Australian democracy is in very serious jeopardy | Macrobusiness

By Houses and Holes on November 4, 2016:

Australian democracy is in very serious jeopardy. China is making great strides towards it and its intentions are not benevolent. It’s obvious in local, regional and global trends and if we do not do something soon to protect our freedoms they are going to be sold into the burgeoning Chinese empire, as well as political hegemony, by a corrupt oligarchy.

Some of you will tell me to take off my tin foil hat for writing this. To you I say ‘listen up’.

For the next few decades the global political economy will be a contest between post-cultural free moving capital and deeply cultural labour. This will mean ebbs and flows between investment and regulation in an overall trend towards de-globalisation.

As nation states rise from the past few decades of globalisation to protect their respective labour pools, there will be an increasing Balkanisation of trade and investment flows, particularly in terms of regions. One can foresee a time when a European trading bloc competes with American and Asian trading blocs as each’s respective hegemon – US, China and Germany – muscles out its sphere of influence.

In terms of the magnitude of these respective spheres, the biggest loser will be the United States as it is increasingly contested in North Asia. Europe may also lose as the eurozone either disintegrates or shrinks. China will win big.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing that China will grow to rule the world, nor that the US will decline and fall. In fact, I expect US economic dominance to outlast China’s great leap forward owing to its immense sophistication, markets, research capability and excellent demographics. On the other hand, China faces an extremely difficult transition through the ‘middle income trap’ and terrible demographics.

Nonetheless, the sheer magnitude of these economies and powers mean that the great regional Balkanisation will transpire.

Thus Australia will find itself an object of contest within a region caught between respectively receding and advancing Super Powers. We are already seeing this very clearly in the shifts undertaken by both the Philippines and Malaysia. Both nations are led by highly dubious democratic leaders under intense pressure from a traditional US ally to come clean on corruption.

Yet both have instead turned to China to prop up their respective regimes with enormous investment deals that have come with fabulous reciprocal endorsements for Beijing, Manila and Kuala Lumpur. This while the US’s rather foolishly self-serving TPP dies on the shelf.

At the risk of stereotyping, these new Asian power relationships much more resemble a Confucian model that privileges patronage and filial bonds above the probity and meritocracy of democracy.  China’s goals here are very obviously to undermine not just US influence but to empower local entities that are sympathetic to its interests. It may or not be an explicit goal to undermine democracies as well but if promoting local ‘strongmen’ does so then all the better!

Now turn to our local circumstances. Australia is the midst of a terms of trade boomlet engineered exclusively in Beijing. After decades of stupidly pro-cyclical policy-making Australia is now little more than a southern province of Chinese economic policy. With the flick of a pen in an obscure public service department, China delivers tens of billions to our shores in coal revenues and our monumental trade deficit evaporates overnight.

There is no other economy on earth that I know of that works with this dependence. We call it lucky. And it is. But it also comes with strings attached and they have been on display for a decade or more. Australian policy attitudes towards China have morphed steadily from a middle power engagement that included dialogues on human rights and democratic process to today’s pragmatic “do what you like boss” attitude.

I’m not writing to judge that. The kids of Tibet and Tienanmen are not Australian and there are limits to how much anyone can care about far flung folk. Especially when you’re offered a hundred billion dollar blindfold. Moreover, China needs Australian dirt to power its development so the power transmission is not all one way. The natural asymmetry of the political relationship is counter-balanced by the natural asymmetry of the economic one.

That’s the past. The future is very different indeed. China is going to need less and less dirt over time as it grows richer and more regionally powerful. And that’s where the recent events in the Philippines and Malaysia are a very important cautionary tale for Australian democracy. As we’ve seen, the next phase of Chinese development will be to throw off enormous sums of capital and people. Australia is happily gobbling up both at the moment to offset the declines in its dirt fortunes.

But this wave comes with much more explicit power compromises than we have already seen in action. The Sam Dastayari donations and rampaging property developer corruption scandals are the tip of the iceberg. Since then we’ve seen more and more Chinese bids for Australian strategic assets. This week we saw barely former trade minister Andrew Robb take a job advising the Landbridge Group, the owner of the Darwin Port. Landbridge is a shadowy firm involved in all sorts of stuff from chemicals to armed militias. It is widely considered to be beholden to Beijing in some way. At the very least the Darwin Port is the butt end of Beijing’s One Belt, One Road trade bloc monster. So here we have a trade minister out of the job for six months, a job that involved intimate consultation on the US’s competing regional trade deal, the TPP, tipping his intelligence directly into the Beijing trade bloc.

A less generous analyst might see this as some form of commercial treason. I will say that it is indicative of just how unprepared Australian parliaments are to address Chinese soft power influence in its manifold forms. Indeed, with the current crop of money-grubbing mock-libertarian ideologues in charge, we are a complete bloody pushover. Our checks and balances appear gossamer-thin in the executive. The intelligentsia is under assault from the Chinese student pipeline and pseudo-intellects like Bob Carr and his Chinese apologism. Nor can we rely on the media to hold any to account. Of the duopoly, Murdoch will give China the nod the moment the deal is good enough. Fairfax is dying and in its death throes has grabbed for a real estate lifeline that is itself China dependent.

It is not at all hard to imagine a circumstance like that that has engulfed the politics of the Philippines and Malaysia happening here. An Australian PM finds himself under siege and turns to Chinese patronage to bail him out. Explicitly or otherwise it will only take one desperate narcissist and Australia too will be welcomed into the waiting arms of Beijing patronage with all of its carrots and sticks determining precisely who wins and who loses Downunder. The following election would be fought between a candidate armed with hundreds of billions of dollars of firepower versus a guy promising recession.

So, I worry. I worry a lot, actually, that Australia is on the verge of giving away its most prized possession – its freedom – quietly in the dark for a few pieces of silver. To stop it we must move now, not tomorrow. We need:

  • a big to cut the immigration intake and a rein the “citizenship exports sector”;
  • an overhaul of the Chinese investment regime such that it be placed alongside the nation’s strategic objectives;
  • a ban on foreign political donations (where is it?) and a Federal ICAC;
  • a proper enforcement of rules governing foreign buying of real estate;
  • a reboot of foreign policy that engages the US much more heavily in Asia.

Another couple of years of current policies and a few more Andrew Robbs and Aussie democracy as we know it is toast.

Reproduced with kind permission from Macrobusiness.

ASX 200 about to fall

The ASX 200 is testing primary support at 5200. Decline of Twiggs Money Flow below zero, following a large bearish divergence, warns of strong long-term selling pressure. Breach of support would signal a primary down-trend with an immediate target of 4750.

ASX 200

Bond spreads: Financial risk is easing

Bond spreads are an important indicator of risk in financial markets. When corporate bond yields are at a substantial premium to Treasury yields, that indicates higher default risk among large corporations. The graph below, from the RBA chart pack, shows the premium charged for AA-rated corporations compared to US Treasuries. Anything over 150 basis points (bps) indicates elevated risk. For lower-rated BBB corporations, a spread greater than 300 bps is cause for concern. At present, both credit spreads are trending lower, suggesting that financial risk is easing.

US Credit Spreads

Australia displays a similar picture, with AA-rated spreads trending lower. BBB spreads are also falling but remain high at 200 bps relative to 150 bps in the US, reflecting Australia’s vulnerability to commodities and real estate (both here and in China).

Australian Credit Spreads

Gold: Further weakness likely

US Treasury yields are rising, with the 10-year yield breaking through 1.80 percent to signal a test of 2.0 percent. Further rises are likely on the back of stronger GDP figures for the last quarter.

10-year Treasury Yields

The Chinese Yuan continues to depreciate against the Dollar in anticipation of another rate rise from the Fed.

USDCNY

Spot gold displays a weak retracement off support at $1250/ounce, with short candles indicating a lack of conviction. Another primary decline is likely and would test primary support at $1200.

Spot Gold

The ASX All Ordinaries Gold Index respected the descending trendline, suggesting another decline. Reversal below 4300 would confirm, offering a target of 4000.

All Ordinaries Gold Index

ASX Banks: Picking up pennies in front of the bulldozer

Earlier this week I wrote:

“The ASX 300 Banks Index broke through resistance at 8000. Twiggs Money Flow is still negative but recovery above zero now looks likely. Breakout would signal an advance to 8700 but I remain cautious and would wait for a retracement to respect the new support level.”

ASX 300 Banks Index

The picture changed within 24 hours. Breakout transformed into a false break, reversing below the 8000 support level. Twiggs Money Flow turned down and now recovery above zero looks unlikely.

Trading breakouts is like picking up pennies in front of a bulldozer. Especially when fundamentals offer scant support. I have never done an accurate count, but for every successful breakout there must me at least five, if not ten, false breaks and/or bull or bear traps. Not good odds if you want to preserve your capital. Far better to wait for confirmation, even if that means a higher entry price.

Gold selling pressure continues

Selling pressure on gold continues, with the SPDR Gold [GLD] ETF consolidating in a bearish narrow band above support at 119. Twiggs Money Flow below zero warns of long-term selling pressure. Continuation of the down-trend is likely and breach of 119 would signal another decline.

SPDR Gold

Spot gold displays a similar narrow consolidation at $1250/ounce. Continuation is likely and would test primary support at $1200.

Spot Gold

The ASX All Ordinaries Gold Index recovered above resistance at 4500 but has so far respected the descending trendline. Respect is likely and reversal below 4300 would signal a decline to 4000.

All Ordinaries Gold Index

Australia: Infrastructure spending nosedives

From Andrew Hanlan at Westpac:

Infrastructure Activity

Total real infrastructure activity contracted by almost 10% in the June quarter 2016, to be 26% below the level of a year ago. That was the fourth year of contraction…..

Infrastructure construction work is declining rapidly. First, we had the end of the mining boom as existing projects reached completion while demand, mainly from China, contracted. This was followed by falling demand in the oil & gas sector, ending the development boom in that sector. If you think the apartment boom — driven by investor demand from China — is going to fill the hole, think again.

Australia & Canada’s experience with equal weighted indices

Correction to my earlier post. Equal-weighted indices don’t always outperform cap-weighted indices, as with the S&P 500. Australia’s ASX 100 Equal Weighted Index underperformed the cap-weighted ASX 100, recording annual growth of 3.79% (EWI) compared to 5.28% for the ASX 100 on a total return basis over the last 10 years.

ASX 100 Equal Weighted Index compared to cap-weighted ASX 100

Canada’s TSX 60 Equal Weighted Index, on the other hand, mimics the S&P 500. Equal Weight achieved an returns of 6.17% over the last 10 years compared to 5.33% for the cap-weighted index.

TSX 60 Equal Weighted Index compared to cap-weighted TSX 60

I will investigate further why Australia bucks the trend but I suspect the banks play a major role. The ASX 300 Banks Index substantially outperforms the broad ASX 300 Index.

ASX 300 Banks Index compared to ASX 300

Active managers and Index funds: How to avoid the pitfalls and get the best of both worlds

From James Kirby at The Australian:

Australia’s big fund managers are now openly bagging index funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs)….Keep away from index funds and ETFs, they cry, the market is too tough for investors to blindly follow an index-style fund when returns are as modest as we have seen in recent times….

But rather than flinging mud back at the active managers…. the passive brigade has instead made two killer moves.

The first move is to reveal quite plainly how the active managers are performing — and they are performing dismally.

The second move is to continually cut prices — or fees — to the point that active managers look very expensive indeed.

Dow Jones’ Indices versus Active Australia Scorecard:

Australian General Equity (Large-Cap) Funds

59.7% underperformed the S&P/ASX 200 Index over one year

69.2% underperformed the benchmark in a five-year period

International Equity General

80.7% underperformed the S&P Developed ex-Australia Large Cap Index in a one-year period

91.9% underperformed the benchmark in a five-year period

I have two major concerns with index funds:

First, index funds reward size, not performance. The bigger a corporation grows, and the bigger its weighting in the index, the more stock an index fund will buy. Over time the index is likely to grow increasingly dominated by a herd of dinosaurs — earning low returns on a large asset pool and unable/unlikely to adapt to change — headed for extinction.

Second, active fund managers perform a valuable role for the entire market, conducting in-depth research of industries, visiting companies and evaluating prospects and performance. Their resulting purchases and sales inform the entire market as to prospective value and under-pin long-term market value. Increasing dominance of passive index funds erodes this capability and will hasten the growth of my first concern.

An easy way to counter the first concern is to invest in equal-weighted index funds. These do not reward size, instead investing an equal amount in each stock in the index instead of weighting by market capitalization.

Apart from eliminating the size bias, the equal-weighted index has another major advantage. It out-performs cap-weighted indices by a sizable margin. The graph below shows the S&P 500 Equal-Weighted Index achieved an annual performance of 8.53% compared to 7.03% for the regular S&P 500 Index, over the last 10 years.

Performance Comparison: S&P 500 (TR) Index v. S&P 500 EWI (TR) Index

The only way to address the second concern is to keep a sizable part of your portfolio with active managers. Don’t blindly follow performance — last year’s winners are often this year’s losers — but follow managers with reasonable fees and proven long-term ability to outperform the index.