China calls for a “de-Americanized” world

China editorializes

Over the weekend, Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, wrote an editorial, sparked by Beijing’s worry about possible US debt default, but also addressing its general concerns about the military, political and economic dominance of the US in the world.

Xinhua says:

” instead of honoring its duties as a responsible leading power, a self-serving Washington has abused its superpower status and introduced even more chaos into the world by shifting financial risks overseas, instigating regional tensions amid territorial disputes, and fighting unwarranted wars under the cover of outright lies”

Therefore, fundamental change is needed.  Along with renewed respect for international law and increasing reliance on the UN, 

“What may also be included as a key part of an effective reform is the introduction of a new international reserve currency that is to be created to replace the dominant U.S. dollar, so that the international community could permanently stay away from the spillover of the intensifying domestic political turmoil in the United States.”

my take

These sentiments aren’t exactly new.

Internally, the faction of the Chinese Communist Party that controls the investment of the country’s gigantic accumulated current account surpluses has got to be very worried that it will take the political fall for any loss on China’s Treasury bond holdings if the US defaults.  That’s what political infighting is all about.  And loss could come either through rising interest rates or a decline in the value of the dollar.  Important, then, to get the story out that the real villain is, as usual, the US.

At the same time, the editorial underlines the immense power that the US wields because the dollar is the world’s  de facto reserve currency.  For the US, it’s like owning the bank and being able to write/cash a check to yourself whenever you please.  You also get to defuse internal economic pressures by exporting them to the rest of the world through the currency.  

The US won’t lose this central role in world commerce any time soon.  However, an unintended consequence of the current Washington rhetoric of embracing default as a political tool–and the prospect of more of the same to come–may be a serious China-led effort to decouple from the dollar.  

Potentially very damaging to the US   …but a long time away.  

The imponderable here is the discounting mechanism in the financial markets.  Were large international banks and foreign government managers of their countries’ financial reserves to sense the possibility that a move away from the dollar might actually happen, their defensive measures (selling the dollar) could come very far in advance of the facts.  In other words, a move away from the dollar could snowball.

As investors, I think we have to be concerned that the role of the dollar as world reserve currency may not be as secure as the consensus thinks.  Personally, I’m a long way from acting on this possibility.  But it’s a lot higher up on my list of worries today than it was a month or two ago.

 

negotiating tactics

Early in my career as a global manager, the CEO of the Japanese company Casio came to visit.  That was during the endaka (rising yen) period of the 1980s, so a weak-yen beneficiary like Casio didn’t have a particularly compelling story.  But I was very interested in hearing about the company’s experience establishing manufacturing operations in China.

When I asked the chairman, he made a sour face (not what I had expected).  He said that the Chinese government was very difficult to negotiate with.  Discussions took a long time, so that the company had an increasingly large investment in their success.  An agreement would finally be reached and a signing date set for contracts.  On that day, after all parties had sat down for what Casio expected to be a purely ritual occasion, Beijing would reopen negotiations and demand further concessions (the Chinese side might also contend that these were due as reparations for WWII war crimes like those in Nanjing, a particular vulnerability of  Japanese on that vintage).

Even though both labor costs and capital costs were lower than in Japan (another aside:  this almost never happens), Casio was already concluding it couldn’t make a profit in China.

Relevance?

The tactic of striking a deal and then reopening negotiations isn’t a very popular one. And, in my experience, it’s not commonly employed when companies negotiate.   The one who employs it shatters any illusion the other might be developing that he cares about either the venture’s success or the other’s welfare.  There also overtones of not wanting or expecting to do business with the other again–or, what may amount to the same thing, that the one side will always have the upper hand, and never need a favor from the other.

 

What reminded me of the Casio visit was Senator McCain’s complaint on Sunday that both parties had reached an agreement last Thursday to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling–but that the administration had demanded more concessions after an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll was released showing Republicans falling to a twenty-year low in public esteem.  If press reports are accurate, this is the second time the administration has employed this tactic.

As I’ve written before, I don’t like talking about politics.  The investment conclusion I draw from Washington’s bickering is that both sides think the other will be swept out in the next election.  At least until then we can expect recurring confrontations, with the trading opportunities that they bring.  Yes, this means potential profits.  But it also means ulcers.  So the behavior diminishes the attractiveness–and lowers the potential returns–of US securities markets.

restaurants vs. supermarkets: reversal of form?

trend reversals

The government shutdown means that all the government databases are unavailable.  That’s good news for me   …and bad.  It means I can’t get precise data.  On the other hand, I feel justified in winging it.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Millennials vs. Baby Boomers, probably because I’m one and my kids are the other.  I’ve also been thinking about trend reversals, mostly because I believe we’re in a time when a lot of this is happening.  There are always to make money from recognizing trend reversals early.

restaurants vs. supermarkets

I remember seeing a piece of truly excellent sell-side research about ten years ago that documented the changes in American eating habits over a 30-40-year period.  The essence was that through good times and bad Americans were spending an ever-increasing proportion of their food budgets on meals away from home (eating in restaurants + take out).  Not only that, but the extra expense of restaurant meals vs. home cooking had been on a steady decline from, say, a 40% premium over cooking at home two decades earlier to 20% at the time of the report.

The conclusion:  a MEGATREND favoring restaurants over supermarkets (which were having competitive problems with Wal-Mart, anyway).  At that time, home cooking represented just over half of what consumers were spending on food.  The restaurant share was inching up by 0.5% – 1.0% annually.  NO END IN SIGHT!

Well, the Great Recession has changed that.  Over the past few years, eating out has been falling as a percentage of consumer spending on food.

Details:

–everyone outside the top 20% by income has cut back on restaurants a lot in order to save money– and by enough to derail the long-lasting pro-restaurant trend

–Millennials have not only cut back, but they’ve aggressively traded down to less expensive eateries

–seventy-somethings have changed their behavior the least

I think there are two related reasons for the cutback:

–what economists call a substitution effect, as consumers rejigger their spending to maintain, or enhance, their lifestyles in a world without pay increases and where interest rates are ultra-low, and

–workers realize they can’t get sick if they want to retain their jobs, so they’re eating healthier.

I’m not sure how much of this is already baked in the stock price cake, as it were.  But I think it’s worth taking a look at eat-at-home beneficiaries to check.

Atlantic City gambling in 2013

the current situation

In 2006, Atlantic City casinos “won” $6 billion from gamblers there.

National GDP that year was $13.9 trillion.  This year the figure will be around 20% higher.  Using this change as a(n admittedly very crude) gauge for what gambling win for the New Jersey shore resort in 2013, AC should take in $7 billion+.

In actuality, aggregate casino win will be closer to $3 billion.  …and even that 50% haircut from seven years ago may be too high.

How so?

By far the biggest reason is that similar lower-end gambling establishments have been legalized in neighboring states, notably in Pennsylvania.  Why drive when you can get your entertainment in newer venues in Philadelphia, Bethlehem or Mt. Pocono?

The profit situation in AC is in all likelihood worse than that (filings with the Casino Control Commission would show how bad things have gotten, but I haven’t looked).  For reasons best known in Trenton, the New Jersey state government offered $300 million+ in subsidies to persuade foolhardy entrepreneurs to add new capacity into a declining market by opening Revel in 2011.  Already through bankruptcy once, that casino is still up and running in its newest incarnation.  All Revel has done has been to force all casino operators to pay out larger incentives to lure customers in.

At least one more shoe may be about to drop.  Governor Cuomo of New York has been persuaded (thanks to the Lim family of Malaysia?) that his state, too, needs more non-Native American, non-racetrack casino gambling and has been pushing for legislative action in Albany for a while.

how Trenton is responding to the decline

…after the Revel disaster, that is.

–most important, it’s launching online gambling in the state.  Borgata is the first casino to have the service–customers need not be on the casino premises, but must be physically located in New Jersey while they’re online.

–the state has tried to offer sports betting in the casinos, but its thumbs-down to sports books years ago when Federal enabling legislation was being written closed the door to this possibility

–it’s trying to persuade United to service the AC airport, dangling better treatment in its Newark terminals as an incentive, and,

–newspaper reports a while ago suggest the Casino Control Commission has been asked to reconsider its ban of Ho family ownership of casinos (although unless a Ho-related entity were going to buy and refurbish/rebuild an existing casino, I don’t see any positives here).

success = slowing the AC decline?

That’s the best I think Trenton can hope for.

what catches my eye

As an analyst, what gets my attention is the combination of large amount of effort Trenton is exerting, with apparent lack of any forethought.  AC is clearly important to Trenton, but I wonder why there’s so little effective action.

From a stock market point of view, Borgata will soon be giving us some practical insight into the effect of online gambling on casino operations.  Does it bring in new customers (a clear positive)?  does it increase the amount existing customers gamble with Borgata (another positive)?   or does it mostly substitute for visits to the physical casino (presumably a negative)?