Russia continues to struggle most among BRIC nations
Some people have been questioning the continual inclusion of Russia among the BRIC economies, as they continue to underperform the rest during these difficult times, and Indonesia has been breathing down BRICs necks to be included among them. Maybe we'll begin to see it called BIIC if Russia doesn't turn things around soon.
China and India remain strong, with China projected to grow at a 8.4 percent rate and India a 6.2 percent rate. Brazil is also struggling with declines expected to come in at 1 percent, but that's no where near Russia's plunge of 8.5 percent.
Considering Brazil and Russia rely on commodities so strongly, it makes Russia's fall look even worse, based on direct comparisons.
The country’s natural comparison is with the BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China. In the first half of 2009, China and India have been surging ahead, while Russia’s GDP fell off the cliff by 10 percent.
Russia’s economy remains reliant by oil and gas, and its overall government policies depend heavily on the worldwide oil price. Three standard scenarios were formulated in the official Strategy 2020 program. The favored “innovation scenario” was supposed to generate an annual growth of 6.5 percent. It presupposed far-reaching reforms and investment in human capital, which is not a plausible option with an oil price above $60 per barrel.
The Kremlin’s negative “inertia scenario” assumed no significant reforms and forecasted an average growth of 3.9 percent a year. Such an authoritarian petrostate is likely if the oil price is $75 per barrel. In between, the Kremlin put an “energy and raw materials scenario” with 5.3 percent growth, which could be called status quo with an oil price of $60 to $75 per barrel, but such a policy is not likely to generate a high growth rate.
The the major thing to learn is that the higher the oil price is, the lower Russia’s long-term economic growth is likely to be, because the ruling elite will thrive on energy rents rather than pursue reforms or invest in human capital. The greater the corruption is, the more repression the rulers need to defend their fraudulent revenues.
Russia’s course is hard to figure out because overt economic policy changes every few months with the oil price. During the period from May to July 2008, the inauguration of President Dmitry Medvedev raised hopes that he would initiate economic and political reforms — particularly as it related to his anti-corruption initiatives — but we saw no important changes.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin intimidated Mechel in late July, threatening to send a “doctor” to clean out the company’s problems, and the war in Georgia two weeks later augured a period of darkness and reaction. Russia’s attempts to accede to the World Trade Organization were suspended and a renationalization of leading companies became a priority.
But the devastation caused by the financial crisis and gradual devaluation allowed reformist ideas to surface again. Russia saw a renewed openness from February until May that could almost be labeled a thaw, but again no legislation was passed.
In early June, the oil price surpassed $70 per barrel, and the reactionaries got into action again. In Pikalyovo, Putin declared the not very market-oriented view that private businessmen have to produce for the sake of producing. Numerous governors threatened private enterprise owners with confiscation if they did not rehire workers and keep decrepit factories alive. Several weeks later, Putin suspended Russia’s attempted accession to the WTO and he even went on a personal tour to control sausage prices. Naturally, rumors are ripe of possible new confiscations of large corporations.
This is a terrible to run economic policy. In effect, Russia is pursuing the status quo or inertia scenario — but without the benefit of stability. With its quarterly swings in declared economic policy, the government destabilizes the business environment and fails to carry out any economic policy. Both the vagaries and passivity are dangerous to the country’s economy as is evident from the extraordinary fall in GDP. No wonder that not only China and India but also Brazil are much more successful.
Russia’s only sensible policy has been its fiscal policy with a persistent budget surplus in the good times from 2000 until 2008, which allowed it to build huge international reserves that, while reduced, remain at roughly $400 billion today. This means that Russia can safeguard itself from some fluctuations of the global financial market.
But it is not doing so. On the contrary, it is causing unnecessary domestic financial problems. The ultimate folly was Russia’s gradual devaluation during the period from November to January. Naturally, everybody speculated against the ruble, which meant that the Kremlin instigated a domestic liquidity freeze. It was probably the main reason for the excessively sharp drop in Russia’s industrial output. Amazingly, this operation is officially hailed as a success,ensuring that the danger of a continuation could persist.
The state-dominated banking system remains a disaster. The five dominant state banks are in horrid shape. The government pours more and more money into them, but it helps little as the banks lose it in short order on politically motivated, nonperforming loans. The state banks pose a threat of nationalizing big Russian companies, while they provide little credit. In effect, the Kremlin maintains a detrimental liquidity squeeze.
Senior officials interfere however they want to in big enterprises, asking them to hire more workers, to reduce prices and to expand production under threat of confiscation, further undermining the country’s weak property rights.
Gazprom appears to be the greatest management failure of them all. It is difficult to fathom how it has succeeded in scaring so many customers away in half a year that it has been forced to cut its output by 35 percent. In any other country, save Congo, such a harmful management would be fired without delay. There is no reason to expect any significant improvement as long as the managers remain the same.
Russia’s ultimate shortcoming is its pervasive top-level corruption. Remember that it has failed to extend its road network since 2000. A country that cannot build roads cannot develop much more.
There is no doubt that Russia will recover somewhat because of higher oil prices, the global recovery and recovering exports, but nothing has been done about the country’s profound structural problems, which have only been aggravated during a year of financial crisis. Worse, Russia’s economic policy is in such flux that nothing is being done. Gradually, the question is moving from complaints about how Russia is being governed to criticism that it is not being properly managed.
Russia continues to struggle most among BRIC nations
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
BRIC Illusion from Stimulus
BRIC business
We have to remember that a portion of the Chinese stimulus is being funneled into both stock market and real estate speculation... in fact the powers that be have gone ahead and quantified how much they believe it is. I'd argue the same is being done in the US at least towards the stock market but unlike the Chinese who admit it, the secretative government of the US won't. Always a hoot when the Chinese are more transparent than the US.... wait, wasn't that an election theme? Transparency? Contrast "Chinese Government Economists" with "US Government Economists" who are fighting even an having an audit done on their all powerful entity.
Chinese new bank loans worth about an estimated 1.16 trillion yuan ($170 billion) were invested in the stock market in the first five months of this year, China Business News reported, citing a government economist.
That’s 20 percent of the 5.8 trillion yuan loans banks extended in the period, the Shanghai-based newspaper said, citing Wei Jianing, a deputy director at the macro-economics department of the Development and Research Center under China’s State Council.
“Where did it go? It’s undeniable that a portion of the lending may have flowed into stock and real estate markets and triggered the rebound in these two markets,” the former official said at a financial forum in Ningbo city in eastern China.
2 months ago (May 20, 2009: Year to Date Returns by Country - Go Peru!) the order was Russia, India, China, and Brazil - thankfully "stimulus" can work in many ways i.e. pushing stock markets ever upward.
China's Shanghai Composite is currently up 81%, down days in recent months have been few and far between. Even though rest of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries have posted big gains year to date, China has broken away from the pack. Overbought has become the new norm for the Chinese equity market, and anyone that has bet on a pullback has gotten absolutely crushed. Remember, however, that the sharper the increase usually means the sharper the fall, so when a correction does finally come, watch out.
Anything to create the mirage of prosperity going, it'll be interesting to see what happens when the correction mauls the Chinese and other stimulus whores.
BRIC business
We have to remember that a portion of the Chinese stimulus is being funneled into both stock market and real estate speculation... in fact the powers that be have gone ahead and quantified how much they believe it is. I'd argue the same is being done in the US at least towards the stock market but unlike the Chinese who admit it, the secretative government of the US won't. Always a hoot when the Chinese are more transparent than the US.... wait, wasn't that an election theme? Transparency? Contrast "Chinese Government Economists" with "US Government Economists" who are fighting even an having an audit done on their all powerful entity.
Chinese new bank loans worth about an estimated 1.16 trillion yuan ($170 billion) were invested in the stock market in the first five months of this year, China Business News reported, citing a government economist.
That’s 20 percent of the 5.8 trillion yuan loans banks extended in the period, the Shanghai-based newspaper said, citing Wei Jianing, a deputy director at the macro-economics department of the Development and Research Center under China’s State Council.
“Where did it go? It’s undeniable that a portion of the lending may have flowed into stock and real estate markets and triggered the rebound in these two markets,” the former official said at a financial forum in Ningbo city in eastern China.
2 months ago (May 20, 2009: Year to Date Returns by Country - Go Peru!) the order was Russia, India, China, and Brazil - thankfully "stimulus" can work in many ways i.e. pushing stock markets ever upward.
China's Shanghai Composite is currently up 81%, down days in recent months have been few and far between. Even though rest of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries have posted big gains year to date, China has broken away from the pack. Overbought has become the new norm for the Chinese equity market, and anyone that has bet on a pullback has gotten absolutely crushed. Remember, however, that the sharper the increase usually means the sharper the fall, so when a correction does finally come, watch out.
Anything to create the mirage of prosperity going, it'll be interesting to see what happens when the correction mauls the Chinese and other stimulus whores.
BRIC business
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
India Firms Getting Smarter?
BRIC Business India
A dramatic slowdown after many boom years worldwide has made Indian firms smarter in employee engagement and management, which will help it grow quicker when recovery begins, according to a study by global consulting firm Deloitte.
“Indian companies across sectors are trying to make the best of tough times and preparing for growth opportunities when the economy picks up. Unlike in the West where firing is the norm, our study shows Indian firms are focussing on talent management and cost cutting,” Deloitte director P. Thiruvengadam told IANS.
A survey across numerous industries on employee engagement in recessionary times by Deloitte’s human capital advisory services found Indian firms were in a wait-and-watch mode without retrenching, but trying to balance both employee and operational costs.
“Companies are focussing on their ability to attract, develop and retain top talent to remain viable and competitive in the short and long terms. Though campus offers have trickled down, selective hiring is taking place. Employees are being involved in cost management, quality and client servicing,” Thiruvengadam said quoting the findings.
Of the participant firms, 44 percent represented TMT (technology, media and telecom), 27 percent manufacturing, seven percent FMCG (fast moving consumer goods), five percent pharma and 27 percent others.
The study found companies implementing metrics to determine return on investment on human resources. Investment in proprietary knowledge and technological upgrade is continuing, albeit slower than during the boom times.
“Lower attrition has turned out to be a boon, as firms are able to retain talent by setting higher performance benchmarks, with stringent measures and quarterly monitoring. By recruiting consultants and freelancers, firms are able to save on employee benefit costs,” Thiruvengadam said.
The eight-week survey said companies were substituting lucrative bonus and international travel with opportunities for advancement and flexible working hours to retain employees.
“Smart firms have turned inward, consolidating operations, rationalising requirements and optimising resources to ride the slowdown,” Thiruvengadam said.
The survey also found companies were not cutting back on training programs but only cutting training costs. The focus is on empowering employees with multi-skills to handle different tasks and building a strong leadership pipeline.
BRIC Business India
A dramatic slowdown after many boom years worldwide has made Indian firms smarter in employee engagement and management, which will help it grow quicker when recovery begins, according to a study by global consulting firm Deloitte.
“Indian companies across sectors are trying to make the best of tough times and preparing for growth opportunities when the economy picks up. Unlike in the West where firing is the norm, our study shows Indian firms are focussing on talent management and cost cutting,” Deloitte director P. Thiruvengadam told IANS.
A survey across numerous industries on employee engagement in recessionary times by Deloitte’s human capital advisory services found Indian firms were in a wait-and-watch mode without retrenching, but trying to balance both employee and operational costs.
“Companies are focussing on their ability to attract, develop and retain top talent to remain viable and competitive in the short and long terms. Though campus offers have trickled down, selective hiring is taking place. Employees are being involved in cost management, quality and client servicing,” Thiruvengadam said quoting the findings.
Of the participant firms, 44 percent represented TMT (technology, media and telecom), 27 percent manufacturing, seven percent FMCG (fast moving consumer goods), five percent pharma and 27 percent others.
The study found companies implementing metrics to determine return on investment on human resources. Investment in proprietary knowledge and technological upgrade is continuing, albeit slower than during the boom times.
“Lower attrition has turned out to be a boon, as firms are able to retain talent by setting higher performance benchmarks, with stringent measures and quarterly monitoring. By recruiting consultants and freelancers, firms are able to save on employee benefit costs,” Thiruvengadam said.
The eight-week survey said companies were substituting lucrative bonus and international travel with opportunities for advancement and flexible working hours to retain employees.
“Smart firms have turned inward, consolidating operations, rationalising requirements and optimising resources to ride the slowdown,” Thiruvengadam said.
The survey also found companies were not cutting back on training programs but only cutting training costs. The focus is on empowering employees with multi-skills to handle different tasks and building a strong leadership pipeline.
BRIC Business India
Friday, July 17, 2009
BRIC Countries Very Different
Differences with BRIC countries
while it's true that BRIC countries hold a lot of potential, the idea of considering them the same is not good, as even though they have so much potential, each one is vastly different from the others, and that needs to be taken into consideration when considering investing in or building a business there.
So don't be fooled by the moniker BRIC, which lumps them together because of their potential, not because they're necessarily similar in any way.
They've never been all that similar, really. In fact, Standard & Poor's recently questioned "whether the BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, China] countries ever shared much in common, other than scale and high portfolio inflows.
And when it comes to international investing, it's convention to lump countries into one of two categories: developed markets and emerging markets.
The exact distinction is hazy. Former Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan defines a developed market as "one that allows all its citizens to enjoy a free and healthy life in a safe environment." Political scientist Ian Bremmer defines an emerging market as "a country where politics matters at least as much as economics to the markets."
Basically, to be considered developed, a country needs a high standard of living that isn't continually threatened by political crisis. Besides the United States, think of countries such as Japan, France, and Australia.
The emerging markets are then split into the BRIC countries -- a term coined less than a decade ago by Goldman Sachs, because it was sexy to bundle together the four emerging-market countries that combined size with tremendous growth prospects -- and everyone else.
All of that splitting and grouping gives investors the false sense that the BRIC countries are essentially interchangeable: emerging, large, poised for growth.
Gross domestic product per person is one way to gauge the standard of living and productivity of a country -- and this demonstrates just how different these countries really are.
The emerging markets are quite different from the developed market -- the U.S.'s GDP per person is almost 17 times greater than India's -- but the chart also shows the great disparity among the BRIC countries. Russia is more than five times as prosperous as India, and even China is roughly two times so.
You also have to factor in the country's political situation, overall economic stability, market conditions, cultural differences, and still more economic data such as national debt, balance of trade, inflation, savings rates, etc.
In other words, in international investing, country differences are at least as important as company differences -- because any potential a company has depends on the context of its location.
It could be argued that Suntech Power's fortunes are more closely linked to its fellow Chinese company China Mobile than to its American industry mate, First Solar.
Because country-specific considerations frequently outweigh industry-specific considerations. Ask any company that has been subject to onerous regulation, excessive taxation, a devalued currency, or nationalization by its home country.
Or ask any company that has opened up shop outside its home country. Imagine McDonald’s dilemma when it opened its first restaurant in India -- a country where cows are sacred. The answer, of course, was to modify its menu significantly. Wal-Mart recently opened its first store in India as well, incorporating Bollywood music and local cuisine as well as making concessions to mom-and-pop shops that wouldn’t even be considered in the U.S.
The substantial differences between countries -- not to mention between developed and emerging economies -- lead to several takeaways:
Because of the addition of tricky country-specific dynamics, diversification may be even more important in international investing than it is in domestic investing.
Emerging markets demand a greater risk premium than their developed counterparts. In other words, you should demand a larger margin of safety for companies in emerging markets.
It isn't enough just to search out the financial statements of a company and its competitors. Knowledge of a company's country is just as important as knowledge of the company itself.
No matter, Brazil, Russia, India and China have a lot of potential, if we take into account that we can't consider them similar in any way as far as the way the countries operate and the culture is, we should do ok in whatever business or investing we do with BRIC countries.
Differences with BRIC countries
while it's true that BRIC countries hold a lot of potential, the idea of considering them the same is not good, as even though they have so much potential, each one is vastly different from the others, and that needs to be taken into consideration when considering investing in or building a business there.
So don't be fooled by the moniker BRIC, which lumps them together because of their potential, not because they're necessarily similar in any way.
They've never been all that similar, really. In fact, Standard & Poor's recently questioned "whether the BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, China] countries ever shared much in common, other than scale and high portfolio inflows.
And when it comes to international investing, it's convention to lump countries into one of two categories: developed markets and emerging markets.
The exact distinction is hazy. Former Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan defines a developed market as "one that allows all its citizens to enjoy a free and healthy life in a safe environment." Political scientist Ian Bremmer defines an emerging market as "a country where politics matters at least as much as economics to the markets."
Basically, to be considered developed, a country needs a high standard of living that isn't continually threatened by political crisis. Besides the United States, think of countries such as Japan, France, and Australia.
The emerging markets are then split into the BRIC countries -- a term coined less than a decade ago by Goldman Sachs, because it was sexy to bundle together the four emerging-market countries that combined size with tremendous growth prospects -- and everyone else.
All of that splitting and grouping gives investors the false sense that the BRIC countries are essentially interchangeable: emerging, large, poised for growth.
Gross domestic product per person is one way to gauge the standard of living and productivity of a country -- and this demonstrates just how different these countries really are.
The emerging markets are quite different from the developed market -- the U.S.'s GDP per person is almost 17 times greater than India's -- but the chart also shows the great disparity among the BRIC countries. Russia is more than five times as prosperous as India, and even China is roughly two times so.
You also have to factor in the country's political situation, overall economic stability, market conditions, cultural differences, and still more economic data such as national debt, balance of trade, inflation, savings rates, etc.
In other words, in international investing, country differences are at least as important as company differences -- because any potential a company has depends on the context of its location.
It could be argued that Suntech Power's fortunes are more closely linked to its fellow Chinese company China Mobile than to its American industry mate, First Solar.
Because country-specific considerations frequently outweigh industry-specific considerations. Ask any company that has been subject to onerous regulation, excessive taxation, a devalued currency, or nationalization by its home country.
Or ask any company that has opened up shop outside its home country. Imagine McDonald’s dilemma when it opened its first restaurant in India -- a country where cows are sacred. The answer, of course, was to modify its menu significantly. Wal-Mart recently opened its first store in India as well, incorporating Bollywood music and local cuisine as well as making concessions to mom-and-pop shops that wouldn’t even be considered in the U.S.
The substantial differences between countries -- not to mention between developed and emerging economies -- lead to several takeaways:
Because of the addition of tricky country-specific dynamics, diversification may be even more important in international investing than it is in domestic investing.
Emerging markets demand a greater risk premium than their developed counterparts. In other words, you should demand a larger margin of safety for companies in emerging markets.
It isn't enough just to search out the financial statements of a company and its competitors. Knowledge of a company's country is just as important as knowledge of the company itself.
No matter, Brazil, Russia, India and China have a lot of potential, if we take into account that we can't consider them similar in any way as far as the way the countries operate and the culture is, we should do ok in whatever business or investing we do with BRIC countries.
Differences with BRIC countries
Thursday, July 16, 2009
China 2nd in Market Value
China second largest in market value - soars past Japan
China has swept past Japan as the world’s second-largest stock market according to value for the first time in 18 months, after government stimulus spending and record bank lending boosted share prices this year.
The Shanghai Composite Index rose 1.4 percent yesterday, sending the value of China’s domestic stock market to $3.21 trillion, compared with Japan’s $3.20 trillion. The Shanghai index has gained 75 percent this year, the best-performing major market, against a 5.5 percent advance in the Nikkei 225 Stock Average. The U.S. has the biggest equities market worth $10.8 trillion.
“China is just entering its stride and is still very much in a growth phase, while Japan is already a developed economy,” said Daphne Roth, Singapore-based head of Asian equity research at ABN Amro Private Banking.
China last passed Japan in stock-market capitalization from Jan. 4 to Jan. 24, 2008. The Shanghai Composite tripled in the two years leading to its record on Oct. 16, 2007, before tumbling 72 percent to its trough the following November.
Stimulus
A 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) stimulus package and record bank lending has shielded the Chinese economy against a plunge in exports. Foreign-exchange reserves topped $2 trillion for the first time, while money supply rose a record 28.5 percent in June, the central bank said July 15. The economy expanded 7.9 percent in the second quarter, the statistics bureau said in Beijing today, more than the 7.8 percent median estimate of 20 economists.
New loans increased by five times in June year over year by 1.53 trillion yuan, increasing concern that attempts to revive the world’s third-largest economy will lead to bad debts and asset bubbles. Rapid credit growth poses risks for lenders and the financial system, Wang Huaqing, the disciplinary secretary of the China Banking Regulatory Commission.
BNP Paribas Securities (Asia) Ltd. last month cut its rating on China to “neutral” from “overweight,” citing valuations. Stocks on the benchmark index are trading at 33.2 times earnings, almost triple the 12.9 multiple on Nov. 4, when the measure dropped to its lowest since the financial crisis. Earnings per share declined 7 percent last year and will probably remain “flat” this year, the brokerage said.
“We share concerns that the corporate earnings recovery is not going to be very strong,” Erwin Sanft, head of China and Hong Kong equities research at BNP Paribas said. Some Chinese shares have soared by “1,000 percent from the bottom, so they’re pricing in a very strong rebound in earnings,” he said.
In Japan, continuing deflation and an aging population have sapped strength from what was once the world’s largest market by capitalization. During the 1990s, Japan spent 135 trillion yen on 10 economic stimulus plans and lowered interest rates to zero, none of which succeeded in promoting sustainable growth.
Japan’s economy shrank at a 14.2 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the most since data began in 1955. The country’s gross domestic output will shrink 3.4 percent in the year ending March 2010, the central bank predicted. The contraction coincided with a drop to a more-than 25-year low by the Topix index.
Japan’s Challenges
“Japan has two main problems; the enormous public debt handicaps the government’s ability to spend additional money to boost the economy and we are too reliant on exports,” said Takashi Kamiya, chief economist at T&D Asset Management Co. in Tokyo, which helps oversee some $16 billion. “There’s no way to expect the emergence of a domestic growth driver that can propel us out of this funk.”
Chinese companies account for four of the 10 biggest companies when measured by market value, according to Bloomberg data. Toyota Motor Corp. is the top-ranked Japanese company, at 25th, worth about one third the capitalization of PetroChina Co., the world No. 1.
Japan is a good example of not using stimulus packages to attempt to generate sustainable growth, only the business sector can do that.
China second largest in market value
China has swept past Japan as the world’s second-largest stock market according to value for the first time in 18 months, after government stimulus spending and record bank lending boosted share prices this year.
The Shanghai Composite Index rose 1.4 percent yesterday, sending the value of China’s domestic stock market to $3.21 trillion, compared with Japan’s $3.20 trillion. The Shanghai index has gained 75 percent this year, the best-performing major market, against a 5.5 percent advance in the Nikkei 225 Stock Average. The U.S. has the biggest equities market worth $10.8 trillion.
“China is just entering its stride and is still very much in a growth phase, while Japan is already a developed economy,” said Daphne Roth, Singapore-based head of Asian equity research at ABN Amro Private Banking.
China last passed Japan in stock-market capitalization from Jan. 4 to Jan. 24, 2008. The Shanghai Composite tripled in the two years leading to its record on Oct. 16, 2007, before tumbling 72 percent to its trough the following November.
Stimulus
A 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) stimulus package and record bank lending has shielded the Chinese economy against a plunge in exports. Foreign-exchange reserves topped $2 trillion for the first time, while money supply rose a record 28.5 percent in June, the central bank said July 15. The economy expanded 7.9 percent in the second quarter, the statistics bureau said in Beijing today, more than the 7.8 percent median estimate of 20 economists.
New loans increased by five times in June year over year by 1.53 trillion yuan, increasing concern that attempts to revive the world’s third-largest economy will lead to bad debts and asset bubbles. Rapid credit growth poses risks for lenders and the financial system, Wang Huaqing, the disciplinary secretary of the China Banking Regulatory Commission.
BNP Paribas Securities (Asia) Ltd. last month cut its rating on China to “neutral” from “overweight,” citing valuations. Stocks on the benchmark index are trading at 33.2 times earnings, almost triple the 12.9 multiple on Nov. 4, when the measure dropped to its lowest since the financial crisis. Earnings per share declined 7 percent last year and will probably remain “flat” this year, the brokerage said.
“We share concerns that the corporate earnings recovery is not going to be very strong,” Erwin Sanft, head of China and Hong Kong equities research at BNP Paribas said. Some Chinese shares have soared by “1,000 percent from the bottom, so they’re pricing in a very strong rebound in earnings,” he said.
In Japan, continuing deflation and an aging population have sapped strength from what was once the world’s largest market by capitalization. During the 1990s, Japan spent 135 trillion yen on 10 economic stimulus plans and lowered interest rates to zero, none of which succeeded in promoting sustainable growth.
Japan’s economy shrank at a 14.2 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the most since data began in 1955. The country’s gross domestic output will shrink 3.4 percent in the year ending March 2010, the central bank predicted. The contraction coincided with a drop to a more-than 25-year low by the Topix index.
Japan’s Challenges
“Japan has two main problems; the enormous public debt handicaps the government’s ability to spend additional money to boost the economy and we are too reliant on exports,” said Takashi Kamiya, chief economist at T&D Asset Management Co. in Tokyo, which helps oversee some $16 billion. “There’s no way to expect the emergence of a domestic growth driver that can propel us out of this funk.”
Chinese companies account for four of the 10 biggest companies when measured by market value, according to Bloomberg data. Toyota Motor Corp. is the top-ranked Japanese company, at 25th, worth about one third the capitalization of PetroChina Co., the world No. 1.
Japan is a good example of not using stimulus packages to attempt to generate sustainable growth, only the business sector can do that.
China second largest in market value
BRICS Auto Parts Focus
BRIC and Auto Parts
Globally, the auto-parts industry is running on a major flat, experiencing a blowout of demand due to production cuts at struggling vehicle manufacturers. They’re expected to slash auto-part employment in this country by more than a third this year, according to the Conference Board of Canada. But unlike Michigan’s Lear Corp., which just joined its home-state competitor Visteon Corp. in seeking Chapter 11 protection from creditors, Frank Stronach’s Magna International Inc. isn’t cruising in crisis mode. Instead, the Aurora, Ont.–based company, the third-largest and most diversified automotive supplier on the planet, is looking to feast on industry road kill.
Launched in a Toronto garage by Stronach about five decades ago, Magna hasn’t been immune to sector woes. The company, which has been forced to shutter plants and eliminate thousands of jobs, posted a net loss of US$200 million in the first quarter, when light-vehicle production in North America and Europe plummeted 50% and 40%, respectively. Sales dropped to US$3.6 billion, a 46% decline from Q1 2008 — when Magna reported a gain of US $207 million.
But Stronach’s operation, which employs 70,000 people in 25 countries, has a non-union culture, so it doesn’t face the labour cost issues that helped park General Motors and Chrysler (which jointly accounted for 30% of Magna’s Q1 sales) in bankruptcy court this year. Like Canada’s other two major sector plays — Martinrea International Inc. (TSX: MRE) and Linamar Corp. (TSX: LNR) — Magna is free to rev up M&A activity because it is fuelled by a healthy balance sheet.
Unlike the competition, however, Magna is chaired by Stronach, who controls the company via controversial dual shares that turn off institutional investors. And he is raising eyebrows by voicing a desire to shift his auto empire’s gears by ramping up assembly operations. In other words, Stronach apparently thinks it is a good idea for Magna — which currently builds outsourced vehicles at a single assembly plant in Austria — to compete head-to-head with customers in emerging and developed markets alike.
In May, Magna and Moscow-based Sberbank made a joint non-binding bid for control of Germany’s Adam Opel GmbH, the main arm of GM’s European operations. If completed, the Kremlin-controlled lender is expected to transfer its stake to Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch with auto interests, not to mention friends in Moscow, who would then open the door to a rapid Magna expansion into Russia.
The $700-plus-million Opel play isn’t the first time Magna has appeared willing to roll the dice on a major expansion of assembly operations. At the company’s annual general meeting this year, Stronach admitted the company “dodged a bullet” by losing the bidding war for Chrysler two years ago. The focus on Russia also isn’t new. In 2007, Stronach cut a deal to share control of Magna with Deripaska, who invested US$1.5 billion in the Canadian firm at the time. But the Russian’s direct involvement with the company ended late last year, when a liquidity crisis forced a sale of his equity stake.
According to Magna spokeswoman Tracy Fuerst, the “working relationship” with Deripaska’s GAZ auto-making group has remained strong. Still, Magna’s renewed focus on Russia and eagerness to compete with customers is generating mixed reviews. “Not many investors we speak with seem terribly anxious about a potential Magna-Opel tie-up,” Itay Michaeli, an analyst with Citigroup Global Markets, declared in a research note. He argues the Opel deal represents a “low-risk” investment that would, if completed, generate future goodwill with GM.
But other industry watchers see the Opel bid as a high-risk strategy, which is why 12-month analyst stock price targets are all over the map, ranging from $32.74 to $59.03. (At press time the stock was trading around $48.)
Clearly, not all of Magna’s customers are happy over the company’s play to become a full-blown automaker.
While bidding for Chrysler, Stronach could at least claim he was out to aid a troubled client. Opel, however, attracted other suitors, including Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Corp. And even if Magna doesn’t close the deal, it still threw a wrench in Chrysler’s survival plan — since the Canadian bid put Fiat out of the running, and the Italian car company had hoped to buy Opel as part of the strategy it developed when agreeing to take over the Detroit automaker. Shawn Morgan, a Chrysler spokeswoman, declined to comment on the company’s relationship with Magna. But Volkswagen has said it is watching developments with some apprehension.
Carlos Gomes, an auto-sector analyst with Scotia Capital, Magna’s focus on Russia could also prove to be riskier than deal supporters want to admit. He acknowledges that Russia has a low vehicle-penetration rate (about 180 vehicles per 1,000 people), compared with roughly 560 vehicles in western Europe, so the potential is enormous if its energy-dependent economy recovers. Still, he thinks “Russia likely has the weakest outlook among the BRIC nations because of declining population.”
Bill Witherell, an adviser to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and chief economist with New Jersey–based Cumberland Advisors, is also bearish on the Russian economy, which is projected to decline 8.5% this year. He thinks emerging-market strategists should focus on BIC economies, noting Russia — where IKEA recently suspended operations due to the “unpredictable character” of administrative procedures — sits between Syria and Kenya on the 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index.
Michael Willemse, an Toronto-based analyst with CIBC World Markets, says Magna shareholders are obviously uncomfortable with the Opel bid. But he thinks a related sell-off that weakened the share price was probably overdone. Simply put, he doesn’t believe Magna’s co-CEOs — Don Walker and Siegfried Wolf — would be willing “to inject a material amount above the original investment,” which would be inconsistent with “Magna’s desire to maintain a strong balance sheet.” If Magna’s management was blindly focused on becoming a global automaker, Willemse argues the company would have been more aggressive pursuing other deals over the past two years. But he admits there is a risk that Stronach has taken the wheel from his CEOs to drive Magna into auto-making in a major way.
BRIC and Auto Parts
Globally, the auto-parts industry is running on a major flat, experiencing a blowout of demand due to production cuts at struggling vehicle manufacturers. They’re expected to slash auto-part employment in this country by more than a third this year, according to the Conference Board of Canada. But unlike Michigan’s Lear Corp., which just joined its home-state competitor Visteon Corp. in seeking Chapter 11 protection from creditors, Frank Stronach’s Magna International Inc. isn’t cruising in crisis mode. Instead, the Aurora, Ont.–based company, the third-largest and most diversified automotive supplier on the planet, is looking to feast on industry road kill.
Launched in a Toronto garage by Stronach about five decades ago, Magna hasn’t been immune to sector woes. The company, which has been forced to shutter plants and eliminate thousands of jobs, posted a net loss of US$200 million in the first quarter, when light-vehicle production in North America and Europe plummeted 50% and 40%, respectively. Sales dropped to US$3.6 billion, a 46% decline from Q1 2008 — when Magna reported a gain of US $207 million.
But Stronach’s operation, which employs 70,000 people in 25 countries, has a non-union culture, so it doesn’t face the labour cost issues that helped park General Motors and Chrysler (which jointly accounted for 30% of Magna’s Q1 sales) in bankruptcy court this year. Like Canada’s other two major sector plays — Martinrea International Inc. (TSX: MRE) and Linamar Corp. (TSX: LNR) — Magna is free to rev up M&A activity because it is fuelled by a healthy balance sheet.
Unlike the competition, however, Magna is chaired by Stronach, who controls the company via controversial dual shares that turn off institutional investors. And he is raising eyebrows by voicing a desire to shift his auto empire’s gears by ramping up assembly operations. In other words, Stronach apparently thinks it is a good idea for Magna — which currently builds outsourced vehicles at a single assembly plant in Austria — to compete head-to-head with customers in emerging and developed markets alike.
In May, Magna and Moscow-based Sberbank made a joint non-binding bid for control of Germany’s Adam Opel GmbH, the main arm of GM’s European operations. If completed, the Kremlin-controlled lender is expected to transfer its stake to Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch with auto interests, not to mention friends in Moscow, who would then open the door to a rapid Magna expansion into Russia.
The $700-plus-million Opel play isn’t the first time Magna has appeared willing to roll the dice on a major expansion of assembly operations. At the company’s annual general meeting this year, Stronach admitted the company “dodged a bullet” by losing the bidding war for Chrysler two years ago. The focus on Russia also isn’t new. In 2007, Stronach cut a deal to share control of Magna with Deripaska, who invested US$1.5 billion in the Canadian firm at the time. But the Russian’s direct involvement with the company ended late last year, when a liquidity crisis forced a sale of his equity stake.
According to Magna spokeswoman Tracy Fuerst, the “working relationship” with Deripaska’s GAZ auto-making group has remained strong. Still, Magna’s renewed focus on Russia and eagerness to compete with customers is generating mixed reviews. “Not many investors we speak with seem terribly anxious about a potential Magna-Opel tie-up,” Itay Michaeli, an analyst with Citigroup Global Markets, declared in a research note. He argues the Opel deal represents a “low-risk” investment that would, if completed, generate future goodwill with GM.
But other industry watchers see the Opel bid as a high-risk strategy, which is why 12-month analyst stock price targets are all over the map, ranging from $32.74 to $59.03. (At press time the stock was trading around $48.)
Clearly, not all of Magna’s customers are happy over the company’s play to become a full-blown automaker.
While bidding for Chrysler, Stronach could at least claim he was out to aid a troubled client. Opel, however, attracted other suitors, including Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Corp. And even if Magna doesn’t close the deal, it still threw a wrench in Chrysler’s survival plan — since the Canadian bid put Fiat out of the running, and the Italian car company had hoped to buy Opel as part of the strategy it developed when agreeing to take over the Detroit automaker. Shawn Morgan, a Chrysler spokeswoman, declined to comment on the company’s relationship with Magna. But Volkswagen has said it is watching developments with some apprehension.
Carlos Gomes, an auto-sector analyst with Scotia Capital, Magna’s focus on Russia could also prove to be riskier than deal supporters want to admit. He acknowledges that Russia has a low vehicle-penetration rate (about 180 vehicles per 1,000 people), compared with roughly 560 vehicles in western Europe, so the potential is enormous if its energy-dependent economy recovers. Still, he thinks “Russia likely has the weakest outlook among the BRIC nations because of declining population.”
Bill Witherell, an adviser to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and chief economist with New Jersey–based Cumberland Advisors, is also bearish on the Russian economy, which is projected to decline 8.5% this year. He thinks emerging-market strategists should focus on BIC economies, noting Russia — where IKEA recently suspended operations due to the “unpredictable character” of administrative procedures — sits between Syria and Kenya on the 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index.
Michael Willemse, an Toronto-based analyst with CIBC World Markets, says Magna shareholders are obviously uncomfortable with the Opel bid. But he thinks a related sell-off that weakened the share price was probably overdone. Simply put, he doesn’t believe Magna’s co-CEOs — Don Walker and Siegfried Wolf — would be willing “to inject a material amount above the original investment,” which would be inconsistent with “Magna’s desire to maintain a strong balance sheet.” If Magna’s management was blindly focused on becoming a global automaker, Willemse argues the company would have been more aggressive pursuing other deals over the past two years. But he admits there is a risk that Stronach has taken the wheel from his CEOs to drive Magna into auto-making in a major way.
BRIC and Auto Parts
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
BRIC Outsourcing Business
China place in BRIC offshore services
BRIC Business
China's fast growth as an economic power has brought new businesses and created an outsourcing industry to support them. This industry also has the capacity to support firms outside China by offering IT services.
China is one of a group of emerging economies which also includes Brazil, Russia and India. These countries, known as the BRIC countries, have been touted as potential new regions to offshore services.
India is the leader among outsourcing in BRIC countries. China has the potential to become India's nearest rival, but it has major cultural and legal hurdles to overcome, which will take time.
The Chinese government is supporting the development of its offshore Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry through legislative changes and incentives.
These include a tax policy that favors offshore services, training funds and interest-free loans.
The Chinese offshore service providers often support other service providers with low-cost business processing. But it is now ready to take a more prominent front line role.
Chinese providers have grown up in a short space of time and are now in a position to deal with Western companies direct. This, he says, is a result of the growth in China's economy
If Chinese company's want to follow the example set by their Indian peers they will have to ensure they are ready before they commit to providing extensive services, according to Andy Gallagher, consultant at Compass managing Consultants.
If the Satyam fraud scandal, where the Indian IT service provider's former chairman admitted to cooking the books, had happened a few years ago, India would have struggled to get where it is today.
To become a frontline service provider, Chinese companies must develop their brand and be more than just an offshore service for a more established offshore service provider.
China has the potential to be the next India but it will take a long time.
Gallagher at Compass Consulting says this approach can help overcome cultural obstacle. "They have to establish a credible national presence in these countries, which are run by locals."
Peter Brudenall, outsourcing Lawyer at Hunton & Williams, said China does not have the language skills and major project management skills that India has. But he says there are also major legal issues to overcome before China will be seen as a trusted destination for offshore IT services.
Robert Morgan, director at Hamilton Bailey, says China is a long way off being able to provide frontline services. "China is not anywhere near ready because of the physical environment and the cultural differences."
He says that there are isolated pockets where companies provide specific outsourcing services, which have often been set up by the customers. But he says China will struggle to match India because there are no Chinese entrepreneurs investing in this industry, only the government.
He adds that the communications infrastructure and language barrier pose major problems for China's development as an offshore services destination.
China needs an industry body to support outsourced service providers in the mould of Nasscom in India if it is to overcome this problem.
BRIC Business - Offshore Services
BRIC Business
China's fast growth as an economic power has brought new businesses and created an outsourcing industry to support them. This industry also has the capacity to support firms outside China by offering IT services.
China is one of a group of emerging economies which also includes Brazil, Russia and India. These countries, known as the BRIC countries, have been touted as potential new regions to offshore services.
India is the leader among outsourcing in BRIC countries. China has the potential to become India's nearest rival, but it has major cultural and legal hurdles to overcome, which will take time.
The Chinese government is supporting the development of its offshore Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry through legislative changes and incentives.
These include a tax policy that favors offshore services, training funds and interest-free loans.
The Chinese offshore service providers often support other service providers with low-cost business processing. But it is now ready to take a more prominent front line role.
Chinese providers have grown up in a short space of time and are now in a position to deal with Western companies direct. This, he says, is a result of the growth in China's economy
If Chinese company's want to follow the example set by their Indian peers they will have to ensure they are ready before they commit to providing extensive services, according to Andy Gallagher, consultant at Compass managing Consultants.
If the Satyam fraud scandal, where the Indian IT service provider's former chairman admitted to cooking the books, had happened a few years ago, India would have struggled to get where it is today.
To become a frontline service provider, Chinese companies must develop their brand and be more than just an offshore service for a more established offshore service provider.
China has the potential to be the next India but it will take a long time.
Gallagher at Compass Consulting says this approach can help overcome cultural obstacle. "They have to establish a credible national presence in these countries, which are run by locals."
Peter Brudenall, outsourcing Lawyer at Hunton & Williams, said China does not have the language skills and major project management skills that India has. But he says there are also major legal issues to overcome before China will be seen as a trusted destination for offshore IT services.
Robert Morgan, director at Hamilton Bailey, says China is a long way off being able to provide frontline services. "China is not anywhere near ready because of the physical environment and the cultural differences."
He says that there are isolated pockets where companies provide specific outsourcing services, which have often been set up by the customers. But he says China will struggle to match India because there are no Chinese entrepreneurs investing in this industry, only the government.
He adds that the communications infrastructure and language barrier pose major problems for China's development as an offshore services destination.
China needs an industry body to support outsourced service providers in the mould of Nasscom in India if it is to overcome this problem.
BRIC Business - Offshore Services
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
BRICs boost emerging-market ETFs
BRICs boost emerging-market ETFs
Emerging-market exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, are becoming increasingly specialized, attracting robust global inflows and interest, even as high specialization is highly risky.
A few developed-world ETFs have closed as they were thought to be too narrowly focused. Emerging-market ETFs appear to have measured their concentrations, taking into account the risks in becoming so narrowly focused that too many potential investors are left out.
The allure of ETFs lies in the immediate exposure to market trends, while also mitigating risk when venturing into unfamiliar asset classes, said J.P. Natkin, a managing director in emerging market sales at Credit Agricole Cheuvreux North America, Inc.
Last week, Barclays Global Investors' iShares launched the S&P Emerging Markets Infrastructure Index Fund, as "global infrastructure spending is set at $30 to $40 trillion in the next two decades," said Dina Ting, a principal at iShares Portfolio Management, who oversees $50 billion of assets for emerging markets and global real estate ETFs.
In early June, iShares launched the first dedicated Peruvian ETF, the MSCI All Peru Capped Index Fund (EPU). The fund started out with $2.5 million under management and, in less than a month, this has swelled to $22 million, Ting said.
Speaking at the New York Stock Exchange Monday after ringing the opening bell, Peruvian Finance Minister Luis Carranza said the fund will draw "enormous" liquidity to the local market soon.
Continuing to maintain that, iShares aims to account for the risk of over-specialization.
The first emerging-markets fund iShares launched was a dedicated Mexico fund in 1996. As of late June, the MSCI Mexico Investable Market Index Fund (EWW) had $550 million in assets.
ETFs have gained growing acceptance from institutional and retail investors, as people are placing a much higher premium on liquidity - a boon to often-volatile emerging-market investments.
In 2004, U.S.-based ETFs investing in emerging markets had a relatively small $4.7 billion under management. By June 30, 2008, that had ballooned to $69.7 billion, and to $78.5 billion in June 2009.
At the end of June, iShares broad-based emerging market fund captured $28.5 billion, while the iShares MSCI Brazil Index Fund (EWZ) has $8.6 billion in assets, capturing a large amount of total ETF market share.
The return on emerging-market ETFs for the year to date "has been slightly higher due to the number of BRIC-focused funds that performed exceptionally well," said Bradley Kay, ETF analyst for Morningstar in Chicago. BRIC refers to Brazil, Russia, India and China.
Along with Barclays, PowerShares, SPDR S&P, Vanguard and WisdomTree all have dedicated emerging-market ETFs. Some of the offerings include PowerShares Middle East and North Africa Frontier Countries and Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock ETF.
As a measure of growing popularity, trading volume in iShares emerging-market funds have grown 127% in the first half of 2009 over the same period last year, from 8.5 billion shares to 19.4 billion shares.
BRICs boost emerging-market ETFs
Emerging-market exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, are becoming increasingly specialized, attracting robust global inflows and interest, even as high specialization is highly risky.
A few developed-world ETFs have closed as they were thought to be too narrowly focused. Emerging-market ETFs appear to have measured their concentrations, taking into account the risks in becoming so narrowly focused that too many potential investors are left out.
The allure of ETFs lies in the immediate exposure to market trends, while also mitigating risk when venturing into unfamiliar asset classes, said J.P. Natkin, a managing director in emerging market sales at Credit Agricole Cheuvreux North America, Inc.
Last week, Barclays Global Investors' iShares launched the S&P Emerging Markets Infrastructure Index Fund, as "global infrastructure spending is set at $30 to $40 trillion in the next two decades," said Dina Ting, a principal at iShares Portfolio Management, who oversees $50 billion of assets for emerging markets and global real estate ETFs.
In early June, iShares launched the first dedicated Peruvian ETF, the MSCI All Peru Capped Index Fund (EPU). The fund started out with $2.5 million under management and, in less than a month, this has swelled to $22 million, Ting said.
Speaking at the New York Stock Exchange Monday after ringing the opening bell, Peruvian Finance Minister Luis Carranza said the fund will draw "enormous" liquidity to the local market soon.
Continuing to maintain that, iShares aims to account for the risk of over-specialization.
The first emerging-markets fund iShares launched was a dedicated Mexico fund in 1996. As of late June, the MSCI Mexico Investable Market Index Fund (EWW) had $550 million in assets.
ETFs have gained growing acceptance from institutional and retail investors, as people are placing a much higher premium on liquidity - a boon to often-volatile emerging-market investments.
In 2004, U.S.-based ETFs investing in emerging markets had a relatively small $4.7 billion under management. By June 30, 2008, that had ballooned to $69.7 billion, and to $78.5 billion in June 2009.
At the end of June, iShares broad-based emerging market fund captured $28.5 billion, while the iShares MSCI Brazil Index Fund (EWZ) has $8.6 billion in assets, capturing a large amount of total ETF market share.
The return on emerging-market ETFs for the year to date "has been slightly higher due to the number of BRIC-focused funds that performed exceptionally well," said Bradley Kay, ETF analyst for Morningstar in Chicago. BRIC refers to Brazil, Russia, India and China.
Along with Barclays, PowerShares, SPDR S&P, Vanguard and WisdomTree all have dedicated emerging-market ETFs. Some of the offerings include PowerShares Middle East and North Africa Frontier Countries and Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock ETF.
As a measure of growing popularity, trading volume in iShares emerging-market funds have grown 127% in the first half of 2009 over the same period last year, from 8.5 billion shares to 19.4 billion shares.
BRICs boost emerging-market ETFs
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Indonesia Wants to be Included in BRIC Nations
BRIC Business
The economy of Indonesia could double over the next six years as the world’s largest exporter of power- station coal and biggest producer of palm oil taps growing demand from India and China.
China, India and Indonesia will generate close to $10 trillion of wealth for investors by 2015, Nicholas Cashmore, head of Indonesia research at CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, said in a note titled “Chindonesia: Enter the Komodo,” a reference to the reptile found only in eastern Indonesia. The three economies are Asia’s “next growth triangle,” he said.
Taking care of the growing needs of the world’s two most-populated nations as demand from Western countries slows may aid President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono meet his goal of increasing growth to 7 percent in his second term. Indonesia wants be included among the BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China.
India’s industrial production grew at the quickest pace in eight months in May. The South Asian nation, the biggest buyer of Indonesia’s palm oil and cashew, may overtake China next year as the world’s fastest growing major economy.
BRIC Membership
China’s economy will enlarge by 7.2 percent in 2009 from a year earlier. Indonesia’s exports to China grew 16 percent last year, compared with a 10.7 percent expansion in demand from the U.S., the second-largest buyer of Indonesian products.
Indonesia’s economic boost provides a case for its being considered among the BRIC economies.
The $433 billion economy can expand “significantly” more than 7 percent once Yudhoyono fixes the nation’s congested roads, neglected ports and ageing power plants.
Yudhoyono is set to win a second term after presidential elections this week, providing the 59-year-old former general with a mandate to double spending on roads and power to $140 billion by 2014.
Congested Roads
Fixing Indonesia’s congested roads, neglected ports and ageing power plants needs to be among Yudhoyono’s highest priorities for him to reach his goal of increasing growth and reducing povertys.
He also needs to improve transparency in Indonesia’s legal system and reduce corruption to attract global investors, a survey found.
In 2007, Tata Power Co., which is building a 4,000-megawatt plant in western India, acquired a 30 percent stake in two coal mining units owned by Indonesia’s PT Bumi Resources. The $4.14 billion plant will run on coal from the Indonesian mines.
India’s coal imports will more than double to 100 million tons by 2012 from 40 million tons, estimates Kaamil Fareed, a senior trading manager at the Coal & Oil Group, which supplies coal in India and Pakistan. That’s about 40 percent of Indonesia’s estimated coal production for 2009.
BRIC Business
The economy of Indonesia could double over the next six years as the world’s largest exporter of power- station coal and biggest producer of palm oil taps growing demand from India and China.
China, India and Indonesia will generate close to $10 trillion of wealth for investors by 2015, Nicholas Cashmore, head of Indonesia research at CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, said in a note titled “Chindonesia: Enter the Komodo,” a reference to the reptile found only in eastern Indonesia. The three economies are Asia’s “next growth triangle,” he said.
Taking care of the growing needs of the world’s two most-populated nations as demand from Western countries slows may aid President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono meet his goal of increasing growth to 7 percent in his second term. Indonesia wants be included among the BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China.
India’s industrial production grew at the quickest pace in eight months in May. The South Asian nation, the biggest buyer of Indonesia’s palm oil and cashew, may overtake China next year as the world’s fastest growing major economy.
BRIC Membership
China’s economy will enlarge by 7.2 percent in 2009 from a year earlier. Indonesia’s exports to China grew 16 percent last year, compared with a 10.7 percent expansion in demand from the U.S., the second-largest buyer of Indonesian products.
Indonesia’s economic boost provides a case for its being considered among the BRIC economies.
The $433 billion economy can expand “significantly” more than 7 percent once Yudhoyono fixes the nation’s congested roads, neglected ports and ageing power plants.
Yudhoyono is set to win a second term after presidential elections this week, providing the 59-year-old former general with a mandate to double spending on roads and power to $140 billion by 2014.
Congested Roads
Fixing Indonesia’s congested roads, neglected ports and ageing power plants needs to be among Yudhoyono’s highest priorities for him to reach his goal of increasing growth and reducing povertys.
He also needs to improve transparency in Indonesia’s legal system and reduce corruption to attract global investors, a survey found.
In 2007, Tata Power Co., which is building a 4,000-megawatt plant in western India, acquired a 30 percent stake in two coal mining units owned by Indonesia’s PT Bumi Resources. The $4.14 billion plant will run on coal from the Indonesian mines.
India’s coal imports will more than double to 100 million tons by 2012 from 40 million tons, estimates Kaamil Fareed, a senior trading manager at the Coal & Oil Group, which supplies coal in India and Pakistan. That’s about 40 percent of Indonesia’s estimated coal production for 2009.
BRIC Business
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Panasonic Growth In BRIC Countries
Panasonic Growth in BRIC Nations and Vietnam
Japan's Panasonic Corp announced it is looking for double-digit sales growth this fiscal year in the five major emerging markets it focuses on, including BRIC nations China and India, despite an estimated 10 percent fall in overall revenues.
"In our strategic markets of the BRIC nations and Vietnam, we aim for 13 percent growth by expanding our targets to people in the middle-income bracket," Panasonic President Fumio Ohtsubo told an annual shareholders' meeting on Thursday.
BRIC stands for the high-growth emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China.
Panasonic was able to generate a small 2 percent sales growth to 420 billion yen ($4.4 billion) in the five countries in the fiscal year that ended on March 31, while it suffered a 14 percent fall in overall sales and an 86 percent plunge in operating profit as the global downturn dampened demand.
"It is extremely regrettable that we reported a sharp drop in sales and profit. As a person who is in charge of management, I sincerely apologise," Ohtsubo said.
"We are determined to meet shareholders' expectations by achieving stronger growth than competitors' when the economy recovers in the next business year onwards," he said.
Panasonic, which offers Viera flat TVs and Lumix digital cameras, vies with Sony Corp for the position as the world's largest consumer electronics maker.
Besides the BRIC nations and Vietnam, Panasonic has identified such countries as Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey as markets with strong growth potential and is preparing to increase its presence in those countries, Ohtsubo said.
He said its refrigerators and washing machines made a strong debut in Europe, where they were introduced in March, with unit sales exceeding its own targets by 21 percent in April and May. Shares in Panasonic, the world's largest plasma TV maker ahead of Samsung Electronics Co and LG Electronics were up 1.7 percent at 1,312 yen by late afternoon, underperforming the Nikkei average, which rose 2.7 percent.
Panasonic Growth in BRIC Nations and Vietnam
Japan's Panasonic Corp announced it is looking for double-digit sales growth this fiscal year in the five major emerging markets it focuses on, including BRIC nations China and India, despite an estimated 10 percent fall in overall revenues.
"In our strategic markets of the BRIC nations and Vietnam, we aim for 13 percent growth by expanding our targets to people in the middle-income bracket," Panasonic President Fumio Ohtsubo told an annual shareholders' meeting on Thursday.
BRIC stands for the high-growth emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China.
Panasonic was able to generate a small 2 percent sales growth to 420 billion yen ($4.4 billion) in the five countries in the fiscal year that ended on March 31, while it suffered a 14 percent fall in overall sales and an 86 percent plunge in operating profit as the global downturn dampened demand.
"It is extremely regrettable that we reported a sharp drop in sales and profit. As a person who is in charge of management, I sincerely apologise," Ohtsubo said.
"We are determined to meet shareholders' expectations by achieving stronger growth than competitors' when the economy recovers in the next business year onwards," he said.
Panasonic, which offers Viera flat TVs and Lumix digital cameras, vies with Sony Corp for the position as the world's largest consumer electronics maker.
Besides the BRIC nations and Vietnam, Panasonic has identified such countries as Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey as markets with strong growth potential and is preparing to increase its presence in those countries, Ohtsubo said.
He said its refrigerators and washing machines made a strong debut in Europe, where they were introduced in March, with unit sales exceeding its own targets by 21 percent in April and May. Shares in Panasonic, the world's largest plasma TV maker ahead of Samsung Electronics Co and LG Electronics were up 1.7 percent at 1,312 yen by late afternoon, underperforming the Nikkei average, which rose 2.7 percent.
Panasonic Growth in BRIC Nations and Vietnam
Monday, July 6, 2009
Power Shifting to BRIC Nations
BRIC Business
Economic conditions brought about by clueless and ignorant Western countries has hastened the power shift to BRIC and surrounding countries, as misguided and foolish policies are quickly bringing about the end of their overall affluence and power.
It will take decades to work off the largest increase in debt since World War II. The political costs may be permanent, laid bare at this week’s Group of Eight summit of leading industrial powers.
Bank bailouts and recession-fighting measures will explode the debt of the advanced economies to at least 114 percent of gross domestic product in 2014, more than triple the 35 percent of the main emerging economies including China, the International Monetary Fund forecasts.
The run-up in debt is quickening a power shift that saps the industrial world’s authority to force its economic doctrine, currency arrangements or greenhouse-gas reduction strategies. Even some G-8 officials acknowledge that the group has lost its grip amid the global recession they birthed.
The eight-nation forum that starts tomorrow in L’Aquila, Italy is “a lot less relevant given its makeup and given developments in the world,” French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said July 5. “Big players, like emerging economies, India, China or Mexico, are invited, but they’re given only a jump seat outside of the main summit.”
The industrial world is beset by the harshest economic conditions in a lifetime: a projected U.S. budget deficit of 13.6 percent of GDP in 2009, unmatched since World War II; an annualized 14.2 percent contraction in Japanese GDP in the first quarter, also the worst since the war; in the first three months of 2009, German exports had their steepest quarterly decline since 1970 when the data were first compiled.
Market Capitalization
Reflecting the relative fortunes of the G-8 and emerging markets, developing nations’ share of worldwide stock-market capitalization has climbed to a record 24 percent from 15 percent at the start of 2007 as investors piled into the fastest-growing economies.
While the surge in borrowing has prompted calls for alternatives to the dollar as a reserve currency, emerging- markets policy makers aren’t near consensus on a plausible option. Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister He Yafei said July 2 the dollar will reign supreme for “many years to come.”
Staunching the recession, combating climate change, promoting trade and dealing with Iran top the agenda of the G-8, a grouping of 880 million people with combined GDP of $32 trillion that includes the U.S., Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia.
Divisions persist over dialing back stimulus measures -- Germany says now is the time to begin curbing deficits -- and the scope of financial oversight. Britain opposes more intrusive market oversight proposed by the European Union.
‘Global Crisis’
“Different countries are pulling in different directions and that is, I think, quite troubling,” said Niall Ferguson, a history professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The uncoordinated response is “one of the classic symptoms of a global crisis.”
While the eight deliberate, leaders of five developing economies -- China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa -- hold a parallel summit nearby before the G-8 meeting.
Led by China, the emerging economies don’t share the “somber fiscal outlook” of the affluent world, the IMF says. The IMF says the debt won’t be repaid as quickly as after World War II, which ended with debt topping 250 percent of GDP in the U.K., 200 percent in Japan and 100 percent in the U.S.
In wartime, governments exercised “comprehensive control” over the economy and citizens felt a “moral duty” to buy war bonds, the IMF said in a June 9 report.
Rich nations’ debt constituted 78 percent of GDP in 2006, the year before the financial crisis took hold, while emerging- markets debt has dipped from 38 percent, the IMF says.
Declining Leverage
The industrial world’s borrowing spree “decreases its ability to maneuver,” said Paul Hofheinz, president of the Lisbon Council, a Brussels research group.
Lesser-developed countries upstaged last year’s G-8 in Japan. Arguing that emissions cuts would stunt the economic growth that is lifting millions out of poverty, they forced through a joint statement entitling countries to tackle global warming according to their “respective capabilities.”
The climate clash will be rerun in L’Aquila, as the countdown starts to a United Nations summit in December to hammer out a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol.
Russia plays a dual role, straddling the G-8 and acting in concert with developing economies. In a sign of the shifting world order, Russia last month hosted the first-ever summit of the BRIC economies -- Brazil, Russia, India, China -- financiers of $1.1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt as of April.
Medvedev’s Call
How much U.S. debt to keep remains in dispute. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Indian economic adviser Suresh Tendulkar have questioned the dollar’s dominance of the world’s $6.5 trillion in currency reserves.
The BRIC meetings failed to endorse a Russian call for diversification from the dollar, showing it is easier to denounce the U.S.-led world order than come up with a viable alternative.
“The credibility of the Anglo-Saxon model is under threat,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., said in a Web commentary last month. “Yet there are no ready substitutes that are able and willing to step in.”
There is an increasing call from BRIC nations to supplant the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency, even though no certainty as to what should be the replacement.
BRIC Business
Economic conditions brought about by clueless and ignorant Western countries has hastened the power shift to BRIC and surrounding countries, as misguided and foolish policies are quickly bringing about the end of their overall affluence and power.
It will take decades to work off the largest increase in debt since World War II. The political costs may be permanent, laid bare at this week’s Group of Eight summit of leading industrial powers.
Bank bailouts and recession-fighting measures will explode the debt of the advanced economies to at least 114 percent of gross domestic product in 2014, more than triple the 35 percent of the main emerging economies including China, the International Monetary Fund forecasts.
The run-up in debt is quickening a power shift that saps the industrial world’s authority to force its economic doctrine, currency arrangements or greenhouse-gas reduction strategies. Even some G-8 officials acknowledge that the group has lost its grip amid the global recession they birthed.
The eight-nation forum that starts tomorrow in L’Aquila, Italy is “a lot less relevant given its makeup and given developments in the world,” French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said July 5. “Big players, like emerging economies, India, China or Mexico, are invited, but they’re given only a jump seat outside of the main summit.”
The industrial world is beset by the harshest economic conditions in a lifetime: a projected U.S. budget deficit of 13.6 percent of GDP in 2009, unmatched since World War II; an annualized 14.2 percent contraction in Japanese GDP in the first quarter, also the worst since the war; in the first three months of 2009, German exports had their steepest quarterly decline since 1970 when the data were first compiled.
Market Capitalization
Reflecting the relative fortunes of the G-8 and emerging markets, developing nations’ share of worldwide stock-market capitalization has climbed to a record 24 percent from 15 percent at the start of 2007 as investors piled into the fastest-growing economies.
While the surge in borrowing has prompted calls for alternatives to the dollar as a reserve currency, emerging- markets policy makers aren’t near consensus on a plausible option. Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister He Yafei said July 2 the dollar will reign supreme for “many years to come.”
Staunching the recession, combating climate change, promoting trade and dealing with Iran top the agenda of the G-8, a grouping of 880 million people with combined GDP of $32 trillion that includes the U.S., Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia.
Divisions persist over dialing back stimulus measures -- Germany says now is the time to begin curbing deficits -- and the scope of financial oversight. Britain opposes more intrusive market oversight proposed by the European Union.
‘Global Crisis’
“Different countries are pulling in different directions and that is, I think, quite troubling,” said Niall Ferguson, a history professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The uncoordinated response is “one of the classic symptoms of a global crisis.”
While the eight deliberate, leaders of five developing economies -- China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa -- hold a parallel summit nearby before the G-8 meeting.
Led by China, the emerging economies don’t share the “somber fiscal outlook” of the affluent world, the IMF says. The IMF says the debt won’t be repaid as quickly as after World War II, which ended with debt topping 250 percent of GDP in the U.K., 200 percent in Japan and 100 percent in the U.S.
In wartime, governments exercised “comprehensive control” over the economy and citizens felt a “moral duty” to buy war bonds, the IMF said in a June 9 report.
Rich nations’ debt constituted 78 percent of GDP in 2006, the year before the financial crisis took hold, while emerging- markets debt has dipped from 38 percent, the IMF says.
Declining Leverage
The industrial world’s borrowing spree “decreases its ability to maneuver,” said Paul Hofheinz, president of the Lisbon Council, a Brussels research group.
Lesser-developed countries upstaged last year’s G-8 in Japan. Arguing that emissions cuts would stunt the economic growth that is lifting millions out of poverty, they forced through a joint statement entitling countries to tackle global warming according to their “respective capabilities.”
The climate clash will be rerun in L’Aquila, as the countdown starts to a United Nations summit in December to hammer out a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol.
Russia plays a dual role, straddling the G-8 and acting in concert with developing economies. In a sign of the shifting world order, Russia last month hosted the first-ever summit of the BRIC economies -- Brazil, Russia, India, China -- financiers of $1.1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt as of April.
Medvedev’s Call
How much U.S. debt to keep remains in dispute. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Indian economic adviser Suresh Tendulkar have questioned the dollar’s dominance of the world’s $6.5 trillion in currency reserves.
The BRIC meetings failed to endorse a Russian call for diversification from the dollar, showing it is easier to denounce the U.S.-led world order than come up with a viable alternative.
“The credibility of the Anglo-Saxon model is under threat,” Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., said in a Web commentary last month. “Yet there are no ready substitutes that are able and willing to step in.”
There is an increasing call from BRIC nations to supplant the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency, even though no certainty as to what should be the replacement.
BRIC Business
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Only China and India Expected to Grow
BRIC Business
Of the 15 largest economies in the world, only China and India are expected to enjoy growth in 2009.
Brazil's government still thinks it can just make positive growth for the year too, although outside forecasters don't agree with it. In mid-June, leaders of the BRICs even held their first summit meeting. But Russia, a resource-rich land with an otherwise weak economy and a declining population, is in a different situation from its BRIC brethren. It's having a terrible year, with the World Bank predicting that its GDP will contract 7.9%, far worse than that of any other top-15 economy.
Before the financial panic of last fall, many business and government leaders in the BRIC countries spoke confidently of "decoupling" from their economic reliance on the U.S. Such talk faded as a subsequent collapse in global trade left no nation untouched. Yet with their big populations and growing middle classes, the BRICs now seem to have suffered only a glancing blow. The word redecoupling is beginning to appear in the media. Nandan Nilekani, who is about to leave the chairmanship of Indian tech company Infosys for a government post, speaks of "tactical coupling" and "strategic decoupling." That is, nobody could escape the short-term effects of a global crisis, but the basic BRIC growth story still holds.
If the BRICs can keep growing even as the U.S. and Europe flounder, it would spell an end to America's long reign as the driving force in the global economy. Goldman's O'Neill has said it's "conceivable" that China's economy will be bigger than that of the U.S. in less than 20 years and that the BRIC countries as a group will carry as much economic weight as the G-7 group of Western powers plus Japan. This sounds like bad news for the U.S. — and it will certainly bring all sorts of new complications to the global political scene. From a purely economic standpoint, though, the rise of the BICs is great in that it offers the only remotely attractive path out of our current conundrum.
Discussions of the U.S. losing its spot as global leader often get mired in predictions of doom and comparisons to the Roman Empire. When Rome fell, technological advances were lost for centuries, and Europe descended into the Dark Ages. The rise and fall of economic powers since the dawn of modern capitalism in the 17th century has been a different story. There have been shifts in relative power, and some have led to violent conflict, but living standards have continued to improve over time, even in lands that lost the crown of most powerful — Britain being the most recent example.
And so while U.S. economic dominance appears to be giving way to something more mirky, this doesn't imply absolute decline. The U.S. retains a lot of strong points — great universities, millions of ambitious immigrants, a culture that celebrates risk-taking — that are hard for any other nation to match. Just because the U.S. is no longer all-important doesn't mean it will no longer be competitive.
In fact, the U.S. might turn out to be more competitive. American dominance has in recent years been a mixed blessing. Many countries got addicted to selling to American consumers and poured capital into the U.S. to keep the buying going. These inflows kept the dollar strong, making life tough for U.S. exporters; they also saddled Americans with the unsustainable debt loads that led to the financial crisis. Now no one abroad is willing to lend to deadbeat American households, and the U.S. government has temporarily taken over as the world's chief borrower and spender. But as we've just learned from the example of the American consumer, one can't borrow and spend forever.
Sometime in the near future, then, the U.S. will have to start living within its means — or at least a lot closer to them than it currently does. To keep this new American frugality from battering the global economy even more than it's been battered, somebody has to pick up the resulting slack in demand. Europe and Japan have been hit harder by the downturn than the U.S. has, and they have aging, slow-growing populations unlikely to ignite consumer booms. That leaves the BRICs as pretty much the only remaining candidates. These economies are still too small to take up all the slack: together their GDP amounts to less than half that of the U.S. But they are expanding rapidly. Yes, their ascent spells relative economic decline for the U.S. The faster it happens, though, the sooner a durable global economic recovery will get under way.
There's no doubt BRIC economies are the key to future economic growth.
BRIC business
Of the 15 largest economies in the world, only China and India are expected to enjoy growth in 2009.
Brazil's government still thinks it can just make positive growth for the year too, although outside forecasters don't agree with it. In mid-June, leaders of the BRICs even held their first summit meeting. But Russia, a resource-rich land with an otherwise weak economy and a declining population, is in a different situation from its BRIC brethren. It's having a terrible year, with the World Bank predicting that its GDP will contract 7.9%, far worse than that of any other top-15 economy.
Before the financial panic of last fall, many business and government leaders in the BRIC countries spoke confidently of "decoupling" from their economic reliance on the U.S. Such talk faded as a subsequent collapse in global trade left no nation untouched. Yet with their big populations and growing middle classes, the BRICs now seem to have suffered only a glancing blow. The word redecoupling is beginning to appear in the media. Nandan Nilekani, who is about to leave the chairmanship of Indian tech company Infosys for a government post, speaks of "tactical coupling" and "strategic decoupling." That is, nobody could escape the short-term effects of a global crisis, but the basic BRIC growth story still holds.
If the BRICs can keep growing even as the U.S. and Europe flounder, it would spell an end to America's long reign as the driving force in the global economy. Goldman's O'Neill has said it's "conceivable" that China's economy will be bigger than that of the U.S. in less than 20 years and that the BRIC countries as a group will carry as much economic weight as the G-7 group of Western powers plus Japan. This sounds like bad news for the U.S. — and it will certainly bring all sorts of new complications to the global political scene. From a purely economic standpoint, though, the rise of the BICs is great in that it offers the only remotely attractive path out of our current conundrum.
Discussions of the U.S. losing its spot as global leader often get mired in predictions of doom and comparisons to the Roman Empire. When Rome fell, technological advances were lost for centuries, and Europe descended into the Dark Ages. The rise and fall of economic powers since the dawn of modern capitalism in the 17th century has been a different story. There have been shifts in relative power, and some have led to violent conflict, but living standards have continued to improve over time, even in lands that lost the crown of most powerful — Britain being the most recent example.
And so while U.S. economic dominance appears to be giving way to something more mirky, this doesn't imply absolute decline. The U.S. retains a lot of strong points — great universities, millions of ambitious immigrants, a culture that celebrates risk-taking — that are hard for any other nation to match. Just because the U.S. is no longer all-important doesn't mean it will no longer be competitive.
In fact, the U.S. might turn out to be more competitive. American dominance has in recent years been a mixed blessing. Many countries got addicted to selling to American consumers and poured capital into the U.S. to keep the buying going. These inflows kept the dollar strong, making life tough for U.S. exporters; they also saddled Americans with the unsustainable debt loads that led to the financial crisis. Now no one abroad is willing to lend to deadbeat American households, and the U.S. government has temporarily taken over as the world's chief borrower and spender. But as we've just learned from the example of the American consumer, one can't borrow and spend forever.
Sometime in the near future, then, the U.S. will have to start living within its means — or at least a lot closer to them than it currently does. To keep this new American frugality from battering the global economy even more than it's been battered, somebody has to pick up the resulting slack in demand. Europe and Japan have been hit harder by the downturn than the U.S. has, and they have aging, slow-growing populations unlikely to ignite consumer booms. That leaves the BRICs as pretty much the only remaining candidates. These economies are still too small to take up all the slack: together their GDP amounts to less than half that of the U.S. But they are expanding rapidly. Yes, their ascent spells relative economic decline for the U.S. The faster it happens, though, the sooner a durable global economic recovery will get under way.
There's no doubt BRIC economies are the key to future economic growth.
BRIC business
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Most Recent Exchange Rate from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/exrate/24hr-inr-small.gif)