According to Platts Mineral Value Service, a Munich-based iron ore and steel research company, domestic iron ore’s contribution to the Chinese steel market has declined from 36% of market share in 2010 to around 22% in 2015.
Domestic iron ore output from an industry plagued by fragmentation, high costs and low grades (only around 20% Fe) has halved since 2013 and may dip below 200 million tonnes Fe 62% equivalent this year…..
Even if more Chinese mines shut down and the shift to seaborne ore continues, the seaborne market is not exactly short of tonnage. All-in-all new seaborne supply set to increase by approximately 245 million tonnes by end of 2018 according to Platts MVS.
The big three – Vale, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton – last week lowered future production guidance, but the aggregate 35 million tonnes in possible lost production hardly changes the oversupply picture and the giants would still hit actual annual output records even at these lowered levels. Citigroup’s analysts expect around an additional 75 million tonnes of iron ore this year to be shipped out of Australia, more than a third of which would come from Roy Hill. The Gina Rinehart mine has brought forward ramp-up plans and now expects to be producing at full annualized capacity of 55 million tonnes by the end of this year. Later this year, Rio’s board is likely to give the go-ahead to build Silvergrass which would add another 20 million tonnes of high-grade, low cost ore to the company’s Pilbara output.
….the Reserve Bank of Australia pushes Australian banks to create the New Payments Platform, a new piece of open-source infrastructure being built that will move the payments system to real time. The RBA’s plans are echoed by the US and the eurozone, which are also planning to roll out real time payment infrastructure by next year. These payments would boost Australia’s economic activity, as money flow improves and Australians access their funds as they are deposited, [Don Sharp at InPayTech] argued.
Australian banks could lose $2.5 billion in interest earnings if instantaneous payments were adopted – and the figure could jump significantly as interest rates rise.
Payments held in the banking system are part of the “float” which banks use for interest-free funding of part of their balance sheet — a boost to interest margins. Switch to a realtime payments system would see this disappear.
“Australia continues to swim strongly against the global tide, shrugging off China’s slowdown, rotten commodity prices and a fast fading resource construction boom to chalk up good growth,” said Deloitte Access Economics partner Chris Richardson…..
“A stronger Australian dollar … could, if it is sustained, start to take the cream off the cake of the non-mining growth story,’ said Mr Richardson, “with some of the recent gains in tourism and international education potentially at risk, and the possibility of the blowtorch to the belly going back onto the nation’s long-suffering manufacturers and farmers.”
The Australian Dollar is too strong given the current headwinds facing the economy. Having closely tracked commodity prices since 2009, recent divergence has the Aussie rallying to test resistance at 80 US cents. Failure of negotiations among major oil producers, in Doha, to institute a production freeze, may be just the catalyst needed to spark another decline. This time with a target of 60 US cents.
The Australian’s Adam Creighton has written a ripper post explaining why, in the wake of tax avoidance scandals (e.g. multinational and the Panama Papers), a broad-based land tax is needed more than ever, but will never see the light of day due to vested interests and weak politicians:
Windfall gains to private land owners stemming from developments outside their control are a far better object for taxation than income and consumption, which prop up vast avoidance industries…
Taxes on land are unique economically because they can’t be avoided and they don’t distort supply…
In fact, over time land tax (which should apply only to the unimproved part) could even reduce rents by encouraging development, including more apartments, on undeveloped land…
Land taxes may well be fairer, too. Just as the owners of land adjacent to new railway stations have done nothing to generate their windfall, land owners don’t lift a finger to generate increases in unimproved land values…
A comprehensive national, flat rate tax on unimproved land taxes was part of Labor’s platform from 1891 to 1905. The party should consider resurrecting this policy and using the proceeds entirely to slash personal income and/or company tax to unleash a productivity, investment and spending boom. This would help affordability; property prices would automatically fall…
A 1 per cent annual land tax without any exemptions could raise around $44bn based on the ABS’s estimates…
The economic ignorance and self-interest of land owners will, however, prevent any shift towards land tax, however beneficial it might be in the long run for almost everyone.
Vested interests would launch a hysterical defence of existing arrangements, wrongly claiming poor renters would be harmed.
Others would argue even stupid policies can’t be changed because some people have arranged their affairs around them.
Creighton has nailed it.
Land taxes are one of the most efficient sources of tax available, actually creating positive welfare gains to the domestic population of $0.10 for each dollar raised, since non-resident home owners are also taxed (see below Treasury chart).
Even just switching inefficient stamp duties (which cost the economy $0.70 per dollar raised) to a broad-based land tax would produce an estimated 1.5% increase in GDP, or $24 billion, without changing the amount of tax raised.
Unfortunately, while the arguments for shifting the tax base towards land taxes are impeccable, there are several key factors holding politicians back.
Consider the proposal to merely junk stamp duties in favour of a broad-based land tax levied on all land holders.
As shown by the RBA, only around 6% of the housing stock is transacted on average in a given year:
This means that in a given year, only a small minority of households pay stamp duty (albeit tens-of-thousands of dollars of dollars). And once they pay it, they automatically become a roadblock to reform (“why should I pay tax twice”, is the common retort).
While having such a small group of taxpayers supporting services for the whole community is ridiculous, rather than governments sharing the tax burden by levying each household a much smaller amount on a regular basis, it is far easier politically to tax a small group than everyone.
The other major roadblock with land taxes is that they would be levied on retirees that are asset (house) rich but cash poor. They would, therefore, squeal like stuffed pigs if they were required to pay tax.
The obvious solutions to these roadblocks are:
To overcome concerns around “double taxation”, provide a credit to anyone that has purchased a home in the past 10 years, equal to the amount of stamp duty paid, and then subtract the hypothetical land tax that would have been paid since the home was purchased.
Allow retirees to accumulate their land tax liability, with the bill payable upon death (via the estate) or once the house is eventually sold (whichever comes first), with interest charged on any outstandings.
However, even with such arrangements in place, politicians would still face the option of maintaining the status quo and taxing only a small number of people each year (easy) versus reforming and taxing almost everyone (hard).
Add in a fierce scare campaign from the property lobby – especially if land taxes were extended beyond just stamp duties to replace income taxes – and the likelihood of achieving meaningful reform is slim, especially with the current useless crop of politicians.
…..the banks’ reliance on offshore funding hit an unprecedented 54% of GDP in the December quarter:
As always, the key risk is that the banks’ ability to continue borrowing from offshore rests with foreigners’ willingness to continue extending them credit. This willingness will be tested in the event that Australia’s sovereign credit rating is downgraded (automatically downgrading the banks’ credit ratings), there is another global shock, or a sharp deterioration in the Australian economy (raising Australia’s risk premia).
The Federal Budget, too, is now hostage to the banks’ offshore borrowing binge as it cannot borrow to spend on infrastructure or other initiatives for fear that Australia will lose its AAA credit rating, potentially leading to an unraveling of the private debt bubble created by Australia’s banks.
That APRA could stand by and allow the banks’ to borrow externally like drunken sailors is a hallmark of regulatory failure.
One in four dollars of bank assets is funded by offshore borrowing. A precarious position even for a stable economy (like Ireland?), let alone one hitched to the boom and bust commodity cycle. Smacks of moral hazard by the banks.
From Andrew Batson’s interview with Cai Rang, chairman of the China Iron & Steel Research Institute Group:
China’s current steel production capacity is 1.2 billion tons, but domestic demand cannot completely absorb this capacity. In 2015 China exported about 100 million tons of steel products; this was a relief for domestic capacity but a shock to the international market. Already nine European countries have made antidumping complaints, and Japan, Korea and India have also complained. This shows that our country’s current steel production capacity is not sustainable, and must be genuinely reduced.
Now the relevant departments are drafting the 13th five-year plan for the iron and steel industry, and the preliminary plan is to first cut 200 million tons, and eventually stabilize steel capacity around 700 million tons.
How will a 40 percent cut in Chinese steel production impact on Australian iron ore exports? Not well, I suspect.
Elizabeth Knight quotes prime minister Malcolm Turnbull speaking at Westpac’s 199th birthday lunch:
Meanwhile Turnbull – himself a former head of the Australian chapter of Goldman Sachs – told those attending the Westpac lunch that bank culture must shift from one that traditionally had been all about profit to one that took into account broader social responsibility.
Remuneration and promotion cannot any longer be based solely on direct financial contribution to the bottom line.
While bank bosses have been talking the same kind of talk for a while now, the growing number of instances where the behaviour of the banks had fallen short as a result of the drive to increase profit (and personal bonuses derived from making returns) are becoming harder to explain away using the excuse of a few bad apples.
“We expect our bankers to have higher standards, we expect them always, rigorously, to put their customers’ interests first – to deal with their depositors and their borrowers, with those they advise and those with whom they transact in precisely the same way they would have them deal with them,” he said.
Turnbull has hit on a key risk area for banks: remuneration structures that reward short-term profit objectives promote a risk-taking culture. Bank deals often look impressive at the start only to sour later. Incentives that encourage employee share purchases align staff interests with those of shareholders — a prudent, long-term outlook — while share options and bonus schemes encourage a short-term focus, aggressive risk-taking and divisional rivalry that can damage long-term value.
APRA may consider remuneration structures as outside their risk management ambit but it is time for a re-think. Toxic management culture is the biggest risk of all.
“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” ~ Warren Buffett
While the decision to keep rates unchanged was widely expected, analysts were speculating that the governor would show some concern about the recent steep rise in the Australian dollar’s exchange rate, which gained nearly 12 per cent from its January lows to a peak of US77.23¢ last week.
Mr Stevens duly added a paragraph to this month’s statement, noting that the currency had appreciated “somewhat”.
“In part, this [the recent rise] reflects some increase in commodity prices, but monetary developments elsewhere in the world have also played a role,” he said, referring to recent monetary easing by other central banks including the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank, as well as the decision by the US Federal Reserve to reduce the pace of interest rate hikes.
“Under present circumstances, an appreciating exchange rate could complicate the adjustment under way in the economy,” he added.
But anyone hoping for a stronger “jawbone” was disappointed and the Australian dollar shot up by about half a cent to the day’s high of US76.32¢, before falling back in late trade to around US76¢.
Central banks around the globe are destabilizing financial markets and the RBA responds with a polite acknowledgement at the end of its statement. Someone please tell the governor: If you want to run with the big dogs, you’ve got to learn to pee high.
Where oil goes, stocks will follow. Crude oil prices are the canary in the coalmine at present. June 2016 Light Crude futures retreated from resistance at $43/barrel. Breach of medium-term support at $38 warns of another test of primary support at $32/barrel. Failure of support at $32 would offer a target of $22/barrel*, while respect of support would suggest that a bottom is forming.
* Target calculation: 32 – ( 42 – 32 ) = 22
The ASX started Monday with an early rally but ran into a spate of selling before the close. ASX 200 follow-through below 5000 would warn of a test of primary support at 4750. Declining 21-day Twiggs Money Flow, below zero, indicates medium-term selling pressure. Failure of primary support would reaffirm the long-term target of 4000*.
You must be logged in to post a comment.