Tag: diesel

US Policy for Small Businesses: The Week Ahead – 17 Oct 2022

Post author By admin
Post date October 16, 2022

We’ve had several policies that have hurt small businesses, especially since the advent of Covid. The US administration just implemented a policy to move gig/independent workers to employee status. How does this hurt small businesses? Carol Roth, our special guest for this episode, discussed that in this Week Ahead.

Also, we’ve seen a lot of negative news this week with producer prices, wages, consumer prices rising. One Twitter user asked what would Carol do if she was in charge? What would she do and how does she think it’d help?

Albert helped us look at the Fed and is the dovish Fed dead? We’ve known this for some time, and there were hopes for a pivot, but that seems to be over.

Tracy also talked about diesel inventories, which she talked about for a very long time. She helped us dig into that in this episode.

Key themes
1. US policy punishing small businesses
2. The dovish Fed is dead
3. Diesel inventories
4. The Week Ahead

This is the 38th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Carol: https://twitter.com/caroljsroth
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

Time Stamp:
0:00 Start
0:48 Key themes for this week ahead
2:43 US policy on gig workers
7:48 Is this to slow down job creation?
10:00 What other things will make things uncompetitive for small businesses?
12:07 What adjustments would Carol Roth do if she’s with the Fed?
16:47 Debt buying and the Fed
19:00 Forecasts for some currencies
20:00 Does the Fed understand that this is a supply-induced inflation?
23:50 They’re not thinking through the political fallout
25:25 Is diesel priced in dollars globally? And what’s the impact?
28:00 How long does the diesel shortage last?
31:34 What’s for the week ahead?

Transcript

Tony Nash: Hi, everybody, and welcome to the week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Today we are joined by Carol Roth. Carol is from Chicago. She’s the author of the War on small business. She’s got an amazing Twitter following an amazing Twitter presence. Carol, thanks so much for joining us. Really looking forward to getting your perspectives today.

We also have Albert and Tracy and I’m looking forward to getting their views on the Fed and on energy today as well. The key themes today we’re looking first at US policies punishing small business. Carol has a really unique perspective, obviously a book on the broader implications of this, but there are some recent policies that she’s been focusing on that will talk about some of those things.

Next. Albert will help us dig into the Fed. And are we looking at the end of the Dovish Fed? I think we’ve known this for some time, but there’s always kind of been some hope that there’s going to be some sort of pivot and that seems to be over.

Next we’ll look at diesel inventories. Tracy has been talking about this for a long, long time, but it really seems to be coming to a head. So we’ll dig into that today as well. Please take a look at our product CI Futures. It’s a forecast subscription product. It’s $99 a month. We cover a few thousand assets over a twelve month horizon economics, currencies, commodities, equity indices. So please take a look at that. The URL is on the screen. Thanks a lot for that.

Before we move on, please like this video, please subscribe to this video. You’ll be able to see all of them and we really want you to be able to see us every week as we bring these in.

So Carol, thank you very much for joining us. I know you’re busy, really demanding schedule. It means a lot to us that you could join us. So thank you very much.

Carol Roth: This is an amazing crew and I can’t believe you left out recovering investment banker out of my introduction because that’s really the most important part,

TN: Right, exactly. And a Raiders fan as we learned last week over Twitter as well. So we’ll forgive you for that. Anyway, thanks very much. I love the work you do on small business. And you’ve been talking about a recent policy and we’ve got a tweet of yours on the screen talking about the Bind regime pushing gig employees to be full time employee status with companies. Can you talk us through what that means for small businesses and why is that a competitive disadvantage?

CR: Yeah, I think the first thing that people really need to understand is how important small business is to the economy. Because I think a lot of people think, oh, it’s small, it’s just a little piece. Before COVID, small business was about half the GDP and about half the jobs. And at this point we have about 32 6 million small businesses in the US.

So if you’re somebody who believes in the concept of decentralization and that being important to economic freedom, this is the decentralized portion of the economy. This is very independent. It’s very spread out geographically via industries backgrounds. Whatnot by the way which is why big business, big governments and big special interests don’t like small businesses because they’re very hard to corral. If you look at the other half of the economy, it’s in the hands of 20 plus thousand big businesses. So it really is that sort of David versus Goliath battle but also this battle between decentralization and centralization. And we have seen all of these efforts over a long period of time to destabilize small businesses and to make competitive advantages to really tip the free market in favor of those big businesses.

And certainly the policies around COVID right, were the biggest example of that ever. It was an epic wealth transfer from Main Street to Wall Street done not based on data and science but based on political cloud and connections. So now that we kind of know what the story is in terms of this unholy triumvirate, if you will, the big business, the big special interest, big government attacking small businesses, you then look as to what else they can do to really make it harder for small businesses to compete.

So there’s this Department of labor ruling that’s come out. It’s followed something called AB Five in California. If anybody has heard or followed what was going on in California and then it has been and passed the House on a federal basis under the Pro Act. But basically the idea is they want to take gig workers and independent contractors which by the way the estimates, they number around 53 million people in the United States.

So again, this is not a small number of people who are being affected and they want to say you can no longer have the freedom to decide how you work. We don’t want you to be able to enter into a contract in a way that works for you. We don’t want you to have that flexibility. You have to be an employee. Now this may sound like, oh well, that sounds great for people.

Why would they not want to be an employee? Well, there are a lot of reasons why you don’t want to be an employee. The first is you might not have that opportunity. And that’s the biggest issue because it is very difficult. And the government are the ones who have made this very difficult for a company to hire their first employee and also to keep them on an ongoing basis.

If you hire somebody as an employee versus a contractor, you have to pay in a portion to Social Security. It affects interest. It can affect your 401K or step plans. It just kind of reverberates throughout your business and so it becomes very challenging and difficult. So if you are a small business who maybe gets busy during a certain season or need help just in certain areas, you tend to bring on independent contractors. Or if you’re creative, if you’re running a movie, you’re obviously not bringing everybody unnecessarily as an employee. You might have a caterer who comes in and feeds people, or if you’re a hairdresser, you may want to rent out a chair in a salon. And the salon doesn’t have the wherewithal to make these employees.

So they’re framing this as we’re trying to help the employees. This is going to really stick it to big business. But there are literally hundreds and hundreds of different categories of employees. Anybody who’s a 1099 employee and doesn’t have a business entity that this will threaten not only their economic freedom, the ability to work the way that they want to be flexible, but literally their livelihoods.

So if you believe in choice, it should be your work, your choice. And now the Department of labor wants to give another giveaway to all of those big special interests.

TN: So, Kara, when we’re in an environment right now where the Fed is trying to slow down job

creation, our small company is the largest portion of job creation as well. So is that another tool potentially, maybe unintended or not, I don’t know to slow down job creation?

CR: Yeah, I mean, certainly if you think of the small companies, they’re the ones that don’t have the financial wherewithal or the fortress balance sheets. They have not been loading up on the cheap debt because they have to personally guarantee it and don’t have the same scale as the big companies. So it’s a challenge for them to survive an environment where the Fed is going, we’re going to destroy demand. It’s basically we’re going to destroy the little guys who can’t endure this pain. So that’s small business. And you’re right. Having the ability to be flexible going, well, maybe I can’t hire an employee, but maybe I can hire somebody as a contractor parttime, and when things get better, I can bring them on as an employee. Or maybe this is just a flexible way that we can work in the future so we can have different people and they can also work with different companies in a way that suits them.

Absolutely. This is going to be on the shoulders of small business. And as they always do, they say, oh, this is an attack on Uber and Lyft. When this happened in California, Uber and Lyft went out and they put it on the ballot. They got an exemption, but they didn’t take everybody else with them. They just got it for a handful of big industries. And all of the other small guys were basically screwed.

So the idea that this is somehow in an attack in the front against the big guys and the small guys are going to come out smelling like a rose is a joke. If you believe that. I’ve got a bridge to sell.

TN: You right. Okay. So we have small businesses that just barely made it through COVID. So that was really a regulatory way to suffocate small business. And my company is one of them that scraped through and now we have these full time employee regulations coming in from the Department of labor. Are there other things on the horizon that you’re seeing that could make it even more uncompetitive for small businesses?

CR: I mean, everything that they’ve done is making it noncompetitive for small business, whether it’s regulation. You think about all of these minimum wage regulations and how these big companies like Amazon and Walmart have shifted their position and decided to lobby for them. Well, why do you think that is? That’s because they know they’re going to pay that level anyway and they don’t want to have the flexibility for the smaller companies to be able to maneuver around.

That certainly a higher interest rate environment messing with the labor force in general, let alone having a rule like this. The supply chains, the decisions that were made, whether it was a direct you have to close your business down or these indirect issues that affected labor supply, whatnot they killed by mandate around seven figures worth of small businesses. And unfortunately, Tony, as you’ve shared personal stories, there are many others that are just scraping by to survive.

And it’s just this like, you know, you get knocked down, you get up again and then they just keep knocking you down and you keep knocking you down. If you wanted people to succeed, if you wanted people to pursue the American dream, if you wanted economic freedom, you would be working to remove

barriers, make it easier for people to work, make it easier for companies to hire in the way that makes sense for both parties, and make it easier to be a small business. And every single thing that comes out

of government at all levels, by the way, it’s not just federal, but state and local is doing the exact opposite.

TN: Yeah, it’s overwhelming. We could talk about just that alone for hours. Let’s move on to former investment banker Warden Grad. You know your way around the economy. There is a tweet put out a few days ago asking you, if you had the big chair, what adjustments would you make to the economy, monetary policy, whatever, to change the environment today to make things better? What are a few things that you would do if you were Chair Powell or Janet Yellen or something like that?

CR: Burn the fed down. I burned down the Federal Reserve. The very first order of business, I put myself out of a job. And I say that kind of jokingly, but I like to clarify. I would take away the Fed’s powers because as I’ve said to many people before, the only thing worse than the Fed making monetary policy decisions and meddling in the markets and doing things like printing money and whatnot would be Congress doing that? So you don’t want to have those if you get rid of the Fed, you don’t want to have somebody else take away the powers. We’re really getting at, you know, getting rid of those powers to interfere. So that would be the first thing I would do.

But obviously that would not solve what is going on. Now. This is not going to be a surprise to any of you, but what we’re dealing with right now is a supply side imbalance. And it has been. They stimulated demand, but they stimulated it into a supply constrained economy. And so we are under supplied, as I know Tracy tweets about all the time in energy, certainly in labor, as we’re talking about food, housing, other commodities. So I personally don’t believe that the Fed has the tools to solve this problem and attack it. And frankly, I think that they’re going to just cause a massive amount of destruction not only here in the US. But reverberating through the global economy, which then swings back and has an impact on the US.

So what needs to be done, again, are policies that remove barriers to supply. What we’ve been talking about, certainly on the energy front, anything that we could do to stimulate supply of energy, which again, do it here, where we do it more cleanly, and not let China and Venezuela and all these countries that don’t do it cleanly be the ones to do that. Because the last time I checked, we all share the same air. It’s not like you believe in a smoking section, right? Like, oh well, they’re just smoking over there, we’re great over here in the same restaurant. Like, that’s so stupid.

So we would obviously do a 180 on energy policy. The same thing with labor. All the things we’re talking about make it easier for companies to hire people to go to work in the way that they want to work and then we close that gap in the labor market, which is insane.

The same thing in housing. The National Association of Home Builders did a study last year. $94,000 in regulatory costs are added to the cost of every new home from the government. I mean, that’s insane. The average house is almost 4000. So like 25% of the cost is in regulation. And I’m not saying we don’t need anything, but that’s certainly excessive and it’s gone up by something like 30% to 50% over a very short period of time. So it’s those kinds of things that the policies need to be focused on stimulating the supply and shrinking that supply, demand and balance by increasing supply, not by trying to kill the demand. And that’s just where I land on it.

Albert Marko: That’s exactly what I was tweeting last few months now. And actually on the show is they are trying to create demand destruction, but the problem is the supply disruption that they’re creating and they put themselves in a doom loop to where when demand comes back, there’s no supply. So you get a cycle of inflationary situations happening, and it’s bad here, it’s worse in Europe and it’s even worse in Asia. So we’re going to be stuck in this until the policies start changing, not just from the Fed, but it’s got to be political also because the governments are doing this COVID zero in Asia and the energy crisis in Europe, and they’re just making it worse. So until those policies change, we’re going to be stuck in this cycle.

TN: Yeah. So I respect both of you, but the Fed doesn’t. So they’re going to do whatever the hell they want. What’s really interesting to me is you guys may have seen today. The treasury was asking investment banks. Hey. Do we need to buy some of the debt off of you so that we can create some liquidity in debt markets. Just basically transfer some cash to you so we can take some of those assets off your balance sheet.

Whether it’s the Fed or the treasury or whatever is done. It just seems like the benefit is for the small circle of people. And when you talk about whether it’s interest rates or QT or whatever, it seems like interest rates are the bluntest instrument that hit the biggest number of people. Right. And it’s hard for me to understand why that’s absolutely necessary.

And Albert, we’re going to segue into your section on the death of the Davis Fed. If we look at interest rates, we’re looking at a terminal rate about around 5% now. Right. And so help me understand what is happening with the Fed, what you’re hearing, what you’re seeing and what you’re expecting for the next couple of months.

AM: Well, I mean, everything at this point well, it should have been for a year now, but everything from this point on is strictly to combat inflation. They are getting screamed at by literally everybody to get the 5.5%. Not just five, they’re going to get the 5.5%. They’re going to do 75 again on this next meeting and then another 75 after that. And their intention is demand destruction. That’s what they’re going to do. And they’re not going to be dovish anymore. But they’re have to walk a tightrope here because Europe, they’ve destroyed so much in the global market, specifically Europe that lost 30 trillion in the bond market, that it could be a systemic problem.

And they can’t have that, so they’ll do 70. Five to 75. Talk guidance extremely hawkish. They’re intent on trying to get inflation down until November and December.

TN: November and December.

AM: They’re going to do 75 both. And they’re just going to have to because their time is out and they have

no more tools left to hit. Inflation at JPY at. Euro will be at 90.

TN: And JPY will be what?

AM: I don’t know the correlation on that one off hand, but the euro is definitely going to go to 90. 90 to 90 on this. But it’s all $30 trillion, Tony. That’s a lot of money. The only people in the money. Yeah, it’s still a lot of money. So when the treasury starts talking about, do we need to buy debt back from banks? Is that the US. Banks or is that European banks? Because I guarantee there’s going to be some European banks in there.

TN: Oh, they have to be. Yeah.

AM: Like I said, they’re causing systemic problems and they can’t have your completely blow up. I mean, they’ll use them for a scapegoat to stop QT announce QT stop. But that’s where we’re at it right now.

TN: Okay, so does the Fed understand that this is largely supply induced inflation?

AM: No, they don’t. They don’t? No, because people do what they know, right? If you go back and you look at what Yelen did, when I say Fed, I just toss in the treasury at the same time because they’re one of the same. They talk. They talk, and they have correlating policies and whatnot. And if you look back in 2013, this is what Yellen did last time. She drove the dollar up, crushed the markets, and drove all the money back into the United States. Yes, the United States market looks all beautiful at 3600 to 3700, and people talking about Fed pivots and 3900 in the es, but it’s not real.

CR: Okay, so first of all, can we just discuss the fact that between the time that Janet Yellen was Fed chair and Treasury Secretary, the woman pulled down over $7 million in economic speeches when she didn’t know how to handle, you know, coming out of quantitative easing. She didn’t see inflation. She said that I think this was actually from you, Tracy, but she said that everything looked great in the treasury markets and then the next day went, oh, yeah, I’m worried about liquidity. I mean, clearly, I’m not sure she knows anything.

And I want to know how to get in on that gig in terms of making that money for speeches for something that you know nothing about. But I find it hard to believe since everybody and their brother has been talking about all of the issues that are going to happen here.

And maybe it’s my wart and bias, but I go along with Jeremy Siegel, noted finance professor who’s been out there hammering the Fed, saying, look, first of all, you not only do you not necessarily have the tools we’ve seen some elements of demand destruction in small places, and it takes a while to work through the system.

So if you go too fast, kind of like you didn’t see it on the front side, you’re going to do the same thing and you’re going to overshoot. But the bigger issue alluding to what Albert said is the potential to drag down the global economy. I mean, that the fact that you can end up with currency crises, with a treasury market crises, the whole slew of risk assets could be a massive sale of risk assets so that they

could get their hands on dollars because the Fed wants to keep raising interest rates.

It just seems to me it’s not a question of do they not know this? It’s a question of what’s their intention are. They trying to drag down the global economy so there is a financial reset, so they can introduce some sort of a central bank digital currency and have an excuse for it. It just seems to me to go, oh, they’re ignorant of what’s going on. When every single one of us sees this, you’ve got the IMF talking about it, you’ve got professors talking about it.

The fact that this hasn’t crossed their mind with the people that are involved yelling aside, but the Powells of the world and other folks there, that just seems not very likely to me.

AM: No, it’s not. A lot of it is political right there’s. U.S. Midterms, they don’t want Trump back, so they start throwing in these economic numbers to make Biden Democrats look good. And that screws up Fed

policy going forward. I mean, Yellen takes a dollar up, the Fed gets stuck, and then they have to go back and create a new crisis in Europe or Ukraine or whatever crisis they want to create sometime in the future to blame for everything. Yeah, I think the Fed guys are smart. I think they do know these are not stupid people, although certain people, they. Know they just don’t care.

TN: I think you’re right. I think they don’t care. But what I think they’re not thinking through is the political fallout we saw that Chancellor or the exchequer in the UK kicked out today after about two weeks in office or something. And that’s relatively light compared to what happened in Sri Lanka a few months ago and what’s happening in Africa, what’s happening in, say, Pakistan, Bangladesh, what’s happening in Latin America.

So I think we’ll see political fallout here as a result of the Fed’s inability to understand the implications. Where it will really hurt is if it hits Japan and you get minority party in Japan back in power. They’ll pay attention then. And if you see powers in Europe that aren’t favorable to the US. But that’s already kind of starting to see Czech Republic and Hungary, certainly we’ve. Already started to see this, and it’s just getting started.

We thought we saw populism in 2016. I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet. I think we’re going to see

this in a big way globally.

AM: Yeah, Tony, you’re right. I mean, the Europeans are absolutely screaming at yelling about this because she straight up lied to them about the bond market. She can’t even talk to the Norwegians

or the Swiss at the moment. This is how bad it’s become.

TN: Yes, I believe it. Okay, so let’s move on to energy. Tracy, you’ve talked a lot about distillates for a reason, warned us for months about diesel shortages and diesel prices, and it seems like it’s really coming back. And as you talk about this, I want to understand, is diesel priced in dollars globally? And so is that going to hit supply chains in other countries as well because of the pricing basis of diesel. Coming out of refineries

Tracy Shuchart: diesel’s price in local currencies and trade in local currencies. Products are crude, obviously, prices in dollars and traded that way globally, except for some instances. But products are generally like Nat gas, it’s traded in different currencies. But really, I mean, we were having a diesel problem. This started back in 2021, so this is nothing new. I was tweeting about it summer of 2021. I was really worried about distalates. I started tweeting about that then because I saw our inventory slow down. It’s even worse now.

But what’s come to a head all of a sudden, and what’s making this obviously 10 million times worse, is that Europe, for instance, mostly bought diesel from Russia, and they’re trying to lean off of that, right? And so in the meantime, the US. Is trying to supply Europe with diesel. But now over the last week, we’ve had three weeks of ongoing refinery strikes with total. So France has 2500 gas stations that have at least one product that is completely gone, and 2000 of them are shut down entirely. And then we just had a malfunction in the Netherlands and Shells Curtis refinery, which is the largest diesel refinery in all of Europe.

So right now we have a massive global problem that is just getting worse. And if you see the diesel crackspreads have been they’re ridiculously flowing out. And backwardation is flying right now, which is kind of obscene. In the meantime, we’re still drawing these distills. We had a 9 million build and a 4 million draw in distance, and we’re headed into winter. So we’re going to have major problems here already in the United States, particularly in the Northeast, because they don’t have the refinery capacity there to really supply that area.

TN: Okay, so what does that mean? How long does this last? Does it last into spring? Does it last beyond spring? I’m curious about the magnitude of the impact on price, but I’m also curious about the duration, how long this is going to last.

TS: Well, you know, I mean, this has pretty much been gone ongoing since 2021. We’ve had times where it’s worse and times where it’s not. But it’s been over a year now, over a year and a half now. I don’t see that going away anytime soon because we don’t have the supply. We don’t have enough heavy oil to, you know, to make these products globally, especially when you’re cutting off Russia, because that’s what they produce is heavy oil. You’ve got Venezuela that’s producing 700K bpd. They’re not producing anything. And most of that’s going to China to pay for debts. We don’t have them. We’ve got Canada, but we don’t want to build pipelines right. For that. We can import more for that. So, I mean, we have kind of a global shortage of heavier oils. And sure, we get some from the Middle East.

That’s fine. We get some from Saudi Arabia. They own motiva here in the United States. And certainly they do produce diesel, but it’s still it’s still not enough. And especially when you’re talking about the west, it’s talking about, you know, we’re talking about a complete oil embargo on December 5 of Russian

oil and oil products.

TN: So this isn’t something that’s done by January. This has legs for quite a while.

TS: Yeah, absolutely. We’re already seeing prices rise. We’re at 518 a gallon for diesel here in the United States on a national average, which is higher than gasoline prices, by lots higher than the average. And the gasoline people that I talked to at Opus basically say, man, this is not even a safe level. This is going much, much higher.

CR: I have a question for you, Tracy. So it seems to me everyone seems to be focused on getting through the winter in Europe and the immediate impacts, as if there’s, like, some magic solution waiting on the other side as more of a layperson in this area. It seems to me that this massive under investments, this supplied depression that we’ve been having, there’s nothing coming online to help with that. So doesn’t that suggest that this is something that doesn’t get sorted out even though there may be some volatility, but, like years and years and years that we’re going to be dealing with?

TS: Yes, absolutely. I mean, we’ve got a problem for the next eight to ten years. Really? And if you look at, you know I know if we look at the natural gas situation in Europe, everybody’s thinking, oh, we’re at 95% full before winter, we’re going to be fine. If we just make it through winter, that’ll be fine. That’s great and all, but if you are not replacing that, you’re going to need it in the summer. You need to keep refilling that. So it’s not like, you know, unless they decide to stop using natural gas in March, end of story, we still have a problem. Right. And the next winter is probably going to get even worse.

TN: Great. Just so you know. Awesome. Okay, so let’s move into kind of the week ahead section. Albert, you want to get us started. What are you looking at going into the week ahead? What’s on your mind?

AM: Continuation of the Feds 100 basis point rate hike. I mean, they’re not going to do 100, but they’ll tell the market that they might start thinking about it and the market might start pricing it in. So we’ll definitely have a lot of weakness in the market going ahead in the next week, but it’s midterms, so you never know,

they could defend the quote unquote Trumpl ine of 35, 40 so they don’t look like complete idiots and give them Fodder for the midterms. Do you still think we’re going to hit maybe 3200 or something eventually? I can guarantee you that by the end of the year for sure. The economic indicators across multiple data sets is just atrocious right now.

TN: Okay, great. Carol, I know you’re not really kind of in Marcus, but what are you keeping your eye on for the week ahead?

CR: So I do actually commentate on markets from a sort of a macro perspective, and much like Albert, I’m sort of in the camp that until the Fed tells us what is their intention, is this really just about the midterms? Are they feeling the pressure that it’s risk off from my perspective until we know what’s happening with them. So that’s been sort of my perspective.

TN: Great. Okay. Thanks, Tracy.

TS: On China next week, party congress looking at China, I want to see what they’re going to do policy wise because that’s definitely going to affect the commodities market. We all know that they’re looking for a five 5% GDP by the end of the year, which they’re not going to get. They’ll say they got it, but we all know that they’re not going to get it. So I want to look, an economy is suffering right now and we’re starting to see stirrings of unrest in China. Right.

There was just that article where they had the people on the bridge with the signs that got scrubbed from China Internet. But I think that she is going to have to do something to stimulate that economy. So I’m kind of looking to see what his focus is on that and if they have any plans going forward to simulate the time. Because again, that’s going to affect the commodity markets and to see if he has a plan for the housing market. Oh, he’s got a plan.

TN: Central planners always have plans, don’t they? That’s right. So if you talk to any China economist

for the bank, they’ll tell you that China is going to hit five 5% or maybe they live on the edge and say five three. Right. So as you said, we know they’re going to make it issh somewhere in the ballpark, but we know in reality you can’t have a zero code environment and make a growth rate that high. So my worry, I was just talking about this with somebody earlier in the week, my worry is that China really has made that transition to a slower growth environment for starting with demographic reasons, but also some structural reasons that they put in place.

And I think what she’s going to talk through next week, although not directly, but someone indirectly, is much more control, which will lead people to the conclusion that it’s not a safe place for foreign investment anymore, which will lead them to a slower growth environment economically. Because he’s basically talking about leveling people out. Right. And everyone has the same maybe not opportunity, but the same outcome. And you can’t necessarily do that in China with some of the economic outperformers that you’ve had, like Jack Ma and other people. You have to bring people down instead of push people up. And that’s what I’m expecting.

Again, he’s not going to say he’s going to bring people down, but that’s what I expect is the main message coming out of next week’s meeting.

AM: Yeah, he has already done that, Tony. And there is a little bit of a power struggle with Wang. Yang is actually slated to be power sharing with him. All they’re trying to get him to do that, but all my sources have said that they’re locking down for code with zero until at least March, so we’ll see what kind of fake numbers they come out with.

CR: I will add that this all ties into their social credit system, which is the most advanced one in the world right now. And they really started the social credit on the business front, which is notable for the reasons you were saying. You can’t have that capitalism that’s leaked in a little bit over the past several decades and have these outperformers. So it’s an easy way to sort of bring those folks down a peg and then let that bleed into sort of the individual social credit. And it’s something we should be paying very close attention to as the Fed keeps talking about things like Central Bank, Digital Currencies, and as we see these companies going after people for misinformation, what part of that could leak here as well.

TN: Yep, very worries. So okay, guys, thank you so much for your time. Carol, I’m so grateful that you can join us today. Please come back anytime. Really appreciate this, guys, and have a great week ahead.

Week Ahead

The Week Ahead – 03 Aug 2022: Pelosi, China, & Taiwan

Post author By admin
Post date August 3, 2022

Learn more about CI Futures here: http://completeintel.com/2022Promo

There’s all this buzz around Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. What is she doing there? Why all the stress? Why is China upset?

Also, Yellen got China to stop the stimulus. If China starts the stimulus, will that be a really good thing for Chinese equities? And what does that do for the CNY?

We also discussed the likelihood now with Pelosi’s visit that China will start stimulating. And what does that mean for oil and gas imports and Europe?

Will China try to hurt US companies that are in China? Do you think they could push against ex-pats in China and make life difficult for them? What are possible aggressive moves that China could take? Like cyberattacks?

There have been some potential whispers of China taking over some of Taiwan’s small islands to make a statement. Is that possible? And will they take it on other countries like India? What is the likelihood of China and the US in direct warfare engagement in the next twelve months?

Listen to Spotify here:

This is the 28th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:

Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd

Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon/

Chris: https://twitter.com/BaldingsWorld

Transcript

TN: Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash, and we’ve got a special Week Ahead right now. We’re joined by Albert Marko and Dr. Christopher Balding to talk about the Taiwan-China issues around Nancy Pelosi’s visit.

Before we get started, I want to let you know about a special we’re having for CI Futures. We’re doing CI Futures for $50 a month. With CI Futures, we forecast about 2000 economic variables every month and about 900 market variables (currencies, commodities, equities) every week. That $50 deal is for the next couple of weeks. And you don’t even have to take a year-long commitment. For the next couple of weeks, you do it a month at a time, and it’s $50 a month.

So let’s get onto the show, guys. Thanks again for joining. I appreciate it.

I want to get into there’s all this buzz around Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, and I want to take a step back and go, why all the stress? Why is China upset? Because I think there are a lot of loaded assumptions in the discussions that are happening. So can you guys talk us through a little bit, maybe? Chris, if you want to start, why is China so upset about this?

CB: So there’s the full history of the claim of Taiwan as Chinese territory. They refer to it as a Chinese province. That’s the general background. I’m going to assume that most of your listeners or watchers already know that.

However, if we jump ahead to this specific visit, to be honest, I’m a little bit mystified as to why this

specific visit has turned into this small crisis. Trump was sending a cabinet secretary and undersecretaries. There’s been a steady stream of Congresspeople to Taiwan. So why this specific visit? I think there’s very reasonable speculation we can go through those. But why this specific visit has turned into what it has, I think there are probably only a couple of people that could answer that question.

TN: Okay, Albert?

AM: Well, to expand on that, I can understand why the Chinese have a little bit more drama involved in this visit simply because the economic situation in China at the moment is so dire for Xi that they need a little bit of a distraction just to get the headlines out of the way at the moment.

TN: Yeah, I think that’s a good point. And when I think about this, it’s, yes, you can go back into all the history and the UNC, the 1971 and all of this stuff, but I think my view is democrats need a distraction for the midterms. You have the Afghanistan anniversary coming up, all of these things coming up. A bill was just passed that either does or doesn’t raise taxes on a lot of the population. There’s a lot of discussion around that.

Are we in a recession? Not a recession. I think this is a convenient foreign policy issue for Democrats to grab onto before the Midterms to raise some external issues that are a little bit more mysterious for people, a little more exciting. Will there be a war? That sort of thing.

And I think, Albert, you’re exactly right. With the November meeting coming up in Beijing, where Xi is supposed to be this golden boy and a lot more power and all this stuff, the new Mao or whatever, I think China’s economy is in a horrific state. I think the provinces and cities are not falling in line with Beijing, and I think politics in China is terrible. So I think this helps galvanize people in China, it helps galvanize people in the US. And I think it’s more of a convenient event than anything.

AM: It is a convenient event. Other issues are going on within China with the actual US.

Fed and Yellen are Yellen got them to capitulate to stop stimulus to fight inflation. So from the Chinese perspective, they’re a little bit they feel a little bit betrayed here. Seeing Nancy Pelosi

nude sunbathing on Taiwanese beaches, it’s like, what are you doing?

TN: Yellen got them to capitulate, to stop safely. So you’re saying Yellen got China to stop stimulus?

AM: Yeah. I don’t know if it was direct or indirect, but Xi warned them to don’t stimulate while we’re trying to combat inflation. Look what happened to the Russians. And from the Chinese elite perspective, looking at the oligarchs in Russia, being completely isolated from the rest of the world, that’s just something that a pill that they didn’t want to swallow, and they were glad to hold off stimulus up until this event. Now, I don’t know, after this event, the Chinese might renege on that gentleman’s deal, but we’ll see at this point.

TN: Okay, let me pursue that in a minute because that’s interesting. So if you’re saying that the Chinese were holding back stimulus because of a quiet bargain, and they reverse on that and they start, as I’ve been expecting them to do for the last six months, just dump truckloads of cash on the squares in Chinese cities, if they start doing that, that could potentially actually be a perfect thing for Chinese equities, right?

AM: Well, of course, but it’s negative for the US inflation and the commodities will start ripping. It’s an asymmetric shot against the US. So it’s something that they have in their toolbox and they haven’t used yet, but they certainly could after this.

TN: Okay, and so what does that do for the CNY, guys? If China starts stimulus, if it’s fiscal that appreciates CNY, at least from a textbook perspective, right?

AM: Yeah, from the textbook perspective, sure. They control whatever they want to set the CNY at, so, I mean, I can’t see them allowing it to shoot up too far just because they are an export-dependent economy.

TN: Okay, Chris.

CB: I just wanted to circle back to what we were talking about before jumping back to the CNY issue because this has been a real puzzle about they’ve been pretty restrained, and there are all kinds of questions as to why that is.

And again, I wish we could provide good, solid answers about that. I think a lot of the issues, like with Taiwan and stuff like that, I think there’s like, Tony, you mentioned the economy. I think that’s distinctly possible. I think it’s also one of those issues. If you go back right after the first of the year, they changed the language about reunification and how they were going to solve that problem for the new era.

What’s the new era? It’s Xi getting the third term. So is it possible that the economy is, like, pushing this along, egging it forward, so to speak? Yeah, I think that’s possible. I also think there’s much more like Xi has staked his credibility on, I’m making China great again, come hell or high water, if I have to drive it off a cliff to do it. That’s part of what you’re seeing.

AM: Yeah, I agree with Balding on that one. The only caveat that I would throw in there is that would be exactly the case up until the Ukraine situation where Russia got their butts handed to them. 30,000 troops lost, flagship battleship gone, sunk.

From the PLA perspective, it’s like, hey, what happens if we lose? Because it’s not a 0% chance, right? What happens if we get decimated? Our military could be set back 50 years, 100 years. And I think that at this point, it’s too much of a cost for them to take an adventure in Taiwan.

CB: Yeah. I will say you and I disagreed on this previously. Like, what were the risks? Let’s assume Ukraine had never happened. I would say there’s probably a not immaterial chance of something

happening with China and Taiwan in the next, let’s say six to 18 months.

At this point, I definitely would push that back a little bit. If something’s going to happen, I think, within the next few years. But absolutely. I think they’re going back to the drawing board because they see what’s happening to Russia in Ukraine, and they’re like, there’s absolutely no way in hell this can happen to us.

AM: Yeah, they saw Afghanistan as a point where they could probably take some territory away from the US sphere of influence. But then again, Ukraine happened, and that threw everything through, wrenching all the plans.

TN: Okay, so let’s talk about that a little bit. The Russia-Ukraine angle is interesting. So when sanctions were put on Russia, Russia can do okay without sanctions, not thrive, but can survive. But China is so intermingled in global trade that if sanctions are put on China, it could be very difficult for them. Right. Or what am I missing?

AM: It could, but they’re the world’s manufacturing base, so it’s like, you put sanctions on them, they’ll put sanctions, they’ll do something asymmetric, and it’ll hurt the West more than the West can hurt China, to be honest. I mean, The US can handle it. The Europeans can’t. They’re already in dire rates.

CB: The other thing that I would add to that is people make the sanctions argument. I don’t buy the sanctions argument for two specific reasons. One is basically what they import. The bulk of what they import from the rest of the world is raw materials. And that’s not coming from Western Europe, Japan, or other places like that.

Then the high-tech products that they do import, let’s say very high-grade chips, are going into things like iPhones and then being re-exported right away. Okay, so they’re not on an import basis highly dependent on the rest of the world.

They’ve made two bets with that in mind. Number one is that they can convince people not to block their exports, meaning Chinese exports to their country. Number one. And then also that other countries are so dependent upon them that they can’t. Okay?

What would happen to Walmart during the Christmas season if they couldn’t buy from China? Okay.

It’s a simple example, but it does throw a monkey wrench in there.

AM: Caterpillar is another one. The Chinese have done a marvelous job of using US agricultural companies against the US political system. So they’ve got a noose around them. Buick also. GM, Buick, Caterpillar. I can name half a dozen companies. Yeah.

TN: My main focus in terms of sanctions was food. These other things, of course, they’re importing goods, really, largely to be transformed and re-exported. Food is the main issue that I would think would be damaging to China, potentially.

AM: Yeah, that was always one of my main points of contention about a war starting with Taiwan is those ports being shut down in the eastern part of China, it would be devastating. They would have food and security problems. The Chinese middle class has been growing. They don’t want rice anymore. They want noodles and dumplings. So they have a persistent food issue that just gets worse and worse every year.

TN: Right. Okay, so let’s go into this. I saw Pelosi kind of pull up into that. I think it was the Grand Hyatt she’s staying at in Taipei. And really, what is she doing there? Like official, non Official. What do you think she’s doing there?

AM: That’s a pure distraction from the midterms in the economy in the US at the moment. It’s an easy distraction. They know China is not going to do anything outlandish. They’re a pretty pragmatic country when everything is said and done anyway. So it’s like, what negative is there for them, for Pelosi and the Democrats at the moment?

CB: Here’s the only reason I’m going to disagree with you, and you said something very similar earlier, Tony. Here’s. The only reason I’m going to disagree with you is that this assumes a level of evil genius out of the White House and maniacal thinking that I just don’t think they’re capable of, okay? Okay. Again, I could be wrong.

AM: I just don’t see these guys as the evil genius that says, hey, we need a distraction, what can we do?

I don’t think it’s an evil genius. I think that’s a little bit too strong. The game of scapegoating and distractions in the beltway is as old as time itself. The professionals at it. They can see what they want to do to pull people’s eyes away from one issue onto another and they have the media under their grips so they can do anything. They want to distract people. So the evil genius part comes in what are, steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 after this? Because now the Chinese can retaliate and I don’t think the US is prepared for that.

TN: In what ways?

AM: Well, I mean if the Chinese decide to start simulating next week and commodities start ripping, inflation in, the US is going to have a ten print, 10% print on CPI come October, November, then what? You’re in the smack middle of the midterms looking at 10% inflation and you’re losing 50, 60 seats in the House and you’re losing the Senate and then you have the Republican take over and start throwing out hearings against Joe Biden every week like they did Trump. It’s chaotic.

TN: Okay, so that’s an interesting scenario. Okay, I want to ask about that and then I want to ask another question about a potential reason for visiting. But you’ve mentioned that a couple of times. So what’s the likelihood, since they’ve said that they’ll undertake serious pushback, is there a likelihood that they’ll do that? Do you put that at a 50, 60, or 70% likelihood or do you think they’ll continue to hold?

AM: I think after this visit by Nancy Pelosi, it’s a greater than 50% chance that the Chinese start stimulating a little bit earlier than scheduled with commodities ripping.

TN: Okay, so that means more oil and gas imports, more pressure on gas prices, and diesel prices. All this would hurt Europe too?

AM: Oh, of course. Europe has got massive energy issues going forward and they’re unsolvable within six months.

TN: Okay, so so far I’m hearing potentially bullish Chinese equities and potentially bullish commodities, particularly energy, commodities, and industrial metals, right?

AM: Oh, absolutely, yeah. Full discretion, I’m going into KWEB. I have Baba at this low with this Pelosi landing. So for me, it’s just like Chinese equities have been battered with no stimulus. We’re down to the point. Yeah.

TN: Okay, so on tech, you mentioned tech. Is it possible that with the chips act just passing in the US, this is the one that supports semiconductor companies for putting operations in the US? Is it possible that there is a message being passed to TSMC or any of the strategic industry guys in Taiwan by Pelosi and her staff? Is that a possibility? And if so, what do you think it would be?

CB: Absolutely. I would say that that’s one of the things I don’t know if you caught this statement from the chairman of TSMC, but he gave an interview just a day or two ago and he said, “China, if you invade, like all of our plants on the island are dust, they’re worthless. There’s nothing there.” Because I can guarantee you that. I’m sure that the US Air Force would have the coordinates for every TSMC plant that it’s like, hey, we’re going to make sure that China doesn’t get them. I’m sure that TSMC, at this point, their reputation is being a pretty well-run company, very attuned to security issues. And so I’m sure that they have multiple redundancy plans and multiple security plans to address that if China is locked in. So you have to think that TSMC, all the way down to all their key suppliers and things like that, are in some type of meeting here with Nancy.

AM: Yeah. I’m not very keen on this chip sack bill. I think it’s just fireworks and stringers and ticker tape raid. But there are EPA issues to deal with when chip-making also. So no matter what, whatever they want to throw out for legislation, as long as the EPA is hampering manufacturing in the United States, manufacturing is going nowhere, at least for the next five to ten years in the United States. So this chip act, although it gives a little bit of pressure, don’t think it’s going to be that big of a driver in the next five to ten years.

TN: Okay. I want to talk to you guys a little bit about the pushback that China may give to US companies. So China already blocked a $5 billion battery investment from a Chinese company in the US. That was just announced today, and those batteries were supposed to support Tesla and Ford, I believe. Do you think China may try to hurt US companies that are in China? Could they directly take action against, say, Tesla or GM or Ford or GE or any of the American companies that are sitting in China? Do you think they could push against, say, ex-pats in China, and US ex-pats in China and make life difficult for them?

Because if we look, for example, at what happened in Russia, we have a lot of Western companies that have abandoned their operations in Russia over the last eight months. Right? Is it possible that American companies get pushback from the Chinese government?

Because if I think of what the Chinese government did to Japanese companies in 2012 if you remember that. It was very aggressive. They were instigating protests against Japanese companies, Japanese expatriates, and Japanese government officials. Could they instigate that against the US? Companies? And could they push us Companies to just give up their operations in China?

CB: Well, the only way I would rephrase that is how would that differ from normal standard operating practice? Even within the past couple of years, there’s been a massive flood of not just Americans, but all foreigners out of China. And these are everything from journalists to just basic school teachers, English teachers. Okay? So it doesn’t even matter if you’re a sensitive national or in the sensitive industry or what China deems is sensitive.

This goes for businesses as well. You heard stories about companies saying, oh, well, I have 10 million, $50 million of profits I can repatriate. I’m going to close down my China plant and go to Vietnam. And basically what they do is they just freeze everything and said, oh, you have an unpaid tax bill, coincidentally, the same amount of money that you were going to repatriate. And so they just have to walk away from everything or sell it for one dollar or something like that.

So when you talk about that, I think that’s entirely fair. I think that’s going to happen. I think the only people that are going to effectively remain there till the end are the Shells of the world that didn’t get out of Russia until the bombs and the missiles started flying. I think it’s going to be the same with China.

TN: Are you saying that you think some US companies will in the next, let’s say, two to three years, abandon their China operations? Do you think that’s feasible?

CB: Oh, yeah.

TN: Okay.

CB: I think it’s already been happening. It’s not announced. You see a couple of announcements here and there. You hear about many more talking to people that are still there. But yeah.

TN: Albert, what do you think about that?

AM: Yes, they will. There’ll be certain companies that they go after depending on whatever political calculations they can throw at the US, for sure, without question. They’ve done this. I mean, Christopher said they’ve done this in the past. Nothing new.

TN: Right. So how would that start? Would they try to push aggressively to localize leadership? I know a lot of that leadership is already localized, but would they almost make it mandatory for leadership of, say, US companies to be Chinese and then kind of cascade that through? Or what would the early phases of that look like?

AM: I think the early phases would be phantom tax violations or some kind of fines or fees that just pop up out of Chinese mountains. Who knows? Do you know what I mean? So I think that’s the first thing you’d want to look at if they start doing it.

CB: Yeah. And again, what you’re talking about, I think, is basically what’s been happening for the past couple of years is whether it’s the phantom tax bill, whether it’s all senior leadership has to be Chinese or party members or all those kinds of things. I mean, when you’re asking about that in the future, it is like, well, how would that differ from the past two to three years?

TN: Right. It feels like we’re on the precipice of that. And some of us have been talking about kind of the end of the Asian century for probably the last five to eight to ten years. And China is what seems slow, but very rapid decline in terms of its ability to grow. Not the fact that it’s not already huge, but its ability to continue to accelerate growth. That’s gone. Those days are gone. Right.

And when growth stalls out, the opportunity becomes a zero-sum game. And it’s about market share. It’s about getting your piece of the pie. Not a growing pie, but a stagnant pie. And that’s when things get very difficult in authoritarian countries. Right?

CB: Well, I think to add upon that, they were following the Asian growth model of build, in simple terms, run large trade surpluses, controlled currency, build apartments. It’s a pretty tried, true path. But one of the things that are very different is if Malaysia runs a large fiscal surplus, nobody cares. If Taiwan runs a significant trade surplus, some people care, but whatever.

For every percentage point of GDP in trade surpluses that China runs at this point when you’re the second largest economy in the world, that is a massive, massive number, not just against your economy, but against the global economy. And that’s going to create massive, massive dislocations elsewhere.

And then the other thing is that when your only source of growth is basically building apartments, and now they’ve got like 20% to 25% of these apartments all over the country, empty and household debt that is significantly above the OECD average. It doesn’t make any sense, and this is what they’re running up against. Okay.

AM: To take that a step further, it’s like if you have low growth and your economy starts in the waiver, how do you fund a growing military to combat the United States on a global level? The math doesn’t add up. Very difficult.

TN: Okay, I want to move next on to things like cyberattacks. Chris, I know that you’re very focused on kind of the IT side of what the Chinese government is doing. Can you talk us through some of the potential, maybe aggressive moves that China could take in the wake of this?

CB: Sure. So there are all kinds of things. And one of the things, you saw today where they were looking at, they shut down the Taiwanese Prime Minister’s website. But that’s, to be honest, small potatoes.

The type of thing that you would look at, and you’ve seen this a little bit in Ukraine is where they went after things like nuclear reactors and other things like that. So if you’re looking at this, one of the types of things that you would be looking at would be, for instance, Taiwan being an island, there’s a handful of spots where cables come ashore. So what would you be looking at? Because if you wanted to make it hard on Taiwan, that might be something that you would go after.

If you had the capability, and they are very likely due to some capacity, you would be looking at putting bugs in the TSMC type of production capacity. So those would be the types of things to narrow it to Taiwan. But generally speaking, if you aren’t being hacked by China, that basically just renders your place in the universe irrelevant, almost, because they’ve pretty much gone after everybody.

TN: Right. Albert, what do you think?

AM: Yeah, I mean, the Chinese are prevalent in the cyber terrorism space. They’re out there stealing trade secrets and corporate secrets all over the place, especially in the United States. And I don’t foresee that slowing down at all. If anything ramping up, and they’re good at it, and we have lacked security in the United States, and it needs to be tightened up.

TN: Right. And we intentionally, for the viewers, did not record this on Zoom. That’s an indication of some of the thoughts around there.

Now, guys, there are some islands between Taiwan and China, and there have been some potential whispers of China taking over, say, some islands, some of Taiwan’s small islands to make a statement. Do you think that’s possible?

AM: It’s possible. I don’t understand why they would try even risking that. What if they lose a few ships?

What if they lose 1000 or 2000 troops? It’s like all of a sudden you look weak and then you’re going to be forced into a position to do something bigger. It would make no sense from my perspective.

CB: The only reason I kind of disagrees is that there’s a handful of some of these very small islands, so I doubt that they have any military hardware there. And some of them are literally, I think, as close as like 10 miles off the Chinese mainland like that. They’re just that close. And so just as a symbolic act, something like that wouldn’t surprise me at all.

AM: It won’t surprise me at all. I’m just saying anything closer to the Taiwanese actual island, I would be wary of seeing the Chinese try to take them.

TN: I spent a week on one of those islands in 2009 waiting out of typhoon, and it was an experience, but I think it’s feasible. It’s an island off of Taidong, which is no, that’s on the southwest side. They wouldn’t do that. They would do it on the I was on the southeast side. They would do it on the southwest side or the northwest side. But there are lots of islands, very small islands off of Taiwan.

Okay, good. What else I think do we need to be thinking about here? There has been talking of the Biden administration removing trade tariffs and this sort of thing on China. Do you think that could be something that the administration aggressively goes after to kind of compensate China? Or do you think this would maybe solidify those tariffs?

AM: I don’t think so. Honestly, I would rather see what the rhetoric is around the oil market price cap that they’ve been talking about with G7 and the China terrorists might fall into that realm in negotiations. I would want to see what China’s reaction is to the oil cap at the moment.

CB: I’d be very skeptical at this moment of some type of tariff rollback because for them to… The White House has very badly managed this entire situation where they created a situation where if she went or if she didn’t go, they were losers. They’re not looking bad. And so if they were to roll back tariffs at this point, I think they would get they would get slaughtered, even among the Democrats at this point. So I think that’s very unlikely.

But look, Jake Sullivan is the guy that a decade ago was proposing, what do you say we walk up to China and give them back Taiwan in exchange for peace in our time? So with these guys, anything is possible.

AM: This is the worst foreign policy cabinet I have ever seen in my life. No one’s even close second at the moment. And that kind of commentary by Jake Sullivan is just unbelievable.

TN: Yeah. Okay, guys, so let me ask you kind of one final question, and you have to answer it with one of these two answers you can’t equivocate in between. Okay. The likelihood of China and the US in some sort of direct warfare engagement in the next, say, twelve months, is it closer to, say, 20% likelihood, or is it closer to 70% likelihood?

AM: 20% in my opinion.

CB: 20%.

TN: Oh, good. Okay, so do you think it’s greater than 20% or less than 20%?

AM: I’d say less than 20%. Okay. I would again say less than 20%,

CB: and I would say if you were to draw that out, 24, 36 months, I see it going up, probably steeper as time goes on.

TN: Okay, so that’s fair. So there’s a risk all around, right? We’ve got economic suffering globally. We’ve got inflation globally. We have whatever’s happening post-COVID trying to be figured out globally. We’ve got political uncertainty globally. So we’ve got risk and uncertainty everywhere. Adding a conflict to that mix would not be positive for anybody.

CB: And the one thing I would say is, even though I say less than 20%, that’s not like a firmly, deeply held conviction. Because if you’re talking about risk, I would have what I would call wide error bands in a lot of these situations. Look, we talk about, like, what is Xi going to do? Xi could say, hey, America is distracted by Ukraine. They got extra troops there. They’re shipping all kinds of weapons. Now’s the time to go to Taiwan. I don’t think people do that. That’s also not crazy to speculate. Yeah,

AM: I would have to agree with that because I never thought that Putin would try to take Kyiv with so few troops, but here we are, him making a vital mistake. And sometimes leaders make bad mistakes because they have a bunch of yes men around them. Yeah. Let me ask you one very quick question.

TN: Do you think there’s a possibility that China kind of takes it out on somebody else? Do they have a dust-up maybe with India to show strength at home while avoiding it with the US? Or something like that? Do they lash out to somebody else so that they can kind of flex muscles at home?

AM: Yeah, they could, but I mean, honestly, the Indians are not people to be trifled with, to be honest. They are itching to take on China if they show any kind of aggression. So I don’t see who they can pressure to say they’re big, bad China at the moment. I don’t even think they should be doing that. They should be figuring out their economic situation more than anything else.

TN: Xi Jinping’s role model is Mao. And Mao ultimately was a failure and a pariah in his own country by the time he died. Right. So I don’t think Xi has the sense to understand that Mao was a pariah by the time he died. And so that’s his role model who killed 60 million people through starvation and other things. So this is a problem. We have a guy in the office in China whose role model killed 60 million people directly.

AM: Yes, I understand that, Tony. The problem is the difference is that the CCP has wealthy families now that have almost equal footing as Xi in terms of power, and they can of them if they wanted to.

TN: Well, and that’s the reality, right? And that’s what nobody talks about. And that may be the backstop for a lot of this stuff.

CB: I’ll tell you this. The rumor mill among Chinese ex-pats, dissidents, et cetera, et cetera, are in hyperdrive this year. Look, it’s hard to know what to believe. It’s very hard to know what to believe. Okay? So I’m not about to push any theories, but there’s a lot of that discussion going around.

TN: Guys, this has been great. Thank you so much for doing this on such short notice. For anyone watching, please put comments below. We’ll take a look at them and we’ll watch them through the next week. If you have any additional thoughts, please let us know, and look forward to seeing how the next thanks a lot.

Week Ahead

The Week Ahead – 11 Jul 2022: Energy Backwardation

Post author By admin
Post date July 9, 2022

We had a pretty volatile week last week, with crude selling off pretty sharply early in the week. In this episode, we looked at energy backwardation, and Tracy educated us on what’s happening in those markets.

We also had some comments from Putin about a multipolar world. Albert talked through that.

And then on Friday, unfortunately, we saw the assassination of Japan’s former Prime Minister Abe. We talked about the Japan post-Abe and what that means for the region.

Key themes:

Energy backwardation
Putin’s Multi-Polar world
Japan post-Abe
What’s ahead for next week?

This is the 25th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead experts on Twitter:

Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon/

Time Stamps

0:00 Start
0:54 Key Themes for the week
1:28 Catalyst of the energy sell-off on Tuesday
5:44 Will we see more action in energy prices?
6:57 Is it cost-ineffective to make hydrogen with natgas prices?
8:11 Diesel
9:20 Vladimir Putin’s multipolar world.
13:44 Japan post-Abe
20:29 What’s for the week ahead?

Listen to the podcast version on Spotify here:

Transcript

TN: Hi. Welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Thanks for joining us. I’m with Tracy and Albert today. Sam is away, but we are talking about a pretty volatile week this week. Before we get started, actually, please like and subscribe. Please ask any questions below, make any comments. We want to make sure this is interesting for you, so just let us know any additional info you want or comments. We’re happy to address those.

We had a pretty volatile week this week with crude selling off pretty sharply early in the week. So we’re going to look at energy backwardation, and Tracy is going to educate us all on what’s happening in those markets. We also had some comments out of Putin about a multipolar world. We’re going to have Albert talk through that. And then on Friday, unfortunately, we saw the assassination of Japan’s former Prime Minister Abe. So we’re going to talk about the Japan post Abe and what that means for Japan and the region.

So first let’s get into energy. Tracy, obviously, we had a big sell off in energy early in the week, and then we saw it come back later. What was really the catalyst for that energy sell off on Tuesday?

TS: What happened is that we started on July 5, right? We opened with low liquidity in the market in general. Then we saw a sell off in the general markets and commodities and risky assets that kind of exacerbated that trade. And then on the 6th, we saw a liquidation of a couple of very large positions in that market. And so fundamentally, basically, there is no reason for this sell off other than technicalities.

In fact, if we’re looking at this market, this spreads, the calendar spreads, which means month to month, were exploding higher during this entire move. That implies that the physical market at least, is very tight right now because you’re seeing backwardation increase significantly when we’re seeing a $10 move in ZZ, which is crazy.

TN: Can you tell us what that means? A $10 move in ZZ. What does that mean for the rest of us?

TS: If you’re talking about calendar schedule, we’re talking about monthly. So we can talk about the current front month is August. So we look at August, September, September to October, October to November, et cetera, et cetera. And once these spreads start exploding higher, that means that we’re seeing people want to dump oil in the front month market because that’s more lucrative than keeping it in storage.

So if I’m an investor and I’m looking and I want to invest in a backwardated market, I’m looking at a convex market that goes from right to left, and I’m going to invest in, say, a back month, and I want my investment to move higher…

TN: I’m investing further in the future.

TS: Right. That’s what it backwards. If you’re in a contangable market, we’re looking at the opposite situation, where you’re looking at a convex structure going from right to left, whereas if I invest in December, by the time my investment reaches Frontline X free, I’m losing money. I’m losing value in my investment.

TN: Right.

TS: And so that’s how we kind of have to look at that situation.

TN: Yes. You had a great tweet this week explaining that with visuals.

TS: I did. It’s on Twitter, if anyone wants to see it.

TN: Exactly. We saw this in crude. We also saw it in a natural gas. Right?

TS: Yes. We’re kind of seeing a major pullback in many of the commodities markets. Right. We’re seeing a little bit of a bounce this week because we’re looking at China. China has recently announced we have one last announcement with $200 billion bond sale rate. So we’re looking at a lot of stimulus out of China that’s giving commodities the boost. Right now, we have to see I think the markets are still going to wait on, particularly the industrial and base medical markets are going to wait until we actually see some action in China to really see investment back into these markets after this huge goal.

TN: So nobody believes the China stimulus story right now. It’s kind of a show me the money period. Right. But once they do start to show the money, do you think we’ll see much more action in energy prices?

TS: I think you’ll see more action in metal prices than you will equity prices.

TN: Copper’s way off compared to, say, the last 18 months. But it’s not way off, given historical copper prices. If we go back before, say, Q1 of 2020, it’s kind of where it had been previously in the ballpark, at least. Right. So we haven’t necessarily reverted back to pre-COVID, necessarily. We’re just in the start-stop manufacturing world, and that’s what’s affecting base metals like copper. Is that fair to say?

TS: Oh, absolutely. If you look at, like, a monthly chart rather than looking at a five-minute chart, and the market has kind of just been consolidating, really, for the last two years, until we see a really big break above, say, $5, a really big break below $3, we’re still kind of in that consolidation zone.

TN: 3.50 to 4.50 kind of range. Interesting. Okay. Sorry, Albert.

AM: Yeah. I got a question for Tracy. Nat gas, as we’re talking, since we discussed it a little bit, that’s used to make hydrogen, if I’m not mistaken, and since the nat gas price seems to be elevated, isn’t that going to be a little bit too cost-ineffective to make hydrogen, which causes a diesel problem, if I’m not mistaken? I’m not sure about that. That’s what I’m asking.

TS: No, absolutely. I think that would be a problem. Looking forward. I think there’s a lot of problems if we’re looking at the hydrogen market. There’s still a lot of problems when we’re talking about taking this idea to actual fruition. Right. Because if you look at the hydrogen market, there’s like a rainbow of green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, this hydrogen, this hydrogen. But we really haven’t gotten to the point that can overtake, not gas the allure of the situation is that you can take hydrogen, mix it with nat gas, you can send it down the same pipeline, and that saves a lot of money.

AM: Yeah.

TS: The situation is this is not a great idea in theory, but we’re just not there yet.

TN: Okay, got you. Albert’s, question about diesel. Diesel is not any less tight than it was a week or two ago. Right? In fact, that’s just as tight or tighter than it was, say, a couple of weeks ago or a month ago.

TS: Yeah, I think the diesel market is still very tight.

TN: Right.

AM: Maintenance season starts, isn’t it? From September to November?

TS: Yes, we will start maintenance seasons.

TN: Okay.

TS: I would actually look for some of these refineries to maybe put off maintenance season. So that’s what I would watch to the maintenance season happen. And it’s happened before. If we have it such a tight market, we could see them putting off maintenance seasons. It’s not unheard of.

TN: Okay, so hurricane season and maintenance season are upon us, but we may see at least maintenance season for all of us.

TS: Oh, not I just moved to Florida.

TN: Good luck with that. I’m in Texas. We don’t get as many of you, but it’ll be a fun season for you.

Okay, let’s move on, guys, to some comments out of Putin this week. Vladimir Putin had some comments about us, the multipolar world becoming more and more of reality. We heard this ten years ago. We heard this 20 years ago, and it came up again this week. So, Albert, can you kind of let us know what’s going on there?

AM: Tony, I’ve used this multipolar example for the US. Dollar dominance I got for years now. And the fact of the matter is, we are not in a multipolar world. We are not even going into multipolar world.

People are confusing a little bit of weakness in the US. Leadership and errors and decision making, foreign policy for multipolars, it’s just a multipolarity, and it’s just not the case for the world to be in a multipolar scenario, you would need multiple countries with equal militaries and economies. We are nowhere near that.

The Russian economy is 2.5 trillion. The American economy is pushing 30 trillion. This is just a joke by Vladimir Putin. Simply undermine the US dominance both in the world stage and the dollar.

TN: Aside from some dumpster pundits who write for The Atlantic or whatever, who believes that nonsense?

AM: A lot of Europhiles that want to see the United States take a step down, they can do it. A lot of crypto guys, a lot of gold guys. These guys have to make that argument, because without multipolarity, you cannot have a neutral reserve asset to settle trade. And that’s just the fact of the matter.

The problem becomes, if you have a multipolar world, you’re on the verge of another world war, because there always has to be one alpha that takes hold of the system. You just can’t have equal people.

TN: And the cost of the transaction? Cost? The cost of trade, everything goes up. If you have multiple rights go up, everything goes up.

AM: It’s completely unstable.

TS: Inflation from other countries to other countries.

AM: Yeah.

TN: The world is built on China exporting deflation. Has been for 15, 20 years. And it will continue. If they could just keep their ports open, it will continue. And it makes people happy. Right.

AM: No, you’re right. That’s just the way our system works right now, with the dollar underpinning all of it. It’s the lifeblood that makes trade work. And people are not going to like it. But I promise you, no one alive today is going to see anything other.

TN: So let me just take a step back. Who does he think the polls are? Russia, China and the US? Or Germany or something?

AM: He’s trying to make an assumption to say that Russia and China are the new contenders to the United States. The problem with that is they don’t have military power projection globally like the United States does. They can’t even invade Ukraine. China can’t even invade Taiwan. Otherwise they would have taken it if they’ve it could have. This is the world we live.

TN: Yeah. Russia can stir up problems in Libya or the Middle East or whatever.

AM: There’s no question that they can stir up problems and they can fill in gap vacuums that we leave right, unintentionally, unintentionally. But they cannot hold that territory. They cannot force changes in governments like the United States did.

TN: And every time I hear somebody talk about the Belt and Road as a sign of China’s dominance, it reminds me of Napoleon’s march to Russia. Right? I mean, they’re spreading themselves so thin. They can’t keep that up.

AM: They can’t. That’s perfect example to do that, to make that thing actually successful, you need to back that up to secure your trade line, trade with the military. Right. China has like, what, two military bases outside of China? Like one in Djibouti and something else. I mean, they can’t send ships over to their armor.

TN: Myanmar.

AM: Yeah. This is beyond a joke to me. I don’t take anybody seriously that even brings this part up, right. Vladimir Putin included.

TN: That’s good. So anybody watching this, if you have an alternative view, let us know in the comments. Honestly, we’d love to hear it. We just want to hear some credible.

TS: Put your notes in the comments.

TN: Yes, absolutely. Okay. Now, finally today I woke up in the US to the really tragic news of Japan’s foreign Prime Minister Abe, being assassinated.

I saw Abe in his first stint as PM in the mid 2000s. And then when he came back in, in 2013, and with the Abenomics plan, which was really difficult to pull off, ultimately successfully. The guy was smart. He was all about Japan. He’s all about Japan recovering, all about Japan being competitive. I put a picture up of Abe shaking hands with Prime Minister Modi of India. Japan and India were very tight. A lot of Japanese investment going to India, a lot of partnership across those two countries and in Africa, both to defend against China in Asia and other parts of the world. So Prime Minister Abe will be missed.

I think what Abe did partly was bring back Japan’s ability to defend itself by passing a constitutional change that allowed the Japanese military to defend itself where previously it wasn’t even allowed to do that. So there’s a lot of dignity that Japan kind of got back, and we can rub Japan’s nose in World War II for eternity, but it’s not going to be constructive. What happened, happened. They’ve paid their dues, and that’s kind of what Abe said, look, we paid our dues, we’re going to move on now and join the 21st century. And that’s what Japan did.

So I’m just curious to get your thoughts, guys, on Japan post Abe. What do you see as of course they moved on to another prime minister. Japan has already moved on from the Abe government. He wasn’t a sitting prime minister. But what do you see kind of the challenges of Japan’s role in Asia particularly, but also in the world post Abe?

AM: I think the most pressing issue for Japan would be contending with China, both militarily and economically. Abe was, like you said, brilliant statesman and patriot for the Japanese people. So he’s going to be sorely missed. And it’s not just he’s going to be missed, but his cabinet and the people that his network is going to be missed because they’re losing a big part of what he brought to the table in terms of strategy and ideology. It was a big shift.

I think that the Japanese are probably going to struggle for strategy in the next five to ten years. And it’s a sad thing, but I’m sure the Japanese, they’re resilient people and they’ll move on and they’ll recover.

TN: Tracy?

TS: No, I absolutely agree with what Albert said. I think the thing is that people are painting him, the media right now, in particular the Western media, painting them with some villain, which is very interesting to me. And I think that people should really just look at his legacy and respect what he’s done instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

TN: So they’re portraying him as some ultra nationalist, but he’s as ultra nationalist as Modi as in India, or Jokowi is in Indonesia, or Lee is in Singapore, you name it. Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan. It’s an Asian direction now. Right. And has been for the last ten to 15 years.

AM: Yeah. The media also, Tony, is desperate to not allow any center right or even right nationalist figures be murderers or looked up upon. They just can’t stomach it. They just can’t help themselves to demonize a person that is absolutely unjustifiably demonized by being called an ultra-nationalist and even worse, by the NPR.

NPR had two other headlines that they had to delete because it was just so atrocious. This is a.. And Modi, Abe, I don’t want to put Victor Orban into that, but all these right leaning leaders just get attacked and the media can’t help it.

TN: Right, yeah. I think from an economic plan, if we look at what Abe did with Abenomics, of course, the Japanese Central Bank is kind of “independent,” right. But they really took the JPY from kind of 76 to the dollar to, say, 120 to the dollar, and it really allowed Japanese manufacturing to be competitive again. Right.

And it took somebody with that clarity of economic vision, as well as the clarity of, say, the military vision and political vision, to be able to pull off what they did. And in terms of, say, energy sustainability under Abe, they also created much deeper relationships in the Middle East with places like Qatar, UAE.

TS: And they also looked forward to nuclear, where you looked at the west was looking to shut things down, Abe was looking to invest in nuclear projects. You’re looking for energy security, energy going forward. There are a lot of things that he did to advance that sector in Japan, which is admirable.

TN: Right. Albert if we take a US perspective on this? The US has worked hard to kind of hold a line against China. Do you think with the mediocre leadership we have in the US right now, do you think it’s possible that some of that US say coalition falls apart a little bit? Or do you think we just kind of take a breather and then it resumes based on the institutional stamina of parts of the Japanese government?

AM: That’s a great question, Tony. That’s actually a really good question. And I think where we have to look for we have to separate the Biden foreign policy cabinet with the Pentagon. Because the Pentagon is actually leading this charge for the Pacific with Japan and Australia in charge. I really don’t think that the Japanese are going to take a step back or the US is going to take a step back. I think the system is pretty much, the train has already left the station and it’s rolling.

There might be an argument from the opposition in Japan, but I don’t think. That it’s going to take hold to derail this new initiative by the US and the Pacific.

TN: Great, that’s good to hear. Okay, guys. Hey, on that somber note, we’ll end it, but let’s look at the week ahead. Guys, what are you looking for in the week ahead? We’ve had this real turnaround this week. What do you see going into next week? Do you see things calming a bit?

We saw it coming into Friday. Things really turn up in US markets and in commodity markets. Do we see things stabilizing a bit going into the Fed meeting after we’ve had some Fed comments late this week?

AM: I want to see the comments of where they might signal a 50 basis point rate hike versus a 75. I absolutely believe 75 points is coming just from the jobs data that they posted. It was obviously massaged a little bit.

TN: Just a little bit.

AM: Of course it is. Yeah, but this was a good one. And then the revision too, and it just seems to me that they want another 75 basis point rate hike.

TN: To really kill it?

AM: They got to tackle inflation. I mean, they’re looking at 8.8 on the next CPI, which is just.. And you’re staring on the barrel at 9% and 9.2 and 9.3 in the coming months, which is absolutely a political nuclear bomb that goes off.

TN: Okay, Tracy, what are you looking for in the next week especially in commodities?

TS: Yeah, I mean, I agree we probably will see 75 after non farm payroll this week, which I was looking for a clue kind of are we going to get 50, are we going to get 75? It looks like 75 for sure.

So looking in the coming weeks, I’m really looking to China right now and to see what comes to fruition with these sort of stimulus plans. What does that do to the base in industrial medals markets? And I think those are the two things that you should be focusing on right now, particularly if you’re invested in commodities markets.

TN: Very good. Okay. Yeah. I’m kind of hoping they give in to 50, but I’m not hopeful. I do think they’ll on the kind of conservative hawkish side and go 75. But if they can pick up the bat phone and talk to China, and the China guys will unload a dump truck of cash over the next week or so, then I think they’ll be a little bit lighter and do 50 basis points. But I think a lot of it depends on China ECB. They can’t get their act together, so there’s nothing ECB can do to really help.

And Europe is in so much trouble that it doesn’t really matter what they do. They have huge problems anyway. So. I think you’re right. And tell me what you think about this. But I don’t necessarily think we see massive chop. I think we see just a lot of fairly sideways moved for the next week or so.

AM: I would be wary if we jumped up to 4000 or even, like, 3970. I think a rug pull would be in an order right after that. That’s what they do. They bowl everybody up and then pull the rug out.

TN: Tracy?

TS: Yeah. After this big move down in the oil market, in particular, because we did have sort of a flow event coupled with a couple of large funds kind of workforce to liquidate. So I could see that we still could go a little bit higher next week. Sideways to higher next week.

TN: Very good. Okay, guys, be interesting to see. Thanks for joining us. Thanks very much. Have a great weekend. And have a great week ahead.

TN: Very good. Thank you, guys.

AM: I struggle with the headache through that whole thing.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Complete Intelligence is in partnership with:

Products

Resources

Company