Search for Trading Method using Google

Custom Search

Saturday, July 31, 2010

China, The Mother of All Grey Swans

I gave a presentation last week at the Value Investment Seminar in Trani, Italy (here is a link to the PDF). I strongly suggest you visit their website in a few weeks, as it will have presentations and videos. It was a terrific event; I learned a lot.

I spoke about China, Japan, and our favorite stock idea: eBay (EBAY). I changed the title of the China presentation to “” (instead of “Black Swans”). A while back, when I shared this presentation with my readers, I was corrected: China is not a black swan, because a black swan is a rare, significant, and unpredictable event. However, the consequences of what is transpiring in China and Japan are for the most part predictable (especially if I am writing about it). We don't know when they will play out, but they are predictable.

Nassim Taleb, one of my favorite thinkers, who brought the black Swan to life in his books Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan (I like both books, but Fooled by Randomness is my favorite, plus, it is by far an easier read than Black Swan), solved my dilemma with China by creating a new swan: "grey" -- a rare, significant, but predictable event (though the timing is still unknown, or perfectly known only with the benefit of hindsight.)

I spent a few days at the seminar discussing and debating China with some very smart folks, who stirred up some random thoughts.

What really amazes me is how people who would not trust the US or European governments to do their laundry, have unconditional faith in Chinese government involvement in its very complex economy.

The Chinese government brainwashes its people the same way the Russians and Soviets brainwashed theirs: by controlling and censuring media. So I understand when Chinese people who live in China speak highly of their leaders – they are brainwashed (I have experienced this first-hand). However, I am amazed that the Chinese government has been able to brainwash people who reside outside of China.

No, an economy in large part controlled by the state is not superior to ours. Greater control over their economy allows the Chinese government to pull the economy out of recession a lot faster than in the democratic countries, but there is no free lunch. Their actions will just lead to greater excesses and imbalances down the road.

It seems that as Westerners we have an inferiority complex when it comes to Asian cultures. Chinese uniqueness is praised today the same way Japanese superiority was in the 1980s. I even remember reading Russian newspapers in Russia, in 1989, praising the Japanese work ethic and their unique culture and spouting predictions of the continuance of Japanese dominance. I can only imagine how the mainstream press in the US was caressing Japanese uniqueness in the late ’80s, especially as the Japanese were invading (buying) Times Square and the State of California.

What is very interesting about it is that today all those Japanese cultural advantages are looked upon as disadvantages. For instance, “saving face” did not allow Japan to deal sufficiently with failed companies; their economy was full of semi-dead, zombie companies, which did not allow the healthy ones to prosper. Their employment-for-life system that was praised to the heavens during the Japanese golden age is now killing productivity of their economy. I recently read that 12-17 million people in Japan are employed who should not be employed (for an economy of 120 million people, these are huge numbers). In other words 12-17 million Japanese show up for work every day and receive a paycheck, but add little or no value to their employers.

Back to China. Even if the Chinese are harder-working and more entrepreneurial than Americans and Europeans, that doesn't mean the laws of economics are somehow suspended in China – they are not. The Chinese economy was geared for high global growth, while now much lower growth is in the cards. The excesses created by 14% of GDP being “stimulated” into the economy through a fire hose have led to significant overcapacity. It will take time for these excesses to be dealt with, even in a country full of super-hard-working people.

A friend asked, “But what about Singapore; its government plays a significant role in the economy, and Singapore is thriving.” The clear answer: government can only succeed in running very small and relatively simple economies. Let me give you this example. I have a game on my iPad called Flight Controller – my kids love it. The point of the game is simple: you are an air-traffic controller and your job is to land planes. Planes come in three colors, red, yellow, and blue, and each plane has to be landed on the runway matching its color. The objective is not to have mid-air collisions. I can land ten planes no problem, twenty gets more difficult, and forty I cannot handle (Okay, I played the game a few times). The same is true for economies: the more complex the economy the more difficult it is to be centrally planned.

Government is not and never will be an efficient allocator of capital. It empowers bureaucrats, which in turn leads to corruption, which further misallocates capital. The size of the bribe or strength of the personal relationship decides the flows of capital instead of the invisible hand that funnels capital from low to high uses. (A side point: Singapore is one of the most uncorrupt countries in the world; this may explain in part the government’s success. China is not Singapore; it is infested with corruption).

I often hear that you have to go to China to understand it. But tourists who go to China don't see the real China, the same way that tourists who go to Moscow don't see the real Moscow. I was in Moscow a few years ago, and I was impressed by how clean and beautiful it looked; in fact it didn’t look much different from the center of Brussels. Of course, I was only in the center of the city, where you see fancy restaurants, gift shops, museums, theaters, etc.

I went to see my college friend who lives in the real Moscow – I saw a very different picture. The second you veer off the main road, it turns into pothole hell, and the streets are anything but clean. My friend lives in a nine-story apartment building that has not been painted in decades; paint is peeling both inside and outside. Interestingly, most of the sides of the buildings that face large streets in Moscow and in Murmansk (the city where I spent all my Russian life) are usually painted, but the sides that face small streets have not been painted in generations.

My friend – a lawyer – and his wife and kid have to live with his mother, as they cannot afford to live on their own. But you won't see this Russia if you are a tourist visiting Moscow. People who visit China even multiple times harbor an illusion that they understand it – they don’t. In fact they are so overwhelmed by its grandness that they stop being rational in their analysis.

I keep thinking about the possible consequences of the Chinese overcapacity bubble pop. It is relatively easy to understand what will happen in Japan: deflation will quickly turn into hyperinflation as government is forced to print money to service its debt and social obligations. They'll announce and may even execute austerity measures, but those will be a decade or two too late. The Japanese yen will likely decline, though maybe not right away, as Japan owns a lot of US dollars and may be forced to sell them.

The Chinese situation is far more complex. China has tremendous overcapacity, but overcapacity is deflationary. It will drive prices for commodities down, and prices of Chinese-made goods will likely decline as well. Demand for industrial goods will collapse, pushing their prices down. But China will also have to deal with a lot of bad debt and will likely have to print money to do so – which is inflationary.

The popping of both the Chinese and Japanese bubble economies will lead to higher US, and likely global, interest rates.

Japan is past the point of no return. Internal consumption of its debt will likely turn negative very soon. Its post office, (which includes a postal savings system that was historically one of the largest buyers of government debt) announced recently that it will be a net seller this year. The situation is out of the Japanese government’s hands. It will probably not be able to intervene in the economy for much longer, so rates will rise and there will be little they will be able to do about it.

China is different from Japan. Its government is trying to slow down lending, but at the same time we have started seeing news of possibly another multi-hundred-billion-dollar stimulus over the next few months. The Chinese government’s actions are the wild card that will determine the duration and the magnitude of the bubble pop – the longer they intervene, the more dire the consequences will be.

About the author: Vitaliy Katsenelson

View the Original article

Why You Should Pay Attention to the Chinese Energy Policy

Back in March 2009, Wall St. hit bottom and the world markets entered one year long rally. The fact is that the Shanghai stock market index bottomed earlier in December 2008 (see plot below). Back then, China started the biggest stimulus package and pushed its GDP growth over 10% in the following year. Most countries worldwide benefited from China's move.



View the Original article

Friday, July 30, 2010

Playing Baidu Earnings With Options

Baidu (BIDU) is a fun company. The stock has been a great performer over the years, especially for those that have owned it since the beginning. It is a play on internet, advertising and China.

Here we will discuss an idea of how to play the earnings release that is scheduled for after the bell today.

The current expected move for the stock is about $9. That puts the stock at either $65 or $83 by August’s option expiration day. The way to determine the expected move is by adding the price of the two “at the money” options together. With the stock currently trading at $74 a share we can take the $72.50 call plus the $75 put and subtract from there the $2.50 of intrinsic value and that gives us $8.75.

Here is the chart for BIDU (click to enlarge):



View the Original article

What the Bear Market in Chinese Stocks Is Telling Us

China has been the economic engine powering the global recovery, but the engine may be sputtering based on the behavior of Chinese stocks. The Shanghai Composite has been trading in bear market territory since May 6th.

Unlike the U.S., UK and EU, which have service based economies, China's economy is heavily industrial. What takes place in China provides important information about the state of the global manufacturing. Activity in China is a key driver of the markets for industrial metals, materials, and energy. It was just announced in the media that China has become the largest consumer of energy commodities globally; pulling ahead of the United States, but the Chinese government has denied it.

Since the major Western economies and the Chinese economy have different compositions, it is reasonable to assume that their stock markets could trade in different patterns. The bull market peaks came at about the same time however. The Shanghai market hit a bottom around 1000 in mid-2005 and entered a bubble pattern in 2006, which continued until a high of 6036 was reached on October 17, 2007. As the bubble burst, Chinese stocks fell 72% until the market reached 1707 on November 4, 2008. Unlike U.S. stocks, which continued to fall until they reached their bottom in early March 2009, the Shanghai composite then began to rally. The prices for metals, materials, and the companies that produce them tended to follow the Chinese market and not Western markets - investors should keep this in mind for future reference. Oil didn't bottom until mid-February 2009 though.

Not only did the Shanghai Composite hit its low four months earlier than the U.S. market, its high from the rally that followed took place well before the top in Western stock markets. So far, Chinese stocks topped at 3471 on August 4, 2009. U.S. stocks peaked on April 26, 2010. By the end of August 2009 the Shanghai index was down more than 20% on a closing basis, but only briefly. After some recovery, stocks entered bear market territory again for a few days in the end of September. They then moved up and traded with less than a 20% drop from the August peak for many months until May 6th of this year. Chinese stocks have continued to trade at a bear market loss since that date.

Poor performance of Chinese stocks indicates weakness in the global industrial economy. Most commodities are likely to suffer declines as a result. This has more significance for the U.S. currently than it usually would ordinarily because the industrial sector of the economy has performed best during the recovery. The much bigger service sector has remained fairly anemic despite $3 trillion of federal deficit spending in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. If U.S. manufacturing turns negative, and behavior of Chinese stocks indicates is might, the U.S. economy is likely to follow.

Disclosure: No positions

About the author: Daryl Montgomery

View the Original article

Thursday, July 29, 2010

China Surpassing U.S. as Largest Energy Consumer Is the Story of the Past Decade

years, has now been surpassed as the world’s No. 1 energy consumer. IEA Paris, following the BP Statistical Review in June, has decided to call this race in favor of China. However, this is really not a story of today. Rather, it’s a story of the past decade. Only the confluence of several powerful forces could have delivered China to its current position. The press should have been paying closer attention. Moreover, the real story here is in China’s growth in coal consumption–the energy source China drew upon to first match, and then surpass, the United States.

Let’s take a look first at BP’s data assessment for 2009 energy use, vs. IEA Paris. Our unit of account here is the mtoe–million tons oil equivalent. This is a unit of energy, not volume, and measures BTU. Also, a note: IEA Paris apparently is including Hong Kong in their data so I have added Hong Kong also to mainland China from the BP Statistical Review (which tracks them separately). For 2009, BP has China edging the USA by nearly 19 mtoe, and IEA Paris has China exceeding the USA by a more substantial 82 mtoe.

View the Original article

Orient Paper: Loeb's Not the Right Firm for the Investigation

Last week, Orient Paper (ONP) announced it would retain Loeb & Loeb to conduct an independent investigation into the issues raised by Muddy Waters LLC.

While I welcome the third-party investigation, Loeb & Loeb is not the right firm for the job. I don’t intend to discredit Loeb & Loeb’s credentials. But given their active involvement in the Chinese Reverse Takeover (RTO) space, they are neither independent nor objective when it comes to whether a Chinese RTO is defrauding investors. Rather, they are firmly entrenched in the “club” of service providers that earn substantial fees from Chinese companies that have listed publicly in the United States through reverse takeovers of U.S. shell companies.

A service provider such as Loeb & Loeb is financially incentivized to conclude that Orient Paper is not making up its numbers. Failing confidence in Chinese RTOs could lead to materially reduced revenue for the firm's Chinese securities practice.

I’m not alleging any past, present or future wrongdoing on the part of Loeb & Loeb. I’m merely saying that Loeb & Loeb is not a genuinely independent party; they are not the appropriate law firm to perform a third party investigation into whether Orient Paper is falsifying its financial statements; and I and other critics are unlikely to be satisfied with an investigation led by Loeb & Loeb that exempts ONP from wrongdoing.

If Orient Paper is serious about having third parties investigate critics’ claims, they should hire a law firm that is not actively involved in the Chinese RTO space, and can act as a more objective investigator. I provide dozens of potential law firms at the bottom of this article.

Loeb & Loeb’s Active Involvement in Chinese RTOs

Loeb & Loeb is one of the leading law firms in providing legal counsel to Chinese companies that undergo RTOs, or merge with SPACs, to become public in the United States. They are also one of the top firms that provide legal counsel to the investment banks and PIPE investors who provide banking services or capital to these companies.

As they write in their website, “In 2009, Loeb & Loeb LLP’s Corporate Securities practice, notable for taking many of the first private Chinese companies public on U.S. stock exchanges, completed 33 major transactions totaling approximately $2.1 billion in 2009”. For press releases from Loeb & Loeb discussing their strength in Chinese RTOs, see here and here.

Loeb & Loeb is a sponsor of many conferences that focus on Chinese RTOs. They sponsored CCG's China Rising Conference this year and last year. They are sponsoring the Roth China Conference this year, and sponsored the 2009 and 2008 Roth conferences as well. They sponsored The Dealflow Reverse Merger 2010 Conference in June.

The lead partner of the China practice, Mitch Nussbaum, is a regular on the China RTO circuit. He speaks on panels regularly with other key service providers of Chinese RTOs - see here, here and here. In this link, for instance, Nussbaum speaks at a 2:15pm panel moderated by Crocker Coulson, ONP's investor relations representative. Two hours earlier, ONP board member Drew Bernstein gave his own speech at the event. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where Loeb & Loeb accuses ONP of fraud, when Bernstein has called the allegations "categorically false and without merit" and Coulson has been coordinating ONP's public responses to the charges of fraud.

Nor has Loeb been able to sidestep some of the controversies among Chinese RTOs. For the September equity offering for China Natural Gas (CHNG), which was alleged to be a fraud by the blog “Worthless Pennies”, Loeb & Loeb was legal counsel to the underwriters. For the April equity offering for Lihua International (LIWA), which has been flagged by Chimin Sang and Steve Chapski as potentially falsifying its financial statements, Loeb & Loeb was legal adviser to the company.

A Genuinely Independent Third Party should Be Picked Instead

I don’t think Loeb & Loeb should be chosen to investigate the serious allegations of fraud that have been charged against Orient Paper. A law firm with a Chinese office that is not actively involved with Chinese RTOs should be selected to conduct the investigation. Loeb & Loeb is not sufficiently independent. They generate substantial fees from Chinese companies that have undertaken RTOs to become publicly listed in the United States. They have a vested financial interest in seeing that Chinese RTOs are cleared of wrongdoing, generally speaking.

Here is a list of the top 25 foreign firms in the “Corporate/M&A” practice in China, as selected by “The Legal 500”.

Baker & McKenzieClifford Chance LLPFreshfields Bruckhaus DeringerLinklatersO’Melveny & Myers LLPShearman & Sterling LLPSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPAllen & Overy LLPDLA PiperGide Loyrette Nouel A.A.R.P.I.Herbert Smith LLPPaul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLPPaul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLPSidley Austin LLPSimpson Thacher & Bartlett LLPSullivan & Cromwell LLPWeil, Gotshal & MangesDavis Polk & WardwellDeaconsDechert LLP (Beijing Representative Office)Jones DayLatham & Watkins LLPLovells LLPMallesons Stephen JaquesMorrison & Foerster

Some of these firms, like DLA Piper, also play active roles in Chinese RTOs. But many in this list do not. ONP should select a law firm from this list that is not regularly involved in Chinese RTOs to conduct the investigation.

Disclosure: Author is short ONP amd CHNG

About the author: Chinese Company Analyst

View the Original article

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

China Plans for Its Competitive Future With Mining Asset Drive

The Wall Street Journal discovers the new old world of mining development and finance; and the natives of that new old world are smart, well financed, and decidedly unfriendly to competitors from the old new world.

Wednesday's July 21, 2010 Wall Street Journal has an article buried on page A11 entitled “Chinese Firms Snap Up Mining Assets.” The article should be on the front page, but the WSJ’s editors do not seem to realize just how important this article is for predicting the future of the American industrial economy.

I have written frequently over the last several years of the growing global dominance of China in the production of metals. The WSJ has now discovered that China “already consumes one-third of the world’s copper and 40% of its base metals, and produces half of the world’s steel.” In actuality, a little research into the facts would have shown the WSJ’s reporters and fact-finding staff the following: China now produces not only (already) half of the world’s steel but also some 53% of all of the metals produced in the world. By 2012, China will produce more than 60% of the world’s steel, an amount that in 2012, is expected to exceed 700,000,000 metric tons. That's between 7 and 8 times as much steel as the USA is expected to produce in 2012!

Does anyone need to wonder why China is ‘snapping’ up mining assets around the globe?

And does anyone still think this feverish resource acquisition is a plot to control the prices or supplies of the world’s metals and minerals for any other reason than to feed at the lowest cost the gigantic and growing appetite of the Chinese domestic economy for raw materials?

As I keep pointing out, the rare earths monopoly enjoyed by China today is a direct result of the fact that China’s monumental growth in demand for raw materials to feed its domestic economy began with those raw materials that the Chinese had in abundance. Materials such as the rare earths, iron ore, and tungsten. There is no mystery and no conspiracy to control prices; it is demand that is driving both Chinese acquisitions and its domestic growth of the production of industrial raw materials. It is the Chinese desire not to let others control the prices in China that is driving this raw material acquisition and development frenzy.

One more thing the WSJ did not notice is that the Chinese are focusing on acquiring resources in countries that can produce more natural resources than those countries can use internally. This avoids the problem of the Chinese creating their own competitors.

Rare earths are a perfect example of this. Chinese companies are investing in rare earth mining ventures in Australia, Canada, and Southern Africa. Not a single one of those places has a domestic supply chain for processing such ores or for refining them for use in high tech devices or for manufacturing those devices. The enormous cost of financing the development of a rare earth mine today makes it almost impossible for such an operation to be profitable at the ore concentrate stage- the most common stage at which a mining operation stops. Chinese investors can consolidate rare earth mines with existing Chinese ore processing and refining operations and even with rare earth metal and alloy fabricators and end users in China. This way the mining overheads can be distributed among more comprehensive operations and the total operation can be made profitable in China.

This distributed cost is the hope of the forthcoming Molycorp IPO. The intention is to create a total mine-to-magnet supply chain with the profit coming from magnet production, not from the mining. I think that the Chinese recognize that there is a good chance that Molycorp’s plan could result in a competitor. Therefore they are concentrating on investing in country’s rich in resources but with much less population and wealth then the USA so that there is no danger in those other countries of igniting competition to Chinese exports.

Those countries have neither the skills nor the domestic market that would encourage local investors to take the risk of creating an industry that would only work with massive exports to China as a goal. The Chinese clearly plan to reverse several centuries of tradition by making China the 21st century’s preeminent industrial manufacturing center. The focus is on creating a flow of raw materials from lesser economies into China and having the entire world as a well to soak up excess production. (And thus stimulate Chinese growth.) Wasn’t that the exact system that the British Empire achieved in the nineteenth and early twentieth century? Didn't that make Britain the richest and most powerful nation in the world for a while?

It looks like that system is working again, doesn’t it? Creating wealth beats consuming wealth without creating it every time.

In summary:

The WSJ's reporters now know what everyone in the mining world already knows: The Chinese mining industry, in particular, and China’s natural resources sector in general, are aggressively pursuing the acquisition and development of natural resources around the world for the purpose of supplying the Chinese demand for these materials. American finance looking only for short term gain has completely ignored this and has, at this point, marginalized the U.S. as a global competitor for the resources needed by China.

The pattern I see in Chinese overseas resource development is that China seeks resources and resource development in countries that do not and could not use all of the resources domestically. Thus China can pay for the development of the resources in ways that benefit the host country in general, such as infrastructure or the supply of goods and services not available in that country. This is a compensation scheme that is not possible in the U.S., a country today with no defined purpose.

The sun already does not set on mining operations that feed the Chinese industrial economy.

Disclosure: None

About the author: Jack Lifton

View the Original article