Tag Archives: arguments
Emerging Markets Aren’t The Answer To Investors’ Woes
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e59381b4-d4d8-11e2-9302-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2X2Hjr9g5 By Merryn Somerset Webb Economic growth is no guarantee of returns to investors I’ve talked to a good few interesting people in the past week. But two are of particular interest at the moment. The first is David Stockman, author of The Great Deformation, The Corruption of Capitalism in America – a book that has been at the top of the bestseller lists in the US since it came out in April. The second is Dambisa Moyo, the almost impossibly glamorous author of, among other must-reads, How the West Was Lost: Fifty Years of Economic Folly and The Stark Choices Ahead. Both were – and I guess this is obvious – deeply pessimistic on the future of the US in particular. While their arguments are far from identical, they are both convinced that America, with its insistence on using monetary policy to mismanage interest rates and distort markets, along with its badly structured welfare state and low prioritisation of education, has a sad future ahead of it. Stockman was once director of the Office of Management and Budget in the US (under Ronald Reagan) and Moyo was named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. So it is worth listening to both of them. I also happen to think they are mostly right. Politicians in the west, caught in traps set by their short electoral cycles, have made a nightmare series of bad decisions about public spending, the roles of the state and of course about what we should think of as money and how we should price that money. Then there’s the demographic profiles of western countries, with their growing numbers of older people; economies designed to grow on the back of consumer spending don’t grow much as their populations age and cut back spending. It is hard to see where a return to credit and baby-boomer style economic growth will come from. It is a lot easier to make up a good story about how emerging countries, with their lower debts and younger populations, will see fast economic growth than it is to come up with one about how the US will – although now there is the prospect of energy independence on the horizon, it is clearly getting a tad easier. But it’s a big step from being able to say that one group of countries will grow faster than another in gross domestic product terms to saying that you should expect stock markets in the faster-growing group to outperform the rest. Several studies have shown that this isn’t often true. The opposite very often is. Many explanations have been offered for this, but I suspect it comes down to the way the proceeds of growth are distributed at different stages of growth. When a country is growing fast, wages are most likely to be growing fast too – so more than you might expect goes to labour over capital. Rapid growth also gives companies one-off opportunities to build market share. If they take it, prioritising volume over margins, they won’t make much in the way of profits – possibly for many years. Then there are the many governance issues in emerging markets: state ownership, family-controlled companies, dodgy property rights and so on. These tend to ensure that the majority of the spoils can end up going to the minority of shareholders. If you look at it all like this, surely it would make sense to say that one should pay lower prices for companies based in emerging markets (as is the case in Russia, which I advocated recently), regardless of how fast it looks like those markets might grow. After all, you are taking more risks. There’s likely to be a long wait before the dividends start rolling in, and the longer you have to wait for something the higher the risk that you will never get it. We should pay a premium not for emerging market growth but for the kind of steadily rising profits and dividends we are more likely to get in the west. This is all something to bear in mind as you look at the carnage in emerging markets over the past week. Bonds, equities and currencies have all been clobbered. Investors who bought at high prices to get exposure to economic growth are now finding that there is something worse than paying a premium for the wrong thing. It’s not getting even that thing. So as the cheaper yen makes emerging market exports look less competitive, as China clearly slows down and the debate begins about the end of quantitative easing in the US, they are selling. But here’s one thing to note before you dismiss Asia and Latin America out of hand. One day, all the markets we now think of as emerging will be developed. They’ll turn their minds from all-out economic expansion to profits and at the same time their populations will demand proper governance and the odd dividend. Then their markets will soar. With that in mind, a nice little chart was slipped to me over a pub table by Tim Guinness of Guinness Funds a few months ago. It looks back at Japan’s economic growth and its stock market performance. The latter ran at 10 per cent or so a year from the early 1950s to the 1970s as the country industrialised and invested. In 1955 Japan had 5.2 cars per thousand people. By 1966 that number was 79. In 1970 it was 168. The stock market rose, but not in a particularly spectacular fashion. But around then, the Japanese economy shifted gear down to more like 5 per cent growth as the country entered a later industrial shift to a more consumption-based economy. Look at a chart of the Nikkei and you will see what happened next. It rose steadily throughout the 1970s and went completely nuts in the 1980s. So here’s something to think about. In 2000, China had 4.9 cars per 1,000 people. In 2012 it had 74. By 2016 – or maybe earlier – it should have close to 168. It should also have seen growth fall to 5 per cent or below. A few years before then might be good time to invest. Merryn Somerset Webb is editor in chief of MoneyWeek. The views expressed are personal. Continue reading
UK’s Offshore Finance Centres Commit To Tackling Tax Evasion
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f1d3e2a-d5e6-11e2-9dbd-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2X2GjjljT By Vanessa Houlder All of Britain’s offshore finance centres have committed to sign a treaty tackling evasion, in a boost to David Cameron’s efforts to secure agreements on transparency from other world leaders next week. Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury said the decision by all Britain’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies to sign the multilateral convention on mutual tax assistance would “strengthen enormously” the arguments for greater transparency at next week’s summit of the G8 group of leading countries. The announcement was made at a meeting of political leaders, business representatives and civil society in London on the agenda of trade, tax and transparency. Mr Cameron also promised to consult on whether to make public a planned central register of the ‘beneficial ownership’ of companies, which will reveal who are their ultimate owners. Campaigners have called for public registers to maximise scrutiny of potential illicit deals. He said more transparency was needed because “some people use complicated and fake structures to hide their profits and avoid taxes and also because bribes are often held in opaquely-owned companies with bank accounts in secretive havens.” Mr Cameron said “The most important thing is that it is available to tax authorities. It will be their first point of call to try and uncover corrupt payments or tax evasion. “We will consult on whether it will be public but personally I would hope the whole world will move towards public registers of beneficial ownership.” He added: “I want to maximise the leverage the UK has over others in terms of taking each step in turn and want to make sure that business and enterprise comes with us on this debate. “ Will Morris, chair of the tax committee of the CBI said it was “very supportive of the idea of a register of beneficial ownership. “We think it is a ‘no brainer’”, he said. He said the CBI did not yet have a view of whether it should be public or private but he personally would support making it public. Mr Cameron told the meeting: “Each and everyone of our Overseas Territorities and Crown Dependencies has agreed to sign up to the multilateral convention on information exchange. “They have also agreed to exchange information automatically with the United Kingdom and to produce action plans on beneficial ownership. Mr Cameron said he would call on other international partners to work with their territories reach similar agreements. Although most of the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories had already committed to sign the treaty, some had expressed reservations. In a statement, Bermuda said the concerns it had expressed about signing the multilateral convention were because Bermuda’s fiscal system was not appropriate for automatic exchange of tax information. But it added, the ‘wisdom of the drafters’ of the multilateral convention meant that automatic exchange was based on mutual need and mutual agreement of both parties. The decision of all the offshore centres to commit to the treaty will help neutralise some of the criticism frequently levelled at the UK by other countries asked to make concessions on transparency although reservations are likely to remain regarding the transparency of trusts. All the overseas territories and crown dependencies said they supported the government’s drive on transparency but Richard Hay, counsel to the IFC Forum, which represents professional firms in British offshore centres, said the UK was taking a risk of an own goal by moving ahead of other countries, particularly the US. Continue reading