Wikipedia provide a ranking of countries net international investment position, as a % of GDP, from highest to lowest.
Top of the list are the usual suspects:
| Country | Date | NIIP as % of GDP |
| Hong Kong | 2009 | 353 |
| Singapore | 2010 | 224 |
| Republic of China | 2010 | 153 |
| Switzerland | 2010 | 136 |
| Norway | 2010 | 96 |
But Australia and New Zealand are in the wrong sort of company at the bottom of the list.
| Country | Date | NIIP as % of GDP |
| Poland | 2010 | -63 |
| Australia | 2011 | -64 |
| Slovakia | 2010 | -66 |
| Estonia | 2010 | -71 |
| Spain | 2010 | -87 |
| New Zealand | 2009 | -90 |
| Greece | 2010 | -93 |
| Ireland | 2009 | -98 |
| Portugal | 2009 | -108 |
Interestingly, Italy’s 2010 net international investment position is only -24%.
Please fully define NIIP as used here.
Australia is dying. There is a strong correlation between the number of empty containers returning to China and the certainty of absolute poverty/loss of sovereignty in decades to come that no government will be able reverse. How sad.
Australian manufacturing is dying, but mining is not. The bulk carriers are returning empty to Australia’s shores. Only problem is: the iron ore, coal and gas are depleting resources.
NIIP = Net international investment position
Please explain NIIP and explain how it can be negative, does that mean that overseas entities are investing more in Australia than we are investing overseas? If so I believe that is quite understandable for a country rich in resources. What is the problem? It is obvious that Australia and Switzerland etc would be at opposite extremes.
NIIP = the difference between a country’s external financial assets and liabilities
There are two components of financial assets: debt and equity. Likewise with liabilities.
Australia’s $2 trillion of offshore debt (not equity investment) dwarfs the other figures, which is why the NIIP is negative.
You make a valid point about resource rich countries requiring large capital investment, but that is small in relation to the half a trillion international debt of our major banks — which they used to fuel the housing bubble.
Other resource-rich countries such as Norway (96), Chile (-5), Canada(-8) and Brazil (-37) are far lower.
If the money is not being used to fund investment,and is instead being used to simply fund the purchase of existing assets, then it sounds to me like the correct term for it is Net International Borrowing Position.
I mean, the way you explain it Colin, Australians are basically becoming poor because they are effectively borrowing enormous amounts of money from off shore to fund assets that are going to go pop one day when the bubble bursts. In the meantime,the banks merely make a margin to make it worth their while. Too bad if the Australian market falls flat and people go bankrupt and default on their loans, cos then they lose their house, and the banks still owe all this money to foreigners. Cripes! And then I guess they will simply incease their margins, so it’s the Australian borrowers that will lose again! Hope they are all locked in!
Australian banks are taking large risks — if they fail the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill — for relatively small gains.
Adrian, NIIP is money in the bank, and we owe more than we have.
Meaning we will be Chinas little bitch in years to come paying them back.