Caveat Emptor

Very interesting letter to The Economist from James Hutchin published in the April 14th-20th 2007 volume. Mr. Hutchin asks if it is rational for US taxpayers to support a further investment in the Iraq war, an enterprise "without a business plan, and with no targets and deadlines". How many folks think of their tax payments to the goverment in the same way they think of their other large investments? But why should things not be as he articulates them? Would you spend 15, 20, 30% or more of your gross income on anything else without critical study of what the investment was getting you? Think how carefully you track your home's value, your 401(k) plan's returns, or just your houshold budget for most folks.

Most people seem to send checks to their government - not without complaint often, mind you, but without requesting any direct accountability. The most folks might do is tune in to the public debate on the media-selected "political" issues of the day and consider which side of those force-fed issues they take. Usually the talking heads present two of the many possible views as the two "sides". That way, we barely have to think. To appear knowledgeable and interested in a government's activities to our similarly-behaving friends and family, all we have to do is know and chat about what's on the front page of our newspaper or in the lead stories on the national TV network news program.

Here's an idea. Challenge yourself to track your investment in your government as closely as you track your other large investments. Investigate how much gets spent on what, and how successful the effort is. Focus on the subjects that concern you the most, regardless of what the media has decided is hot. And understand how other governments are dealing with the same issues. For US taxpayers, the OMB publishes these charts, which make for a fascinating start.

Connect the China Dots

The Economist ran a special report on China last week. A couple articles buried separately toward the back of the issue were as helpful as the report itself. These articles alone would tell a very useful story were somebody to connect them. The first article asks whether multinational corporations are really investing as much in China as one would expect given all the hype about China's increasing commercial importance. The article states that multinationals' revenues and especially business growth potential in China far outstrip their infrastructure and human resources in China.

The second article points out how corporate borrowers globally these days command ever more leverage in negotiating debt terms with their lenders. The article describes the evolution of the world's commercial lender base from multinational banks to multinational funds of various stripes, and it points out that fewer lenders seem to be bothered with loan terms that regulate borrowers' business activities in any way at all.

Spot the connection? Neither did The Economist. A very real and important story here, though, is how much money is flowing into China (and elsewhere) on the kinds of terms that have proven so dangerous in the past - institutionally and anonymously, without regard for investor-investee (eg, lender-borrower) relationships or commercial leverage points. Post-Asian currency crisis, it should be clear that the first kind of investor to be forgotten in a time of stress is the anonymous investor who has nothing further to offer a struggling business - and no ability to hurt it. On the other hand, that business' critical and ongoing commercial/trading relationships are treated better longer. But these relationships require resources "on the ground".

Multinationals are over-weighting the known-to-be dangerous kinds of investment in China and under-weighting the more secure. And they likely haven't done enough homework even to notice. But Chinese business owners must be delighted.