sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Bernard's Top 10: China's concrete explosion; NZ's China risks; The problem with maximising shareholder value; Colin Craig and Kiss; The lucky and profligate country; Dilbert

Bernard's Top 10: China's concrete explosion; NZ's China risks; The problem with maximising shareholder value; Colin Craig and Kiss; The lucky and profligate country; Dilbert

Here's my Top 10 items from around the Internet over the last week or so. As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz

See all previous Top 10s here.

My must read is #7 from Martin Wolf on the global macro-economic problems from running corporations to maximise shareholder value.

1. China's major risk - The FT's Jamil Anderlini has written a compelling piece on the state of China's property market and risks it might collapse.

Anderlini, a New Zealander, comes up with startling facts.

These ones stood out for me:

China's debt to GDP ratio rose by 70% of GDP in the six years to 2014.

China produced more cement in the two years of 2011 and 2012 than was produced in all of the United States in all of the 20th century.

Land prices have quintupled in China since 2008.

There is enough floor space being built this year to supply four years of demand.

China's modern residential property market (where households take out a mortgage to buy an apartment) is barely 15 years old but has never slumped.

Here's Anderlini:

“China’s real estate market seems to have reached a turning point,” said Zhu Haibin, a JPMorgan economist, in a recent report. “A housing market slowdown is the major near-term macro risk in China.”

The turning point seems to have come because China has simply built too much.

2. New Zealand's major risk - Is China. That's why we need to keep on eye on China's construction and housing markets. We've already seen this reflected in 40% slump in New Zealand log prices as the builders in China slowed their demand for our logs, which they use to box up concrete and for framing.

There also seems to have been a slowing in growth of demand for our dairy products, although most don't think it will rebound in the longer term.

Here's Standard and Poor's warning yesterday in keeping New Zealand's credit rating at AA stable that China is our main risk.

While we anticipate favorable economic performance over coming years, there are risks to New Zealand's growth outlook and credit quality. These stem largely from the country's strong and growing links with China's economy. If demand for New Zealand's key exports were to weaken sharply, the country's economic growth would slow, unemployment rise, and property values fall.

 

 

3. China struggling to fly again - Here's the WSJ citing a Fed paper explaining why China will probably need to crank up its stimulus again to hit its 7.5% growth target after the stimulus announced earlier in the year proved remarkably fleeting.

Surprise, surprise, but it's all about housing...

A sputtering housing market threatens China’s economic outlook and would probably force the central bank and local governments to intervene if they want to hit the country’s 7.5% economic growth target for this year, according to research from theFederal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

The latest figures “indicate the expansion of the real-estate sector has slowed significantly,” write economist Jun Nie and research associate Guangye Cao. “Taking both the short- and long-term factors into account, the real estate sector’s recent slowdown is likely to continue as housing activity stabilizes at a lower growth path.”

The authors say housing and construction have played an overwhelming role in China’s supercharged growth rates, which have elevated it to the second-largest economy in the world. Real-estate investment grew at an average annual rate of 20.2% since the country’s 1998 housing reform, about twice the rate of gross domestic product expansion, Messrs. Nie and Cao write.

4. Saying it out loud - Here's an FT editorial saying China's tottering property market is the one of the greatest threats to the global economy. And there's plenty to compare with, including the problems with Russia, Europe's mess and the Middle Eastern debacle.

Not only do the construction and real estate industries account for a full 13 per cent of Chinese gross domestic product, they also form the backbone of the country’s fixed asset investment, the lodestar for commodity-exporting economies the world over. News of sagging real estate market activity is, therefore, a concern in its own right. More troubling, though, is that faith in Beijing’s ability to prevent a slump from descending into a crash is starting to unravel.

The newsflow is bleak. Official statistics for July showed 64 of 70 cities surveyed experiencing falling home prices, the biggest monthly proportion of declines since records began in 2005. Developers are pulling back from new investments, and floor space sold in July tumbled 16.3 per cent year on year, down sharply from June.

5. Oops - The story of the New Zealand economy over the last 30 years has been very high net migration and an ageing population. The major deficit has been infrastructure investment, in part at least because our planners have assumed a much lower population.

Kirdan Lees and John Stephenson have written an excellent paper at the NZIER highlighting just how wrong our planners were. The implications of that wrong-ness were enormous. Could we make the same mistake again? Are we still under-investing in infrastructure? It certainly looks like it for housing and all the stuff around it.

6. The lucky and profligate country - It turns out Australians simply spent the windfalls from its mining boom on lots of cars, fridges and other stuff.

Here's Matt Wade looking at a recent Reserve Bank of Australia analysis of where the money went. I wonder how New Zealand has spent its 'windfall' export returns from the now-ending dairy and log booms.

"We find that the mining boom has substantially increased Australian living standards," said the Reserve Bank research discussion paper, titled The Effect of the Mining Boom on the Australian Economy, written by economists Peter Downes, Kevin Anslow and Peter Tulip.

But we didn't just spend the boom windfall on cars and household gadgets. It drove a 20 per cent lift in food purchases and an 8 per cent boost in purchases of communications services, such as internet and telephone use, the paper says. The splurge on new cars meant we also spend more on running them – the Reserve Bank estimates purchases related to "operating of motor vehicles", mostly petrol, was about 5 per cent higher than it would have been without the boom.


 

7. The problem with maximising shareholder value - Martin Wolf has written a brilliant commentary at the FT on one of the fundamental flaws of our modern globalised capitalistic economy -- the drive to maximise shareholder value.


Almost nothing in economics is more important than thinking through how companies should be managed and for what ends. Unfortunately, we have made a mess of this. That mess has a name: it is “shareholder value maximisation”. Operating companies in line with this belief not only leads to misbehaviour but may also militate against their true social aim, which is to generate greater prosperity.

8. Why America is struggling to bounce back - The hollowing out of middle class jobs and net worth over the last decade or two is a major problem for the world's largest economy, Vox explains.

While people in the top 40 percent lost a fair-sized chunk of assets in the downturn, they are currently above where they were in 2000. Meanwhile, the median household in the middle quintile is still worse off than they were then. In the second quintile, the median household only has half the wealth it did in 2000. And the bottom quintile's median household is far deeper in debt.

9. And it's not just America - Middle income jobs have been hollowed out all around the world, as this chart below shows.

10. Totally John Oliver on the wage gap between women and men in America.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

14 Comments

Smart money long gone from China property

http://www.afr.com/p/special_reports/opportunityasia/smart_money_long_gone_from_china_Oc9avv07ilqMaEQjCZnF4K

and from here we can observe where some has be placed

 

Up
0

#5 Interesting, innit, BH to see that neat coincidence post 2002 of:

  • population rising above the Plannerz envelope (scary thought - maybe they really did do them old calcs on the back of the proverbial?  Perhaps we need to crowd-fund a whole roll of Butcher Paper for the poor dears, so they can be more Expanmsive this time round.).  
  • the petrol-on-easy-credit-fire Welcome Home loans imbroglio (it quite literally tripled the price of beachside shacks in Christchurch, in a matter of weeks) - a wonderful Universal Price Signal and CG Creation move.  For the Owners, not of course for the Buyerz.  
  • Arguably a giant step along the way was the Four Wellbeings, (LG amendment Act 2002) which eager yet clueless Councils then used to blow out their cost base over the next decade, in such essentials as the Ellerslie Flower Show, the Hamilton V8's, a Busker on every street corner, and not forgetting the Community Engagement and Resilience Assistant Coordinators lurking in every TLA corridor.

 

Reminds us all of - well, actually, Campaign 2014 - bribes and inducements flowing outta every Party Orifice.....including the Pure Greens, who have promised the cardy-wearers their Four Well-beings back again.

Up
0

Conclusion is that had we had 600,000+ lower population there would have been 

A. No housing shortfall

B. No need for extra motorways

Nirvana!

Up
0

Waymad Re #5  population graph. I initially thought something dramtic had happened in 2002 too. But if you look at the graph again you will see around 2002 -2004 there was a few really high population growth years but otherwise the slope of the growth has been quite consistent since the early 90s. The predictions were that population growth would flatten. So far that hasn't happened.

 

IMHO NZ has a massive infrastructure deficit, especially compared to Northern European countries which I am most familiar with. We should be throwing millions at that not on election bribes.....

Up
0

Might be better to run a stable population policy.  Target say 4 mil.   Result in infrstructure terms is that it would be adequate, and ongoing cost manageable.   Short term adjustment pain.  Followed by centuries of happyness. 

Up
0

KH maybe this is possible given enough time -a few decades. But currently so much of population movement is out of the government's control. There is something like 3/4 million kiwis overseas free to return. Many NZ residing kiwis have family living overseas that are free to apply to come here under family unification rules. There is free movement between Australia and New Zealand, the tidal nature of that movement greatly affects our population level and composition. There are some jobs that can only be realistically be filled by skilled foreign labour..... and so on. The best we can do is a gradual clampdown and focus on getting the right systems in place so we are not reliant on mass immigration.

Up
0

Of course Brendon.  Those things are well understood.  But we don't have have a basic plan on population, whatever that plan might be, and we should. 

I think targeting a stable population, or even declining population for a while, has benefits. 

Up
0

Well, as the statisticians tell us, Correlation Ain't Causation.

 

But I reckon if'n yer plotted House Median prices and Household Median Income on the same axes over the same time scale, ye'd have a Very Interesting Addition to that there graph.

 

Bernard, more squiggles, stat!

Up
0

I'm sure I don't  understand China and how it works, but I do know that China is very different to the western world. We should not be judging what happens there by how we view things and our so called expert economic models work - it it plain wrong and is nothing more than guess work.

China is what it is and will do what it wants, based on much longer time frames than the next election cycle of whatever country is judging it.

Up
0

this time it's different eh?  You sound like an 80s journalist commenting on Japan.

Up
0

#7 Large businesses for many years have appeared to see themselves as apart from (possibly above) society, and therefore with little or no obligations to those societies they operate within. Hence they structure their business to minimise or remove any liabilities for tax, they lobby governments 9local and National) to structure rules and laws to favour them, often at the cost of the people within those societies and so on Yet it is those societies that provide the workforces, the infrastructure that they require to exist and operate, and ultimately the market from which they make their money. In short they are continually biting the hands that feed them. When are we going to bite back? Banks and other multinational corporations should be more accountable to the societies within which they operate. 

Up
0

Well said +1

Up
0

No. 10.  John Oliver's clip was as fanciful as ever.  At one point he produced information that,  if anything, would be taken to suggest (contrary to the rest of his rant) that U.S. women in a certain braket earned more than men.   I don't get his complaint of gender pay disparity.  If any person of either sex were to take a year or so off work for any reason, whether for a baby or just for recreation or any of many things a person freely chooses to do, it would be expected that the market value of the industry experience they have to offer could be impacted. That just doesn't imply that there is any situation here that would need to be corrected.  If an individual of either sex wanted flexible hours for family reasons or anything else,  it is obvious that in many environments this could limit the market value of their contribution to an organisation.  I don't see anything here to sugest that any gender pay disparity is amiss.

A decision to have a baby (or to engage in choices that may lead to a baby) is often made by a couple.  A couple is normally 2 individuals who have chosen to be a couple.  Both persons in such a couple would normally be equally affected by a drop in income of either person in the couple.  In this case the couple may experience an income setback but it wouldn't imply that either gender is advantaged or disadvantaged. Nothing to sugest that any overall pay disparity is untoward. 

In the case of single persons who choose to either have children or choose to engage in what may result in children there are plenty of financial ramifications for both men and women. 

If the US were to enact provisions that would impact on the functioning of a generally effective market it would in turn impact on the competitiveness and the wellbeing of the nation as a whole - both men and women.

Up
0

Re: Colin and KISS:

http://shar.es/11mzBm

Up
0