To regulate or not to regulate? That is the question

 The financial crisis that engulfed global capital markets and brought a number of important international banks close to the brink last year has been followed by a good deal of soul searching among the regulatory community…Work is proceeding to try to establish better arrangements so as to prevent the next crisis, or, more realistically, at least make it less costly – all the while seeking to avoid doing things that make it harder to recover from this one.

Glenn Stevens, Governor of the RBA, December 2009

 

Treasury and ASIC have cast different visions for the future of financial product regulation in Australia. …it will be interesting to see whose views prevail in the battle between these heavyweight agencies.

Stephen Jaggers, partner, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, October 2009

 

IFSA does not believe that the recent financial service and product provider collapses are evidence that our regulatory regime has fundamentally failed or that the legislative requirements imposed on financial services providers are grossly inadequate…This is not to say that our financial services regulatory regime cannot be improved…We believe there is room for improvement.

Investment and Financial Services Association (IFSA), July 2009

 

As at 30 September 2009, funds management institutions in Australia had over $1.3 trillion of consolidated assets. To put this into perspective, the financial services industry controls a pool of money larger than Australia’s annual GDP. The average Australian has $62,632 invested in various managed funds. Aided by compulsory superannuation, superannuation co-contribution schemes and an increase in the export of financial services, the industry continues to grow.

Presently the funds management industry is subject to regulation primarily through the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). This includes the enforcement of legislation in the Financial Services Reform Act 2001 which was refined with the Corporations Amendment Regulations in 2005. The reforms introduced in 2005 included a relaxation of what constitutes the provision of a financial service. Providers of financial services were also given the ability to substitute a full Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) for a short-form PDS, provided a full PDS is available on request. However the global financial crisis has triggered a wave of distrust towards the financial services industry which now faces re-regulation.

Whilst the robust Australian regulatory system is generally viewed positively by international investors there are currently numerous reviews underway, including a submission by ASIC to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (PJC). Although there has been regulatory changes regarding credit rating agencies and short selling, the government must consider broader reform encompassing greater protection for retail investors. Reform in the industry could also address many of the so-called contributory causes behind the financial crisis, including an inappropriate use of leverage and the provision of inadequate financial advice.

In its submission to the PJC, ASIC suggests several areas for reform such as prudential regulation of a larger range of financial products. This would involve more than conduct and disclosure regulation for products such as debentures or products where there is the potential for hardship to occur should the product fail. It is argued that this would negatively affect market efficiency by creating a lack of higher risk-return investments; however the severe losses incurred to retail investors over the past few years could have been minimised if more complex financial instruments had been subject to greater scrutiny.

Furthermore ASIC suggests restrictions on the type or design of products sold to retail investors in order to ‘safeguard investors from high-risk or unsuitable products’. In a world where CDOs, CMOs, and CLOs run riot it makes sense to protect the average investor, who struggles to understand even the basics of a credit default swap. ASIC suggests that investors are categorised in order to restrict access to riskier financial products. Only qualified retail investors that self-certify annually will receive access to certain securities. Although such a regulation would be beneficial, it could be interpreted as discriminatory and would create red tape that limits market efficiency.

Another area that could face reform is the licensing of financial advisors. An increase in licensing regulations such as the ability to ban individuals deemed improper would further mitigate risks to retail investors. On the other hand an increase in licensing laws could create high barriers to entry that prevent the industry from expanding, especially in terms of export potential.

In an alternative approach Treasury acknowledges that increased regulation in the financial sector seeking to remove risk could create a moral hazard if a sense of complacency were to develop among investors. Additionally an increase in regulation would increase costs resulting in ‘the community underwriting financial risk through the tax system’. Instead of supporting ASIC’s suggestions, including a restriction on remuneration for financial advisors, Treasury believes investors would receive greater benefit from improved disclosure. Therefore although regulatory action may be necessary in response to perceived vagaries in the funds management industry, it is certainly not the case that ASIC’s sweeping reforms must be undertaken.

Nevertheless given the economic instability and volatility caused by the crisis, it is clear that improved disclosure is not sufficient in preventing large-scale financial devastation. Thus in reviewing regulation of the funds management industry the government should not be lulled into a false sense of security by green shoots of recovery. The underlying issues such as the inappropriate use of certain securities are a result of insufficient regulation and the problems remain, hence reform is necessary or we could be witness to take two.

By Nicole Loewensohn and Emily Stewart

Breaking the tie between fear and FDI

“Paranoia will get you through times of no enemies better than enemies will get you through times of no paranoia.”

Pete Granger

 

“In 10 years time, China will have 15 cities each with more people than the entire population of Australia and a further 22 cities with more than 10 million people. This unprecedented urbanisation drive in human history represents a tremendous challenge and opportunity for our resources sector.”

Warwick Smith, Chairman ANZ (NSW/ACT)

 

“No relationship is more important to the future well being of Australia than the relationship with China. It impacts on all Australians.”

Hon. Bob Hawke AC at the Australia-China Investment Forum 24/09/09

 

Once again Australia Day has been and gone and the country enjoyed the day off to play cricket and eat barbequed lamb amongst various other treasured traditions. And we have a lot to enjoy here in Australia, with a solid resources sector, sound monetary policy and a stock market up 46% from the March 2009 lows. Nevertheless our solid growth is unavoidably linked to the new great world power that is China.

As Alan Kohler suggests “bet on China, not America. That means bet on Australia – it is in the right place at the right time”.  The source of Australia’s sustained economic growth is undoubtedly China’s insatiable demand for resources, yet as China seeks to take a more direct involvement in Australian industry, feathers are being ruffled and paranoia sets in. There has always been concern over foreign ownership of Australian-owned businesses, but there could be a serious cost to the economy through the denial of foreign direct investment (FDI).

Australia is a nation with low domestic savings, we are a net capital importer, thus if the economy is to continue to grow it is imperative that FDI is utilised and new sources of funding encouraged. With a ‘US$2 trillion war chest’ China clearly has the capacity to become a significant investor, whilst recent attempts to invest in the Australian resource sector demonstrate clear intent of China to take a larger direct stake in the domestic economy.

In the past, the UK and the US have largely been responsible for FDI flows into Australia, accounting for 24.8% and 24.3% of the 2008 total respectively. Since then the global economy has continued to suffer, and although showing signs of recovery, both the UK and US face considerable troubles, with some suggesting that America is headed for bankruptcy. Therefore new capital markets will need to be explored; and who better than China, our largest trading partner.

Unfortunately due to the fact that Chinese outward FDI is largely considered sovereign investment, it is subject to a rigorous review process by the Australian Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB). Although FDI rules in Australia have been eased for private investment, most Chinese FDI is still subject to intense scrutiny, which has recently been criticised for causing delays that dissuade investors. Furthermore policy that seeks to limit Chinese investment in Australia could damage an already ‘fractious’ relationship.

Australia must develop a balanced approach to China, protecting Australian interests and encouraging a friendly relationship, yet this is problematic whilst there remains an obvious lack of transparency in both China’s legal and political systems that gives cause for concern. It is suggested that China has ulterior motives in securing significant interests in Australian industries.

This tension has been highlighted by the case of Chinalco’s now failed plan to inject US$19.5 billion into mining giant Rio Tinto, which would have increased the Chinese entity’s stake from 9% to 18%. Whilst the Australian government made a positive ruling on the investment, stating that Chinalco could acquire up to an 11% stake in Rio, the topic became the centre of a heated political debate. Malcolm Turnbull suggested that it would be against national interest for a firm such as Chinalco, owned by a communist regime, to have such a large stake in Australian resources. Conversely John Howard stated that FDI should come “from any source”.

A month after the deal was called off the Chinese government detained four members of Rio Tinto’s sales team, including Australian Stern Hu. Rio was accused of having acquired data that threatened China’s national security, as well as “winning over and buying off, prying out intelligence… and gaining things by deceit” during price negotiations for iron ore. Chinalco has denied a link between these events and the failed investment.

Nearly seven months later the four employees remain under arrest, awaiting the decision as to if and when the case should go to trial. It is expected that the case will be referred to the Central Committee of Political and Legal Affairs, run by the ruling communist party. It is this close relationship between business and politics in China that has Australian firms questioning the acceptance of substantial FDI.

The Australian government showed its fear in early 2009, when the Chinese state-owned China Minmetals attempted to purchase OZ Minerals. The original sale was blocked given the location of the Prominent Hill Mine within a sensitive military area. Nevertheless a deal without the mine was achieved marking a positive step in Sino-Australia investment relations. Similarly the purchase of Australian company Felix Resources by Yanzhou Coal Mining Co marks the biggest buyout by a Chinese firm in Australian history, suggesting that 2010 could begin a new era of mutually beneficial investment.

Therefore whilst a fear of China abusing its power is not to be entirely disregarded we cannot afford to cast China in the role of villain seeking world domination. It is up to the government to establish a solid framework for reviewing both sovereign and private FDI on an equal basis, ensuring no loopholes or bias. The benefits of a sound relationship would flow not only to the resource sector but provide a strong boost to the Australian economy. Kevin may even improve his Mandarin.

By Nicole Loewensohn and Emily Stewart

Early days of the anticipated correction

2010 will be a difficult year simply because we had a complex recession with misleading and deceptive behaviour from many institutional and market related sources. Political correctness, self-interest, and convenient informal conspiracies have combined over the past decade to induce complacency and to mute criticism of behaviours that were near to fraudulent at worst and criminally careless at best, in relation to this credit crisis and the last tech/ telco crash. These institutions include bankers and brokers, government ministers, long-term fund managers, hedge funds, companies, the accounting profession, ASIC, the ASX, the IMF, and central bankers. Thus the natural tendency of market participants and informed commentators towards scepticism has been in retreat, and, to varying degrees, we have been slapped in the wallet by yet another harsh dose of reality. The commentariat has polarised into rampant bulls on one side of the debate, and negative zealots on the other. The response of the thoughtful should be to develop a strategy around viable data, consonant with an effective review and monitoring process. Only the nimble can outperform the swirling mass of ‘noise’ that hits us on a daily basis.

Because the XAO is 55% above its 2009 lows and only 28% below its 2008 highs, the ‘bargains’ are not in abundance. Therefore –

  • Stock selection is vital.
  • The earnings season starts end January and many companies have to overcome the dilutive impact of heavily discounted share issues.
  • Risk management is essential, look for macro turning points.
  • Trade around the edges of value propositions.
  • Try to find some takeover or recovery stocks.
  • Focus on major resource stocks and fewer speculative stocks.
  • Have a small bit of speculative money in established bio-techs and climate related situations.
  • Look for industry rationalisation in the media sector.
  • Have some dollars in property (oversold) and infrastructure.
  • Keep your eye on $USD index (China, USA and India expected to provide 60% of the world growth estimates for 2010).

We expect a few retracements, with the first being in the first quarter, particularly if the S&P 500 heads for around 1150 to 1180. The sooner the correction, the better.

ECINYA Insights ‘2010: Our view of the year ahead’ 12/1/2010

 

Think, Act, Review

Please re-read our most recent Insight Articles ‘2010: Our view of the year ahead’ and ‘Re-visiting last week’s 2010 overview’. Do not expect simple days ahead. Think, Act, Review.

 

THE CORRECTION HAS STARTED: Let’s look at the technical context first

The S&P 500 (SP500) reached 1148 on 14/1/10 and the All Ordinaries (XAO) reached 4981 on 11/1/10. These levels are 27% below the peaks of 1565 (SP500) and 6853 (XAO) reached on 9/10/07 and 1/11/07 respectively. They are 70% above the low of 676 (SP500) and 60% above the low of 3111 (XAO) reached on 9/3/09 and 6/3/09 respectively.

Give or take a day the primary trend from the lows is 223 days old and has proceeded as follows:

  • First advance 43 days +25.6% XAO, + 37.4% SP500
  • First retracement 5 days negative 4.1% XAO, negative 5.1% SP500
  • Second advance 20 days, XAO +8.1%, +7.3% SP500
  • Second retracement 20 days negative 6.7% XAO, negative 7.1% SP500
  • Third advance 74 days +24.2% XAO, +27.1% SP500
  • Third retracement 9 days negative 5.6% XAO, negative 4.2% SP500
  • Fourth advance 52 days +7.7% XAO, +8.8% SP500

A few observations: If you are an Elliott Wave advocate you would probably ignore the first retracement, but we regard any fall greater than 2% over 2 consecutive days as a potential turning point and we observe momentum on a daily basis. It has been clear for some time that momentum was slow in the period of the fourth advance averaging just 26 basis points daily for the XAO and 38 basis points for the SP500, compared with the third advance when the numbers were 55 basis points daily XAO and 62 basis points daily for the SP500. Also note the harmonic relationship between the SP500 and the XAO. Why is this so? Simple… the USA is China’s largest trading partner and the world’s largest economy. China is our largest trading partner.

Momentum can also be viewed via the charts and we constantly refer to the Williams%R and the Relative Strength Indicator to signify over-bought positions. We use daily, weekly, and monthly measures in this regard.

How long will this correction last and what will be its dimensions? Our guess is that it will be relatively short as this is not the big one that we are expecting in calendar 2010. Looking at the fundamental context, we would put this view on hold if the SP500 moves above 1113, and the XAO moves above 4850. A bigger correction will be data driven, not the cacophony we are currently witnessing. Earnings in earnings-per-share terms is always the most critical data point

 

CONTEXT, FUNDAMENTAL VIEW

Using our Portfolio Menus, over the past 3 months our Buy/ Accumulate tally has averaged 20 stocks overall, a Buy/ Accumulate ratio of 13%. If the earnings season unfolds satisfactorily we expect this ratio to rise.

This 3-day old retracement is said to have been caused by two factors. Firstly, President Obama announcing that the banks have to now pay for their bail-out in some way- increased taxation, curbs on bonuses, and re-regulation. Secondly, that Ben Bernanke’s endorsement as Fed Chairman is now doubtful. In relation to the banks, their excesses have clearly been massive and these excesses have flowed from Wall Street to Mainstreet where massive unemployment, negative GDP, negative profit growth, and massive domestic deficits have resulted. It has been said of Wall Street :

It can fairly be said that the chain of catastrophic bets made over the past decade by a few hundred bankers may well turn out to be the greatest non-violent crime against humanity in history. They’ve brought the world’s economy to its knees, lost tens of millions of people their jobs and homes, and trashed the retirement plans of a generation, and they could drive an estimated 200 million people worldwide into dire poverty. In other words, never before have so few done so much to so many. And has there been even one major, voluntary resignation by an American financial executive? One sincere apology? One jail sentence? Why the American public hasn’t taken to the streets in revolt is a mystery that can be linked to our inherent belief in the virtues of capitalism.

Graydon Carter Editor Vanity Fair, June 2009 issue. This magazine is an excellent source of economic and political material

And further:

We face two possible states of the world. One is a world in which our economic problems are largely solved, profits are on the mend, and things will soon be back to normal, except for a lot of unemployed people whose fate is, let’s face it, of no concern to Wall Street. The other is a world that has enjoyed a brief intermission prior to a terrific second act in which an even larger share of credit losses will be taken, and in which the range of policy choices will be more restricted because we’ve already issued more government liabilities than a banana republic, and will steeply debase our currency if we do it again. It is not at all clear that the recent data have removed any uncertainty as to which world we are in.

John Hussman, Hussman Funds Management, December 2009. (From ECINYA Insights 8/12/2009.)

The Wall Street banks would not be regarded as ‘banks’ in Australia. The vaporised names – Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman – were speculative trading houses in commodities, derivatives, collatorised debt obligations, hedge funds, and private equity buy-outs. The still-standing major names – Goldman Sachs, CitiBank, UBS, Morgan Stanley – appear to have learned little from the economic chaos of 2008.

In Ohio last week president Obama said; "We want some rules in place so that when you financial guys make bad decisions, we don’t have to foot the bill. That’s pretty straight-forward." Warren Buffett has suggested confiscation of CEO’s assets and their wives’ assets as well. This is pretty serious stuff and transcends debates about capitalism vs socialism, and neo-cons etc. On 12 December Ecinya said: "Political correctness, self-interest, and convenient informal conspiracies have combined over the past decade to induce complacency and to mute criticism of behaviours that were near to fraudulent at worst and criminally careless at best, in relation to this credit crisis and the last tech/ telco crash."

In relation to Ben Bernanke we note that he has received a ringing endorsement from Mr Greenspan. That, of itself, should cause serious questions to be asked and serious reservations to surface. America’s last central banker of substance was Paul Volcker.  Just ask him who should be Chairman of the Fed.

Re-visiting last week’s 2010 overview

Re-visiting last week’s 2010 Overview

Last week our executive summary gave the following probabilities to outline our view of the calendar year ahead –

"Macro Market Outlook and Assigned Probabilities (as at 13 January 2010)

  • 2% probability…..Economic recovery, new bull market takes out previous highs.
  • 70% probability….Economic recovery with several double-digit retracements, one possibly close to 20%.
  • 50% probability…..Recovery, but muted subdued advance.
  • 40% probability…..Double dip recession, more stimulus and bail-outs required.
  • 30% probability…..Secular bear-market continues with index levels going below 800 and 4000: Current retracement began at circa 1550 for S&P 500 with 1100 as the top of the downtrend channel, corresponding with XAO equivalents of 6800 and 4500.
  • 6% probability….’The great recession’ morphs into ‘the great depression’. This is the Robert Prechter et al view."

Probability’: A measure of the relative likelihood of occurrence of each of the above observations. The 6 values above do not have to add to 100. For example in 2 above there is a 30% chance that something else will happen; in 1 above a 98% chance.

COMMENT, CONJECTURE, and a RE-STATEMENT

Amongst our Ecinya confidants (people whom we talk to on a regular basis) there was general agreement and acceptance of our stated positions for the year ahead with just marginal differences in emphasis, although a few commented that the probabilities should add up to 100. To satisfy these views and to also, hopefully, add an additional layer of clarity we now provide the following re-statement of the assigned probabilities, but this in no way over-rules the precision of the six above:

  • Recovery with retracements, recovery comprising muted, subdued advance …….. 60% probability
  • Double dip recession, more and/or new stimulus, secular bear overtakes…………..33% probability
  • All other possibilities, new bull, depression, something we are unaware of……………7% probability.

 

THE VIEWS OF OTHERS OF SOME REPUTE AND TRACK RECORD

The global economy is recovering from the international financial crisis faster than expected, but IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned that growth was still largely driven by government stimulus measures and countries risked a return to recession if anti-crisis measures are withdrawn too soon.

International Monetary Fund 18/1/2010

The National Federation of Independent Businesses recently reported that faced with weakening demand and falling expectations small businesses are still cutting back on inventories and sacking labour. This is appalling news given that small and medium sized businesses drive the US job market. If they cut back or even refuse to hire there is no way big business can pick up the slack. Never mind, though, President Obama and his brilliant economic advisors have come up with a million dollar winner: "green jobs". Each job will cost $135,000 in stimulus money. Pathetic.

Gerard Jackson, BrookesNews.com 17/1/2010

The world is falling into what ultimately will be an inflationary depression. This will cause the death or near death of the world’s principle reserve currencies: US Dollar, UK Pounds, Euros, Swiss Francs and Yen, and it is unfolding. Insolvency, both moral and fiscal is unfolding: debt spirals on many levels of the developed world will be resolved ultimately with the printing press, this year, next year and until the rest of the world abandons the current FIAT paper and the ultimate Crack-Up Booms unfold. When the broad masses who have bought the hope realize it is a lie, and their hope turns to fear, this QE-induced (Quantitative Easing) high will turn into a blind panic as the G7’s safety nets FAIL; many markets will crash and others will soar and the most helpless will turn into angry mobs as they have no skills and their economies no longer produce blue collar jobs that create the middle classes – those jobs have been driven offshore by public serpents, crony capitalists, trade unions and banksters. G7 Central banks and governments are fully committed to restoring the expansion!!! Debt is exploding higher in government as income and revenue are in FREEFALL. It’s no coincidence that the fed and UK central bank asset purchases are larger than the budget deficits. The Fed is purchasing toxic assets, MBS and agency debt and central banks are recycling the money back into another TOXIC asset: US treasuries.

Ty Andros, TraderView.com 14/1/2010

So this is the backdrop as we look into the future. Unemployment is rising and is likely to remain stubbornly high (over 10%) for some time, except for the few months this coming summer when the Labor Department will hire hundreds of thousands of temporary census workers. The savings rate is rising, and consumer spending is at the very least challenged. The stimulus starts to drop sharply in the latter half of the year. States, counties, and cities are short about $260 billion and will either have to cut services (and thus jobs) or increase taxes. Housing is likely to get weaker, as there are large numbers of defaults coming because of mortgage-rate resets this year and next. Valuations on stocks are in the high range, and do not portend well for long-term returns. Further, Congress is likely to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and to add insult to injury with some form of large tax increase for health care. Between the local, state, and federal tax increases, we could see a massive increase in taxes of perhaps $500 billion in a $13-trillion economy, or about 4% of GDP. Think about that for a moment. It is likely we will begin 2011 with close to 10% unemployment, if not higher. Christina Romer’s work shows that tax cuts have a three-times benefit to GDP. Tax increases presumably have a similar negative effect. (Ms. Romer, by the way, is President Obama’s Chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors. This is not a partisan idea.) This is the great experiment to which we are going to be subjected. There are those who agree with Art Laffer and company that tax cuts are a positive for the economy (that would include your humble analyst).

Thus, I am faced with a great deal of uncertainty as I look into the future with my forecasts. I almost titled this letter "The Year of Waiting," because there are so many important developments we are waiting on. Will they actually raise taxes in such a soft economy, or will cooler heads prevail and the increases be postponed, or at least phased in over 4-5 years? What will the health-care bill look like? There are so many things that could significantly change any predictions. As I have written for years, the stock market drops an average of over 40% during a recession. If we go into a recession in 2011, it is highly unlikely that there will be an exception to the bear market rule. But this market seemingly wants to go higher. Smart people like my partner Steve Blumenthal argue with me that the technicals say we could go a lot higher in the short term. And he may very well be (and probably is) right.

This is a trader’s market. It is not time to buy and hold large indexes or high-beta stocks and expect to be made whole over the next ten years. Hope is not a strategy. But waiting for the "shoe to drop" is frustrating, I know. However, that is the situation we find ourselves in. The current environment is quite different than 1982, when the last bull market started. Rates were falling; they are now likely to rise over time. Taxes were going down. Valuations were at historical lows, not high and rising. Inflation was coming down. And on and on. The current environment is not one in which bull markets are born. The futures market is pricing in rate hikes from the Fed beginning this fall. I highly doubt a politicized Fed will hike rates with unemployment over 10%, ahead of a November election. We are going to have a very easy monetary policy for longer than most observers think.

The Fed has painted itself into a very tough corner. Raising rates in a high-unemployment environment is risky. Bernanke knows what happened in 1937 and does not want a repeat. But by keeping rates too low for too long, they risk an asset bubble or two. And the federal fiscal deficit of over $1.5 trillion is not making their situation any easier. The Fed has announced it is ending many of their various and sundry programs in the first quarter. They have essentially been the mortgage market. What will happen to rates? I think that is one of the reasons why Geithner has essentially lifted any limit on explicit guarantees for Fannie and Freddie. It will be seen as higher-paying government debt. It will also cost you, Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer, hundreds of billions in increased deficits, as they are telling those entities to eat the losses from large numbers of loan modifications. This is outrageous on so many levels. Congress should at least have to approve this.

So let me end by saying that, as we face the next crisis – and we will (there is always another crisis) – we will find we have not fixed the causes of the last one. We still have banks too big to fail, we have not put the credit default swaps on an exchange, we have not reinstated Glass-Steagall, Barney Frank’s bill (which was not the one that came out of committee) now makes it exceedingly more difficult to short stocks, we keep in power the same people who missed the problems the last time, and the list of bad policies bought (typo intended) to you by bank lobbyists grows ever longer. If the current bill looks like it was written by the bank lobby, that’s because it was. But it means we will have to face the same problems all over again.

John Mauldin Frontlinethoughts 9/1/2010

 

ECINYA COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE

At the risk of repeating ourselves ad nauseum we cannot subscribe to the ‘end of the world as we know it thesis’ for three main reasons. Firstly, we all live in the nominal GDP world and we do not ask the check-out chick to calculate our grocery purchases in real dollars i.e. adjusted for inflation and using a base year of X. The nominal world is alive and well and we get out of bed in the morning, access our transport and go to work; we live in a house, have a holiday etc etc. All of our income and disbursements are in nominal dollars.

Secondly, we live in a world of fiat currencies. We do not buy our gasoline or groceries in gold. Fiat money is defined in our Economics Dictionary as ‘inconvertible paper money in support of which there is no reserve or specie. Governments issuing such money usually gives it the quality of legal tender". This is Bernanke Bullion, and before him Greenspan Guineas. Give people enough and because they have purchasing power they think they are wealthy, and they spend. Provided there is excess capacity, inflation is unlikely to be a problem.

Thirdly, despite its importance, the dominance of The United States of America is waning and China, India, Brazil, and Russia is on the rise. This means there are other economies that can meet all or part of the US growth shortfall.

Note the space given to John Mauldin who travels and preaches widely on investment matters. We have come to regard him as a ‘voice of reason’ and a compiler of wide and diverse opinions and who is capable of summarising them into actionable conclusions. We look forward to the day when he returns to his natural state of being ‘bullish’. Bullish means you believe markets are going up, and ‘bearish’ means you think markets are going down. Being a ‘bull’, markets go up forever, and being a ‘bear’ markets go down forever. The nuance, the distinction, is critically important.

 

PM sets high bar for productivity gains

..shouts the front-page headline in The Australian Financial Review. Productivity is a very difficult measure of progress, but nonetheless, useful. But productivity is not assisted by a relatively poor tax system, a relatively inflexible industrial relations system, high nominal interest rates and poor fiscal policy and implementation. Mr Rudd has a habit of talking in parables stretching beyond measure. In this case he is talking about "the next four decades". Given that a decade is 10 years, how important today is the year 2050? As Peter Walsh (former Labor Finance Minister) recently said: "Mr Rudd is an economic illiterate".

A question we often ask ourselves is "Why does Labor appear to be economically incompetent?" The reason is that they try to do too much and they are ‘bleeding hearts’, romantics who live in the past and are prone to any contemporary sob story that comes along. In the final analysis they satisfy no-one. The exception to this was the Hawke-Keating-Walsh-Bernie Fraser- Lindsay Fox- Bill Kelty nexus that managed to provide a blend of idealism and pragmatism that gave measurable progress.

2010: Our view of the year ahead

Prologue

In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.

Dwight D Eisenhower, circa 1942

To assist yours, and our, intellectual navigation we start with our summary conclusions for the year ahead. The analysis then follows.

 

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

Though we regard the primary trend for 2010 to be UP, volatility will be a feature as the recovery will be complex. Most of the forecasters will have their moment(s) of directional accuracy, but will not be right for the entire year. Distrust any forecaster who just gives you a year-end index figure, which is a simplistic and lazy forecast, and relatively worthless.

2010 will be a difficult year simply because we had a complex recession with misleading and deceptive behaviour from many institutional and market related sources. Political correctness, self-interest, and convenient informal conspiracies have combined over the past decade to induce complacency and to mute criticism of behaviours that were near to fraudulent at worst and criminally careless at best, in relation to this credit crisis and the last tech/ telco crash. These institutions include bankers and brokers, government ministers, long-term fund managers, hedge funds, companies, the accounting profession, ASIC, the ASX, the IMF, and central bankers. Thus the natural tendency of market participants and informed commentators towards scepticism has been in retreat, and, to varying degrees, we have been slapped in the wallet by yet another harsh dose of reality. The commentariat has polarised into rampant bulls on one side of the debate, and negative zealots on the other. The response of the thoughtful should be to develop a strategy around viable data, consonant with an effective review and monitoring process. Only the nimble can outperform the swirling mass of ‘noise’ that hits us on a daily basis.

Please read the About Ecinya and Market Wisdom pages as refreshment for the year ahead.

 

Macro Market Outlook and Assigned Probabilities (as at 13 January 2010)

  • 2% probability…..Economic recovery, new bull market takes out previous highs.
  • 70% probability….Economic recovery with several double-digit retracements, one possibly close to 20%.
  • 50% probability…..Recovery, but muted subdued advance.
  • 40% probability…..Double dip recession, more stimulus and bail-outs required.
  • 30% probability…..Secular bear-market continues with index levels going below 800 and 4000: Current retracement began at circa 1550 for S&P 500 with 1100 as the top of the downtrend channel, corresponding with XAO equivalents of 6800 and 4500.
  • 6% probability….’The great recession’ morphs into ‘the great depression’. This is the Robert Prechter et al view.

Probability’: A measure of the relative likelihood of occurrence of each of the above observations. The 6 values above do not have to add to 100. For example in 2 above there is a 30% chance that something else will happen; in 1 above a 98% chance.

 

STRATEGY FOR 2010

Because the XAO is 55% above its 2009 lows and only 28% below its 2008 highs, the ‘bargains’ are not in abundance. Therefore –

  • Stock selection is vital.
  • The earnings season starts end January and many companies have to overcome the dilutive impact of heavily discounted share issues.
  • Risk management is essential, look for macro turning points.
  • Trade around the edges of value propositions.
  • Try to find some takeover or recovery stocks.
  • Focus on major resource stocks and fewer speculative stocks.
  • Have a small bit of speculative money in established bio-techs and climate related situations.
  • Look for industry rationalisation in the media sector.
  • Have some dollars in property (oversold) and infrastructure.
  • Keep your eye on $USD index ( China, USA and India expected to provide 60% of the world growth estimates for 2010).

 

THE THREE ECONOMIES

We have long been aware of the role that government action, intervention and policy play in stock-market outcomes and have warmly embraced the 2003 view expressed by Paul Krugman that: "To talk about economics requires more and more, that one write about politics."

In looking at economics, the traditional thesis has been to talk of two economies: the real economy and the symbol economy. The real economy is the production of goods and services; the symbol economy is money and credit. We have always believed that the latter existed to facilitate the former. However, with the growth, in particular, of derivatives and a greater global focus on equities and investment generally, the emergence of third economy distortions have complicated the process and the analysis. It seems rather ironic as we embrace the pressures being placed upon various economies by the aging of the baby boomers that we spend so much time keeping people alive well beyond practical dates and even beyond their own desired lifetimes.

What then is this third economy? It is ‘the political economy’, an expression that has emerged over the past few months and reflects a much more targeted thesis than the very useful Krugman generalisation. The symbol economy and the political economy tails oft wag the real economy dog.

An easy example is the Iraq war where even Mr Greenspan accidently said "It was all about oil". The Bush, Cheney, Blair, Howard nexus said it was about WMDs and, later on, ‘freedom’. Greenspan later withdrew his remark. But the Iraq war had a profound impact on oil pricing and price volatility as well as blowing a big hole in the American domestic budget deficit. Additionally, the USA subsidises Israel, its major Middle Eastern ally, and some Arab States, to enable them to purchase the defence hardware and software that the American defence industry excels in producing, and which employs a vast number of Americans across many states.

Dwight D Eisenhower famously warned of the dangers of ‘military industrial power’ on 17 January, 1961. Ecinya has often written about the US$1.5 trillion global defence budget of which America spends just over half, and how this expenditure is a misallocation of global resources.

At a less dramatic level, but more relevant to the world economy and of more pervasive interest to all of us as tax-paying citizens, we are currently seeing a major shift towards government increasing its share of GDP in both the developed and emerging world. In the USA, government share of US GDP was about 17% in 2001 and in the latest GDP estimates is running at 28%. The story is broadly the same in the UK and Australia. Europe can generally be excluded from this analysis as they embrace a more socialist economic model and, apart from Germany, allow large scale tax evasion in the general populace outside of the major capitals.

In Australia, Dr Ken Henry, Secretary to the Treasury, in giving his November 2009 address to the Whitlam Institute Symposium said that before Whitlam in fiscal 1972 government expenditures were 18.9% of GDP. In the last Whitlam budget (1975) expenditures had moved to 24.8% of GDP and expenditures are currently running at circa 26%, having dropped to about 23% in 2001. Given that health, education, and social security and welfare, account for 29% of government outlays and around 6% of GDP, Dr Henry’s statement that " The Whitlam government was, therefore, responsible for an enduring increase in the size of government. That is, close to 6 percentage points of GDP expansion in government expenditure during the Whitlam Government has never been reversed. And I think I can safely say that it never will be."

ECINYA’S MESSAGE: The political economy is now running at 25% of the total economy with the shortfall from lower tax collections being funded by higher debt and deficit levels. This appears to us to be dangerous economic and social folly and will impact on economic growth, employment, inflation, and result in higher interest rates and higher personal tax collections. One of the interesting features of taxation systems generally is the extent of ‘hidden’ taxes e.g. payroll tax, workers’ comp etc

 

THE BIG MACRO QUESTION…. can voodoo economics get us through the slow-down and create a sustainable basis for growth?

 

Background quotes

Research is to contemplate the possibility that, intuitively, you may not know the answers, and worse still, you may not even know the questions. Information insightfully interpreted will help avoid being caught in a position where you can lose a lot for reasons not understood. Try to avoid making the facts fit the theory, especially in relation to timing.

Ecinya Investment Rule #2/ 10, 1997.

In relation to The Bank of England don’t forget we are not talking about a new institution on a learning curve that is just a few years old, but rather a 300 year old institution that knows full well the ins and outs of the banking system that it created over the centuries that exists primarily to turn everyone, including the government, into debt slaves. The economic press instead of holding the Bank of England to account is praising the bank for its actions in preventing an economic depression.

Nadeen Walayat, Market Oracle Co UK, 31/12/2009

We have a world of fiat money – that is, money which can be created at the whim of our central bankers, as distinct from one based on gold, for example, and if their whims are wayward, the results will be disastrous, without any other conditions for disaster being required except the normal human responses and frailties.

Andrew Smithers "Wall Street Imperfect markets and Inept Central Bankers", late 2009.

Clearly the central bank of Zimbabwe has overdone it. But if the central bank of the USA has overdone it few seem aware of it. The secret is to give people more money, but not so much more that they realize all they’re getting is pieces of paper. Paper money may be a fraud, but it still represents purchasing power. When more units of it appear, people assume they have more purchasing power. And when they spend more, the merchants think there is more demand and increase production.

Bill Bonner, "Empire of Debt", 2007.

Ecinya comment: Debt is said to invoke necessary discipline, simply because you have to pay it back, or risk foreclosure, or a credit downgrade which increases the cost of future debt. Private debt is said to be more disciplined than public debt because it requires you to earn income and profits to service your debt obligations, including interest payments. Public debt on the other hand usually results in governments raising taxes, or more debt, in the hope that inflation over time, or an election loss, will hide their profligate behaviour. The problem with governments, of course, is that they face the electorate on a regular basis which encourages unsustainable pre- election policy followed by the need to pay for it post-election. A lot of the cost of poor policy and poor policy execution is higher interest rates.

Hence the ‘voodoo economics’ of which we speak is that Ecinya remains to be convinced that de-leveraging the private sector by leveraging the public sector is sound economic policy. Australia has gone from a domestic budget surplus of just under 2% of GDP and zero debt to a domestic deficit of 3.6% and 19% govt debt to GDP ratio, respectively. The domestic deficit is a swing of $50 billion. Wow! Though these deficit numbers are relatively low and well short of the USA at 10% and 55% respectively, it still means that we are exposed to any downturn in the global economy and vulnerable to the unexpected, such as event risk and, say, an oil price spike.

Australia has not done anything in relation to substantive industry policy (other than trade white papers that omit any reference to imports) for about two decades to mitigate our persistent trade deficit. Rather the stimulus package (that ‘saved’ us from recession) and government policy on work-place ‘reform’ has entrenched us as a nation of chronic importers. Because of inflexible and unrealistic labour laws and high taxes on employment, Australia will produce about the same, but using less labour and/ or creating more welfare recipients. An import is a job created abroad.

 

FUNDAMENTAL FEAR LIST FOR 2010

  • America economic aggregates, and policy settings; negative trends in employment, current account and domestic deficits.
  • The aftermath of American foreign policy history and its implications for global resource allocation and growth.
  • The global economy and the possibility of growth rates disappointing as stimulus is withdrawn.
  • The lead into various elections around the world that might encourage profligate fiscal behaviour (UK, Australia, and US mid-terms are on the horizon).
  • Higher global and local interest rates, particularly the latter, in context of rising inflation.
  • The unintended consequences of additional stimulation.
  • Another major institutional failure in the USA.
  • A downgrade of US debt.
  • China having a few problems which are currently overlooked such as slowing exports, failures in the small business sector, and non-performing bank loans.
  • Rising taxation levels. In Australia this will be euphemistically called ‘tax reform’.
  • A break-out in local wages.
  • Unemployment staying persistently high.
  • Commercial property values globally.
  • Municipal and state failures in the USA . The 10 most troubled states in the USA are Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Other states, not far behind, are Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, New York and Hawaii.
  • US local bank failures (144 banks have failed since December 2008 and more are said to be at risk).

 

TECHNICAL AND MICRO WATCH LIST FOR 2010

  • GDP growth revisions.

We want growth to go up, and will be watching nominal growth rates closely. Inflation in a 3-4% band does not worry us provided growth is above 3-3.5%.

  • US dollar, via the US$ index.

$USD (stockcharts).We want to see the $US rise to appease the Chinese and other lenders to the USA, and as a measure of recovery of confidence in the US economy.

  • Shanghai composite index.

Up we hope, relatively stable.

  • S&P 500.

Looking for a low of 950-1000, but a year-end close of circa 1225.

  • China.

Hope to see them playing a meaningful role in world affairs. Would love a change of name for the Chinese Communist Party to ‘The China Central People’s Party’. Suspect that some of their economic and banking numbers are rubbery.

  • Oil price.

Hoping for less than $80-$100 range. Iraqi oil seems interesting, but it is in Iraq, and that’s a problem.

  • Gold.

Would like to see muted price action. Think current action is more to do with risk asset speculation than safe-haven status.

  • Obama.

Swing to the centre desired from current left swinging to appease Democratic Party base.

  • Kevin Rudd.

Ecinya agrees with Peter Walsh (former Federal Finance Minister) that Mr Rudd is an ‘economic illiterate’. Bad policy positions exacerbated by even poorer execution.

  • Copper price.

Like to see it go up as copper is Mr Industrial Production.

  • Turning points.

We expect a few retracements, with the first being in the first quarter, particularly if the S&P 500 heads for around 1150 to 1180. The sooner the correction, the better.

 

WORLD GROWTH IN 2010

SOURCE: "The World in 2010", The Economist, December 2009

Each year The Economist publishes a world outlook issue (145 pages this year) which includes statistics on 82 countries. This is a useful view of the consensus and the IMF view at the time of publication.

The Economist is forecasting 2010 world growth, in market exchange rate terms, of 2.5%, a tad below trend of 3.0%, with 2009 growth having been estimated at negative 1%. World GDP for 2010 will total about $US 59.4 trillion and the world growth aggregate will be about $US1.5 trillion, of which China will contribute 30% ($443 bil), the USA 24% ($348 bil), and India 6% ($87 bil). Thus 3 countries will be responsible for 60% of world growth in 2010. Australian growth is forecast to be 1.7%, but Ecinya believes this is at the lower end of the range, thus we are opting for around 2.8%, which is close to trend at 3.2%.

 

EVENT RISK

Our forecasts and conclusions take no account of event risk such as terrorism and wars that might impact on the psyche of consumers and/ or the oil price or currencies. Troubles still abound in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel and North Korea. We take some comfort in the fact that Mr Obama is not George Bush and this was recognised in him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in anticipation of what he might achieve. But the cacophony that is the American right more than makes up for George Bush’s absence (Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck etc). America has fought wars more successfully on its home soil than abroad (The American Civil War and The War of Independence both won by Americans on time and within budget) and made many errors of deployment and judgement in WWII, North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. America seems to rely more on overwhelming force than skill. There appears to be frequent break-downs in intelligence and homeland security.

In looking at terrorism both Mr Bush and Mr Cheney’s views appear to emanate from the peculiarly adolescent trough of the evangelical red-neck right. This was eloquently summarised by Chris Patten in his 2005 book "Not Quite the Diplomat: Home Truths About World Affairs’ :

So, we all hate terrorism. But we in Europe are also uncomfortable with the one-dimensional nature of the debate in some American quarters; the unwillingness to accept that terrorists might on occasion use abhorrent means to pursue ends that we may or may not agree with, but which are susceptible to reason and whose causes can be addressed without going to war. It is as if any discussion of the causes of alienation and hatred was evidence of appeasement. The idea of a world divided between good and evil – between us and them – sits uncomfortably with most Europeans.

 

PREDICTIONS GENERALLY

Background quotes

In the long run the stock-market indices fluctuate around the upward trend in earnings per share. Human behaviour cannot be predicted. Distrust anyone who claims to know the future. Chaos is not dangerous until it begins to look orderly.

Ecinya Investment Rules #6 & 7/ 10, 1997.

Global financial markets have a lot of moving parts, and it’s very difficult for anyone to fully encapsulate all the factors that are weighed into any single forecast. That’s why it’s very important to keep an open mind about all possible outcomes, while continuing to gather the facts, conduct analysis, and form an opinion, and conceding one could be wrong. While the general consensus believes the Fed won’t lift rates until late in 2010, it’s the contrarian view which might prevail next year, with the Fed hiking short-term interest rates sooner rather than later. Former Fed Chief Paul Volcker, said on Oct 15th, it "was difficult, but necessary, for the Fed to start draining the billions of dollars in liquidity even while unemployment remains high as the US battles out of recession. You have to act against what seems like common sense. If you wait, it’s too late," he warned. Two-months later, the Bernanke Fed is still signaling ultra-low rates for an extended period of time.

Gary Dorsch of Sirchartsalot, 16/12/2009

 

It can fairly be said that the chain of catastrophic bets made over the past decade by a few hundred bankers may well turn out to be the greatest non-violent crime against humanity in history. They’ve brought the world’s economy to its knees, lost tens of millions of people their jobs and homes, and trashed the retirement plans of a generation, and they could drive an estimated 200 million people worldwide into dire poverty. In other words, never before have so few done so much to so many. And has there been even one major, voluntary resignation by an American financial executive? One sincere apology? One jail sentence? Why the American public hasn’t taken to the streets in revolt is a mystery that can be linked to our inherent belief in the virtues of capitalism.

Graydon Carter Editor Vanity Fair, June 2009 issue. This magazine is an excellent source of economic and political material

Firm predictions are out of the question. The future depends on the policy responses the financial crisis will provoke. But we can identify the problems and analyse the policy options. We can also make some firm predictions about what the next era will NOT look like. The post-World War ll period of credit expansion will not be followed by an equally long period of credit contraction. Boom-bust processes are asymmetric (not identical) in shape: a long, gradually accelerating boom is followed by a short and sharp bust. Consequently, most of the credit contraction can be expected to occur in the near term…….. Congress has left the conduct of policy largely to the Federal Reserve. This has put too much of a burden on an institution designed to deal with liquidity, not solvency, problems.

George Soros "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets. The Credit Crisis of 2008 and what it means."

 

WHAT WE LEARNED FROM THE 2009 CREDIT CRASH REMEMBERING ALSO THE LESSONS OF THE 2000 TECH/ TELCO CRASH

  • In summary, not much really, except that Ecinya is inclined to be somewhat too optimistic on occasions. We were very pleased to have called the March 2009 bounce with a high degree of logic and accuracy, and to have anticipated most of the carnage of 2008.
  • Countries must retain sovereignty over their banking systems.
  • An independent central bank is an indispensable check and balance mechanism – additionally, APRA worked. The US central bank is not independent as are very few American institutions, being too closely aligned to the political establishment.
  • American investment banks and hedge funds are untrustworthy.
  • The US Treasury Secretary should be viewed with caution, especially if he emanates from Wall Street. Paul O’Neill, ex Alcoa CEO and not of Wall Street, got the sack for being an honest man.
  • Auditors and independent directors are not fully accountable to shareholders.
  • Commercial banking and investment banking/ stockbroking are a bad mix.
  • Global forums are dangerously beguiling and need to be approached with care as they inhibit your sovereign status and thinking. The IMF is sleepy and belatedly competent. The UN is poorly structured and inept.
  • America needs a fundamental change in attitude, having adopted the ugly twin sisters of crony capitalism and worship of celebrity status. Mr Obama and his team needs to be lesser celebrities and greater managers.
  • Everywhere, language has become imprecise, euphemistically misleading and deceptive. Spin is rampant, a bushfire destroying social and commercial values. Be wary of cant. Television is dumbing down the populace.
  • Australia came through the global financial crisis because of the Hawke-Keating-Walsh-Howard-Costello legacy. Mr Rudd has extinguished that legacy and extracted little or no sustainable value from it.

 

Tax reform: Payroll tax, first in a series on taxation.

Fundamental change does not occur quickly.

John Maynard Keynes circa 1940.

 

TAXATION

Prosperity is the tide that carries us all to realisation and enjoyment of our material and social aspirations. No economy can grow in a sustainable way unless it has a good tax system. The Australian tax system was reformed under Keating with bi-partisan support from Opposition leader Howard, accelerated under Howard as Prime Minister with the excellent introduction of an efficient and almost sensible Goods and Services Tax (GST) .

All taxes ultimately reflect in the prices of goods and services, and asset prices, and also have an impact on the current account deficit. This is simply because business calculates its returns on an after-tax basis. Prices have to rise to increase the rate of return, or goods have to be produced more cheaply to enhance margins. Often Mumbai seems better than Moree or Melbourne.

The problem with taxes generally is that politicians never feel the need to explain taxes properly. All taxes impact on all prices, but politicians keep taxes hidden so that the real costs passed on to the consumer are not blamed upon a poor tax system, and the waste that occurs in government spending, including duplication and triplication, remains largely undetected. Also at disparate State-Federal election times the States can blame the Federal government for high taxes and lack of service delivery, and vice versa.

A good tax system is transparent, relatively simple, involves as few collection points as possible; encourages work, savings and investment; and assists employment creation. It should also be designed to inform taxpayers, to keep governments accountable.

 

THE TREASURY REVIEW

Sometime in the New Year the Ken Henry tax review will be handed to the Federal Government. Ecinya had always thought that there were two economies – the real economy, the production of goods and services, and the symbol economy, money and credit. Last week a journalist, Michael Stutchbury, we believe, identified another economy – the political economy.

Ecinya always hopes to be pleasantly surprised on matters relating to taxation, but given that the preliminary document issued by Treasury in August 2008 ran to 344 pages, and that Treasury is involved in the final document (with Mr Henry being hardly independent), that consideration of extending the GST to food is being excluded from the review, that the government has over-spent in many areas in response to the ‘Global Financial Crisis’, and accumulated significant debts, and blown the Howard-Costello budget surpluses, the final document is unlikely to be a ‘reform’ package.

Thus, at this point in time we can regard the Henry Tax Review as having little to do with the ‘real’ economy, and a lot to do with the ‘political’ economy.

 

BACK TO THE FUTURE – PAYROLL TAX

Our focus in this our first paper on taxation is payroll tax, and we are re-producing in its entirety a paper published as an open letter on 7 March 1991, which fits neatly with our Keynesian head-quote above that fundamental change does not occur quickly, and sometimes does not happen at all, because of the inefficient and misleading character of the ‘political’ economy.

In 1991 Gerry van Wyngen and George Sutton got together, had some economic modelling done, and published a full-page advertisement in The Australian. The quoted cost was $18,000 and this was met by a private company contributing $5,000, a public company $5,000, and Gerry and George contributed $2,000. Because it was considered a matter of public interest, The Australian newspaper reduced the page price to $12,000 at their own suggestion. G & G heartily agreed.

After publication we sent a copy of the advertisement to the top 25 Australian public company Chief Executives and a number of them mentioned payroll tax in television business programmes in the months following. Not one of them wrote to us to express their thanks for our efforts. Without rancour, we found this to be most disappointing and time has not completely removed the scar tissue.

Gerry van Wyngen was a marvellous person, and a consistent and learned contributor to the economic debate via many channels, but principally through his writings in BRW Magazine and The Australian Financial Review. He died in April 2009. This Ecinya Insight is dedicated to his memory.

 

PAYROLL TAX IN AUSTRALIA

Payroll Tax is a State tax and in the 2007 fiscal year payroll tax collections were $14.4 billion, equivalent to 29% of total State tax collections (source Treasury paper ‘Australia’s future tax system’ August 2008). Average weekly earnings are equivalent to $62,400 annually. Dividing $14.4 billion adjusted for 30%, tax but omitting collection costs, payroll tax collections are the current equivalent of 161,500 jobs, about 25% of Australia’s official unemployed of 659,000. Of course this figure of 161,500 is increased by the fact that many people receive less than average weekly earnings, and reduced in the short-term by people who might be sacked by the State governments as they would need to replace the lost revenue from the Commonwealth. A loan from the Commonwealth would overcome this short-term difficulty.

Considering the recent stimulus package created more jobs abroad than locally as people spent on overseas holidays, and purchased home entertainment systems, we could probably speculate that unemployment numbers might reduce by about 13%, taking the unemployment rate down to under 5% from the current 5.7%. Ecinya still considers that putting the GST on food would simplify the entire tax system, including payroll tax, and we suspect that Mr Walsh, Mr Howard, Mr Hawke, and Mr Keating would substantially agree. The obvious offsets would have to, of course, take place, pensioners, unemployment benefits, lower income tax brackets for lower incomes in particular, a lower corporate tax rate etc.

The advertisement, considered to be relevant today, is reproduced as follows:

"AGENDA PAYROLL TAX

AN OPEN LETTER TO

  • Prime Minister Hawke
  • Premier Greiner
  • RBA Governor Fraser
  • Mr Kelty

ABOLISH PAYROLL TAX

  • iT WILL CUT UNEMPLOYMENT 1%
  • IT WILL CUT INFLATION TO UNDER 2%
  • THE COST TO CONSOLIDATED REVENUE IS LESS THAN YOU THINK

Why abolish payroll tax?

Payroll tax is a tax on employment. Payroll tax chokes the source that creates the capacity to pay it, with rising unemployment, as Australian employers struggle to compete against imports. Payroll tax is stupid.

Silly Taxes Upset Proper Industrial Development.

STUPID is an apt acronym. On the one hand we bemoan our lack of industrial and commercial base. On the other, we impose a tax that actively discourages formation of such a base.

Mr Hawke….. where you can lead.

Payroll tax is a deduction for Federal taxation purposes which means that of every dollar paid to a State government up to 39 cents is effectively lost to Federal consolidated revenue. The $6.5 billion expected to be raised by the States this fiscal year will be offset in part by revenue lost to the Federal government totalling in excess of $2 billion. Thus you are in an excellent position to offer to reimburse a substantial part of the loss of revenue to States that would result from the abolition of payroll tax.

Mr Greiner…. where you can lead.

As Premier of Australia’s best managed State and a strong believer in the reform of State taxes you can volunteer your willingness to share in the responsibilities of abolishing payroll tax.

Mr Fraser…. where you can lead.

As Governor of The Reserve Bank and an outspoken critic of inflation, you can promote and facilitate a reduction in inflation in the order of 4% which effectively puts Australia on the road to zero inflation and – eventually – a permanent reduction in interest rates to industry, commerce, miners, farmers and home buyers below 10%.

Mr Kelty…. where you can lead.

As Australia’s leading trade union official, respected for your farsighted thinking, you can demand this tax on employment be abolished. You are undoubtedly aware of the study by Bruce Chapam (RBA Conference Proceedings 1990) estimating a 3% wages fall translates to an increase in employment of 0.7-0.9% per annum. Using the relationship cited by Chapman we estimate abolition of payroll tax would increase employment by approximately 100,000, effectively taking almost 1% off the rate of unemployment.

Why payroll tax raises less revenue than the figures indicate.

Using an estimated collection of $6.5 billion is fiscal 1990-91, after deducting the loss of revenue to the Commonwealth, the net "take" to Australia’s consolidated revenue is in the order of $4.5 billion in a normal year i.e. a year in which Australia is not in recession, with business profitability severely curtailed. However, elimination of payroll tax would increase employment and therefore income tax collections, and reduce unemployment and consequently social security benefits paid. The savings on unemployment benefits (on the Bruce Chapman model) are estimated to total $1.6 billion per annum. The increase in income tax revenue alone from the extra jobs generated by abolishing payroll tax is estimated at in excess of $0.5 billion. Thus the total improvement in the Commonwealth’s consolidated revenue from the abolition of payroll tax would likely exceed $4 billion per annum, being the extra corporate tax paid plus the increased collection in income tax from increased employment, plus the gain from reduced unemployment benefits paid.

Payroll tax collects so little.

As we have seen above, the net revenue to Australia’s various tax authorities is not $6.5 billion. It is not even $4.5 billion after compensating for deductibility on Federal income tax. After adjusting for the employment effects and their revenue implications, the real revenue base of payroll tax is less than $2.4 billion.

You can argue the figures, but not the facts.

Economists in government, The Reserve Bank, academia and banks will undoubtedly be able to sharpen the above figures. The components may differ in degree, but the bottom line will be similar. Our belief is that the eventual loss of revenue from payroll tax is even less than the $2.4 billion projected above. The stimulus to productive activity throughout Australia would eventually provide an increased tax base across a wide range of production and consumption.

Payroll tax is an immoral tax.

It actively promotes unemployment. In the process it denies many people, unnecessarily, the self-esteem and fulfilment that comes from working to one’s capacities and energies. The long-term unemployed do not develop the skills or the confidence to hold down a job. School leavers are disillusioned by the lack of current job opportunities and on-costs that are an impediment to them obtaining work. The loss of youth morale after 12 years at school is disheartening.

When should payroll tax be abolished?

The announcement should be made immediately. The phasing-out can be delayed six months if necessary. The important matter is that business and unions plan for it immediately.

Which industries would be most favourably affected?

All, including manufacturers, processors that add value to Australian rural products and minerals, the hospitality industry, commercial cleaning, banks, retailers, housing, the list goes on.

The States would benefit.

Victoria especially, the home of Australian manufacturing would receive an immediate boost to economic activity and reduction in unemployment.

Eliminating payroll tax would help exports and cut imports.

By making Australian industry and commerce more competitive there would eventually be a strong positive effect on the balance of payments.

There are other secondary benefits.

By deceasing inflation, which flows naturally into lower interest rates, the Australian dollar would also fall. There are very substantial benefits from this. Apart from the direct boost to competiveness, the cost of borrowing money to invest in increased plant and machinery is slashed, the stricken rural sector receives relief, and through the lower dollar, Australian products are cheaper on world markets.

Surely the benefits of eliminating payroll tax are not that substantial and wide?

Yes, in fact they are. Payroll tax is the most stupid tax Australia has ever implemented. Taxes, once introduced, have a habit of sticking because of the traditional adversatorial Federal-States approach to taxation revenue and because Australians have sat on their hands, this stupid tax remains."

Last week, a very interesting week; editor’s reflections

In sport, business, and politics, the game is greater than the player.

Adapted from The Strathfield Golf Club motto, translated from the Latin.

Golf is unique. It is a game played by individuals who, with the aid of specially designed sticks, are wholly responsible for their own success or failure in manoeuvring a ball into a defined hole in the ground. The developments that have taken place also reminds us that each group of club members by their efforts and achievements leave a legacy on which lasting and fine traditions are built.

R J Edmends 2003 Club Captain, The Flinders Golf Club.

He did not admit explicitly to cheating on his wife. But Tiger Wood’s image as a perfect family man and faultless ambassador for golf was in tatters on Wednesday night, after he issued a lengthy apology for "personal sins" that had "let his family down".

Tom Leonard, The Sydney Morning Herald, 5/12/2009.

It is pretty easy to have a high opinion of yourself when you get to be PM. One of John Howard’s great qualities was that I think it took him 11 years to suffer from hubris and I think this mob had it after about 11 minutes.

Tony Abbott, on radio 2GB with Chris Smith, Sydney, 4/12/2009.

Don’t be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgement. Elites can become so inbred that they produce haemophiliacs who bleed to death as soon as they are nicked by the real world. Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand.

Extracts from Colin Powell’s 18 lessons, former US General and Secretary of State.

Many people do not believe in the global warming problem, and many do. Many people who believe in the problem do not believe in the Trading Scheme as the best solution. Many people who believe, or who are sceptical, or disbelieve, do not like the people who are leading the political debate where egos are elevated, hyberbole heightened towards Churchillian proportions, zealotry has replaced enthusiasm, giving support to the thesis that elected officials believe they have been ordained.

Ecinya editor on a clear morning in the Mornington Peninsula 2/12/2009.

We face two possible states of the world. One is a world in which our economic problems are largely solved, profits are on the mend, and things will soon be back to normal, except for a lot of unemployed people whose fate is, let’s face it, of no concern to Wall Street. The other is a world that has enjoyed a brief intermission prior to a terrific second act in which an even larger share of credit losses will be taken, and in which the range of policy choices will be more restricted because we’ve already issued more government liabilities than a banana republic, and will steeply debase our currency if we do it again. It is not at all clear that the recent data have removed any uncertainty as to which world we are in.

John Hussman, Hussman Funds Management, December 2009

 

SUMMARY OF THIS WEEK’S INSIGHT

When egos soar, taxpayers have a chance to be poor, or poorer, or less rich. Last week was psychologically disturbing at home and abroad. Tiger Woods became a metaphor for the fundamental dysfunctionality that ails America – the twin sisters, the cults of crony capitalism and celebrity; Mr Obama was confused over productivity, but took a reasoned and correct gamble on Afghanistan; Mr Swan gave a dissertation on Reserve Bank independence but denied the four pillars their independence; papal fallibility rebounded thrice on Mr Rudd as he rushed off to brief Mr Obama on climate change; Mr Turnbull lost the opportunity to do the job he has not yet demonstrated any sustainable capacity to hold; and Ken Henry made a speech that was exceptionally disappointing on fiscal policy at the 2009 Whitlam Institute Symposium on 30 November.

What a week!

Unfortunately, some of the elements surrounding some of the happenings have implications for the development of our outlook for 2010, which is currently in process of formulation for publication on 13 January 2010.

A GLIMPSE AT 2010

Firm predictions are out of the question, but we believe we are in a volatile market recovery in context of either a muted or fragile economic recovery. Our strategy will be to invest and trade (Cactus), but also to start a longer-term fund (Bamboo) using real money of course which enforces needed discipline and teaches us humility on a regular basis. Overall, our current view is that in fiat money system and if Obama moves from the soft-left towards the centre, and some progress is made in relation to global discord, then risks are to the upside.

TIGER AND OBAMA

Winston Churchill (who had an American mother) once famously said: “You can always rely on America to do the right thing, once it has exhausted the alternatives". America needs a reality check and Mr Obama needs to do it sooner rather than later. Perhaps the January 2010 State of the Union address will be an appropriate forum. Many of the things we get from America are not as they seem: the dot.com bust, the banking system, the weapons of mass destruction, the Reagan years and its economic and foreign affairs exaggerations, etc. But now we have Tiger who was the icon of the gentlemen’s game, golf, who has let his family, friends, and fans down by being relatively normal. We suggest he should go on TV with the alleged 5-10 lovers, charge an excessive fee, and then give it all to Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh.

What concerns us from this episode is that Tiger was unaware of his broader responsibilities to look after the game, rather than himself. In similar vein we were disturbed that Mrs Obama appeared on the front cover of Vogue shortly after the inauguration and last night in Washington at the Kennedy Centre did a high-five with Mr Obama at a performing arts concert to celebrate American culture. In Australia and New Zealand we like our heroes to be somewhat modest and self-effacing. Mr Obama needs to be a good economic manager more than anything else, and not a big-issue celebrity. He has the rhetorical and intellectual skills to be a great President of the United States (the world’s largest economy) and like Tiger needs to recognise his broader responsibilities and approach them with focus, purpose, and balance. He does a lot of good things. He should be spending a lot of time with Mr Volcker and some time with Paul O’Neil and ask each of them to remind him constantly that Afghanistan is being fought on Mastercard, Diners, American Express, ChinaCard, and BernankeBank.

When some better numbers came out last week on US employment (though many consider the numbers grossly understated) Mr Obama said the good news was the ‘increase in productivity’. Productivity increases if you reduce the denominator. You do the math. If you have the same level of activity (bolstered by home grants and cash for clunkers incidentally) and divide it by 90 workers instead of 100, because 10% are officially unemployed, then the 90 workers now concerned about job security only have to work 11.1% harder to make up for the workers who have lost their jobs.

If God had meant politicians to lie he would not have needed to invent spin, misleading and deceptive conduct, innuendo and obfuscation.

WAYNE SWAN

Peter Walsh, our editor’s favourite post-war politician, said recently that Mr Rudd was an economic illiterate. When Walsh waxes lyrical, Ecinya listens. But Mr Swan appears not to be far behind Mr Rudd in terms of economic literacy. Last week Mr Swan said that 3 out of the 4 major banks were wrong in raising rates beyond the cash rate increase from the Reserve Bank because the RBA was the ‘independent arbiter’. Now if the RBA is ‘independent’, surely the major 4 banks are even more independent. He could have said he was disappointed and had sought and received explanation which he understood and disagreed with for a variety of sober economic reasons. Sometimes you don’t have to play politics in your lunch-hour.

EMISSIONS TRADING

We don’t like the emissions trading scheme and wrote about it on 13 October 2009 under our Insights article ‘Exercise caution in your approach to carbon credits’. Global warming is about much more than Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull. It is a lesser issue than the GST but we did receive fulsome explanations from Messrs Howard and Costello. When leaders get too far ahead of their constituents, embracing the warm delights of Kirribilli House with chardonnay in hand, the grandeur of Washington and the splendour of Copenhagen, their learned discourse can cause them, unwittingly, to overlook the basics of their indulgence of the public purse.

THE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME AND MR RUDD

Thrice rebuked: Just as he endorses Nathan Rees, Nathan gets the sack. Just as he embraces Mr Turnbull, who renegotiates an ambit claim on the ETS intended to create the appearance of win-win, Mr Turnbull gets the sack. Just as he looks forward to a stoush with the Liberals’ Mr Beazley in Joe Hockey (perception: great blokes, but too soft), the Liberal coalition opts for Abbott and Barnaby. Papal fallibility reigns supreme. We can probably now expect that Mr Rudd will cease his door-stop interviews as he leaves church each Sunday as God is a broad church and not on Labor’s front bench even in symbolic terms. In the words of The Desiderata: "And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labours and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy."

KEN HENRY

Mr Henry is no doubt a hard-working and sincere man as well as being a great friend of the hairy-nosed wombat. However, Ecinya was disturbed to see him embracing the fiscal policy initiatives developed under Whitlam. Messrs Hawke, Keating and Walsh undid much of the damage inflicted upon the Australian economy by Mr Whitlam and Mr Malcolm Fraser and now we find that Mr Henry wants to take us back to the future. We quote part of his paper, but recommend a full reading

"Well-being and the Size of Government
What about the size of government?
"

"The Whitlam Government came to power with a broad ranging policy agenda – the implementation of which had the effect of increasing both the scope and size of Australian government. The agenda included real increases in social welfare payments, free university education, universal medical coverage, new departments of Aboriginal Affairs, Environment and Urban and Regional Development, and significant public sector real wage rises.

"Unemployment benefits to individuals more than doubled in real terms; widows pension expanded to supporting mothers; disability pensions expanded."

"The policy initiatives were reflected in strong growth in the level of government outlays over the course of the Whitlam Government."

"Australian Government expenditure grew from 18.9 per cent of GDP in 1971-72, the last full budget year before the Whitlam Government came to power, to 24.8 per cent of GDP in 1975-76, the last budget delivered by the Whitlam Government, representing spending growth of around 56 per cent in real terms."

"In the three and a half decades since, while there have been significant annual fluctuations, the average level of spending by the Australian government has changed little, to be around 25.25 per cent of GDP.
The Whitlam Government was, therefore, responsible for an enduring increase in the size of government. That is, the close to 6 percentage points of GDP expansion in government."

"Expenditure during the Whitlam Government has never been reversed. And I think I can safely say that it never will be."

"Initially, the increase in government expenditure was not matched by a commensurate increase in government revenue, with revenue increasing by only two percentage points of GDP over the term of the Whitlam Government (from 20.9 per cent of GDP in 1971-72 to 22.9 per cent of GDP in 1975-76). Subsequent governments chose to fund the increased expenditure through increased taxation rather than ever growing levels of public debt; that is, to make larger government fiscally sustainable."

Ecinya comment: The real losers out of the Whitlam-Fraser years was middle Australia and far from promoting real opportunity, The Whitlam-Fraser legacy has created a permanent under-class, a permanent and protected elite who are advantaged by access to government via their political donations capacity (serial tax dodgers inhabit this space), a strong bias towards high-inflation outcomes, non transparent and dodgy public accounting (occasionally saved by Auditors General of integrity and courage), a difficult operating environment for small business, and high nominal interest rates. Additionally nurses, teachers, and police officers are still significantly underpaid and devalued.