James Kynge's Thesis: "China Continental"; John Authers's Follow Up

James Kynge laid out his thesis for China's continuing growth in the wake of declining exports in a recent Financial Times column, "China Continental". Excerpt:

China is going continental. Just as the US during the 19th century underwent a transition from export-oriented growth to a greater reliance on inner dynamism, so China is looking inwards for the engine to drive its economy.

In China’s case it is still early days, but evidence suggests the conventional view of an export-dependent, river delta-driven economy no longer matches the reality. The argument here is not that trade has somehow become unimportant to China, but rather that the energy generating the world’s fastest economic growth rate this year is increasingly coming from within.

A series of indicators reveals the shift to “China Continental” – the transition of the world’s most populous country into an increasingly self-propelling economic force.

Kynge lists a few different specific metrics to back up his case, including increases in China's retail sales and domestic cargo traffic, and survey results on consumer spending intentions, before addressing China skeptics in his conclusion:

Sceptics argue that China’s performance this year has come through huge but ultimately unsustainable government intervention. Such spending, they say, will boost growth for a time but achieve little but industrial overcapacity in the longer run. These arguments are not without merit, but they miss a newer, more interesting prospect; that Chinese growth is increasingly self-generating and continentally driven.

Recent moves in the commodity markets support Kynge's thesis, as John Authers noted in his Financial Times column today ("China's health gives rise to fresh growth theory"):

Industrial commodities, that benefit most from economic growth, have surged, with lead and copper up more than 50 per cent in three months. Gold, an inflation hedge, has barely gained.

Authers went on to summarize the debate about China's economy (both sides of which have been fleshed out by Kynge and Zeihan, respectively):

As a whole, even before yesterday's strong headline to the US jobless report, world markets were plainly working on the assumption that China has saved the world from Depression. Is the market right to do so?

There are two camps. The optimistic side, laid out by James Kynge in the Financial Times last week, is "China Continental"; like the US in the late 19th century, China can turn itself into a great economic power, by building links to its interior and unleashing its buying power.

The pessimistic side suggests China has poured money into the public sector, and will merely form excess capacity. The huge demand for industrial metals may be artificial.

Electricity generation is down year-on-year. Supply managers surveys show new export orders are barely expanding. So maybe China is caricaturing the US in the 1930s, and paying some people to dig holes and others to fill them in.

If so, the gains could soon be in for another ugly recoupling. Either way, nothing just now is more important than the health of the Chinese economy.

Stocks for the (Very) Long Run

From John Authers's column in today's Financial Times ("Long View: Why baby boomers will put their faith in bonds"):

US stocks have now underperformed Treasury bonds since 1969. Very few savers actively putting money away today started much before 1969. Most of them did so during a period when the cult of the equity held sway. For this whole generation, that belief in equities has proved badly misplaced. Various long-term surveys show that there have been very long periods of underperformance by equities in the past.

But we can say that the current sell-off is almost without precedent for its speed. [Research Affiliates' Rob] Arnott’s figures show that as Wall Street opened on Friday it was already dealing with the second biggest six-month decline in its history. The only bigger six-month drop was barely larger, at 51 per cent, at the end of the crash of 1932.

The good news is that 1932 marked the bottom of the great bear market of the 1930s, and that stocks rallied more than 100 per cent in a matter of weeks.

The bad news is that there were still 22 years to go before stocks regained their highs in nominal terms, and 26 years before they regained their highs in real terms, an event that did not happen until 1958.

[...]

All of this could shatter our confidence in stocks as the vehicle for the long run. While the evidence is still unequivocal that they do perform best over the very long term, the periods may be so long that they do not help some people during their lifetimes.

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) The shattering of confidence Authers mentions above, and the associated revulsion toward stocks, explains the multiple compression that Vitaliy Katsenelson wrote occurs during secular range-bound (or bear) markets (see his graphic above, or this post for elaboration on Katsenelson's thesis).

2) This column wouldn't have been a revelation to Benjamin Graham. Unlike the advocates of buy & hold indexing in recent years, Graham was well aware that stocks, broadly speaking, could under-perform for painfully long periods. Graham wrote this on p.12 of the third edition of his Security Analysis, which was published in 1951:

"Prior to 1929, one could say with some logic that the course of common stock prices appeared to be so determinedly upward that the intending holder of high-grade stocks for investment could afford to buy them at any time and to ignore their fluctuations. In the past 20 years there is no longer any clear-cut evidence of an underlying and persistent upward trend in common stocks taken as a whole."

Hence, Graham focused on investment strategies that didn't rely on a secular bull market lifting most stocks¹. Incidentally, he didn't know it when he wrote the quote above, but a new secular bull market had already begun when the third edition of Security Analysis was published -- one that would continue for about another 15 years.

The graphic above is from Katsenelson's website.

¹Worth remembering though that even Graham took a beating during the Great Crash: According to James Grant, in his introduction to the latest edition of Security Analysis, Graham lost 70% of his money (The Dow dropped 89.5% over the same 1929-1932 period).