Weekly Market Update: Another hawkish signal from the Federal Reserve

Weekly Market Update: Another hawkish signal from the Federal Reserve

Mon 25 Apr 2022

We know war is historically inflationary. Yet wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria did not produce inflation. We know pandemics can be inflationary. Yet the effect of the SARS epidemic in 2002-4 and 2009 didn’t even dent the global economy. In fact, many an event in the past few years have had inflationary characteristics. Fourteen years ago, QE was certain to cause massive inflation. And yet it didn’t.

Then, something changed. Ukraine is massively inflationary. And so was the pandemic that preceded it, and, possibly, the latest round of QE. Whereas these cases are idiosyncratic, one wonders whether there’s something wrong with the world’s Great Deflation Machine. China.

China’s image as a stable investment destination has long come under fire, due to the unreliable nature of Chinese statistics and the low productivity of its State Owned Enterprises compared to western competitors. The 2020 pandemic breakout, which was initially shrouded in secrecy, also tarnished China’s profile. We now had evidence that, much like the Soviet Union in Chernobyl, the regime may temporarily at least conceal something vital for humanity. Markets will wonder: “If China misinformed the world about Covid, then maybe it also did about its growth?” Trust further eroded during the crackdown in Hong Kong a few months earlier, and the clampdown in the tech and real estate sectors in 2021. While this case has been made before, in the harrowing images from the Shanghai Covid lockdown we may be seeing the end of China as long-term investment theme, at least for some time.

The cardinal sin of the financial and economic science is that we take two points in time and then project them into perpetuity. Especially when they spell something positive. It is not our fault really, however. We are optimists. Investments, at their core, are all about optimism. The idea that money in the bank will produce something better than a basic interest rate is based on -usually frivolous- assumptions about future demand. Optimism is the bread, the butter, the jam, and the wrapping of the global financial system. It is the basis for credit, for investment, for faith. It is so fundamental, that it can be blinding to risks. After all, economic history is littered with examples of people who took just a few more risks that they could afford. This is especially true when it comes to investing in nations. It is one thing to invest part of your wealth in an entrepreneur with a great idea, hoping that capitalism will help her achieve her vision, and quite another to invest in a country where capitalism itself is not entirely welcome.

A decade and a half ago, BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) were the future. The contained a little less than half of the world’s population, they had a huge share of global exports and they were growing. The first, quickly fell victim of the usual “Resource Curse”, the notion that resource-rich countries tend to suffer over the longer term. Brazil saw evidence of the “Dutch Disease” (overreliance on one sector), and political instability. Russia followed the same pattern. Whereas it is more politically stable internally, its military aspirations have left her without significant external financing. India would soon follow. Chronic lack of infrastructure, political instability and nationalism became a reason for many western investors to avoid significant exposure.

But China was different. China had a plan. It would become the world’s top economy. China had discipline. It had technology. There were, however, two things that China, in the past few years, doesn’t have: inspired leadership and a steady economic direction. Let’s start with the former. Mao’s China was un-investable. It was prone to revolution and strife and its leader seemed oblivious to the perils of nuclear war. The ‘Great Leap Forward’ from the primary (agrarian) to the secondary (manufacturing) economy killed as many as 55 million people due to starvation. Then came Deng. Deng’s vision of China, as a socialist power thriving in a capitalist world became the guiding principle for all leaderships that followed. The Chinese understood that to have influence they need economic power. They agreed to become the West’s manufacturer, in return for economic growth.

In the last few years, however, China strayed. Not necessarily because the vision was wrong. But perhaps because the task is simply impossible. Xi Jinping, China’s modern leader, wanted to compromise Deng’s and Mao’s vision of socialism. After all, how long can the world benefit from the Chinese sewing clothes and making cheap toys for $1 a day? How long could his own regime stand without growth? When Deng and Mao lived, compromising their views proved impossible. Their division almost led to civil war. Xi wants to accomplish that, and so much more. He wants to achieve the transition from the secondary (manufacturing) sector, to the tertiary (services). He wants to take labourers and turn them into consumers. And he wants to do this in less than a generation. Given how many people died in the previous transition, that task alone is daunting. Even more so, if one considers the demographic bomb from the one-child policy. At the same time, Xi is trying to cope with the bursting of a real estate bubble that has plunged every other nation who lived through it into recession. He wants to fight the pandemic with a local vaccine, to prove his country’s technological advancement, closed borders and a zero-Covid policy. And what’s worse, Xi wants to do this alone. His leadership is internally isolated. Dissidents have long been purged. The nations that are his partners, like Russia or India, are more interested in advancing geopolitical goals than fostering economic growth. And many western nations are viewing him with scepticism. The Biden administration has barely relaxed any Trump-era pressures. His best partners in this would be businesses. But the bosses of Alibaba and Tencent have also taken a backseat in decisions regarding the future of China.

Business will not hold power in Xi’s China. And that is the main disadvantage of communism. The idea that a state plan is inherently better than the randomness and inventiveness of business venturing. The latter has given us America and Europe. Successful, democratic and plentiful, even without many national resources. The former, on the other hand, has given us totalitarianism, and ephemeral success.

Meanwhile, the economic implications from renewed lockdowns in China are significant.

China is the origin point of supply chains. Unlike Wuhan, Shanghai is China’s biggest port and the most significant bottleneck of trade between the US and China. It is also one of the largest manufacturing centres in China, with heavy concentrations of automotive and electronics suppliers. It is home to 121 Fortune 500 companies. Shanghai accounts for 3.8% of China GDP. Exports produced in Shanghai are 7.2% of China’s total volume and about a fifth of all goods are exported through this key port. Currently, waiting time around the port is reported to be up to 30%-40% higher than usual, although the number could be higher. Truck drivers are forced to wait up to 40 hours at certain gateway entrances.

The repercussions will be significant. Delays will further destabilise supply chains, which have already been impacted by the war in Ukraine. On the one hand, a Chinese slowdown will be deflationary. On the other hand, however, and over a longer term, we could see inflation pressures further exacerbated as supply chains struggle to get back on line.

By and large, the picture is one where the world has been knocked off-balance in late 2019 and has not managed to recover since. This is causing significant business and policy uncertainty, which can only cause inefficiencies. These inefficiencies can harm both growth and inflation and increase the probability of economic recession in 2022.

The global economic repercussions from China’s new lockdowns will be formidable. But they will pass. The images of repression, however, will scar China as an investment destination for years to come. When all is said and done, investments are about promise and that promise is usually centred around a simple story. That story will dominate any deep analysis before large investments are undertaken. The investment promise of a shining super-growth country is tarnished with the dystopic images from Shanghai. It takes time for investors to understand that a powerful narrative has changed. But it does happen. Businesses once poured money into China, thinking that it was the future. Their investors, imbued with ESG fervour, will question further expansion into China, as it might hurt the brand. What is worse is the potential the brain drain. A few years ago, young professionals from Imperial and Harvard dreamed of working in Asia. Now, young achievers from Hong Kong and Shanghai will happily take a job in New York and London. It is those young professionals that build empires. Politics is there just to manage the details. Regimes and countries that understood that dynamic thrived. Those that didn’t, died of old age. China might still achieve its growth targets. But it will, probably, increasingly have to do it without western Foreign Direct Investments. At the very least, it will have to review and adjust its growth model. To do that, it will have to slow down and re-examine its place in the global supply chain. A world where global expansion of output is not driven by China anymore, will be slower to grow, and more inflationary. Welcome, to a world without BRICs.

George Lagarias – Chief Economist