``The current crisis marks the end of an era of credit expansion based on the dollar as the international reserve currency. The periodic crises were part of a larger boom-bust process. The current crisis is the culmination of a super-boom that has lasted for more than 60 years.”-George Soros, The worst market crisis in 60 years
Global depression advocates were in boisterous gaiety following last week’s synchronized global equity carnage and used such occasion to pontificate and bash the topical “decoupling” paradigm as preposterous, a myth or a figment of imagination.
In our view, such “know-them-all” outlook ignores the general circumstances of the unfolding war of attrition between the forces of inflation and deflation, where the present episode of a battle won is unduly justified as equivalent to a final victory in war.
Yes, we agree that market forces will eventually undo every government induced imbalances, but the world is more complex than is commonly assumed even by these experts.
Austrian Economist and 1974 Nobel Laureate awardee Friedrich Hayek in Individualism and Economic Order explains of the dynamics of changes which emanates from the individual level, ``For any one individual, constancy of the data does in no way mean constancy of all the facts independent of himself, since only the tastes and not the actions of individuals can be assumed to be constant. As all those other people will change their decisions as they gain experience about the external facts and about other peoples' actions, there is no reason why these processes of successive changes should ever come to an end.”
Put differently, an individual’s response to the conditions which one encounters differ from the response of other individuals, and these separate responses underpin such “change” dynamics which makes it hard to qualify and quantify. Thus, if a community of individuals has different reactions to variable conditions, could we be assured that the deduced proximate causal relationship based on the different levels of economic and financial interdependence as opined by experts lead to the same distribution outcome? Can we also expect of the same responses from government officials in the face of divergent political pressures?
In the recent past when developed economies as the US suffered from “shocks”, emerging markets bore the brunt of such radical adjustments, as shown in Figure 2, courtesy of IMF’s Global Financial Stability.
Figure 2: IMF Global Financial Stability Risk: Improving Performances of Emerging Market Assets
In short, the volatility trends in emerging markets has seen tremendous improvements relative to its Beta coefficient; the previously HIGH beta was cut by almost half in February 2007 when compared to the losses in the US S & P 500.
Today’s turbulent markets reflect the same improving dynamics. As earlier stated, the S & P 500 has lost 15% as of Friday’s close while the Phisix is down 16% from its peak and so with emerging markets (EEM) at 19%. If the same volatility had been applied relative to its 2004 and 2006 scale, then emerging market benchmarks and the Phisix would have caved in by about 45%!
Yes, we remain undoubtedly “coupled” to the
Go back to figure 2 and I’ll show you more. In between the S & P 500 and the MSCI emerging market equity benchmark are three other benchmarks, respectively, external debt (EMBI Global), Local currency debt (GBI Emerging Market) and currency.
The same marvelous progression dynamics with the equity markets can be said of these asset classes except that…
Figure 3:asianbondsonline.com: Philippine Bond Yield on Major US Issues (left) and 2 year and 10 year Local Currency Yield (right)
Figure 3 courtesy of ADB’s asianbondsonline.com shows that bond yields of Philippine papers in both local currency issued sovereigns (left) and US dollar denominated sovereigns (right) are presently LOWER. Since bonds yields and prices are inverse, this means bond prices have been climbing HIGHER a year on year basis. In short, positive returns amidst a negative equity market landscape. The same holds true if compared with the JP Morgan Emerging Debt (JEMDX) funds on the same timescale.
Figure 4:asianbondsonline.com: Peso-US Dollar/ Peso Japanese Yen
4 comments:
I hope you're right. I have a question though. How do you reconcile this with likelihood that a huge drop in the price of US stocks will make emerging markets, whose main attraction is that they are cheaper than US stocks, suddenly seem expensive.
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for your comments.
In the past, according to valuation proponents, emerging markets assets were acquired for their “growth” aspects.
Then, we wrote that emerging market assets had served as a “shelter” from a declining US dollar.
Markets are not always what they seem to be. Pundits tell us that market drivers are mostly about earnings valuations, if not through economic linkages.
My perspective is different. I look at how asset classes are influenced or could be affected by government policies. As I have repeatedly been pointing out, Zimbabwe is a modern day example. The country is undergoing a depression (80% unemployment, 24,100% inflation and 30% drop of GDP over the past 7 years) yet its stock market zoomed by over 300,000% in 2007. Why? Because of the unintended effects of skewed government policies.
Zimbabwe’s currency has lost the basic function of “store of value”, hence government money ended up buying stocks as an alternative “store of value”. It happened in Germany during the 1920s.
Today’s global financial markets are not functioning normally. When you see government intercede massively, there is going to be unintended consequences. Such is the reason why despite threats of recession you see gold at record prices and oil at near record prices. Money creation will find an outlet.
We are not sure whether emerging market stocks will serve as a safehaven, but there are signs that they are finding some support despite the present turmoil.
Lastly, investing is not about hoping, it is about allocation according to your risk profile.
Hope this helps.
Your insight on Zimbabwe and Germany is quite interesting. I don't think that the premises are similar to the current global economy though, or to that of the US.
From your statements though, it seems that the government of Zimbabwe was the one who purchased the stocks, to preserve the value of their wealth. I think the ultimate fact there is that it was their own government that bought the stocks.
If a foreign mutual fund bought those stocks, it would not be preserving their wealth at all, because even if the value of the stocks grew that large, the fact that the exchange rate proportionately declined would nullify they're earnings. So I think that foreign investors' movement into emerging markets is really about catching waves.
I think that from a global perspective, which is how mutual funds perceive, gold would be the only real way to preserve wealth in
conditions similar to todays'.
Anyway, thanks for your articles, I always learn something from them even if I don't always agree. An article that I read here before convinced me to sell off last august at a time when I lost half my accumulated profits, but was able to sell the other half.
More power to you and the other writers here. Thanks!
My apologies for the ambiguity of my statement. What I meant was Zimbabwe’s government undertook massive money printing to finance its operations caused a massive devaluation to the currency’s purchasing power which consequently spurred its populace to seek a safehaven or "store of value" through the stock market.
The fundamental premise is that in a Paper Money system, central banks can limitlessly print or digitally produce money more than what is demanded by the economy which essentially leads to the currency's loss of purchasing power.
Hope this clarifies the issue.
Post a Comment