Tag: tony nash

QuickHit: Europe is undergoing a ‘partial’ regionalization

Post author By admin
Post date July 30, 2020
No Comments on QuickHit: Europe is undergoing a ‘partial’ regionalization

In this QuickHit episode, we’re joined by Velina Tchakarova, the Head of the Austrian Institute for European and Security Policy, to talk about the Europe reconfigurations and regionalizations on global supply chains, manufacturing, digitalization, and other industries.

The Austrian Institute for European Security Policy is a think tank, which works very closely with Austrian and European institutions. They provide a macro perspective for geo economic to strategic, geopolitical perspective on current and future developments in the fields of security and defense.

***This video was recorded on July 27, 2020 CDT.

The views and opinions expressed in this 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: But it seems to me that you’re also seeing, observing ,and commenting a lot on things that are happening in China. And we’ve started to see a lot of structural change in western diplomatic and political and economic relationships with China as well as supply chains. What we’re seeing here in the States is a bit of a decoupling of supply chains from China and North America. So a little bit of re-shoring and I’ve been curious for a long time, is that same thing happening in Europe now? And what do you expect that to look like if that’s the case?

VT: I don’t have a ready answer but I can provide you with two main narratives that are right now relevant for the situation here in Europe.

On the one side, there are many, many statements coming from the highest ranking-level. One of them was the French President Macron or take the European Union Commissioner for Industry and they were namely sharing this view that globalization had went too far. Now, Europe has to take care of its own. They call it “strategic autonomy.” That means that in fields that are of strategic importance, specifically geo-economic fields, strategic sectors, strategic industries, that some of them have to go back to Europe. On the side of the so-called geopolitical commission, there is this clear statement that we want to introduce a green transition, a carbon-free economy by 2030, 2040. That means that dependencies on raw materials, on metals, and stuff like that is going to be cut and this is still in place because China has a huge market share.

Now on the other side, there is also the narrative coming from highest ranking politicians and representatives that the “strategic autonomy,” in terms of global supply chains is not possible. And that this kind of COVID 19 responses were crisis-related. Some part of the re-shoring was due to crisis response, to crisis management and once things start working again post COVID 19, we are going to go back to business.

We know that certain European member states have very strong economic interests in expanding relations with China and right now. I can name one of these countries that’s Germany. The German presidency of the European Council has began and there is no secret that the topic China was on the top of the agenda for the next six months. Now with the shift in terms of certain perceptions when it comes to dependencies on China, things are going to move slower. We’ll be slower. That means investment deals, negotiations that were planned are not going on according to the pre-COVID 19 plans.

Investment deals between Europe and China is a very important point. Investment screenings, buying up of companies in Europe that have declared defaults, all of these things are going to be on the agenda for the next six months. There is a debate on reconfigurations of global supply chains going back to Europe. But on the other side, there is an expectation to go back to business because the economies have been struck and have been hit very hard by COVID 19. And so we are right now somewhere in between.

TN: Five or eight years ago, there were a number of infrastructure pieces that were sold to Chinese SOEs — in the Puerto Peres, in Greece and the Portuguese electric utility. We had a number of things that were actually sold to Chinese SOEs that’s been slowed down quite a bit. In terms of supply chains, I was involved in that first generation of Eastern Europe build out of manufacturing in the mid to late 90s. And when China joined the WTO, we saw a lot of that manufacturing and the fixed asset investment associated with it moved to China in the first half of the 2000s and then accelerate.

Do you expect a scenario where we see reinvestment in Central and Eastern Europe for regional manufacturing? Do we expect a rebirth of that manufacturing or is that something that’s bygone era? We’re going to continue to see centralization of manufacturing in China or other parts of Asia and Central and Eastern Europe is kind of passe? It’s kind of very 20 years ago?

VT: We have to tell first and foremost the facts. And the facts are that two-thirds of the trade that takes place within the European Union is actually an inter-state trade. It’s taking place between the member states. So in that context, there will be no necessity for reconfigurations at all.

But what I am expecting to happen is that due to this decoupling between United States and China, and also due to the increasing awareness in the European capitals in terms of dependencies on China, there will be a reconfiguration to some extent.

So partial reconfiguration, which will be initiated, will be supported by the European institutions. The very fact that we have a European Commissioner now for industry points to the increasing realization of how important this. In that matter, there will be certainly a partial reconfiguration coming back to Europe. Not just manufacturing. We are talking also about digitalization, that it has to take place. We are still actually in the middle of the process of a fourth industrial revolution.

Six months ago, there was almost no discussion on 5G Huawei being initiated and supported by Huawei, by a Chinese company. Now with COVID 19, there are already strong signals and decisions in United Kingdom, in France. There will be some similar reaction in Germany that a 5G being introduced by Huawei will not be in the interest of European sectors. So this digital transition will certainly be also part of this reconfiguration of global supply chains. Partially, like I said. We should not expect too much. But there will be certain, certain expectations are already in place that this is going to happen.

TN: We’ve talked about from Complete Intelligence for the past couple years how our hypothesis has been that Europe would be the biggest loser of a US-China trade war. The reason we expect that is once China cannot export its deflation to the U.S., it will have to export that capacity to Europe because Japan has already, after the 2012 protest of Japanese factories, Japan’s already ramped down its imports from China. As the U.S. is gradually decoupling, it just seems that it’s likely that more deflationary goods will go to Europe and potentially hollow out European manufacturing even more. Is that something Europeans are thinking about? Or is that something that just seems a little too far out there?

VT: Right now, I have the feeling that our stakeholders and political decision makers are preoccupied with coping with the post COVID 19 social, economic repercussions. It’s all about how to revive the economies. So there is no serious debate right now on that matter.

But I think this is a very important issue that you’ve addressed. From a current perspective, I don’t see how Europe has a strong position, a strong card on that matter. On one side, there is the systemic decoupling taking place. On the other side, there is a trade surplus between the European Union and United States. And we all know that the U.S. President Trump is not in favor of institutions such as European Union. I am expecting pressure that he will probably impose on the European Union in order to provide a strong narrative prior to the US election.

The geo-economic relations between the United States and the European Union, that means the European member states are going to deteriorate. That’s my expectation. In terms of re-election, this is going to be further the case. Political decision makers in Europe would have to find other geo-economic allies. They will probably look for solidifying business interests. This narrative of going back to business with China is quite strong right now in European capitals without thinking of the long-term implications. I’m not saying that I personally agree with it. But I’m just outlining the reality the way it is.

You mentioned Japan. There are also other strong regional partners and regional players. Here, the European Union has on one side a regional card to play with the European Commission how to trade deals. This is something that they are going to push for. But on the other side, when it comes to the member states where the political narrative is being pushed and decided on in the capitals. Right now, it’s all about the French, German access because of the exit of the UK from the European Union.

I expect that there will be further push for solidifying business relations with China in order to have a sort of an exit plan in case that relations with the United States deteriorate. In the European capitals, everyone is hoping for Joe Biden to win the election in November because if that is not going to be the case, the expectation is that the relations specifically geoeconomics, they are going to deteriorate.

TN: A lot to think about. Velina, thank you so much for your time. I do hope we can reconnect in a few months just to see how this stuff kind of bears out over the next few months, and again thank you so much for your time this has been really, really helpful for us.

VT: Thank you for having me and stay safe and sound.

Visual (Videos)

Dollar Doldrums Before the Surge

Post author By admin
Post date July 27, 2020
No Comments on Dollar Doldrums Before the Surge

This is an original publication by Real Vision and was posted on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHq0n_Bm7YA

This week Real Vision use Refinitiv’s best-in-class data to discuss the outlook for the US dollar and commodities with Tony Nash, CEO and Founder of Complete Intelligence, a forecasting company across currencies, commodities and equity indexes. Whilst many investors are expecting fireworks, Tony expects asset prices to remain subdued for now, before exploding back into life after the US election.

See the full series and access expert data-driven insights and news from Refinitiv: https://refini.tv/2Tq42o2

Show Notes

RV: Many of us make sweeping statements about the direction that markets will take, but accurate forecasting across a wide range of assets is a rare entity and has been made particularly difficult today by the distortions of central bank activity. That’s a financial forecasting challenge. Forecasting company Complete Intelligence has joined forces with Refinitiv to provide companies and investors with an outlook on assets such as currencies and commodities. In this week’s Big Conversation, I talk to founder and CEO Tony Nash about the prospects for the US dollar, commodities and also trade relations between the US and China.

Tony, great to see you.

TN: Thank you.

RV: Thanks very much for coming on The Big Conversation. And today we got to talk about a lot of things. We’re gonna talk about the dollar, currencies in general and a bit of commodities. But before we get into that, for those who do know you, could you give me a little bit about your background, what you’ve been doing and what you’re currently doing?

TN: I’ve been in research for couple of decades, actually, and in the past I led global research for a UK based firm called The Economist, I led Asia Consulting for a firm called IHS Market, and I jumped out to start Complete Intelligence about four or five years ago. Initially we were based in Singapore and now we’re based in Houston, Texas.

So Complete Intelligence is an artificial intelligence platform or a globally integrated AI platform. We help companies make better cost purchasing and revenue decisions. As a part of that, of course we work with raw materials, currencies, futures, commodities and even equity indices. All of this works in a layered environment so that we understand the interdependencies of supply chains and revenues and sales.

We go live on Refinitiv this month in July, and Refinitiv is a very positive partner for us. They’re great to work with. Our forecasts will be distributed on the Refinitv platform for purchase by Refinitiv clients.

RV: A lot of these forecasts are completely wrong, but your forecasts have been relatively accurate. They are pretty accurate, which is why I wanted this discussion. Your views on these commodities and currencies will be quite interesting. So how do you do that? What is it? What are the main inputs into your product?

TN: We started Complete Intelligence because my clients in my previous firms told me they can’t get good forecasting, whether it’s internal to their own firms or external from off the shelf information services firms. It’s definitely a financial forecasting challenge. What we found is generally external forecasters, whether they’re economists or banks or industry experts, typically have double-digit error rates on an absolute percentage error basis. Our average error rate is about 4.6 percent on a MAPE basis. We do much better generally than either internal forecasters or say industry experts, consensus forecasts.

What we do is we use what’s called an ensemble approach. We have a number of core methodologies that we use that build and learn scenarios for every iteration of our forecasts that we do. We do our forecast twice a month on the first of the month and mid-month. So we’re looking at thousands of methodological configurations for every line item that we forecast. So for example the dollar, we’ll look at between five and ten thousand configurations of methodologies to forecast the dollar. So that’s millions of calculations just for the dollar. And we do that for every line item foot.

Off the shelf, we have about 800 different assets that we forecast across currencies, commodities, equities. We also do economics and trade. So together it’s about 1.3 million line items that we forecast every month.

Obviously there are charts, so you can see the directional change in the lines. But we disclose the top relationships, six months ago, three months ago and this month. So you can see how those things change over time as well. That’s really a key part of understanding the market changing. If you see those relationships changing dramatically, then that’s a real indication. So if we look at last December, we saw things change dramatically and we saw that sometime ahead of that forecast. So we expected that dramatic change. When we expect, say, a mild change in October or a dramatic change in Jan/Feb, those relationships really do start to iterate because the market starts to restructure with every change.

RV: Tony you mentioned the dollar, ultimately. I always think of it as the apex predator of the financial market. You get the dollar right, you’re probably going to get a vast amount of the rest of your portfolio correct. Recently, the dollar had a lot of volatility very early on, but it’s actually been in a fairly kind of narrow range for a long period of time. At the moment, it’s testing the bottom of that range.

Let’s talk about the maybe the dollar index, the DXY, which is 57% Euro. Let’s talk about that first. Where do you see that going over the rest of the year and what do you see as the big drivers and the reasons for your view on the dollar?

TN: We see the dollar weakness continuing until about September. After September, we see a bit of strength coming back. And then in Q1, we start to see more dollar strength coming back. So obviously, monetary policy, economic questions, these sorts of things in the US are behind that, but also economic questions around other parts of the world. The dollar is doesn’t operate in a vacuum. So there are a number of inputs there, and we’re really worried about a lot. Big monetary policies in the US have been made and they’re working themselves out. But we’re worried about other parts of the world, specifically Europe and China. But we do see the dollar continue to weaken until about September, late August and September, after which we see a slight return to strength. And then once we hit Q1 of 2021, we start to see that as well.

RV: What are those key drivers? Because in some ways, people have been, I wouldn’t say caught offside, but actually the dollar has been weakening as the Fed’s been tightening its balance sheet. So as it’s been reducing a little bit of liquidity and the other central banks is still going for it. Which of the drivers is it? Is it liquidity driving? It is perception? Is it interest rate differentials? Is it real, real yields and real difference? What are the key drivers that mean that you think it’s going lower?

TN: I don’t know that there’s necessarily trust in the fact that the Fed is actually reducing its balance sheet. Is that temporary? I think there’s a belief that the Fed will do anything to keep markets up.

We all see this cynicism in the market every day, and so I’m not sure that there is a lot of trust right now of the Fed’s true intentions. We’re in a position where both the Fed and the Treasury will do anything to grow the U.S. economy through COVID. And once we get through COVID, different rules apply. But for now, they’ll do anything to get us through. That’s until we see some proof points about a policy that isn’t just kind of throw everything at it. We’ll start to see that in October. But for now, we’re still in that very skeptical position where the U.S. institutions, finance and monetary, isn’t really questioned at the moment because we’re in the middle of this unprecedented period.

RV: When people are looking at currencies, people say, OK, I can see all these negatives for the US, but then you think, “well hang on a minute, Europe has a lot of negatives.” When we talk about the dollar, what are the alternatives? So with the Euro, do you see therefore that because a big part of the dollar index is the euro, do you see the Euro going sort of 1-17 from where it is today, or do you see the Euro being challanged as well, and over what timeframe or not perhaps?

TN: The euro is challenged once they get through these meetings now. The issues with the Euro are many and I think we’ll see probably four to five months of difficulties for the Euro. After which, let’s say, the end of Q1 2021, I think we’ll start to see more strength in the Euro. But we just don’t see the justification for Euro strength right now, even on a relative basis with the dollar. We find it really challenging to see a bull case for the Euro until early next year.

So what are the alternatives? Things like Aussie dollar or things like Japanese yen, those are also alternatives, but again, it’s the ugly sisters right there. It’s difficult to pin down a winner.

RV: So when you’re talking about that dollar weakness, what are you really thinking here? Is It’s probably dollar weakness that’s commensurate with volatility in currencies remaining relatively subdued. It sounds like the alternative to, if you’ve got dollar weakness through to September, maybe beyond, but you haven’t really got Euro strength and maybe the strength comes in Yen and Aussie dollar. But overall, we really talking about grinding currencies and low volatility currencies, is that you think is the next few weeks, months?

TN: That’s right. And I don’t know that anybody is really confident to say currency A is the currency I’m going to place the next three months of my bets on. It’s all speculative, vol related trades, or at least that’s what we see. And until we start to get some good direction, typically when we see good direction, we see dollar strength. We don’t really see good direction coming back to markets until maybe December or Q1 of 2021.

RV: And do you think in terms of people who are looking for signs of things, that change is there a sequencing that you were looking for, for instance? Well, what I think we really saw last year was those very challenged emerging market currencies, in places like Turkey obviously Argentina, they tended to move first. Then you saw things like the Aussie dollar moving, sort of commodity based, slightly EM style, and then eventually that was shifted through. Do you think that’s still going to be the way to look at this? That if we want to, an early warning that currencies are on the move, do you think it’s going to be in the challenged currencies again first like maybe Brazil moving slowly through? Or do you see a different sequencing now with slightly different paradigm post-COVID?

TN: I think until the end of COVID, I think we’re looking at the same patterns. And again, I think part of that is COVID, part of that is the US election, part of that is what’s really going on with Chinese data. There are a number of different considerations, macro considerations that until we have a good idea of what the data actually mean. And let’s say what you know, what is the future of U.S. politics? I don’t think we’re really going to settle. And if you don’t know the future of U.S. economic policies, you really don’t know the future of Chinese economic policies. And so you have the two biggest economies in the world that have a big question mark around them for the next four or five months.

RV: When it comes to commodities, as I think commodities has been the first item on the Refinitiv platform, currencies coming at the end of this month. So as a sort of segway between one and the other, the Aussie dollar is often considered to be a very important part of the multi complex, even though it’s not a commodity itself. Is that one of the ones you think will have a bit of strength VS the Dollar over the shorter term as in the next couple of months? How do you feel the Aussie dollar is going to play out and what are the key players behind that?

TN: We do see strength in the Aussie dollar. I mean Aussie dollar had this amazing trip over the past five months right? We do see strength coming in, say, through the next two to three months in the Aussie dollar. Then we see it returning to the normal levels, kind of around 70 cents. So part of that is COVID related, part of that is obviously China related, as Australia and China re-figure out what their relationship is, their trading relationship and their diplomatic relationship.

There is a bit of risk because obviously, Australia exports a lot of commodities to China. And if that relationship isn’t there, then the underlying driver of their economy is in question. And so we do have some questions about the Aussie dollar and the sustainability of some of those exports for some short to medium term. But some of that quite frankly, is just diplomatic positioning more than reality. There’s a bit of volatility until we figure out exactly what that looks like, but we don’t expect a return to say, of the Fed March position and the volatility we saw there.

RV: When you look at the Aussie dollar, are you looking at real economy assets like copper and like oil? Because obviously these have had, we’ve seen oil, WTI’s closed its gap from the trade war, the oil war earlier in the year, copper is now back at a big, i think it’s the 10 year resistance level. How do you see these real economy assets performing over the next two, three months because it feels like we’re recovering, but we’re recovering from such a low place that it looks v shaped, but we’re not recovering, we’re not going to return to where we were. Doesn’t that put pressure on some of these currencies like the Aussie dollar, which rely on the real economy to get back to where it was? I think we’re back to where we were beginning of year with the Aussie dollar, but should not really be capping it?

TN: Yeah, it’s been kind of a foreshock of recovery. It’s not really an aftershock. It’s never really recovered yet, but we’ve started we’ve seen markets recover. So we do see, say the Brent and WTI really having strength over the next, say, to three to four months. After that I think there’s some questions around the sustainability of that. Short of a supply, more controls on supply I think we hit some levels where we’re we’re not quite sure where things will go and we may see those kind of pare some of their gains that we’ve seen since, say, the lows in April. Going into early twenty one, we may very well see some downside, not serious downside, but gradual downside to crude oil. We do believe that WTI has more legs than Brent going into Q4, but not much.

When we look at things like copper, which is very, very important to the Australian economy, that’s really looking strong until, say, December, Jan, after which again, twenty one, I think people really take stock of where markets have gone and start to question whether the value is really there, whether, say, manufacturing and transportation have caught up with the prices that we’ve hit. And if we don’t see things like consumer goods and consumer electronics hit their previous pace, if we don’t see airlines starting to hit they’re approaching their previous pace, going back online, I think we’re going to start to see some questions around that value. And that’s kind of our base case right now, is we’re not necessarily expecting those things to start to approach their previous levels, and what we’ve faced from the beginning of this is a demand problem. The demand problem that came as a result of government’s pulling the plug on their economies.

So when will that demand return? Is the big question. We do see it coming back, but not necessarily at the pace that markets have expected for the past couple of months. But that won’t necessarily hit investors for another three to four months, actually.

RV: How much of that is dependent on the furlough support scheme we see in place? The US went first, it went hard, it went in size, and it took Europe’s only just caught up about a month ago. Japan’s never really stopped, and China’s may been more reticent, but let’s say we get into a scenario where we see the furlough schemes running off at the end of this month in the US, and what if the U.S. decides not to come back too aggressively? But other markets where the current countries do or other regions do? Is that is that going to change the view materially or is this kind of a global context and kind of everyone lives and falls together as it where?

TN: Well, I think everyone lives and falls together. Look, it’s an election year in the U.S. of course, they’re gonna put out more money. I mean, it’s you can’t I don’t think you can in an election year say, oh, we’re going to be fiscally responsible no. There’s just no election works that way at all. So the U.S. will definitely come out with more support. And because the US is doing it, every other Treasury and finance ministry and central bank will say, well, the U.S. is doing it, so we’re gonna do it. So exactly what you say kind of they’ll all rise or fall together. Once the US election is over, that tail will kind of taper off and then we’ll see things really starting to fall to Earth again. We’re not saying anything dramatic, but we’ll start to see some of the steam come off post-election in the US.

RV: We’ve been focusing on the currencies and a little bit on the commodities, but in some ways what people worry about is that we’ve gone from this liquidity issue at the beginning of the second quarter of the year to potentially a solvency issue. So a real, real economy growth issue. And do you think that that is going to come to fruition? Because those that will have a very, very key impact on bond yields, and if you look at these major bonds particularly in the U.S., they’ve been struggling, I mean, that would merely making new all time lows in the U.S. fight it? Where do you see bond yields going? Because in some ways, the bond yield is the one that will tell us the true growth, the equity market told us, how much liquidity, where do you see bond yields going?

TN: I don’t think there’s any choice but for bonds to continue to fall until we see more solvency to the economy, that’s really it. And we’ve seen so many SME’s go out of business, we’ve seen a complete section of the U.S. economy just give up. And we are now on to kind of the medium term players who are keeping it together but maybe can’t in for three to four to five to six months if they don’t have more support from the central government in the US. Until we see the baton passed from government support to market support, which again, probably won’t happen until sometime in twenty one, you know, we’re going to have this question around solvency. Once the market takes over again, then I think we’ll be in a very good place, we’ll have cleared out a lot of fairly weak companies, we’ll see consolidation in sectors that weren’t really healthy, and then as we go into twenty one and the market takes over again, I think the path has really cleared for companies to do extraordinarily well.

RV: Something that you talked about in depth last year, generally, you sort of you talked about was the the impact or the underestimation of the impact of the trade war and relationships like that. How important do you think that will be? Because obviously the politics today is kind of quite visceral in this, you know, in the last couple of months. Do you think that that is more bark than bite or do you think that we’re going to go back to the worst of what we saw with the trade wars, which was almost also reflecting the difficult position that the Chinese economy was in prior to all this if we went back a year, 12 to 18 months?

TN: One view that I’m kind of moving toward is that potentially a trade war is actually over. So with COVID, at least North American companies have taken an assessment of their supply chains and said, hold on a minute, we have a highly centralized supply chain sitting in China and other parts of Asia. COVID’s come along and we haven’t really been able to get access to our goods.

We need to diversify our supply chain. Now, before the financial crisis in 2008, there was a strategy that manufacturing companies were pursuing called the China plus one, China plus two, China plus three strategy, where they would have part of their supply chain in China and part elsewhere in Asia. I think what we’re at now because after the financial crisis, people just double and tripled down on their China-centric supply chains because it was convenient and in their in their eyes at the time, less risky.

I think we’re in a position now where especially North American companies have said it’s very risky for us to have our North American and our European manufacturing based in China. We need to disaggregate, we need to have regional supply chains. We look at, for example, the amount of electronics supply chain that’s moving to Mexico, when we look at companies like TSMC, Taiwan Semiconductor, moving to the US, these are major generational movements of supply chains. That to me is a signal that the trade war is almost over, meaning both sides have said enough, we’re not going to do this.

That’s a very bad signal for China, and you could potentially be looking at kind of a Russia post-World War Two scenario where all the foreign investors who went into Russia in the nineteen thirties from the UK and the US and other guys, they gave up with World War Two and really never went back. And so China could potentially be looking at that type of scenario.

The big question mark is around kind of Angela Merkel and a bunch of European investors in China, what will they or leaders in China, what will their investors do? Will they regionalize in Europe, which is what was happening in the 90s? Or will they continue to double and triple down on China? If they do, the problem that Europe has is that China has to export even more deflation than they were exporting two or three years ago because they have the additional capacity that is not going to the US now. That is a serious risk for the hollowing out of European industry and European unemployment.

RV: By the sounds of it, the next few months therefore, across pretty much every asset should be relatively low volatility, so maybe still working out all the support that’s come into the system as it still moves its way through the global framework. But it sounds like at the end of this year, particular into Q1 of next year there could be some inflection points. How do people use your product to spot those inflection points? Because its those inflection points where people are going to really win or lose?

TN: The inflection points are really where the risk comes in. So in our partnership with Refinitiv, you know, people can use our product to understand, as you say, when are those inflection points, what’s the degree of those inflection points? With all of our outlooks, we have high base, low scenarios. And so, those clients can understand where we see things going and the range where we see those things going. Whether it’s a currency, commodity and equity market. And so, as you say, we see a larger inflection coming kind of mid Q1, but in the in the near term, we see kind of a small calibration coming in September, October.

RV: Whilst most people want to hear about fireworks, where prices are either going to break down or break out, the reality is that for most of the time, they tend to grind through ranges. For corporate planners and investors, accurate forecasts help to prepare for the unexpected without getting bogged down by sensationalism.

Complete Intelligence currently forecasts the commodity and currency volatility will remain suppressed, with the dollar drifting lower, helping push oil and copper prices higher. The first market wobble should appear in September and October, but the big inflection point is expected after the US election. Markets in the first quarter of 2021 are forecast to be challenged by a stronger U.S. dollar as the real economy impact of the COVID crisis emerges from beneath the flood of government support.

About Refinitiv: For new insights on artificial intelligence (AI), digitalization, big data, risk management, compliance, fighting financial crime and the future of trading and investing, visit our insights hub – http://refinitiv.com/perspectives. Refinitiv is one of the world’s largest providers of financial markets data and infrastructure, serving over 40,000 institutions in approximately 190 countries. It provides leading data and insights, trading platforms, and open data and technology platforms that connect a thriving global financial markets community – driving performance in trading, investment, wealth management, regulatory compliance, market data management, enterprise risk and fighting financial crime. https://www.refinitiv.com

About Real Vision™: Real Vision™ is the destination for the world’s most successful investors to share their thoughts about what’s happening in today’s markets. (Think of it like TED Talks for Finance.). Understand the complex world of finance, business and the global economy with real in-depth analysis from real experts.

Tags Big conversation, china us trade relations, china-us, commodities, currencies, dollar, financial forecasting challenge, real vision, refinitiv, tony nash, Trade relations, USD

Visual (Videos)

CNA’s Asia First: Restarting the economy takes a disproportionate amount of resources

Post author By admin
Post date July 11, 2020
No Comments on CNA’s Asia First: Restarting the economy takes a disproportionate amount of resources

Tony Nash, CEO and founder of Complete Intelligence, joins Avril Hong and Adam Bakhtiar of Asia First to share his insights on restarting the economy, Texas’s economy on a lockdown, fiscal stimulus and policy, and if he’s bullish on China. Watch Tony’s segment here and in our Youtube channel.

This video is part of a 2-hour live news show at Channel News Asia’s Asia First. CNA is part of Mediacorp. Find the original segment here: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/video-on-demand/asia-first

Show Notes

CNA: Tony, the last time we spoke was a couple of months ago. At the time, Houston hadn’t confirmed any cases of coronavirus. Fast forward to today, we’re seeing the biggest daily surge in confirmed cases. 10,000 in the state. Do you still think that it’s not as big an issue for the lockdown for restarting the economy especially for the Sun Belt state as a whole?

TN: We’re seeing the the case counts rise. But we’re seeing the death rates stay low and even decline. In terms of markets, I think that’s a good sign. If we saw the case counts rise and the death rate stay consistent or rise, then I’d be very concerned. But we’re seeing the case counts rise and the death rates fall. We’re seeing plenty of capacity in hospitals as we talk to hospital administrators here. Here in Texas, places like Arizona, Florida, what I’m seeing by talking to people in healthcare is that things are okay. Again, what I’m keeping an eye on really is the death rates. And the the death rates as that incidence rises. This is a virus. That’s going to get out. It’s going to grow. It’s going to hit more people. I don’t necessarily think that incidents itself is an issue. We have to look at the fatality rate and how persistent that fatality rate is.

CNA: Right. Then if it’s not that big of an issue, then is there less of a need for stimulus whether from the Fed or the government in that sense because we’re hearing from some of these Fed officials, they’re warning that growth has plateaued. It’s kind of leveling out and they are asking for more stimulus. But if it’s not such a big concern these surge in coronavirus cases and its impact on restarting the economy, is there still a need for further stimulus?

TN: The problem with stopping an economy or pulling the plug on an economy, which is what governments around the world did, is that restarting it takes a disproportionate amount of resources. So governments around the world pulled the plug, stopped business, stopped socializing, stopped all these things, stopped flights, and it killed the oil and gas sector. It killed the hospitality sector. It killed travel and so on and so forth. In order to restart the economy, it takes a disproportionate amount because there’s inertia in economic activity and so we really have to push it along pretty far so that it gets back to that rate. It’s pretty easy to criticize companies that aren’t performing. Q2 revenues for example, Q2 earnings are going to come in pretty poor. But these guys are doing the best they can given the impacts of governments globally. And here in the US, we see state level and local governments making decisions for businesses to stop. But they’re not the ones who provide the fiscal support. It’s the federal government or the central government that actually provides that support. So there’s a weird misalignment of incentives in the US where it’s local governments forcing companies to close our state governments. But they’re not actually accountable and they’re not paying the consequences of it.

CNA: Yeah, so that therein raises this moral dilemma I guess, because whether you’re looking at fiscal or monetary policy support, we see the Fed dipping its toes into corporate bonds, buying Apple bonds, Microsoft bonds for example. Apple stocks up 25% year to date and then in terms of fiscal policy support, sure that pandemic aid program, it has according to the Trump administration, helped to save more than 50 million jobs. But it’s also helped the wealthy and connected.

TN: Sure. It has. When you see the the Fed of the Treasury spending on things like Apple bonds, yes it’s for Apple, but I don’t think it’s really for Apple. It’s the wealth effect of markets and getting US consumers back to the point of feeling like they can spend again is a very difficult place to get consumers and so, especially when you look at baby boomers and the spending power they have, they’re looking at their retirement years. If they’re looking at their portfolio being cut dramatically, then they’re going to cut back on their spending really, really dramatically. So the sentiment around markets is important. It’s easy to make fun of. A lot of people mock it. But the fact is baby boomers have to feel comfortable to go out and spend because they’re the biggest age cohort. Actually, those guys and millennials in the US are around the same size. But it’s important for them to spend and that the sentiment around markets, the sentiment around things like real estate values are really, really critical right now.

CNA: Right. Okay. Let’s shift focus a bit and talk about the Asian markets. We’ve been seeing that Chinese rally. It seems to have, you know, showing no sense of stopping. Shanghai Composite still closing up about half a percent. Do you still feel bullish on the mainland markets?

TN: No. Look, they’re way ahead of what we thought they would hit by year end. Sure, you may see more momentum. You may see more of a run in Chinese markets but we don’t see it based really in any fundamentals, which very few markets are right now. But we don’t really see a lot of room left there even before the end of the year. So, we may see some volatility there. I was working in Beijing in 2015 when markets crashed there before and sadly, we may see something similar now. It all depends on how the central government will then address it and if people will walk away whole. But I have friends who in 2015 lost 30, 40 percent of their wealth in that collapse and so, will we see another one? I don’t necessarily think we will. I want to think that they’ll be more prudent. But all the games that we expected before the end of the year have already been taken off the table in the Shanghai Composite.

CNA: Thank you for sharing your time and your thoughts with us. That was Tony Nash, Founder and CEO of Complete Intelligence.

QuickHit Visual (Videos)

QuickHit: U.S. mining operations and supply chain security

Post author By admin
Post date July 3, 2020
No Comments on QuickHit: U.S. mining operations and supply chain security

In this QuickHit episode, we are joined by Jerry Mullins the Senior Vice President, Government Affairs and External Relations for the National Mining Association. In this episode we explore U.S. mining operations in the height of the pandemic. We take a look at the industry’s serious concern about supply chain security. We also talked about rare earths and how the U.S. miners are contributing to the global green economy.

The National Mining Association is the voice of mining in Washington, D.C. with the administration, with Congress, and different agencies. The focus of the organization is to grow domestic mining in the United States and highlight the most significant and timely issues that impact mining’s ability to safely and sustainably locate, permit, mine, transport and utilize the nation’s vast resources .

This is QuickHit’s episode 16. For previous episodes you might have missed, kindly check:

The “Great Pause” and the rise of agile startups

“LUV in the Time of COVID”

Proactive companies use data to COVID-proof their supply chains

Show Notes:

TN: From your perspective, looking at what happened in mining during COVID and post COVID, what did mining firms see around continuity of operations and the risks there? Also, what did mining clients find with supply chain continuity? That’s a real question and that’s something we saw a lot of issues around as countries like Peru and others just completely shut down.

JM: Fortunately, domestic mining in United States was deemed an essential industry, and so it was allowed to continue to operate. That’s really important to recognize. As an industry, it had the ability to absorb the different environment that a pandemic brought on, and companies were allowed to successfully operate. These companies were able to continue to produce the raw materials that were needed for multiple industries across the globe.

As far as the effects of other countries and how they were affected, when you think about the global economies that generally slowed down, a lot of folks hit a pause. Economies had to re-calibrate exactly what they were able to do and the best way to do it. The domestic mining in the United States played a real critical role in leadership of showing the nation how to continue to work forward safely and effectively.

TN: With the supply chain disruptions and some of the geopolitical issues, there is a real sense in the US that there may be some supply chain security issues around metals and minerals. Can you help us with that? What is the Association doing?

JM: That’s an interesting point you bring up about the security issue. Just last month, the National Mining Association conducted a poll and 64% of the respondents said they were concerned about the supply chain dynamics and how reliant the U.S. was on international supplies of different critical minerals.

You’ve seen a real zest of excitement and certainly interest in focusing on the ability for U.S. producers to fill that gap and make sure that those critical minerals that are needed can be produced in the United States. [This means] addressing some of the permitting challenges that domestic mining faces and finding ways to more effectively allow for U.S. mining to meet a lot of demand that exists.

TN: When you talk about things like permitting and we talk about supply chain risk, one of the big kind of things that flag up is rare earths. Can we talk a little bit about rare earths and understand for the U.S. electronic sector and Department of Defense and others? What are some of the things that you’re thinking about and your observations about rare earths in the U.S. and the exposure to rare earths from other places?

JM: Well, certainly the Department of Defense relies on 750,000 tons of minerals each year. That’s for everything from armor for the individual soldier, to armor on a tank, to different requirements for jet engines to telecommunications. When you think about everything from palladium to copper to gold and silver–some rare–some not as rare. But those necessities are real. There’s an opportunity for tremendous growth in the rare earth field in this country. It is really opening up, and that’s something that international investors as well as domestic investors are starting to recognize.

TN: One of the other things we hear quite a lot about is the green economy — electric vehicles, battery technology. We hear a lot about those technologies accelerating in other locations and maybe the U.S. has to catch up or there are minerals from other places that the U.S. may or may not produce. How do you see U.S. miners contributing to the green economy and battery technology and electric vehicles and that whole section of the economy?

JM: When you talk about battery technology and when you talk about the electrification of the auto fleet, what you’re talking about is copper. And you’re talking about mass needs of copper, mass needs of gold, mass needs of silver, and be able to satisfy the requirements. If you look at the wind technology and the coking steel that’s going to be required, the coking coal for making steel that’s going to be required, these are needed to achieve the goals that have been put out there. The American miner is absolutely part of of that future.

TN: Great. Perfect. Jerry, thanks so much for taking your time today. I really appreciate this and I look forward to speaking again as we see all of the supply chain issues with COVID and post-COVID. It’ll be really interesting to reconnect and hear some of your thoughts at that point.

JM: Thank you, Tony. I look forward to it.

Podcasts

Claims, Caution, and China

Post author By admin
Post date July 3, 2020
No Comments on Claims, Caution, and China

Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence speaks with BFM 89.9 about the US market rebound, what to expect in the third quarter of 2020, jobless claims and US unemployment, and Hong Kong amid the US-China cold war or trade war.

BFM Notes

It’s been an eventful weekend in politics, and all eyes are on whether markets will reflect the renewed uncertainty. We reached out to Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, to help us break down Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell’s comments before the US Senate Banking Committee, data expectations, and what the potential impact of Hong Kong losing its special status might be on emerging market currencies.

Produced by: Michael Gong, Roshan Kanesan

Presented by: Noelle Lim, Roshan Kanesan, Lyn Mak

Listen to the BFM Podcast here.

Show Notes

BFM: Thanks for joining us, Tony. So now, Jerome Powells made some comments before the Senate Banking Committee pointing towards a cautious rebound in the US economy. But nevertheless, U.S. markets closed in the green on the back of some positive housing data. So could you help shed some light on what’s happening here?

TN: Sure. We had the positive housing data. We had a broad tech rally. We also had Boeing like 14 percent today on a test flight on the 737 Max. So it was simply a test flight and it was a successful test flight and Boeing rallied 14 percent. It’s a major component and it has an impact on broad market activity. So there are some good things happening, but certainly low expectations environment.

BFM: Do you expect end of quarter rebalancing by funds, would that costs significant market volatility? I mean, could you just give us some thoughts about this?

TN: As we’ve said before, we expect volatility to continue through probably mid-August. So we will see some rebalancing and we will see as these investors figure out what the right value is for the assets they’re invested in. So we’ll see some change. We’ll see a lot of people kind of take it in Q2. And Q3 is a brand new quarter, so they’ll wipe the slate clean. We’ve seen a lot of companies dump everything but the kitchen sink into the Q2 earnings. Well, but we expect them to. And so Q3 will be hopefully a whole new world. And and we’ll be approaching something more positive by then.

BFM: Right. And Tony, when we look at the every week, we’ve been paying very close attention to the jobless claims numbers, right? What are your expectations of the US Weekly jobless claims numbers this week and June Non-Farm payroll data that’s expected on Thursday or Friday overtime?

TN: Well, we saw a huge jump in non-farm payrolls in May of 2.5 million, which was pretty massive. Also, the unemployment rate improved from almost 20 percent to like 13 percent. So, we expect things to improve gradually. We don’t expect the two million, although I hope we do, but we don’t expect that magnitude. But we do expect jobs to continue to accumulate as companies gradually come back. So the initial wave of companies opening up in the US produced a lot of new jobs. But now we’re starting to see that continue, but not necessarily at the same magnitude. But again, if we see 2.5 million or more, that will be a delight, everyone.

BFM: So now, Tony, fluctuating crude prices and as well as bankruptcies like Chesapeake Energy make oil stocks seem like a bit of a risky proposition. Shouldn’t investors still be considering energy companies as part of their portfolio?

TN: Well, I think you have to do with caution. So we look at things like crude oil inventories in the US reached an all time high of something like 540 million barrels about a week and a half two weeks ago. So there’s plenty in storage. I think if you’re investing in energy companies, whether they’re the developers option companies or service providers or whatever, I think you just have to go in with your eyes open to know that the growth there and the draw down in inventories is not likely to be a quick one.

TN: So, again, it’s just you have to understand your own risk profile. You have to understand your own tolerance and then go in. I mean, when you look at something like Chesapeake, that was, it happened. And I don’t think it was a complete surprise. But you also look at BP. They sold off their chemical business to Eneos over the weekend. And so some of these companies are hiving off other businesses so they can focus on their core business.

BFM: So, now you know, the latest piece of news where US is going to revoke Hong Kong’s special status. So what do you make of this piece of news in the larger picture of the trade war, the Cold War between China and US?

TN: I think it puts Hong Kong… It’s another piece in the puzzle to put Hong Kong in a light that it doesn’t really want to be put in, which is one country, one system. Hong Kong has for the last 20, 30 years, been the special place where you can access China without all the baggage. But what we’ve seen with the security like coming in is if you’re in Hong Kong, you’re also accepting the China baggage, which means you have to self-censor your comments, which means you have to be really careful about everything you do and say. And if you’re an investor, that’s a pretty difficult place to be. And so I think, the announcements in the State Department of not selling this technically sensitive equipment there, it was inevitable.

I don’t necessarily think it’s a surprise. I think from the Chinese side, it may have been a surprise. But I think they were kind of deluding themselves if they didn’t expect it. So there is accountability for China’s actions and it’s been as they’ve moved into Hong Kong, there have to have been ramifications and were seeing those, and there will be more. And China will have to understand that if they want the benefits of open, say investment markets, they’re going to have to limit their desire to control a number of aspects around business.

BFM: Thank you very much for speaking with us this morning, Tony. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us his insight into global markets.

Podcasts

Mo’ Money, Mo’ Honey

Tony Nash speaks with the BFM team in Malaysia to explain what’s going on in the US markets and economy after the FOMC announcement. What it means for gold and other assets, if businesses actually spend the excess cash for capital reinvestment, how this adds to wealth inequality in America, and how do tech stocks and traditional stocks compare?

BFM Notes

In the US, the FOMC left interest rates unchanged, pledging to continue with their quantitative easing till 2022, indicating that America’s markets will continue soaring on the back of this wall of cheap liquidity.

Tony Nash, the CEO of Complete Intelligence in Texas, discusses the implications of what commentators are calling the Fed’s ‘yield curve control’ policy.

Produced by: Michael Gong

Presented by: Roshan Kanesan, Noelle Lim, Khoo Hsu Chuang

Listen to this podcast in BFM: The Business Station.

Show Notes

BFM: Let’s talk about the markets in the U.S. Markets whipsawed as all attention was on the FOMC meeting. The Dow closed down one percent. The S&P 500 closed down 0.5 percent. But the Nasdaq closed up in the green. 0.7 percent. What about Asia? Asia was rather mixed. The Shanghai Composite ended down 0.4 percent. The Hang Seng was marginally down by 0.03 percent. The Nikkei 225, I think they closed up about 0.2 percent. And FBM was up 0.01 percent. Just barely in the green — 0.01 percent. Now for more on global markets, we speak to Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Tony, are you down the line with us?

TN: Yes, sir. Morning.

BFM: Good morning to you. Now, the FOMC left interest rates unchanged of the meeting, pledging to continue with quantitative easing till 2022. What does this tell you about the state of the economy there?

TN: The Fed is really just trying to create stability. We see them, like you said, the next three years, they’ll keep them the same. We think that they’ll just reinforce some of the policies they’ve already put in place. One of the areas we see them focusing on is on yield curve control, although that’s not explicit. We really see that as an area that they’re moving in to encourage capital investment.

We’ve really seen capital investment fall here in the States, especially since the COVID time. Oil and gas companies have trimmed billions of dollars of capital investment, for example. So if they can have low-cost borrowing through a yield curve control, it could help that.

BFM: What are the implications of doing this? Yield curve control that, for example, on gold?

TN: The environment generally with both QE, which is meant to provide liquidity, and yield curve control, which is meant to provide low interest rates, what that does is it really pushes the Dollar down. Although it’s not perfectly inverse, there is generally inverse relationship between the Dollar and gold. So if it’s intended to push the value of the Dollar down, one would expect gold to rise.

BFM: Tony, yield curve control can also be called money printing, which has been happening for the last ten, twelve years from an evidence shil standpoint. Have corporations actually spend some of that excess cash on capital reinvestment or have they done it in terms of paying dividends to themselves and their shareholders or even worse, share buybacks?

TN: Mostly share buybacks. But share buybacks and dividends, one can argue are similar. It’s just a different form of paying back shareholders. So share buybacks have really been made to be evil over the last, say, five, 10 years or something. But it’s really similar to a dividend that it brings value to the investors themselves. So is it a good thing? I don’t necessarily think so, but it is just one form of getting money back to investors.

It’s not necessarily helping capital investment. It hasn’t necessarily helped capital investment. And so, you know, looking at things like yield curve control, what we’ve seen is a lot of QE, but we haven’t seen as much yield curve control. So yield curve control could be one way to provide more incentive for capex.

BFM: Well, that hasn’t happened clearly. And to what extent do you think that that policy has exacerbated the wealth inequality in the country, in the United States, which some say has manifested themselves in some of these demonstrations you see all over the country?

TN: That’s a very complicated question. And we can spend a lot of time on it. So I think whether a yield curve control has done that, I can’t necessarily argue for or against it. Has QE done that? Oh, surely. I mean, QE has definitely contributed to inequality. It’s definitely contributed more to capital concentration itself than overall inequality. Capital is concentrated with the investment class rather than, say, the working class. Although that sounds very Marxist and it didn’t really mean it to sound that way, but it’s really helped to concentrate capital.

BFM: Well, let’s take a look at last night. The U.S. markets were mixed overnight. Is this a reality check that the recovery may not be as soon or as sharp as anticipated by investors?

TN: The kind of the relief rally we’ve seen over the past few weeks has really been one of really just excitement that COVID is ending and really hopeful that things will open, as well as recognition of the Fed’s activity and the Treasury’s activity of getting trillions of dollars into the economy. As investors realize how slow those openings are going to be and the impact that it will have on Q2 earnings, but potentially Q3 earnings. I think we’ll see some of this enthusiasm fall away. So markets are trying to find that level. What is that level? And because there is so much uncertainty, we don’t really know that level. This is why we’ve expected volatility through Q2 and into Q3 until there’s more clarity about the pace of opening, how that will affect different industries, and the severity of, say, a second wave. And to be honest, whether people really care about the second wave.

BFM: Well, NASDAQ has passed ten thousand and valuation is at the highest in the last 15 years. Where do you think tech stocks will go from here?

TN: It really all depends on how companies focus on things like productivity. If we continue to see layoffs and unemployment, companies may decide to invest in technology. We may see some real broad-based investment in productivity like we did twenty five to 20 years ago when companies really started to invest in computing and Internet and all these other productivity shows, it’s quite possible that we see that across large companies.

It’s really questionable. Have we expanded valuations as far as we can or is there further expansion there?

BFM: Just following up on that. We’ve seen the market recover in the U.S., but there’s definitely a divergence between how the tech stocks have performed and how the larger S&P 500 has performed. Do you think there’s a lot more room for tech stock? Do you think these two indexes will actually going to diverge at this point?

TN: We may see a little bit of divergence, but I don’t see that much divergence. I think there is a lot of synchronization within those indexes. We may see a bit like we saw today, but I don’t think that will continue in a massive way.

BFM: So when you mean synchronicity, you mean that they will track each other in a parallel? But there is a gap between something like the NY Fang index and the S&P in general. Is that due to the S&P just being weighted down by other classes of assets there?

TN: Sure, yeah. It’s looking at traditional businesses that have physical assets and a lot of legacy employees and retirement commitments. These sorts of things really weight down old traditional businesses. The Fang’s, for example, they don’t have a huge retirement commitments than, say, a large manufacturer that’s maybe a 100 years old has. As those things play through and this really has to do with the aging of baby boomers, really. Those retirement commitments will age with them and then they’ll phase out eventually.

But a lot of this is around again, those companies are not as efficient as they could be. And until they get to a level of efficiency that they need, we’re gonna see a drag on their earnings. So, of course, with guys like the Fang’s, since they have kind of virtual software related businesses, they will have valuations that are much more generous than traditional, say S&P 500 businesses.

BFM: All right, Tony. Thank you so much for your time this morning. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence.

I think just ending that point is how this divergence between traditional industries and tech industries had been even more highlighted by what we’ve seen.

Yeah, I think that’s really quite concerning because the alternative point of view is that of the Fed’s money printing policy, which has really accelerated exponentially the last three months. There really is no indication from Trump, from Jay Powell, that he has an exit strategy in mind or has any exit strategy at all. Because how do you unwind this much? You basically dopamine the markets without having some kind of pain. It’s very clear, I mean, even though he was quite tempered in his response, this inequality has been really exec-abated for the last 10 years.

Tags bfm, bfm 89.9, bfm the business station, economy, Financial Services, FOMC, hang seng, markets, NASDAQ, ny fang, nyse, oil currency, Personal Finance, tony nash, United States, yield

QuickHit Visual (Videos)

QuickHit: “LUV in the Time of COVID”

Post author By admin
Post date June 11, 2020
No Comments on QuickHit: “LUV in the Time of COVID”

Avalon Advisor’s chief economist and author of “After Normal: Making Sense of the Global Economy”, Sam Rines joins Tony Nash for the 14th episode of QuickHit, where we discussed the L, U, and V recoveries in different states and industries. He also shares some interesting data on traffic congestion, CPIs, car sales, and food prices — and what these data mean for investors, businesses, and people. And what trend is he seeing to pop back up in travel and leisure?

Don’t miss out some of our relevant QuickHit episodes:

Proactive companies use data to COVID-proof their supply chains

Manufacturers are bouncing back, but…

We’re not going to normalize

How do we use up all the corn now?

Show Notes

TN: I’m trying to figure out when and how do we come out of this? We have our models, we have our views on things. But I read your stuff every day and what are you thinking? Where are we right now? Are we early, mid, late? Where are we now and where do you think will go in the next few weeks or months?

SR: So I think the answer is all three. We call it LUV in the Time of COVID. There will be an L-shaped recovery, a U-shaped recovery, and a V-shaped recovery depending on whether you look at Texas or Florida or Kentucky. Whether its manufacturing or services. Everything has its own shape. So we’re early on some, middle on some, and late on others.

On the overall employment side, we’re probably past peak pain. At this point, you’re mostly having unemployment benefits a hindrance to bringing people back to work, not help people keep afloat. That’s not true everywhere. Certainly, there are places that are still shut down and those people still need those unemployment benefits. But places like Texas that are reopening to a certain degree like Florida and Georgia. It’s difficult to bring people back to jobs that pay less than the enhanced unemployment benefits.

One interesting piece of the puzzle though is the continuing unemployment claims and you’ve begun to see the states that open actually begin to roll those down. So people are coming off those unemployment slowly. It’s not happening quickly. Florida is one of the exceptions that Florida came off extremely fast. I think that’s going to be one of the stories that’ll pick up pace over the next three to four weeks. There’s a decent chance that if we’ll continue to have these types of numbers for continuing claims. There’s a decent chance that the May unemployment number will be the worst number we see this year. You begin to improve pretty quickly. The June number, we don’t take that survey for another few weeks. That’s more than likely going to be better than May in terms of unemployment beginning to come down. So we think it’s a mixed bag. But employments probably going to improve from here.

TN: That’s good news, I hope. There are a lot of service jobs and blue-collar jobs that were laid off in the first waves. Is that right?

SR: Yeah most of them. The interesting thing is it’s fairly easy to social distance within most manufacturing facilities. So manufacturing, theoretically, can snap back a little bit faster than the services side of the economy. The services industry is going to be the laggard here. But the service industry is also the majority employer, far more important on the employment side of manufacturing.

TN: You keep an eye on things like traffic patterns and restaurant usage. What are you seeing as the rate at coming back and then what does that say about things like food prices or gasoline consumption?

SR: It’s snapping back very quickly on the driving side of things. That’s snapping back much faster than public transit, airlines, etc. You have the U for airlines and mass transit. But you have what appears to be a pretty sharp V in driving. Congestion is almost back to normal levels in places like Houston during rush hour. Texas generally is back towards its baseline according to most of the metrics.

The RV sales are through the roof. People still want to go on vacation. And if you can’t and don’t want to get on a plane and go to Cabo, you get in an RV and go to the Grand Canyon. It’s just another way to get out of the house. I got to a little bit of trouble for saying it. But I’ll say it again, if you keep boomers off of cruise ships, they’ll find a way to still go places and still have fun in retirement. They’re not just gonna stay up. They’re not just going to stay cooped up in their house. And the interesting thing about that is an RV is not a small investment for most people. So I think that travel might have more legs than people are really giving credit for. Camping might actually make a come back here versus your more crowded areas, particularly within that boomer crowd.

TN: Back to the 70s for camping. We hear about food shortages with meat and we also hear about storage for crude oil. With more activity, are you seeing faster drawdown with crude oil? Are you seeing anything happening there in terms of food?

SR: So with crude, we’re beginning to see drawdowns and I’m not sure that it’s faster than we anticipated. But gasoline particularly has picked up much faster than people anticipated. That drawdown will be much faster, much stronger and have longer legs than was anticipated. On the overall demand side for oil, it’s a harder picture to paint. Aviation fuel is a significant driver on the margin of usage within the US. A lack of that is offsetting any bullishness on the gasoline side. Those will probably balance each other out for the most part as we move forward and you have a drawdown that’s relatively in line with what we were anticipating a few months ago.

On the food side, you’ve seen a snapback in restaurants for Texas in particular. We are back to, give or take 55 percent usage for restaurants. We have 50% occupancy allowed in Texas. That appears to be pretty close to maxed out. At least restaurants, we get reservations. We’ve seen some interesting things on the eat-at-home food side. We dug through the CPI, the inflation data pretty carefully and found that the food at home was getting increasingly expensive in a way that we hadn’t seen in a long time. Eggs were getting expensive. Meat was getting expensive. Fresh fruits and vegetables are getting expensive and they were accelerating at a pretty rapid pace.

It does look like we’re going to have some pretty good crops. It doesn’t look like we’re going to have trouble on that front. So we shouldn’t have the pricing pressure emanating from that side, which is good.

The critical aspect is going to be how do we get the beef demand back up to the point where you actually have cattle ranchers wanting to not cull their herds and therefore drive state prices higher. I think that’s going to take more states opening restaurants like New York, California, and other big steak consuming areas of the country reopening and really beginning to drive that incremental demand.

Another fun note is I grew up in New Hampshire. Lobster is an important part of eating there. And lobster prices plummeted to the point where lobstermen decided they probably shouldn’t even go out and they were selling for two to four dollars a pound on the side of the road.

TN: Let’s just take a minute and we’re sitting in October 1st. We’ve gone through Q2. It was carnage. We’ve gone through Q3 and we’re looking back on Q3 versus Q2. What are you thinking at that point, October 1st of this year? Help me understand a little bit of that based on your perspective today.

SR: Based on my perspective today, I’ll probably be sitting in Boston, hopefully having a client meeting at a lobster that’s more expensive than three bucks, looking back and wondering how we missed the pickup that was happening in June and July and how the pockets of things that were doing much better than anticipated.

It’s worth noting according to one of the data sources I used, auto sales are actually picking back up rapidly from down, north of 60% for new cars and used cars. New autos only down, I’d call it the high 20% range from a year ago. Used cars down single digits from a year ago, on a volume basis. That kind of snapback in different pockets of the economy is going to be what I’m looking back and wondering how I missed whatever it might be whether it was people wanting to get back on cruises. I don’t think they’re going to want to give back on cruises. I don’t think people are gonna jump back on planes very quickly.

I think we have a 911 type of recovery. Three years, give or take there. I think that’s the mindset to use. But there will be something that just completely catches me off guard in terms of the speed and rapidity that it comes back, or with the L-shaped, it’s just never coming back. One thing I think we’ll catch a lot of people off-guard is the pivot on the margin from hotels to homes. Renting at home instead of renting a hotel. Being spaced away from people, having the pool to yourself. I think there will be trends like that that have become pretty clear whether or not they have legs by October and I think that’s probably one of them.

Visual (Videos)

Deflation (and falling demand) is Still The Main Problem Globally Now?

Post author By admin
Post date June 7, 2020
No Comments on Deflation (and falling demand) is Still The Main Problem Globally Now?

This video is originally uploaded on Youtube at https://youtu.be/0D0IxTnufoo.

Jason Burack of Wall St for Main St interviewed returning guest, founder and CEO of Complete Intelligence, Tony Nash.

Tony’s company helps many companies solve their global supply chain problems and he has also lived and worked in Asia for 15 years in the past and advised the Chinese government on their economy and trade in the past. Tony’s company also uses AI predictive analytics software to predict stock market and commodity price movements.

During this 40+ minute interview, Jason asks Tony about China’s economy, the global chain, the threat of much worse stagflation and volatility in markets like stocks. Tony thinks that the main problem is still deflation and a lack of demand now regardless of the amount of currency, stimulus and bailouts governments do.

Show Notes

JB: Hi everyone. This is Jason Burack of Wall St for Main St. Welcome back to another Wall Street from Main Street podcast interview today’s special guest is a returning guest he is founder and CEO of Complete Intelligence, Tony Nash thank you for joining me.

TN: Thanks Jason.

JB: now Tony, I know you’ve lived in Asia for 15 years you’ve done a lot of work with the Chinese government consulting them on their economy. You’ve worked with a lot of companies all over Asia — Singapore, China, Hong Kong — helping them with their supply chains. So let’s talk about the Chinese economy and if you think it’s recovered post coronavirus.

You put out a survey about a month or so ago talking about unemployment rates in China with factory order…

TN: 50 million because at the time I think China had said that there were five million unemployed as a result of coronavirus and I put out survey saying “is it 0-5 million, 5-25 or something and then over 50.” And the vast majority of people responded over 50 million people. Not vast majority, but majority of people responded over 50 million.

I’ve since seen data that estimates unemployment in China alone as a result of coronavirus at 120 million or more. I think it’s safe to say nobody actually knows the real number. But it’s probably big. And it’s probably tens of millions rather than single millions. I think it’s a safe bet to say it’s probably north of 50 million. A number of economists watching China are still assuming that the government number holds.

JB: I’ve been reading articles quoting some factory owners and some factory owners in China. I don’t know if this is all the factory owners. But at least a few of them that have been quoting articles have been saying that their orders are down 70 percent. So exports are down a lot so there are not purchase orders for a lot of different companies right now is that what you’re also hearing?

TN: Sure there was just a piece out today saying that a survey in China has exports for May down 7 to 8 percent year-on-year. Imports are down almost 10 percent year-on-year. That survey data Is possibly under under waiting what the fall is. I don’t doubt that exports are down double digits and there has been some lag. As you remember from the kind of early mid Corona period, there were these supply chain issues of just getting stuff out. So initially, there was this wave of pent up export requirements just to get stuff out of China. But now things are starting to settle in because you have those demand in May, especially with the US and Europe closed, you have real demand depression. I think the main numbers may be overstated a bit and I think the exports may be down even more. Of course, it’s highly unlikely we’ll see that in the official data but it’s terrible.

I think things may be recovering a bit. I don’t think that China is in for a V-shaped recovery like we’ve seen, but I do think that they’ll come back maybe not to as much as they had thought they would but I don’t think it’s going to be a long-term depression.

My concern with China is in industrial production declines and the employment declines that come as a result of that and then the wage pressure that comes as a result of that.

JB: what is the percentage of GDP for exports right now because there’s a lot of people that are I would call them China trolls that tell me that it’s a lot lower amount but the numbers I’ve seen for exports as a percentage of GDP are still very high for the Chinese economy.

TN: It’s not as high as I once as I once knew. It’s definitely, I believe as a percent of GDP it’s it’s smaller than it was like five years ago. You do have that growing services economy component you do have growing domestic demand so but I don’t think it’s it’s definitely not as high as it was. Sorry I don’t have the number to hand but it’s really not what it once was>

JB: It seems that China has like astagflation problem right now in food prices and rent they’ve had to import an enormous amount of pork last year. All of 2018, they were having the African swine flu problem so the report shortages in China food prices were rising long before the coronavirus, and there’s a lot of videos online of shop owners protesting either rent not being reduced or rent prices going up by their building owner. So would you say that that’s why the Chinese government and the People’s Bank of China has been very hesitant about how much stimulus and QE to inject into their economy right now because they are worried that if they put too much in it will accelerate like a stagflation problem in their rural economy?

TN: I think that’s a concern. I think there’s also just concerns about the fiscal resources if the Chinese government has. Of course, they can print as many fun tickets as they want as long as it’s in CNY. But I think that is a concern.

I’m quite frankly more concerned about about deflationary pressures in China and just just on the face of it naked deflationary pressures through obviously the rest of Q2 and into Q3 and then how they potentially get out of it. I think China really hasn’t had an issue or had a problem with contriving inflation when needed. But if we do have the industrial production issues and the wage issues that I’ve been concerned about, I do think that deflation is more the overall and more serious concern there.

JB: That’s interesting because you’ve been predicting that the Chinese yuan against their exchange rate against the dollar it gets devalue down 7.2, right?

TN: That’s right.

JB: How would that jive then with deflation if they’re trying to devalue their currency?

TN: I think you’ve got both of those trends moving in the same direction. Unfortunately with energy prices down into the 30s, of course you have into the 40s. Yesterday or today, you have Brent move into the 40s. Sorry WTI. With the resources depressed, again, this is on a year-on-year basis.

But I think there’s serious downward pressure and will be continuing a series downward pressure on resources and commodities so the secondary impacts will also show a bit of producer price deflation. And then you have just the function of overproduction in China and having to sell those inventories. You don’t necessarily have the take off from the US. Partly I mean, this is a two or so year-old trade war, but because of our discussion, but because of the trade war, and then you have the issues in Europe with demand as a result of COVID, so I think you’re looking at more supply in China of manufactured goods.

They’re looking at commodity prices that I don’t believe we’ll come back dramatically. It’s it’s an ongoing issue. At the same time, you have the what I believe ongoing concerns for industrial production as a result of this and then there are the jobs and wages issues. If you have wages declining, then people just can’t pay for those goods so that’s disinflationary. Again I’m worrying about this where I think a lot of other people aren’t worrying about this. But it is something that I’m actually quite concerned about in China.

JB: It looks like the government can create even more distortions with what they try to do with intervention and central planning with the currency. We’re recording this interview right now in June 5th, the currency is that the Chinese Yuan is at 7.081 to the Dollar.

I’ve been reading articles that a lot of Chinese manufacturers are producing but there’s not really demand. So they’re stockpiling a lot of stuff. I’ve been reading a lot of articles lately too about a lot of oil companies in China importing more oil. I think they built another or the atleast announced another Strategic Petroleum Reserve. How many is that what five or six now? They are buying more oil. I don’t know if they’re using the oil because my friend tracks Chinese auto traffic data and he says it’s nowhere near the pre-coronavirus 2019 levels and there’s almost no traffic whatsoever on the weekends in the major cities. Only at rush hour is there actually like anywhere close to normal traffic levels and the other data throughout the day and night and on the weekends is nowhere is way way off.

TN: It’s not surprising at all. What it reminds me of is the kind of quotas for stockpiling for Soviet production and the kind of deflationary impact that had in many ways on certain goods in the former Soviet Union. In China, over production and stockpiling, I mean we’ve known about this and things like steel for years. But as it comes to finished goods, that’s hugely problematic given the volume that I suspect overproduction is happening and given the disappearance of demand in overseas markets and obviously domestic markets. Areas like automotive auto parts electronic goods these sorts of things that just people are not going to be renewing. Of course that’s not an absolute statement. It’s an incremental statement, but these things really hurt the manufacturing complex in China. We’ve all taken a pause generally from consumption in Q2 globally. In China it’s been a bit more stark.

JB: I think the factory orders are not coming in like you said in the stockpiling is just increasing the amount of credit that I think the Chinese government is injecting I’ve seen from China beige but they put an article out on their Twitter it was like 400 billion in a month pace. But I think a lot of that’s just going to keeping the factories running right now so they don’t go bankrupt.

TN: Yeah and that’s not surprising. I mean they don’t want people to be unemployed because they don’t want to see civil unrest. We’ll see more and more social controls in China so that there isn’t civil unrest because people are just bored out of their minds.

JB: Speaking of social unrest you know all the rules changes and stuff going on with Hong Kong. We’ll talk about U.S. and China trade relations in a couple minutes, but do you think that China one of the main reasons they’re going into Hong Kong is economically? Do you think that the Chinese government is eyeing that $400 billion that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has to protect their dollar pay?

TN: Of course they are. I think the US was really smart to take away Hong Kong status very, very quickly because the incentive was that Hong Kong would continue to be this buffer zone and that China would continue to be able to benefit from that buffer zone and it’s fine if it’s a buffer zone and it really is a free market because in its heyday, and this is not that long ago like months ago, Hong Kong was the freest market in the world. But as you have the mainland authorities take over things like the judiciary, then Hong Kong no longer become the freest market in the world. So I think that was the reason or there are a lot of reasons but that was one of the reasons for them to grow assertive. China is looking for reasons to distract from the economy, which i think is extremely dangerous, but I think Hong Kong is one way for them to distract from their domestic economic issues.

JB: I completely agree. I think there was multiple reasons for what they did with Hong Kong and then what Trump does they gonna blame it on Trump.

TN: Right of course and that’s fine and that’s easy. Anything to distract, whether it’s incursions in India or whether its South China Sea or its Hong Kong or whatever it is. The Chinese ambassador to the UK making stupid statements about the Tiananmen, well kind of circumventing that. They’re doing anything they can to distract from their own domestic economy.

JB: I think yesterday was the anniversary of Tiananmen.

TN: that’s right

JB: For our listeners are not familiar, I think one of the tricks that what not the a lot of Chinese companies were getting around to not pay the tariffs last year was they were exporting their goods from mainland China to Hong Kong and then they were taking advantage of that. So they were re-exporting out of Hong Kong to avoid the tariffs that the US had put on. I think that was quite common practice, right?

TN: Sure yeah. Any sort of third country trans-shipment, but Hong Kong was as viable as any other, and because it had this relationship with the US, it was a very easy solution. But I think that’s becoming more and more difficult. Regardless of the goods, I think it’s becoming more and more difficult. Even things like exporting components or knocked down goods for assembly and their locations even that stuff is becoming more and more difficult.

JB: So now I want to transition to the US and China trade relations. We still occasionally get a tweet out from Trump or one of his representatives in the Trump administration or White House about how the US-China trade deal is progressing. But really, there’s been very little positive actions on China’s end about the trade deal. I think they made one purchase of soybeans. The trade announcement was in October 2019. So we have October, November, December, January, February, March, April and May. Finally, the Chinese government buys some soybeans in May. It was a fairly decently large order. But look at all the months that they didn’t really buy anything, it didn’t comply with phase one. So do you think the phase one trade agreement is dead?

TN: I don’t think it’s necessarily dead, but I think China is very good at negotiating agreements and very bad at going through on them. This is why the Americans were very focused on the enforcement mechanism within the phase one agreement. So I think the real question is, will the US follow through with enforcement? If the US doesn’t follow through with enforcement, then it’s just a piece of paper. It doesn’t really matter that much. But if the enforcement mechanisms come through, then I think it’s possible. Again, I’m skeptical. I was pleasantly shocked and surprised when the agreement was made in Q4. At the time, I was like most people skeptical about the ability to have that enforced because what are you gonna do? You can’t force people to buy stuff from you. That’s the real problem. Now with Hong Kong coming into the picture and with the US has action on Hong Kong coming into the picture, I think it’s going to be harder and harder for those for those the agreement terms to be exercised.

JB: My contracts in China, when the phase 1 deal was announced, they were really happy for the Chinese government. They were celebrating because no more tariff hikes. That was the main goal for the Chinese government for phase 1 announcement the trade deal was to make sure there was no more tariff hikes.

TN: Right. Evidently some of the state-owned buyers have started to look at soybeans and other products more recently. I’m just not sure that that’s real. I mean, this is some stuff that we’ve been hearing some transactions in the market. But stopping the tariff hikes is the first thing but actually getting them to buy is the more interesting part on the US side of course.

JB: But did Beijing just almost now for the last month or so there’s been press release announcements back and forth, back and forth between the US and China like Trump is now blocking the retirement savings I think of a lot of military and government employees from being invested in China, China then threatened to remove Chinese companies listing from US exchanges. Those are just a couple examples but back and forth back and forth back and forth. This is going. It doesn’t seem like this is Trump’s crazy way of negotiating from the art of the deal but this just doesn’t seem like it’s productive towards a trade agreement.

TN: I think it’s more of a recognition that these things haven’t been happening anyway. We may very well see more purchasing later in the year but I think this stuff is that there has to be well, there is tension between the US and China. China has become more aggressive in South China Sea in Hong Kong and other places, India. I think part of this is maybe not necessarily a direct hit on what may seem to be a problem it may be related to actions that China has been taking toward relationships that the US is becoming closer to. I don’t necessarily see trade as a single issue. I see trade as a multi-layered issue.

JB: Interesting. How important do you think what’s happening with Huawei and how the Huawei CFO, her extradition process in Canada is continuing, how important do you think that is?

TN: It’s very, because Huawei is kind of a crown jewel in China and I think as the UK starts looking to other technology as Huawei technology becomes an issue for Germany and they start looking at other sources, I think that removes China’s centrality to the deployment of these types of networks. Of course, that’s obvious. But the services, the information and other things that you can sell off of owning that network equipment is huge. So it’s not just a one-time sale. It is a long relationship. Now that doesn’t just have impacts on Huawei. It has impacts on places like China export-import bank or CDB. It’s not just the equipment, it’s the financing of the equipment. These centrally planned economies or heavily centrally influenced economies, it’s a game of musical chairs. Once you stop the music, it has knock-on effects for many, many other players. I think the Huawei issue with Canada and the US is that on its own is an embarrassing issue. But stopping the purchase of Huawei equipment in Europe and the US and other places has long-term commercial effects with Huawei, but also the whole value chain including places like Export Import Bank and other places that are supporting those purchases or supporting the financing of those activities, whether it’s Exim Bank or another bank doesn’t matter, but it’s the overseas financial services impacts in China is also stopped or slowing dramatically.

JB: Do you think then if the Huawei CFO, if the charges aren’t dropped, if this doesn’t stop with what’s going on with Huawei, that that’s a deal-breaker for the US and China trade relations? Are they going to be able to figure out a workaround?

TN: There are a number of layers here. First of all, it shows that the law is not the law in China, that you can be of a certain class and rank and the law doesn’t really apply to you, if in fact she broke the law, right? If she broke the law and China is still upset then, it’s a very clear indicator to Chinese citizens that the law doesn’t apply to people of Ming stature. That’s a problem for China. While they fight for her return, I think a very bad development for them would be that she has found guilty yet China still wants her let free and they let her go. That’s a real perception problem in China for Chinese citizens. But do I think it will impact the US-China trade war? I think every issue is connected when you’re talking to China. So now from the US side, the way Trump thinks is he bundles issues, and so the way American administration’s typically think is they think in an unbundled way. So the State Department typically cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. We’ve seen that for decades State Department will be happy about finishing one agreement when another agreement that should be linked isn’t and they can never get it done or something like that. What Trump and what his administration actually does very well from my perspective is they bundle things extremely well and so I don’t think the Trump administration itself sees that trade agreement as discrete and different from the main issue or from Taiwan or South China Sea or Hong Kong or any of these issues. I thing the administration sees everything is bundled which is not dissimilar from the way the Chinese diplomats and central government see things. They see everything is bundled.

JB: I see Huawei is one of the most important things for China because they have such long-term plans for it like you said like it’s their main cornerstone company, it’s their main technology company and then once Huawei has control over the 5g networks and all the other infrastructure there for communications, then the other Chinese companies the financing companies and all the others start to follow suit after that.

TN: Yeah. I think that’s fair.

JB: Let’s talk then about the global supply chain. It seems in January and February, the global supply chain started to break. Do you think that it’s being fixed now?

TN: Do I think it’s fixed? I don’t. Our US supply chains fixed. I don’t think they’re fixed. Is the Chinese supply chain infrastructure moving again? Yes. I think what’s happening is a number of important US importers and US manufacturers and even global manufacturers are trying to find places to reduce their risk and exposure to China. And not because they want to abandon China. I don’t believe that’s the case at all. I think we see people who are say super nationalist or whatever who want to act like these guys are interested in leaving China completely. I don’t believe that’s the case at all. I think global manufacturers are looking for incremental manufacturing capacity to reduce their risk if there is a second wave of Corona, if there is political unrest in China, if there is some sort of retribution or something. I think they want incremental manufacturing for that. And for that, they’ll look to places like Mexico, parts of the US parts, or Europe or somewhere else, other place in Latin America. I don’t necessarily see a wholesale substitutional effect for supply chains out of China at least for the first two to three years. I think over time, there may be more substitutionality. But right now, I think it’s more of an incremental discussion.

JB: Do you think India is gonna benefit from this because we’ve seen headlines where India is talking about subsidizing, trying to get more Apple supply chain out of China? I think they’ve gotten one company to move from China to India but they’re going after a lot more than that. They see this as an opportunity and the sentiment online, Tony, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen this before where lots of people here in the West in the US and Europe are talking about boycotting Chinese products. Now that’s easier said than done because a lot of stuff that’s partially made in China is finished assembling here in the US and then it’s stamped made in the US but it’s all the components that go into it are not fully made in the US.

TN: Do I might think India will benefit from this? I love India. I really wish India would benefit from this. But I think there’s so much corruption in India. I think it’s very, very difficult. I think it’d be a very difficult thing for any manufacturer to make a significant commitment to India. While I would love for India to benefit from this, and while I would love for manufacturers to move to India, I think the reality is from a bureaucratic, from a corruption, from a just sheer logistically difficult position, again, you know I spent a lot of time in India in the same way I spent a lot of time in China. I just don’t see that happening. I wish it would, but I just don’t see it happening.

JB: That’s sad.

TN: Yup.

JB: it’s sad, they have an opportunity to do it too.

TN: They do, but I think the institutional issues are so great that it’s gonna take them years and years to root that out. Look, having services functions moved to India? No problem at all. This is why the BPO sector started booming in India 20 years ago. But actually having physical Manufacturing, and physical logistics, I think it’s probably still a very difficult proposition.

JB: In some of your answers, you said that the large corporations don’t want to leave China said they don’t really care if some of their intellectual property or research and development or forced technology transfer or a forced Chinese silent partner they were okay with that?

TN: No, I’m not saying they don’t want to leave China. But they already have a large amount of investment there and so moving wholesale from China over the next two to three years presents a big risk for them. So I think, what they’ll do is initially move incremental production away from China. Let’s say it’s a new model or a new product line or a regionalised product line. Let’s say they do something just for North America or something, I think they’ll move that stuff first because those are new supply chains that they would be building out. New manufacturers or expanded with existing manufacturers and then they look at either new physical transport or expanded physical transport. All these things are things that they have to be careful of not just the risk in China, but the risk within the new supply chains that they’re developing in other places.

So I don’t think any major US manufacturer will rush out of China unless they’re absolutely forced to. I think they’ll develop parallel supply chains and incremental supply chains first. Test them out for a couple years and then gradually, some of that may be rapid some of that may be slow, but gradually move stuff out.

Before the financial crisis in 2008-09, many manufacturers, particularly Japanese manufacturers, but many manufacturers were looking at something that they called their “China plus one” or “China plus 2“ or “China plus 3 strategy”, where they were looking at manufacturing goods in China but having other locations as backups. Now when the financial crisis came about, all these manufacturing firms wanted to just get rid of risk and they saw these other supply chains as risk so they doubled down on China and they continue to build out in China for all the new equipment and hiring and everything else in China as well. So they saw it as de-risking or at least not growing risk, but actually by concentrating their activities it actually became riskier. Now with a place like Japan, we saw with the 2012 riots and protests and other things that the Chinese did against Japan, this was over the Senkaku Islands, we saw a lot of Japanese manufacturers move their manufacturing out of China. Initially it was slow, and then it became much faster. I think people looking to exit China will look at that as a template. It wasn’t that long ago. It was 2012, 13, 14 when this stuff started and then it moved. So I think they look at that as a template rather than China try to invent something wholesale.

JB: I think it could take years for more factories to leave China. Could take a significant amounts of the supply chain to move. There’s billions of dollars of investment. Some of these factories now are not cheap to build. It’s a lot of technology involved, a lot of investment. And given the global economy right now, and how the consumer has not come back, some of these investments may be delayed.

TN: Yeah, I don’t think I’ll take as long as a decade. But I do think it’ll take years. But having said that, I don’t think many of these manufacturers will completely want to remove their operations from China either. It’s a big market and the Chinese spend money just like anyone else. So they’ll have their China operations for China and maybe they’ll build for other parts of Asia or they’ll build especially parts or something like that. But I don’t think many of them will have global manufacturing based in China. I think we’re going to see re-regionalization of supply chains and we may have talked about this before, but the move away from say the NAFTA and Euro area around 2000, it was a zero sum where most of the stuff went to China over the next 10 years, 15 years, particularly in the first five years. But then it kind of bled over the next five to eight years and then it became completely concentrated in China and then with the centrality of China, kind of the regionalization complete now we’re starting to see the re-regionalization even if it is a higher manufacturing price because the risk associated with closing again with an event like COVID is so high that people just need to have supply chains closure at home.

JB: Yeah. You told me to call it localization and not de-globalization like Peters Ayhan has been calling it regionalization.

TN: Regionalization, yeah. I think the globalization is a bit of a, it’s charged first of all but I also think it’s not really accurate. I think we’re still globalized. We still have globalization. But I think we’re Re-regionalizing. Things were pretty regionalized in the 90s and then they de-regionalized, they globalized with China as the epicenter but I think we’re going through a phase of re-regionalization and I think we’ll dip into globalization as needed, we’ll dip into regionalization as needed because people can run pretty sophisticated supply chains now and so whereas 20 years ago it was harder to do that.

JB: Yeah, I totally agree. I’ve been reading articles and also my last interview with you where you talked about it, our listeners can go back I think in December 2019, where you’re talking about your company Complete Intelligence and the supply chain management software, the improvements it’s had just in the last couple decades. So in the past, when there wasn’t good supply chain management software, it might take a purchasing manager or manager, even a senior manager at the company, might take them days or weeks with phone calls and tracing to trace orders and exact amounts of the supply chain. Now they can do it on their on their iPad.

TN: Sure, yeah. Just the track and trace stuff, the location of stuff, that’s old technology and it’s very easy. I think what’s harder for people is to understand the true cost and cost scenarios for manufacturing a good. What is the cost at the element level or the component level of that phone that you’re building or that electronic equipment or that food item or whatever. What we’re able to do and I think things are moving is much more precision around taking those costs, breaking them out, understanding where they’re going over the next one to say 24 months so that you can really plan where the best location is, what the right price is, all this stuff. The geopolitics and the trade policy around trade, I don’t think that stuff will ever leave us. The precision with which you can plan around cost and price and other things, I think those things are allowing manufacturers to adjust really, really quickly and really have a bottom line impact within say 90 days something like that.

JB: I think a lot of these governments are talking about trade so much because they all are seeing that they want to bring back manufacturing for jobs.

TN: That’s right. Whether it’s Europe or the US or South East Asia. You look at a place like Malaysia. A lot of Malaysian manufacturing was transitioned to China between say 2000 and 2012, 2015. And now global manufacturing companies or for the past couple years they’ve been looking at places like Malaysia and Thailand again because it’s simply not China and so it’s not just localizing manufacturing in North America it’s looking at other regions and arbitrage in the regulations and the tariffs instead of arbitrage say the electricity price, which is one of the reasons people after Mexico, or regulatory in taxes, which is part of the reason people of the US. So, this isn’t just say a Western or European US issue. It’s regionalization in the truest sense.

JB: So these governments and central banks, it’s not just the US and the Federal Reserve. The European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the People’s Bank of China is doing some but nowhere near the amounts because I think they are really worried about the stagflation component, but they are flooding in general the global economy and asset markets with currency. Some people are getting what twelve hundred dollar checks. There’s SBA loans. Is this going to put a lot higher costs in the global supply chain? Are you seeing higher cost yet?

TN: I don’t necessarily foresee that, but I do think we’ll see incremental costs. So what you’re talking about is so much money is out there that chasing those goods will become more expensive. I think you’ll see that maybe in futures markets or in financial trading markets. But I think in terms of demand-led consumption, actually people buying tangible things, I think we’re in an environment where prices are hard for us to rise. Granted you see oil trading like I said earlier WTI broke I think $40 today, which is great. It’s healthy. But when that actually transitions into physical demand and how that transitions into other areas, I’m not really sure. Meaning, that $40 or how much price pressure is that going to have on downstream goods? Because $40 is much less than it has traded even though we had negative 37 and 20 and 28 and 32 for a long time, those prices are still pretty far depressed from where they have been historically. So I don’t see that. Typically when we have this type of stimulus that cash makes its way into things like real estate and equities and that sort of stuff. Will there be inflation there? Probably. But will we see it in supply chains? Probably not as much as one would think initially.

JB: So you don’t see a stagflation scenario where people in the US are going to be given more $1,200 or more checks per month and then because the global supply chain is not functioning at pre coronavirus levels, that there’s going to be less goods and services to purchase, so there’s going to be more currency creating less goods and services which would be stagflation airing that in my opinion?

TN: Certainly that’s possible. Not necessarily my central view. I think once you see these, the benefits and this $600 a week extra for unemployment, I think once you see that end at the end of June, I think we’ll see people really try to get back to work as quickly as possible. I think we will see some wage deflation among kind of white-collar workers especially in places and things like oil and gas. I’m based in Houston, Texas so I think you’ll see that stuff as those jobs become more competitive. But I don’t necessarily see a fully stagflation airy environment in the US.

JB: I think one of the main points though is the distortions that all these government interventions and the central bank intervention is creating because look at the stock market now that the stock market the Dow is over 27-thousand and I we haven’t seen any examples really of a recovery in the US economy yet.

TN: Again, markets are trying to find their levels and what I’ve been explaining to our clients is we will likely see quite a lot of volatility between now and say August, where we’ll see markets rise and we’ll see markets fall.

In hindsight, if we look let’s say on a monthly average basis, they may look like pretty boring markets. But in reality, we’ll see things rise and fall quite a bit until those markets, whether it’s say a copper price or whether it’s sp500 ETF. They’ll bounce around quite a lot. So again nobody really knows this is this is the problem it’s price discovery. When we talked with say procurement people, our supply chain people, even revenue planning people within companies, they’re all kind of making their best guesses. But they don’t really know and I think whether it’s somebody allocating a portfolio or whether somebody buying for a product, the planning, the precision of planning, the tools that people you are using really are not that precise and they really don’t incorporate a number of scenarios. We do have a lot of planning teams and let’s say portfolio strategy teams who are really kind of guessing and that’s why we see and we believe we will see the volatility in markets because it’s easy to look at the Dow or the S&P and say, “wow that’s too high” and then next week it swings 5% lower and then the week after it swings up 3% and so we see these things go up and down until we find that price where market participants agree that it should be in general region. I think we’re gonna be having that debate in markets for the next two to three months.

JB: I expect a lot more volatility even though the VIX is down below 25 that was below its support levels at 28. It was in a new trading range a higher trading range now it’s below that. But the Fed has talked about Powell and the Fed have talked about wanting to reduce volatility. Temporarily, they have reduced stock market volatility. But I’m looking for data out of the real world economy especially in the US economy where there’s improvement and I haven’t really seen improvement yet, now they are gonna we’re hopefully gonna restart the economy, but who knows if we’re gonna get a second wave of the coronavirus soon.

TN: Well if you look at driving right now, it’s at like 80 percent of pre corona. And this is part of what’s giving strength to crude oil markets. People are getting back on the roads. Not really getting back into planes that much yet. But they are getting back on the roads and I’m optimistic about that. When we start to see some of these basic signs of life at say 80% level, I think that’s positive. I do understand why markets were up today given the unemployment data and things like the road data that sort of stuff. Are they at the right level? I don’t know that anybody really knows but I think there is growing optimism that things may be coming back. The rate at which they’ll come back? Again, I think markets are going to debate that for at least a couple more months and then we’ll see real tangible, sustainable activities say late July August and people get an idea of where things will land for the rest of the year.

JB: Do you think the US economy is gonna have to make some really radical changes as in a lot of the bricks and mortar retailers, a lot of a lot of these casuals sit down in restaurants, they’re going to go away and the transition to e-commerce and online sales is gonna, it was already happening before the coronavirus, but now it’s gonna be a rapid acceleration than in the coming years?

TN: I think in general, I would say no. But I do think that a lot of your marginal businesses in strip malls or your marginal franchises or whatever that we’re just barely making it, I think it’s like this is a good time to cut those losses. I think things like real estate obviously you’ll see some changes there. But you know I think most people just want to go back to normal whatever that is. If we look at say pre 9/11, everyone said the world was going to change. It ended up being kind of a TSA check and so I think yes it’s easy. It’s been pretty easy over the past couple months to kind of extrapolate today into the future and today is forever. Normal is not normal anymore. But I think most people just want to get back to normal. Of course there’s going to be changes, but we’ve seen from some from some of the say protest activity over the past week, people will get out and they’ll go in public for whatever their right reasons are. Do I think the dining experience is going to change dramatically? I don’t. Do I think the shopping experience is going to change dramatically? I think it’ll change a little bit, but I don’t think it’s going to be some new normal of every single thing being done online and everything being delivered to house. Of course, people want that especially that’ll take off or continue likely in urban areas in a big way. But I think at the end of the day most people just want to get out of the house right now. They’ve been there for so long that they’re just trying to trying to get out and do something else aside from eat another meal in their house.

JB: The food delivery companies, they’re way overcharging on fees. I’m paying for a couple of my deliveries I think I ordered like a pizza and a couple other things and it was fifty bucks. It’s way more than than the normal cost.

TN: It’s very inflexible demand, very inelastic so if they can charge it, they will and I don’t blame them. I wish I was in that position.

JB: They still can’t make money if you look at their earnings report. Jim Chanos like put out a he posted an interesting article on his Twitter about like there’s an the Pizza arbitrage. Did you see that article?

TN: no

JB: Yeah. So him and his buddy who’s a restauranteur, they figured out that GrubHub was under-pricing pizzas so they bought ten pizzas at the GrubHub subsidized price and then they were able to basically make $100 per order risk-free, 80 to 100 dollars cash for is free. There’s an article that I could send you. It’s pretty funny.

TN: They could sell it to other people.

JB: They could resell it, but it was basically, they were there was an arbitrage trade because of like doordash and GrubHub were intentionally under-pricing the menu items and so people would order from them and their call centers so they could sell to Wall Street that there was growth that there was revenue growth for deliveries so the stock would still go up.

TN: Wow fantastic, what a game, huh?

JB: well I’m not the CEO of a publicly traded company like that but yeah it’s a bad and said there’s a lot of added incentives right now in society.

TN: Yeah.

JB: Well, Tony, I really enjoyed our discussion today. We live in very interesting time. One last question here about the dollar. So you think the dollar shortage is real and that the dollar is gonna start rolling soon?

TN: “Soon” is relative. So do I think the dollar shortage is real? Yes. Do I think the dollar is going to rally soon? I think it’s inevitable, but I think it really all depends on several things. But I do believe that emerging markets will continue to try to devalue their currencies because their exports especially China, I think that the dollar is in demand because there is so much debt globally, and they have to have dollars to pay down their their US dollar denominated debt. I do believe that Brent Johnson, his view his milkshake theory, I think is very solid and I think there’s a level of patience behind that theory and I don’t see the fundamentals changing that much. I think it’s a pretty elegant in the way he’s put that together.

JB: It’s a sound theory, but I think the US government the US Treasury President Trump who’s tweeted a lot about the dollar in the last two years, there’s a lot of ways that Congress and Trump and the Treasury can spend, can hand out checks, can do a plaza court agreement, if things get bad enough, they can do what FDR did in 1934. And if the dollar does get to those levels that Brent Johnson is predicting at 120 and the dollar index I mean that would collapse everything.

TN: Maybe. I don’t know that it would collapse everything. But I think it would certainly put strains on emerging markets. I don’t know that it would collapse everything, but I think it would certainly harm and I think emerging markets would have to live within limits that they haven’t had to for probably 30 years. So, and this is the basis of the end of the Asian century is they borrowed against the next 30 years to pay for the last 15, right. It’s just not sustainable since they don’t have a global currency and I think if you get a dollar north of say 105 close to 110, I think Asia just starts having serious serious problems.

JB: Yeah, I agree. And emerging markets have an interesting business model since China joined the WTO. So they set up to export to China either luxury goods or commodities and then they started borrowing in dollars especially around what after 2009, when the dollar index in what 2011 to some of the all-time lows there with Ben Bernanke just doing the QE programs. They basically started shorting the dollar at the worst possible time when the dollar was already relatively low and they were doing a lot of exports to China but then borrowing in dollar so it was a dangerous game that the emerging markets had set up.

TN: Very dangerous. I think being in those markets, betting against the dollar is a really hard proposition especially right now because the relative strength of the US, the US is in pretty good position compared to a number of these markets. It’s in a good position compared to say Europe. I’m not just talking like this month, I mean we’re all hurting this month. I think over the medium and long term from demographics to resources to other things, the US is in a is in a pretty good position it’s not in an excellent position I don’t think anybody globally is but I think it’s in a pretty good position.

JB: I want to thank you so much for your time today, Tony. If my listeners want to follow you more on Twitter or take a look at your company Complete Intelligence and the work you do, how did they do so?

TN: Sure, our company website is at completeintel.com on Twitter the company URL is or the company tag is @complete_intel. My personal twitter is @TonyNashNerd.

JB: Putting out a lot of good surveys and a lot of good stories, too, about the global trade in China as well.

TN: Thanks Jason. Thanks so much for your time.

QuickHit Visual (Videos)

QuickHit: Proactive companies use data to COVID-proof their supply chains

Post author By admin
Post date June 4, 2020
No Comments on QuickHit: Proactive companies use data to COVID-proof their supply chains

Supply chain expert and SAP SCM/IBP Architect Odell Smith of My Supply Chain Group joins this week’s QuickHit to talk about how proactive companies will survive, how data helps them decide quickly on supply chain solutions, and what we can do to be better prepared next time. After a quick 5-year stint in engineering, Odell has been doing supply chain technologies for over 30 years. His company does mostly SAP products and advisory services and implementing technologies for the supply chain.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our Youtube channel and hit the bell icon to be notified when a new QuickHit goes live. If you missed some of our episodes, here are some of the lastest ones you’ll enjoy watching:

Manufacturers are bouncing back, but…

We’re not going to normalize

How do we use up all the corn now?

How ready is the military to face COVID-19 and its challenges?

Oil companies will either shut-in or cut back, layoffs not done yet

Show Notes

TN: How are your clients looking at their supply chains? How do they use their data to better understand and plan their supply chains even with all the craziness and volatility? Can you give us an example?

OS: Our clients have had a variety of different issues. There are companies that even inside the same company, they’ve had one business unit with a huge spike in demand and another business unit will just drop off. One of our clients is one of the largest beer producers in the world. Their keg business that supports restaurants just evaporated all of a sudden. But their bottled beer just went through the roof.

So these companies are trying to see these demand patterns as they come in, but also be able to quickly respond to those. Everybody’s used to the monthly demand patterns. But being able to see such a rapid volatile change in these demand patterns and being able to see that with data in the systems, then being able to simulate how you’re going to respond and make intelligent decisions based on that data, has been a real game-changer. If this had happened 20 years ago, it would have been a much more difficult scenario to recover from.

TN: What kind of data are people using to make these decisions? Because we really don’t know what’s coming from the outside. All the governments say macroeconomic data. This hasn’t come in obviously. So how are people taking data in to understand how to adjust their manufacturing patterns?

OS: The operation’s focus is about trying to estimate what that demand pattern is going to look like and then be able to adjust from that, if you have a constant supply. But if you have an irregular supply, it’s also a problem.

Another huge issue here is we’ve off-shored so much stuff in the last 15 to 20 years. An example is one of our customers that is a large paper supplier. They bring in pulp from other suppliers. Everybody’s familiar with the toilet paper issues that we’ve had. These guys had all kinds of issues come up. They bring in product and then they manufacture that product. As they do that, their supply chains were disrupted by not being able to get their suppliers’ product through the ports. Their port activity was blocked. They knew that was going to be the case, and so they had to redirect some of that stuff that was coming in to run their manufacturing.

They also worked proactively with the ports. They knew that the port was going to be closed and they had to redirect that. We put in some cost optimization for them to be able to evaluate simulations to estimate where it looked like the best place to bring this raw material. And then of course, their manufacturing process itself had to change, because there’s a lot more demand now for toilet paper than there was for paper towels.

Nobody expected that demand shift. Everybody was unprepared for that. But being able to use data to make smart, intelligent, short-term decisions about how to correct for that new demand was something that they were able to put in place fairly quickly. For scenario planning, we were using SAP IBP to be able to make those right decisions.

TN: I started my career in a freight forwarder, customs broker, and all the physical logistics around it. And it was always interesting to me early in my career to see when people had cost-sensitive, time-sensitive, quality-based decisions, and you’re balancing all three. The types of decisions they made sounded like they didn’t really have any history to go by. They were just looking at expectations, and you’re just playing it day-by-day or week-by-week.

OS: If you have the tools and you have the data, then you can do that. Now, a lot of this data was manufactured data themselves because it was based on estimates. What are my options here? I’ve got three other ports to use, and there’s different costs of transportation going through those ports, plus there’s a risk. Will I be able to get the stuff processed through and time to be able to make it? And if I don’t, then what’s the downstream impact to me in my subsequent manufacturing process?

TN: All to get a roll of toilet paper to your corner store. What would you say manufacturing companies need to be thinking about? How can people be better prepared the next time this happens?

OS: One thing that came out of this is that this data is changing so rapidly. [Companies that can] access that data can see what worked, and what didn’t work from the last situation. There are going to be some things when you’re making these snap decisions, and you’re just trying to keep your business afloat. There are going to be some things that you learn in hindsight that were not the best thing to do. As long as you plan for that, and you know that that’s going to be the case, and you review that after the fact, and are prepared for that risk, know where that risk is, then it always helps you be able to respond better next time. If you don’t learn from those things, shame on you.

TN: Do most major manufacturing firms today have a good base of data and well-organized data to make some of those decisions? Or is it still kind of iffy?

OS: It depends. There are some that have really good data. But it has to be a decision by the company. The company has to decide to put the resources in place and to have that vision, that strategy of knowing that that data is important and that the data needs to be reviewed, audited, and cleansed.

Some companies are very proactive. Some companies are completely reactive. And when you get in a situation like this with this craziness, these [reactive] companies won’t make it. Proactive companies will make it. So it’s really a business mindset and putting a value on that data that makes it helpful.

TN: These major manufacturers that you work with, I think there’s a perception out there that a manufacturing firm has one ERP system. Do you work with any firms that have kind of one ERP system or are they dealing with half a dozen or more typically?

OS: There are companies that have been able to maintain that single ERP situation. But more than not, you wind up with mergers and acquisitions. And these M&A activity is just brutal on IT organizations because very seldom do you acquire somebody who has the very same ERP system and they are on the same version that you’re on. And then, there’s a product rationalization and a customer rationalization that has to take place. Those are all very difficult things to get past.

TN: Pointing out, so just people understand. It’s not as if you’re just taking data out, putting it in a big machine and then putting it out the other end to help make a decision. You’re taking data in from a lot of different sources. And you’re making sure that it’s somewhat normalized or understandable in the output. And then those managers within those companies are also seeing data in a number of different formats to make those decisions. So this isn’t linear. This looks more like a bunch of weeds over here and a bunch of mangled tree roots over there and you’re trying to make it as linear as possible. The complexity of these decisions, the complexity of these data, say logistics activities, are just fascinating.

So last question here Odell. You’ve seen these companies through the first phase or two phases of this. Do you see these companies back on a path to normalization now? Are there manufacturing and supply chain processes normalizing now?

OS: There are some that are beginning to get back on the horse and there are some that are just still severely impacted. Some of our customers are in the pharma industry. They’re just going nuts and they’re going to continue to go nuts for a while. It’s really a mixed bag of things. A lot of our customers manufacture products that are related to home. Everybody has been doing a lot more of that lately. Demands for those have still been really strong even though supply may have been impacted by some of the situations.

One of our clients is a company that has multiple legacy systems. One of the great things about these new cloud solutions is the ability to do that normalization, to be able to take data from multiple different ERPs, disparate ERPs, and bring it in for a total view for the executive team to make these quick decisions. A lot of our customers are doing really well, and so it’s great to see them coming out of this. It’s been a slow couple of months for people just to wrap their arms around the thing, and try to just fight fires. And then now we’re coming out of some of that and into recovery mode that looks good and strong.

QuickHit Visual (Videos)

QuickHit: Manufacturers are bouncing back, but…

Post author By admin
Post date May 28, 2020
No Comments on QuickHit: Manufacturers are bouncing back, but…

In this QuickHit episode, we are talking with Chad Moutray of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). Chad is the Chief Economist for NAM, and he talks with manufacturers across the U.S. every day, to understand their issues and informs them of the the overall economic landscape. NAM has about 14,000 members that includes state manufacturing associations. Tony Nash discussed with Moutray the state of manufacturing especially in this time of the pandemic. What are they doing, thinking, and what are their plans?

You can revisit our previous QuickHit episodes here:

We’re not going to normalize
How do we use up all the corn now?
How ready is the military to face COVID-19 and its challenges?

Show Notes

TN: Can you walk us through some of the manufacturing firms that you’ve been interacting with and how do they’ve come to understand the environment? What have they been thinking about? What have their priorities been? Because I think it’s been confusing for everybody. But from a manufacturing perspective, what have you been seeing?

CM: I’ll go through a couple of things here. Number one, just that dearth of data that we had early on, everyone was asking me, “What is the current capacity utilization for manufacturing right now in the State of Pennsylvania?” I don’t know. How would I know, right?

There was a lack of information early on, and the abruptness and the severity of this downturn just caught a lot of people [off guard]. The numbers are so heartbreaking and jaw-dropping. We’re starting to get a sense now of what those numbers really are, and the drastic-ness of these figures in terms of being the worst ever, or the worst since the Great Recession. But there was a lack of information early on that really just caught people by surprise.

Companies don’t know what to do. This is not just a business conversation. It’s also a life and death conversation. Do you keep operating? Do you not keep operating? Are you operating in a state where you’re forced to close? Are you deemed essential? A lot of those things early on really dominated manufacturers’ time in terms of whether to operate, what happens if someone gets sick in your facility? What do you do? Do you close everything down? There was a scramble early on just to figure out operationally “What am I doing?”.

It moved from there to the conversation about PPE, Personal Protective Equipment, masks or ventilators or whatever else.

One thing that really has dominated that manufacturing conversation over the last month has been the National Association of Manufacturers work with the administration [to understand] whether it’s FEMA or DOD or the Vice President’s Office to say, “Okay. What do we need in order for everything to come back to normal? How many masks do we need? How many ventilators do we need?” And then helping to identify manufacturers that can produce that. That really has dominated a lot of time for the NAM over the last month or so–getting a handle on what are those needs.

That has gravitated into the new normal. Everyone is [asking] what does manufacturing look like three months from now, six months from now, a year from now? How do you get back to a sense of normal, whether there’s a vaccine or not a vaccine?

Answering those questions will dominate much of my time from a research perspective. We asked on a survey “Are you re-engineering in your process to have social distancing in mind,” or “Are you going to let people work from home?” That’s not always possible on the shop floor. But in some cases it may be, right? So those types of questions are first and foremost.

We’re talking to a series of tire manufacturers. They have a huge retail operation and retail is just going to change dramatically. They not only look at the manufacturing side, but how retail is going to change, and then how they can react. It shows you just how dynamic this particular moment in time is in terms of dramatically changing the sector.

TN: I know you’re still in the process of doing your research but what’s your feeling now? Do you get the sense that people want to get back to kind of a normal-ish environment quickly? I know “there” is relative. But do you think there’s a desire to get back and get relatively normal business activity back say in Q2 or Q3? Do you get the sense that it’s going to be longer? What’s the drag? How long will this drag effect impact companies and impact manufacturers?

CM: I do think that we’ve passed the worst of it. I do think that in that late March, early April, that’s when things just really hit bottom. You’ve started to see a sense, especially from some of the more recent data, that things, while they’re still bad, are not as bad as they were several weeks ago. I do get a sense that you’re starting to see that bounce back in the marketplace, which is good.

In general, there is what we’ll call “quarantine fatigue” not just for consumers but for businesses as well. There is a sense that activity is going to start resuming.

The difference here is that yes people are going to come back to it but there’s still going to be some hesitance there. We don’t have a vaccine. So coming back to work is not the same as it was before. That’s true at the NAM, that’s true in every workplace in the country. People’s willingness to go out to restaurants and bars and go to Disney World has all changed a little bit.

I do think that we are bouncing back already. But in this new environment, there is still a little bit of hesitance about getting out in crowds and the workplace change. Yes, I can go back to the office maybe, but am I going to? Am I going to continue working from home? How much separation is there for me between me and my co-worker on the shop floor? We’ve already started to see that rebound. But it’s in a different place than it was two months ago.

TN: A lot of questions. Let me shift gears a little bit and ask you about trade. With COVID-19 and initially when this was hitting China hard, we saw a lot of supply chains stall out and slow down. We’ve been talking about the regionalization of supply chains for a few years at Complete Intelligence. Is that something that you’re seeing, and I know you’re not necessarily advocating a position. So I don’t expect you to be doing that. But are you seeing that happen or is that concept not seeing a lot of traction on yet?

CM: We were starting to see people re-evaluating their supply chains as a result of the Trade War. Last year, we were seeing a lot of that. It doesn’t mean all of it’s coming back to the U.S., but it certainly means production might be moving out of China and other places. This exacerbates that even more. There’s been this realization that we can’t depend on one country and one source to get all of our stuff anymore given the extremeness of this disaster economically.

People are going to be re-evaluating the supply chain. From the NAM point of view, we want as much of that to come back to the U.S. as possible so we’ll be advocating policies on on-shoring. Look for that coming from us. But the reality is, companies are going to locate where they locate. There’s a lot of reasons why companies locate wherever they do, and it’s where the customers are, that’s where their other suppliers are, that’s where the intelligence is. And some of it’s going to go to Mexico, or to the rest of Southeast Asia. There is definitely this understanding that we’ve got to re-evaluate that supply chain process in terms of who we’re buying from, making sure there’s duplication, and I think that’s a conversation that every firm is having right now.

TN: Very good. Chad, thank you so much for your time. I’d love to have you back in a few months to revisit some of these questions. As the unknowns dissipate, it’ll be very interesting to to look back and see what people did right, what mistakes people can avoid next time this happens.

Show Notes

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Complete Intelligence is in partnership with:

Products

Resources

Company