China’s stimulus spending will help its economy overcome the global recession sooner than the U.S. and other countries, investor Jim Rogers said.
China’s reserves allow the government to spend on projects that will make the nation more efficient and competitive as the global economy recovers, said Rogers, the author of “A Bull in China: Investing Profitably in the World’s Greatest Market.” Signs China is taking steps to liberalize its currency will also benefit the country, he added.
“I certainly expect China to come out of it sooner than the U.S.,” Rogers, chairman of Singapore-based Rogers Holdings, said in a Bloomberg TV interview in the city-state. “They seem to be spending the money on the right things. China is doing a far better job than the others.”
Premier Wen Jiabao reiterated last week the government’s pledge to “significantly increase” investment in 2009 to help counter the slowest growth in seven years. He didn’t specify new stimulus spending in addition to a 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) plan announced in November.
The People’s Bank of China cut interest rates five times in the final four months of last year, including the biggest single reduction since the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis. The government is targeting growth of 8 percent in 2009, after the economy slowed to a 6.8 percent gain in the fourth quarter.
Yuan, Yen, Dollar
China will allow trade settlement in yuan with Hong Kong soon, central bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan said at a briefing in Beijing on March 6. President Li Lihui of Bank of China Ltd., the nation’s largest foreign-exchange lender, said yesterday in Beijing the bank is already conducting trial international yuan settlements in Shanghai and Hong Kong.
“I’m glad to see they’re taking yet another step towards convertibility,” said Rogers, who in April 2006 accurately predicted oil would reach $100 a barrel and gold $1,000 an ounce. He said he owns Japanese yen as he expects more of the money to “come home.”
Rogers added he plans to sell his remaining U.S. dollar holdings later this year because the world’s largest economy isn’t a “safe haven” for investors.
“I plan later this year to get out of the rest of my U.S. dollars,” he said. “It’s had an artificial rally too but it’s a terribly flawed currency. The U.S. is printing money as fast as it can and that’s always throughout history led to currency problems down the road.”
Rogers on June 30 advised investors to avoid the dollar “at all costs” as the U.S. economy slows, and favored commodities. The dollar has risen against nine of the Group of 10 currencies since then, according to data tracked by Bloomberg.
Rogers added he remains bullish on agriculture and that commodities are “the only area of the world economy I know which is benefiting.” He said he owns “some” gold and silver, and regards silver as “cheaper.”
Water, power and other infrastructure companies’ shares are favored because their earnings are less vulnerable during the global slowdown, Rogers said.
George Soros’ $21 billion fund returned 8% last year, which is incredible not only in light of the global crisis, but also given his fund’s size. As you can see, Soros is now betting big on oil and agriculture, outside of the United States.
Soros Fund Management LLC bought 16 million shares of the Petrobras’ U.S. traded shares, bringing its stake to 1.45 percent, according to a filing yesterday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The New York-based firm increased its holdings in Potash by 2.6 million shares to 2 percent in the fourth quarter. Petrobras and Potash are now the firm’s two biggest reported U.S. stocks.
“As long as you see through the current crisis there are a few compelling reasons to buy,” Hernan Ladeuix, the head of oil and gas research at CLSA Ltd. in Singapore, said in an e-mail. “Oil prices should go up, probably strongly in coming years. Petrobras is the only large international company where you can have confidence that production can grow 5 percent per annum.”
The purchases made Soros the second-biggest shareholder in the U.S.-traded shares of Petrobras, Brazil’s state-controlled oil company. Petrobras preferred shares fell 5.4 percent in Sao Paulo yesterday, the most since Jan. 12, driven by a drop in oil prices to below $35 a barrel.
Potash, the biggest maker of crop nutrients, also fell by the most since Jan. 12, declining 7.4 percent yesterday. Soros Fund is the eighth-biggest holder in shares of the Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based company.
Best Buy, Wal-Mart
Soros Fund added 9 million shares of Best Buy Co., bringing its stake to 2.3 percent of the electronics retailer. The firm also started a new position in Desarrolladora Homex SA de C.V., the Mexican homebuilder, bringing its holdings to 4.9 percent of U.S.-traded shares, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The firm bought 5 million shares of R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.,North America’s largest printer, representing a 2.4 percent stake.
Soros’s hedge-fund firm sold 3 million shares of Wal-Mart Inc., bringing its stake in the discount retailer to 0.01 percent. The firm also sold all of its 2 million shares in Research In Motion Ltd., the maker of the Blackberry phone.
Money managers who oversee more than $100 million of equities or more must file, within 45 days of the end of each quarter, a Form 13F with the SEC that lists their U.S. exchange- traded stocks, options and convertible bonds. The filings don’t show non-U.S. securities or how much cash the firms hold.
Soros’s firm oversees $21 billion. Its Quantum Endowment Fund returned 8 percent last year. That compared with an average loss of 18 percent by hedge funds, according to data compiled by Hedge Fund Research Inc. of Chicago.
After thinking this morning about commodities and inflationary prospects, I watched a Jim Rogers interview from 1995, which I have included below. You will have to fast forward a bit, because he appears toward the end. Here are a few of his predictions from 1995:
“Next year and the year after, I don’t think we’re going to have good times in the American stock market.”
“Inflation is coming.”
“Commodity prices are going through the roof.”
Best country to invest in right now: “Iran.”
“Everything in life comes down to timing.”
Well, it looks as if Jim's timing was profoundly wrong.
In fact, much of this flies in the face of what he said in Hot Commodities, published a decade later, which was to the effect of “if you went through the 1990s and didn't touch shares in technology companies then you missed out on massive gains," essentially meaning that it was a mistake caused by not being open to new things.
But, as you can see, he was saying the exact same stuff back then as he is today. And he certainly wasn't talking about technology.
Anyone who continues saying that inflation will come or commodities will rise is bound to be proven right at some point. This not to single out Rogers as being wrong, but to emphasize my stance on how difficult it is to predict macro events – unless, that is, you only have one perennial prediction.
What history shows is that, aside from short-term macro shocks, the best asset class to own, by far, is stocks. And if you can buy those stocks at depressed prices or in periods of intense fear, then your total return can be magnified significantly.
Land, labor, capital and commodities are combined to create businesses that increase productivity. And while any one of those factors may become relatively attractive during a boom, owning excellent businesses – or fractional interests, called stocks – is the best investment over the long haul.
Keynes predicted that the great financial fortunes – paper fortunes, such as the Rothschilds in his day – would be destroyed by long-run inflation. Clearly, this has not happened.
Quite the contrary: the countries with the most developed financial systems have always been the most prosperous, whether the Medicis in Renaissance Italy, the Rothschilds in 19th-century London, or today's commanding skyscraper in Lower Manhattan that reads, simply: "85".
Thus, while the gloom and doom is persuasive nowadays, I remain highly skeptical that the world – financial or otherwise – is coming to an end. I lean more towards John Paulson's prediction that massive returns will accrue to buyers of solid, yet beaten-down financial stocks, as the smoke clears and we emerge from this crisis.
Of course, if people do “flock to global macro” as the article says, it will bankrupt the strategy.
A problem with macro over the long term is that it often comes to resemble rank gambling. Managers can make billions on each trade – or lose billions. They sell the strategy with historic bets like George Soros and sterling in 1992. But I am sure they fail to mention the innumerable historic blow-outs.
Also, the catch is that global macro is usually way more difficult than it has been lately. Over the past few years, the strategy was insanely simple: long commodities, long BRICs, short the dollar, short financials. These were one-way bets with every manager on one side of the trade.
The interesting thing is, each time this happens, everyone says that funds can’t move the market. The markets that these managers operate in are too big to be influenced – like crude oil, last summer. And then the market collapses and in hindsight we find that everyone was on one side of the trade and it created a bubble. It is important to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism with virtually everything along these lines.
A current example might be oil production and supply. I’ve heard many people make claims that production is down and supply is down, as if we’re back in 2003. So after a decade of skyrocketing prices and activity in the energy sector, production and supply are down?
This is a complete lie, no matter what the numbers say. The government or the central bank or whoever else will diligently present figures showing a certain case; but you’ll always do better using common sense. The people producing the data are backwards-looking by definition, and always way behind the curve.
I encourage you to read the entire Grantham interview; yet his specific views on China are below.
Last year, a friend and I sat in on a lecture given by Eswar Prasad at Cornell University, on the renminbi and China's banking system. It began to dawn on us that the emergence of China as a dominant economic power is quite possibly the greatest dogma in all of finance and economics, and anyone who says otherwise is labeled not a skeptic, but a heretic. (Or at least an idiot!)
Lawrence Summers, an economist, Presidential advisor and former president of HarvardUniversity, remarked that “[China's] economic significance dwarfs the Industrial Revolution or the Renaissance.”
We will see whether or not Summers is correct. Either way, I have no entrenched view or vested interest. But there is no doubt that when it comes to global-macro speculation – whether stock markets, currencies, commodities, or the wealth of nations – China is still the biggest game in town.
What is your bold prediction for the future?
Keying off the word "bold," my prediction is that China will be a substantial disappointment. The reason I say "keying off" is that this is far from being a certain prediction. But I have a strong hunch China will disappoint, and maybe even bitterly disappoint.
That's the nature of the hunch, I look at everything and my stomach tells me they've been extraordinarily lucky in the last 15 years. It's hard to separate good luck from talent. I have a suspicion that a lot of what other people see as skill was good luck. And that they have a difficult job, and under this stress their modest talent will be revealed. The modesty of their talent.
What are some ways they got lucky?
They got lucky that the U.S. decided to run a huge trade deficit when they needed to run a huge surplus for political reasons. And it balanced out, as long as we ran an equal deficit. They were presented with the strongest global economy in history in which to sell their cheaper products.
Everyone else seems to be quite happy [with China]; maybe they're right. That's why it's a bold prediction rather than a high-confidence near certainty.
You had mentioned that the Chinese are new to capitalism, so their bench is not very deep.
Are they really so much better that they can handle an economy growing at four times the speed of the U.S. with a lack of experience? It doesn't compute, but we will find out.
Possibly the best article I've seen by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, which discusses the comparative advantages of the United States. One of his most important points is our culture of risk-taking and creativity, as he addresses the most common criticisms of America as a declining power in the age of globalization.
...
Before the discovery of Australia, Europeans thought that all swans were white, and it would have been considered completely unreasonable to imagine swans of any other color. The first sighting of a black swan in Australia, where black swans are, in fact, rather common, shattered that notion. The moral of this story is that there are exceptions out there, hidden away from our eyes and imagination, waiting to be discovered by complete accident. What I call a "Black Swan" is an exceptional unpredictable event that, unlike the bird, carries a huge impact.
It's impossible for the editors of Forbes.com to predict who will change the world, because major changes are Black Swans, the result of accidents and luck. But we do know who society's winners will be: those who are prepared to face Black Swans, to be exposed to them, to recognize them when they show up and to rigorously exploit them.
Things, it turns out, are all too often discovered by accident--but we don't see that when we look at history in our rear-view mirrors. The technologies that run the world today (like the Internet, the computer and the laser) are not used in the way intended by those who invented them. Even academics are starting to realize that a considerable component of medical discovery comes from the fringes, where people find what they are not exactly looking for. It is not just that hypertension drugs led to Viagra or that angiogenesis drugs led to the treatment of macular degeneration, but that even discoveries we claim come from research are themselves highly accidental. They are the result of undirected tinkering narrated after the fact, when it is dressed up as controlled research. The high rate of failure in scientific research should be sufficient to convince us of the lack of effectiveness in its design.
If the success rate of directed research is very low, though, it is true that the more we search, the more likely we are to find things "by accident," outside the original plan. Only a disproportionately minute number of discoveries traditionally came from directed academic research. What academia seems more masterful at is public relations and fundraising.
This is good news--for some. Ignore what you were told by your college economics professor and consider the following puzzle. Whenever you hear a snotty European presenting his stereotypes about Americans, he will often describe them as "unintellectual," "uneducated," and "poor in math," because, unlike European schooling, American education is not based on equation drills and memorization.
Yet the person making these statements will likely be addicted to his iPod, wearing a T-shirt and blue jeans, and using Microsoft Word to jot down his "cultural" statements on his Intel-based PC, with some Google searches on the Internet here and there interrupting his composition. If old enough, he might also be using Viagra.
America's primary export, it appears, is trial-and-error, and the innovative knowledge attained in such a way. Trial-and-error has error in it; and most top-down traditional rational and academic environments do not like the fallibility of "error" and the embarrassment of not quite knowing where they're going. The U.S. fosters entrepreneurs and creators, not exam-takers, bureaucrats or, worse, deluded economists. So the perceived weakness of the American pupil in conventional studies is where his or her very strength may lie. The American system of trial and error produces doers: Black Swan-hunting, dream-chasing entrepreneurs, with a tolerance for a certain class of risk-taking and for making plenty of small errors on the road to success or knowledge. This environment also attracts aggressive tinkering foreigners like this author.
Globalization allowed the U.S. to specialize in the creative aspect of things, the risk-taking production of concepts and ideas--that is, the scalable part of production, in which more income can be generated from the same fixed assets through innovation. By exporting jobs, the U.S. has outsourced the less scalable and more linear components of production, assigning them to the citizens of more mathematical and culturally rigid states, who are happy to be paid by the hour to work on other people's ideas.
Let us go one step further. It is high time to recognize that we humans are far better at doing than understanding, and better at tinkering than inventing. But we don't know it. We truly live under the illusion of order believing that planning and forecasting are possible. We are scared of the random, yet we live from its fruits. We are so scared of the random that we create disciplines that try to make sense of the past--but we ultimately fail to understand it, just as we fail to see the future.
The current discourse in economics, for example, is antiquated. American undirected free-enterprise works because it aggressively allows us to capture the randomness of the environment--the cheap Black Swans. This works not just because of competition, and even less because of material incentives. Neither the followers of Adam Smith nor those of Karl Marx seem to be conscious of the prevalence and effect of wild randomness. They are too bathed in enlightenment-style cause-and-effect and cannot accept that skills and payoffs may have nothing to do with one another. Nor can they swallow the argument that it is not necessarily the better technology that wins, but rather, the luckiest one. And, sadly, even those who accept this fundamental uncertainty often fail to see that it is a good thing.
Random tinkering is the path to success. And fortunately, we are increasingly learning to practice it without knowing it--thanks to overconfident entrepreneurs, naive investors, greedy investment bankers, confused scientists and aggressive venture capitalists brought together by the free-market system.
We need more tinkering: Uninhibited, aggressive, proud tinkering. We need to make our own luck. We can be scared and worried about the future, or we can look at it as a collection of happy surprises that lie outside the path of our imagination.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb is an applied statistician and derivatives trader-turned-philosopher, and author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.
Posts
