In what one can only hope was a rather hastily assembled (18 minutes ago!) AP headline story on Yahoo! yesterday, there was a discussion of the Bush administration’s current position on China and Iraq. It seems Bush would be concerned about the Chinese military, if China ever “turned hostile”, as he was explaining to the Australian Government. Bush said that his administration spends “a lot of time on China”. Would it be fair to wonder what the Bush administration is actually considering doing about China? What specific actions do you think the folks in the White House have in mind?
Remaining in a hopeful mood, one hopes that we glean nothing on this question from the AP reporter who did the story. Without transition, Bush is stated to have urged all countries considering pulling out their troops “to base their decision on restoring the country’s security”. Oh, that is a reference to Iraq. No need to worry that the Bush administration is promoting military options to address his concern about China turning hostile. Whew.
I imagine President Bush actually addressed China and Iraq in close succession at his press conference in Sydney. And perhaps Bush did so in a way that was somewhat confusing. But come on, the Associated Press ought to be able to find reporters and editors who can sift through the word salad and report something lucid about what the United States President has had to say at a meeting with another head of state. Right? The fact that this AP story is still on the web, largely uncorrected, is bad news indeed for the US media consumer. But do you think anybody cares, or will even notice?
Friday, August 31, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Temasek's investment leadership
I have been thinking of late about the recently-published annual report of Temasek Holdings, one of Singapore's sovereign wealth funds. Temasek is boasting that it now has more than US$100 billion under management, making it a sizable investor by almost anybody's scale. My recent ramblings on this page have been based on the idea that sovereign wealth funds may, together, make-up the next massive wave of investment around the world. I have also long seen Singapore as a leader in investment-related matters. So I wonder what this report may tell us about Singapore's role in the future of global investment.
Moving things around - "intermediation" may be the more technical term - is among Singapore's core skills. Singapore's deep history is rooted in its being the mid-point - by sea - between major ports in India and China. As a port, Singapore has long made a living getting things in and out of the place. This trans-shipment tradition continues today, as Singapore remains the busiest container port in the world. Singapore intermediates other things as well. Perhaps most importantly these days, oil and money. The amount of money that makes it into Singapore's financial institutions (and tax coffers) is just enormous. In many senses, Singapore is the Switzerland of Asia for Southeast Asia's Overseas Chinese. In its own way, which is quite different from the loud and machismo ways of Wall Street, Singapore serves a very important function in keeping funds flowing throughout Asia from investors to businesses in need.
Temasek is undoubtedly a core part of that activity. US$100 billion, and look at where its annual report tells us Temasek is busiest - China, India, and Vietnam. These are places where intelligent capital is very much in demand. Temasek says it plans to play an expanding role in these places. I also think it is fascinating to note in what industries Singapore invests. Unsurprisingly, 74% of Temasek's investments are in financial services, telecom/media, and transport/logistics - classic intermediation industries. Talk about money that knows what it's doing!
Large sums. Managed quietly. Deployed in businesses the fund's management well understands. These are fundamentals that are becoming more attractive again these days, as we watch Wall Street's labyrinthine financial structures come apart at a few seams. No wonder Temasek sees the Barclays/ABN deal as an opportunity. Expect to see much more of that, if you are alert.
Moving things around - "intermediation" may be the more technical term - is among Singapore's core skills. Singapore's deep history is rooted in its being the mid-point - by sea - between major ports in India and China. As a port, Singapore has long made a living getting things in and out of the place. This trans-shipment tradition continues today, as Singapore remains the busiest container port in the world. Singapore intermediates other things as well. Perhaps most importantly these days, oil and money. The amount of money that makes it into Singapore's financial institutions (and tax coffers) is just enormous. In many senses, Singapore is the Switzerland of Asia for Southeast Asia's Overseas Chinese. In its own way, which is quite different from the loud and machismo ways of Wall Street, Singapore serves a very important function in keeping funds flowing throughout Asia from investors to businesses in need.
Temasek is undoubtedly a core part of that activity. US$100 billion, and look at where its annual report tells us Temasek is busiest - China, India, and Vietnam. These are places where intelligent capital is very much in demand. Temasek says it plans to play an expanding role in these places. I also think it is fascinating to note in what industries Singapore invests. Unsurprisingly, 74% of Temasek's investments are in financial services, telecom/media, and transport/logistics - classic intermediation industries. Talk about money that knows what it's doing!
Large sums. Managed quietly. Deployed in businesses the fund's management well understands. These are fundamentals that are becoming more attractive again these days, as we watch Wall Street's labyrinthine financial structures come apart at a few seams. No wonder Temasek sees the Barclays/ABN deal as an opportunity. Expect to see much more of that, if you are alert.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Second Hand Litter
What is it about smoking? Full disclosure: I am not a smoker, but I am not maniacally opposed to others smoking. I do wonder though, about one aspect of the behavior of many smokers I observe: littering. For most folks I observe, littering is taboo. When the seventies passed by, so did the tacit consent society gave to the litterer. Aside from the occasional apple core or peach pit hurled out a car window, how often do you see somebody just throw their trash on the street these days? Wouldn't it jar the senses to see that?
Now think about smokers. How often do you see them toss their butts to the ground? I see it probably every day, certainly every week. I just saw it again this morning as I was entering my town's train station. A perfectly lovely lady, chatting about her children's affairs, took her last drag, and flicked the rest of her cigarette to the street. She gave no thought to it at all. Perfectly natural. For some reason it jarred me today. So I started looking around. Before I could board the train, which was only about 90 seconds later, I counted four other cigarette butts and an empty package of Marlboro lights flung around the place. No other litter, just this cigarette waste.
What gives? Why should this behavior be OK? There has to be an answer that a non-smoker cannot immediately appreciate. At least for the lit cigarette butts, it could be that disposing them in the normal trash is a fire hazard? So the process of disposing of the butt would include throwing it down, stepping on it, and then (indignity!) bending over to pick it up again before placing it in the trash. Sounds like a lot of work, I have to admit. And perhaps the avoidance of all this work leads folks to be more liberal about disposing anything to do with cigarettes, such as empty boxes.
I wonder if there is any upside in inventing a portable cigarette extinguisher? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Now think about smokers. How often do you see them toss their butts to the ground? I see it probably every day, certainly every week. I just saw it again this morning as I was entering my town's train station. A perfectly lovely lady, chatting about her children's affairs, took her last drag, and flicked the rest of her cigarette to the street. She gave no thought to it at all. Perfectly natural. For some reason it jarred me today. So I started looking around. Before I could board the train, which was only about 90 seconds later, I counted four other cigarette butts and an empty package of Marlboro lights flung around the place. No other litter, just this cigarette waste.
What gives? Why should this behavior be OK? There has to be an answer that a non-smoker cannot immediately appreciate. At least for the lit cigarette butts, it could be that disposing them in the normal trash is a fire hazard? So the process of disposing of the butt would include throwing it down, stepping on it, and then (indignity!) bending over to pick it up again before placing it in the trash. Sounds like a lot of work, I have to admit. And perhaps the avoidance of all this work leads folks to be more liberal about disposing anything to do with cigarettes, such as empty boxes.
I wonder if there is any upside in inventing a portable cigarette extinguisher? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Friday, August 10, 2007
Dog with a Bone
Like the Captain of the Titanic, I cannot bring myself to the life boats just yet. Yes, I am back to my old favorite: global liquidity. Now, Nouriel Roubini is adding his booming voice to the likes of Edward Altman. We are apparently experiencing a true crisis in the credit markets these days. Not just a liquidity issue, but a fundamental insolvency problem. Reciting the melting subprime mortgage industry, the hurting US consumer/homeowner, and contracting credit availability emanating from there, Nouriel is persuaded we are at the beginning of something big and terrible.
I still wonder. Not because I disagree about the loony levels of corporate (and sovereign) debt that have been slapped on the books in recent years. I am not under under the impression that these unprecedented debt levels are magically sustainable by business or government operations when they have never been sustainable before in human history. I agree that credit issuances are badly matched against the fundamental businesses of the issuers. And so I also agree that a crunch must be coming, and that the longer it takes to get here, the worse it will be.
Where I disagree - or more likely, fail to understand - is in the timing. Nobody that I have read makes a well-crafted connection between the weaknesses that Nouriel describes on the one hand and the huge sums of capital that remain in the global system on the other hand. It seems clear to me that the recent build-up of over-indebtedness is a direct result of massive global liquidity. (Does it perhaps matter whether such liquidity is due to central banks' addition of money to the system, whether the liquidity is merely credit, or credit derivatives-related, or something else, or some combination?) Every problem that an issuer could encounter of late has been resolvable by the introduction of more liquidity - more money at cheaper prices, and with fewer restrictions.
Assuming that is a fair way to see things, what the heck has changed? From what I can tell, massive amounts of money are still on the side-lines, much of it sitting in sovereign wealth funds, whose aggregate size dwarfs the size the global hedge fund industry. Not so, I am told, when one considers the leverage that hedge funds bring to bear - with that leverage, hedge funds are a much heavier influence on the globe. But, I wonder, what happens when the sovereigns begin to deploy such leverage on a similar scale? And where are the fleeing investors going anyway - are not sovereign obligations, like T-Bills, more appealing to investors these days? Does that begin to sound like sovereigns expanding their ability to lever their investments?
OK, I'll slow down. But is it not the case that there is at least the strong possibility of further rescue financing or further opportunistic asset purchasing by these sovereigns? And if not, where will all that money go? Has anybody worked this stuff through? Because I am lost. But I cannot see the logical path to concluding that today is the beginning of the insolvency crisis.
I still wonder. Not because I disagree about the loony levels of corporate (and sovereign) debt that have been slapped on the books in recent years. I am not under under the impression that these unprecedented debt levels are magically sustainable by business or government operations when they have never been sustainable before in human history. I agree that credit issuances are badly matched against the fundamental businesses of the issuers. And so I also agree that a crunch must be coming, and that the longer it takes to get here, the worse it will be.
Where I disagree - or more likely, fail to understand - is in the timing. Nobody that I have read makes a well-crafted connection between the weaknesses that Nouriel describes on the one hand and the huge sums of capital that remain in the global system on the other hand. It seems clear to me that the recent build-up of over-indebtedness is a direct result of massive global liquidity. (Does it perhaps matter whether such liquidity is due to central banks' addition of money to the system, whether the liquidity is merely credit, or credit derivatives-related, or something else, or some combination?) Every problem that an issuer could encounter of late has been resolvable by the introduction of more liquidity - more money at cheaper prices, and with fewer restrictions.
Assuming that is a fair way to see things, what the heck has changed? From what I can tell, massive amounts of money are still on the side-lines, much of it sitting in sovereign wealth funds, whose aggregate size dwarfs the size the global hedge fund industry. Not so, I am told, when one considers the leverage that hedge funds bring to bear - with that leverage, hedge funds are a much heavier influence on the globe. But, I wonder, what happens when the sovereigns begin to deploy such leverage on a similar scale? And where are the fleeing investors going anyway - are not sovereign obligations, like T-Bills, more appealing to investors these days? Does that begin to sound like sovereigns expanding their ability to lever their investments?
OK, I'll slow down. But is it not the case that there is at least the strong possibility of further rescue financing or further opportunistic asset purchasing by these sovereigns? And if not, where will all that money go? Has anybody worked this stuff through? Because I am lost. But I cannot see the logical path to concluding that today is the beginning of the insolvency crisis.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
John, You're Killing Me
It was a very warm feeling, at least at first. I was watching John Stewart on the Daily Show the other day, and he was doing the entire pre-guest show by himself. No bit from any of the other usuals. And the subjects he chose to examine (ridicule) were two subjects that I had just noticed and pondered a great deal as well, in the previous days.
He first focused on the piece in The Economist last week reporting on Dick Cheney's initial observation of the small silver box that had sworn to secrecy, on pain of death, the interpreter who was aiding Dick's exchange with Morocco's King Hassan. According to The Economist and John Stewart, Dick's thought was "damn, I need one of those". John's message here was, as is often the case, "You don't know Dick".
John second focused on the recent exchange between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton in which Obama, somewhat refreshingly, pointed out that the US's not speaking to foreign leaders was not much by way of punishment for them. Accordingly, Obama would undertake, in the first year of his presidency, to speak with folks like Castro, Kim Jung Il, and Ahmadinejad. Hillary, based on the depth of her alleged foreign policy experience, said she would not commit to meet these folks in the first year of her presidency. The ever sharp US media has blown this difference into a huge and fundamental policy divide between the two candidates, which seems odd when one considers what each candidate apparently said. Both would seriously consider talking; one thought the first year was the right time and the other was not so sure. John's message here was, as is often the case, in what orifice is the US media's head?
Although many of you may also have seen and thought about these stories as well, I felt as if I had written the script for John that evening (OK, not the humorous approach that only John can deliver). But is that a good or a bad feeling? At first, I felt like I was "in touch" in some sense; close to things that this thinking media powerhouse also finds important. On longer reflection, I felt somewhat redundant. Who needs a poorly followed blog when John is broadcasting well enough to young folks? Even this post, how redundant can you get?
In search of a new train.....
He first focused on the piece in The Economist last week reporting on Dick Cheney's initial observation of the small silver box that had sworn to secrecy, on pain of death, the interpreter who was aiding Dick's exchange with Morocco's King Hassan. According to The Economist and John Stewart, Dick's thought was "damn, I need one of those". John's message here was, as is often the case, "You don't know Dick".
John second focused on the recent exchange between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton in which Obama, somewhat refreshingly, pointed out that the US's not speaking to foreign leaders was not much by way of punishment for them. Accordingly, Obama would undertake, in the first year of his presidency, to speak with folks like Castro, Kim Jung Il, and Ahmadinejad. Hillary, based on the depth of her alleged foreign policy experience, said she would not commit to meet these folks in the first year of her presidency. The ever sharp US media has blown this difference into a huge and fundamental policy divide between the two candidates, which seems odd when one considers what each candidate apparently said. Both would seriously consider talking; one thought the first year was the right time and the other was not so sure. John's message here was, as is often the case, in what orifice is the US media's head?
Although many of you may also have seen and thought about these stories as well, I felt as if I had written the script for John that evening (OK, not the humorous approach that only John can deliver). But is that a good or a bad feeling? At first, I felt like I was "in touch" in some sense; close to things that this thinking media powerhouse also finds important. On longer reflection, I felt somewhat redundant. Who needs a poorly followed blog when John is broadcasting well enough to young folks? Even this post, how redundant can you get?
In search of a new train.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)