US markets continue their bullish trend. BFM 89.9 asks Tony Nash if this is due to better than expected corporate earnings in the coming quarters or the Fed monetary policy. Also discussed are the OPEC+ oil production and how oil will be affected by hurricane Ida, and what’s the status of supply chain specially around semiconductors?
❗️ Discover how Complete Intelligence can help your company be more profitable with AI and ML technologies. Book a demo here.
Show Notes
WSN: We speak to Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Now, US markets, I think it’s a bit of a choppy day, but still, nonetheless, the trend is bullish one. And what is that based on, though, is it expectations of stronger corporate earnings this quarter or just driven by ample liquidity flooding financial markets?
TN: I think more the latter than the former. We saw really good corporate earnings in the previous quarter, but in the current quarter, we’re hearing more rumblings of trouble with earnings. And that’s part of the base effect in the previous quarters, in 2020, companies had cut a lot of costs late in the year, so they’re reaping the benefits now. We’re starting to see the base effects come in where they had already cut a lot of those expenses in Q3 of 2020. So now we’ll see that going forward, we won’t see as much kind of profitability.
So what’s the baked into the market right now? It’s the Fed, it’s stimulus. It’s an expectation of a $3 trillion fiscal stimulus bill. So if we start to hear that this $3 trillion fiscal infrastructure bill won’t happen, we’ll see some disappointment if we see the jobs numbers on Friday come in disappointing, we’ll see some dampened momentum. And if we hear any more talk about tapering, which I don’t think we will for at least six months. But if we do, we’ll see some downward pressure in the market.
So all of those things are possible. But in the meantime, the Fed is injecting $120 billion into the market every month to keep everyone happy. And markets seem to be taking it well.
WSN: And I want to stay on corporate earnings, because I just wonder whether the recent inflationary pressures on the economy will be reflected in perhaps lower margins for corporate’s incoming quarters.
TN: Sure, companies are feeling pressure not just with raw materials and input factors, but also with salaries. Wage inflation in the US is pretty high right now. Companies are feeling it from all sides. So I think those margins are much thinner, both on those base effects I mentioned earlier. Also inflationary effects, both in terms of input goods and wages.
PS: And you say you paint a bit more cloudy picture for the US, but if you compare the US economy and financial markets versus Europe and China, they really have outperformed global peer strike. Could you explain it disparities there?
TN: When you look at China, I think it really has a lot to do with stimulus. China is really late to the game in terms of providing stimulus. They spent quite a long time in 2020 and 2021 deleveraging their economy. So getting rid of debt. Very procyclical. China was shrinking and they were delivering, which is maybe healthy for the balance sheet, but not necessarily the best thing to do to grow the economy.
In Europe, the ECB is really nervous with inflation. And so they may take more aggressive action against inflation instead of continuing to loosen to accelerate the economy. So the US is outperformed because nobody thinks the Fed is going to take aggressive action year, certainly. And probably not at least until Q two of 2022.
WSN: And how do you think the US dollar will react against the Euro and the yen in light of all these recent FED announcements on the timing of the tapering and also the rate hikes?
TN: We have the dollar continuing to weaken through, say, November. And we’re starting to see some expectations of dollar strength, not a lot of strength, but marginal dollar strength starting in, say, November. And that could be on, say, ECB deciding to continue to loosen. It could be on China. Adding stimulus. Currency is a relative game. As central banks get more active globally relative to the US, it could really help weaken their currencies on a relative basis.
PS: And let’s talk about oil because I want to get your views on yesterday’s OPEC+ meeting. They are sticking to next month’s oil production increases. What impact will that have on prices in view? There also Hurricane Ida has also hit US or production?
TN: Yeah. Well, he can. It has fit some under sea production, but it’s really hit more refining capacity than really production. So the bigger issue in the US is around gasoline prices and refining, than it is around kind of supply of oil with OPEC+, it’s kind of a status quo. Let’s move ahead as we had expected, which is a really good sign. Look, oil is trading between what, 67 and $75 generally, and that’s kind of their happy. So as long as it stays in that zone, OPEC will continue to move ahead and stay within the agreement. If it goes higher, then they may accelerate the production. If it goes lower, they may pull back a little bit.
WSN: And let’s stay on supply side disruptions. Right. We talked about that just a few minutes ago. But do you think that there are still concerns over this, especially for things like semiconductors and certain commodities?
TN: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. So the supply chain issues, we hear a lot about Chinese ports and backups to Chinese ports and these sorts of things. But the Port in Long Beach in the US is backed up, hugely backed up. So the supply chain shocks are not only in China. US ports have their own issues. So when I hear, say, American companies complain about supply chain issues in China, that’s not the only factor. It’s US ports catching up. It’s US ports that are delayed and so on and so forth.
So I don’t think we’re done with this. In fact, it may get a little bit worse because the holiday season is coming up in a few months. And if we think supply chains are backed up now, they may get even worse going into, say, October and November, especially to import into the US.
PS: I mean, some are even saying that this could even go on to, quarter 1, ’22 or even the likes of semi cons.
TN: Oh, absolutely. Semiconductor supply chains are incredibly complex. So for them to get out of these issues, there are multiple layers of issues that have to be reconciled, and it could easily be Q1 ’22 by the time we’re out of this.
WSN: All right. Thank you for your time. There was Tony Nash. CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us his views on where world markets are hitting. And I think the interesting point is that, look, the bullish trend is here to stay as long as the Feds just keep rates where they are. Plus, of course, there are expectations with regards to the US stimulus plan on the infrastructure bill. Right. Which I think is now going through the House. And apparently there’s something like 700 amendments that the Republicans want this document through the Max.
PS: I know, but I think they are optimistic. I hope to prove this call in October, but Tony does point relatively bleak picture for the short term. September. October is also seasonally weak in the US and also the stimulus packages or end or swim September. Very interesting. What he’s saying about the Fed is not likely to say much about tapering for the next six months as well.
WSN: Yeah.
I mean, if you look at where markets are right. The S&P 500 is up 20%. The Nasdaq are almost close to 19%. The Dow Jones is 16%. If I was a fund manager, I would do nothing. In fact, I might be tempted to lock in my games. Right. Because the year is almost coming to a close. Do I want to take on more risk for the potential return of two? 3%, maybe not. So we might be heading into quieter months for at least one or two, maybe towards year end, and then we might see some book closing.
But till now, maybe everyone’s just taking a bit of a breather. Look at markets, at what kind of corporate earnings will be coming out, and let’s see where the politicians are up to.
PS: And I wonder whether there’s an opportunity to reallocate to other markets in Europe where you see some value and even Southeast Asia as well in the midterm long term as well, for sure.
WSN: I’m sure Financiers already considering the Strategic allocation for 2022 Actually and rotating into markets that perhaps did not do as well this year. Stay tuned. BFM 89.9.
This is a special QuickHit Cage Match edition with returning guest Albert Marko, and joining us for the very first time Andreas Steno Larsen to talk about tapering. Will the Fed taper this year? If yes, when, how, and why? If no, why not? Also discussed are the housing market, China GDP, and corporate earnings.
Andreas is the chief global strategist at Nordea Bank, which is mostly a Nordic bank, but has a presence in large parts of Europe, but also in the US. He speaks on behalf of the bank on topics surrounding global markets and in particular bond markets.
Albert Marko is a consultant for financial firms and high net worth individuals trying to navigate Washington, DC and what the Fed and Congress are up to.
📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.
This QuickHit episode was recorded on August 16, 2021.
The views and opinions expressed in this QuickHit Cage Match: Time to Taper? 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: So Andreas, I noticed you guys, you and Albert kind of in a Twitter fight last week about tapering, and that’s what really drew me to this discussion. I wanted to give you guys a platform to talk through this. So help me understand, you know. So what is your position? Why do you think it’s going to happen? When do you think it’s going to happen?
ASL: Well, I think tapering is right around the corner, and the basic reason is that I expect marked sequential improvements in the labor market in the US over the coming two or three quarters. If you look at it, very simply speaking, right now, there are more job openings than unemployed in the US. I know I disagree with Albert on this as well. But in the old world, that would at least have let the Fed to turn very, very hawkish when they can see such a rate between job openings and unemployed as we have right now.
I basically have a case that once these extraordinary benefits, they will end across the US during September. Then we will have an explosion in a positive sense in the US Labor market. And that is exactly what is needed to convince the Fed of tapering.
So my base case is a decision taken in September and then an implementation starting already in December this year. And I expect them to be done already during the first half of next year with the tapering process. So it’s fairly aggressive compared to the scenarios I’ve seen painted by by other analysts.
TN: That’s really interesting. I just want to clarify one thing. When you say explosion the labor market, you mean more people coming into the market?
ASL: Yeah. And they come into the market and fill these job openings right now, we have a low labor market mobility due to a lot of temporary factors. And once they’re gone, then we should expect employment to be almost running at full speed before New Years.
TN: Okay. Okay. Very interesting. Albert, take it away. Help me understand what you’re thinking.
AM: Well, I mean, I would agree with him in the old days. Right. But we are in a situation where these tapering assumptions are based on Fed rhetoric and the public comments that they’ve been making specifically addressing his unemployment, unemployment boost or surge.
You know, we still have COVID lockdown patchwork across the world happening at the moment. Australia, Japan, Taiwan, and most importantly, China, because no one’s looking right now in China, but China’s GDP looks like it’s not going to surpass two or 3% for the next four or five quarters. With that in mind, where the United States going to get inventory for the holiday season and have this boost in employment surge that we usually get on holiday season.
It’s just, to me, there’s so many negatives, so many variables with negative connotations towards it. I can’t see the Fed tapering and just absolutely obliterating the market right before mid term season coming up in 2022. It’s just for me, it’s just inconceivable for them to do such a thing like that.
TN: Okay. Understood. So, Andreas, what do you think? Let’s say it doesn’t happen in September. What is the Fed thinking through and what mechanisms do they have to use, say, instead of a taper? Are there other things they can do aside from taper that will basically bring about the same intended outcome?
ASL: Well, I want to first of all, address what Albert said on China. I perfectly agree with the view on China right now. China is slowing massively. But I actually find it very interesting that the Federal Reserve is now even more behind the curve when it comes to its reaction function compared to earlier cycles, given that they want to see realized progress in labor markets and not forecasted progress.
And we know that labor markets, they lack the actual economic development. So it’s almost a given in my view, that we have a surge in employment over the coming couple of quarters as a consequence of what happened during the first half of the year. So that’s one thing.
And the second thing is that what we see right now in China is another wave of restrictions that will lead to renewed supply chains disruptions across the globe. And again, we will have a wave of supply side inflation, which is the exact kind of inflation that we are faced with right now. And given how the Fed communicated just three months back, you have to be amazed by how scared they are of the supply side inflation, even though it’s not the kind of inflation that they like.
So I still think that they will react to this, even though it’s supply side driven. What they have in sort of the toolbox ahead of September is obviously that they could hint that the interest rate path further out could be hiked. But otherwise, I think the most obvious tool is to look at the purchases of mortgages. Since we currently have a situation where most US consumers, they are very worried or even scared of buying a house. Timing wise right now, as a consequence of the rapid rise we’ve seen in the house prices. And I guess that’s directly linked to what the Fed is done on mortgages.
TN: Yeah. I can tell you just from my observation here in Texas where we have a lot of people moving in. House prices have taken a pause for probably the last two or three months where things even two, three months ago wouldn’t stay on the market for, like, three days. We’ve started to see things on the market for longer.
And so, I’m seeing what you’re saying, Andreas, about the housing market. And the question is, can that stuff pick up again, and is it justified? Albert, what’s your response to Andreas statement?
AM: The best comparison that we have is the 2013 economy to today’s economy. No one can sit there and argue that today’s economy is stronger than 2013. And look what Tapering Tantrum did to 2013 market. It was an absolute debacle. Yellen was so put off by Bernanke’s Tapering that she refused to do it in 2015. And in 2017, when they even mentioned it again, the market took a leg down. So, with that, right? And especially with Andres mentioning the word inflation, which is an absolute bad word to talk about in DC, tapering would have to have the Fed admit wrongdoing on sticking inflation.
When have we ever seen the US Federal Reserve ever take blame for something that’s negative in the markets? They just simply don’t do that. In fact, what I think they’re going to end up doing is allowing a market correction late into the fall and then unleash another $3 trillion of QE with Yellen and Powell to support the markets. So which would be completely opposite of tapering.
TN: Yeah, that’s interesting. You have completely opposite views. And what’s your view on the possibility of QE? I mean, is it possible?
ASL: Well, I don’t think Albert and I disagree a whole lot on the structural view or outlook, since that QE is a permanent instrument and it’s needed to fund the debt load of the US Treasury. There is no doubt about it. The point being here that the Federal Reserve needs a positive excuse to start tapering. I agree with that as well. And that exact positive excuse will be another couple of very strong labor market reports.
That’s exactly what they’ve been telling us. That they want to see between 800K and 1 million jobs created a month would be enough for them to launch a Tapering decision in September. Whether they will succeed with the entire tapering process is whole different question, but I’m looking for that decision in September. And then I guess Albert and I will agree a lot on the market takeaways if they take such a decision.
AM: Let me ask you a question Andreas. What would happen if the United States Congress refuses to deal with the debt ceiling and have no fiscal at that point? What would happen then?
ASL: Well, in such case, there is a whole lot of issues that you need to take care of as a Fed Reserve. So first of all, I’m not too scared of that scenario. I consider very low probability. I’m interested if you have another opinion.
AM: I personally don’t think it happens until at the very earliest November.
ASL: Yeah, but, I mean, obviously, every time there’s a debt ceiling deadline, we know that the true deadline is not the suspension deadline, its the deadline when the US Treasury is not able to run on fuels any longer, right? And that would be sometime during late October, there about I agree with you on that. So we basically have a window right now without a whole lot of issuance due to the debt ceiling being in place. And I actually think that’s a decent window for the Federal Reserve to utilize if they want to start tapering, since there is a smaller issuance for the private sector to swallow in such case.
TN: Interesting. Okay. What are you guys seeing on the corporate side? Are you seeing strength on the corporate side? I know we just had earnings season and they were very strong, but are you seeing a justifiably strong corporate position to start to taper?
AM: Right now, I really don’t. I mean, the University of Michigan Consumer Confidence had collapse. I think today, New York’s Manufacturer Index came in at 18.3, which was an astounding collapses in itself. You know, I personally deal with a couple of hedge funds, and they have been well behind the curve in returns right now.
I think the best ones are sub 10% for the year, so they’re gonna have to move back into cyclicals, and they’re gonna have to move back into small caps to make up the difference before the year end. Simply just even discussing that option, it makes tapering, you know, even less of a likely outcome just because it would ruin the market.
ASL: Obviously, if you go long small caps right now into a tapering scenario, you will end up losing. I agree with that. That would be kind of the worst. Yeah, exactly. But otherwise, I have to agree that the corporate sector is more doubtful, I would say, than the US Treasury in terms of a tapering decision. I’m much more scared of the corporate debt load than I am of the US Treasury debt load.
The State’s currency issue is they can always get rid of such a scenario. But the corporate sector is bigger trouble than the US Treasury into this scenario that I depict.
AM: Yeah. I completely agree with that one.
TN: Wow. We end on agreement. Guys. Thank you so much for this. Thanks so much for your time. I really look forward to it. Andreas, I look forward to having you back. Albert, of course, we look forward to having you back. Have a great week ahead, guys. Thank you very much.
And for all you guys watching. Thanks for taking the time. Please subscribe to our channel. And we’ll see you next time. Thanks very much.
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.
📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.
This QuickHit episode was recorded on 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?
Tony Nash joins BFM 89.9 and explained where markets are headed in the context of rumors that dovish Fed chief Jerome Powell might stay a second term, even as corporate earnings and cash-rich US tech giants might boost gains with share buybacks. He was also asked whether the US market is bullish right now — and what sectors should investors look at? Also discussed is the EU economy amidst the recent lockdowns.
❗️ Discover how Complete Intelligence can help your company be more profitable with AI and ML technologies. Book a demo here.
Show Notes
SM: BFM 89.9. You are listening to the Morning Run I’m Shazana Mokhtar together in studio with Wong Shou Ning and Khoo Hsu Chuang as we always do in the early morning, we recap how global markets ended the trading day.
WSN: Yes, it was an excellent day in the U.S. The Dow and S&P 500 were up zero point eight percent. Nasdaq was actually up 0.9%. Nikkei 0.6%. Shanghai is up 0.7%. Hong Kong was down 0.1%. Singapore is up 0.3%. And week Abkhasia were down 0.2%.
SM: OK, then to get some insight into where global markets are headed, we have on the line with us Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Good morning, Tony. Let’s start with the markets. They seem to be toggling between risk on and risk off. Which direction is it in? Is it a long bull or one that’s plateauing?
TN: It really all depends on the Fed. I think we expect to see things continue to rise through Q3. Well, they should continue to rise gradually. Doesn’t mean we won’t see volatility. We do expect to see further fallout. But by the end of the quarter, we expect things to continue to march higher, even through the volatility and some of the uncertainty. The Fed meeting in August in Jackson Hole really should give us a bit of clarity around what some of their future plans are. But beyond that, we do expect the Fed to be pretty calm and markets to proceed accordingly.
KHC: There’s some news, of course, unconfirmed at this point in time that Jerome Powell might seek a second term. What might that mean for markets and investors, given that he’s more of a dove than a hawk?
TN: I think it’s continuity, I think the White House has talked about other people to take that role, but I think keeping Powell right now is actually important for continuity because a really tricky situation. So I actually think I’m not a huge Powell fan, I’m not a huge detractor, but I actually think it would probably be a good idea to keep him in order to to reassure the markets with continuity.
WSN: Meanwhile, its results season. So far so good, except maybe for financials and Netflix. But we already see some strategists upgrading the S&P 500 year end targets. Do you think they’re a little bit too premature?
TN: No, I don’t think so. I think we’ll continue to march higher. We’ll have a few scares before the end of the year. But I think we will continue to march higher. The thing that I think is will be a little bit worrying for people toward the end of the year will be, you know, will the risk of keeping things in be enough? You know, will you get enough reward for keeping your money in the market?
Because I think things will get riskier the further way we go along in the year. All of this is assuming there isn’t more Covid aid and Fed stimulus and all this other stuff like increased rate of stimulus. But assuming everything is the same as it is now, we’ll hit toward the end of the kind of benefits of that stimulus toward the end of the year, at least the perceived benefits. And I think people really start to wonder whether the reward is there for them to to keep their money in the markets.
WSN: But, Tony, if I ask you to look into your crystal ball, what sectors do you think might surprise on the upside then?
TN: I think we’ll start to see things like travel and tourism do well. There are mumblings of efforts in the US that certain people want to close down parts of the economy. Again, we’ve seen California start to take some steps in that direction. But I just don’t think that anybody here wants things closed down again. Texas has said today that he will not reinstate a massive mandate in Texas.So Americans really want to get out. They want to travel. They want to see other parts of the country in the world. So I think we’ll see some things in tourism and travel do really well.
KHC: What you’ve just mentioned obviously reflects the economic fundamentals and a reflection in terms of those sectors. But JP Morgan, I think a couple of days ago talked about the S&P hitting 40, 600 points, is about 200 of the plus points from here on, and not because of the economy returning, but because of the share buybacks. What do you think about that particular development?
TN: Look, companies have a lot of spare cash and and how are they going to get EPS growth if they don’t buy back shares? The economy is awash with cash right now. If you’re the CFO for a publicly traded company and you have a lot of cash on the side, you really have to do that calculation to understand how is it going to hit your share price if you do buybacks. I think that’s definitely a part of the equation, at least of the end of the year, if not in the second half of ’22.
KHC: So names wise, who pop out obviously Berkshire with over 200 billion and Apple a notable cash hoarder’s, what are the names pop out to you.
TN: I can’t think of any right now to be honest, but I think it’s just a matter of looking at balance sheets and looking at who has that cash and then also, doing some research on the CFO and the board and look at their previous behavior. Some companies want to sit on cash or they want to say invest it. Others want to do share buybacks are typically technology companies do a lot of share buyback services. Companies do a lot of share buybacks. So I think those are the sectors that you would want to be looking at, banking, services, technology, those sorts of things.
SM: All right, Tony, let’s squeeze in one more question. Looking across the pond to Europe in 2020. Europe’s economy struggled with the pandemic. What’s your outlook on the E.U. this year, particularly in terms of an export led recovery?
TN: You’re getting a lot of pushback among EU citizens around lockdown’s, especially with the current variant that’s going through. And there’s a lot of discussion about the efficacy of the virus. And, you know, all this a lot of public health debate. But the problem of Europe has is well, on its on the plus side, China will likely keep the CNY strong into 2022, so that should help European exports. But when you look on the down side, Chinese PMI and consumer spending really haven’t been aggressive in recent months and we don’t really expect that to come roaring back in the next six months or 12 months.
So China is going to have some real pressure. Europe is going to have some real problems with goosing exports into China. I think the U.S. is fine and number two, export market for Europe. But I think there are some difficulties between the U.S. and Europe right now. And it may not necessarily outside of maybe automotive, it may not necessarily be a roaring market for Europe. So I think they have some serious headwinds and I think they’re going to struggle.
SM: All right, Dan, thank you so much, Tony. That was Tony Nash of complete intelligence, giving us his outlook for European exports and not looking particularly rosy at this point.
WSN: Yeah, but still very bullish on the U.S. markets. Right. He does suggest that S&P 500 might inches we up, but the risk of what may be the easy money has been made. So it’s not going to see some stellar jumps. But he likes tourism and travel. He thinks that Americans don’t stay home anymore.
KHC: No brainer. I mean, people have been stuck at home for 15 months, right? They want to go traveling.
WSN: But I don’t know if your infection cases rise. I mean, will you curb your own behavior? You might write especially I think in America, Delta is now 80, 80 percent of all the infections.
KHC: Don’t forget, America is the land of the free and the brave, the brave.
WSN: I like that word.
KHC: be the first of the Marcellus. And then, you know, Bob’s your Uncle Gene. I mean.
WSN: OK, well, we’ll watch this space, but I think its results season.
SM: That’s right. We’ve got a few results on our docket to look at this morning. Let’s start with Coca Cola’s. Coca Cola reported a second quarter revenue that surpassed twenty nineteen levels, prompting the company to hike its full year outlook. So Coke reported a net income of two point six billion dollars. That’s up forty six percent on year. Of course, there was a low base last year. Net sales rose forty two percent to ten point one dollars billion, topping expectations of nine point thirty two billion dollars.
WSN: Well, the. Good news is that the company said that the away from home channels, so like restaurants and movie theaters were actually rebounding in some markets like China and Nigeria. However, India and Southeast Asia were the only areas that did not see any sequential volume acceleration on a two year basis this quarter. Surprise, surprise, because I think India, particularly by covid-19 in Southeast Asia, was still in some form of lockdown, especially Malaysia. But all is doing segments reported double digit volume growth for the quarter.
Sparkling soft drinks units, including, of course, its namesake soda did particularly well.
KHC: I saw net sales rise by 42 percent. That is incredible. You know, this is a 245 billion dollar company, right, for net sales in one quarter. The rise with 40 percent. You know, I think lest we forget, a lot of people, they don’t care about diabetes. You know, they don’t care about high blood pressure.
WSN: No, but I think that’s why Coke is venturing into other drinks. So you do see high drinks. They do like growing five percent and even coffees significantly.
KHC: So there’s a developed market bias, which is obviously to grow more healthy. And there’s an emerging market base which is aspirational. Coca-Cola is aspirational. You cannot I mean, for people who have grown up on Cichon and warm water, right. They want to have Coke.
WSN: By the way, for those who are wondering what says is Chinese to eat.
KHC: Yeah, the chips drink you can find in a coffee shop.
I should know I’m from Penang.
WSN: But the street clearly loves it, right? I mean, when I’m looking at Bloomberg, the consensus price target is sixty U.S. dollars and twenty six cents. Current share price is fifty six dollars and fifty five cents. Still nineteen buys nine holes five times current earnings.
SM: Well when you think about it, this is probably super cash generative. So not surprising. It’s perfect. Right.
WSN: All right. I’m looking at another company that has its earnings out. Johnson and Johnson reported earnings and revenue that beat Wall Street’s expectations. Revenue rose up twenty seven percent to two point three billion U.S. dollars, beating the twenty two point two billion expectations.
Well, this is the pharmaceutical industry business, right? They developed the single shot covid-19 vaccine generating twelve point six billion in revenue, a seventeen percent year on year increase. Global sales just this quarter, 164 million. And I think that’s just just the beginnings of it, right?
KHC: Yeah. I mean, I recall a few weeks ago Pfizer talked about how they’ve seen they expect billions and billions of decades of billions of dollars in top line. And Pfizer’s it’s a very long tail. Pharmaceutical sales.
SM: There we go, 719 in the morning. Up next, we’re going to bring to you the major headlines in today’s papers and portals. Stay tuned. BFM eighty nine point nine.
The world’s birth rate is changing. Clint Laurent from Global Demographics shares surprising discoveries that he believes will happen in the next 10 years and how this will shape the world?
Clint started Global Demographics in 1996 and cover 117 countries throughout the world and China. They do that right down to county level of 2,248 counties. Clint believes that demographics are better than financial data from the point of view of forecasting because they tend to be stable trends.
Global Demographics is able to come up with reliable forecasts at least 15 years out. After 15 years, reliability goes down and they are typically never more plus or minus 5% error in our long-term forecast. Their clients are mainly consumer goods companies, infrastructure backbones and things like that.
📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.
This QuickHit episode was recorded on June 17, 2021.
The views and opinions expressed in this QuickHit Clint Demographics Part 2 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: So Indonesia, India, Brazil and so on, so capital formation, capital investment is the real weakness there and it seems to me that’s a function of largely education. Is that fair to say?
CL: That’s exactly what it is. I mean, they you know, as they get the education right and, you know, they’re working on it, most of these countries that have been quite responsible in that area. And as they get that right, so the investment comes in, so the consumer gets more affluent and becomes a virtuous circle.
TN: OK, well, what timescale are we talking about for that consumption to come in a really notable way, for example, to take the place of, say, the under 40 Chinese consumption or the under 40, say, Western Europe or American consumption?
CL: Well, that’s the bad news. I mean, when you take India at least 15 years to get there. Because the education is only just coming right. And again to pick on India. India’s urbanization, 10 years ago, it was 30% of the population. Today, it’s 33% of the population.
TN: OK. So it’s not happening nearly fast enough.
CL: No. When you’re an uneducated girl in a village, why would you go to a slum somewhere of a big city? Your lifestyle would be actually worse, not better. And so they hadn’t been able to get that China effect of moving people from the low productivity agriculture into high productivity urban type of work.
TN: Yeah, but I think a lot of the, particularly the Westerners who are watching this would say, yeah, but I’ve been to Gurgaon and I’ve, you know, I’ve been to that kind of tech hubs in India. And I see, you know, a lot of women coming up in those hubs or have come up in those hubs over the last 10 or 20 years. But is not just such a small percentage that it matters, but it’s not making a huge difference?
CL: Exactly. It’s a small percentage. I mean, remember India is just behind China in terms of total population now. And by 2045, there’s 1.5 billion people. Because they’ve got the birthrate right under control as well. It’s dropping. But again, they’ve got an inertia of more women of childbearing age coming through. So total births keep going up. So they’ve got this problem of just too many people looking for jobs, which keeps the wage rates down. And that. And that’s what’s frustrating the education system, too, is they have to keep growing the number of school places to stand still, let alone expand. But they’re getting that right. So I don’t want to sound negative about that. All these countries are doing quite nicely on that, some positive.
And so but one important point to make is the demographic dividend hasn’t been collected. There’s was a lot of talk about India having a demographic dividend because there are always young people entering working age. But the trouble is they weren’t well enough educated, so they didn’t find jobs. In 2010, the propensity of a working age person to be in work was 58%. It’s now 50%. In other words, they couldn’t find the jobs for these people, so the dividend never paid off.
TN: OK, so jobs lead to consumption, of course.
CL: That’s right.
TN: But I guess. So it’s going to take these countries 10 to 15 years or more to get the quality of jobs that are needed.
CL: Yeah.
TN: So, you know, that growth that we’ve lazily relied on, say, China for the last 10 or 20 or 20 to 30 years, is there a gap between now and 10 to 15 years from now in terms of the rate of growth for, say, consumer goods and say, economic kind of new market entry, that sort of thing?
CL: Yeah, well, this is the crisis that’s coming. Because if we take, again, the kind of what I call the family stage countries, India, Brazil, etc, they actually need around about 250 million extra jobs in the next 25 years to get, to maintain their existing level of employment. Not lift it. Just maintain it. And that gives them a reasonable level of income. Not great, but hopefully with education situation, the earnings go up.
But let me put another layer on the cake, so to speak. This is fourth group of countries, which I call young and poor. I call them young because the median age of all of the countries in this group is 20 and some of them have a median age of 14. Mali and Niger, they both have a median age of 14.
That means half the population in those countries is under the age of 14 today. Yeah, and their birth rates are high. The average birth rate, an unweighted across these countries is 130 per thousand women. Most countries are at 40 elsewhere in the world. And the number of women of childbearing age, of course, are going up dramatically because of that as well. So even though the birthrate is starting to come down, it goes up dramatically. And it has a seismic effect.
First of all, is roughly a billion people in this part of the world at the moment. In 25 years time, there’s two billion of these people. In other words, in twenty five years, they add a billion people to their populations. And if I can just go on and to take Nigeria, for example, at the moment, has 45 million school age children, irrespective whether they are going to school, most of them are not. 45 million. It’s 90 million in 25 years time. Just to stand still on education, they have to double their education budget. And so, little own issues need improving.
TN: OK, so governments take, need tax revenue to grow their budgets. So will there will there be the incomes to allow them to grow those budgets just to keep up with where they are? And further, will they be able to accelerate the job growth to make sure they have those incomes, to keep their education, to improve their education like, say, India or Indonesia is doing well?
CL: Well, this is the crisis that’s coming because the answer simply is no. And it’s no for the simple reason that up until now, this is really what I was saying we were at a cusp. Up until now, the growth in consumption by the older affluent or the older countries generally, which includes China, has been such that it’s kept relatively full employment throughout the world.
There’s been enough jobs for those who are looking for jobs. And that doesn’t sound a bit. But even the young, poor countries have been trotting along at about 55% of working age people employed, which seems to work out quite well. But suddenly that whole relationship changes. As I said, the countries that account for, well, the old affluent account for 63% of global consumption. The other old add another 14% say up to 77% or 80%, chuck in a bit of India, 80%, which is also flattening out. So the countries account for 80% of the money that’s spent by households now flatten out in growth in their demand.
Layer on top of that, there’s a continuous increase in productivity per worker. The amount of number of workers needed to meet the new additional demand over the next 25 years is 300 million. And as I told you earlier, this 740 million people that are going to be looking for an extra job.
It’s going to be roughly 400 million people, mainly in the poor countries, are in a little bit in need, family stage countries, who are at working age, would like to have a job, but can’t get a job. That’s 400 million.
TN: That’s astounding. OK, so that’s as big as, say, the EU, right?
CL: Yeah, well, bigger.
TN: So if everyone in the EU didn’t have a job but they wanted a job. Man, woman and child couldn’t get a job.
CL: That’s right.
TN: So that’s terrible. So what do you think those people will do? What do you think some of the effects will be of this? First of all, where is this, kind of generally, geographically? Is this the kind of Bangladesh, Nigeria, kind of those types of countries?
CL: It’s based of the African continent and what we call South India, but not including India or Sri Lanka, which will be in Tibet, out there.
TN: So Bangladesh, Pakistan, Central Asia generally.
CL: And there’s a few small countries, obviously, in South America or Central America that are falling into this category as well. So it’s reasonably concentrated geographically. And it’s a real worry. And I think of myself. If I was turning, well, let’s say 20 and I cannot get a job. I’m scrambling for food. I’m scrambling for water, in some places in the world. What do I do? I’ve got nothing to lose. And that’s what something dramatic, I would rot and just die miserable, which is terrible.
So I think the world has a fairly major migration problem coming. These people are going to walk north. I would. So I don’t blame them. But it’s a desperate situation. So much so that in my own mind, it’s all very well to donate money to buy mosquito nets and things like that. I actually think would be better to donate money for a TV and an Internet connection so we could educate the kids. Because we could deliver education quite cheaply using modern technology. And if you could educate them, then they could do more productive things and then and so on and so on. You get the part of that. But there’s no easy solution to this one.
These people are largely alive today, will be alive in the next 10 years. And the consumption trends, well, they’re there too. The people with the money are getting older and saving. So the drawbridges are coming up. So this is.
TN: So migration. The migration issues we’ve seen over the last, say, 5 to 10 years sounds to me that they only intensify over the next, say, 15 to 20 years.
CL: Oh, incredibly so.
TN: And Europe is really the focal point. Yes. The US has some issues and maybe India, China have some issues. But it really seems to me that Europe is the major focal point there.
CL: But it’s the easy one to get to.
TN: Sure. Yeah.
CL: But there’s some other dimensions of migration, too, which is starting to come under stress. And I mean, for example, let’s take the U.K. It has one nurse for every 440 people in the population. So if you get sick, your access to a nurse is pretty good. But the UK hires nurses who have been trained and educated in the Philippines where there’s one nurse for every 4000 people in the population. Is that morally correct? Should affluent countries take skilled workers, from developing countries?
TN: But can you blame that worker for wanting to go to UK?
CL: Not at all. If I was the nurse, I’d be on the plane. I mean, basically, you’ve got the individual motivation and you’ve got the moral issue, and you’ve got the need. And then even if you take a country like Greece, which everyone says, oh, that’s nice and comfortable.
Greece’s population has dropped by one million people in the last 10 years. And that one million that are gone are skilled workers who got on a train and went north to Germany because under the EU, they can move.
TN: What percentage of the population is that? One?
CL: About 10%.
TN: 10% of the population?
CL: Well, you know, it’s a big drop. And again, you don’t blame the skilled plumber or electrician or whatever because he or she can earn 2 to 3 times as much going to Germany or getting across to Britain, which they could do perfectly legally. And then in 5 years time, the wife is with them, the kids are going to school, that kids speak German now, they never go back.
TN: So does this change, does this, you know, let’s say the education deficit issues and the jobs deficit issues in Africa, does it change immigration policy in Europe, for example, in the way Australia has the checklist of skills and those sorts of things to to migrate?
Does Europe come more to that type of migration policy to where they incentivize people, let’s say, in parts of Africa before coming, meaning get educated, you know, these sorts of things. And you can definitely come in. I mean, it certainly sounds like something that would be really helpful for places like Greece.
CL: Yeah, but not too helpful for places like Nigeria.
TN: Right.
CL: They’re losing the skilled worker. And the ability to lift the Nigerian economy is going to be a function of having skilled people. And if Greece takes them, that’s actually not that great. Right. So, yeah, you sort of resolve the great problem, but you don’t resolve the core problem, which is the change so to speak. Yeah. So it’s interesting because Greece, with its drop in population, its household values are dropping because the number of households is going down. And that’s the core asset of many households. So it’s trying to create some economic problems as well because the asset they could borrow against is going down in value, not going up in value. But that’s not just Greece. It’s Italy, Spain. It’s Romania, it’s Poland. And that being, you know, some of the talents are being sucked out. And that’s not good.
TN: So in sum, let me try to sum this up, because this has been a great conversation and it’s really opened up a lot of things I haven’t really thought about before. So so global consumption generally for, let’s say, the next 10 years or so is relatively stable.
We won’t see the rapid expansion that we saw in places like China over the last 10 or 20 years. So let’s say the pull on commodities right now, the inflation we’re seeing, the, you know, this sort of thing, that stuff really tamps down pretty quickly and really stabilizes for maybe a decade or so.
CL: Exactly.
TN: Once that stabilizes, then we see real disparities as these kind of young, poor countries explode in population. But the wealthy countries are pretty stable and continue to be pretty rich. Right. So we kind of have a status quo for the next decade or so. But then after that, there’s a real danger that emerges from global disparity.
CL: That’s right. You start to have a major, what I’d call a population crisis.
TN: Wow. OK. It’s a little bit dire. But this is great. Before we go, can you talk about, I know you have a couple of books coming out. Can you tell us what they’re about? I know they’re a little bit from coming to press, but I think it would be really helpful for people to understand what you’re writing about.
CL: Right. Well, one of the two books is basically called 2045: The Growing Demographic Crisis. And it’s pretty much along the lines that I’ve just discussed, the difference is, all the data is there. And you’ve got the data, if you like, at the segment level, which also go to by country level. And you can see how the numbers play out. It’s not something that we’re making these numbers up. They’re actually there. They’re pretty solid. And the core source, of course, is the World Bank and the United Nations that you can’t really argue with that. And it’s all old numbers behind what I’ve just discussed.
And the second book coming out is called China: 2040. Similar sort of theme. And what I have done that is China is going through a lot of changes that I’ve explained and China will continue to be important economically and politically for the next 10 years at least, if not longer. We know that.
So it’s actually quite important that people have a better understanding of what China is like demographically. And it’s not one country, it’s at least thirty one countries. The differences in consumption within that, it’s quite diversified.
This book is, if you like, the primer for someone that’s either doing business, thinking of doing business, investing in, whatever, into China. If you haven’t read it and you don’t know China, then you’d be dealing somewhat riskilly. If you read this, it’ll help you focus where the opportunities potentially are. Thanks for the opportunity to mention.
TN: Of course. Thank you so much for your time. You’ve been very generous and I think we’ve taken it a lot. I think of it to watch this two or three times before I kind of fully take it in. So I really appreciate it.
Further watching, please. We’d really appreciate if you’d like the video. We’d love it if you’d subscribe to our YouTube channel. And we’ll see you next time. Thank. Thanks very much.
Our guest is Clint Laurent from Global Demographics, an amazing demographer, businessman and observer of global trends long before they really take hold. He shares surprising observations that he believes will happen in the next 5 to 10 years.
Clint started Global Demographics in 1996 and cover 117 countries throughout the world and China. They do that right down to county level of 2,248 counties. Clint believes that demographics are better than financial data from the point of view of forecasting because they tend to be stable trends.
Global Demographics is able to come up with reliable forecasts at least 15 years out. After 15 years, reliability goes down and they are typically never more plus or minus 5% error in our long-term forecast. Their clients are mainly consumer goods companies, infrastructure backbones and things like that.
📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.
This QuickHit episode was recorded on June 17, 2021.
The views and opinions expressed in this QuickHit Clint Demographics 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: Over the last year or so, we’ve seen the pandemic. We’re now having this bullwhip effect with inflation and other things. But I guess this capping off in the last 20 years where we’ve seen China as the global growth market and the marginal consumer for almost everything. And it’s really forced me to think what’s next. You and I published a piece about a year and a half ago around China’s population topping out around 2023, 2024. And so I’m really curious, what do you see happening in the next 5 to 10 years that will really come as a surprise to people? What are some of your observations over the next decade?
CL: The world is actually as bizarrely almost on a bit of a cusp at the moment. The pandemic is almost irrelevant to what was going to happen. I mean, I know the pandemic caused a lot of economic disturbance, obviously affected some people’s lives quite significantly. But really, there was a lot of change that was about to start to happen anyhow, irrespective of whether or not the pandemic came along.
From a demographic point of view, the pandemic is not really very relevant. I’m currently based in the UK and the people who have unfortunately died from it, most of them would have died in the next two years anyhow because they had severe underlying health situations. And so, its effect on death rates has actually been very, very marginal.
Secondly, most deaths being over the age of 60, that means it doesn’t affect the labor force, it doesn’t affect the propensity to have children. So really, it will be a horrible little blip in the history of mankind. And hopefully we move on from it and the vaccines keep working. And so a little bit of hope there. But that aside, it was going to be a big change.
And if I can explain the change in the following ways.
Up to now, the world has perhaps been a little bit lucky in the sense to be, first of all, had what I call the Older-Affluent countries, and that’s Western Europe, North America and what I call affluent Asia — Japan, Taiwan, Australia. All of those countries, which are actually only 14% of the world’s population, account for a very significant proportion of the global consumption. As you know, it grew quite rapidly, which was really quite good. And that is really the first big change is going to come into effect.
What’s already started to happen is people. The only growth in these countries is people over the age of 40. Every age group below that is in absolute decline. So even if they’re going up in affluence, the young affluent market is no longer a growth market. It’s more or less stable. Even if you add in increased incomes, which still occur, but at a slower rate. So you’re now looking at a 40+ age group, and in some countries, obviously, Japan is one, it’s 60+ that are the age group that’s growing.
So all of those societies, to some extent, are in a lot of trouble. They’re flattening out. They’ve moved from a pyramid population to a square, and that’s actually very good.
A lot of people say you should have a pyramid population with young people coming through and looking after the old. That’s actually the poverty trap. Because if young people come through, the dependance, first of all, will keep driving the society down. With a square, then the same number of people need education each year, the same number of people need health care each year. The capacity is there and it’s an improvement of quality rather than an increase of quantity.
TN: So you’re saying with these wealthy developed nations, Japan is an extreme example, consumption isn’t really the worry. It’s the growth that’s falling off. So the consumption is stable. It’s just not growing.
CL: Exactly. There’s one other big change to appreciate is what people say because they’re getting old, they’re going to run out of labor force. And here’s a statistic for you: In Japan, 25% of males, 70 to 74 are still in full-time employment. And you’re saying, “yeah, well, that’s Japan. It’s different everywhere else in the world.” You know, it’s exactly the same statistic in the United States.
The aged worker is a new phenomenon. In fact, the age worker is the fastest growing demographic. So these countries actually are not running out of workers. And the assumption that we all go decrepit and work after age 64 is just wrong. I am over 65, as you can probably guess. I don’t have a single friend who’s not in full-time employment at this point in time, enjoying it. It raises lots of issues.
So the labor force keeps going in these countries as well. So they don’t even need migrant workers to sustain these countries. So they are nice, comfortable niche. Growing steadily, not phenomenally. You’re talking about 1%, less than 1% growth in total consumer spending. Households are getting a little more affluent. Number of households is flattened out, which would have implications for the housing market. But it’s not going down, so it’s actually not too bad.
TN: So you say GDP is pretty stable, but what’s happening to GDP per capita in those countries? Does it continue to grow?
CL: It does, but just at a much slower rate. You’re talking 1% or even less than 1%, but it’s positive. And do remember, 1% of a hundred thousand US dollars is more money than the total income of households at the other end of the spectrum. Much of their spending power is quite significant. But a really important point to keep in your mind right now is that consumption expenditure will start to level out. It won’t hit that high growth rate anymore. It drops back to about 1% or even slightly lower.
Then the other big change you’ve got is what I call the next group of countries, which is older but not so affluent. And that obviously includes China. Now, let’s just put China to one side for the moment and look at the other countries in that group. You’re talking about Russia and the Eastern European countries. All of which have huge potential because like the previous group that I just talked about, they score really well on education.
And countries that score well on education, with the right capital investment, can lift the productivity. The countries that have weak education, it doesn’t matter how much capital you throw into them, they don’t lift their productivity. And there’s plenty of statistics to prove that. So these countries actually have a resource. I mean, Latvia, Romania. It doesn’t really matter. And that actually got the one thing that’s really hard to do. Good education.
Why is it hard to do? India has been really bad on education up to now. It finally has universal education. Every kid, 5 to 12 is now supposed to be in school. But it takes another 10 years before some of those kids come out of school and get into work. And it takes another 10 years before the workforce has become sufficiently skilled that the capital investment comes and lifts the productivity.
So these Eastern European countries and Russia are actually interesting from the QuickHit point of view. They start getting the fixed capital investment right, got the education right. They could actually be the next growth area. Only warning to you is they also are relatively old. So it’s a growth area of 40 pluses and 60 pluses. That is going to happen because they’re under earning at the moment. They can lift their incomes, obviously, buy bit of car, bit of clothing, all of those sort of things. But it’s a growth area of an older population, not a young population.
TN: And it’s something that nobody’s watching, Clint. Like, I don’t think anybody is really looking for that even as a possibility. A lot of people have written Russia off, see it as a petro state or whatever, and central and Eastern Europe is kind of just kind of a no man’s land in many cases. So some manufacturing there. There’s some services there in terms of globalization. But I don’t think there’s a lot of expectation to see rapid growth there and high productivity there. So I think that’s a really interesting question mark that most people aren’t even thinking about.
CL: That’s right. And if you go into these countries physically, you start to see some of the big brands starting to look at them. And you come across someone from XYZ Corporation there. We just have a little look. So some people are starting to see that it’s there. It’s just as you say, it’s not visible yet.
Let’s switch to China briefly. China slightly different and also very similar. First of all, remember 1989, China introduced the one child policy. That came under a huge amount of criticism. But ignoring how you feel about that, is one very simple thing it achieved. It levelled off the number of young kids needed to be educated. And subsequently started, it was 1979, they introduced. Such that by 1984, when they introduced compulsory education for all six to 12 year olds, they were talking of a relatively stable number of kids. So they could focus on the quality of education. And so every kid’s been going to school in such when you go to the year 2000, you’ve got this population still living in the rural areas. But who could read, write and do sums and all of those sort of things. Could get on their bike, go into town and get a job in a factory or an office or whatever.
And the differential between an urban worker and rural worker in China is 3.6. And that’s actually how China drove its growth and its productivity per worker and its influence. What it did is, it said, take all these people who are nice people, but not well-educated, not earning very much money, educate them, put them into job, let them earn lots of money, and have a good lifestyle. And that drove up the productivity and the whole success story of China.
TN: So urbanization and wage arbitrage, productivity gain for China. But is that running out in the next ten years or does that continue over that period?
CL: We’ve got it going through actually. It’s 20 million a year at the moment, which is a phenomenal number. That’s Australia, every year. It’s 20 million at the moment. We have it dropping down to about 11 million by 2040 because it’s still a lot of people moving there.
Now, this is the other big trick. Because some people have been saying, China’s population’s leveling out. And, you know, we thought it was 2023, where even the Chinese government agrees with us. Now, it’s 2023, and it’s leveling out. The working age population is starting to shrink. Oh, dear. That can have a decline in the workforce. No. They’re having a decline in the rural workforce. The rural workforce have in the next 20 years.
The urban workforce keeps growing for the next 10 years to 2030. The number of people working in urban jobs, which are highly productive, keeps going up. So for the next 10 years, China’s GDP growth still chugs along reasonably well. After 2030, the growth rate drops away and we have it down to about 1.3% by 2045, because it just isn’t the extra workers to keep growing the total GDP. So that’s the story there.
But again, coming back to the consumption side, China in the last 10 years in the urban area had this huge group of people, 220 million of them urban, aged 40 to 64 years of age, educated, earning quite good money by turning a stand and spending money on holidays and trips and things like that. And between 2010 and 2020, that went up to 100 million people. Think about it, a 100 million extra people with disposable income. It was no surprise that the retail side of China took off and tourism and all of that. It was those people. They’ve got a house. They’ve got a fridge, they’ve got a refrigerator. Let’s have some fun. That’s really what’s happening right now.
Now, the bad news is that now it flattens out. Every age group under 40 in China is already declining and will continue to decline in size. So don’t go after the kid market in China except on the wealthy and those sort of areas for education. The 40 to 64 age, what I call the working age optimist, it grows for a little bit, and then it flattens out. And it’s named the 65 plus, which in China is not like the other countries. The 65 plus at the moment doesn’t have great health, doesn’t have a great life expectancy. You get some extension of the workforce, but not a lot.
So China’s consumption is healthy as well. It’ll chugging along quite nicely. And to digress slightly, but I think we need to recover quickly here. The one child policy, it’s moved to three now. That’s totally and absolutely irrelevant.
TN: Yeah, it doesn’t seem like it’s going to do much. They’re too rich to want to have more kids, right?
CL: Exactly. And actually, it’s the birth rate that’s not the important point. It’s the number of women of childbearing age. And that goes down by a third. It drops 330 million now to about 220 million in 20 years time. And the birth rate can’t give up fast enough to compensate there. So births in 2019 are 14 million. It dropped to 10 million last year because of the pandemic, waiting to come back up a bit about to 14. It’ll be down to 11 million by 2030. And they can’t change that even with the three child policy. That won’t change.
TN: It’s not the three child policy, it’s the fact that there are not enough women to have babies. And those women are wealthy enough that they don’t want to have three kids.
CL: That’s really basically it. Just look at Singapore. They tried everything to get the birth rate up.
TN: I was there. They were paying people to have babies and it still didn’t work.
CL: Even send them on cruises. I mean, I volunteered.
And then you have, so that’s the second group. And the key point by the first group is nice and stable now, chugging along nicely, but no longer super growth in consumption. Nice growth in consumption is how I call it.
The third group, what we call the family stage. And that’s obviously dominated by India, Brazil, Indonesia all there. The bulk of populations is in that 25 through to 39, having children, at work, that sort of stage. So the working age population is still growing a bit, but not a lot. Education’s improving. It varies quite a lot across this group. India is at the weaker end. Indonesia is probably one of the better ends.
So, you’ve got a bit of a dichotomy there. But they’re generally in a position to be able to attract capital and generally in a position to be lifting their total consumption, but not dramatically. We’re still talking of relatively low incomes under 10 thousand USD for the average family per annum. So the growth is there.
TN: So Indonesia, India, Brazil and so on, the capital formation, capital investment is the real weakness there. And it seems to me that’s a function of, largely, education. Is that fair to say?
CL: That’s exactly what it is. As they get the education right and they’re working on it, most of these countries have been quite responsible in that area. And as they get that right, so the investment comes in, so the consumer gets more affluent and becomes a virtuous circle.
TN: And what time scale are we talking about for that consumption to come in a really notable way to take the place of the under 40 Chinese consumption or the under 40 Western Europe or American consumption?
As US and other markets decouple in terms of recovery trajectories, should investors adjust their portfolio? BFM spoke to Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, on the major selldown of cryptocurrencies, as well as his thoughts on oil, gold, and inflation.
❗️ Discover how Complete Intelligence can help your company be more profitable with AI and ML technologies. Book a demo here.
Show Notes
RK: Well, choppy waters, to say the least. There is a little bit of a mixed day yesterday over in Asia. But right now, to talk more about global markets, we have Tony Nash CEO for Complete Intelligence for more insights here. Tony, good morning and thank you for joining us on the line. Now, it looks like the U.S. and other markets are beginning to decouple in terms of recovery trajectories. How do you think investors should allocate their portfolios according to this scenario?
TN: Well, obviously depends on the time, but I think that some action was taken yesterday in the U.S. around Fed comments as people were trying to decipher whether those comments were positive or negative. And today, I think they realized they were actually fairly dovish comments. So the U.S. is positioning itself to grow and other parts of the world say Europe and parts of Asia are still very conservative about opening until, you know, I think with the places that are being fairly conservative about opening, it really depends on investment, really depends on government assistance, monetary policy, you know, these sorts of things.
So investing in those markets depends on support that those companies are going to get and how how those investments will perform.
LM: Yeah, I’m just wondering, there has been increasing fears about inflation. Is that influencing or changing your views right now?
TN: Well, so, you know, we’re realizing that things like like lumber prices, which a lot of people talk about, that’s been a processing issue in sawmills. There’s a lot of raw lumber out there. Those prices in many cases are the same as they were like, say, 10 years ago. OK, it’s the process into their bottom and making issues in a number of other areas. One area that we’re keeping an eye on is crude oil, which I know is important later, of course.
And we’re not we don’t expect a dramatic rise in crude oil prices, partly because I still have six million barrels a day on the sidelines right now. So even if we saw a dramatic uptick in travel and other activity, power generation and so on, there’s spare capacity on the sidelines for a lot of countries to be holding down. So we don’t expect to see and short of having production cuts, we don’t expect to see dramatic oil price rises because that that supply will come on the market as needed.
RK: Right. And beyond crude, Tony, do you know crude oil in general is quite correlated to inflationary pressures and prices, but beyond crude oil, are you paying attention to any other commodities out there? Because, you know, we’re seeing a surge in all of them. Which ones particularly catch your eye?
TN: For industrial metals are the ones that have really rallied from, say, November or December through this month? What we expect is not pricing to continue to stay strong, but the rate of rise will will slow down.
OK, so we’ll continue, for example, to see high copper prices, but we don’t expect copper prices to rise at the same rate as they had been for the past five or six months. We see that across the board in a lot of commodities where we have seen really dramatic rises based on, you know, government spending, monetary policy and also uncertainty about the direction of the dollar when these things are positioned in or denominated in U.S. dollars. We’ve also seen over that same time, because it’s so going that in China we saw the Chinese renminbi appreciate pretty dramatically, which made the dollar denominated commodities really cheap.
And so there’s been accumulation of those commodities in China, whether it’s food or whether it’s industrial or metals. And we’ve seen that stuff accumulated in China because these things are really kind of pretty cheap for them in China in terms.
RK: And one more commodities. Want to get your views on here, Tony, is gold because it’s seen some strengthening over the last few weeks. In fact, you know, it was more towards the high single digits. Now it’s at the one percent range. Do you expect it to break into the green? And what kind of range do you expect for the year?
TN: You know, we do expect gold to continue to rise at least through August, August, September. We think that there’s kind of a sweet spot and people take a pause on, say, cryptocurrency. And as people look at some of these other metals and other commodities where the growth opportunity has slowed, we do expect attention to gold as well as kind of other inflation and currency risk type of focus will turn to gold as well. We expect there to rise through those then kind of a pause late Q3 and then we expect that to continue toward the end of the year.
So we’re not looking at a doubling of prices or looking at a know, low double digit type of price rises in.
LM: And Tony, twenty twenty one was supposed to be a bumper year for U.S. IPOs. Is it still buoyant or has sentiment turned more south?
TN: No, no, even seems like like Robin Hood starting to offer fractional IPO shares on their platform. So where IPO are typically restricted to a select few? We’re starting to see some things happen where where smaller investors are given opportunities in some of these IPO. So we do expect that to continue as long as investors are there to invest in IPO. And we don’t necessarily expect that that will taper off dramatically. We may see some hesitation if we see markets turn south in June, July, but we won’t necessarily see a dramatic taper off to the end of the year.
NL: So we have seen the major sell down of crypto currencies. How is the volatility affecting crypto companies like Coinbase and market confidence to gain legitimacy with institutional investors?
TN: Yeah, no doubt it’s hurting their credibility because cryptocurrency has kind of become a bit of a mockery over the past week or so, we assume on tweets and a number of other things. But I don’t necessarily believe that crypto currencies are a thing of the past. They haven’t been retired yet, but we do expect to see cryptocurrency is more regulation, more explicit regulation and kind of soft infrastructure around cryptocurrency like Coinbase that goes along with it. They’ll have the infrastructure to be able to help in that crypto investors who along with regulation and do just fine.
TN: So I don’t think crypto her dad the new not necessarily realize that they thought they may, but but I do think it’s still something that’s viable within the broad based interests.
RK: Thank you so much for your time this morning. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. And let’s take a quick look over at the coin prices right now. Bitcoin thing, a little bit of a recovery. It’s up two point six per cent now, forty one thousand dollars and on a year to date basis, up to forty one point six percent year to date, still far off from the 100 percent or 90 percent year to date gains we saw earlier this this year.
We take a look at Etha. It is now two thousand seven hundred and seventeen dollars, or seventy two thousand two hundred eighty dollars a coin up a little bit, point four percent year to date, up 275 percent.
NL: Yeah, very quickly as well. Taking a look at a piece of news, the first quarter of 2021 doesn’t appear to be working out in a week’s favor. According to the F.T., Quarterly losses almost quadrupled on year to over two billion dollars.
RK: We work not working. Yeah, that’s a headline in the making right there. The losses incurred as so far this year, three point two billion dollars in 2020. Revenue fell almost 50 percent on year from one point one billion to six hundred million dollars. And the company lost around 200000 customers from a year ago. And this, of course, all information, according to the Financial Times, because this is not a public listed company just yet. In fact, they’re looking to try and go public again later this year after their first failed attempt a year to be eighty nine point nine.
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.
📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.
This QuickHit episode was recorded on 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?
The IMF has upgraded its GDP forecasts for developed economies but what is the outlook like for developing economies in South-East Asia? The Morning Run asks Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. They also get into insights from the earnings out of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, as well as how traditional automakers will have to adapt in light of the EV boom.
🎯 Discover how Complete Intelligence can help your company be more profitable with AI and ML technologies. Book a demo here.
Show Notes
LM: The IMF has upgraded its GDP forecasts for developed economies, but what is the outlook like for developing economies in South East Asia?
TN: It’s actually not bad to look at this IMF report. We had such a pullback in economies in 2020 that we really have to look at the growth rates in 2019, 2020, and 2021. To understand it in context, Southeast Asia looks to be doing pretty well when we average those three years out. There’s growth in just about every country except Thailand, now with a slight pullback over that time. And so what that means is Thailand will not necessarily back up to the 2019 levels unfortunately, but Malaysia is 1.7%. In Asia, 2.4%. Singapore, 0.38%. So Southeast Asia is growing. Europe, on the other hand, there is only one country that shows growth over that period, which is the Netherlands within the Eurozone. So Europe has a bit of a problem. The US continues to grow, though around 1%.
NL: Meanwhile, is the sharp rise in March, U.S. CPI prices compared to February a good sign or something to be concerned about?
TN: We didn’t see long term inflation effects and a lot of kind of buzz about long term inflation affects or medium term inflation affects in the US. But our view is that this is two factors. One is the base effect, meaning we saw so much disinflation or deflation in 2020 that we’re seeing a base effect on that. The other one is supply constraint. So we’re seeing hold back in supply chains or we’re seeing supply chains catch up from closure.
There is a constrained supply which is driving up prices as supply chains continue to equalize and balance out. We should see those prices return to normal. If we go back to the IMF forecast, we don’t necessarily see rousing growth for 2021 compared to, say, 2019. So we have the manufacturing capacity in place. So I don’t necessarily see demand outstripping supply to create the inflation that many people are talking about.
NL: When do you expect the situation will normalize?
TN: It really all depends on when countries open up and and that sort of thing. I would do three of twenty one is when we start to see things more normal, I think it’ll work out in between now and then. Of course, currency dynamics have a lot to do with that, but we’ll have to see what happens with the dollar with CNY and the euro to really understand how that will shake out. But we think we’ll see normalization in Q3.
RK: The big Wall Street banks have kicked off earnings season with numbers from JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. They beat estimates, but are these numbers sustainable or just a one off blip following a what was really a tough year?
TN: They both did really well in terms of return on equity. And that’s really one of the major requirements for banks. The real question is around loan. So we saw a spike in loans in the middle of 2020 in the US, largely on the back of small business loans and very low interest rates and government programs to push loans out. Loans are down in Q1 of ’21. There is an expectation that loans will perk up again in the second half of ’21. I’m not quite convinced we’ll see the loan growth that was talked about today with JP Morgan’s call. I think we’ll see loan growth in the second half of ’21, but I’m not necessarily sure that we’ll see the spike that we discussed on the call.
LM: So Tony, Legacy Cockburn’s and IT companies are both rushing into the electrical electric vehicle space out of these two, who’s likely to come out in front?
TN: I think it’s a combination. Car brands make really good hardware, but they’re really not great software makers. So I think there’s going to be a combination of the car brands relying on battery makers and relying on software to make great electric vehicles. There are a lot fewer parts in EVs. And so these supply chains that the car manufacturers had to have for internal combustion engines change pretty dramatically for EVs. They’re going to have to rely on battery makers and software makers.
I think the real question for the auto manufacturers is what is that business model going forward? I think they may learn from software makers with the recurring revenue model. So we may take a car and pay a monthly charge for that car, almost like combining finance and the car itself. So carmakers have a recurring revenue model with regular upgrades similar to the way maybe some mobile phone carriers operate, those sorts of things. I think it’s a stretch to have the one time payment. I think carmakers see that finance revenue go to other people and they may want to do that themselves with EV.
RK: Out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on what will define whether a legacy car brand is going to succeed in the new car world? Because a lot of them have been hesitant to move. They’re going to have to make partnerships with the battery mate because they’re going to have to make partnerships with software makers is going to be the two defining parts who they’re putting on the battery and the software name.
TN: Yeah, I think it depends on, you know, the first mover is not necessarily the winner. So I think Tesla ultimately, they’re a great company. They make fine cars like every car company. They have problems. But I think they’re fine. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to be the winner. I think with Volkswagen announcing, you know, big moves in the market a couple of weeks ago, say if Toyota really I mean, of course, they’re going after it already. But if there are real moves in that direction, I think the very, very large scale carmakers will ultimately win.
A lot of this has to do with regulatory and subsidy regimes within the consumption countries. So it is more expensive to buy an electric car. There is not the infrastructure necessarily to have electric cars to drive long distances. So the subsidies that national governments put out to push that market forward are going to have a major impact on the adoption of those cars.
The real danger, I think, is it’s going to take a long time to rollout that infrastructure and other things. So the real danger for the guys who invest in EVs in a big way is a different type of technological change that could come around. I don’t know what that could be. It could be a more efficient internal combustion engine. It could be, you know, I don’t know, a different type of fuel or something that’s a lot cheaper and a lot easier to use.
So there are a lot of question marks around the rise of EVs. I don’t necessarily think that it’s guaranteed that EVs will take over and the big car companies are going to go on a percent to electric vehicles.
RK: The large scale makers like Volkswagen, Toyota, they’ve got they’ve got essentially a conglomerate of other brands within them. Do you expect to see more consolidation, especially as this? Because the car industry hasn’t been doing well that great over the last few years and we’ve seen more M&A. We should we expect more consolidation, especially after last year?
TN: I don’t know how much more there is to consolidate. I think it may get specialized boutique. When you have technology changes in an industry, you always have specialized boutique companies that come around. We saw this in mobile phones, say, 10 or 15 years ago, and those ended up being purchased. So I think we’ll have an era where we’ll have even more TV companies, small ones that end up being bought by the larger guys. So, you know, a technological change really pulls a lot of innovation. Big companies are really not good at innovation, so they typically have to acquire it. Will it Tesla be acquired? Probably not, at least not at this valuation. But other small companies, early stages could potentially if they have very good tech. So I think that’s the way they leapfrog. I don’t think it’s the massive processes that they have internally, like a Volkswagen today. I don’t think that’s the way they leapfrog.
LM: Thanks so much for joining us this morning. Tony, that was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us some insight into what’s happening in global markets.
RK: So we are talking about cars very quickly. I see this headline here that Jilly’s Lotus cars, miles, raising four billion ringgit.
And they’re only doing this to help the iconic British sports and racing automobile brand to expand into the IV market in China, according to people familiar with the matter. And this is a story from Bloomberg. So Geely is working with advisers to slander potential investors interested in funding the round. And that could see that would value good value lotus operations at about five billion U.S. dollars. This is going to be interesting because this is, of course, was formerly part of the Proton Group, which was then bought by Geely.
LM: And so so we’re going to be heading into some messages now and then. Up next, taking a look at Mithras financing with financial columnist Pankaj Kumar. Stay tuned. BFM eighty nine point nine.
Macro specialist, geopolitics and history commentator Nick Glinsman joined us for the first time on QuickHit to discuss how the Anglosphere compares to the world in this multi-speed recovery in the wake of Covid.
Nick is based in Brazil and he brings decades of experience to macro, markets, and politics. His background is basically London and New York with a bit of Europe and, Australia and Hong Kong. He worked with the Salomon Brothers and Merrill Lynch. He’s doing a lot of advisory work and the ability to express views on the markets, geopolitics and macroeconomics in the market.
📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.
This QuickHit episode was recorded on April 8, 2021.
The views and opinions expressed in this The Anglosphere and the Multi Speed Recovery? 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: Nick, for a while you’ve talked about this concept called the anglosphere. Can you help us understand what you mean by the anglosphere?
NG: I’ll dig into it. I like the fact that you’re talking about the link between geopolitics and economics because with Trump and Brexit, that’s where what was a very boring macro environment suddenly started to become differently exciting. The politics would start to drive some of the macro markets and actually what’s interesting is Brexit and Trump, part of the anglosphere. Not the formative part of the anglosphere.
So what we mean by the anglosphere is looking at countries that are historically tied via culture but critically also via common law, legal system, because that defines how the economy and how commerce can run. If you go back in history, there is a big difference between common law countries and roman law countries. Common law countries think of European Union countries and that construct. So what we mean by the anglosphere is being, better start with the UK because it is the mother country, it’s still the mother country for where you are currently still. If the US were now part of the commonwealth. You’re looking at an anglosphere. Now typically when I refer to it, I’m talking about UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Five Eyes.
You could loosely add two countries. One of which has an anglo-saxon common law — India. The other one works much closer as a defeated entity country in World War II — Japan. So you’re getting the quad, which I would maintain is part of an angular influence, at least, if not anglosphere entity.
Let’s stick with that grouping. You’re looking at countries that have a similar legal system, similar financial structure, they have banks, central banks that are lenders of last resort and traditional backups, concept. Remember the European Union doesn’t have banks.
Back to common law. Common law also in this environment. This is where it’s getting critical. So Five Eyes is I would posit it’s the ultimate defense alliance.
TN: Even New Zealand, still? Ah, you know. Long discussion. That’s so much sarcastically.
NG: I know what you’re saying. Although she has the relation in the State of Victoria in Australia, who is actually not known as Kim Yong Dan. But if you look at what they’ve just done with the central bank, there is still a similarity there. And of course the travel corridor that’s about to open on the 16th I think it is, is between Australian and New Zealand. So as much as she kowtows to the panda in Beijing, they are still part of that structure.
So back to the common law and the financial. So you’ve got countries with central banks that act as lenders of last resort with independent monetary policy, you have independent fiscal policy and I would include of course in both these, Bank of Japan, RBI in India and so on so you’ve got independent fiscal policy, independent monetary central bank, which you don’t have in Europe.
There’s been no Hamiltonian moment there. So you have that flexibility and you can see that flexibility. You also have much more, common law enables Schumpeter’s creative destruction and thus reconfiguration. Much easier chapter 11 in the US or bankruptcy and start again. Right. Not so easy to either stop or start on the roman law. So that when you think of where we are now, you’ve gone through a pandemic where inexplicably a lot of countries have remained closed, the reopening is going to need that reconfiguration.
You’ve also been the countries that are advancing with the vaccine quickest of those that took a very commercial view as governments in terms of getting them… so you had operation walk speed in the US and you had a vc person take over the procurement policy and the vaccine policy in the UK. Private Sector innovation. And in fact, in the UK, you have that triangle, Oxford, Cambridge, London, that’s without biotech and so on and so forth, very flexible. You even have a situation where the famous Astrazeneca factory in Holland was financed by the British. Not by the Dutch.
We can get into that on another episode of the great vaccine debacle. But I think that’s part of the precautionary Roman Law System that the EU runs versus the go get innovative system that comes with the anglo-ceric countries, the common law system and the structure of finance business so and so forth.
TN: Okay. So it sounds to me like when you talk about the anglosphere and you look at it kind of post pandemic or at least post first wave of disaster in the pandemic as we enter a recovery, it sounds like you see a widening divergence between those with say common law and relatively independent central banks versus the other law formed be it roman and in independent fiscal policy as well.
So help me understand the… so we just had this IMF report come out earlier this week about 5.1% growth or whatever this year and everything’s amazing and which we know, given, it’s all base effects and if you do a three-year average, it doesn’t look good at all. In Europe, the only one, over that three years, the only one with positive growth is The Netherlands. Not even the UK. But I would argue there, they lean toward you know more of a British style than other styles.
So if we’re having a two-speed or multi-speed recovery, would it be fair for me to say that you believe the anglosphere will recover faster than the other spheres?
NG: Absolutely. Absolutely. You’re better expert on sinosphere than I would be. But I think the growth is going to disappoint because they’ve pushed so hard on the string of debt. Okay.
In terms of the Euro, Europe, I think there’s a very simple way of looking at things. It’s extent of vaccination and compare those and what does that mean? It’s now being said out of UCL, University College of London. UK’s herd immunity on Monday, 73%.
You can see there’s data coming out of the UK that is explosive as there is in the US. People are looking at the European and thinking, okay let’s close until August or beyond because this vaccine debacle is even worse. Everybody’s going to take Astrazeneca in Europe even though for the young women of age below 30, the chance of getting a blood clot is 1 in 600,000. Where the child’s getting Covid is substantially greater.
Because Europe and the Roman legal system has this precautionary black bent. It’s clear that this whole debacle in Europe has delayed that coming out of meltdown. The European summer season as the Germans would say is kaput.
TN: If we have this kind of two-speed recovery or multi-speed recovery, and let’s say Japan is part of the anglosphere, would you say Japan would be leading Asia out instead of China? Now I’m talking about real data. I’m not talking about Chinese 8.1% growth numbers like fictional. I’m talking about actual real performance with actual real usable output and you know all this other stuff.
NG: I’ve got so that’s going to be the case actually. I really do have that sense and I also, given the belligerence of the Chinese regime right now. You’ve got vocal and slightly belligerent actions against Taiwan, of course, which I’m with Albert on that. They’d have already invaded if they were going to do it. And you’ve got what’s going on in the Philippine islands with all these ships tied together.
I remember a very famous situation where chief ancient China economist from HSBC came into the office and talking about China and then we asked coming into that particular office, name unmentioned, always an aggressive to and fro Q&A, and then we have one of us asked about China, how’s the recovery going after Fukushima. Blood was coming out of this chad’s mouth having to talk a bit about China.
And we know that there is a much more passionate… we have passion against Germany or France as a Brit or as an Englishman come soccer. But, we love each other.
TN: Maybe that’s a bit strong. But we’ll use that.
NG: Maybe strong for Germans but with the French, there is a deep passion there and somebody keeps reminding the agent. But in the Far East, there has been that, you see that tension with the South Koreans and Japanese. However, the Chinese are forcing people out away from some of this stuff.
Japan with Australia and India will enable a lot of these countries to look elsewhere. Isn’t it ironic going back to the anglo-sphere link and that publicly is United Arab Emirates who are being given credit for getting India, Pakistan talking together. I have no doubt behind the show, the English are very active there because you’ve got a cricketer in charge. She made this game… So there’s stuff going on that gives you signals as to what could be happening.
It was rather like a mutual friend of ours, we were discussing India in terms of trade and I was saying, the UK and India are going to have a free trade deal as soon as it’s possible once they’ve overcome some of the agricultural stuff. And that person said India will do a trade with the EU well before they do it with the UK. And I’m saying hold your horses. No way!
TN: It’s familiar.
NG: One, it’s familiar. Two, one of the problems that the EU’s have with trade deals with anglospheres countries is legal interpretation thereof. And you know, I think they’ve been discussing it for 8, 10 years, EU and India, they’ve got a sub agreement already in the UK after several months.
TN: Just coming back to this kind of overall topic of the anglosphere and the multi-speed recoveries, so it does sound like you almost have this triangulated recovery from your perspective from India, Japan and Australia that’s leading the way in Asia. You have the UK, which is leading the way for Europe and then you have the US that’s kind of leading the way for the Americas. Is that kind of how you see things?
NG: I tend to think that’s the case. But I wonder whether one can justify the idea of UK leading the way for Europe given the tensions between the UK and the EU.
TN: I think the EU will play through… The EU will feel pain until they get tired of it and then they’ll relent, I think.
NG: There’s one big problem and this came up yesterday there was a meeting of the EU commission about article 122 vaccine export ban. Belgium, Holland, Sweden and Ireland said no way. All the others were saying we’re okay with it. With Germany covering itself with a few conditions. The damage to Europe’s role in the global supply chain is irreparable. They will not be able to go back to this.
And there’s another little fact of it which makes me wonder what will happen with Ireland because there’s tension building up in Northern Ireland again. Article 122, that export ban is specifically aimed at UK, US, Canada, Australia. They’ve stopped shipping to Australia already. US, UK, they’re saying well you’re not exporting anything. Paid for everything but not exporting everything. Canada just gets lumped in with the US and the UK. So I think that’s really shattered the role of Europe in the global supply chain.
You’ll have people producing goods for Europe from European input but how can you possibly? Now going to Ireland where the UK has already said we’ll give the Republic of Ireland 3.7 million vaccines because it’s secures Northern Ireland in the coming out of lockdown. That’s an interesting overthought process.
Because you have a situation where Ireland is under attack like the Netherlands and Switzerland from Joe Biden’s global tax. If they come out, I would not be funny.
TN: It seems to me that what you’re also saying is there’s likely some kind of regionalization or re-regionalization that may emerge from this. Am I putting words in your mouth or is that?
NG: I would go and say US and commonwealth EU for as long as it stays stable, which may be problematic and then as you say Asia.
TN: Okay. Yeah, I mean I think that we’re coming to a place and I’ve been talking about this since about 2015, where you have global supply chains for goods that are long-term commoditized goods and then you have regional supply chains for the higher value goods.
NG: And that’s consistent with the decoupling that’s got to take place against China. And then you have that floater which you and I touched on before we got online, which is Russia and I have a slightly different view of where I can go, which will be, you know.
