The Declining Influence of Japan’s GDP

Yesterday’s widespread selloff had fundamentally been a black swan nuclear meltdown story. In other words, the market priced the uncertainty of a prospective contagion from radiation leaks.

The pivotal question is: Is the nuclear issue a systematic risk or is it a common factor risk?

One way to resolve this is to see the issue from the GDP prism.

BCA Research has this to share, (bold highlights mine)

According to IMF data, Japan’s share of global GDP has fallen over the past two decades from a high of about 10% in the early 1990s to under 6% today. Even more noteworthy is that on a purchasing power parity basis, the IMF estimates that Japanese growth has only accounted for about 1% of the world’s growth over the past five years. This is of course mostly due to the rapid expansion in emerging economies, but highlights that even without the devastating effects of last week’s earthquake, Japan is quickly becoming a small player in global growth. It also helps to explain why the blow to financial markets in the region (excluding Japan) has so far been fairly mild. In terms of the advanced economies, the country that is likely most susceptible to a slowdown in Japan is Australia – about 20% of Australia’s exports are destined for Japanese markets. Bottom line: Last week’s devastating earthquake in Japan may have limited impact outside of the country, given that global growth dynamics no longer rely heavily on a demand impulse from Japan.

Japan’s share is still substantial but has been steadily declining. Said differently, seen from the GDP perspective, the diminishing share of Japan’s GDP becomes more of a specific factor related risk—that is unless the radiation leaks spread to other nations which would transform fear into reality.

Thus, if fears from such uncertainty don’t gain ground, then the emotionally charged selloff could pose as an opportunity.

As a reminder, Japan isn’t the only source of uncertainty, but it has surely has diverted most of the public’s attention.

Saudi Arabia Led GCC Intervention In Bahrain

As everyone seems fixated on Japan, which seems to have eclipsed most of the world’s problems, here is one important development: Arab dictators appear to have closed ranks.

The Bloomberg reports, (bold emphasis mine)

Saudi Arabian troops moved into Bahrain as part of a regional force from the Gulf Cooperation Council, the first cross-border intervention since a wave of popular uprisings swept through parts of the Arab world.

“This is war against the unarmed Bahraini people,” said Matar Ebrahim Ali Matar, a member of al-Wefaq, the largest Shiite opposition party.

Mainly Shiite protesters in Bahrain have been demonstrating since Feb. 14, demanding democracy through free elections from their Sunni monarch. Shiites comprise as much as 70 percent of the population. King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa has offered a national “dialogue” toward changes in response, which hasn’t quieted protesters. Clashes escalated on Sunday with more than 100 people injured.

The deployment signals that the Bahraini regime has lost confidence it can deal with the protests and underscores Saudi Arabian concerns about uprisings at home, according to Christopher Davidson, a scholar in Middle East politics at Durham University and author of “Power and Politics in the Gulf Monarchies,”

“It is in Saudi’s interest that nothing serious happens in Bahrain, because it would embolden similar protests in its eastern provinces,” Davidson said in a telephone interview late yesterday.

Why is this important?

We get some clues from the same Bloomberg article,

The protests in the tiny kingdom have fueled fears of a regional Shiite uprising supported by mainly Shiite Iran. Many Shiite Bahrainis retain cultural and family ties with Iran and with Shiites in eastern Saudi Arabia; Bahrain’s Sunni ruling family has close links with Saudi Arabia, which holds 20 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

The U.S. is urging Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, to allow nonviolent protests and encouraging Gulf nations to use restraint, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at the White House.

If the revolutions were merely local then we would be dealing with residual common factor risks, or event risk that is limited to a specific nation.

However, when domestic events includes international political interventions, then the risk factor transforms into systematic or market risk.

This is more a problem, for me, than that of Japan’s risk of a full blown nuclear meltdown (which on my assumption would eventually be resolved as others before it).

The key difference between the event risks of Japan and Bahrain is one of technical (Japan’s nuclear power woes) relative to social (religion based geopolitics).

The GCC intervention into Bahrain could well play into rival Islam Shiite-Sunni sect belligerency, particularly Saudi versus Iran, and possibly dragging more participants. At worst, there could be a regional conflagration.

This is a very important variable that needs to be monitored because further deterioration can extrapolate to a shift in the tide of the underlying market trends.