Mostly because it's fun, I am going to stick by my liquidity guns for a while longer. This has been a scary week for those who follow the credit markets. Many of my friends who run fixed-income portfolios are not even returning phone calls, they are so busy managing their affairs, presumably looking for exit ramps and downside protection. We have seen stories cascading out of the US sub-prime mortgage lending debacle: LBO financing arrangements are stalling en masse, credit default protection for large investment bank debt is getting much more expensive, US Treasury bill prices are sky-rocketing, emerging market spreads are widening drastically. Everybody is fleeing to quality, we are told.
Other developments are making the media and investors even breathier. Stock markets are plunging. US housing sales are way off. Government officials and market gurus are telling us that these developments may be the beginning of a serious market correction. People reading about these developments are getting even more scared, which must be causing even more selling and even more price declines.
I cannot deny that these developments are large and important. I doubt that my limited window into the credit markets makes me smarter than the experts and the investing herd. Still, being a contrarian type, and seeing nothing that has changed my earlier-posted liquidity analysis, I am going to remain of the view that these developments are not (yet) the beginning of a major correction. I am not sure where all the sovereign wealth funds are going to deploy their vast sums in the next months and years. But I have to imagine that the relatively recent trend of these sovereigns pursuing greater investment diversification will continue. I imagine that diversification may slow somewhat, as sovereigns may find that greater sums need to be invested - say in US treasuries, even at the newly inflated prices - in order to pursue policy goals, such as currency pegs.
But all that money, not to mention the amount of private capital that is also on the side-lines at the moment, has to go somewhere. And the recent market dips must have some appeal as buying opportunities. If not, I have a large mattress at home that I might be able to roadshow successfully in Beijing, Singapore, and Dubai.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Sovereignty's Dirty Laundry
Have you seen the excerpt from J.M. Coetzee's new novel, Diary of a Bad Year, which is forthcoming in January 2008? Pretty interesting stuff. I have to confess as somebody who does not read a lot of novels that the format is a bit confusing to me. Large swaths of non-fictional observations are interspersed with short bursts from a fictional exchange in a laundry room. I could not connect all the dots, although the novelty was captivating.
Mostly, what strikes me about the excerpt is the collection of observations about what the state is, how it is established, and how it evolves. At bottom, Mr. Coetzee observes that most of us are born into a territory where a state has long asserted sovereignty, so the state's structure is hard-wired into our psyche and our behavior. The concept of removing the state (or, I imagine he would agree, drastically altering it) is not something that occurs to most folks or that we would be capable of achieving in any event. "It is what it is", and we are generally content with the marginal tools available to us for effecting marginal change.
These tools include the (false) choices presented in elections - candidate A v. candidate B. We have very little say in which candidates are presented to us, we have even less ability to provide a fair shake in the elections to a candidate C, and we have almost zero ability to drive toward something completely different (e.g., a new form of government, or no government at all).
Even more insightful I think are Coetzee's comments about how a state is born. He cites to the Kurosawan movie "The Seven Samurai", in which a population accepts the samurai's services in ousting a harmful group of bandits who were demanding excessive tribute. Once the samurai succeed, they then offer to serve as the new "protectors" of the population for a price. The population declines their offer, and the samurai leave. I am not sure what happens after that - I have not seen the movie. But the text Coetzee uses at this point in the excerpt is very insightful:
"The Kurosawan story of the origin of the state is still played out in our times in Africa, where gangs of armed men grab power—that is to say, annex the national treasury and the mechanisms of taxing the population—do away with their rivals, and proclaim Year One. Though these African military gangs are often no larger or more powerful than the organized criminal gangs of Asia or Eastern Europe, their activities are respectfully covered in the media—even the Western media —under the heading of politics (world affairs) rather than crime."
I like to consider this subject globally as something of a spectrum that includes both politics and crime. Certainly, there are similarities between (legitimate) governments and armed gangs. Both are groups that provide protection to a population in exchange for a fee, and both maintain power through a combination of superior weapons and mythology (i.e., nationalism, loyalty, fear of outside evil forces). It is a spectrum I have long wrestled with, and I am gratified by Coetzee's text. I look forward to reading the full book next year.
Mostly, what strikes me about the excerpt is the collection of observations about what the state is, how it is established, and how it evolves. At bottom, Mr. Coetzee observes that most of us are born into a territory where a state has long asserted sovereignty, so the state's structure is hard-wired into our psyche and our behavior. The concept of removing the state (or, I imagine he would agree, drastically altering it) is not something that occurs to most folks or that we would be capable of achieving in any event. "It is what it is", and we are generally content with the marginal tools available to us for effecting marginal change.
These tools include the (false) choices presented in elections - candidate A v. candidate B. We have very little say in which candidates are presented to us, we have even less ability to provide a fair shake in the elections to a candidate C, and we have almost zero ability to drive toward something completely different (e.g., a new form of government, or no government at all).
Even more insightful I think are Coetzee's comments about how a state is born. He cites to the Kurosawan movie "The Seven Samurai", in which a population accepts the samurai's services in ousting a harmful group of bandits who were demanding excessive tribute. Once the samurai succeed, they then offer to serve as the new "protectors" of the population for a price. The population declines their offer, and the samurai leave. I am not sure what happens after that - I have not seen the movie. But the text Coetzee uses at this point in the excerpt is very insightful:
"The Kurosawan story of the origin of the state is still played out in our times in Africa, where gangs of armed men grab power—that is to say, annex the national treasury and the mechanisms of taxing the population—do away with their rivals, and proclaim Year One. Though these African military gangs are often no larger or more powerful than the organized criminal gangs of Asia or Eastern Europe, their activities are respectfully covered in the media—even the Western media —under the heading of politics (world affairs) rather than crime."
I like to consider this subject globally as something of a spectrum that includes both politics and crime. Certainly, there are similarities between (legitimate) governments and armed gangs. Both are groups that provide protection to a population in exchange for a fee, and both maintain power through a combination of superior weapons and mythology (i.e., nationalism, loyalty, fear of outside evil forces). It is a spectrum I have long wrestled with, and I am gratified by Coetzee's text. I look forward to reading the full book next year.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
How Liquid Is That?
This post is just to note another piece of evidence in support of my earlier post on the likelihood that the global liquidity glut may last a while longer yet. Usual caveat: nobody can predict cataclysmic change, and I have to confess that the huge and growing notional amount of the credit derivatives market has been troubling me a good deal of late. Check out this post on the Seeking Alpha page for a chilling report on that subject.
But I could not suppress a smile when I read this story on Bloomberg yesterday. It seems that the same week as the ratings companies are finally realizing the US sub-prime mortgage market disruption means related mortgage-backed paper should be down-graded, US HUD Secretary Jackson is in Beijing urging the Chinese Government to invest more heavily in US mortgage-backed securities.
I am sure I am wrong, but it sounds like somebody is asking the Chinese to provide liquidity to help revive a deflating market in the US. The story didn't say what the Chinese reaction was, although I imagine if Secretary Jackson had been laughed out of the room, Bloomberg would have mentioned it.
But I could not suppress a smile when I read this story on Bloomberg yesterday. It seems that the same week as the ratings companies are finally realizing the US sub-prime mortgage market disruption means related mortgage-backed paper should be down-graded, US HUD Secretary Jackson is in Beijing urging the Chinese Government to invest more heavily in US mortgage-backed securities.
I am sure I am wrong, but it sounds like somebody is asking the Chinese to provide liquidity to help revive a deflating market in the US. The story didn't say what the Chinese reaction was, although I imagine if Secretary Jackson had been laughed out of the room, Bloomberg would have mentioned it.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Being Hugo Chavez
You're Hugo Chavez, what do you do now? The world is on edge, quite uncertain of which direction you may go. You seem hell-bent on a vague socialist agenda, nationalizing major industries in Venezuela and ousting foreign investors. You espouse anti-"northern" values, in an effort to consolidate power around you in the "south". You close down domestic media which disagree with your agenda, leading to frequent accusations of your impairing freedom of the media. You accuse foreign governments of meddling in your internal affairs. You proudly hold summits with other national leaders who are at least at verbal war with the United States (e.g., Cuba and Iran, perhaps North Korea will be next?). You co-issue bonds with the Government of Argentina on the heels of that Republic's messy and forced 70%+ haircut on their previous external debt. You threaten to pull out of the IMF.
But you don't pull out of the IMF, after it seems that you realize such a step would cause a default on your outstanding external debt. You don't stiff those external creditors, but instead, you keep paying them, likely from the deepened revenue base the higher oil prices provide you. You don't seek to sever ties with the "imperialist" United States, but instead you invite a new ambassador who is serious about your country. You continue to use the global media, wherever possible, to advance your domestic, regional, and global agenda. You cautiously navigate the claims of the investors whose assets you expropriate. You declare that entrepreneurs have a critical role in the development of the socialist economy.
Although I am certain that you have a clear set of goals and a rational game plan, you have confused much of the world. On the one hand, we could readily believe that you are about to slip into Argentina's behavior pattern in the wake of its currency crisis, limiting foreign exchange flows and defaulting on or effectively repudiating external debt, with an added dose of 20th century-style, poorly compensated expropriations. Especially if oil prices trend downwards significantly, or if you locate another, non-US export target for your crude, we could probably already write the speeches for you - as you have been doing for Morales in Bolivia and Correa in Ecuador - about how the interests of your citizens must come before the interests of anonymous foreign investors.
On the other hand, we could readily believe that you consider an unblemished relationship with investors, even imperialist investors, to be the best Bolivarian example of how to build and transition to a responsible, 21st century socialism, and we could see you honoring contractual obligations and negotiating expropriation compensation in good faith. Especially if oil prices remain steady or rise, and if you continue to need the US as a primary export target for your crude, we could see your speeches describing the establishment of socialism without any reliance on the financial resources of the imperialists. Distinguishing yourself from the violent tactics of Argentina and yet also from the pandering tactics of Brazil.
Of course, there are many other possible outcomes as well. But if we cannot predict which of these two extreme paths is more likely, you have accomplished a great deal of deception. The resulting uncertainty could give you a meaningful edge. So again, what do you do now?
But you don't pull out of the IMF, after it seems that you realize such a step would cause a default on your outstanding external debt. You don't stiff those external creditors, but instead, you keep paying them, likely from the deepened revenue base the higher oil prices provide you. You don't seek to sever ties with the "imperialist" United States, but instead you invite a new ambassador who is serious about your country. You continue to use the global media, wherever possible, to advance your domestic, regional, and global agenda. You cautiously navigate the claims of the investors whose assets you expropriate. You declare that entrepreneurs have a critical role in the development of the socialist economy.
Although I am certain that you have a clear set of goals and a rational game plan, you have confused much of the world. On the one hand, we could readily believe that you are about to slip into Argentina's behavior pattern in the wake of its currency crisis, limiting foreign exchange flows and defaulting on or effectively repudiating external debt, with an added dose of 20th century-style, poorly compensated expropriations. Especially if oil prices trend downwards significantly, or if you locate another, non-US export target for your crude, we could probably already write the speeches for you - as you have been doing for Morales in Bolivia and Correa in Ecuador - about how the interests of your citizens must come before the interests of anonymous foreign investors.
On the other hand, we could readily believe that you consider an unblemished relationship with investors, even imperialist investors, to be the best Bolivarian example of how to build and transition to a responsible, 21st century socialism, and we could see you honoring contractual obligations and negotiating expropriation compensation in good faith. Especially if oil prices remain steady or rise, and if you continue to need the US as a primary export target for your crude, we could see your speeches describing the establishment of socialism without any reliance on the financial resources of the imperialists. Distinguishing yourself from the violent tactics of Argentina and yet also from the pandering tactics of Brazil.
Of course, there are many other possible outcomes as well. But if we cannot predict which of these two extreme paths is more likely, you have accomplished a great deal of deception. The resulting uncertainty could give you a meaningful edge. So again, what do you do now?
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Fourth of July Homework
It's the Fourth of July, the birth date of the United States. I am planning on purchasing a paper copy of the New York Times today and reading a re-print of the Declaration of Independence again, imaged in its original script. Somehow that full-page run of the document on July 4 always adds an intimacy to the text. One can feel quite close to the authors. If you haven't recently, I urge you to check it out and read through the whole thing methodically.
No matter how cynical you may be, you have to admit that the thing is well drawn. Well conceived from the perspective of drumming up support among the population of North America and from the perspective of explaining the thinkers' rationale to other countries. In many senses, the document is evidence of some truly transformative thinking, and it is a crisp articulation of the means for implementing the transformation. I haven't read it yet today, so my memory will be less crisp. But I am looking forward to even the introduction - "When in the course of human events...." And "We hold these truths to be self evident...."
These men were capable of placing their lives and fortunes in a global context, and they drew on their thorough understanding of government and related philosophy. The world can be proud of their accomplishments, and it can learn from them. As I have written before on this page, my intuition tells me that the world is now in need of another transformation in the conception and deployment of sovereign power. I have not yet fleshed out what that transformation should be or how it should be driven. But I consider that the US Declaration of Independence will be powerful guidance for those who want to think "outside of the box" in repairing the world.
So for all you US presidential candidates and campaign teams so breathily criticizing each other for the same old things, please take some time today to think about the Declaration. Not just as another school book text that was shown to you and explained generically as the United States' founding document. Not just as another image and sound bite proving your patriotism once again. But as a continuation of your education and training in governing creatively and conceiving solutions that exceed anything ever seen before.
I would happily vote for the candidate who takes this path of self-education and is able to propose and to drum up US and global support for the next welfare-enhancing transformation. As for those of you who prefer to bicker about whether it is more evil to pardon Scooter Libby for criminally outing a CIA agent or to pardon Marc Rich for criminally avoiding the tax laws, I think I'll take a pass.
No matter how cynical you may be, you have to admit that the thing is well drawn. Well conceived from the perspective of drumming up support among the population of North America and from the perspective of explaining the thinkers' rationale to other countries. In many senses, the document is evidence of some truly transformative thinking, and it is a crisp articulation of the means for implementing the transformation. I haven't read it yet today, so my memory will be less crisp. But I am looking forward to even the introduction - "When in the course of human events...." And "We hold these truths to be self evident...."
These men were capable of placing their lives and fortunes in a global context, and they drew on their thorough understanding of government and related philosophy. The world can be proud of their accomplishments, and it can learn from them. As I have written before on this page, my intuition tells me that the world is now in need of another transformation in the conception and deployment of sovereign power. I have not yet fleshed out what that transformation should be or how it should be driven. But I consider that the US Declaration of Independence will be powerful guidance for those who want to think "outside of the box" in repairing the world.
So for all you US presidential candidates and campaign teams so breathily criticizing each other for the same old things, please take some time today to think about the Declaration. Not just as another school book text that was shown to you and explained generically as the United States' founding document. Not just as another image and sound bite proving your patriotism once again. But as a continuation of your education and training in governing creatively and conceiving solutions that exceed anything ever seen before.
I would happily vote for the candidate who takes this path of self-education and is able to propose and to drum up US and global support for the next welfare-enhancing transformation. As for those of you who prefer to bicker about whether it is more evil to pardon Scooter Libby for criminally outing a CIA agent or to pardon Marc Rich for criminally avoiding the tax laws, I think I'll take a pass.
Monday, June 25, 2007
My Celebrity-Induced Summer Vacation
Well I think I can take a break for a while. There's nothing I can do on this page - by way of getting folks to think about the world and its real inter-connections - that can't be accomplished better by a celebrity or two showing up in some far-flung land. It might be Richard Gere relentlessly forcing a tonsil-hockey kiss on an Indian Bollywood star a few weeks ago. Or it might be Cameron Diaz showing up in Peru's Machu Pichu yesterday carrying a bag with the Maoist slogan of the Shining Path Guerrilla Movement plastered on it. Either way, the related headlines make the point, and they do so in a way that resonates with the majority of folks who follow pop culture.
I could produce pages of drivel, post after post, about the importance of understanding other cultures and other business and political environments, and about ways to interact with them productively. I could recite many examples, including counter intuitive (for the US audience) proposals for addressing many global issues. I could explain the success and failures of inter-governmental relations and cross-border business dealings. I could draw from liberal arts education and practical business experience. I could really dazzle.
But let's be honest. Nothing that comes from my pen will ever hit as hard as the images and footage of Richard awkwardly bending that actress over backwards or Cameron blankly looking around, flashing a deadly terrorist slogan on her in-vogue shoulder bag. Not that I am bitter or jealous or anything. You know me, progress is good, regardless of how incremental and regardless of its source. No I'm just fine with these realities. I do think I am ready for a summer break though.
Seen any good movies lately?
I could produce pages of drivel, post after post, about the importance of understanding other cultures and other business and political environments, and about ways to interact with them productively. I could recite many examples, including counter intuitive (for the US audience) proposals for addressing many global issues. I could explain the success and failures of inter-governmental relations and cross-border business dealings. I could draw from liberal arts education and practical business experience. I could really dazzle.
But let's be honest. Nothing that comes from my pen will ever hit as hard as the images and footage of Richard awkwardly bending that actress over backwards or Cameron blankly looking around, flashing a deadly terrorist slogan on her in-vogue shoulder bag. Not that I am bitter or jealous or anything. You know me, progress is good, regardless of how incremental and regardless of its source. No I'm just fine with these realities. I do think I am ready for a summer break though.
Seen any good movies lately?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Regulating Corruption
Not all of you were thrilled with my post on corruption in China, where I essentially asserted that corruption IS the market in many places, and businesses and investors would do well to consider it that way. I think corruption may be one of those lightning rod topics where folks' worldview drives a given conclusion. So I am not all that hopeful that skeptics can be swung round. But I was intrigued by an editorial on the subject that I saw in The Moscow Times today (some of you have asked, so here's the link to a soft re-print of the editorial).
The author's gist is that corruption in Russia's Government runs deep, but the leadership has started down a praiseworthy path to address it. That is, the Government has sought to reduce the effects (net cost to the Government's customers) of corruption by consolidating the services whose bureaucrats command corrupt payments. The thought seems to be that a single mafioso pyramid-like power structure is less expensive to the customer than would be a disparate collection of uncoordinated corrupt forces. According to testimony the author cites, businessmen are confirming that the Government's consolidation efforts in this area will indeed be useful.
Somehow the consolidation is a part of President Putin's "dictatorship of law" (think "rule of law" with a Russian flair?). Of course, the Russian leadership's motives and means are not seen as pure, and the author cites the Government's own interference and apparent corruption in the huge Yukos saga. But the author appears philosophical and pragmatic about these dichotomous aspects of the Government's focus on corruption. As I see it, the conclusion appears to be that official corruption IS the market in Russia, and the solutions to corruption-qua-problem should be constructed to be effective within the cultural history and operation of that market. Incremental change in the right direction is a good thing.
I am sure a saner mind could make more sense out of this confused editorial - draw something that is philosophically purer when it comes to eradicating corruption. I just wouldn't want to be in Moscow with the owner of that mind.
The author's gist is that corruption in Russia's Government runs deep, but the leadership has started down a praiseworthy path to address it. That is, the Government has sought to reduce the effects (net cost to the Government's customers) of corruption by consolidating the services whose bureaucrats command corrupt payments. The thought seems to be that a single mafioso pyramid-like power structure is less expensive to the customer than would be a disparate collection of uncoordinated corrupt forces. According to testimony the author cites, businessmen are confirming that the Government's consolidation efforts in this area will indeed be useful.
Somehow the consolidation is a part of President Putin's "dictatorship of law" (think "rule of law" with a Russian flair?). Of course, the Russian leadership's motives and means are not seen as pure, and the author cites the Government's own interference and apparent corruption in the huge Yukos saga. But the author appears philosophical and pragmatic about these dichotomous aspects of the Government's focus on corruption. As I see it, the conclusion appears to be that official corruption IS the market in Russia, and the solutions to corruption-qua-problem should be constructed to be effective within the cultural history and operation of that market. Incremental change in the right direction is a good thing.
I am sure a saner mind could make more sense out of this confused editorial - draw something that is philosophically purer when it comes to eradicating corruption. I just wouldn't want to be in Moscow with the owner of that mind.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
OK, Iraq again - Zoloft News
With apologies to my readership (both of you), this is another (brief) post on Iraq. Hey, as somebody who tracks the wonders of the Western media, a fellow has to go with what's covered.
Today, I note the remarkable stupidity that the Western media assumes its readership brings to the morning paper. The rambling AP story about today's repeat bombing at the Shiite Askariya Mosque drove the point home again, mostly through its omissions. The bit contained lengthy descriptions that gave the clear impression of strange religious sects who battle and kill each other for no apparent reason. Because the author included no explanation of the philosophical differences, the real estate tensions, or the global context, the reader could only conclude the Shiites and Sunnis must just be savage nut-cases.
On the other hand, the same criticism could not be levelled at the US forces who are in Iraq. The story quizzically noted that many Iraqis refer to the US military presence as an "occupation" - yes, the writer actually used quotation marks, as if the meaning was lost on him. Hundreds of thousands of uninvited foreign military forces in a country. How could anybody ever see that as an "occupation"? Sheeeeesh.
Also worthy of nothing more than a brief mention was the promise from the US military in the aftermath of the 2006 bombing at the Askariya mosque to re-build it. The author dryly noted that the US has taken no steps at all to fulfill that promise, and then he moved on to the next topic. Not at all possible, I suppose, that such a broken promise looms large in the minds of the "unoccupied" people. Gracious folks indeed - thanks for taking it all in stride.*
* Credit to Family Guy's Stewie.
Today, I note the remarkable stupidity that the Western media assumes its readership brings to the morning paper. The rambling AP story about today's repeat bombing at the Shiite Askariya Mosque drove the point home again, mostly through its omissions. The bit contained lengthy descriptions that gave the clear impression of strange religious sects who battle and kill each other for no apparent reason. Because the author included no explanation of the philosophical differences, the real estate tensions, or the global context, the reader could only conclude the Shiites and Sunnis must just be savage nut-cases.
On the other hand, the same criticism could not be levelled at the US forces who are in Iraq. The story quizzically noted that many Iraqis refer to the US military presence as an "occupation" - yes, the writer actually used quotation marks, as if the meaning was lost on him. Hundreds of thousands of uninvited foreign military forces in a country. How could anybody ever see that as an "occupation"? Sheeeeesh.
Also worthy of nothing more than a brief mention was the promise from the US military in the aftermath of the 2006 bombing at the Askariya mosque to re-build it. The author dryly noted that the US has taken no steps at all to fulfill that promise, and then he moved on to the next topic. Not at all possible, I suppose, that such a broken promise looms large in the minds of the "unoccupied" people. Gracious folks indeed - thanks for taking it all in stride.*
* Credit to Family Guy's Stewie.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Women in Saudi
OK, even more so than usual, I am way, way out of my league on this one. But I have to mention it. One of the gripes I most frequently hear about Islamic countries is that women are deeply suppressed. The accusation rings true to me, I have to admit, based on my limited knowledge and experience. And I wrestle with the subject as I seek to consider how the apparent divide between between Islamic cultures and non-Islamic cultures might be bridged.
Not that I believe the US or Europe has addressed women's rights all that well, mind you. My experience is that women in the West do live and work under very thick glass ceilings (glass, yes, but ceilings nevertheless). And as a guy, I hear much more (subtly) anti-female commentary from other guys in the workplace than I would have thought possible based on the West's superior equal rights mythology. But it does seem to me that the language of equality has come a long way in many parts of the West - that suppression of women's rights has become more marginalized than it was, say, before the 1960s.
Against that backdrop, I was intrigued by links on a Saudi news website, http://www.arabnews.com/. Check out the story from today (June 8) on women's futures, and the links on this webpage from earlier this year on the Top 20 Saudi Businesswomen and their successes. I suppose it is easy to put blurbs on the internet without effecting any real change. But if language and mythology are part of the way to advance a rights agenda, as I submit the West has seen, then perhaps these webpages are to be praised, at least a little? After all, it would be just as easy to effectuate no change without these webpages.
Not that I believe the US or Europe has addressed women's rights all that well, mind you. My experience is that women in the West do live and work under very thick glass ceilings (glass, yes, but ceilings nevertheless). And as a guy, I hear much more (subtly) anti-female commentary from other guys in the workplace than I would have thought possible based on the West's superior equal rights mythology. But it does seem to me that the language of equality has come a long way in many parts of the West - that suppression of women's rights has become more marginalized than it was, say, before the 1960s.
Against that backdrop, I was intrigued by links on a Saudi news website, http://www.arabnews.com/. Check out the story from today (June 8) on women's futures, and the links on this webpage from earlier this year on the Top 20 Saudi Businesswomen and their successes. I suppose it is easy to put blurbs on the internet without effecting any real change. But if language and mythology are part of the way to advance a rights agenda, as I submit the West has seen, then perhaps these webpages are to be praised, at least a little? After all, it would be just as easy to effectuate no change without these webpages.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Advantage Malaysia
The Star (of Kuala Lumpur) today reports that the Malaysian Government has offered to provide assistance to the Afghan Government in economic development. Malaysian PM Badawi spoke from Putrajaya via video link with Afghan President Karzai in Kabul. The occasion was a conference on the role of the private sector in Afghanistan's economic development. The PM suggested that the Malaysians have experience in transitioning an economy from agriculture toward manufacturing and hi-tech, and that experience may be valuable to Afghanistan at this stage. So many angles to examine here. Interesting that Malaysia is offering such aid in a land still so heavily populated with US military forces. Interesting that such an offer will receive zero attention in the Western media. Interesting that there probably is a good deal of merit to the PM's premise. I have long wished that Malaysia would take advantage of its history and position and exert some global leadership.
Think about it. Malaysia is a fascinating confluence of Southeast Asian culture, equatorial climatic influence on economic development, Islam, English colonization and legal/commercial tradition, Chinese slave importation and subsequent business dominance, and rejection of western prescriptions in the wake of the 1997-1999 Asian currency crisis. From one standpoint, one could see Malaysia along with Indonesia as a large swath of post-colonial territory located in a harsh climate, populated by Muslim people who tend to be much less well-off than the tiny non-Muslin country they surround (Singapore). That tiny, non-Muslim country is the product of maps and emigration policies of the former colonists, and the tiny country's population is dominated by an incredibly business-savvy group of people, many of whose families came from elsewhere. Sound familiar? If you were to learn that Malaysia has in fact come a very long way, that it has a thriving and growing private economy, and that its Government is increasingly savvy about its image at home and overseas, would you sense the same possibilities I do?
In the wake of 9/11, I was hopeful that then-PM Mahathir would seize the opportunity for Malaysia - from its Islamic perch overlooking an increasingly western-style economy - to be a moderating force throughout the world. I envisioned him traveling, conveying a message of confluence and moderation, a message touting his country's own ability to manage cross-cultural tension as perhaps holding lessons for the rest of the world. None of us would have liked it. Malaysia is still much too centrally controlled and politically dominated for western tastes. And it is much too religiously casual and indifferent for much of core Islam. But Malaysia has paved a kind of third way of its own that may yet hold value for people in places like Afghanistan. If Malaysia can have some success there, perhaps it would not be too silly for the rest of the world to notice.
I don't know about you, but The Star has re-kindled a spark of hope for me. What the heck, I'm feeling naive.
Think about it. Malaysia is a fascinating confluence of Southeast Asian culture, equatorial climatic influence on economic development, Islam, English colonization and legal/commercial tradition, Chinese slave importation and subsequent business dominance, and rejection of western prescriptions in the wake of the 1997-1999 Asian currency crisis. From one standpoint, one could see Malaysia along with Indonesia as a large swath of post-colonial territory located in a harsh climate, populated by Muslim people who tend to be much less well-off than the tiny non-Muslin country they surround (Singapore). That tiny, non-Muslim country is the product of maps and emigration policies of the former colonists, and the tiny country's population is dominated by an incredibly business-savvy group of people, many of whose families came from elsewhere. Sound familiar? If you were to learn that Malaysia has in fact come a very long way, that it has a thriving and growing private economy, and that its Government is increasingly savvy about its image at home and overseas, would you sense the same possibilities I do?
In the wake of 9/11, I was hopeful that then-PM Mahathir would seize the opportunity for Malaysia - from its Islamic perch overlooking an increasingly western-style economy - to be a moderating force throughout the world. I envisioned him traveling, conveying a message of confluence and moderation, a message touting his country's own ability to manage cross-cultural tension as perhaps holding lessons for the rest of the world. None of us would have liked it. Malaysia is still much too centrally controlled and politically dominated for western tastes. And it is much too religiously casual and indifferent for much of core Islam. But Malaysia has paved a kind of third way of its own that may yet hold value for people in places like Afghanistan. If Malaysia can have some success there, perhaps it would not be too silly for the rest of the world to notice.
I don't know about you, but The Star has re-kindled a spark of hope for me. What the heck, I'm feeling naive.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Purple Haze
Janet Elder's piece in the New York Times today about the "middle" of the US electorate incites thought. The theme is that the US is really not as politically divided as the popular "red-state-blue-state" model would lead one to believe. I do have to confess to falling into the trap of envisioning the country as two couple hundred mile-wide "blue" strips along the west coast and the northeast coast, with the rest of the country essentially being "red". But Janet says that it ain't really so - that US voters are all much closer than that on issues that matter, and presidential candidates would do well to recognize the similarities.
I wonder though. I have been in red and blue states a good bit over the past several years, and I have had occasion to discuss what I would consider to be important issues in both places. During my conversations, I am usually quite struck by differences that seem to me to be almost cultural, they are so stark. I can reflect on discussions with folks whose stomachs turn at the thought of the US activities in Iraq since 2003. And I can think of discussions with folks who think that the Iraqi operation is a laudable and altruistic attempt to export the American way of life to people who desperately need it. I remember discussions with businessmen who think of China as the next great frontier and as a country we should engage adroitly and from commercial strength. And I can remember discussions with businessmen who see China, and ongoing Asian and other immigration, as the greatest threat to US jobs and commerce in recent memory.
I can think of people who are awake nights worrying about what we are doing to the planet and whether it will be inhabitable for our kids' kids. And I can think of people who consider global warming to be a political ploy, only harmful to US commercial interests. I can think of conversations in which people were persuaded in their bones that Clinton should have been impeached for all of the shame that he brought on the White House and the USA with "that woman". And I can think of conversations in which people scream that Bush's pattern of perpetual blunders - linguistic or military - are cause for his impeachment. In each of these conversations, my counterparties were persuaded that the President in question is among the greatest national embarrassments in the history of the country.
I could go on and on. The differences appear to me to run the gamut of local to global, commercial to social, critical to mundane. And the differences appear to be wide indeed. And my perception is that the red/blue model is indicative and somewhat helpful, if not perfect. Janet, on the other hand, thinks this perception is distorted. To make her case, she focuses on polls (admittedly better than my anecdotal evidence, of course), and she focuses on issues like abortion, environment, and immigration. Really, she just discusses abortion; perhaps she has actually been having the same discussions I have on the subject of the environment and immigration. She suggests that folks in red and blue states are not as far apart as we might think.
I would agree that the American political spectrum is rather narrow - there are many globally important issues that Americans do not discuss. In that way, from a global standpoint, there may be merit to seeing US voters' attitudes as more similar than different, even if the issues I have observed are hotly debated within the US. Within that American landscape, however, I find Janet's assertion to be less than persuasive, though I admit I do not discuss abortion all that often. But one thing is for sure: I would love to be at the cocktail parties Janet attends. Kumbaya.
I wonder though. I have been in red and blue states a good bit over the past several years, and I have had occasion to discuss what I would consider to be important issues in both places. During my conversations, I am usually quite struck by differences that seem to me to be almost cultural, they are so stark. I can reflect on discussions with folks whose stomachs turn at the thought of the US activities in Iraq since 2003. And I can think of discussions with folks who think that the Iraqi operation is a laudable and altruistic attempt to export the American way of life to people who desperately need it. I remember discussions with businessmen who think of China as the next great frontier and as a country we should engage adroitly and from commercial strength. And I can remember discussions with businessmen who see China, and ongoing Asian and other immigration, as the greatest threat to US jobs and commerce in recent memory.
I can think of people who are awake nights worrying about what we are doing to the planet and whether it will be inhabitable for our kids' kids. And I can think of people who consider global warming to be a political ploy, only harmful to US commercial interests. I can think of conversations in which people were persuaded in their bones that Clinton should have been impeached for all of the shame that he brought on the White House and the USA with "that woman". And I can think of conversations in which people scream that Bush's pattern of perpetual blunders - linguistic or military - are cause for his impeachment. In each of these conversations, my counterparties were persuaded that the President in question is among the greatest national embarrassments in the history of the country.
I could go on and on. The differences appear to me to run the gamut of local to global, commercial to social, critical to mundane. And the differences appear to be wide indeed. And my perception is that the red/blue model is indicative and somewhat helpful, if not perfect. Janet, on the other hand, thinks this perception is distorted. To make her case, she focuses on polls (admittedly better than my anecdotal evidence, of course), and she focuses on issues like abortion, environment, and immigration. Really, she just discusses abortion; perhaps she has actually been having the same discussions I have on the subject of the environment and immigration. She suggests that folks in red and blue states are not as far apart as we might think.
I would agree that the American political spectrum is rather narrow - there are many globally important issues that Americans do not discuss. In that way, from a global standpoint, there may be merit to seeing US voters' attitudes as more similar than different, even if the issues I have observed are hotly debated within the US. Within that American landscape, however, I find Janet's assertion to be less than persuasive, though I admit I do not discuss abortion all that often. But one thing is for sure: I would love to be at the cocktail parties Janet attends. Kumbaya.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Let's get this bubble started
China is investing $3 billion in Blackstone's IPO. What do we make of that? Well, the US media is intrigued by what the deal signals about the power of Blackstone's game plan. And, of course, tremendous amounts of ink have been dedicated to whether the development means China plans to take over the US, just as the US feared about Japan in the 1980s. I wonder, though, whether the US media ought to get out of its usual, parochial rut, and consider whether the development signals something much more important (and less paranoid).
Something about global liquidity. Global financial players have been commenting on global liquidity excesses and potential asset bubbles for the past several years. I have yet to hear any rational, defensible explanation for all this liquidity. Where is it coming from, and why? Is it connected to a glut of savings from the about-to-retire baby boomers? Is it connected to huge hard currency reserves in oil producing nations and elsewhere? Is it connected to China's protection against a precipitous rise in its currency's value? This novice couldn't begin to explain the liquidity excess, but nobody has been arguing that it isn't there and growing.
Among the recited ramifications of all the liquidity have been (a) increases in housing prices, (b) inflated share markets, (c) booming corporate debt issuances, (d) red-hot private equity / M&A markets, and (e) extremely low corporate default rates. In the markets that the Western financial media follows, the past years have been a wide-spread asset boom that would have been hard to imagine beforehand. Investors have been chasing yield in an increasingly crowded and competitive marketplace. (Never mind that huge swaths of the earth's population continue to live in abject - and often worsening - poverty. And never mind that the liquidity glut will almost certainly not be used to address their plight in any meaningful way. That subject will have to be another post's.)
A debate my friends and colleagues often engage in these days is what might burst this liquidity bubble, and, of course, when. People who well understand finance and global markets argue forcefully from experience that what goes up must come down. These people recite the irrationally high P/E ratios on which shares trade and the incredible EBITDA multiples that companies can finance these days. The argument is that these levels are not sustainable, and a melt down is nigh. Since mid-2003, in my experience, this meltdown has constantly been stated to be six-nine months away.
Perhaps. The arguments certainly are sensible, and they are rooted in historical trends that surely teach us much. But is the China/Blackstone deal perhaps meaningful in this discussion as well? I think it is, and it is huge. For months, the Chinese have been quietly (and occasionally openly) considering how to deploy their $1.2 trillion in hard currency reserves in assets that are higher-yielding than the US T-bills which they buy in bulk.
Imagine the effect on today's asset bubbles of the addition of that much money to the yield-chasing investor pool. While nothing is certain, and unpredictable events can cause markets to tumble precipitously, it seems to me likely that China's investment diversification will only expand and extend current trends. Mark my words, the Blackstone deal is only the tip of the iceberg. Don't be surprised to see China and Singapore team up as investors, to see India and oil producing countries' more openly and frequently investing hard currency reserves into private markets, to see Chavez' Bank of the South take off and become a player, and to see other non-US pools of funds collaborating in the same spaces. And don't be surprised if the six-nine month window extends to several more years. Plan and hedge accordingly.
Something about global liquidity. Global financial players have been commenting on global liquidity excesses and potential asset bubbles for the past several years. I have yet to hear any rational, defensible explanation for all this liquidity. Where is it coming from, and why? Is it connected to a glut of savings from the about-to-retire baby boomers? Is it connected to huge hard currency reserves in oil producing nations and elsewhere? Is it connected to China's protection against a precipitous rise in its currency's value? This novice couldn't begin to explain the liquidity excess, but nobody has been arguing that it isn't there and growing.
Among the recited ramifications of all the liquidity have been (a) increases in housing prices, (b) inflated share markets, (c) booming corporate debt issuances, (d) red-hot private equity / M&A markets, and (e) extremely low corporate default rates. In the markets that the Western financial media follows, the past years have been a wide-spread asset boom that would have been hard to imagine beforehand. Investors have been chasing yield in an increasingly crowded and competitive marketplace. (Never mind that huge swaths of the earth's population continue to live in abject - and often worsening - poverty. And never mind that the liquidity glut will almost certainly not be used to address their plight in any meaningful way. That subject will have to be another post's.)
A debate my friends and colleagues often engage in these days is what might burst this liquidity bubble, and, of course, when. People who well understand finance and global markets argue forcefully from experience that what goes up must come down. These people recite the irrationally high P/E ratios on which shares trade and the incredible EBITDA multiples that companies can finance these days. The argument is that these levels are not sustainable, and a melt down is nigh. Since mid-2003, in my experience, this meltdown has constantly been stated to be six-nine months away.
Perhaps. The arguments certainly are sensible, and they are rooted in historical trends that surely teach us much. But is the China/Blackstone deal perhaps meaningful in this discussion as well? I think it is, and it is huge. For months, the Chinese have been quietly (and occasionally openly) considering how to deploy their $1.2 trillion in hard currency reserves in assets that are higher-yielding than the US T-bills which they buy in bulk.
Imagine the effect on today's asset bubbles of the addition of that much money to the yield-chasing investor pool. While nothing is certain, and unpredictable events can cause markets to tumble precipitously, it seems to me likely that China's investment diversification will only expand and extend current trends. Mark my words, the Blackstone deal is only the tip of the iceberg. Don't be surprised to see China and Singapore team up as investors, to see India and oil producing countries' more openly and frequently investing hard currency reserves into private markets, to see Chavez' Bank of the South take off and become a player, and to see other non-US pools of funds collaborating in the same spaces. And don't be surprised if the six-nine month window extends to several more years. Plan and hedge accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)