In assessing China, I think it’s important to distinguish carefully between the course of the mainland Chinese economy and the fortunes of China-related stocks.
The foremost goal of the Beijing government is to keep the ruling Communist Party in power. This translates into the economic objective of avoiding possible social unrest by keeping employment high and unemployment low. That’s quite a trick when you’re managing the transition from a rural, agriculture-based society to a more urban and manufacturing-oriented one.
In addition, China dedicated itself to creating a Western-style market-based economy in the late 1970s when it realized the country was too complex for central planning to work. Again, hard to do when three-quarters of your industrial base was zombie-like state-owned corporations, when being a businessman was a felony and where citizens preferred to bury chuk kam gold trinkets in the back yard rather than use banks.
Complicating the situation further is the fact that high corporate or local/national government officials are Party officials whose chances for personal promotion are directly related to aggressively growing the areas they control, whether doing so makes long-term economic sense or not.
At the same time, all the mid-level national economic officials I’ve met–who actually implement policy–have been highly sophisticated, well-trained (mostly from the US or UK), competent and dedicated to creating healthy and balanced growth.
Given the large size of the Chinese economy and the paucity of tools to make economic policy, the best they’ve been able to do is to lurch between two extremes, overheating and stalling (the latter meaning unemployment is rising–a combination of new entrants to the labor force and layoffs)–and gradually lessen the amplitude of the cyclical swings.
where we are now
When the developed world appeared to be coming apart at the seams in 2008, China allowed a particularly strong domestic lurch to the upside. For the past two years or so, Beijing has been trying to force an economic slowdown to rein in that expansionary impulse.
Policymakers have most recently been signalling their belief that slowdown has gone far enough and it’s time for faster expansion again.
By and large, non-citizens can’t buy or sell stocks in the domestic market. I’m not sure it makes much economic difference whether the local bourses go up or down.
Hong Kong is the natural market where the best and brightest of the mainland list their shares.
Over the past six months, Hong Kong stocks have sold off much more heavily than, say, the S&P 500, in response to worries about the Eurozone and potential global economic slowdown. Since bottoming in early October, they’ve only rallied back in line with the S&P. As I see it, so far there’s no anticipation of a better mainland economy this year in Hong Kong stock prices. Many stocks there look cheap to me.
what to do
Personally, I think it’s important for all but the most risk-averse investors to have some exposure to the Chinese economy.
The most conservative way to do so is to hold companies listed in the US or Europe that have significant businesses in China. Luxury goods retailers like LVMH, Tiffany or Coach are possibilities. Casino companies like Wynn and Las Vegas Sands make all their money in Asia.
Discount brokers like Fidelity offer international trading services that allow foreigners to buy stocks in Hong Kong directly and cheaply. Most investors will likely find it easier not to do research themselves, however, and buy an ETF or an actively managed mutual fund that specializes in Hong Kong or Greater China.
Price action in December and early January is often hard to read because of tax-related selling–losers in December, winners in early January. Still, I’ve been a bit surprised that Hong Kong stocks haven’t done better than they have, given that the most recent economic news out of China, the EU and the US has virtually all been positive.
I don’t think this means that the positive case for the Chinese economy and for Hong Kong stocks is incorrect. It may just take more time for negative emotion–from investors located in Europe, I think–to exhaust itself. I’ve always thought that “buy on weakness” is pretty lame advice. But it’s probably the right approach in this case.