ChinaToday
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2011
- Messages
- 4,557
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Chinas eagerly anticipated hard landing hasnt happened yet, and recent indicators make me wonder (not for the first time) if it ever will. In the past two months, the Chinese economy has actually shown signs of accelerating.
Constant pessimism in financial markets about the countrys prospects is only partly guided by economic analysis. Theres also the faith-based view that growth as rapid as Chinas simply cant go on - and that a non-democratic country really shouldnt expect to prosper.
Many sceptics have been highlighting Chinas impending collapse for almost as long as I have been following the country. Maybe the sceptics should be viewed a little more sceptically.
By the end of this year, Chinas gross domestic product will be roughly $US9 trillion, making its economy comfortably more than half the size of the US, and half as big again as Japan. I recall once projecting that China might be as big as Japan by 2015. The countrys far ahead of that optimistic schedule.
Chinas economy is already more than three times the size of France or the UK, and half as big again as Brazil, Russia and India combined. Of the four BRIC countries, China is the only one to have exceeded my expectations. The other three have done less well than Id hoped.
As I mentioned in a previous column, China is in effect creating another India every two years - making a mockery of those whove argued that Indias democratic model is more likely to deliver long-term economic success. China is already more than four times bigger than its southern neighbour. Indias economy wont rival Chinas for a very long time, if ever.
With GDP growth of 7.5 per cent, inflation running about 3 per cent, and a currency thats rising gently against the US dollar, China is adding about $US1 trillion a year to global GDP, easily boosting its share of the total.
For many analysts, none of this is enough. According to a popular refrain, China might have staved off disaster in 2013 and papered over the cracks yet again in the short term - but next year (or maybe the year after), the crunch will come.
Supporting this notion is a question Im asked all the time: If Chinas doing so well, how come everyone always loses money investing there? Let me explore both issues a bit further.
It isnt clear to me why Chinas economy must deteriorate next year. Chinas slowdown to its current 7.5 percent growth rate was well signposted by a sharp slowdown in leading indicators. Those measures, including monetary growth and electricity usage, are no longer flashing red.
Coincident indicators such as the monthly purchasing managers index have picked up. Unless you believe that China is somehow doomed to fail, these signs are encouraging. They suggest that the rest of this year and the first part of 2014 might see slightly stronger growth.
The more resourceful pessimists next argue that the better growth signals are coming from parts of the economy where growth is unsustainable - such as the urban housing market and government-directed investment - from excessive growth of credit extended by shadow banks, and not from a broadly based expansion of consumer spending. If this were clearly the case, Id be a pessimist, too, because a buoyant China needs consumers to take the lead.
Data for monthly retail sales suggest that consumption has held up well despite the fall in the trend of industrial production. I closely follow the trend of retail sales, adjusted for inflation and relative to the trend of industrial production, and though not moving in a straight line, this indicator has been generally rising for three years.
This is a pretty good sign that the rebalancing China needs is happening. Another is the decline in the current-account surplus to about 3 per cent of GDP.
Reducing the external surplus from more than 10 per cent of GDP before 2008 to about 3 per cent now - while limiting the fall in growth from 10 per cent to about 7.5 per cent - is quite an achievement. In my view, the unsustainable component of Chinas economic prospects was the current-account surplus, not the growth rate, and the needed adjustment in the surplus has been achieved.
What about investors losing money in China? How can that be, if the economy is doing pretty well? It depends on how you measure investors returns. True, passive investors in the Shanghai index have suffered since 2007, despite a big rally from late 2008 through late 2009.
But how many investors invest that way? More important, the Shanghai index is dominated by past winners in the China growth story. If China is rebalancing - moving away from exports, improving the quality and sustainability of its growth, depending less on government-backed companies - then the winning investments will be quite different than before.
Its revealing that the Shenzhen index is performing much better than the Shanghai index, thanks to its greater exposure to newer, smaller, private companies. Theres a more general point here: When a country is embarking on a significant compositional change to its economy, stock-pickers rather than index-trackers have the upper hand.
The same logic applies to foreign companies trying to benefit not just from Chinas ongoing growth but also from its new drivers of growth. No doubt this is a little simplistic, but Apple or Procter & Gamble, say, are likely to benefit more in this economic environment than Caterpillar.
If you ask me, Chinas economy hasnt finished impressing the world with its strength. The changing foundations of that strength may make the prospects harder to read - but the fact that the underpinnings of Chinese growth are indeed changing is all to the good.
China sceptics get it wrong again
Constant pessimism in financial markets about the countrys prospects is only partly guided by economic analysis. Theres also the faith-based view that growth as rapid as Chinas simply cant go on - and that a non-democratic country really shouldnt expect to prosper.
Many sceptics have been highlighting Chinas impending collapse for almost as long as I have been following the country. Maybe the sceptics should be viewed a little more sceptically.
By the end of this year, Chinas gross domestic product will be roughly $US9 trillion, making its economy comfortably more than half the size of the US, and half as big again as Japan. I recall once projecting that China might be as big as Japan by 2015. The countrys far ahead of that optimistic schedule.
Chinas economy is already more than three times the size of France or the UK, and half as big again as Brazil, Russia and India combined. Of the four BRIC countries, China is the only one to have exceeded my expectations. The other three have done less well than Id hoped.
As I mentioned in a previous column, China is in effect creating another India every two years - making a mockery of those whove argued that Indias democratic model is more likely to deliver long-term economic success. China is already more than four times bigger than its southern neighbour. Indias economy wont rival Chinas for a very long time, if ever.
With GDP growth of 7.5 per cent, inflation running about 3 per cent, and a currency thats rising gently against the US dollar, China is adding about $US1 trillion a year to global GDP, easily boosting its share of the total.
For many analysts, none of this is enough. According to a popular refrain, China might have staved off disaster in 2013 and papered over the cracks yet again in the short term - but next year (or maybe the year after), the crunch will come.
Supporting this notion is a question Im asked all the time: If Chinas doing so well, how come everyone always loses money investing there? Let me explore both issues a bit further.
It isnt clear to me why Chinas economy must deteriorate next year. Chinas slowdown to its current 7.5 percent growth rate was well signposted by a sharp slowdown in leading indicators. Those measures, including monetary growth and electricity usage, are no longer flashing red.
Coincident indicators such as the monthly purchasing managers index have picked up. Unless you believe that China is somehow doomed to fail, these signs are encouraging. They suggest that the rest of this year and the first part of 2014 might see slightly stronger growth.
The more resourceful pessimists next argue that the better growth signals are coming from parts of the economy where growth is unsustainable - such as the urban housing market and government-directed investment - from excessive growth of credit extended by shadow banks, and not from a broadly based expansion of consumer spending. If this were clearly the case, Id be a pessimist, too, because a buoyant China needs consumers to take the lead.
Data for monthly retail sales suggest that consumption has held up well despite the fall in the trend of industrial production. I closely follow the trend of retail sales, adjusted for inflation and relative to the trend of industrial production, and though not moving in a straight line, this indicator has been generally rising for three years.
This is a pretty good sign that the rebalancing China needs is happening. Another is the decline in the current-account surplus to about 3 per cent of GDP.
Reducing the external surplus from more than 10 per cent of GDP before 2008 to about 3 per cent now - while limiting the fall in growth from 10 per cent to about 7.5 per cent - is quite an achievement. In my view, the unsustainable component of Chinas economic prospects was the current-account surplus, not the growth rate, and the needed adjustment in the surplus has been achieved.
What about investors losing money in China? How can that be, if the economy is doing pretty well? It depends on how you measure investors returns. True, passive investors in the Shanghai index have suffered since 2007, despite a big rally from late 2008 through late 2009.
But how many investors invest that way? More important, the Shanghai index is dominated by past winners in the China growth story. If China is rebalancing - moving away from exports, improving the quality and sustainability of its growth, depending less on government-backed companies - then the winning investments will be quite different than before.
Its revealing that the Shenzhen index is performing much better than the Shanghai index, thanks to its greater exposure to newer, smaller, private companies. Theres a more general point here: When a country is embarking on a significant compositional change to its economy, stock-pickers rather than index-trackers have the upper hand.
The same logic applies to foreign companies trying to benefit not just from Chinas ongoing growth but also from its new drivers of growth. No doubt this is a little simplistic, but Apple or Procter & Gamble, say, are likely to benefit more in this economic environment than Caterpillar.
If you ask me, Chinas economy hasnt finished impressing the world with its strength. The changing foundations of that strength may make the prospects harder to read - but the fact that the underpinnings of Chinese growth are indeed changing is all to the good.
China sceptics get it wrong again
And before that, they said China was going to have an Asset bubble, and before that was the "Jasmine revolution". 
