that’s been growing one to three percent, depending on the year. Is a seven percent growth rate really warranted? Additionally, when you see things like deflation and the Chinese CPI, those two growth engines, we’re not necessarily seeing the rapid growth that some people have been claiming.

 

PS: Just another angle then, which is employment data, because December, January data didn’t meet expectations. What’s your outlook for February then?

 

TN: It’ll probably be OK. I think if the employment data is extremely positive. The US is susceptible to politicization of macro data just like everyone else. If we see a pop in employment data, I think they would be revised out. All of these macroeconomic indicators are revised three or four times. If we see a pop in a sample of employment data, which they look at a subset of houses and companies, they don’t look at the entire economy. If we see a pop, which we’re not necessarily seeing, we think that would be revised out over time. So I would say be really careful about optimism here. OK, it’s great. I live in Texas. We just announced that Texas one hundred percent open yesterday. All this stuff. It’s great to be optimistic, but we’ve really had synthetically driven growth. It’s not necessarily real growth. It’s all subsidized growth in many, many countries over the last, say, nine to 12 months.

 

WSN: That’s very true because this the twin Goldilocks effect of monetary and fiscal stimulus but somewhat related to unemployment numbers is that if the number is better on Friday, do you think markets might get nervous? Because that’s one of the indicators the feds are looking at to raise rates.

 

TN: We’re in that place where bad news is bad news and good news is potentially bad news. So we really have to be careful. What’s going to happen to Treasuries? Is the Fed going to raise rates? How does all that work if we start going to hot? I think it’s the right question that you’re asking. When we have an equity market and global equity markets that are so stretched, if the cost of money, which is what interest rates are, starts to rise, then we really have to be careful about equity valuations.

 

PS: During a deep dove into a specific sector, which is basically all this office collaboration companies like Zoom and Slack, what’s your outlook for those kind of sectors in the short term and mid-term?

 

TN: It’s good. They’ve grown a huge amount over the past year, but I really think we have to look at what growth is. They’re likely going forward, meaning there is growth. But is it as fast as what we’ve seen over the past year? I think the answer is probably no. They are probably also working on their revenue models to monetize some of the things that they’ve been giving away for free for the past year. Like a Zoom call is free. How do they monetize those things? That’s a serious question, but what are they substitution for and what do they enhance?

 

They’ve been substitution for meeting face to face people in the same office. But as more places go back to work, albeit slowly, they won’t necessarily need that for day to day, although it’ll still be used. Again, my question is the growth will be slower, but I would hope it’s better growth, meaning more monetized growth.

 

WSN: All right. Thank you for your time. That was Tony Nash of Complete Intelligence, giving us his views on markets and a very important point in that all these work from home teams may be the easy money is made because we did see stellar growth. Right, as everyone switch to zoom calls and all these kind of new technology. But now the question is, are we going to really see profit coming in? Is there going to be margin expansion?

 

PS: I want to know how they’re going to monetize and whether they’re going to expand the services beyond what they do. As Tony, you see, a lot of it is kind of free of charge. So what is the business model going to evolve to deliver sustainable profit? It’s a big question mark for me.

 

WSN: Yeah, and one company which hasn’t impressed is actually Snowflake, and that’s a data cloud company. Now, they announce a revenue for fourth quarter, which came in at one hundred and ninety million U.S. dollars, slightly better than the one hundred seventy eight million dollars that was expected. So this represents I mean, it is impressive when you just look at the headline numbers. It represents one hundred and seventeen percent growth year on year. But like as Tony highlighted, this company actually suffers a net loss.

 

So their net loss widened to one hundred and ninety nine million U.S. dollars. That’s more than double that 83 million in the. The same period a year ago.

 

PS: Yeah, I mean, the markets didn’t like it because the stock dropped eight percent on Wednesday. I mean, just a reminder to all of you guys, Snowflake was the largest IPO in 2020. Right. So with respect to guidance, snowflakes specs 185 to 200 million U.S. dollars in productivity in the first fiscal quarter, which is will be up about 90 to 96 percent year on year.

 

WSN: So, yeah, you can be hard on a stock that has a fantastic concept data. Right. Everybody wants that in the clouds. But in a day, patience with investors will run thin if you don’t make money. And that’s the reality of any business. So I think, like you sit like what Tony highlighted those companies where you see stellar revenue growth, but not profit after a while.

 

Market’s not going to tolerate it for that long. And when they issue like a set of results, which are below expectations and widened widening, no losses, no end to that, you know, no no sense of when are they going to turn around. I think you then see that sharp sell down again.

 

PS: And take, you know Tony, said something really interesting. Bad news is bad news. Good news could be potentially bad news.

 

WSN: Is that there is the cup half full or is it half empty? Sometimes the market is like this, the same set of data. Depending on the mood, the sentiment can be viewed either very positively or negatively. So if you get a better data but you’re in a positive mood, you can say, oh, the worst is over, let’s look forward.

 

But if you’re in a bad mood or you think the market’s being pessimistic and resolve, everyone’s like, oh, no more to come. So who knows? But up next, we’ll be speaking to on JinMing MP for Bungay about Malaysia’s economic recovery. Stay tuned. BFM eighty nine point nine.

 

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.