China share turmoil: How it affects the rest of the world

Andrew Walker BBC World Service


Image copyrightAFP



A slump in Chinese shares has prompted stock markets across Asia, Europe and the US to fall sharply. Why is this so significant?

What's behind the fall in China?

The wider story is that China's economic growth is slowing and there are concerns that the transition to a slower and more sustainable rate of growth might be disruptive.

That was true of the period of several weeks of volatility the market experienced after it peaked in June last year.

It's true this time too and the link is perhaps rather more direct now.

Why? Because the immediate sparks for the latest bout of instability were warning signs about the wider economy.

The first day when trading was suspended, figures showing a continued decline in manufacturing were one of the factors that set things rolling downhill. On the second day of suspension it was the sliding currency which raised concerns about whether it was a sign that the economy was slowing down more sharply than thought.

Image copyrightGetty Images

What does this mean for the rest of the world?

The direct financial impact of lower share prices in China is moderate. There is not enough foreign investment in the Chinese market for it to be a major problem. The London consultancy Capital Economics has said foreigners own just 2% of shares

The issue is more about whether the financial turbulence shines a light on wider issues about the economic slowdown in China: is the economy heading for what's called a "hard landing", too sharp a slowdown?

China is now such a big force in the global economy that it would inevitably affect the rest of the world. It is the second largest economy and the second largest importer of both goods and commercial services.

Image copyrightAFP

It's not just stocks.

The prices of many commodities have been affected, notably crude oil. It's not just about China, for sure. Abundant supplies have been every bit as important in the oil market in the last eighteen months. But China's problems have been a significant factor adding further downward pressure to the price of crude oil. The price of Brent crude has fallen by about half since mid-June, when the first stage of the Chinese stock market slide began.

China is such a large buyer of industrial commodities that the possibility of lower-than-expected sales to the country has also undermined the prices of copper and aluminium, for example.

Gold has gained ground a little this week. It is seen by many as a safe investment, protection against both inflation and more general financial instability.

There is certainly a possibility of that kind of "safe haven" effect in other markets if the Chinese stock price falls make investors more wary about risks. In the currency markets, the most likely candidates are the yen and the Swiss franc. The dollar could also be affected, though the US currency already has a strong tailwind from the Federal Reserve's interest rate policy. The Fed started to raise rates last month and that has been encouraging investors to buy dollars. But it's a bit early to draw any firm conclusions.

Some of the currencies that investors might sell if they become more risk averse have shown some impact. Turkey, Brazil and South Africa all have problems of their own and their currencies have weakened in the last few days.

There is also some sign this week of investors putting money into safe government bonds or debts, those seen as having negligible risks of default, such as the US, Germany, the UK and Switzerland.

Image copyrightReuters

What about ordinary Chinese people?

Those who have borrowed money to buy shares in the last year have already been hit very hard. But most people don't own shares - only one person in 30 does, according to Capital Economics.

For most Chinese the wider issue is about the health of the country's economy. If China manages a smooth transition to a slower and more sustainable growth rate, it is likely to still be fast enough to generate rising living standards for most people. A more disruptive slowdown would mean many business failures and job losses.

What might the Chinese authorities do next?

They have several options to stimulate the economy which can affect the stock markets. They could cut interest rates, they could relax the rules on bank lending or they could increase spending. They could also encourage the currency, the yuan, to fall further to stimulate exports. There are problems with these options. Anything that encourages more lending could mean more distressed borrowers in the future. A falling currency has already fed into the stock market drama.

In addition the authorities have taken steps more specifically targeted on the stock market. They have extended restrictions on large investors selling shares. State investment funds have been buying shares. These measures can have an impact but they are unlikely to provide a definitive solution.
How worried should we be?

Views vary about how healthy the Chinese economy is. Capital Economics have been consistently relatively upbeat about China and they said in a note to clients this week:

"We continue to believe that growth is more likely to pick up than weaken over coming months."

But the investor George Soros is more gloomy, telling an economic forum in Sri Lanka:

"China has a major adjustment problem. I would say it amounts to a crisis. When I look at the financial markets there is a serious challenge which reminds me of the crisis we had in 2008."

A crisis there would be serious for the rest of the world, particularly countries and firms that export to China.

‘Quarterly capitalism’ is short-term, myopic, greedy and dysfunctional

Will Hutton in The Guardian


It has been obvious for years that British capitalism is profoundly dysfunctional. In 1970, £10 of every £100 of profit was distributed to shareholders: today, under intense pressure from short-term owners, companies pay out £70. Investment, innovation and productivity have slumped. Few new companies grow to any significant size before they are taken over.

Exports have stagnated. The current account deficit is at record proportions. The purpose of companies now is not to do great things, solve great problems or scale up great solutions –why capitalism is potentially the best economic system – it is to become payolas for their disengaged owners and pawns in the next big deal or takeover. Not only the British economy suffers – this process has become the major driver of rising inequality, low pay and insecurity in the workplace as management teams are forced to treat workers as costly commodities rather than allies in business building.
Regular readers of this column will be familiar with the refrain, and the stubborn resistance from the British mainstream. There is absolutely nothing wrong at all with the British private sector, runs the Conservative argument: to the extent the British economy does have problems they are rooted entirely in taxation, regulation, unions and government. But in a week when the Financial Times – a great British asset and embodiment of the best of our journalism – has been sold to Nikkei for no better reason than to support Pearson’s short-term share price, powerful and public criticism of the way British capitalism operates has come from an unexpected quarter.

Last year, the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, called on firms to have a greater “sense of their responsibilities for the system”, in particular the social contract on which market capitalism’s long-term dynamism depends. On Friday’s Newsnight, the chief economist of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane, built on the governor’s concerns. He began with the seven-fold increase in the proportion of profit distributed to shareholders in dividends and bought-back shares over the last 45 years, which he said necessarily “leaves less for investment”. The explanation was simple: British (and indeed American) company law “puts the shareholder at front and centre. It puts the short-term interest of shareholders in a position of primacy when it comes to running the firm.” He thought company law that placed shareholders on a more equal footing with other stakeholders – workers, customers, clients – would work better. Dare I say it – stakeholder capitalism?

He damned the way the public limited company has developed. “The public limited company model has served the world well from a growth perspective. But you can always have too much of a good thing. The nature of shareholding today is fundamentally different than what it was a generation ago. The average share was held by the average shareholder, just after the war, for around six years. Today, that average share is held by the average shareholder for less than six months. Of course, many shareholders these days are holding shares for less than a second.”

In New York, at almost exactly the same time Newsnight was transmitting its interview with Andrew Haldane, Hillary Clinton was speaking from the same script, attacking what she called “quarterly capitalism”. “American business needs to break free from the tyranny of today’s earning report so they can do what they do best: innovate, invest and build tomorrow’s prosperity,” the Democratic presidential front runner declared. “It’s time to start measuring value in terms of years – or the next decade – not just next quarter.” She does not want to reinvent the public limited company, but she proposed the most far-reaching tax reforms of any Democrat presidential nominee to change the incentives for shareholders and executives alike. In American terms this is a revolution.

It is long overdue and the argument is beginning to get traction in the US. Free-market apologists insist that the more cash is handed back to shareholders, then the more they have to invest in innovation. The stock market is doing its job: promoting efficiency. The trouble is that everyone can see it’s 100% wrong. The market is hopelessly inefficient, greedy and myopic. When Larry Page and Sergey Brin floated Google, they took care to insulate the company from “quarterly capitalism”: they accorded their shares as Google’s founders 10 times the voting rights in order to protect their capacity to innovate from the stock market – what they considered Google’s real business purpose.

From robots to self-driving cars, from virtual reality glasses to investigating artificial intelligence, Google is now one of the most innovative firms on Earth. Meanwhile the typical US Plc, like its counterpart in Britain, is hunkering down, investing and innovating ever less and distributing more cash to shareholders for the reasons Haldane explains. Far from market efficiency, the whole system is undermining the legitimacy of capitalism.

But bit by bit influential voices such as Haldane’s are having the nerve to declare the Anglo-American system does not work. A rich collection of reflections and commentary edited by Diane Carney (Mark Carney’s wife) was published after London’s Inclusive Capitalism conference last month. Yet, except for former business secretary Vince Cable, no leading British politician has entered the lists. It will be intriguing how George Osborne reacts: one instinct will be to sack Carney and Haldane, as he has done Martin Wheatley, the head of the Financial Conduct Authority, for being too tough on the City. Another will be to co-opt the argument for the one nation Tory cause before the Labour party does.

He needn’t worry too much. One of the reasons that Tony Blair dropped his advocacy for stakeholder capitalism back in 1996 after the publication of The State We’re In was because too many leftwing Labour MPs took the Jeremy Corbyn line that the party’s mission was to socialise capitalism rather than reform it, while too many rightwing Labour MPs such as Peter Mandelson and Alistair Darling were terrified of upsetting business, as today, it seems, is Liz Kendall. He had zero internal political support, business was distrustful and the Tories were accusing him of returning to 1970s corporatism. Today the Bank of England and the likely next US president are supporters. Will one of the contenders for the Labour leadership have the courage to make the case? So far, they have all been mute. If Andy Haldane has done nothing else, he will have dramatised the poverty of today’s thinking about capitalism – in both main political parties.

Audi Drivers

Audi Drivers
Girish Menon
 1/08/2013

Your speed limit is @ seventy
To protect each road user
But I'll drive my Audi @ one sixty
Coz I am not a loser

The judge banned me for three years
And fined me five one five
Fine, I said, will you take cash
It's time for my next drive

None of your laws will stop me
I've got more cash than you think
I can buy your cops and judges
With my tax haven market riches

Your income tax is @ 45 percent
To protect every lazy Briton
But I will pay @ zero percent
Coz I am not a cretin

The taxman may audit my books
To get cash for the treasury
His mates help me cook the books
And I won't share my luxury

None of your laws will stop me
I've got more cash than you think
I can buy your rulers and judges
With my tax haven market riches

The cost of our habits

By Ardeshir Ommani

 

Altria Group is the leading cigarette maker in the United States. The stock of the company rose 20% in 2011's depressed markets and it's up 50% over the past two years, nearly four times the market's average gain. About two weeks ago, the stock of the company, which is the parent of Philip Morris USA and that of the Marlboro brand hit a 52-week high of $36.40.

The rise in its stock price is influenced by the company's stable cash flow and a dividend yield of 5.5%. At the time when money market rates are less than 0.5%, and the 10-year Treasury is 
yielding less than 2%, the stocks of Altria Group attracts all the attention of the investors who do not ask how many smokers would die this year because of addiction and succumbing to lung cancer. It is worth noting that on December 23, 2011, from Richmond, Virginia, Altria's operating companies launched "Citizens for Tobacco Rights", a nation-wide website to assist the tobacco companies in promoting lowering taxes on cigarette sales.

Although US cigarette sales have been in a severe long-term decline, to be exact, its shipments dropped by a third over the past 10 years, the industry has been able to offset the volume decline with increases in wholesale prices. Naturally after addicting a large segment of the youth around the world, the owners of Altria Corporation are led to raise the cost of their habits and suffering.

The companies have raised cigarette prices by nearly 35% over the past 10 years, even as smokers shouldered huge jumps in federal and state cigarette taxes. Altogether retail prices and additional taxes hiked the cost of a pack to $5.95. This was more than double the rise in overall consumer prices.

This shows that the high rates of profitability in addictive substances is the ideal method of exploiting not only the workers, but also the consumers. The change in the demographics of cigarette addicts has forced the industry to intensify the rate of exploitation of those who can least afford the habit in a long period of economic stress and high rates of unemployment.

The captains of the stock market seem unshaken. The stocks look rich based on their double-digit price per earning ratios. The high rates of profitability in the industry have led the management to implement the strategy of stock buybacks and huge stock awards for management compensation.

Altria is by far the biggest US cigarette maker in both market weight ($61 billion ) and revenue-wise (over $16 billion a year). A substantial share of the company profits are generated outside the US. Philip Morris International, a subsidiary of Altria, sells Philip Morris brand lineups in about 180 countries around the world.

In other words, the men, women and more frequently, elementary-aged children - often at the cost of their lives - are providing these gentlemen in New York and Chicago with lavish life-styles. (Looking at just a few of the advertisements in major corporate newspapers as the Financial Times, New York Times, The Telegraph, etc. directed at this wealthy 1%, we see a woman's handbag selling for $4,000).

In 2009, Altria purchased the smokeless-tobacco producer UST, which makes Copenhagen and Skoal brands at the cost of $11.7 billion. The reason Altria shouldered such a high cost price is that smokeless tobacco is a much-less regulated part of the worldwide cigarette market. Lack of regulations leaves the smokers at the mercy of the tobacco industry. Altria generates in an average $3.5 billion a year in cash flow, most of which ends in the investor's bank accounts in the form of dividends and interests and conspicuous consumption.

As a group, cigarette smokers have lower household incomes than non-smokers and are nearly twice as likely to be unemployed, says a financial officer of Morgan Stanley, a banking corporation. Studies have shown that in communities with higher economic status, its members send their children to better-financed public schools and private universities where environmental sciences and healthier life-styles are emphasized in the educational curriculum from early grade school through university level.

Anti-smoking campaigns partially financed by higher city and state budgets are more predominant on expensive billboards in these higher income communities.

On average a member of this lower economic class spends more than $2,000 annually, smoking a pack a day, the amount that could be allocated towards the present and future sustenance. Smokers, in their attempts to halt casting a large amount of money to the rich, many have traded down to either cheaper cigarettes or bulk tobacco for rolling their own cigarettes.

For this reason, shipments of roll-your-own and pipe tobacco jumped 30% in the first half of 2011. In the brave new world, particularly the Facebook generation age 21 through 29 is no longer fascinated with that rugged cowboy who was for many decades the symbol of Marlboro.

Alongside Altria in the tobacco market stand such giants as Reynolds American, maker of Camel and Pall Mall as well as Natural Spirit brands selling the ugly and more hazardous chewing tobacco brands. To entice new smokers or keep the old ones in the loop, the cigarette companies constantly hatch out new names with new packets. Recently, Philip Morris USA came up with what it calls the "Marlboro Leadership Program" which puts a price cap on what the retailers can charge for a pack of Marlboro in return for promotional incentives, such as a free pack for every carton sold.

While in the US, after years of public pressure, the federal and state governments have imposed some restrictions on advertising and marketing tobacco products, the same companies in the markets of the developing countries promote and glamorize smoking among school children, going so far as to distribute free packs of cigarettes along the pathways leading to schools, the way they did just a few decades ago in the run-down parts of the big cities and the depressed small towns across the US.

Also, the ruling classes of the countries whose economies are dependent on the US and its partners benefit from such relations through providing lucrative markets for the tobacco products of the major international cigarette producers.

It is telling that the gains posted by these tobacco companies in 2011 was skyrocketing when few other stocks were thriving last year. A group of mutual fund managers who tried to avoid negative performance by the end of the year resorted to placing the shares of several tobacco firms among their top holdings.

Gains of more than 20% among the addiction enablers helped these funds outperform their rivals and attracted the moderate savings and the retirement funds of the employed and retired working class. Such is the political economy of the habit-forming industry, addiction of the oppressed and higher rates of profitability.

Ardeshir Ommani is a writer on issues of war, peace, US foreign policy and economic issues. He has two Masters Degrees in the fields of Political Economy and Mathematics Education.

NIMBY - the death of altruism

With little but economic gloom on the horizon, David Cameron likes to appeal to Britain's better instincts, insisting: "We're all in this together." Whether the average citizen is listening to the Prime Minister's entreaties is open to doubt: Britons appear to be more selfish and less interested in the common good than ever before.

The latest British Social Attitudes report suggests that levels of altruism are falling in these straitened times. People are hostile to housebuilding in their neighbourhoods, less likely to make personal sacrifices to protect the environment and increasingly resistant to paying more for hospitals and schools.

They are also sceptical about the Government's ability to change things for the better, with a growing belief that is down to individuals to sort out their problems for themselves. Support for tax rises to boost spending on services such as health and education has fallen to 31 per cent – half of the 63 per cent of people in favour just nine years ago.

The number willing to pay higher prices to safeguard the environment, such as by buying Fair Trade goods, has fallen from 43 per cent in 2001 to 26 per cent today, while the proportion prepared to pay more tax for the same reason is down from 31 per cent to 22 per cent.

Researchers also uncovered evidence of an entrenched "not in my backyard" mentality over housebuilding, with 45 per cent of people opposing any new development near them, compared with 30 per cent in favour. Opposition is strongest in areas where property is in shortest supply – 58 per cent in outer London and 50 per cent in the South-east of England.

The survey, now in its 29th year, acknowledged that three-quarters of the public believe the income gap between rich and poor is too large. Yet only 35 per cent believe the Coalition should redistribute more to lessen the disparity.

Paradoxically, 54 per cent of the public believe jobless benefits are too high and discourage the unemployed from finding work, up from 35 per cent in 1983, the first year of the survey. And although people were concerned about child poverty levels, 63 per cent pinned some of the blame for the problem on parents who "don't want to work".

The survey, by the independent social research institute NatCen, found Britons increasingly relaxed about private healthcare. In 1999, 38 per cent said it was wrong; today the figure has fallen to 24 per cent.
45 Percentage of Britons who oppose any new development near their homes. In outer London the figure is 58 per cent.

26 Percentage of people willing to pay more for ethical goods to save the environment – down from 43 per cent 10 years ago.