China’s anti-Mario Draghi moment surprises markets

For weeks now, global markets have ricocheted between excitement over a Chinese stimulus boom and disappointment that Beijing was taking its sweet time to jolt a slowing economy.

It’s now clear that Xi Jinping’s team has settled on a strategy somewhere in between. And for the global economy, the signals from this week’s meeting of the Politburo, the Communist Party’s top decision-making body, seem short-term negative for world markets – but long-term positive.

As Bill Bishop, long-time China-watcher and author of the Sinocism newsletter, sees it, the policy direction being telegraphed seems “fairly dovish,” but “doesn’t seem to signal much more significant stimulus incoming near-term.”

That’s bad news for bulls betting on a new Chinese stimulus bonanza that lifts markets from New York to Tokyo. Under the surface, though, there are myriad hints that the arrival of Premier Li Qiang in March is putting reforms on the front-burner once again. In other words, Beijing cares more about avoiding boom/bust cycles going forward than just mindlessly fueling a 2023 boom.

As “no fiscal expansion plans have been revealed so far, the impact will only be felt very progressively,” says economist Carlos Casanova at Union Bancaire Privée.

Economist Wei He at Gavekal Dragonomics added that “the Politburo’s meeting on the economy shows that officials recognize weak demand is an issue. But the meeting mainly called for ‘precise’ policy adjustments.” As such, it “remains far from certain whether those can deliver a near-term turnaround in growth. The conservative stance points to, at best, a stabilization or weak recovery” in the second half.

Instead of aggressive plans for massive monetary easing and fiscal pump priming — as markets had assumed — the chatter is about prudent policymaking with an emphasis on lower taxes and fees and incentivizing increased investment.

Rather than sharp drops in the yuan to boost exports, Li’s reform squad is focused on catalyzing greater scientific and technological innovation and giving the private sector more space to thrive and create new good-paying jobs.

In lieu of scores of top-down decrees or public jobs-creation schemes, the zeitgeist is that developing a thriving micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSME) sector is a more forceful way to address record youth unemployment than large-scale stimulus.

What Xi and Li are telegraphing might be best called the “anti-Mario Draghi” approach to enlivening Asia’s biggest economy.

Theno-ECB President Mario Draghi holds a news conference at the ECB headquarters in Frankfurt in 2018. Photo: Asia Times Files / Reuters / Ralph Orlowski
Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, shown here during his tenure as European Central Bank president in 2018, has resigned. Photo: Reuters / Ralph Orlowski

The reference here is to the former European Central Bank president’s infamous pledge “to do whatever it takes” to stabilize the financial system via powerful monetary easing.

A year later, Draghi’s liquidity onslaught inspired then Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda to follow suit.

Haruhiko Kuroda. Photo> Asia Times Files / JIJI Press

On Draghi’s watch, the ECB unleashed stimulus on a level that would’ve been unfathomable to Bundesbank officials of old. In Tokyo, between 2013 and 2018, the Kuroda BOJ’s balance sheet swelled to the point where it topped the size of Japan’s $5 trillion economy.

Neither monetary boom did much, if anything, to make the broader European or Japanese economies more competitive, productive or, broadly speaking, more prosperous. Instead, executive monetary support generated a bubble in complacency.

Draghinomics — and Kurodanomics — took the onus off government officials from Madrid to Seoul to loosen labor markets, reduce bureaucracy, incentivize innovation, tighten corporate governance or invest big in strengthening human capital.

China, it seems, is determined to go the other way. In the months since Xi started his third term — and Li arrived on the scene as his number two — Beijing has confounded the conventional wisdom on Chinese stimulus.

The start of this week’s Politburo is no exception. Markets were betting on major stimulus moves. Instead, China unveiled a 17-point plan to attract more private capital its way.

In a note to clients, analysts at Capital Economics said that “the absence of any major announcements of policy specifics does suggest a lack of urgency or that policymakers are struggling to come up with suitable measures to shore up growth.”

One possible interpretation was that Xi’s inner circle wants to put some actions on the scoreboard before next month’s annual huddle in the resort of Beidaihe to discuss long-term policy direction. Yet the tenor of steps seems more about supply-side reforms than fiscal and monetary pump-priming that might squander progress in reducing financial leverage.

Instead of talking about reaching this year’s 5% growth target, the government said the priority now is that “good foundation is laid for achieving the annual economic and social development targets.” Officials admitted, too, that “economic recovery will show a wavy pattern and there will be bumps during progress.”

In other words, the instant gross domestic product gratification that investors came to expect in Xi’s first two terms has been replaced with a more pragmatic approach. While there will be “prudent monetary policy” and at times an “active fiscal policy,” the bigger objective is to “extend, optimize, improve and enforce tax cuts and fee reductions.”

Stimulus will indeed emerge when, and where, needed. The Politburo said, for example, that it would “accelerate the issuance and use of local government special bonds.” 

This means it’s entirely possible that local governments may be allowed to “dig into” remaining special bond quotas, including from previous years, says economist Yu Xiangrong at Citigroup, who estimates the quota to be about 1.1 trillion yuan (US$154 billion).

But there was far more discussion of ways to “adapt to the major change in supply-demand relations in the property market,” and, in timely fashion, to “adjust and optimize real estate policies.” That, Beijing says, means steps to “increase construction and supply of low-income housing,” and “revitalize all types of idling properties.”

To economist Zhiwei Zhang at Pinpoint Asset Management, “this is an interesting signal as the property sector downturn is arguably the key challenge the economy faces now.” As such, “it seems the government has recognised the importance of policy change in this sector to stabilize the economy.”

Just as important, arguably, is the government saying it’s committed to “effectively prevent and resolve local debt risks, make a package of plans to resolve the debt.” The same goes for commitments to “concretely optimize private firms’ development environment” and “build and improve the routinized communication mechanism with companies.”

Furthermore, the party’s latest phraseology includes pledges to “firmly crack down on excess fee and fine charging, resolve the receivables governments owe to companies” and “accelerate the fostering and growing of strategic emerging industries.” The plan, the party notes, is to “strengthen financial regulation, steadily push for the reform and risk resolution at small and medium-sized financial institutions of high risks” as a means to “stabilize the basic market of foreign trade and investment.”

Such language is more the stuff of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman than Mao Zedong. More Hans Tietmeyer of Bundesbank fame than Draghi or Kuroda. One possible area of optimism is that Xi’s government is finally serious about fixing the underlying troubles in the property sector – not just treating the symptoms.

Casanova points to the Politburo’s statement that authorities would recalibrate property policies based on the “local property market situation” and consider developments related to “demand and supply imbalances.” To him, “that last point is new, suggesting a change in the macroprudential regime, as the government now sees a structural shift, requiring bottom-up measures to better reflect local conditions.”

That’s not to say Xi and Li won’t support demand where needed.

Chinese Premier Li Qiang and President Xi Jinping in March 2023. Photo: Xinhua

“We expect the government to roll out modest fiscal support in the second half of 2023, but no aggressive fiscal stimulus,” says economist Ning Zhang at UBS AG. Even so, Zhang says, “some policy room may be kept to support economic growth in 2024.”

Additional stimulus measures that Zhang expects Beijing to prioritize: an acceleration of special local government bond sales; a resumption of policy banks’ special infrastructure investment funds; Beijing providing credit to clear up local governments’ arrears to corporate suppliers; modest property policy easing and credit support for stalled property projects; a modest credit growth rebound; and perhaps a small official rate cut.

There also could be “some small-scale and targeted support” for selected consumption categories as well, Zhang says.

Mostly, though, the signals coming from Beijing this week suggest a greater emphasis in increasing confidence via reform and more vibrant safety nets than runaway stimulus. Bottom line, China’s Draghi days seem over – and that’s a good thing.

Continue Reading

Is Elon Musk right to ditch the Twitter logo?

Elon Musk said Twitter would be known as XGetty Images

When Jean-Pierre Dube saw the news that billionaire Elon Musk was scrapping Twitter’s blue bird logo in favour of an Art Deco-style black and white X, the marketing professor thought it was a joke.

“Why take a recognised brand, with a lot of brand capital around it and then completely throw it away and start from scratch?” said Prof Dube, who teaches at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

“In the short-term, it seems weird.” But in the long term, could it work?

Mr Musk’s takeover of Twitter last year has been punishing for the social media platform.

Advertising revenue has dropped by half, Mr Musk said this month, as big brands pulled back, wary of changes he has made, including how the firm handles verified accounts and moderates content. Abrupt layoffs and unpaid bills have also led to bad press and lawsuits.

Estimates by Fidelity, which has a stake in the company, suggest it is now worth just a third of the $44bn ($34.3bn) that Mr Musk paid for Twitter in October.

Consultancy Brand Finance recently estimated that the firm’s brand was worth $3.9bn, down 32% since last year – a fall it attributed to Mr Musk’s “aggressive business approaches”.

Research suggests that rebrands can pay off – particularly if a firm is in trouble or wants to change direction, said Yanhui Zhao, a professor of marketing at the University of Nebraska Omaha.

His review of 215 rebranding announcements by publicly listed companies found that more than half of those businesses saw positive returns after they rebranded.

That means Mr Musk’s moves could be timely, he said, noting the multi-billionaire’s ambition to transform Twitter into an “everything app” similar to China’s WeChat, a social messaging service on which users can send money, hail taxis, book hotels and play games, among other functions.

“This is a much needed rebranding because of the strategic re-direction of Twitter,” he told the BBC, by email.

But success becomes less likely when a company is in turmoil, warned Shuba Srinivasan, marketing professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. She said it was an especially risky move, given all the social media competitors, such as Mark Zuckerberg’s Threads, rushing to fill Twitter’s role.

“The rebranding is likely to confirm the fear of many Twitter users that the acquisition by Musk signalled the end of the Twitter they knew,” she said.

Nor is it clear that a rebranding addresses Twitter’s problems – many of which stem in part from Mr Musk, Prof Dube said.

“I didn’t think there was a brand problem and brand identity problem as much as a leadership problem,” he said.

In a May interview with satire site, The Babylon Bee, Mr Musk previewed the change, saying he thought he needed to “broaden the branding for Twitter” to help him succeed at pushing the company beyond the short text posts that made it famous.

But some analysts said that the potential of this vision being successful faces long odds.

In June, advisory firm Forrester Research published a report called “The super app window has closed,” which argued that tech giants such as Google and Apple currently offer super app-like functions to billions of users in the US and Europe, while tough regulatory hurdles and fierce competition limits opportunities for others.

It noted that WeChat, the example that has been cited by Mr Musk, became dominant in China early, before other payment services emerged – and in part as a result of technical issues, such as limited phone memory, which discouraged downloading multiple apps.

“While Musk’s vision is to turn X into an ‘everything app,’ this takes time, money, and people – three things that the company no longer has,” Mike Proulx, a research director at Forrester, wrote after Mr Musk’s announcement, adding that he thought the firm would shut or be be bought out in the next 12 months.

Even if Twitter’s core users in media, politics and finance stay loyal, as they have in the past, making X successful would require participation from a far broader user base – no small challenge, said Harvard Business School professor Andy Wu.

But he added that, Twitter faced difficulties before Mr Musk’s takeover and would benefit from some risk-taking.

“We can debate whether those changes are in the right direction, but Twitter does need changes,” he said.

This video can not be played

To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Related Topics

Continue Reading

What comes next as China’s tech crackdown winds down

More broadly, Xi’s administration blames widening social disparities in part on the internet boom, particularly in the pandemic era, and is moving to address any public discontent that could threaten its authority. That led to the “common prosperity” program, which has faded from public view but still guides the activitiesContinue Reading

What will Pheu Thai Party do next?

What will Pheu Thai Party do next?
Srettha: ‘Perfect fit’ for the current situation

After two months of waiting in the wings, the Pheu Thai Party (PT) is now having a go at forming a coalition government.

The party, however, faces the same obstacle as the Move Forward Party (MFP) over how to secure enough votes for its prime ministerial candidate in the joint parliamentary session on Thursday.

MFP leader Pita Limjaroenrat, the MFP’s sole candidate, has been blocked twice from being selected due to the party’s flagship policy to revise Section 112 of the Criminal Code, known as the lese majeste law.

The military-appointed Senate and parties opposing Mr Pita have sent a loud and clear message that they will not endorse any Pheu Thai candidate if the MFP remains in the coalition.

At this point, Pheu Thai is sticking with the eight-party alliance, so it has to figure out a way to persuade the senators and those outside the bloc to change their stance.

Political analysts believe that Pheu Thai, which has three prime minister candidates to choose from, has a few cards up its sleeve to help it secure majority support in parliament.

Nevertheless, the party has remained coy about who among the three — Srettha Thavisin, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, and Chaikasem Nitisiri — it will nominate on Wednesday.

Srettha is most likely

Deputy Pheu Thai leader and list-MP Sutin Klungsang said Mr Srettha is deemed the perfect fit for the current political situation and is likely to get the nod, as suggested by Ms Paetongtarn.

Early last week, the daughter of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the head of the Pheu Thai family said the party would go with the property tycoon if Mr Pita was rejected a second time.

Mr Sutin said the main hurdle keeping Mr Srettha from getting the required vote is the condition that the MFP must not be in the coalition. The party and its seven prospective partners has hard work ahead in the coming days.

“The eight parties are still on the same team, so they must thrash out solutions together,” he said.

A source in Pheu Thai said there are not so many options if the eight-party bloc still fails to secure the required vote after Pheu Thai takes the lead in forming the coalition and nominates its own candidate.

“Either the bloc ends up in the opposition camp or some parties have to go. If we have to part ways, we have to — otherwise we’ll lose it all. It’s better than getting nothing,” said the source.

But the party is likely to negotiate with the senators to see if they can relax their conditions and ask the MFP if it can back down from its policy to amend the lese majeste law, said the source.

If the senators and the MFP cannot meet each other half way, the bloc will have to decide, the source said, adding that no matter what the decision is, Pheu Thai will make sure Mr Srettha is elected in the July 27 vote.

“It must be done at the first attempt. No matter what the coalition looks like, it must not drag on,” the source said.

Seeking support

Without the MFP, which has 151 seats, Pheu Thai will try to put together a 280-seat coalition and it has had a positive response from the Chartthaipattana and Democrat parties which have 35 seats combined, according to the source.

Rumours have spread that more than half of the Democrat MPs are in talks to join a Pheu Thai coalition, but these were denied by spokesman Ramet Rattanachaweng.

The Democrat Party has yet to select a new executive committee and a new leader to succeed Jurin Laksanawisit, who stepped down after a disastrous showing at the polls.

The United Thai Nation Party (UTN) and the Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP), with 76 seats, are waiting to see the lie of the land and they may request the interior or defence portfolios. Bhumjaithai, the third largest party with 71 seats, is also likely to be brought in, according to the source.

According to the source, while Pheu Thai wants the prime minister vote to be concluded this Thursday, it may nominate Mr Chaikasem to test the waters if it is not sure about its chances.

The Pheu Thai source said Pheu Thai is aware of the huge risks it faces if the party chooses to abandon the MFP.

The party will be seen as betraying its ally and will face a public backlash and tight scrutiny from the MFP which would be pushed into opposition. But the party can turn things around if it gets things done right after grabbing power.

“Not only does the party have to make good on its promises, its MPs have to communicate with voters and strengthen their support bases. This may help voters forgive and forget,” said the source.

Following Mr Pita’s renomination, the Pheu Thai candidates will likely get just one shot each.

Toughest time for Pheu Thai

Stithorn Thananithichot, director of the Office of Innovation for Democracy at King Prajadhipok’s Institute, said Pheu Thai has a few moves to play and it may go with Mr Chaikasem in the next round of voting if the current bloc remains intact.

The party’s possible narrative to back Mr Chaikasem’s nomination is that he is a legal expert and should take charge of the home-coming arrangements for Thaksin who faces the spectre of legal action.

The deposed prime minister plans to return to Thailand before July 26, his 74th birthday, to care for his grandchildren, but his plan is likely to be delayed to avoid any political turbulence.

“Mr Chaikasem is not a real candidate and he is the choice in case the MFP is still in the bloc. But this move is risky because parliament may endorse him. Pheu Thai has to make sure the other parties and senators understand that the move is designed to push the MFP away,” he said.

Mr Srettha will be nominated once the MFP is out of the picture and the Pheu Thai-led coalition will include Bhumjaithai and the PPRP to compensate for the MFP’s exit, he said.

Stithorn: May opt for Chaikasem

In this scenario, PPRP leader Gen Prawit Wongsuwon is unlikely to be part of the cabinet and Pheu Thai will try to get the economic positions, including the energy post to boost the government image and public confidence and deflect pressure, according to Mr Stithorn.

However, he believes Pheu Thai will not severe ties with the MFP so as to maintain leverage over Bhumjaithai and the PPRP, and will offer the MFP a chance to play hero.

“Even if it doesn’t join the coalition, the MFP may still vote for the Pheu Thai candidate to block Gen Prawit’s chances. This would give MFP something to show their supporters,” he said.

Perhaps… Paetongtarn

Thanaporn Sriyakul, director of the Institute of Politics and Policy Analysis, has a different theory about who the real candidate is and believes Mr Chaikasem will never be nominated, with Mr Srettha used as a tool to pressure the MFP to withdraw from the coalition.

After Mr Srettha is rejected, Pheu Thai will have to bring in other parties, which will make the MFP reconsider its position, he said, noting the MFP once suggested the 312 seats are enough to create a “parliamentary dictatorship”.

When this happens, Ms Paetongtarn, who is the party’s genuine prime minister candidate, will be nominated, said Mr Thanaporn.

It remains to be seen which parties between Bhumjathai and UTN will be courted to join the Pheu Thai-led coalition, according to Mr Thanaporn.

He said Thaksin, who is widely seen as the de-facto leader of Pheu Thai, has a history with Newin Chidchob, Bhumjaithai’s patriarch who deserted him, while core figures of the UTN are known to have campaigned for Thaksin’s ouster.

According to the analyst, Thaksin is likely to settle for the one he holds the least grudges with.

Thanaporn: Plot to push MFP aside

Continue Reading

What will PT do next?

What will PT do next?
Srettha: ‘Perfect fit’ for the current situation

After two months of waiting in the wings, the Pheu Thai Party (PT) is now having a go at forming a coalition government.

The party, however, faces the same obstacle as the Move Forward Party (MFP) over how to secure enough votes for its prime ministerial candidate in the joint parliamentary session on Thursday.

MFP leader Pita Limjaroenrat, the MFP’s sole candidate, has been blocked twice from being selected due to the party’s flagship policy to revise Section 112 of the Criminal Code, known as the lese majeste law.

The military-appointed Senate and parties opposing Mr Pita have sent a loud and clear message that they will not endorse any Pheu Thai candidate if the MFP remains in the coalition.

At this point, Pheu Thai is sticking with the eight-party alliance, so it has to figure out a way to persuade the senators and those outside the bloc to change their stance.

Political analysts believe that Pheu Thai, which has three prime minister candidates to choose from, has a few cards up its sleeve to help it secure majority support in parliament.

Nevertheless, the party has remained coy about who among the three — Srettha Thavisin, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, and Chaikasem Nitisiri — it will nominate on Wednesday.

Srettha is most likely

Deputy Pheu Thai leader and list-MP Sutin Klungsang said Mr Srettha is deemed the perfect fit for the current political situation and is likely to get the nod, as suggested by Ms Paetongtarn.

Early last week, the daughter of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the head of the Pheu Thai family said the party would go with the property tycoon if Mr Pita was rejected a second time.

Mr Sutin said the main hurdle keeping Mr Srettha from getting the required vote is the condition that the MFP must not be in the coalition. The party and its seven prospective partners has hard work ahead in the coming days.

“The eight parties are still on the same team, so they must thrash out solutions together,” he said.

A source in Pheu Thai said there are not so many options if the eight-party bloc still fails to secure the required vote after Pheu Thai takes the lead in forming the coalition and nominates its own candidate.

“Either the bloc ends up in the opposition camp or some parties have to go. If we have to part ways, we have to — otherwise we’ll lose it all. It’s better than getting nothing,” said the source.

But the party is likely to negotiate with the senators to see if they can relax their conditions and ask the MFP if it can back down from its policy to amend the lese majeste law, said the source.

If the senators and the MFP cannot meet each other half way, the bloc will have to decide, the source said, adding that no matter what the decision is, Pheu Thai will make sure Mr Srettha is elected in the July 27 vote.

“It must be done at the first attempt. No matter what the coalition looks like, it must not drag on,” the source said.

Seeking support

Without the MFP, which has 151 seats, Pheu Thai will try to put together a 280-seat coalition and it has had a positive response from the Chartthaipattana and Democrat parties which have 35 seats combined, according to the source.

Rumours have spread that more than half of the Democrat MPs are in talks to join a Pheu Thai coalition, but these were denied by spokesman Ramet Rattanachaweng.

The Democrat Party has yet to select a new executive committee and a new leader to succeed Jurin Laksanawisit, who stepped down after a disastrous showing at the polls.

The United Thai Nation Party (UTN) and the Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP), with 76 seats, are waiting to see the lie of the land and they may request the interior or defence portfolios. Bhumjaithai, the third largest party with 71 seats, is also likely to be brought in, according to the source.

According to the source, while Pheu Thai wants the prime minister vote to be concluded this Thursday, it may nominate Mr Chaikasem to test the waters if it is not sure about its chances.

The Pheu Thai source said Pheu Thai is aware of the huge risks it faces if the party chooses to abandon the MFP.

The party will be seen as betraying its ally and will face a public backlash and tight scrutiny from the MFP which would be pushed into opposition. But the party can turn things around if it gets things done right after grabbing power.

“Not only does the party have to make good on its promises, its MPs have to communicate with voters and strengthen their support bases. This may help voters forgive and forget,” said the source.

Following Mr Pita’s renomination, the Pheu Thai candidates will likely get just one shot each.

Toughest time for Pheu Thai

Stithorn Thananithichot, director of the Office of Innovation for Democracy at King Prajadhipok’s Institute, said Pheu Thai has a few moves to play and it may go with Mr Chaikasem in the next round of voting if the current bloc remains intact.

The party’s possible narrative to back Mr Chaikasem’s nomination is that he is a legal expert and should take charge of the home-coming arrangements for Thaksin who faces the spectre of legal action.

The deposed prime minister plans to return to Thailand before July 26, his 74th birthday, to care for his grandchildren, but his plan is likely to be delayed to avoid any political turbulence.

“Mr Chaikasem is not a real candidate and he is the choice in case the MFP is still in the bloc. But this move is risky because parliament may endorse him. Pheu Thai has to make sure the other parties and senators understand that the move is designed to push the MFP away,” he said.

Mr Srettha will be nominated once the MFP is out of the picture and the Pheu Thai-led coalition will include Bhumjaithai and the PPRP to compensate for the MFP’s exit, he said.

Stithorn: May opt for Chaikasem

In this scenario, PPRP leader Gen Prawit Wongsuwon is unlikely to be part of the cabinet and Pheu Thai will try to get the economic positions, including the energy post to boost the government image and public confidence and deflect pressure, according to Mr Stithorn.

However, he believes Pheu Thai will not severe ties with the MFP so as to maintain leverage over Bhumjaithai and the PPRP, and will offer the MFP a chance to play hero.

“Even if it doesn’t join the coalition, the MFP may still vote for the Pheu Thai candidate to block Gen Prawit’s chances. This would give MFP something to show their supporters,” he said.

Perhaps… Paetongtarn

Thanaporn Sriyakul, director of the Institute of Politics and Policy Analysis, has a different theory about who the real candidate is and believes Mr Chaikasem will never be nominated, with Mr Srettha used as a tool to pressure the MFP to withdraw from the coalition.

After Mr Srettha is rejected, Pheu Thai will have to bring in other parties, which will make the MFP reconsider its position, he said, noting the MFP once suggested the 312 seats are enough to create a “parliamentary dictatorship”.

When this happens, Ms Paetongtarn, who is the party’s genuine prime minister candidate, will be nominated, said Mr Thanaporn.

It remains to be seen which parties between Bhumjathai and UTN will be courted to join the Pheu Thai-led coalition, according to Mr Thanaporn.

He said Thaksin, who is widely seen as the de-facto leader of Pheu Thai, has a history with Newin Chidchob, Bhumjaithai’s patriarch who deserted him, while core figures of the UTN are known to have campaigned for Thaksin’s ouster.

According to the analyst, Thaksin is likely to settle for the one he holds the least grudges with.

Thanaporn: Plot to push MFP aside

Continue Reading

Bank of Japan tiptoes toward financial bedlam

TOKYO — Has Bank of Japan (BOJ) Governor Kazuo Ueda, 103 days into the job, already blown it?

Inquiring minds in trading pits everywhere can’t help but wonder as inflation and gross domestic product (GDP) diverge in dangerous ways. And markets are getting exactly the last thing you’d want from Ueda’s BOJ: crickets.

Data released on Friday (July 21) showed that core inflation, which excludes fresh food, rose 3.3% in June year on year, faster than in the US. Japan’s inflation surge shows how quickly price dynamics can shift — and perhaps get away from a central bank.

This adds an economic exclamation point to next week’s BOJ policy meeting. The two-day event ending July 28 is shaping up to be the BOJ’s last chance to salvage its reputation in world markets.

The odds the BOJ will do just that aren’t great. “Although we don’t rule out some yield-curve-control-related change at the BoJ’s upcoming policy meeting, our base case is for the central bank to stick to its guns,” says Stefan Angrick, senior economist at Moody’s Analytics.

Norman Villamin, group chief strategist at Union Bancaire Privée, adds that “the Bank of Japan may once again be forced to defend the policy via liquidity injections moving through the summer.”

Given Ueda’s recent comments, Mitsuhiro Furusawa, a former vice minister of finance for international affairs, told Bloomberg: “It’s unlikely that the bank will modify the instrument at the upcoming meeting. In the past, I thought July is possible, but the way he’s speaking, if he moves next week, it’ll be a major surprise.”

This crisis of confidence confronting the BOJ has many fathers, of course. Blame must be shared by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) for squandering the last decade. The same goes for a succession of BOJ leaders who forget about what William McChesney Martin said about punch bowls 70 years ago.

It was in 1951 when Martin, then chairman of the US Federal Reserve, famously quipped that a central banker’s job is to remove the punchbowl just as the party gets going. Far from internalizing this mindset as, say the Bundesbank of old did, the BOJ has been refilling and refilling the punchbowl for decades.

First, with the quantitative easing that the BOJ pioneered in 2000 and 2001, just after cutting rates to zero in 1999. The unsurprising result is a level of financial intoxication that no Group of Seven (G7) economy had ever known.

Japanese 10,000 yen bank notes spread out at an office of World Currency Shop in Tokyo on August 9, 2010 Reuters/Yuriko Nakao.
Easy money: Japan has a long history of quantitative easing Photo: Agencies

Twenty-plus years ago, when then-BOJ leader Masaru Hayami served up quantitative easing (QE), it was meant to be a special monetary cocktail available for a limited time only. Over time, though, the Tokyo political establishment got hooked on loose monetary policy.

One government after another prodded the BOJ leader at the moment to keep the liquidity flowing — and to up the dosage. This cycle got supersized in 2013, when the LDP hired Ueda’s predecessor, Haruhiko Kuroda.

At the time, then-prime minister Shinzo Abe said he was mixing up his own cocktail of badly needed structural reforms to end deflation. Abe promised a mix of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher with Japanese characteristics. Mostly, though, Abe just prodded Kuroda to add more punch bowls.

It backfired. As Kuroda fired his monetary “bazooka,” the yen plunged and exports soared. That generated a corporate earnings boom, one that propelled the Nikkei Stock Average up 57% in 2013 alone.

But those gains never made it to the average Japanese as wages flatlined. That’s because Abe’s party failed to implement the supply-side revolution it promised.

Moves fell by the wayside to cut red tape, liberalize labor markets, increase innovation and productivity, empower women and restore Tokyo’s place as Asia’s financial hub. Instead, Abe bet it all on ultraloose central bank policies, the likes of which modern economics had never seen before.

In short order, the Kuroda-led BOJ drove the yen down 30%, hoarded more than half of all outstanding Japanese government bonds and morphed the BOJ into a giant hedge fund by gorging on stocks. By 2018, the BOJ’s balance sheet topped the size of Japan’s US$5 trillion economy, a first for G7 members.

None of it generated real inflation, though. That took Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The massive boost to oil prices had Japan importing too much inflation too fast via an undervalued exchange rate. The Putin factor collided with Covid-19 era supply chain price pressures.

Japan suddenly had the inflation it sought for a decade. It was the “bad” kind, though, generated more by supply shocks than rising consumer demand. It also came too quickly, catching BOJ officials flat-footed.

On Thursday (July 20), Kishida’s government dramatized the problem by projecting that inflation will likely hit 2.6% this fiscal year.

That’s the highest in at least three decades and well above the BOJ’s 2% target. Worse, it’s double the government’s GDP expectations, now projected to expand 1.3% in the current fiscal year ending in March 2024.

In December, with his retirement less than four months away, Kuroda tested out how declaring “last call” might go down. Not well: Kuroda’s December 20 move to let 10-year yields drift as high as 0.5% caused bedlam in markets.

Then-Bank of Japan governor Haruhiko Kuroda has a QE problem. Photo: Asia Times Files / AFP

The yen surged, Japanese stocks cratered and Wall Street panicked. Kuroda’s response was refilling the punchbowl — again — and then passing bartending responsibilities to Ueda.

It now falls to Ueda to devise a 12-step program for Tokyo without crashing global markets. The trouble is, 23 years of open-bar policies made it okay for investors everywhere to drink free on Japan’s dime.

The arrangement gave way to the so-called “yen-carry trade.” Two-plus decades of zero rates made Japan the premier creditor nation. Investors of all stripes got into the habit of borrowing cheaply in yen to fund bets on higher-yielding assets everywhere.

This strategy has kept aloft everything from Argentine debt to South African commodities to Indian real estate to the New Zealand dollar to cryptocurrencies.

This explains why Kuroda’s flash of sobriety in December caused a mini earthquake globally. When the yen or JGB yields surge, the bottom falls out from under markets across the globe. Asian markets in particular don’t tend to fare well amid big yen gyrations.

These pivots back toward “risk off” crouches often blow up a hedge fund or two. And, clearly, the last thing China needs right now as GDP slows, exports stall and questions linger about the depths of its real estate problem is financial turbulence from Japan.

“Given the BOJ’s outlier status among global central banks that have spent the better part of the last two years fighting inflation,” says economist Udith Sikand at Gavekal Research, “even the smallest of changes to its policy stance could create a ripple effect through foreign exchange markets that have gotten used to the yen being a perennially cheap funding source.”

All of which explains why next week’s BOJ meeting is so crucial. It may be Ueda’s last chance to guide yen-denominated assets instead of being overwhelmed by negative market forces, not least the so-called “bond vigilantes.”

The reference here is to activist traders who take matters into their own hands to highlight government, monetary or corporate policies they deem as unwise or dangerous. They make their voices heard by driving up bond yields and boycotting debt auctions, thereby raising government borrowing costs.

If Ueda isn’t careful, the financial forces that the BOJ has long held at bay could strike back. At the very least, his team must emerge from the July 28 meeting with a plan to begin winding down decades of QE.

“We expect the BOJ to widen the fluctuation range for 10-year JGB yields,” says economist Takeshi Yamaguchi at Morgan Stanley MYFG. “That said, we do not see a meaningful rise in yields. We would see a potential knee-jerk negative equity market reaction as a buying opportunity.”

It’s easier said than done, of course. The last thing Ueda’s team wants is to tank the Nikkei — or Japan’s broader economy. Ueda, of course, has the events of December 20 on his mind. But the lessons from the 2006-07 era of BOJ policymaking also loom large.

At the time, then-BOJ governor Toshihiko Fukui tried his hand at weaning Japan Inc off the monetary sauce. QE, after all, was meant to bring the economy back from a kind of near-death experience; it was never meant to be permanent.

Fukui decided it was time to get Japan clean. First, he ended QE. In July 2006, he pulled off an official rate hike and then a second one in early 2007.

Not surprisingly, global markets struck back when investors, banks, companies and politicians howled in protest. Before long, Fukui was on the defensive and the rate hikes stopped.

By 2008, after Masaaki Shirakawa took over as BOJ governor, Tokyo was slashing rates back to zero and restoring QE. Then came Kuroda in 2013 to turbocharge QE.

Kazuo Ueda has a decision to make. Image: Facebook

Ueda also has lessons from Washington on his mind, namely the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) amid aggressive US Fed tightening moves. As Ueda’s team understands, some of the conditions imperiling US lenders seem eerily familiar to headwinds facing Japan’s regional banks.

All too many of these 100-plus institutions saw profits squeezed by an aging and shrinking population. The communities they service have been hit by an exodus of companies keen on headquartering in Tokyo rather than the provinces.

The BOJ’s rigid “yield curve control” regime, which makes it hard for banks to borrow at one part of the maturity spectrum and lend at the other, is an added blow. So many regional lenders hoard bonds rather than lending SVB-style. This makes these embattled lenders vulnerable to BOJ tapering or tightening.

On the other side of the risk list is that the BOJ might be letting inflation become ingrained. Earlier this year, Japanese unions scored the biggest wage gains for workers in 31 years. The average 3.91% increase could add fuel to the BOJ’s inflation troubles and exacerbate concerns among traders worried the Ueda-led BOJ is already losing the plot.

“It’s a close call, but we still think yield curve control tweaks are possible, given that recent data support steady inflation growth and a sustained economic recovery,” says economist Min Joo Kang at ING Bank.

The only thing clear about the July 27-28 meeting, however, is that the BOJ will be in the global spotlight as rarely before.

Follow William Pesek on Twitter at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Elon Musk: Tesla may cut prices again in ‘turbulent times’

Tesla chief executive Elon Musk gets in a Tesla car as he leaves a hotel in Beijing, China.Reuters

Tesla chief executive Elon Musk has signalled that the electric carmaker will continue to cut prices as the world economy is in “turbulent times”.

The multi-billionaire’s comments came after the company reported that its profit margins had been squeezed as it faced tough competition.

In recent months, Tesla has cut its prices several times in major markets, including the US and China.

The firm’s shares fell by more than 4% in after-hours trade in New York.

Tesla reported that its profit margin had fallen to the lowest level in four years.

The company said its gross profit margin fell to 18.2% for the three months to the end of June, down from 26.2% for the same period last year.

During a call with Wall Street analysts, Mr Musk signalled that he was open to cutting prices further if needed.

“One day it seems like the world economy is falling apart, next day it’s fine. I don’t know what the hell is going on,” he said.

“We’re in, I would call it, turbulent times,” Mr Musk added.

Investors are concerned about the possibility of more price cuts at Tesla, Arun Sundararajan, a Professor at the NYU Stern Business School, told the BBC.

“This feels like a price war with no long term strategy to raise margins if Tesla wins the war,” he added.

Earlier this year, Mr Musk said he believed pursuing higher sales, with lower profits, was the “right choice” for Tesla.

The firm has lowered prices in markets including the US, UK and China to compete with rival manufacturers.

Earlier this month, the company said it delivered a record number of vehicles in the three months to the end of June.

It comes as more carmakers have agreed to adopt Tesla’s electric vehicle (EV) charging technology.

On Wednesday, Japanese motor industry giant Nissan said its EVs in the US and Canada would be equipped with Tesla-developed charging ports from 2025.

Nissan Americas’ chairperson Jérémie Papin said the firm was committed “to making electric mobility even more accessible”.

The announcement follows similar moves by US car manufacturers Ford and General Motors.

Continue Reading

World hunger and the war in Ukraine

On Monday, June 17, Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, announced, “The Black Sea agreements are no longer in effect.” This was a blunt statement to suspend the Black Sea grain initiative that emerged out of intense negotiations in the hours after Russian forces entered Ukraine in February 2022.

The initiative went into effect on July 22, 2022, after Russian and Ukrainian officials signed it in Istanbul in the presence of the United Nations Secretary General António Guterres and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Guterres called the initiative a “beacon of hope,” for two reasons. First, it is remarkable to have an agreement of this kind between belligerents in an ongoing war. Second, Russia and Ukraine are major producers of wheat, barley, corn (maize), rapeseed and rapeseed oil, sunflower seeds and sunflower oil, as well as nitrogen, potassic, and phosphorus fertilizer, accounting for 12% of calories traded.

Disruption of supply from Russia and Ukraine, it was felt by a range of international organizations, would have a catastrophic impact on world food markets and on hunger. As Western – largely USUK and European – sanctions increased against Russia, the feasibility of the deal began to diminish.

It was suspended several times during the past year. In March, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, responding to the sanctions against Russian agriculture, said the main parameters provided for in the grain deal “do not work.”

Financialization leads to hunger

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said his country regrets Russia’s “continued weaponization of food,” since this “harms millions of vulnerable people around the world.” Indeed, the timing of the suspension could not be worse.

A United Nations report, “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023” (July 12, 2023), shows that one in 10 people in the world struggles with hunger and that 3.1 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet.

But the report itself makes an interesting point: that the war in Ukraine has driven 23 million people into hunger, a number that pales in comparison to the other drivers of hunger – such as the impact of commercialized food markets and the Covid-19 pandemic.

A 2011 report from World Development Movement called “Broken Markets: How Financial Market Regulation Can Help Prevent Another Global Food Crisis” showed that “financial speculators now dominate the [food] market, holding over 60% of some markets, compared [with] 12% 15 years ago.”

The situation has since worsened. Dr Sophie van Huellen, who studies financial speculation in food markets, pointed out in late 2022 that while there are indeed food shortages, “the current food crisis is a price crisis, rather than a supply crisis.”

The end of the Black Sea grain initiative is indeed regrettable, but it is not the leading cause of hunger in the world. The leading cause – as even the European Economic and Social Committee agrees – is financial speculation in food markets.

Why did Russia suspend the initiative?

To monitor the Black Sea grain initiative, the United Nations set up a Joint Coordination Center (JCC) in Istanbul. It is staffed by representatives of Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Nations.

On several occasions, the JCC had to deal with tensions between Russia and Ukraine over the shipments, such as when Ukraine attacked Russia’s Black Sea Fleet – some of whose vessels carried the grain – in Sevastopol, Crimea, in October 2022.

Tensions remained over the initiative as Western sanctions tightened, making it difficult for Russia to export its own agricultural products into the world market.

Russia put three requirements on the table to the United Nations regarding its own agricultural system.

First, Moscow asked that the Russian Agricultural Bank – the premier credit and trade bank for Russian agriculture – be reconnected to the SWIFT system, from which it had been cut off by the European Union’s sixth package of sanctions in June 2022.

A Turkish banker told TASS that there was the possibility that the EU could “issue a general license to the Russian Agricultural Bank” and that the bank “has the opportunity to use JPMorgan to conduct transactions in US dollars” as long as the exporters being paid for were part of the Black Sea grain initiative.

Second, from the first discussions about the grain initiative, Moscow put on the table its export of ammonia fertilizer from Russia both through the port of Odessa and of supplies held in Latvia and the Netherlands.

A central part of the debate has been the reopening of the Togliatti-Odessa pipeline, the world’s longest ammonia pipeline. In July 2022, the UN and Russia signed an agreement that would facilitate the sale of Russian ammonia on the world market.

Guterres went to the UN Security Council to announce, “We are doing everything possible to … ease the serious fertilizer market crunch that is already affecting farming in West Africa and elsewhere. If the fertilizer market is not stabilized, next year could bring a food supply crisis. Simply put, the world may run out of food.”

On June 8, 2023, Ukrainian forces blew up a section of the Togliatti-Odessa pipeline in Kharkiv, increasing the tension over this dispute. Other than the Black Sea ports, Russia has no other safe way to export its ammonia-based fertilizers.

Third, Russia’s agricultural sector faces challenges from a lack of ability to import machinery and parts, and Russian ships are not able to buy insurance or enter many foreign ports. Despite the “carve-outs” in Western sanctions for agriculture, sanctions on firms and individuals have debilitated Russia’s agricultural sector.

To counter Western sanctions, Russia placed restrictions on the export of fertilizer and agricultural products. These restrictions included the ban on the export of certain goods (such as temporary bans of wheat exports to the Eurasian Economic Union), the increase of licensing requirements (including for compound fertilizers, requirements set in place before the war), and the increase of export taxes.

These Russian moves come alongside strategic direct sales to countries such as India that will re-export to other countries.

In late July, St Petersburg will host the Second Russia-Africa Economic and Humanitarian Forum, where these topics will surely be front and center. Ahead of the summit, President Putin called South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa to inform him about the problems faced by Russia in exporting its food and fertilizers to the African continent.

“The deal’s main goal,” he said of the Black Sea grain initiative, was “to supply grain to countries in need, including those on the African continent, has not been implemented.”

It is likely that the Black Sea grain initiative will restart within the month. Earlier suspensions have not lasted longer than a few weeks. But this time, it is not clear if the West will give Russia any relief on its ability to export its own agricultural products.

Certainly, the suspension will impact millions of people around the world who struggle with endemic hunger. Billions of others who are hungry because of financial speculation in food markets are not impacted directly by these developments.

This article was produced by Globetrotter, which provided it to Asia Times.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of US Power.

Continue Reading

Is the worst over for Sri Lanka’s economic crisis?

People gather to buy clothes on the busy street market of Maharagama, near Sri Lanka's capital ColomboGetty Images

At first glance, life in Sri Lanka’s financial capital Colombo looks deceptively normal.

Roads are packed with traffic, public spaces and restaurants are full of both locals and tourists, while shops are bustling.

It is hard to imagine that just a year ago, this was a country struggling with massive shortages after it ran out of foreign currency.

With no money to buy fuel, roads were empty with even public transport at a standstill. Sri Lanka had to go back to pandemic-era measures such as online classes and working from home. But even this was not practical because of power cuts – some of which went on for up to 13 hours a day.

Food, medicine and other essentials were also in short supply, exacerbating the crisis. People had to stand in such long queues in the brutal heat, that at least 16 people – mainly the elderly – died.

But now, just a year later, food, fuel and medicine are available again, offices, schools and factories are all open, and public transport is back up and running.

Restaurants, especially high-end ones, are bustling.

A vendor deals in rupee notes on March 21, 2023, in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Getty Images

“Last year this time I was on the verge of selling my restaurant. We had to close for a few days as the shortage of fuel meant no customers were coming. But now footfall has gone up nearly 70%,” said Chathura Ekanayake who runs a fine dining restaurant in Colombo.

The country’s main source of foreign currencies – tourism – is also witnessing a revival. The industry has recorded a 30% jump in revenue from the previous year.

“The recovery has been magical for us. Last year we didn’t even know if the country would survive”, said Hiran Cooray, CEO of Jetwings Symphony, a leading travel and hospitality player in Sri Lanka.

Despite these good news stories, Sri Lanka’s economy is still in a precarious place.

The country still has more than $80bn (£61.1bn) of debt – both foreign and domestic. In the worst of the crisis last year, the country defaulted on its foreign debt for the first time in its history.

Ranil Wickremesinghe who took charge as President after widespread protests saw then-ruler Gotabaya Rajapaksa resign, has managed to secure a lifeline of $2.9bn from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

This has been crucial to opening other funding channels and easing shortages, but the money came with strict economic and governance policy reforms. The country is now seeking to restructure terms of its debt payments with both foreign and domestic lenders, as mandated by the IMF.

The main focus has been on restructuring its $36bn of foreign debt. This includes more than $7bn of loans from China, Sri Lanka’s largest bilateral creditor.

However, it is the restructuring of domestic debt that is likely to have a much bigger impact on the Sri Lankan people. Domestic borrowing accounts for around 50% of the country’s total debt. Sri Lanka’s cabinet recently approved a domestic debt restructuring proposal, but it has drawn massive criticism as it aims to cut workers’ pensions, while banks will not be affected. There have been protests against the proposals in Colombo.

It highlights that while life may seem to have returned to normal, in reality people are still struggling.

Protesters chant slogans during the protest on July 12, 2023, in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The Inter-company Employee Union held a protest in front of the Labour Department. This protest was held, asking not to touch the Employees' Trust Fund and Employees Provident Fund.

Getty Images

Essentials are available, but unaffordable for many. Things are more expensive than ever before. Almost half of all Sri Lankan families spend about 70% of their household income on food alone. And prices of food, clothing and housing are continuing to rise.

To add to the burden, income tax has been hiked to as much as 36% and subsidies on everything from food to household bills have been removed.

One area where this has had a huge impact is electricity bills, which have soared by 65% after the subsidy was removed.

“Many families from the middle class have now slipped below the poverty line,” said Malathy Knight, a senior economist with private think tank Verite Research.

And according to the World Bank, this is likely to continue for a while.

“Poverty is projected to remain above 25% in the next few years due to the multiple risks to households’ livelihoods,” it said in a report. The organisation has extended a $700m loan to Sri Lanka for budgetary support, including $200m for the poor and vulnerable.

This is a dramatic fall for a country that was long held up as an economic success story and had one of the highest average incomes in South Asia. The quality of its infrastructure, its free public health and education systems and its high levels of social development have all been held in high regard.

So how did things get so bad?

The government blamed the crisis on the Covid pandemic, which badly affected tourism. However, although the pandemic was a factor, disastrous economic policies were more to blame. Populist moves like big tax cuts in 2019 cost the government $1.4bn in annual revenues. And a move to ban imports of chemical fertilisers in 2021 caused a domestic food shortage.

Police used batton to disperse the university students during an anti-government demonstration by university students in Colombo On June 7, 2023.

Getty Images

In order to cut expenses further the government has proposed privatising state-owned enterprises like Sri Lankan Airlines, Sri Lankan Insurance Corporation and Sri Lanka Telecom. This has triggered a fresh wave of protests – this time by trade unions.

“The government should not put the burden of the reforms on the salaried class and middle class who are already affected by the economic crisis,” said Anupa Nandula, the Vice President of the Ceylon Bank Employees Union.

Mr Nandula and his union participated in a recent demonstration against the proposal to privatise the Sri Lankan Insurance Corporation. He believes privatisation will lead to massive job losses and further burden the working class.

Ever since last year’s demonstrations were violently broken up, Sri Lankan authorities have been using force – such as tear gas, water cannon and even beating protesters. But experts warn that this is not a tactic that can work.

Rather than using force, the government needs to be transparent and explain that reshaping the economy will be tough, says Bhavani Fonseka, a constitutional lawyer working with Centre for Policy Alternatives.

“I think people since the crisis has happened have gotten used to a harder lifestyle. But in the absence of information coming, in the absence of answers being given, there is growing uncertainty and fear that we will go back to a crisis point.”

Related Topics

Continue Reading