European Debt Crisis: Taxing the Economy to Prosperity

The Wall Street Journal editorial has a nice and trenchant discourse on Europe’s chosen course of action in working to resolve on their debt and financial crisis. (bold emphasis mine)

European leaders are meeting in Brussels today to craft their third attempt—or is it the sixth?—to end the Continent's debt crisis and avert a deep recession. So it seems an apt moment to review the economic policy record of the leaders seeking to set Europe back on course. It isn't pretty.

A large part of the problem is the state of Europe's intellectual debate, which pits government spending against "austerity" as the only two economic policy choices. The Keynesians are blaming Europe's looming slowdown on belt-tightening governments, as if public spending is the only way to spur economic growth. But the problem across most of Europe isn't a lack of government spending that typically represents about half of GDP. It's the failure to create the conditions for private investment and growth.

When the financial panic hit in 2008, the EU and International Monetary Fund urged governments across the Continent to spend like crazy to avoid recession. So they spent, only to discover that such spending is unsustainable. Now the same wise men are urging governments to raise taxes to offset all that spending and even to spend more "in the short term." The one policy none of these leaders has tried is the Reagan-Thatcher model of cutting taxes to spur growth.

Read the list of tax measures being imposed and or the rest of the article here (subscription required)

The mainstream, as rightly pointed out by the WSJ, offers a false choice where government spending has been portrayed as the elixir or magic wand that would bring about prosperity. So aside from the additional burden of taxation, the alternative option to finance government spending or private sector rescues has been the shrill clamor for the ECB to inflate the system or for peripheral states to leave the core to be able to inflate (allegedly to regain competitiveness, which has hardly been the reality).

There has been little regards towards incentivizing those who generate wealth—the entrepreneurs and the capitalists—or as per the WSJ “conditions for private investment and growth”.

Yet to the contrary, taxation and inflation demotivates or discourages investments.

So far, the direction of policies has been geared towards the preservation of the status quo or the political architecture of the welfare state—central banking—banking cartel at the expense of the wealth creators.

This political preference to redistribute rather than create wealth means that any ‘fiscal union’ risks not only the failure to attain the objective of saving ‘peripheral states’ so as to preserve the EU, but also risks undermining the credit standings of stronger or creditor nations. In other words, every nation that joins in the bailout bandwagon will likely get dragged into economic morass, where eventually there won't be enough resources from which to redistribute and the whole structure falls apart.

Politicians and the bureaucrats, desperately looking for short term nostrums, looks like they are digging themselves deeper into the hole.

And given such conditions, the crisis should be expected to linger on and that sharp volatilities will continue to be the common feature of the marketplace.

Financial Reform Bill And Regime Uncertainty

``But the law is made, generally, by one man, or by one class of men. And as law cannot exist without the sanction and the support of a preponderant force, it must finally place this force in the hands of those who legislate. This inevitable phenomenon, combined with the fatal tendency that, we have said, exists in the heart of man, explains the almost universal perversion of law. It is easy to conceive that, instead of being a check upon injustice, it becomes its most invincible instrument.” Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Yo-yo Markets And The Financial Reform Bill

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, hedge fund manager and author Andy Kessler seems right; the actions of the US markets, which directly affects other financial markets, will be in a state of a Yo-yo for as long as the US government continually intervenes to suppress market forces from revealing its true conditions.

Mr. Kessler writes[1],

``Call it the yo-yo market—from the top of the wall to the bottom of the pit and back—and you better get used to it. It's hard to tell which market moves are real and based on prospects for better profits, as opposed to moves that are driven by all the extraordinary government measures to prop up the world economy. Until a few things are resolved, you'd better learn the yo-yo sleeper trick—that is, keep spinning at the bottom without going up.”

Mr. Kessler appears to echo what we’ve been saying all along[2]---that politics has and will shape the outcome of the markets.

Mr. Kessler cites the pervasive impact of the Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), the assorted “crutches” or the guarantees, stimulus packages, and money printing, and importantly, the impact of the changes in the regulatory environment.

Since we had exhaustively discussed on the first two factors, in the light of the passage of the Financial Reform Bill[3], we’d tackle more on the aspects of the regulatory environment.

After having a rather promising start for the week, the US markets fell hard Friday after the ratification Financial Reform Bill. The losses virtually expunged on the early gains made whereby the net weekly result for the US S&P 500 had been a net loss of 1.21% (see figure 1).

Figure 1: US Global Investors[4]: Sectoral Performance

Nevertheless the degree of losses had been uneven, where some sectors of the S&P 500 have managed to escape the clutches of the selling pressures, such as the Consumer staples and the Technology sector.

True, correlation doesn’t automatically translate to causation. The Financial Reform bill may or may not have directly affected Friday’s performance.

However, given that the largest victim of the selloff had been in the financial sector, which is the target of the slew of new regulations, then I must argue that there could have been a substantial connection in the way the markets perceive how these purported reforms would affect the industry.

In other words, markets may have seen more downside risks to the industry, as a result of the law, and these perceptions have filtered into the other sectors.

Yet it’s simply amazing how some mainstream analysts fail to acknowledge of the vital role played by the regulatory environment in shaping the allocation of resources.

They seem to think that investment is merely consequence of waking up on a particular side of the bed which determines their “animal spirits”, or that, confidence is simplistically established as a function of random temperaments or moods—and largely detached from the coordination of consumers and producers in the marketplace.

Thus, many make specious arguments that new regulations won’t affect the business operations.

Importantly, the same experts fail to take into account that entrepreneurs invest with the aim to profit from providing or servicing the needs or desires of the consumers. Thus, a material change in the regulatory environment may affect the fundamental profit and loss equation. And the ensuing changes could also alter the feasibility of the operations of any enterprises, to the point which could lead to either closures, or impair the business operations. The net effect should be more losses and rising unemployment.

In short, business confidence is a function, not of some mood swings, but of property rights. Likewise confidence relative to investment should be predicated not just with the return ON capital, but with the return OF capital.

Regime Uncertainty From Arbitrary Laws

Economist Robert Higgs calls this reduced confidence factor as “regime uncertainty” where he argues[5] (bold emphasis mine)

``To narrow the concept of business confidence, I adopt the interpretation that businesspeople may be more or less “uncertain about the regime,” by which I mean, distressed that investors’ private property rights in their capital and the income it yields will be attenuated further by government action. Such attenuations can arise from many sources, ranging from simple tax-rate increases to the imposition of new kinds of taxes to outright confiscation of private property. Many intermediate threats can arise from various sorts of regulation, for instance, of securities markets, labor markets, and product markets. In any event, the security of private property rights rests not so much on the letter of the law as on the character of the government that enforces, or threatens, presumptive rights.”

Thus, to allege that new regulations will hardly be a factor in the investment environment would redound to utter detachment with reality.

Well, what can we expect from so-called ivory tower “experts” who seem to think that they own the monopoly of knowledge, via mathematical models and aggregates, when their sources of income depends on wages than from wagering on the dynamic trends of the marketplace? (Pardon me for the ad hominem, but perspectives are mostly shaped by interests)

Take the Great Depression (GD) of 1930s, which many prominent bears have anchored their projections as the probable direction of today’s market.

From the monetarist viewpoint, the GD had been all about monetary contraction, whereas from the Keynesian perspective this had been about falling aggregate demand. Both of which has been diagnosed by the incumbent Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke[6] as the major causes from which current policies have been designed to address. Yes—the solution? The printing press!

While both did have a role to play, the oversimplistic account of the GD fails to incorporate the havoc generated by the legion of intrusive laws enacted by the US government’s New Deal program, aimed at keeping prices at status quo ante or from adjusting to the realities of the unsustainable misdirection of capital from the inflation boom induced depression. These policies, which threatened property rights, had greatly exacerbated and prolonged the grim conditions then.

These laws included[7]:

1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Emergency Banking Relief Act, Banking Act of 1933 Act, Federal Securities Act, Tennessee Valley Authority Act, Gold Repeal Joint Resolution, Farm Credit Act, Emergency Railroad Transport Act, Emergency Farm Mortgage Act National Housing Act, Home Owners Loan Corporation Act

1934 Securities Exchange Act, Gold Reserve Act, Communications Act, Railway Labor Act

1935 Investment Company Act, Revenue Act of 1940, Bituminous Coal Stabilization Act, Connally (“hot oil”) Act, Revenue Act of 1935, National Labor Relations Act, Social Security Act, Public Utilities Holding Company Act, Banking Act of 1935, Emergency Relief Appropriations Act, Farm Mortgage Moratorium Act

1936 Soil Conservation & Domestic Allotment Act, Federal Anti-Price Discrimination, Revenue Act of 1936

1937 Bituminous Coal Act, Revenue Act of 1937, Act Enabling (Miller-Tydings) Act

1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Civil Aeronautics Act, Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act

1939 Administrative Reorganization Act

1940, Second Revenue Act of 1940

Figure 2: Wikipedia.org[8]: US Income Tax (left window), Higgs: Government Purchases (Current$) and Gross Private Investment (Current$) Relative to Gross Domestic Product (Current$), 1929–1950

For instance, one should also take into account how the surge in taxation (left window) to fund the explosion in government expenditures during the Great Depression (right window) contributed to stymie investments or production (see figure 2)

As Henry Hazlitt aptly described how taxes affect investment or production[9]

``When the total tax burden grows beyond a bearable size, the problem of devising taxes that will not discourage and disrupt production becomes insoluble.”

In other words, when the expectations for profits are reduced, borne out of the expectations of higher taxes or from other regulatory interdictions which places property rights at risks, then investments will obviously follow—and decline.

Therefore the regulatory and tax regime functions as crucial factors to the conditions of confidence in the marketplace.

Paradoxically, one function of the law is the avoidance of this “regime uncertainty”. But when the state is unclear about the direction of policies and regulation, the “means” can contradict the “end”. So, instead of stability, such laws could engender or promote “regime uncertainty”. Yet, these are commonplace feature of many arbitrary laws.

Take the recently enacted Financial Reform Bill, it has been reported to contain 2,319 pages (see figure 2)

Figure 2: Mark Perry[10]: Major Financial Legislation: Number of Pages

The sheer mountain of pages by itself would make the reformist law seem like a regulatory quagmire and appears appallingly political relative to the enforcement issues.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll explains[11],

``With the single stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill that set in motion 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. Each of the 243 rule-makings will employ hundreds of banking lobbyists as they try to shape what the final actual laws will look like. And when the rules are finally written, thousands of lawyers will bill millions of hours as the richest incumbent financial firms that caused the last crisis figure out how to game the new system.”

The implication is that where financial firms compete, not to please customers, but to gain the favour of regulators, this essentially represents as the hallmarks of corporatism or crony capitalism.

Thus, the financial reform bill is likely to foster political privileges which entrenches the “too big too fail” institutions, who will profit from economic rent.

The litany of adverse effects from such ambiguous bill will be one of expanded corruption, lack of credit access for consumers, reduced consumers protection (in contrast to the purported letter of the law), regulatory capture, regulatory arbitrages, higher risks to taxpayers on greater risk appetite for the politically privileged firms (moral hazard issue), increased red tape via an expanded bureaucracy, higher compliance costs, more government spending and reduced competition which overall translates to broad based economic inefficiencies.

Yet the reformist law is also said not only to be opaque, but gives undue confiscatory power based on the whims of regulators.

Mr. Kessler writes[12], ``What is even more troubling is the prospect of government seizures built into the Dodd-Frank financial bill. This is much like the seizure of property from auto industry bond holders (denounced as speculators) in the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler.

``Dodd-Frank also provides government leeway to seize firms it considers a systemic risk, without really defining what that systemic risk is. Why anyone would provide debt to large financial institutions (or auto makers) is beyond me, certainly not without demanding a huge premium for the seizure risk. The cost of capital for the U.S. economy is sure to rise, slowing growth.”

This means that Financial Reform bill also entails that the political favoured institutions are likely to become veiled instruments for political agenda of those in power.

And laws of this nature is what Frédéric Bastiat long admonished[13],

``But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

``This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy. to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.”

In short, arbitrary laws, as the Financial Reform bill, can function as instruments of injustice.

Thus, it is NOT impractical or improbable to argue that in the wake of the enactment of the Financial Reform Bill, the ambiguity and arbitrariness of the law and the increased politicization of the financial industry would likely result to greater perception of risks which may be reflected on the “Yo-yo” actions or a more volatile US markets.

At the end of the day, regulatory obstacles will likely compel capital to look for a capital friendly environment from which to flourish.

---

[1] Kessler, Andy, The Yo-Yo Market and You, Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2010

[2] See How Political Tea Leaves Will Shape The Investment Landscape

[3] Bloomberg, U.S. Congress Passes Wall Street Regulation Bill, July 15, 2010

[4] US Global Investors, Investor Alert, July 16, 2010

[5] Higgs, Robert Regime Uncertainty, Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War

[6] Bernanke, Ben Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here, Speech Before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C. November 21, 2002

[7] Higgs, Ibid

[8] Wikipedia.org, Income tax in the United States

[9] Hazlitt, Henry Taxes Discourage Production, Chapter 5 Economics In One Lesson

[10] Perry, Mark ‘I Didn’t Have Time to Write a Short Bill, So I Wrote a Long One Instead,’ Part II The Enterprise Blog July 16

[11] Carroll, Conn Morning Bell: The Lawyers and Lobbyists Full Employment Act, Heritage Blog, July 16, 2010

[12] Kessler, Andy Ibid.

[13] Bastiat, Frédéric The Law

Asia: Policy Induced Decoupling, Currency Values Aren’t Everything

``The biggest lesson of the current crisis for Asian countries is that they can no longer depend on the West as a market for their exports, nor for reliable returns on their investment capital. To address the first issue, Asia has to cultivate its domestic consumer markets to sustain its growth. For the second, it faces a potentially more daunting challenge: to grow and strengthen its domestic capital markets, and stimulate Asian investment in Asia. Should Asia achieve these goals, it would mark a fundamental shift in the economic relationship between Asia and the West—and in particular between China and the U.S.” Matthews International Capital Management Asia Now, The Growth Issue

As we have been saying, inflationary policies are essentially vented on currencies which are instantaneously transmitted to the financial asset markets.

Besides, the impact of inflation has always been relative, since money enters the economy at specific points of the economy, and considering the distinct capital structure of national economies, the effects from these policies are likely to be divergent.

Take for instance, high savings, low systemic leverage, and an unimpaired banking system from the recent crisis [as we recently discussed in Philippine Phisix at 2,500: Monetary Forces Sows Seeds Of Bubble] are likely to be more responsive to low interest rate policies regime implemented by domestic central banks. The massive outperformance of emerging markets relative to developed economies is a symptom of such response [see Global Stock Market Performance Update: Despite China's Decline, Emerging Markets Dominate]

It doesn’t stop here. This phenomenon has somewhat distilled also into national economies, see figure 5.

Figure 5: Divergent Impact On Industrial Production (Economist) and Car Sales (PIMCO)

Industrial production in the Emerging Asia has sharply been reinvigorated in contrast to the sluggish performance in the US.

The same divergent dynamics can also be seen in the comparative car sales between China and the US.

In short, what you are seeing is a clear manifestation of decoupling at work.

This from the Economist,

(bold highlights mine)

``Across the region, aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus has helped revive domestic demand. Asia has had the biggest fiscal stimulus of any region of the world. China’s package grabbed the headlines, but South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand have all had a government boost this year of at least 4% of GDP. Most Asian countries, with the notable exception of India, entered this downturn with sounder budget finances than their Western counterparts, so they had more room to spend. Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecasts that the region’s public debt will rise to a modest 45% of GDP at the end of 2009, only half of the average in OECD countries.

``Moreover, pump-priming has been more effective in Asia than in America or Europe, because Asian households are not burdened with huge debts, so tax cuts or cash handouts are more likely to be spent than saved. It is also easier in a poorer country to find worthwhile infrastructure projects—from railways to power grids—to spend money on.”

Mainstream analysts, whom mostly have been deflation advocates, jeered and hectored on the decoupling theme following the climax of the US banking seizure last September and October. Unfortunately, it appears that the deflationary episode signified as a fleeting moment of glory and as developments deepen things has once again been turning out to refute their highly flawed assumptions.

Importantly, we described in our February article Fruits From Creative Destruction: An Asian and Emerging Market Decoupling?, that creative destruction, the role of real savings, supply side responses, and the role of Asia’s middleclass could act as possible channels for decoupling.

Currency Values Aren’t Everything

The Economist highlights another point we’ve been making,

``The basic problem is that although the Asian economies have decoupled from America, their monetary policies have not. In a world of mobile capital, an economy cannot both manage its exchange rate and control domestic liquidity. By trying to hold their currencies down against the dollar Asian economies are, in effect, being forced to shadow the Fed’s monetary policy even though their economies are much stronger. Foreign-exchange intervention to hold down their currencies causes domestic liquidity to swell. Consumer-price inflation is not an imminent threat, because prices are falling in most Asian countries. Chinese consumer prices fell by 1.8% in the year to July. But asset prices look dangerously frothy. The obvious solution is to let exchange rates rise, but with exports still well below last year’s level, governments are reluctant to set their currencies free.” (bold emphasis mine)

What we are in agreement is here is that of the US Fed policy transmission to the Asian markets and economy.

Although it would be ideal that Asian currencies be allowed to rise to reflect some of these adjustments, the idea that currencies are the only major factor for adjustments represent as logical fallacies of hasty generalizations based on unfounded assumptions or Ipse Dixitism.

To consider, the Philippines saw its currency the Peso depreciate from Php 2 to a US dollar in 1960s to Php 55 pesos to a US dollar in 2005 (or 96% devaluation!).

Considering the macro assumptions that such magnitude of adjustments ought to reflect on its products, this implies that the Philippines should have been an export giant by now.

Unfortunately this hasn’t been the case. Instead, we became a giant of labor exports, as an aftereffect of a vastly lowered standard of living out of the inflationary policies accrued from present and the previous administrations.

Unfortunately, such simpleminded fallacy of composition by experts deals with the assumption of an economy producing a single good from a single type of labor funded by a single type of capital.

I’ll further the example; San Miguel Beer which cost Php 19 per bottle in a local sari sari store (informal retail outlet), costs Php 50 in local B rated bars, and Php 200 in 5-star hotels. This is known as Price Discrimination, which basically means the selling of identical products to different markets through market segmentation.

In other words, depending on the markets, some products are more price sensitive (price elastic) than the others. In practice, a product that caters to the lower income class of the society is more price sensitive compared to a product marketed to the high end income segment.

So markets, not only prices (through currencies), are the more important qualifying variables for any required economic adjustments.(yet, high profile local experts continue to call for inane Peso depreciation!)

The fundamental reason why the Philippines haven’t benefited from a depreciated currency is because the local political economy has a limited and underdeveloped market due to an unfree economic rent seeking crony capitalist structure which has remained in place until today.

Besides, if currency value is the sole determinant of economic growth then Zimbabwe should be the biggest exporter or the wealthiest nation today!!!

The Japan Experience

More example; if rising currency translates to “greater domestic demand” then why has the Japan’s economy remained an export dependent economy despite the huge (threefold) appreciation of the yen? (see figure 6)

Figure 6:Gold News: Soaring Japanese Yen

Nathan Lewis for the Daily Reckoning says that aside from the deflation in the banking system what mattered most had been the series of tax hikes that has kept Japan’s economy in the doldrums, 20 years from the bubble bust.

This from Mr. Lewis (bold highlights mine) , ``They began with a series of tax measures on January 1, 1990 - the first day of the bear market - which eliminated certain preferential capital gains tax treatments for property. To take a few of a great many such steps which followed: In 1992, the tax rate on short-term capital gains (under 2 years) on property was raised to 90%. Long-term gains were taxed at 60%. A 0.3% National property tax was introduced (this was several multiples greater than existing property taxes). A City Planning Tax of 0.3%. A Registration and License Tax of 5% of the sale value of a property. A Real Estate Acquisition Tax of 4%. An Office Tax of 0.25%. A Land Ownership Tax of 1.4%. Even the regular property tax, the Fixed Assets Tax, was effectively raised by several multiples. From 1990 to 1996, Japanese property values imploded by as much as 70%. However, the revenues from this tax rose by 46%. You can do the math…

``Already there is an annual rise in payroll taxes, scheduled for every year between 2004 and 2017, which will eventually take the payroll tax rate from 13.6% to 18.3%. (Employers match this, and there is no maximum income to which it applies.) And what about the increase in taxes on dividends from 10% to 20%? Or the introduction of a brand-new capital gains tax on equities of 20%, which had effectively been tax-free before? Or the effective 25% increase in personal income taxes, the result of the elimination of a 20% tax cut introduced in 1998? On top of all that, politicians are talking about increasing the consumption tax (similar to a sales tax) from 5% presently to 10% or higher. Until a 3% consumption tax was introduced in 1989, there was no consumption tax at all in Japan, not even at the prefectural or municipal level.”

In addition, John Hempton of Bronte Capital says the legacy of zombie corporations has consumed capital resources which was otherwise meant for other productive investments, ``the problem in Japan was their ability to keep zombie corporations (not zombie banks) alive for decades. Japan has a “Rip-Van-Winkle” industrial legacy to go along with its absolutely brilliant modern technology industries. This old industry sucks resources which would better be used by the modern industry.” (emphasis added)

In short, like the Philippines, domestic policies have been responsible for restricting the required adjustments to expand the marketplace in spite of the currency adjustments. So calling for adjustments of imbalances via the currency route is no less than a fantasy.

Therefore, I’d avoid listening to “expert” economists who would reason along logical fallacies and prescribe snake oil medicines.

Should Filipinos Invest Abroad?

``No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.”-P.J. O'Rourke, American Political Commentator, Journalist

In a recent discussion, a colleague raised the issue of whether locals should consider investing overseas given today’s financial globalization. My immediate reply was that there is no general answer to these concerns as this would depend on the distinct goals of each individual.

Some could see overseas investing as a way to tap overseas opportunities unavailable to the domestic market, others may contemplate on putting eggs into different markets or for portfolio diversification, some because of perceived higher returns or lower transaction costs, some for tax purposes or “recycling of funds” or some for just plain curiosity or even vanity (the need to feel sophisticated).

Nonetheless, global retail overseas investing has been a growing trend supported by the ongoing integration and the deepening of financial markets, technology advances such as real time online trading platforms, relaxation of capital flow regulations and the lowering of so-called Home Bias.

As an example, we previously mentioned of the metaphorical Mrs. Watanabes of Japan, an embodiment of retail investors who, because of their high savings and nearly zero interest rates, have used the international currency market to enhance returns, which became an important foundation of the global carry trade arbitrages.

According to the Economist, the ``Mr and Mrs Watanabe account for around 30% of the foreign-exchange market in Tokyo by value and volume of transactions, according to currency traders, double the share of a year ago. Meanwhile, the size of the retail market has more than doubled to about $15 billion a day.” (highlight mine)

For those who are contemplating to undertake offshore investments should consider the risk-reward tradeoffs than simply plunging into the pool without appropriately understanding the risks involved. As Warren Buffett cautioned, ``Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing.”

Risks From Direct Investing

Here is a rundown on some of the risks we need to consider when investing abroad:

1. Currency Risk-

As defined by Investopedia.com, ``A form of risk that arises from the change in price of one currency against another. Whenever investors or companies have assets or business operations across national borders, they face currency risk if their positions are not hedged.”

As an example, you may gain 10% from your equity investments abroad but a corresponding 10% loss in the currency from which your equity investments are denominated effectively offsets your gain. A worst case would be to see your equity investments values fall in a currency that is also losing- a double whammy!

The important point is that investing abroad requires the comprehension of the fundamental dynamics of the currency market.

This perhaps is the main reason why the Mr. and Mrs. Watanabes opted for the carry trade arbitrage in the currency market which has now evolved into a $3.2 trillion a day turnover than from equity investments, because currency trading signifies as the simplest route to access offshore opportunities.

In other words, you only have to deal with the currency equation without having to complicate your investing perspective with other risk concerns.

As an aside, this is where home bias has a defined advantage for equity investments, simply because you reduce the risk of currency volatility or your risk spectrum is mostly confined to domestic related influences or variables.

Hence, the optimum goal in investing overseas is to profit from investments on a market that has both an upside potential on the currency and the equity aspects.

2. Beta Risk-

As per Investopedia.com, ``Beta is a measure of a stock's volatility in relation to the market. By definition, the market has a beta of 1.0, and individual stocks are ranked according to how much they deviate from the market. A stock that swings more than the market over time has a beta above 1.0. If a stock moves less than the market, the stock's beta is less than 1.0. High-beta stocks are supposed to be riskier but provide a potential for higher returns; low-beta stocks pose less risk but also lower returns.”

Essentially such risk measure is one of correlation of a market (or a benchmark) among other markets or of individual stock or sectoral benchmark relative to its operating market; see Figure 1 as our example.

Figure 1: Danske Bank: Correlation of EM Markets (left) and Global Equity-Financials (right)

In today’s generally deteriorating equity markets, we see the US markets, despite being the epicenter of the crisis, outperforming Emerging Markets (EM). Of course, the chart’s perspective comes from a one year period and doesn’t show the larger picture. Prior to the crisis EM benchmarks have markedly outperformed the US; where, in spite of the present losses, EM continues to outperform over the past 5 years (remember framing matters).

From here we can deduce that EM markets tend to outperform during better days and underperform during periods of stress. The broad implications to portfolio allocations would be to long EM once the recovery is in the horizon and long US markets when the world tilts to a crisis, although perhaps an alternative proposition would be to long Gold or traditional currency havens as Swiss Franc or Japanese Yen for the latter scenario. This also suggests that in order to distribute or dissipate risk requires the arbitrage of different asset classes in different markets around the world.

Another, the left pane illustrates how Financials stocks have been tightly correlated with the general global equity bellwether. While Financial stocks have suffered more than the bellwether of global ex-financial stocks, the strains of the former has likewise generated a downside trajectory to the latter, the causality of which generally accounts for the function of macroeconomic links (see below).

It doesn’t make sense to invest in a market which is highly correlated to your base market unless your goal is to tap industries that are unavailable to the local market. Therefore, if the objective to invest abroad is to diversify, then the ideal approach would be to deal with markets that have either a low or negative correlation.

3. Macroeconomic risk-

Macroeconomic risk generally deals with the performance, structure, and behavior of a national or regional economy as a whole (wikepidia.org).

Figure 2: wikipedia.org: Macroeconomics Circulation

The fundamental reason why the world has been suffering from a growth slowdown or the financial markets agonizing from heavy losses is due to the fundamental impairment of the financial channels (market and banking) whose transmission mechanism is clearly demonstrated above in figure 2.

The tightening of credit conditions from the US led housing-securitization bubble bust have effectively been raising the cost of capital, eroding corporate profits, decreasing business expenditures, magnifying losses in asset holdings among public and private institutions, prompting for the balance sheet restructuring by reducing leverage in private institutions, contracting consumer demand, raising unemployment, lowering prices of commodities and increasing government intervention in markets. And this weakness has been spilling over to the world.

Thus, the recent liquidity contraction translates to a magnified purview of the financial and economic structure of each nation under present turbulent conditions.

Said differently, the performance of markets in reaction to the gummed or gridlocked credit markets and economic downdraft has probably been a reflection of: one) the depth of interconnectedness of a country to the world via trade/financial/political channel, or two) the overall vulnerability of a country’s economic framework.

In essence, macroeconomic risks deal with the risks of an investment theme relative to economic output, national income, inflation, interest rate, capital formation or savings and investment, consumption, fiscal conditions and international trade and finance.

Thus, investing abroad means understanding how economic, financial and political linkages could impact your portfolio.

3. Taxation and Transactional Cost Risk-

From Reuters financial glossary ``The risk that tax laws relating to dividend income and capital gains on shares might change, making stocks less attractive.”

Whereas transaction cost means ``cost incurred in making an economic exchange” (wikipedia.org) which involves the “search or information” cost (search for availability of goods or securities in a specific market), “contracting” cost (cost of negotiation or bargaining) and “coordination/policying and enforcement” costs (meshing of different products and process aside from cost of enforcing the terms of contract) [wikipedia/wikinomics].

This means that prospective investments in overseas market requires the understanding of risk dynamics from the underlying cost structure of the present taxation regime of the host market, aside from its potential changes.

Taxation is part of the transaction costs that could determine the viability of investing overseas. Lower cost of transactions could function as a critical variable if only to wring out additional profits or returns from an economies of scale standpoint.

4. Liquidity Risk-

As defined by investorwords.com, ``The risk that arises from the difficulty of selling an asset. An investment may sometimes need to be sold quickly. Unfortunately, an insufficient secondary market may prevent the liquidation or limit the funds that can be generated from the asset. Some assets are highly liquid and have low liquidity risk (such as stock of a publicly traded company), while other assets are highly illiquid and have high liquidity risk (such as a house).”

In short, liquidity risk can mean the tradeable-ness of a given security or market.

This is somewhat related to the transaction cost where the more liquid or scalable a market is translates to lesser transactional cost.

Example, the Philippine state pension fund Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) has allotted some $1 billion, which makes up around 12% of GSIS’s total loans and investment portfolio for its global investment programme.

This dynamic can be lucidly seen from the AsianInvestor.net article (highlight mine), ``The GSIS will have a tough time generating returns for its members if it continues to stick with Philippine shares because of limited choices and relatively low volume. Low interest rates and the absence of a strong secondary fixed-income market in the Philippines are also constraints.”

Thus, a prospective overseas investor needs to aware of the liquidity conditions of the market or of the specific issues which one intends to deal with.

5. Political and Regulatory risks-

Political risk is a broad definition which essentially encompasses the changing nature of a country’s political structure. This from investorwords.com ``The risk of loss when investing in a given country caused by changes in a country's political structure or policies, such as tax laws, tariffs, expropriation of assets, or restriction in repatriation of profits. For example, a company may suffer from such loss in the case of expropriation or tightened foreign exchange repatriation rules, or from increased credit risk if the government changes policies to make it difficult for the company to pay creditors.”

Such risks get accentuated when government becomes more adverse to private sector participation or to market oriented economic platforms (e.g. Venezuela and Bolivia) or when government policies run roughshod over its constituents (e.g. Zimbabwe) or with its neighbors (e.g. Russia).

As we have noted in Phisix: Learning From the Lessons of Financial History, trade, current account and fiscal surpluses, high forex reserves, low debt or favorable economic or market conditions can be radically overturned by 5 cardinal sins in policymaking; namely-protectionism (nationalism, capital controls), regulatory overkill (high cost from added bureaucracy), monetary policy mistakes (bubble forming policies as negative real rates), excess taxation or war (political instability).

Whereas Regulatory risks are political risks applied more to specific sectors; from investopedia.com, ``The risk that a change in laws and regulations will materially impact a security, business, sector or market. A change in laws or regulations made by the government or a regulatory body can increase the costs of operating a business, reduce the attractiveness of investment and/or change the competitive landscape.”

Hence it is imperative for any overseas aspiring investor to anticipate risks of policy changes that could negatively impact an investing environment.

6. Other Risks

Of course there are other domestic risk issues to deal with such as valuation risks (financial valuation ratios), leverage risks (risks due to debt related exposure) or company specific risks (labor, management, etc.).

Risks From Indirect Investing

Nonetheless one may argue that you can deal with foreign markets through a variety of funds, such as Exchange Traded Funds, ADRs, Hedge funds, mutual funds or trust related funds sold by banks (UITFs) or insurance companies.

But as we previously noted there are issues like:

A. Principal-Agent Problem

This deals with the conflict of interest by investors when dealing with other market participants because of differing goals mostly due to the varied business models. For instance, investors would be mostly concerned about profits or returns on investment (ROI), whereas most brokers would be concerned with the commissions from client transactions while mainstream bankers or fund managers would be interested with the fees generated from the products they sell.

Thus, when bankers, fund managers or brokers issue their inhouse literatures they are mostly designed to sell the products or services they offer than to meet the investor’s objectives.

As Legg Mason’s Michael Maubossin writes in the Sociology of Markets, ``agency theory is relevant because agents now control the market. And, not surprisingly, agents have very different incentives than principals do. And this game is close to zero sum: The more the agents extract, the lower the returns for the principals.”

B. Asymmetric Information

``A situation in which one party in a transaction has more or superior information compared to another. This often happens in transactions where the seller knows more than the buyer, although the reverse can happen as well. Potentially, this could be a harmful situation because one party can take advantage of the other party’s lack of knowledge.” (investopedia.com)

Applied to the financial markets this means that sellers of financial products have more information than the buyer or clients. Thus, clients or investors are likely to submit to the whims of the finance manager, who are usually not invested. In other words, many people have committed their trust and money to fund managers or bankers who don’t even have much stakeholdings in the funds they manage except via fees or profits.

From Chuck Jaffe (marketwatch.com), ``In 46% of the domestic stock funds surveyed, the manager hadn't invested a dime. Other asset classes were far worse with nearly 60% of foreign stock funds reporting no manager ownership, two-thirds of taxable bond funds having no managers with money in the fund, up to 70% of balanced funds having no manager cash and some 78% of muni bond funds having shareholder cash only.”

Besides, investors who bought into funds are subject to information asymmetries on how fund managers or bankers allocate their portfolios. The risk strategies employed by fund managers may not square with the overall risk appetite of the investor or investment managers could be taking in more risks than would be tolerated by their clients.

How Distorted Incentives Contributed To The Mess

How does this relate to investing overseas?

First, no institutions are insuperable. The idea that funds are backed by big institutions should be questioned or scrutinized by every investor here and abroad.

As the lessons from Enron (formerly 7^th largest corporation in America) in 2001, the recent fall of the 158 year old Lehman Bros (formerly 4^th largest investment bank in the US) and American International Group (largest insurance in the US), fund managers and bankers are not immune to cognitive biases of the herd mentality whose agency problem, because of the desire for more share in the fees derived from profits piled into more leverage and momentum despite being aware of the unsustainable trend and compounded by guiding principle of implicit guarantees of government bailouts, helped triggered the colossal overspeculation fueled by monumental overleverage. It’s not their money anyway.

Evidence? Look at the performance of the $1.9 trillion hedge fund industry (Wall Street Journal), ``Nine out of every 10 of the 4,000 hedge funds surveyed globally by data provider Eurekahedge are performing insufficiently well to beat their high-water mark–the level at which they can charge performance fees, equivalent to a fifth of returns.

``All but 3% of funds of hedge funds were under the mark, according to the survey, as were 90.6% of equity long/short funds, 86% of portfolios focusing on market events, 85.4% of those investing in distressed securities, and 82.6% of futures managers. The picture was also bleak for long-only absolute return funds, 96.5% of which were below their high-water mark. The survey used figures compiled for July 31–the most recent available–and are likely to have worsened since then.”

To consider hedge funds have the ability to trade and profit even on when the market moves to the downside, except for the recent ban on short selling on 950 financial stocks which clearly handicapped their strategies.

Moreover, the agency problem and the information asymmetry dynamics had clearly been a functional component in the bubble formation when investment banks turned into the “originate and distribute models”-where they packaged and sold low quality or subprime mortgages or distributed credit risk, in complicity with the seal of goodstanding from credit rating agencies who ironically derive their revenues from the originators (effectively distorting the incentives to be objective appraisers), to equally unthinking clients or institutions worldwide. Thus, when the bubble imploded, the negative externalities caused by failed government policies espoused and profited by institutional oligopolies borne out of the cartelized financial system will once be folded into the arms of the US government whose concentration risks to the remaining institutions have equally been amplified.

Summary and Recommendations

To recap, to invest overseas isn’t the same as to invest locally primarily because of more risks concerns; particularly currency, beta, macroeconomic, taxation and transactional cost, liquidity, political and regulatory risks and other domestic related risks.

In addition, to rely on indirect exposure abroad via institutional products isn’t as risk free as portrayed by some, or impervious to the corrosive effects of principal-agent and the asymmetric information problem as recent events have clearly shown.

Big institutions have failed and will possibly go under the wringer as the world’s financial system adjust from taking up too much debt more than it can afford. The global credit crisis basically is a consequence of global financial institutions not knowing “who holds what” (similar to the Old maid game), thus we can’t really know who among the big financial players will remain standing or “strong” until the fog from the battlefield has lifted. What we understand is that Asian institutions are supposedly the least impacted compared to their counterparts because of the rear view mirror effects from the Asian Crisis.

The lesson for every investor is to increase their financial literacy and do their homework under some of the risk guidelines as presented above.

For beginners, before trying out overseas investment I suggest for you to get your hands dipped into the local market. Vanity won’t do you any good because tuition fees can be very costly and emotionally distressful. Once you gain experience via the learning curve, you can begin to dabble with markets abroad.

Refrain from the assumption that all markets operate similarly, as advocated by many hardcore technicians, because they aren’t. To analogize using George Orwell’s Animal Farm, ``All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In addition, the supposition that markets contain all the information isn’t true as the information asymmetry dynamics above suggests.

It would be recommended that you should use the international markets to compliment your overall portfolio strategy by either going for opportunities not accessible in the domestic markets or to diversify to less correlated markets or to hedge your portfolio using intermarket arbitrage.

Finally, be cognizant of the possible conflict of interest when dealing with institutions whose economic model and incentives are different than yours.