Growing Finance Jobs In Asia: Recovery Or Bubble Symptoms?

The good news is that hiring is taking place once more again in Asia's financial sector.

chart from the New York Times

This from the New York Times, (bold emphasis added)

``Asia has already emerged more forcefully from recession than the United States and Europe, economic reports over the past month have shown. Now, that upturn here is starting — at least tentatively and in certain sectors — to feed into the job market. Hiring is starting to pick up again, recruiters and bankers say.

``Broad unemployment is still rising, a normal pattern even after economies begin to emerge from recession. But economists say that any early signs of job growth are a prerequisite for a more solid-based recovery — one in which more confident consumers, and not just huge government stimulus packages, can play a role in lifting the economy."

``Perhaps the most striking element in the new hiring: Almost a year after Lehman Brothers folded — roiling financial markets, spurring a remake of the banking landscape and feeding one of the worst recessions in modern history — it is the financial sector that is leading the way."

chart from stockcharts.com

The article didn't make any comparisons on the relative hiring rates on an industry basis.

Nevertheless, we can infer that the recent the recent spikes in the regional equity markets has had a significant influence on the emerging hiring dynamics in the region.
However, based on the FTSE Asian averages, unlike in the US where Finance has led the way, Asian Financials have had a mediocre performance on relative basis, where auto & trucks, technology and basic resources have basically assumed the role of market leaders.

Based on my understanding of the business cycles, if Asia's markets continue with its ascent over the longer period, with the same sectors leading the way, these industries would account for the long term production segment of the misallocation process whose financing would be facilitated by the financial industry. Of course, the finance sector would also cater to the consumer end.

Nevertheless the transitioning roles of the business cycle could be in play from which could signify as the initial symptom of an emerging bubble.

Sectoral Performance In US, China And The Philippines

``[Asia is] a very different dynamic compared with the rest of the world. Most banking systems in Asia are flush with liquidity as they have a surplus of deposits over lending. So if [corporates] have in the past financed in the international bond markets, when it comes to refinancing they can turn to the local market alternatives because plenty of banks are still willing to lend”- Jason Rogers, a credit analyst at Barclays Capital Asia-Pacific corporate bonds surge

In bubble cycles, the object of a speculative bubble, after a bust, normally takes years to recover.

To cite a few, the Philippine Phisix following the 1997 Asian Crisis episode hasn’t fully recovered even 12 years after, Japan’s Nikkei 225 and its property sector remains in doldrums following the bust in 1990 (that’s 19 years!), and the technology centered dot,com bust during the new millennium in the US has left the Nasdaq miles away from its peak, 9 years ago.

The recent bubble cycle phenomenon evolved around the US real estate sector which had been funded by the financial industry. In short, these two sectors-financials and real estate accounted for as the epicenter of the bubble cycle crisis. So given the nature of bubble cycles, I originally expected the same dynamics to unfold.

The fundamental reason for this is due to the market clearing process or the process of liquidating clusters of malinvestments acquired during the bubble.

And since bubble blowing or the “boom” phase is a process underpinned by policies that is cultured by the markets over time, the liquidation or the “bust” phase likewise employs the same time consuming process but in reverse.

But I guess this dynamic doesn’t seem to be the case today or put differently, this time looks different.

Why?

Because US money managers have largely been overweighting the financial sector, see Figure 5.

Figure 5: Bespoke Invest: Institutional Sector Weightings

According to Bespoke Invest, ``money managers collectively have 18.5% of their long portfolios in the Financial sector, which is the highest weighting for any sector. Technology ranks second at 16.8%, followed by Health Care (12.9%), Energy (12%), and Industrials (10.3%).

``The second chart compares these weightings with the sector weightings of the S&P 500. As shown, institutions are overweight the Financial sector the most and underweight Consumer Staples the most.”

Obviously, the enormous backstop provided for by the US government to the US financial sector has circumvented the natural process of liquidations from fully occurring.

Hence, the intriguing outperformance led by the money managers piling into a sector under the government “umbrella” to seek profits or “economic rent”.

Yet, despite such outperformance, government intrusion to the industry will likely result to more systemic distortions.

To quote Professor Mario Rizzo in a recent paper ``These are agents whose discretionary behavior, insulated from the normal discipline of profit and loss, can significantly affect the course of economic effects. Thus, discretionary behavior on the part of monetary authorities (the Fed), fiscal policy makers (Congress or the Executive), or even in some cases private monopolists, can increase uncertainty faced by most economic agents (“small players”). They will have to pay more attention to trying to guess the perhaps idiosyncratic behavior of the big players. Economic variables will become contaminated with big-player influence. It will become more difficult to extract knowledge of fundamentals from actual market prices.”

Again, pricing signals are becoming less efficient due to government intervention (more difficult to extract knowledge of fundamentals from actual market prices) and is likely to heighten systemic risks (can increase uncertainty faced by most economic agents) arising from the asymmetric behavior of the industry participants shaped by regulators (insulated from the normal discipline of profit and loss).

In combination with the toxic assets stacked in the bank balance sheets, I would remain a skeptic over US financials.

Interesting Parallels In China And The US, Possible Opportunities

It is interesting to see how some parallels can be gleaned from the institutional interest in US stocks and in China’s recent sectoral performance.

While Financials, Materials, Consumer Cyclicals, Energy and Industrial outperformed the S & P 500, in China, Energy, Materials, Financials, Technology and Industrials constituted the top 5 during the latest run on a year to date basis, see figure 6.

Figure 6: Bespoke Invest: China’s Sectoral Performance

In other words, except for Consumer Cyclicals in the US and Technology sector in China, there seems to be some common interests from respective domestic investors-energy, materials, financials and industrials.

In the Philippines, the top 3 sectors have been Mining and Oil, Industrial (energy) and holding companies, whereas financials and services (telecoms) have been laggards.

Except for the financials, basically we see the same pattern playing out.

More interesting insights from Bespoke Invest, ``Sector performance in China paints an interesting picture. In typical selloffs, sectors that lead the rally see the steepest declines, while laggards in the rally tend to outperform. In this selloff, however, this trend is much less evident. The chart below shows the average performance of Chinese stocks by sector during the rally and since the peak on 8/4. While Energy led the rally and has seen the sharpest decline, in other sectors the relationship has been much less evident. For example, Utilities and Telecom Services were in the bottom four in terms of performance during the rally, but during the decline they have also been among the weakest sectors with the second and third worst performance.” (emphasis added)

Given the degree of corrections, it appears that China’s financials are on the way to outperform but could still play second fiddle to Energy.

So while I would remain a skeptic over US financials, it’s a different story for China and for Asia.

Nonetheless if we follow Dennis Gartman’s 7^th rule of his 22 trading rules, ``Sell markets that show the greatest weakness, and buy those that show the greatest strength. Metaphorically, when bearish, throw your rocks into the wettest paper sack, for they break most readily. In bull markets, we need to ride upon the strongest winds... they shall carry us higher than shall lesser ones”, then this would imply that energy, materials and financials could be the best performing sectors over the coming years and could be the most conducive place to be in to achieve ALPHA.

That’s also because China has aggressively been bidding up global resource and energy stocks, for reasons we cited in China's Strategic Resource Accumulation Continues.

Finally, this brings up a possible “window of opportunity” arbitrage for the Philippine markets. Since the local financials have severely lagged the recent rally and IF the same US-China patterns would play out sometime in the future, then positioning on financials on market weakness looks likely a feasible trade.

In addition, the underperformance of the telecom sector which has patently diverged with technology issues has piqued my interest and could be a point of discussion for another day.