Global Markets: The Dragon stirs

The ongoing spat between the US and China over the rate of yuan appreciation has boiled over into something more interesting.

Last night Chinese officials threatened the possibility of selling down their US treasury holdings and thereby consigning the US$ to the trashcan. The Chinese are experts at promoting the maxim “don’t throw stones in glasshouses”. They are very astute at pointing out inconsistencies in arguments no doubt employing age old Confucian wisdom.

How the relationship between China and the US will pan out is anyone’s guess but we can be clear about one thing and that is the balance of power has shifted ever so slightly. The phenomenal success of the Chinese economy, based mostly on a large manufacturing base, has given the Chinese are strong foothold in global affairs. Whereas once it was a sleeping dragon content to rule its own domain now it is a major player.

At the same time it has built a strong domestic economy and plays host to the Olympics next year. It seems the US may need China more than China needs the US.

The situation doesn’t look too good for the US. Collapsing credit markets need a steady government security base to hold it all together. Any sell of in the US Treasury market would be a real disaster sending stocks down as well as the dollar.

To some extent we’ve been through this before with the Japanese. In the mid 90s Fred Bergsten hit the headlines calling for a stronger yen. This caused the $ to fall to a record low of 79.65. He was still making this call back in 2002 when he outlined strong reasons for abandoning the Clinton “strong dollar” policy.

This delicate game was fictionalised by Tom Clancy in his book “Debt of Honour” which told of a plot to destabilise the US economy by crashing the Treasury markets and the $. Of course the US won in the end but in real life who knows what would happen. The US authorities run some major interference in the markets when required and i am sure that any severe destabilisation of financial markets would see national security considerations apply (well if they haven’t got that sorted they should!). Sadly many of Clancys’ novels end up happening in real life.

The Chinese are very tactical and astute in their political strategy and very protective of their sovereignty. It will be interesting to see how this plays out but more weakening of global markets cannot be ruled out and with the end of the credit fuelled asset price boom added into the mix cash will be king.

The True Cost of Energy

The energy debate continues to go in circles. Usually its starts with the renewable sector heavyweights: wind and solar. The free and usually reliable inputs of wind and sun are very attractive. The technology is improving and, in the case of solar energy, the transmission mechanism is close at hand.

One company in the US has actually started a rental program for solar heating. I like this idea because capital cost is a problem for many people. Energy as a service is a good business model.

Solar is a great option because you can localise it. Hopefully the technology will continue t to improve.

Wind has its drawbacks due to the requirements of location and serious land mass. But again it suits some places better than others. But how about small wind turbines on every roof?

Little and often i say. Every little bit counts.

Biomass is the latest technology on the block, a small step up from chucking wood in the burner which is very popular and cheap in New Zealand. We can grow a lot of wood down here. The biomass and biofuel solution reveal a problem in our approach.

It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It can be both/and. It’s clear now there is no one solution that is way better than another. Let the market continue to work it out. And this brings me to the main point which is that we must have a properly priced energy market.

This is going to require a major change. I have long banged on about pricing in environmental costs at source and whilst Trucost is doing great work in that area there is a long way to go.

So how could this work? Well here are a few examples:

Carbon

Let’s say we have established a price for “carbon”,this being a proxy for externalities caused in the combustion of fossil fuels. The most efficient way to alert the market to this cost is to price it in at source ie where the fossil fuel is sold wholesale. This would be the global oil, gas or coal exchanges.

In my paper, Climate Control, i argued for the establishment of a World Energy Agency, where all fossil fuels were sold through. Simply add on the price of carbon and leave it at that. As a one point global process it would be very simple and then that price information would flow out across the world. End of story.

But there are two issues here:

One is that we are trying to stop carbon quantities breaching certain levels. The price elasticity of fossil fuel consumption may hinder this somewhat as consumers of oil products are slow to change demand in response to price.

The second issue is interesting. What happens to that money? Who does it belong to? As a charge being levied by the WEA it has no soveriegn recipient. So i propose this “charge” goes into a Global Environmental Contingency Fund (GECF). I want to make clear this is not a tax, it is a cost. It is therefore directly related to an expense which is in this case the use or environmental services.

Let’s stop using the word tax. It’s incorrect and draws attention from the fact that we are simply paying for a service we are using.

So how could the GECF work? I have to give that some more thought but the rough idea is that it would hold those funds in bonds (sovereign) or could lend them out at low interest to fund projects that have a positive environmental benefit. This is the tricky bit. But let’s sit with the first piece. The money comes in and sits in bonds. That’s it. So it’s not being spent on projects of a dubious outcome. As the title implies its a Contingency Fund. We don’t know for sure what will happen in the future. The money can be repaid if required by discounting the price of fossil fuels if it turns out that the cost has turned out to be lower.

It’s a hard one to get right on  a global level but worth a look.

Agriculture

In New Zealand we have trouble with dairy farming, a highly profitable business which has seen huge swathes of land converted from other activities to supporting cows. The externalities of this business are numerous but center around water pollution through fertilizer run off into streams and down into the water table as well as cows crapping all over the place..oh yes and the methane burps.

Here it would be simpler. A charge would be applied per head of cattle and immediately be applied to cleaning up that pollution at source. Why should the taxpayer pick up this tab. Its a cost for the consumer to bear and if the consumer doesn’t like the slightly higher price then the producer will quickly alter his habits.

The moral of this  story is simple: We need to know the true cost of our global economic activity. Then as consumers we can respond appropriately.

Trying to say which energy source is better than another is simply guesswork.

Monetary Policy 101: time for a rewrite?

Local government rates go up followed by interest rates.

Energy prices go up followed by interest rates.

So people are made worse off by increases in prices for goods and services that they cannot easily deflect or cut back on. That’s hard.

But wait there’s more, like a boxer climbing off the floor after a big punch they are hit again even harder by interest rate rises.

And to cap it off it’s all their fault.

I must be missing something here.

The only result of this type of policy is a regular cycle of boom and bust with more and more people forced into bankruptcy for no good reason.

It could be argued that interest rates should be cut in this scenario so that people are not forced to seek higher wages to compensate.

The main concern in the inflation issue is asset and commodity prices. But really its asset prices that are the culprit. They have been driving the global economy for many years now, most notably since financial deregulation in the 80s.

Talk has surfaced recently of the Treasurer invoking a clause in the Reserve Bank Act to move the inflation target aside in order to focus on the exchange rate. Whilst this is a bit far fetched it is another symptom of the policy malaise NZ is facing.

The Reserve Bank Governor has made the same mistake many others have before him: not understand the role and process of bank credit.

It’s as simple as that.

Using an inflation target to manage an economy is like riding a bike with one eye closed. Eventually you have a write off.

Economists have feelings too!

I have just spent the last 3 days at the NZ Association of Economists annual jamboree in Christchurch. It was well worth the time as it was a good opportunity to meet economists working in a wide range of areas and sub disciplines.

There were plenty of interesting papers on monetary policy, forecasting, environmental economics, migration, work and of course the housing market. There was a good mix of age and gender which added to the energy.

The keynote speakers were interesting with talks as diverse as climate change and the economics of sexual harassment.

The paper on Climate Change from Warwick McKibben is worth a look and the paper from Motu on Nutrient Trading provides a micro view of how trading in externalities might work at the local level. The work on allocating and trading pollution permits dovetails nicely with the work from Peter Barnes on reclaiming the commons and allocating rights to pollute which can be traded.

The general feeling on the housing market is that the boom is coming to an end but that it has been justified by low interest rates and the ability to ringfence losses from geared rental properties. I should add to this that migration and willingness to pay higher prices than locals has also contributed to the excessive rise in house prices. The banks have played their part in happily lending the required amounts and no doubt will be the first ones to notice any pullback from investors. This seems to have already started.

I would like to have seen some papers on behavioural economics as i think that is starting to build as an interesting field alongside new wave areas like neuroeconomics.

Economist is a dirty word in NZ due to the long hangover from the economic revolution of the 80s but i can report they are a good bunch….really

Currency Intervention: Kiwis don’t fly

On June 11th the RBNZ intervened in the NZ$ by selling NZ$ around the US$0.7660 level in thin markets. This was followed up by another bout or two resulting in short term sell offs to US$0.76.

This action has create a fair bit of comment most of it apoplectic in nature focusing on the poor NZ central bank against the might of global speculators. The commentary uniformly blasted the RB and trotted out the story of how George Soros buried the Bank of England back in 1992.

Well this is one time i can say “i was there” as i was actually trading Stg at the time, with the regular trader lying on a beach in the Carribean. It was a crazy time to be in the markets but when you were the focal point of action that feeling was magnified. The Bank of England phone line was running hot as we called up to sell more and more Stg. The voice on the other end of the phone was resigned to the ship going down.

It duly did. The next day i had my biggest one day loss in 12 years of trading as the market all but disappeared and every customer was looking to trade. I remember my broker took me out to dinner at the casino in Park Lane to recover. Nice.

But the main point of this story is that Stg was way overvalued and stuck in the ERM where it was required under the Maastricht Treaty to keep the Pound above a certain level which was DM2.7780.

So the Old Lady was just doing her job. She wasn’t taking on Soros or the market but just fulfilling legal obligations. Soros made a bet that the UK would have to pull out of the ERM and that was a political action and you can be sure he would have done his homework there.

So it is very different to what we see when the BOJ intervenes in the Yen at 100 or 145 where there is no legal cap but an extreme extension in rates.

The RBNZ action falls into this camp. The NZ$ is appreciating well beyond fundamentals based on the current account deficit, PPP comparisons and problems for the export sector to sell its goods. It is also suffering from carry trade side effects which are causing a huge inflow of short term investment to take advantage of high interest rates.

Its intervention is justified on those grounds. The NZ$ should be trading around US$0.60 which is just above its long term average. Of course currency rates can run way beyond what might be considered justifiable and for some period of time.

The Great Game continues in the global financial markets where the US sells it paper to trading nations such as Japan and now China in return for goods. One day this game may stop and the US$ will go into freefall.

The same could happen to the NZ$. I would say the RBNZ intervention is justified though how effective it is remains to be seen. Jeff Gamlin at the NBR is quite positive on the profit implications and it’s certainly a good long term trade to buy some foreign reserves. They should be selling as much Kiwi as possible!

As it happens intervention usually works if the intervening bank has some justification. Remember currency speculators like to make money. They don’t care whether it’s up or down.

The RBNZ is in a tight spot regardless of what Grant Spencer, the Deputy Governor , says. They will need a bit of luck to get this right and will need to continue intervening if required at higher levels like 78 and 80. I think though they will be safe there as people are starting to feel the pinch of higher rates.

Also yesterday the Japanese Minister of Finance weighed into the fray with some well placed comments. The Japanese are the experts in intervention and jawboning the currency. That shot across the bows should not be ignored.

Internet Banking: Coming Soon

I’ve been following the spread of microfinance for a while and have been getting involved with Kiva which has been a great experience. I have also noted the rise of social lending businesses such as Zopa, Prosper and even Facebook. Jason has written a good piece on the rise of new forms of financing.

What interest me further is whether all finance can move to a P2P platform and seriously eat into the major lending markets currently controlled by the commercial banks.

I think it could do. This crosses the web with money and complimentary currencies.

Remember that anyone can create “money” if they really want, it just can’t be in the form of bank notes issued by the Reserve Bank. Commercial banks create bank loans by a simple bookkeeping entry. Only 2% of the money supply in NZ is in the form of notes and coin so banks don’t actually hold any money other than a bit of cash.

My point is that P2P finance could take off in a very big way once we get the hang of it. My guess is that the firms currently involved don’t realise how big this could be.

Expect the central banks to cast their beady eyes over these operations once they get a roll on. For now it’s just some web bizness but this feels like 1694 all over again.