Category Archives: economics

pricing out a low-end shirt: investment implications

May 21, 2013 By in Asian economic development, comparative advantage, Current Market Thoughts, economics, emerging markets, Industry Analysis, Retail Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment

A while ago, I wrote about pricing out a polo shirt that retailed for $150 then ($175 now).

Today’s post goes to the other end of the fashion spectrum:  pricing out a “fast fashion” shirt that might sell at H&M or Zara for, say, $15.  The source of my information about Bangladesh is an op ed column, “The Economics of a $6.75 Shirt,” by Rubana Huq, who owns a garment business there.

Just for reference, the factory gate cost of the KP MacLane  luxury polo is:

–materials           $10.35

–manufacturing          $11.05

= $21.40.

These figures are unusually high for a shirt, mostly because of the small initial lots involved.  The unit price could easily be below $15 now, depending on how successful KP MacLane has been in its sales efforts.

in comparison, costs in Bangladesh…

…for an order of 400,000 fast fashion shirts:

materials      $5.75

–cotton cloth           $4.75

–labels, other          $1.00

manufacturing     $.875

–wages          $.38

–finishing          $.15

–utilities, factory rent          $.11

–overhead          $.11

–debt service (for manufacturing equipment)          $.125

= $6.625

The selling price at the factory door is $6.75.  Therefore, the per garment profit is $.125.  The total order earns the manufacturer, before paying himself (or, in this case, herself), $50,000.  In the example Ms. Huq gives in her op ed column, this order represents about five months business for the factory.

what I find interesting

Although the KP MacLane polo and the fast fashion t-shirt sell for wildly different prices at retail, the material costs aren’t that different.

The markup over production cost is 718% for KPM, 140% for the tee.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, a Hermès polo sells for $455, or about 2.6x the price of the KPM one.  Hermès’ production costs are probably lower than KPM’s, so the markup is likely higher than 1800%.   In both cases the buyer is clearly paying primarily for the branding, not the garment.

The operating model for classic luxury goods is far different from that of fast fashion.  The former sells far fewer items-most of which have very long shelf lives–at huge markups.  The latter sells huge numbers of items with short shelf lives at low markups.

The two styles demand different skills.  Fast fashion, in particular, has little room for error in design or sourcing/pricing from manufacturers.

the Bangladesh situation

First of all, we have to remember that the data Ms. Huq present come from a manufacturer in Bangladesh, hardly a disinterested party.  Certainly she will want to put her best foot forward.  Still, I’ve found the situation she describes to be typical of the garment industry over the decades, whether located in New York City, Japan, Thailand, China or Bangladesh.

Bangladesh employs 4 million garment workers, the vast majority of them women, who are the chief breadwinners in households totaling 20 million.  They earn US$70 – $80 a month, which is far more than an unskilled laborer could expect in any alternative employment in Bangladesh.  Although their families are barely surviving, the greatest fear of these workers is doubtless that the garment industry will shift away from Bangladesh to other low labor-cost countries, like Vietnam, leaving them unemployed.

The garment manufacturer in Bangladesh may make $100,000 a year if everything runs smoothly.  But that could be considerably less if he’s inefficient or if he encounters production delays that, say, require him to pay for shipment by air.  So one can certainly understand–not condone, just understand–the temptation an unscrupulous owner may feel to lower rent by turning a blind eye to safety violations.   It’s not clear how much leeway fast fashion has to alter its operating model by raising prices, either (look what happened to JCP).

In theory at least,  consumer pressure on international retailers for a keener eye to worker safety when sourcing garments may solve that issue–although the same problems seem to recur decade after decade and in country after country.

The more difficult issue to reconcile are the ideas that income of $70 a month is a good situation to be in, which in Bangladesh it is, and that well-intentioned efforts to improve it may make the workers’ lot considerably worse.

the US Census Bureau on immigration (and GDP growth)

May 17, 2013 By in Basic Concepts, Current Market Thoughts, economics, Portfolio management, Strategy Tags: , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

gauging GDP growth potential

Over the years, I’ve found that there’s a very simple and effective rule for quickly gauging a country’s GDP growth potential.  Here it is:

Output can rise in one of two ways:

–either more people are at work, or

–workers are more productive.

My first boss in the financial markets was as close to a nineteenth-century capitalist as I’ve ever encountered.  He maintained that increasing productivity is solely a function of employees spending more time at their desks.  Although this suited his penny-pinching mentality, it’s not true.  Productivity gains come primarily from the employer investing in better equipment, and from better worker education/technical training.

If we pluck a number out of the air and say that a country can achieve a constant 1% increase in worker productivity per year (I’m not trying to be precise; I want to get a simple picture that gets the general idea.  Also, a 1% annual gain is a pretty good number), then a country’s ability to grow economically becomes a direct function of one thing   …the expansion of its population.

the Census Bureau Annual Population Projections

That’s what makes the Census Bureau’s latest population assessment so interesting.

Two days ago the Bureau, an arm of the Commerce Department, issued its 2012 Annual Population Projections.  It says that in the US, net births/deaths are currently adding about 0.75% annually to the population.  By 2030, that figure will drop to 0.50%.  By 2050, it will shrink to about 0.35%.

Two reasons the figure is so low:  as people become more prosperous, they tend to have fewer children, and people are living longer.

projecting US GDP

So, what’s the trend growth rate of GDP in the US, according to my simple rule?   …2%- per year, or about what we have now.

how to make growth higher

Can we make the economic picture brighter?

Yes, in two ways–both of which, unfortunately, are questions of policy coming out of Washington.

–We can allow foreigners to come to the US to work, either permanently or by increasing the number of work visas awarded to highly skilled foreigners who want employment in the US for a period of time.

Republicans oppose the first,  Democrats the second (for reasons that escape me).

–We can attract productivity-enhancing capital investment to the US.  This is primarily a function of tax policy, which neither party in Washington appears to want to change.

We can also make out schools better.

implications

This isn’t really new news, but thinking about long-term GDP growth suggests, to me, two investment conclusions:

–investors anticipating a rapid expansion of GDP from the current level are likely to be disappointed (look for that in Asia, or from exposure through US-based multinationals), and

–superior earnings growth–and stock performance–will come from companies that have unique products or services that are in high demand.  In other words, the environment favors growth stock techniques rather than value.

(Note:  I realize that it’s not really the population that counts.  It’s the workforce.  But looking at the workforce introduces complications that I don’t think change the overall picture, but which can easily obscure it.  Stuff like:  the influence of the Baby Boom, the decline in female participation, long-term unemployed…)

 

 

 

I’ve been VERY wrong about the Japanese stock market

May 16, 2013 By in Asian economic development, economics, Japanese development, Portfolio management, Recent Market Action, Strategy Tags: , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The Liberal Democratic Party retook control of the national government in Japan late last year on a platform of massive monetary stimulation aimed at shocking the economy out of its quarter-century of torpor.

Most economic effects have been as expected.  The ¥ has lost about a quarter of its value.  This has given export-oriented industries a big boost.  The price of imports has risen by enough, however, that the overall effect of devaluation on Japan has been slightly negative so far.  The trade balance will doubtless improve as Japanese citizens adjust to the tremendous drop in their standard of living that the devaluation has brought about.

Where I’ve been wrong has been in handicapping the behavior of the Japanese stock market.  In the only other recent episode of a big fall in the ¥, the Topix index (Tokyo large caps, the index professional investors use) rose as the currency declined, but only by enough to keep a dollar-oriented investor from losing money.  Yes, export-oriented stocks did better than Topix, but the overall index was unchanged in dollar terms.  I thought something similar would happen again.

Not this time, though.

Since the Abe administration took office and made it clear it would carry out its campaign promise, the Topix is up by 66% in local currency terms, meaning a dollar-oriented investor in the index has made a 25% gain.  Buyers of down-and-out consumer electronics firms like Sony have made twice that.  The long-Topix, short-¥ trade has made a killing.

As I see it, the rise in the Topix has been driven by foreigners.  Locals–never, in my experience, the canniest of investors–have  been mostly using the opportunity offered by devaluation to declare victory in their foreign investing forays and are bringing money home to put into things like real estate.

Press reports indicate new investors in Japanese stocks, including high-profile Western hedge funds, believe very strongly that the change in money policy also heralds a new era of openness to structural economic reform by Tokyo, and that foreigners will be allowed to play a significant role in the latter process.

My view, based on almost 30 years of watching Japan, is that Tokyo insiders regard devaluation as a substitute for reform, not a precursor.  I’d point to the experience of former Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, who was given an overwhelming electoral mandate for reform but who resigned as PM after five mostly fruitless years (2001-2006) of trying to effect change.  As soon as he left, the Diet immediately began to reverse the progress he was able to make.

For Japan’s sake, I hope I’m wrong again.  But I’m not willing to bet on the possibility.  As for the new wave of foreigners, I find it hard to figure whether they have a much more sophisticated read on the political process in Tokyo than I do or whether they’re completely clueless.  Given that reversal of the deep social/political aversion to disruptive change should make me wildly bullish about Japan, in some sense I must think the latter is more probable.  My official position, though, is that I don’t choose to bet.

 

 

Yahoo, welcome to France!

May 6, 2013 By in Recent Market Action, economics, Foreign markets, capital flight/brain drain Tags: , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Dailymotion

For the past half-year, Yahoo (YHOO) has been negotiating with France Telecom to buy a controlling interest in Dailymotion, an online-video website that FT acquired in 2011 for €127 million ($165 million).  According to the Wall Street Journal, the two parties reached an agreement last month in which YHOO would pay $225 million for 75% of Dailymotion, the 10th largest You Tube competitor.

This looked like a sweet deal for both sides.  FT would get all its cash back plus a profit and would retain a 25% interest in Dailymotion, while YHOO shouldered all the financial and operational burden of growing Dailymotion as fast as possible.  YHOO would take a big step forward in developing an online video arm.

redressement productif intervenes

Then Paris stepped in.  In a move reminiscent of its rejection of Pepsi’s bid to acquire yogurt-maker Danone, the parties were summoned to the offices of the French Minister of Industry (=redressement productif), Arnaud Montebourg on April 12th.  Le Monde says M. Montebourg yelled at FT, described Dailymotion as a national treasure that must remain in French hands and vetoed the deal.

Odd behavior for an official who is a central figure Paris’s campaign to convince foreigners to invest in French companies (“Say Oui to France, Say Oui to Innovation”).  On the other hand, this is France we’re talking about.

damage done

This government move has bad consequences both for France, and for Dailymotion:

–Dailymotion is now stuck being a part of a telephone utility, which doesn’t have the skills, connections or capital to help it grow.

–Dailymotion employees see that their dreams of making a large profit by cashing out in a sale, or of being key figures in a large internet entity have gone up in smoke.  The most talented are doubtless already cutting their losses and leaving France for tech jobs elsewhere.

–Paris has just shown foreigners that any capital they put into France is subject to the whims of the ruling elite and could easily be trapped there forever.   M. Montebourg’s public post-meeting gloating about his action only reinforces this idea.

–the move is another significant step down the path to economic irrelevance blazed by Japan.

France is not the only chauvinist…

…although it is the birthplace of the Nicholas Chauvin legend.

Every country restricts foreign investment to some degree.  Almost no one lets non-citizens control essential industries like defense, telecommunications or media, for example.  Developing economies, fearing that rich foreigners will spirit away local businesses on the cheap, often enact wider restrictions.  Continental European nations, where preserving the position of a small group of “haves” is a very high priority, do the same.  The US, fearing its growing economic power, won’t let China buy much of anything.

ironies

M. Montebourg seems to have no clue that he has highlighted the negative reality behind the “Say Oui to France-innovation” campaign.

The campaign’s website, which I thought was well done, features prominently an explanatory video driven by the same Dailymotion Montebourg has just eviscerated.

The French love to disparage American intellect and culture.  According to one recent description, we have been mentally ensnared by our greatest creation, Disneyland, and are now unable find our way back to the real world.  They don’t seem to get it that venerating yogurt and online videos suggests you’re a lot more confused than we are.   Or that being lost in memories of the glory of the Ancien Régime is not such a hot thing, either.

the April 2013 Employment Situation report–strong gains again

May 3, 2013 By in Current Market Thoughts, economics, employment, Employment Situation report, Strategy Tags: , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

the report

At 8:30 EST this morning, as usual,  the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Labor Department released its monthly Employment Situation report.  The April figures, +165,000 net new jobs added during the month (+176,000 in the private sector, -11,000 in the public), are considerably higher than the +140,000 that economists had been forecasting.  They also run counter to the downbeat results of the quirky ADP monthly employment survey released on Wednesday.

the revisions

More important than the April numbers, I think, is the story that the revisions tell us.

Not all the participants in the Establishment Survey from which the employment figures are drawn get their data in on time.  So the monthly numbers are revised twice, once in each of the two months following their initial publication.

The revisions for April are as follows:

February figures:  initially reported as +236,000, revised in March to +268,000, revised in April to +332,000

March figures:  initially reported as +88,000, revised in April to +138,000.

Together, the revisions show that +114,000 more new jobs than we thought a month ago were created in February/March.  And the March figures, which seemed pretty awful in their original form, no longer look that bad–especially sandwiched between a blowout  in February and a healthy gain in April.

my take

This ES report is much better than anticipated.

You can make a case that the March/April dropoff from February’s spectacular job gains is the early effect of the sequester being felt–and that the negative effect of the sequester on the economy is not that bad.  There aren’t enough data to know whether this is true, but when has that ever stopped people from speculating?

Policymakers could take this thought and run with it in two different ways, something that bears monitoring.  Washington could argue to itself that there’s no economic need to undo any of the sequester    …or it could argue that undoing just a little bit (really, a lot of little bits) might bring disproportionately large job gains.  For now, I don’t want/need to decide about this.  My hunch, though, is that the latter path is the one Congress would take.

So:  the numbers are good for stocks, and they might lead to Congressional action (oxymoron?) that’s also good for stocks.  At the same time, continuing good jobs news would advance the day when the Fed begins to raise interest rates–very bad for bonds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 195 other followers