Showing posts with label China demand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China demand. Show all posts

China's Domestic Consumption - Glass Half Full or Half Empty


The following table by McKinsey was highly illuminating. It puts into sparkling perspective how important private domestic consumption is to each country as a percentage of GDP. One should always strive to be more led by domestic consumption as that usually means a better grasp and control of an economy's fortunes. China has been desperately trying to lead the world back from the diminished global trade due to the recent global financial crisis by shifting from an investment led economy to a more domestic driven type. As the table shows, its a long uphill climb still. Thats the negative way of looking at things - the half full view would be that there is still a lot China can do (and will do) to ramp up its domestic economy, and it will only means more consumption of global goods and services in the long run. Its going to be the Asian century mainly by moving just 10%-20% of the rural folks in China and India into the middle class consumption category.

On a side note, Malaysia's domestic consumption as a percentage of GDP is high enough but the major caveat about looking at tables such as these is that if your population is smallish, the high private domestic consumption percentage figure is too one dimensional. If your population is say less that 50m, you probably HAVE to be led by investment as a priority as your population will not be able to generate sufficient critical mass of demand for your industries to compete on a global scale with the economies of scale that is needed.

china-gdp



p/s photos: Jessica Gomes

Can China's Demand Strength Stir Global Demand?




# Signs that extensive government investment and credit extension are contributing to a soft landing for China are giving rise to hopes that Chinese demand might support other emerging economies. Chinese commodity imports, which have surged in volume terms, may be supporting commodity exporters in Latin America and Asia in particular, yet other imports continue to be weak.

What Countries Might Benefit From Chinese Demand?

# Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea have been more dependent on exports to China, while several South East Asian economies like Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand have lower dependency.
# The composition of Chinese imports has also shifted. Fewer intermediate goods are being sourced for the processing trade given weak demand in the G3, the ultimate recipient of such goods. This shift, if persistent, could hurt traditional exporters in East Asia like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan which have tended to be reliant on Chinese demand.
# China’s imports of commodities such as iron ore, coal and crude oil have been extraordinarily strong, increasing speculation that China is building strategic inventories of the most important commodities - boosting Latin America (especially Brazil and Chile) the ASEAN countries and Australia.
# With Latin American trade with China having increased, a Chinese slowdown would have a more significant role than one in the U.S. or the EU.
# While strong US retail sales previously pushed up exports from China, in turn boosting China’s imports, the engine for China’s economic recovery is now likely to be public works spending. Thus, China's imports from Japan may be lower than expected.

Will Chinese Recovery Lead to Import Growth?

# China seems to be sourcing an increased share of parts and intermediate goods domestically. Despite an increase in car sales, auto parts imports and autos have not increased. China has been implementing a Buy China policy for its stimulus projects which might continue to hold down China's goods and services imports.
# Over time, as China's growth shifts to more domestic sources, its demand will boost the rest of Asia. In the short-term, however, a sustainable recovery in developing Asia depends on positive developments in advanced economies. While Chinese government investment has boosted its outlook in the short-term, such efforts may provide little support in 2010 if global demand continues to be weak. A reduction in Chinese exports and export related capex could lead to weaker potential GDP over the next three to five years.
# Overall, Chinese imports continue to seem weaker than would be anticipated during an investment boom. Land purchases may account for a significant share of the reported Fixed asset increase.
# There is a risk that Chinese investment might be contributing to further overcapacities and domestic imbalances. If China (and other export economies) continue to export capacity rather than boost consumption in the face of global demand, it could weaken the prospects of global economic recovery.
# The rebound in China’s exports since early in 2009 has been weaker than in most other Asian countries, suggesting that China has been a major driver in Asian countries’ export recovery.
# China can lead but that will not be enough to save the world or the other Asian economies.
# China generates only 7% of global output, at market prices; moreover, real imports are likely to fall 5% in 2009 . China's net stimulus to the rest of the world will only be around 0.1% of global output.
# A slowdown to 6% or less in China’s growth rate would have significant impact on the already weak global economy.
# Even if it escapes a hard landing and achieves 7-8% growth, subpar GDP growth in China over the next two years at least will weigh on global growth.
# Income increases in East Asian countries and currency appreciation would cause large increases in consumption imports (those that are consumed at home). In 2006, in addition, U.S. consumption goods imports in 2006 equaled $430 billion while East Asian consumption goods imports equaled $220 billion.


p/s photos: Zhang Xin Yu

Will China's Aggressive Stimulus Succeed?


  • March 4: Chinese Premier Wen suggested that the country's stimulus spending is having an effect supporting growth but announced no new spending
  • Mar 6: NDRC plans to change the composition of the stimulus, reducing the share on infrastructure investment and increasing that on social spending. It plans a 300b yuan cut from an initial 1.8T yuan for infrastructure investments, such as low-income housing, and a 140b yuan reduction in spending on projects that focus on energy conservation and sustainability. technology projects would get an additional 210 billion yuan, while spending earmarked for rural public works projects and social welfare programs would rise 120b and 110b yuan.
  • Total government expenditure in 2009 is about 2% of GDP
  • Concerns were being raised about where the previously announced stimulus is being spent and reports suggest that NDRC may restructure the stimulus to spend more on
  • Standard Chartered had said officials in Beijing had been discussing the possibility of raising the plan to Rmb8,000bn-10,000bn from the Rmb 4000bn announced in November 2008 - . In January the government released the second batch of funds - 130bn yuan (first batch 100 bn yuan in 4Q08).
  • Citi: The front loaded program in which the government will speed up spending in 2009 suggests that more stimulus may be necessary to sustain growth in 2010. The lack of new spending signals that the government is giving more time for past policies to take effect

  • Details of the Stimulus to date
  • China has been rolling out additional sector specific support packages that aim to support demand. There are concerns that Chinese investment may be exacerbating overcapacities in the Chinese economy especially through the use of tax rebates
  • Nov 2008: 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus, almost 1/5 of China's 2007 GDP, includes some previously announced spending. Government share is RMB 1.18T over next two years (1/3 of the package) with loans making up most of the rest. Targets investment in low-rent housing, infrastructure in rural areas, as well as roads, railways and airports as well as increasing purchases of grain to support the price and allow tax deductions for fixed asset investment as previously rumored. China has though rolled out new sector specific funding (autos, steel)
  • HK: The stimulus package has a strong emphasis on rural development, as well as the less developed central and western regions including infrastructure
  • half of the funds (1.8T) will be funneled to transportation infrastructure and power grid construction projects. 1T yuan will be used for earthquake reconstruction, and 370b yuan to improve rural livelihoods and infrastructure. Another 350b yuan for environmental protection, social security and housing will receive 280b yuan. 160b yuan for technological innovation and 40b yuan on public healthcare and education.(Caijing)

  • How Effective Will it Be?
  • Pettis: instead of reducing China's export dependence, the opposite is happening. The stimulus isn't working because the money isn't going where it needs to go -- to household consumers and service industries, whose rising demand could absorb a greater share of Chinese production.
  • WB: The stimulus policies provide an opportunity to rebalance the economy in line with the objectives of the 11th five-year plan, speeding up pension funding. government-influenced expenditure could contribute more than 4 pp to GDP growth (WB)
  • AB: the ability of Infrastructure to stimulate growth may be limited. It must offset a contraction in property and manufacturing investment which account for a much larger share of growth and investment. China has been good at running a counter-cyclical fiscal policy in the past through and total stimulus might account for 2.5% of GDP
  • Danske: Housing and infrastructure spending will probably have the greatest effect on growth
  • Zhou Xiaochuan: boosting spending at home is the best way China can help support global growthWB: In a more serious slowdown, a fiscal easing would be better suited than a monetary loosening, given the need to contain inflationary expectations, rebalance the growth pattern, and lower the current account surplus
  • Zhou Xiaochuan: boosting spending at home is the best way China can help support global growth
  • WB: In a more serious slowdown, a fiscal easing would be better suited than a monetary loosening, given the need to contain inflationary expectations, rebalance the growth pattern, and lower the current account surplus
  • Risks: Reduction in revenues - expenditure growth was 30% y/y summer 2008. Government investment might boost overall output but do little at the micro level, exacerbating weakness in some regions (Citi) money may be circumvented to avoid defaults of SOEs

  • How Much New Spending?
  • Lex: At most, half of the spending relates to new projects and the rest for projects that are underway; construction spending may kick in only by Q2-09 so some temporary unemployment is unavoidable. Spending by provincial govts. will be constrained by slowing revenues.
  • Citi: The real incremental amount is more like RMB1-1.5 trillion, this could add 2-3 ppt every year to GDP growth in 2009 and 2010
  • UOB: many projects delayed by the NDRC in recent years can now be green lighted, starting the stimulus effect quickly. Around 25% of investment projects are subject to the central government’s approval while the other 75% are subject to the approval of local governments
p/s photos: Ueto Aya

China Stimulus - Sector By Sector



  • In addition to stimulus plans announced in November, State Council has announced additional sector specific ones relating to auto, steel, textile, machinery manufacturing, shipbuilding, light industries, electronics, petrochemical industry, logistics, and non-ferrous metal sectors. General focus is to try to reduce overcapacities and foster encourage consolidation (long term goals), though doing so may be difficult, particularly as some of the funds may just add to overcapacities. Additional real estate and energy focused support has not been included (federal and regional govt already rolled out real estate supportive policies in late 2008) but are being discussed at the party conferences.
  • Auto and Steel: lower purchase tax on certain cars, especially fuel efficient; $730m in one-off allowances to farmers to upgrade vehicles; encourage industry consolidation;and establish a 10b-yuan government fund in steel. However it may be more difficult to phase out surplus and consolidate than expected - China currently has a steel glut as producers reversed production cuts too soon
  • Non-ferrous metal: increase tax rebates; support high-value added exports of non-ferrous metal products; create and expedite national reserves; give credit to upgrade the technology. total capacity of nonferrous metal producers will be controlled
  • Textile: increase tax rebate; phase out obsolete capacity; eliminate energy-intensive equipment and technology; and encourage relocation to central and western areas (these plans have been under way for some time but may not be key priority)
  • Shipbuilding: increase credit extend the financial support for oceangoing vessels until 2012; suspend construction of new docks and the expansion of slipways
  • Electronics: promoting the 3G mobile services and digital TVs; develop national science and technology projects and improve public technological service platforms; and promote outsourcing and increase tax rebates
  • Light industries: subsidize farmers' purchase of TVs, refrigerators, washing machines and mobile phones, microwave ovens; increase export tax rebates; and remove restrictions on some labor-intensive and hi-tech processing trade
  • Petrochemical: speed up of oil refining and ethylene projects construction; limit development of the coal-to-chemical industry and stop approvals for production expansion
  • Logistics: develop transport and transshipment facilities; build logistics parks esp in rural areas,; encourage the development of logistics for major industries such as energy, minerals, automobile, agriculture and pharmaceuticals.
p/s Elanne Kong Yuk Lam

Wen Jiabao Can Criticise But Putin Should Shut Up!!!


At the current Davos summit, many leaders have whacked the US for its role in bringing the global economy to its knees. Wen Jiabao of China can criticise, but OMG Putin should shut his face. For my life, I cannot understand why Russia was invited into the G8 and not China????? Why does he have the gall to even criticise the US? Its like Thailand advising Malaysia on how to play better politics, or rather, like Malaysia advising Thailand on how to play better politics!

Why Russia should shut up:


a) Despite the huge run up in oil price and hence Russia's reserves, the country did not improve its infrastructure. It allowed Russian gang leaders (or some may call them oligarchs) to lead many big companies, and when things do not go their way, these ballbusters would use the courts, extortion, kidnapping and murders to get their way. Foreign investors who have been in Russia can attest to that.


b) While opening arms to welcome foreign funds, Russia also openly go about nationalising industries whenever they wanted to, or coerce foreign interests to sell back their stakes whenever Russia wants. Now they are angry when foreign funds flee Russia in droves over the past 12 months... wonder why?

c) Business has been firmly reminded that in a country where traditional institutional mechanisms for the implementation of policy are weak, the informal lines of communication should be respected. Its a whole load of bureaucracy and tinged with vested interests everywhere.


d) According to Insead, some recent moves by the Russian central government suggest that foreign companies may face new formal and informal hurdles such as restrictions on investing in certain industries without presidential approval. The current challenging atmosphere creates greater possibilities for those firms that acquire this knowledge to reap greater profits. For example, a company is often served by such simple actions as paying regular visits to government officials, inviting bureaucrats to visit the foreign company, and helping to administer local programs such as work-force retraining or upgrading health care facilities.


e) Compared with the other BRICs, Russia’s market infrastructure is only moderately effective because of the government’s significant participation in and direct ownership of firms. Of Russia’s 80 largest public companies, 71% had a controlling shareholder. Among these controlling stakes, the government held 30%. An additional 21% (of the 80) had one or more blocking shareholder (those with a 25% or greater stake), with the government representing 10% of these. In Russia, the government’s influence is particularly strong at large “strategic companies,” and the combination of a bureaucratic approach to management and continuing pockets of government corruption can hinder the development of more effective corporate governance across a range of industries.


f) The problems with the ruble and Russia's fragile oil base economy seem to be rooted in an erroneous perception of the Russian economy, as the government is echoing the course that was taken following the 1998 default, but the present situation is drastically different. Ten years ago, most prices and salaries were in dollars, and those who were able to keep their jobs had their incomes indexed. Now, everything is mostly in rubles. The consumption growth model has been in place for the last eight years. It has been stalled and it is time to move on to an investment-based economy to improve production. Now they’re still following that model trying to get people to go and spend their savings by allowing further devaluation and inflation; whatever positive effect it has will be only short-term and we’ll still have the same model in place.


Russia, don't go blaming someone else for your problems. Yes, the US credit implosion had some effect but if you had improved your infrastructure, balance sheet, stopped bullying smaller former nations into submission, rein in your gang-like oligarchs, sell more government shares, improve shareholders' rights, treat foreign investors fairly and not in a Sopranos-way, regulate your banks better.... Russia might not be in such a pile of heap.


Russia should not be criticising the US until it has improved their market transparency, accountability, regulatory effectiveness, protection of minority shareholders... its like Iceland criticising the US, shuddup already!!!

Putin is mad because the ruble has totally collapsed, foreign investors have left in droves, and most galling is the fact that Russia used to get above $120 per barrel of oil just a year back. Now he is using the platform to criticise the US and everybody else for heaping troubles onto Russia. Please la Putin, why I don't hear you saying "Gee, oil at $140 is totally out of whack, it is unsustainable, its the US liquidity pushing up commodity prices... you guys beware OK"... If you were smiling when oil was raking in dough above $100... well, take your medicine now. You cannot have it both ways, grow up.

--------------------------------------

Various News Media:
Wen Jiabao and Vladimir Putin on Wednesday blamed the United States for causing the global economic crisis on a gloomy first day of the Davos forum. Both called for a new attitude by President Barack Obama, while deepening pessimism over the future of the global economy enshrouded the World Economic Forum.

Chinese premier Wen said America's voracious appetite for debt and 'blind pursuit of profit' had led to the worst recession since the Great Depression which has rocked the 2,500 strong political and business elite gathered in the Swiss mountain resort.

Mr Putin said the disappearance of some Wall Street titans over the past six months testified to the errors committed. Mr Wen blamed the crisis on 'inappropriate macroeconomic policies of some economies' and 'prolonged low savings and high consumption,' in a lightly veiled attack on the United States. He blasted the 'excessive expansion of financial institutions in blind pursuit of profit and the lack of self-discipline among financial institutions and ratings agencies' while the 'failure' of regulators had allowed the spread of toxic derivatives.

Mr Wen said the crisis had posed 'severe challenges' for China and that it needed 8.0 per cent growth in 2009 to maintain social stability while the International Monetary Fund predicted 6.7 per cent for this year. The Chinese leader called for faster reform of international financial institutions and for a 'new world order' for the economy.

The Russian prime minister followed him to the podium and said the crisis had been a 'perfect storm'. He also took aim at US banks and the outgoing US administration.' Although the crisis was simply hanging in the air, the majority strove to get their share of the pie, be it one dollar or one billion, and did not want to notice the rising wave.'

Mr Putin insisted that he would not join critics of the United States, but added: 'I just want to remind you that just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasised the US economy's fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years. This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism,' said Mr Putin.

Mr Putin called for a constructive attitude from Mr Obama in international affairs. 'We wish the new team success. I hope they are willing to cooperate constructively,' he said.

US tensions with China have been raised in recent days with new US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner saying Mr Obama believes China manipulates its currency to gain an edge in trade. 'In meeting the international financial crisis, it is imperative for the two countries to enhance cooperation, that is my message to the US administration. Three decades of formalised ties between the United States and communist China had shown that 'a peaceful and harmonious relationship will make both sides winners, while a confrontational one will leave both losers,' he added.

p/s photo: Akumsiri Suwansook

China Calling


China markets have been trying to wrangle itself away from the market weakness in the US and Europe. So far, we have seen the buyers winning the battle over the last week or so, albeit marginally so far. More institutional and private funds have funneled into China funds, and a deliberate move by Beijing to try to reignite some positive activity in the Chinese markets have pushed the markets there forward.

There are good reasons to start ,oading up on some H-shares in HK and a riskier bet would be some of the locally listed China-covered warrants.

  1. The “smart money” is buying, not selling. Many foreign banks (including Li Ka Shing) have been selling down their Chinese banking shares in droves - the activity has been substantive over the last few weeks. We have to recognise that the foreign banks are selling because they are in trouble, not because the Chinese banks are in trouble. Secondly, the Chinese banks are the only kind of assets that can still get a decent price nowadays. Thirdly, the Chinese banks are the only kind of assets that there are plenty of willing money to buy them even now. Funds investing in emerging-market stocks raised their Chinese holdings to the highest level since 1995.
  2. Chinese shares are very reasonablt valued. If legendary investors like Warren Buffett really like US stocks trading at 12 times earnings, they should be rabid over Chinese stocks. Based on the MSCI China Index, the average Chinese stock trades for less than eight times earnings, and they do not have to contend with the massive de-leveraging.
  3. Oil is much cheaper. One of China’s biggest challenges was to keep a lid on inflation, while still maintaining its breakneck pace of economic growth. That was no easy task with oil at $150 as the cost of shipping, food and fuel were increasing rapidly. Keep in mind, China imports a net 3.3 million barrels of oil a day. Now that oil prices are down considerably, the recently announced stimulus would see a more effective trickle through effect and multiplier effect, and not being "wasted" on oil prices. The risk of inflation in injecting the huge stimulus is muted as well.
  4. The economy is NOT in a recession. Sure, it’s slowing down, but China is still on track for a solid 5%-6% expansion based on analysts’ estimates. And 8% if you believe the government statistics. Regardless of who ends up being right, compared to the contraction in most other economies, such a rate is downright explosive.
  5. The last time Chinese stocks were this cheap was during the Asian financial crisis. Back then, most Asian countries were running huge deficits. But this time the roles are reversed. As of December, China boasts $1.95 trillion in foreign reserves. And counting. If necessary, the government can deploy these surpluses to keep economic growth humming along.
  6. The consumer is just getting started. The country’s burgeoning middle class, now the size of the entire United States, is just getting started. The McKinsey Quarterly estimates that it will take two decades before these nouveau riche reach their full spending potential. As we know from our own experience and prosperity - 70% of GDP in the United States is attributed to consumer spending - the consumer is an engine of economic growth. In other words, the global recessionary headwinds are no match for the Chinese consumer. Like it or not, the global economy has grown by 70% in trade terms since 2000 till mid 2008. Much of that growth was due to globalisation and a huge new middle class of consumers being created in China, India and Latam - that middle class, while affected by the current crisis, will still be a force to be reckon with.
  7. Locals are optimistic. We know consumer confidence plays a big role in the success of our own economy. It flat out stinks right now in the United States, And the economic conditions reflect it. But in China, it’s an entirely different situation. A recent survey from the Pew Research Center shows that most Chinese (86%) feel positive about where their country is headed. And that’s up from 25% just six years ago.
  8. The “mother of all stimulus plans.” While the Obama stimulus has yet to take hold in the United States, rest assured it will. Same goes for the $584 billion the Chinese government is pumping into its economy. China’s “got the mother of all stimulus plans” when you factor in the government spending, savings rates and the rapid decline in commodities prices.
p/s photos: Amy Fan Yip Mun (aahhh, finally found my dream girl, to me she was the best looking starlet from the 80s and 90s in HK)

Morgan Stanley Asia Not So Bearish



Probably still the best strategic house in Asia, Morgan Stanley Asia said Asian stock markets and economies can escape the worst of the global downturn, with China, Hong Kong and Taiwan best placed to ride through the turbulence. Equity strategists at the brokerage added to their ``overweight'' position in Taiwan in their model portfolio of stocks and raised South Korea to ``equal-weight'' from ``underweight,'' a report today said. Malaysia was cut to ``underweight'' from ``overweight.''

``Asia's fundamentals are far stronger. A combination of easier monetary and fiscal policy and lower commodity prices should enable Asia to avoid the worst of the global downturn.''

China and Japan have slashed borrowing costs in the past two weeks to ease the economic fallout from the global credit crunch that is pushing some countries into a recession. The turmoil has frozen credit markets and triggered a worldwide rout for equities, wiping out more than $25 trillion of market value this year.

``If the worst of the global liquidity crisis is behind us, macro strength is probably going to become a key market driver,'' the report said. ``This should favor Greater China. A key difference between Asia today and in 1997-98 is the emergence of China as a key driver of growth.'' China's growth will slow to 9.3 percent in 2009, from 9.7 percent this year, the World Bank last month, predicting that the country is well positioned to withstand financial market turmoil. The central bank cut interest rates for the first time in six years on Sept. 15, following up with two more reductions since. On Oct. 29, the key one-year lending rate was cut to 6.66 percent from 6.93 percent. China is the ``strongest'' to cope with the global slowdown while Australia, Malaysia and India ``face challenges,'' Morgan Stanley said.

Malaysia's ``external macro exposure and limited policy flexibility'' makes it vulnerable to the global slowdown. South Korea's upgrade comes as Morgan Stanley added Samsung Electronics Co. to its portfolio, saying Asia's biggest maker of chips and handsets is ``best positioned'' to ``enjoy earnings growth into 2010.''

On Oct. 7, the International Monetary Fund said the world economy would expand by 3 percent in 2009, paring the 3.9 percent forecast made in July. Emerging markets will account for 100 percent of the global economic growth next year, mainly Brazil, Russia, India, China and other Asian economies including South Korea, the IMF said yesterday.

p/s photos: Warattaya Nikulha

OPEC, Oil Price & Destabilised Countries


RGE: As anticipated, OPEC cut production in its October 24 Meeting. OPEC agreed to reduce production from its output ceiling by 1.5 million barrels a day from where it is currently set at 28.8 barrels a day. OPEC has been producing well over this quota for much of the summer and fall - so the reduction could be even larger. However as suggested in the piece below, written Oct 23, the prospect of even weaker demand as the economic climate worsens and the effects of wealth losses sink in, continued to push oil, other commodities and global equities downward.

However now reduced demand and financial panic are pointing in the same direction - a lower oil price. We could see prices in the mid-$50s over the next few weeks, even if oil rebounds as it seems now to be doing.

However, first off, we will see how OPEC members implement the cuts - Saudi Arabia is responsible for about 1/3 of the cuts - 466,000 barrels a day, Iran 199,000 and UAE and Kuwait about 130,000.

The farther the oil price falls the greater the likelihood OPEC members might cheat on their quotas to maximize revenues as occurred in the 80s and 90s. Deeper production cuts might be needed for a real price increase which would be difficult for producers and an oil price much higher than current levels could exacerbate the economic crisis and delay the expansion and thus demand for its commodity.

There are no shortage of uncertainties pervading the market - uncertainties specific to the oil market include - how much demand has been destroyed and how OPEC members would react to persistently lower prices.

The downward trend of oil prices (and those of most commodities) has been pretty unstoppable since investors finally realized that $147/barrel was too expensive in the face of a global recession. The belated recognition that this was a global and not a US centered crisis contributed to the initial turnaround and the escalation of the credit crisis has been marked by major losses in equity and commodity markets - and increased volatility. With credit markets still relatively frozen and the macro costs of the financial crisis still ahead, the outlook is gloomy for oil demand. And as mentioned before, it doesn’t take much of a reduction in demand, to trigger a big correction, especially when uncertainty abounds in global financial markets. With frequent news of foreclosures, flailing hedge funds, its no surprise that few want to take a risk in holding commodities.

The price for a barrel of OPEC crude is sitting at just over $60 a barrel - WTI is not much above $70. Some OPEC members have already suggested that the market may be oversupplied by as much as 2 million barrels a day.

OPEC faces several challenges 1) they don’t want to be blamed for exacerbating economic weakness 2) they want to maximize their revenues 3) they don’t want to overly encourage alternatives to oil or competition from non-OPEC suppliers. However, their biggest concern may be the continued panic in financial markets and mounting demand losses

Given the likely macro effects of the persistent freezing of the credit markets, economic output will continue to slow – and so should demand for hydrocarbons. Even if at a certain price point demand might rebound somewhat, particularly if the current surplus is removed.

The real wild card on the demand side is China. China accounts for the largest demand growth now and in the last five years. Its demand for oil is unlikely to follow the same large increases it experienced in recent years – meaning that its demand growth will fail to offset OECD reductions. The slowing of the Chinese economy and reduction in its imports of several commodities over the third quarter have confirmed the end of the current commodity super boom, if not the whole post 2003 boom. Already aluminum is piling up and inventories of several metals are on the rise. The question is whether this trend is temporary – ie how strong will Chinese demand be after some of the existing inventories are absorbed.

However, China’s torrid pace of commodity absorption is unlikely to return immediately– in part because it is trying to shift its economic sources of growth. However China’s fiscal stimulus will be partly channeled into infrastructure spending including to the railways and the construction sector, which could put a floor in prices – yet the expectations of Chinese demand growth that pervaded last year – and were a major justification for skyrocketing prices – seem overly optimistic in an environment where a figure like Gerald Lyons can suggest that China’s growth could slow to 4% next year. This may be overly bearish, but even at 7-8% growth, China will likely consume fewer commodities. and the combination of forces that led to the 2008 oil price boom seem unlikely to be repeated any time soon.

Many articles have been written over the last weeks about the reliance of OPEC countries (and some non-OPEC oil exporters) on higher oil prices which is likely adding to their concerns. Clearly they have gotten used to higher oil prices and on average budgets balance around 55-60 a barrel. Of course OPEC can’t just wish for higher prices and there is a risk that if prices keep dropping some OPEC members might break ranks and pump more (shades of the 1980s pricing conflicts).

There is a lot of uncertainty about the break-even points of some of these governments but a look at the range gives an indication of their respective “pain thresholds” to quote Russian Finance minister Kudrin. GCC countries prompt the most uncertainty. In fact estimates of Saudi Arabia’s breakeven point range from $30 a barrel to almost $60 a barrel. Its probably somewhere in the $45-50/barrel range. Estimates for the UAE also vary depending on whether one focuses solely on the rather small UAE federal budget or the broader spending that is directly or indirectly financed from oil revenues or the associated inflows. Bahrain and Oman, which have limited or declining oil output, have the highest breakeven prices – at or above $70 a barrel.

Even Libya and Algeria which had been relatively conservative now apparently have break even points at $45 and $54 a barrel respectively. And Nigeria recently scaled back its oil estimate for 2009 to $45 a barrel from the previously planned $62.5.

All of these countries have either saved a significant portion of their windfall – even Nigeria – or have almost eliminated government debt – providing them with some cushion. But lower oil prices may mean that their sovereign funds are called on for their stabilization and not investment objective. These funds are already being called on to invest more at home in the short-term and their savings or at least generated income could be tapped to finance next years consumption.

Iran and Venezuela likely have the highest breakeven points of OPEC members – as high as $90 a barrel for Iran. (Iraq which may need $100 a barrel according to some estimates, is not bound by OPEC quotas). Iran has a presidential election next year. (These 3 countries are most fragile. To me, a last ditch strategy might be to just go to war if you cannot balance the budget. War or creating uncertainty will give rise to a hike in oil prices. Its a simple strategy but one which has been employed more times than you think when economics-politics-oil are mixed in.)

Outside of OPEC, Russia and Kazakhstan may be most vulnerable in part because their accumulated savings are being used to shore up their domestic banking and construction sector. Their banks (and other corporations) borrowed abroad cheaply - net borrowings by Russian corporations start to make the rapidly shrinking savings of Russia's central bank seem small ($515 billion in reserves compared to $460 billion in private borrowing). Russia’s current spending requires about $72 a barrel. (Even Russia is not beyond using their military might to drive oil price higher, beware. Hence the key moving forward could be a huge carrot for the destabilised nations to wage war unnecessarily to boost oil prices. The longer the global slowdown continues and the longer we have weak oil prices, the higher the propensity for these nations to try "things".)

These numbers indicate two things 1) OPEC’s determination to stem the tide of oil price decrease may be great 2) the rate of growth of oil wealth abroad may slow sharply next year as the levels at which these countries run current account surpluses is not so far away from where their fiscal spending balances.

Ultimately, Saudi Arabia still is the key one to watch. As OPEC largest producer by far, it is likely to bear the brunt of most cuts and already has pulled back most of the additional supplies it added this summer. It has been reluctant to sign on to cuts advocated by more ‘hawkish members’ like Iran.

Another country to watch is Russia. Russia has been talking more about cooperating with OPEC, being involved in discussions etc. While it might not join OPEC it will be interesting to watch if Russia matches any OPEC cuts. Already Russian oil output is down this year and new production has been delayed to come online. . Meanwhile earlier this week, Russia joined Qatar and Iran in calling for an “OPEC for gas”– a reversal from its past desires to have a looser grouping but it may be a desire to secure a place at the table for any coordination. But it is certainly something that raises concerns among Russia’s consumers in Europe. Yet so far, natural gas is still not commodified like oil.

So the real test of the cartel is ahead. especially since asset markets have a tendency to overshoot.

However, the combination of lower demand and credit contraction may sow the seeds for higher prices ahead, even if they are not as high some of the trends seen earlier this year.

The lack of financing and uncertainty about the oil price outlook might defer energy exploration for now, though companies with cash may be able to snap up assets at cheap prices. The lack of financing may freeze deals in progress, though it will privilege investors that have cash even if they wish to hold out until it is clear where the bottom is in the oil market. With oil (and other energy commodities like Coal and natural gas) still on a downward trajectory investors may want to avoid locking in too high an implicit price.

At this point there are still many uncertainties in the financial markets for major moves – we may well see delays and deferrals especially of expensive oil sources like unconventional sources which may need a price above $80 a barrel to break even.

In fact the combination of low or negative real interest rates, credit shortage and a cheaper and possibly declining oil price may defer energy investment for some time, possibly pushing the arrival date of new supplies further into the future. Companies may prefer to invest later when they hope to get higher returns on their investments. This could contribute to a rebound in oil prices after growth restarts in a year or two.

But much will happen between now and then and for now, the downward trend could continue. And that may be something that scares OPEC even if falling commodity prices are one of the few positive signs in the global economy – the current account and fiscal positions of several emerging markets like India are improving.

The one saving grace for OPEC members – at least their petro”dollars” are worth more even if they are now getting fewer of them.

p/s photo: Daphne Iking

Oops, Iron Ore Dips


As I have highlighted a few times, iron ore prices, which are not traded on a daily basis, is a very good indicator of real demand and health of an economy, especially in property and construction. I was led to believe the trend is still firm when BHP and Rio Tinto got 93% year on year hikes for their iron ore a couple of months back. The recent deal signed with Vale caused me to change my views.

The head of China's leading steel company says the Chinese economy and steel industry are both "heading for a downward slide", as hopes fade that China can insulate Australia's resource-dependent economy from the widening global downturn. The comments by Baosteel's chairman, Xu Lejiang, coincide with new evidence that a contraction in Chinese building construction is seriously crimping demand for iron ore. "The economy is heading for a downward slide, so the steel industry is certainly heading for a downward slide," Mr Xu said at a Baosteel conference in Shanghai.

China recently emerged as the engine of the global economy after seven years of uninterrupted, accelerating growth. But severe credit rationing by the Chinese Government, which has helped to quell an inflation break-out, has coincided with the worsening global financial crisis to smash the confidence of Chinese real-estate investors and the building plans of residential construction companies. Residential construction accounts for about one-fifth of Chinese steel demand.

The research house Mysteel said yesterday the Chinese steel industry was in recession. Prices for steel products had fallen 15 to 20 per cent since July. The Tangshan spot market price for imported Indian iron ore has plunged below $US110 per tonne, down from $US195 in early July. Yesterday, the falling Chinese demand for imported iron ore had cut Australia-China bulk freight rates to as low as $US13 per tonne, from as much as $US50 midyear.

Reading the Chinese economy is even more complicated than usual because the Government shut down a large proportion of industrial and mining activity across northern China for the Olympic Games. But property sales have declined steadily since early this year and property developers are struggling to raise finance for new projects and to complete existing ones, while China's export sector has been weak since early this year.

Most seasoned analysts remain confident about China's long-term growth trajectory. But the next few months are likely to be bumpy, particularly for companies and sectors linked to its building industry. Mr Xu said he had no plans to cut production but warned that steel prices were "plummeting". "A very large number of small steel mills are cutting production," he said. For the first time in more than five years, Chinese buyers can purchase spot market Indian iron ore as cheaply as Australian iron ore on long-term contracts, including freight costs.

Some observers believe contract iron ore prices will fall next year, for the first time in seven years. When yearly contracts were made in February at an 86% increase on last year's prices, China's steel producers were flabbergasted but took the price hike. But that wasn't the end of it. Both Rio Tinto and BHP renegotiated their contracts a couple of months back for even higher yearly percentage increase. Has the tide changed?

The latest indicator was a couple of weeks back when steelmakers in China just announced that Vale, the world's largest iron ore producer, wants to raise prices only 13% above the company's 2008 contract prices. The tide has certainly changed. The critical part was that Vale's share price eased significantly following the news - indicating that demand and hike potential were lesser than expected. Chinese steelmakers are now buying their iron ore from Vale, not only at lower prices than Western companies were paying, but also at lower prices than Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton were charging. Very significant indeed.

While I think the mid term outlook for steel and materials prices would be affected on the downside, I do think that Beijing is turning on the tap as I expect a few rapid rate drops in SRR and BLR in the coming months. However, the whole process could take at least 6 months before projects get re-started and things get re-ignited there. Last word, stay out of building materials for the mid term.

p/s photo: Nguyen Thuy Lam