See here for Moneycontrol.com's interview with Marc Faber, where he expresses enthusiasm for Indian realty:
...I think that is a no-brainer in the long run. It is a problem for people who will have very high borrowings, against their realty because of interest rates. Realty has always been a cyclical industry, where prices move up or down. But by and large if I look at the world, the reason so many families are rich, that came out of realty, is that the money was tied up in realty. They did not do anything more stupid with their money like buying Internet stocks in 2000 and then losing 90% of their money as prices went down.
So, my advice essentially for people, if you are not an expert in financial matters, to own realty - a safer avenue to wealth.
Faber also predicts a near-future stockmarket correction in the US of more than 10%, and in the longer term:
I expect over the next 20 years interest rates in the US will go much higher than it is perceived by the market place as I think inflation in the US will accelerate on the upside partly because of the rise in the prices of commodity, energy and food. This is also partly because of the weakness in the dollar that will eventually lift import prices.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Calls for a fully-funded Social Security pension
Free Market News Network (July 2) interviewed Peter Schiff, who said that the current rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul pension system will unravel in a few years, because of demographics. Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House) thinks a funded pension system should be introduced, but control of the funds should be out of the hands of the government.
This is very similar to proposals put forward in the UK by the Pensions Reform Group, chaired by former minister for welfare reform, Frank Field MP. The working name for it is a "Universal Protected Pension". The proposals betray the same worry as Gingrich implies, which is that the government may find a way to steal all or part of the fund.
This is very similar to proposals put forward in the UK by the Pensions Reform Group, chaired by former minister for welfare reform, Frank Field MP. The working name for it is a "Universal Protected Pension". The proposals betray the same worry as Gingrich implies, which is that the government may find a way to steal all or part of the fund.
Houses and mortgages - reality worse than the news?
Rachel Beck of AP has an article in The Arizona Republic (July 3), showing that dodgy housing data may be understating the scale of the problems.
Living off our inheritance: global wealth distribution, GDP and debt
The World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) launched a report last December, about household net worth around the world. Here's a nugget or two from their press release:
“The study finds wealth to be more unequally distributed than income across countries. High income countries tend to have a bigger share of world wealth than of world GDP.” (p. 3)
This suggests to me that the wealthy countries are to some extent living on their capital.
‘China … fails to feature strongly among the super-rich because average wealth is modest and wealth is evenly spread by international standards. However, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than our data reveal for the year 2000, and membership of the super-rich seems set to rise fast in the next decade.’ (p.4)
Surprisingly, household debt is relatively unimportant in poor countries. As the authors of the study point out: ‘While many poor people in poor countries are in debt, their debts are relatively small in total. This is mainly due to the absence of financial institutions that allow households to incur large mortgage and consumer debts, as is increasingly the situation in rich countries….many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and—somewhat paradoxically—are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth.’ (p. 5 - italics are mine.)
Figure 7, “Asset Composition in Selected Countries”, shows the proportion of real property, financial assets and debt in 7 countries, including the US, Canada and Japan. Looking at the ratio of debt to financial assets, China is clearly the least debt-burdened.
When a spendthrift heir meets a poor but hard-working and hard-saving entrepreneur, the result seems predictable. Look at page 16 of Warren Buffett's 28 Feb 2007 letter to shareholders, which I quoted at greater length on July 5:
"The world is ... willing to accept our bonds, real estate, stocks and businesses. And we have a vast store of these to hand over.... [but] foreigners now earn more on their U.S. investments than we do on our investments abroad. In effect, we’ve used up our bank account and turned to our credit card."
“The study finds wealth to be more unequally distributed than income across countries. High income countries tend to have a bigger share of world wealth than of world GDP.” (p. 3)
This suggests to me that the wealthy countries are to some extent living on their capital.
‘China … fails to feature strongly among the super-rich because average wealth is modest and wealth is evenly spread by international standards. However, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than our data reveal for the year 2000, and membership of the super-rich seems set to rise fast in the next decade.’ (p.4)
Surprisingly, household debt is relatively unimportant in poor countries. As the authors of the study point out: ‘While many poor people in poor countries are in debt, their debts are relatively small in total. This is mainly due to the absence of financial institutions that allow households to incur large mortgage and consumer debts, as is increasingly the situation in rich countries….many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and—somewhat paradoxically—are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth.’ (p. 5 - italics are mine.)
Figure 7, “Asset Composition in Selected Countries”, shows the proportion of real property, financial assets and debt in 7 countries, including the US, Canada and Japan. Looking at the ratio of debt to financial assets, China is clearly the least debt-burdened.
When a spendthrift heir meets a poor but hard-working and hard-saving entrepreneur, the result seems predictable. Look at page 16 of Warren Buffett's 28 Feb 2007 letter to shareholders, which I quoted at greater length on July 5:
"The world is ... willing to accept our bonds, real estate, stocks and businesses. And we have a vast store of these to hand over.... [but] foreigners now earn more on their U.S. investments than we do on our investments abroad. In effect, we’ve used up our bank account and turned to our credit card."
Saturday, July 07, 2007
The world is flat - or is it? Is Leamer right about Friedman?
Thomas Friedman's book, "The World Is Flat" is a best-seller - Wikipedia summary here. Friedman's related website is here - I think the photograph of the author is interesting, for those who like to read faces.
Last year, Edward Leamer reviewed Friedman somewhat snippily here. Gosh, I wish people could be more succinct. As Byron wrote of Coleridge, "I wish he would explain his explanation". Still, I guess Leamer has to fly the flag for critical scholarship.
The issue is important: does globalization threaten America's standard of living? Free traders say no. But have a look at Figure 6 on page 33 of Leamer, showing global income distribution in 1980, when US per capita GDP was 4 times the world average. That's quite some inequality, and if they were two very different levels of water in the same canal, opening the lock between them would see wealth gush from A to B.
So as barriers to trade are coming down, why hasn't this happened? Leamer says (p.34), "Much of the difference in GDP per capita among countries comes from the greater amounts of physical and human capital in the West, which advantages aren’t going to go away any time soon."
I'm not so sanguine. As regards human capital, I think the East is very keen indeed to increase its investment in education and training, and isn't hampered by notions of equality of outcome for its students. As to industrial capital, we are watching a vast sucking-in of resources, right down to our iron manhole covers, by China and other emerging economies; but also (particularly in China) we see a rapid and determined acquisition of slowly-accrued Western intellectual capital.
I think the catch-up process would be even faster in China if their industries observed patent and copyright more scrupulously, so they weren't almost wiping out each other's profit margins in their domestic market; and financial capital will accumulate far more rapidly when Chinese manufacturers get to keep more of the foreign buyer's price, instead of losing most of the profit to shippers, distributors, marketers and advertisers. If I were Chinese, I'd be looking at those areas for the training of my bright young people; and I bet they are.
Figure 7 on page 35 compares global income distribution in 1980 and 2000. The rich have done fine, the middle earners have made almost no progress, the poor are gradually rising. But when you think about it, maybe the middle is progressing: Western industrial workers are losing their jobs and looking for work in less well-paid service industries, while new industrial jobs are being created abroad. James Kynge ("China Shakes The World") says he sees heavy industry taking over on the Chinese coast, and labour-intensive light industry being forced inland. The move from low-skilled to higher-skilled labour in China is certainly a progression, matched by downward movement in the West. I wonder what the higher end of the graph will look like in another 20 years, when the Chinese have their own armies of industrial tycoons, company VPs, economics professors, investment analysts and marketing experts? I bet they're quite content to watch their coolie-work go to even poorer countries, as long as it doesn't happen too soon in the game.
Leamer admits (p.46): "The real bottom line: we do not know the breadth and intensity of global contestability of US jobs, and until we do, we will not have a real handle on the impact of global competition on the US workforce."
Why is he relaxed? See page 48:
"Finally, I want to comment on what I think is the big issue. It isn’t globalization or a flat world; it’s technology and the post- industrial labor markets.
The US is in the midst of a radical transformation from industrial to post-industrial society. Some of this transition is associated with the movement of mundane manufacturing jobs to low-wage foreign locations, but much of it comes from the dramatic changes in technology in the intellectual services sectors. The policy response to the globalization force is pretty straightforward: we need to make the educational and infrastructure investments that are needed to keep the high-paying non-contestable creative jobs here at home and let the rest of the world knock themselves silly competing for the footloose mundane contestable jobs."
Well, I don't think the rest of the world is quite as silly as that. I don't think Western education systems are geared to excellence, as once they were; so for that reason, as well as IPR enforcement issues, I don't think we can bank on using our intellectual property to sustain our global income differential. I don't think multinational businesses have, or feel they can afford, nationalistic sentiment. And whenever I read statements that start "we need to do x", I get the feeling that x isn't going to happen. Individuals will still make their stellar way, but I can't envision the West as a whole reclining in comfort in a "post-industrial" society.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Last year, Edward Leamer reviewed Friedman somewhat snippily here. Gosh, I wish people could be more succinct. As Byron wrote of Coleridge, "I wish he would explain his explanation". Still, I guess Leamer has to fly the flag for critical scholarship.
The issue is important: does globalization threaten America's standard of living? Free traders say no. But have a look at Figure 6 on page 33 of Leamer, showing global income distribution in 1980, when US per capita GDP was 4 times the world average. That's quite some inequality, and if they were two very different levels of water in the same canal, opening the lock between them would see wealth gush from A to B.
So as barriers to trade are coming down, why hasn't this happened? Leamer says (p.34), "Much of the difference in GDP per capita among countries comes from the greater amounts of physical and human capital in the West, which advantages aren’t going to go away any time soon."
I'm not so sanguine. As regards human capital, I think the East is very keen indeed to increase its investment in education and training, and isn't hampered by notions of equality of outcome for its students. As to industrial capital, we are watching a vast sucking-in of resources, right down to our iron manhole covers, by China and other emerging economies; but also (particularly in China) we see a rapid and determined acquisition of slowly-accrued Western intellectual capital.
I think the catch-up process would be even faster in China if their industries observed patent and copyright more scrupulously, so they weren't almost wiping out each other's profit margins in their domestic market; and financial capital will accumulate far more rapidly when Chinese manufacturers get to keep more of the foreign buyer's price, instead of losing most of the profit to shippers, distributors, marketers and advertisers. If I were Chinese, I'd be looking at those areas for the training of my bright young people; and I bet they are.
Figure 7 on page 35 compares global income distribution in 1980 and 2000. The rich have done fine, the middle earners have made almost no progress, the poor are gradually rising. But when you think about it, maybe the middle is progressing: Western industrial workers are losing their jobs and looking for work in less well-paid service industries, while new industrial jobs are being created abroad. James Kynge ("China Shakes The World") says he sees heavy industry taking over on the Chinese coast, and labour-intensive light industry being forced inland. The move from low-skilled to higher-skilled labour in China is certainly a progression, matched by downward movement in the West. I wonder what the higher end of the graph will look like in another 20 years, when the Chinese have their own armies of industrial tycoons, company VPs, economics professors, investment analysts and marketing experts? I bet they're quite content to watch their coolie-work go to even poorer countries, as long as it doesn't happen too soon in the game.
Leamer admits (p.46): "The real bottom line: we do not know the breadth and intensity of global contestability of US jobs, and until we do, we will not have a real handle on the impact of global competition on the US workforce."
Why is he relaxed? See page 48:
"Finally, I want to comment on what I think is the big issue. It isn’t globalization or a flat world; it’s technology and the post- industrial labor markets.
The US is in the midst of a radical transformation from industrial to post-industrial society. Some of this transition is associated with the movement of mundane manufacturing jobs to low-wage foreign locations, but much of it comes from the dramatic changes in technology in the intellectual services sectors. The policy response to the globalization force is pretty straightforward: we need to make the educational and infrastructure investments that are needed to keep the high-paying non-contestable creative jobs here at home and let the rest of the world knock themselves silly competing for the footloose mundane contestable jobs."
Well, I don't think the rest of the world is quite as silly as that. I don't think Western education systems are geared to excellence, as once they were; so for that reason, as well as IPR enforcement issues, I don't think we can bank on using our intellectual property to sustain our global income differential. I don't think multinational businesses have, or feel they can afford, nationalistic sentiment. And whenever I read statements that start "we need to do x", I get the feeling that x isn't going to happen. Individuals will still make their stellar way, but I can't envision the West as a whole reclining in comfort in a "post-industrial" society.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Soros increases his mining stocks
Coat-tail Investor reveals Soros' largest holding by far is Companhia Vale Do Rio Doce, the world's second-largest mining corporation. Soros has increased his holding by around 10% as of end March. He's obviously sold on the commodities/natural resources/industrial metals theme.
A useful feature of the Coat-tail site is that you can re-order the information by clicking on each column heading, which makes searches much easier.
A useful feature of the Coat-tail site is that you can re-order the information by clicking on each column heading, which makes searches much easier.
Portfolios of leading investment managers
Here's a site that claims to reveal the investment portfolios of top managers such as Warren Buffett and George Soros. I don't suppose it will be able to say when they got into a stock, and at what price, but it should be instructive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)