Nicholas Kristof has a piece in today's NY Times depicting the plight of present day Athens. He concludes that the economic collapse of Athens is the result of "Republican-like" policies enacted by the Greek government. Really?
According to Kristof, the problem in Greece is the result of "austerity" imposed by Germany and France. I'll buy that. But, the question is why is the austerity being imposed. The answer, which Kristof seems blissfully unaware of, is that Greece is broke and cannot borrow any more money from anywhere. Thus, on their knees, they have gone to the ECB for funding. Should the ECB simply write them a blank check. That seems to be the view of Kristof.
Kristof joins a long list of commentators that cannot seems to add and subtract. Where is the money to come from to continue to support Greek profligacy? Kristof, like most far left commentators, seems unconcerned about who pays for all of this. But, at some point, someone must pay for all of this. Who is that to be?
Greece is suffering from living way beyond it's means. Nothing more, nothing less. They should default on their indebtedness and start anew. That way, Greece could avoid most of the most pernicious effects of austerity. But, no. We are still in the "pretend and extend" mode. So that, for now (but not for long), we think we have forged together a "Greek solution." But, we haven't really.
As Kristof notes, austerity is disastrous. But, the right answer is not to blame some outside party for removing the punch bowl. The right answer is honesty. Admit that Greece cannot pay its debts and start anew. Just doing debt swaps with private creditors is not enough . Greece needs a total debt workout with all of its creditors, not just with the private ones.
Meanwhile, Kristof needs a lesson in arithmetic. No one can afford what goes on in Europe or the US. Eventually, those funding this kind of nonsense will quite funding it. That's where we are with Greece.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
The Right Energy Policy
Why does the US government need an "energy policy?" The free market is available. Oil companies, owned mostly by average Americans through their pension investments, will develop whatever is needed. Recent natural gas discoveries and production have blunted the environmental argument against the use of fossil fuels. So, why doesn't government just get out of the way?
The Obama crowd seems to believe that if they legislate a drop in demand that will solve the energy problem. I guess, in the extreme, if they were to outlaw the use of cars, fossil fuel consumption would drop precipitously. Outlawing cars probably seems extreme even to the Obama crowd, so they have taken the half way step -- tell everyone what car to buy -- the Volt. Since Americans don't want to buy the volt, the Obama folks sweeten the pie with a $ 7,500 tax subsidy per car (now, urging that the subsidy be raised to $ 10,000 per car).
But Americans don't like the Volt and it's sales are moribund. Americans like the big SUVs and that's what they are willing to pay for. So, why not let them? Why does government know better than individuals?
Obama says that "big oil" gets $ 4 billion per year in subsidies. Is that true? What he calls subsidies are "intangible drilling expenses," which is nothing more than the depreciation scheme available to natural resource producers of all stripes. Should you be able to deduct the wearing out of plant and equipment? Most people would say yes. Should you be able to deduct the wearing out of an oil field? Most people would say yes. In any event, it is the average American who mostly owns big oil, so Obama should say "we are subsidizing average Americans with $ 4 billion a year in depletion write offs....let's stop doing that and raise the taxes on average Americans by $ 4 billion." That is what he is really advocating. Soak the middle class by pretending to go after "big oil."
But, at the end of the day, why not let capitalism do its thing. By tinkering, by restricting the ability of the oil industry to develop oil and natural gas to meet domestic demand, the Obama policy leads to volatile energy prices and US dependence on the good wishes of countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Why is this a good idea?
What free markets do best is to allocate scarce resources and provide for alternatives when some resources become too expensive. That would be the correct energy policy -- no energy policy at all.
The Obama crowd seems to believe that if they legislate a drop in demand that will solve the energy problem. I guess, in the extreme, if they were to outlaw the use of cars, fossil fuel consumption would drop precipitously. Outlawing cars probably seems extreme even to the Obama crowd, so they have taken the half way step -- tell everyone what car to buy -- the Volt. Since Americans don't want to buy the volt, the Obama folks sweeten the pie with a $ 7,500 tax subsidy per car (now, urging that the subsidy be raised to $ 10,000 per car).
But Americans don't like the Volt and it's sales are moribund. Americans like the big SUVs and that's what they are willing to pay for. So, why not let them? Why does government know better than individuals?
Obama says that "big oil" gets $ 4 billion per year in subsidies. Is that true? What he calls subsidies are "intangible drilling expenses," which is nothing more than the depreciation scheme available to natural resource producers of all stripes. Should you be able to deduct the wearing out of plant and equipment? Most people would say yes. Should you be able to deduct the wearing out of an oil field? Most people would say yes. In any event, it is the average American who mostly owns big oil, so Obama should say "we are subsidizing average Americans with $ 4 billion a year in depletion write offs....let's stop doing that and raise the taxes on average Americans by $ 4 billion." That is what he is really advocating. Soak the middle class by pretending to go after "big oil."
But, at the end of the day, why not let capitalism do its thing. By tinkering, by restricting the ability of the oil industry to develop oil and natural gas to meet domestic demand, the Obama policy leads to volatile energy prices and US dependence on the good wishes of countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Why is this a good idea?
What free markets do best is to allocate scarce resources and provide for alternatives when some resources become too expensive. That would be the correct energy policy -- no energy policy at all.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Austerity as the Welfare State Unravels
We are treated daily to news accounts of families suffering from removal of government benefits that such families had come to expect. Today's NYTimes features a community in England facing the loss of a government-provided day-care center. These stories describe the often desperate plight of families suddenly deprived of something that they had come to depend upon. This is the cruel downside of the modern welfare state.
Inevitably, the welfare state, in every country, expands it's reach into every aspect of life. Eventually, with the elimination of private saving and a sense of personal responsibility, the welfare state becomes wildly unaffordable. That's where we are now in most of the Western world. Now comes the painful, but inevitable, process of dismantling the welfare state as the promises run up against reality.
The money has to come from somewhere. No matter how loudly welfare proponents proclaim the existence of this economic right or that economic right (now proclaiming, for example, the right to publicly provided contraception!). Europe now and the US soon will unravel their welfare states, since there is no one out there willing to fund ithem. No doubt the NYTimes will treat us to more stories of families who, having abandoned earlier habits of thrift and self reliance to accept government welfare, now face the withdrawal of those benefits.
There is no limit to the expansion of the welfare state short of catastrophe because those who are it's proponents are unmoved by arguments about incentives and affordability. But, numbers are numbers, so more and more families in the West will be forced to face the harsh realities that the welfare state and it's ultimate dissolution will impose.
Inevitably, the welfare state, in every country, expands it's reach into every aspect of life. Eventually, with the elimination of private saving and a sense of personal responsibility, the welfare state becomes wildly unaffordable. That's where we are now in most of the Western world. Now comes the painful, but inevitable, process of dismantling the welfare state as the promises run up against reality.
The money has to come from somewhere. No matter how loudly welfare proponents proclaim the existence of this economic right or that economic right (now proclaiming, for example, the right to publicly provided contraception!). Europe now and the US soon will unravel their welfare states, since there is no one out there willing to fund ithem. No doubt the NYTimes will treat us to more stories of families who, having abandoned earlier habits of thrift and self reliance to accept government welfare, now face the withdrawal of those benefits.
There is no limit to the expansion of the welfare state short of catastrophe because those who are it's proponents are unmoved by arguments about incentives and affordability. But, numbers are numbers, so more and more families in the West will be forced to face the harsh realities that the welfare state and it's ultimate dissolution will impose.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Valuing Common Stocks
The smart money is still bearish. With the Dow Jones hovering just below the 13,000 level, the financial pundits are almost unanimous in their bearish outlook. The exception to the gloom is the optimistic view of the sell side -- the brokers. They like the market here, but then, they pretty much always like the market. It comes with the territory (that is, the job).
So, are the bears right? Is the party over? Is it time to take a pause?
First a caveat. The only honest answer is that no one really knows, no matter how convincing one's argument may be.
That said, my guess is that the pundits are wrong. Common stocks will likely be much higher in value ten years from now than they are now. It would not be a surprise to see stock performance exceed historical levels over the next ten years, which would mean a Dow Jones of over 30,000 by 2022.
But what of the next twelve months? Will the market conveniently sell off or pause to give the late-comers an opportunity to climb aboard? I doubt it.
That doesn't mean that the economy is set to take off. It isn't The economy will continue to plod along with high levels of unemployment and very slow economic growth. Businesses will continue to find ways to avoid employees and taxpayers will look for ways to avoid the tax hikes that everyone knows are likely to be in our future. This means continued economic stagnation, albeit a slowly expanding economy.
This is not an economy that provides opportunity for those with limited economic means. That has been effectively precluded by government policy. But, it is an economy that benefits those who ride on top of the stagecoach. Their ride will get better, stocks will go higher. The Warren Buffetts will do well (and they won't pay higher taxes, even if they face higher tax rates).
So, are the bears right? Is the party over? Is it time to take a pause?
First a caveat. The only honest answer is that no one really knows, no matter how convincing one's argument may be.
That said, my guess is that the pundits are wrong. Common stocks will likely be much higher in value ten years from now than they are now. It would not be a surprise to see stock performance exceed historical levels over the next ten years, which would mean a Dow Jones of over 30,000 by 2022.
But what of the next twelve months? Will the market conveniently sell off or pause to give the late-comers an opportunity to climb aboard? I doubt it.
That doesn't mean that the economy is set to take off. It isn't The economy will continue to plod along with high levels of unemployment and very slow economic growth. Businesses will continue to find ways to avoid employees and taxpayers will look for ways to avoid the tax hikes that everyone knows are likely to be in our future. This means continued economic stagnation, albeit a slowly expanding economy.
This is not an economy that provides opportunity for those with limited economic means. That has been effectively precluded by government policy. But, it is an economy that benefits those who ride on top of the stagecoach. Their ride will get better, stocks will go higher. The Warren Buffetts will do well (and they won't pay higher taxes, even if they face higher tax rates).
Monday, 5 March 2012
RHBRI: 4Q11 Earnings Review and Market Strategy
In tandem with the moderating economic growth trend, corporate earnings remained weak in 4Q 2011. Of the 113 reported earnings that we cover, 55 of the results (48.7% of the total) were within our expectations, 33 below projections (29.2% of the total) and 25 above forecasts (22.1%) (see Table 1). Against the consensus numbers, 44.2% of the reported earnings were within expectations, 38.1% below and 17.7% above projections (see Table 2). Sequentially, net EPS for the FBM KLCI stocks under our coverage weakened back to +1.7% qoq and +2.8% yoy in the 4Q, from +8.9% qoq and +12.4% yoy in the previous quarter (see Chart 1).
However, the downgrade to upgrade ratio has improved significantly to 1.07 times, from 1.65 times in the previous quarter. Overall, 2011 has been a year where Corporate Malaysia suffered from slowing sales and falling utilisation rates. This, coupled with the trend of higher costs, resulted in falling margins for many companies under our coverage. Consequently, normalised net EPS growth for the FBM KLCI stocks under our coverage slowed sharply from 20.9% in 2010 to +4.7% in 2011. The sharp slowdown in EPS growth, however, partly reflected the higher base effect as well as the plunge in Tenaga’s earnings arising from the gas curtailment issue. Excluding Tenaga, our 2011’s normalised net EPS for the FBM KLCI stocks has slowed down less significantly to +10.1%, from +21.2% in 2010.
Businesses Turning More Upbeat
What’s worth highlighting is that Corporate Malaysia are becoming less pessimistic and expect their business prospects to be stable with prospects of it turning up gradually as the year progresses. Likewise, we expect almost all sectors to record flat or improved earnings in 1Q 2012, with the exception of transport and semiconductor sectors. In our view, earnings of the transportation companies will still likely to be weighed down by slower economic growth and rising fuel costs. Whilst we also expect the semiconductor industry to suffer weak earnings in the 1Q, its outlook should improve from 2Q as cost rationalisation and stronger chip sales will likely translate into a significant improvement in earnings thereafter.
Meanwhile, we have seen more aggressive inventory write-down by companies, particularly amongst the steel product manufacturers. At the same time, banks could have also made pre-emptive provisions for loan impairment. Consequently, barring unforeseen circumstances, the downside risk to corporate earnings may not be as significant moving forward and analysts have turned less pessimistic in their assumptions for earnings projections.
Earnings Revised Up
Overall, we have adjusted some of the assumptions, translating to an upward revision in our 2012’s normalised net EPS growth for the FBM KLCI stocks under our coverage to +12.3% (see Table 3), from +10.3% previously (as reflected in our 2012 Market Outlook & Strategy Report dated 16 December, 2011). Excluding Tenaga, our 2012’s normalised net EPS for the FBM KLCl stocks has also been revised up to 8.8%, from 7.8% two months ago. The upward revisions in earnings were more significant in the oil & gas, consumer and utilities sectors (see Table 4). Similarly, our 2013 earnings estimate for the KLCI benchmark has been tweaked up slightly to 7.9% (+7.0% ex-Tenaga), from +7.3% (+5.5% ex-Tenaga) previously.
General Election Will Create Volatility,
Not Likely To Be A Game Changer
On the local front, a key event that will have significant bearing to the equity market is the impending general election. There are strong market expectations that the country’s general election (due in March 2013) will be held any time soon. Given what happened during the previous general elections on 8 March 2008 where the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN), lost two-thirds majority, there are fears that if BN were to lose a simple majority, the local bourse could suffer a major temporary setback. This is on account of uncertainty in the continuity of the country’s economic policies that could slow down the implementation of the economic Transformation Programme (ETP). We, however, believe that the likelihood of this happening is low.
Market Strategy :
Buy On Dips With Increasing Focus On Recovery Sectors
Whilst not all the external risk factors have gone away and the impending general election locally could also create uncertainty for the local bourse, the global economic recession risk is receding. Consequently, we are turning more positive on the market. Nevertheless, as fundamentals are just starting to improve, earnings will still need to play catch up for stocks with rich valuations before the market can scale new heights.
Consequently, the risk of a market pullback and consolidation in the near term is still high although we believe that any volatility in the market would provide opportunity for investors to accumulate fundamentally-robust stocks on weakness. We are also turning more positive on cyclical sectors that are poised for recovery, although investors’ risk perceptions can still change very quickly should situation turn out to be worse than expected. As a result, we would still recommend investors to hold some defensive stocks that have strong cash flows to pay sustainable dividends. A list of our top picks is reflected in table below, which includes “buy on weakness” tactical holdings.
Source: RHB Research Institute report
Thursday, 1 March 2012
OSK's March 2012 Outlook and Strategy
While Malaysia remained a laggard compared to the rally in developed markets, the global rally that had started in January finally dragged the local bourse kicking and screaming up during February with a rally of more than 3%. Globally, markets continued to rise despite the patchy fundamental landscape. Thus, while we had anticipated a potential rally in the 1st half of February, our expected market retraction in the 2nd half failed to materialize.
Top Gainers for February were dividend plays such as Carlsberg or companies with corporate activities such as Hartalega with its bonus issue or potential targets such as RHB Cap and MBSB. Smaller plantation companies such as TH Plantations and RImbunan Sawit also had a good run.
On the flip side, companies with poor results such as Maybulk, MAS and KNM got sold down. On a broader sectoral basis, telcos were the dominant play. It was the return of the Big Caps in February as the catch-up played by the KLCI meant that big caps ran up with the inflow of foreign funds.
KLCI year-end target set at 1,620 pts!!!
Moving forward, we unveil our KLCI year-end target at 1,620 pts. This is derived from the average of our 2012 and 2013 fair values at 1,466 pts (13.5x PER) and 1,775 pts (15.0x PER) respectively. We still believe that weak fundamentals justify a lower PER than the historical average of 16.6x for the KLCI. While we remain unconvinced of the current rally’s fundamentals and still see a risk of market correction, news flow with regards to large infrastructure investments should help the KLCI post a stronger 2H2012.
The derivation of our target is as such:
- There is no change to our 2012 KLCI fair value of 1,466 pts based on 13.5x PER on 2012 numbers
- We still believe that weak fundamentals justify a low PER for 2012 and that there may be mid-year weakness in global markets
- We derive our 2013 KLCI fair value of 1,775 pts based on 15.0x PER on 2013 numbers
- The higher PER of 15.0x is based on 0.5 std dev below the historical average 16.6x PER of the KLCI
- We are still holding back from applying a historical average PER as we remain concerned on overall global economic fundamentals
- Nonetheless, the global liquidity fuelling the current rally could continue to drive markets and the news flow with regards to large infrastructure investments should keep the KLCI buoyant in 2013. Hence, we apply a higher PER compared to 2012
- Our 2012 KLCI year-end target is the average of the 2012 and 2013 fair value which gives a figure of 1,620 pts
Upgrading market call to NEUTRAL
Rolling forward our investment outlook horizon and nothing that the year-end target gives some 3.2% upside to the market, we upgrade our call on the market from Sell to NEUTRAL. Given our view that this is a Liquidity-Driven Rally with risk of correction, we recommend investors take a Balanced approach to the market for the remainder of 2012. As the market could still turn south in the middle of the year, we keep some Defensive stocks among our Top 10 Buys. At the same time, the burgeoning news flow on Construction and Oil & Gas means we recommend investors take some positions in these sectors. We, thus, expand our Top Sector calls from Consumer and Telcos to also include Construction, Oil & Gas and Banks.
Top Buys are a balanced mix
Our revised 2012 Top Buys represent a balanced mix of Defensive and Cyclical stocks with a range of deep value to reasonable yield plays. Our Top Buys are Maybank, CIMB, Axiata, TM, Gamuda among the Big Caps and Dialog, KPJ, QL, Padini and KimLun among the Mid and Small Caps.
For March, given the uncertainty remaining in the market, we introduce a balanced Big-Small-Cyclical-Defensive portfolio. As such, we select Maybank, CIMB, Axiata, Gamuda and KPJ as our March top buys.
Source: Excerpt from OSK Research report
Another Economist Off the Rails
Maybe he is being misquoted! In today's NY Times Professor Ronald Kurtz of MIT's Sloan School of Management is described as believing, in his new book, that tax policy is the reason we have an out of control debt situation. If Kurtz believes this, he must have some serious trouble with arithmetic. Taxes are really irrelevant to our long run debt situation -- whether high or low. The entitlements cannot be afforded if we were able to grab 100 percent of everyone's income -- rich and poor.
So what difference does the tax rate make? There are, of course, two debates going on. One is the "fairness" debate which is a bit misleading, since those who advocate "higher taxes on the rich" are well aware that higher tax rates may end up reducing what rich people will show as taxable income and reduce revenues, potentially dramatically reduce revenues. So "fairness" may come at the price of lowered federal revenues. Is that fair?
The other part of the debate is that higher marginal tax rates reduce incentives for business expansion and employment. Those who deny this point to earlier periods when marginal rates were higher. But, no one paid those higher rates of yesteryear. There were far too many loopholes.
When John Kennedy was first sworn in, he asked for a report on all the taxpayers paying the 91 percent rate, which was the highest rate at the time. Guess what? There were a whopping total of seven taxpayers paying that rate. No one willingly pays rates like that. You wouldn't either (neither would Warren Buffett). The rich simply shift assets around so that no income shows up. One of the wealthy taxpayers in 1961, Mrs. Dodge, a General Motors heiress from Grosse Point, didn't even file a tax return. Her assets were all in tax free municipal bonds. So, do you think Mrs. Dodge cared a whit whether rates were 30 %, 70 %, 91 %, or 100 %.
So, what did John Kennedy do? He sent a bill over to Congress to lower the highest marginal tax rate from 91 % to 70%. His purpose? To increase tax revenues. President Kennedy got the point, that seems lost on Professor Kurtz.
Anyway, here we go again. Another economist who thinks that a $ 66 trillion unfunded liability can be dealt with by taxing a hand full of wealthy Americans.
So what difference does the tax rate make? There are, of course, two debates going on. One is the "fairness" debate which is a bit misleading, since those who advocate "higher taxes on the rich" are well aware that higher tax rates may end up reducing what rich people will show as taxable income and reduce revenues, potentially dramatically reduce revenues. So "fairness" may come at the price of lowered federal revenues. Is that fair?
The other part of the debate is that higher marginal tax rates reduce incentives for business expansion and employment. Those who deny this point to earlier periods when marginal rates were higher. But, no one paid those higher rates of yesteryear. There were far too many loopholes.
When John Kennedy was first sworn in, he asked for a report on all the taxpayers paying the 91 percent rate, which was the highest rate at the time. Guess what? There were a whopping total of seven taxpayers paying that rate. No one willingly pays rates like that. You wouldn't either (neither would Warren Buffett). The rich simply shift assets around so that no income shows up. One of the wealthy taxpayers in 1961, Mrs. Dodge, a General Motors heiress from Grosse Point, didn't even file a tax return. Her assets were all in tax free municipal bonds. So, do you think Mrs. Dodge cared a whit whether rates were 30 %, 70 %, 91 %, or 100 %.
So, what did John Kennedy do? He sent a bill over to Congress to lower the highest marginal tax rate from 91 % to 70%. His purpose? To increase tax revenues. President Kennedy got the point, that seems lost on Professor Kurtz.
Anyway, here we go again. Another economist who thinks that a $ 66 trillion unfunded liability can be dealt with by taxing a hand full of wealthy Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)