World's #2: Yuan Overtakes Euro in Trade Finance

Trade finance is a somewhat arcane area despite its obvious importance to keeping world trade afloat. To make a long story short, a loan taken out by a trading firm for an international transaction is known as a "letter of credit." [LC] In effect, the lending bank's creditworthiness substitutes for the debtor's, allowing the counterparty to be assuaged regarding credit risk.

In recent times, the Chinese yuan or renminbi has come on like gangbusters as more and more of these instruments are denominated in RMB. Reflecting China's emergence as the world's largest trading nation in merchandise, a significant minority of the world's letters of credit are now in RMB. In fact, it has now reached a milestone of overtaking the vaunted Euro in this application in the month of October of this year:

China’s yuan overtook the euro to become the second-most used currency in global trade finance after the dollar this year, according to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication [SWIFT]. The currency had an 8.66% share of letters of credit and collections in October [2013], compared with 6.64% for the euro, Swift said in a statement Tuesday. China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Germany and Australia were the top users of yuan in trade finance, according to the Belgium-based financial- messaging platform.

So the dollar remains far and away the largest prominent currency in trade finance, but keep in mind where the yuan came from as late as January 2012 when it held less than a 2% share. Moreover, the appeal of the currency is coming on strong outside of China:

“It’s true that overseas exporters are using the renminbi more as the contract currency to increase the attractiveness and competitiveness of goods or services sold to China,” said Cynthia Wong, the Hong Kong-based head of emerging-market trading for Singapore and Hong Kong at Societe Generale SA.

That said, the Chinese currency still has a long way to go in terms of becoming a vehicle currency for all sorts of payments and being widely exchanged one in forex markets:

The Chinese currency ranked No. 12 for transactions in the global payments system in October, unchanged from the previous month, according to Swift figures. Payment value for the currency rose 1.5% that month, less than the 4.6% growth for all currencies, the Swift data showed. That saw the yuan’s market share drop to 0.84% from 0.86% in September.

Daily yuan transactions surged to $120 billion in April from $34 billion in 2010, making it the ninth most-traded currency in the world, according to a September report by the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland.

So there's still a long way to go in terms of China allowing further capital account openness and market-trading for the yuan to become a legitimate rival to the dollar and the euro. Yet, the demand is likely there--especially for those who regularly trade with mainland China. That the currency is steadily appreciating is a further bonus to those who wish to hold it. To non-mainland residents, that is not an inconsequential draw:

The yuan has appreciated 2.3% against the greenback this year, the best performance in Asia, according to data compiled by Bloomberg...“I’m not surprised as cross-border trades between China and Hong Kong have been quite dominantly denominated in yuan,” Raymond Yeung, a Hong Kong-based senior economist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., said by phone today. “Yuan trades usually increase when there are strong expectations for yuan appreciation.”

Read More

Philippines, PRC & Geopolitics of Disaster Relief

[I wish to express my appreciation to those who have gotten in touch to check whether I have been affected by the recent storm in the Philippines. Typhoon Haiyan did not really pass through the capital, Manila, where I am currently based. Nevertheless, any help you can extend to my compatriots is most welcome.] Typhoon Haiyan is one of the most powerful storms ever to hit land. While storms of its magnitude are frequent in the open ocean, it is relatively rate that one reaching over 300 kph hits populated areas. The devastation is enormous, and the UN estimates that $301 million is needed to rehabilitate affected regions over a preliminary six-month period:

The United Nations today appealed for nearly a third of a billion dollars to provide humanitarian assistance to typhoon hit regions of the Philippines where aid workers are labouring around the clock to get in urgently needed survival supplies, such as food, clean water, shelter and basic medicines. UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos launched the $301 million flash appeal from Manila, the capital, where she is surveying the damage by Typhoon Haiyan which ripped through nine regions in south-east Asia over the weekend. 

However, many are noticing the comparatively small amount China is pledging to give to its neighbor ($200,000 total):

China's government has promised $100,000 in aid to Manila, along with another $100,000 through the Chinese Red Cross - far less than pledged by other economic heavyweights. Japan has offered $10 million in aid and is sending in an emergency relief team, for instance, while Australia has donated $9.6 million...

"The Chinese leadership has missed an opportunity to show its magnanimity," said Joseph Cheng, a political science professor at the City University of Hong Kong who focuses on China's ties with Southeast Asia. "While still offering aid to the typhoon victims, it certainly reflects the unsatisfactory state of relations (with Manila)."

China's ties with the Philippines are already fragile as a decades-old territorial squabble over the South China Sea enters a more contentious chapter, with claimant nations spreading deeper into disputed waters in search of energy supplies, while building up their navies.

While the merely state-affiliated publication Global Times usually holds the more jingoistic views compared to the truly official Xinhua news agency or China Daily, this time it expresses concern about how the rest of the region will view the PRC's comparative stinginess. A feint, perhaps? It is still notable that such an opinion was made. Especially notable is the recognition of contributions Filipino-Chinese have made when the PRC has been affected by similar calamities:

China shouldn't be absent in the international relief efforts. Instead, it should offer help within the compass of its power, given China's international position and its location of facing the Philippines across the sea. It's a must to aid typhoon victims in the Philippines despite Haiyan having also battered China's coastal regions and bilateral tensions over the South China Sea disputes.

China, as a responsible power, should participate in relief operations to assist a disaster-stricken neighboring country, no matter whether it's friendly or not. China's international image is of vital importance to its interests. If it snubs Manila this time, China will suffer great losses...  

Aid to the typhoon victims is a kind of humanitarian aid, which is totally different from foreign aid in the past made out of geopolitical concerns. Overseas Chinese in the Philippines played an active part to mobilize relief efforts when the mainland was in disaster. It's legitimate that we provide assistance when they suffer.  

Still, China's pledge is indicative of certain things. Its leadership is not quite pleased with the Philippines, having disinvited the latter's president in recent months and now this. These expressions are also conditioned on playing to public opinion: having portrayed the Philippines as "the enemy" over the South China Sea spat to the Chinese public, it is hard to back down on the tough rhetoric against the Philippines by offering millions in disaster relief.

Asian politics are notable for the long memories of those concerned. If so, the Philippines may better remember those who helped it during its time of need. For instance, that Putin guy might not be so mean towards other developing nations...

UPDATE: China has since upped its commitment to $1.64 million, although many are questioning why it has not dispatched its state-of-the-art hospital ship Peace Ark designed for emergencies such as this to the Philippines. 

Read More

Are the Port of Hong Kong's Glory Days Over?

How the mighty are falling. Here's another one from the Far East shipping files: Hong Kong ranks regularly among the world's top three busiest container ports in terms of twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) handled. Yet, its previously unassailable status is coming under attack due to a number of factors. First, rising labor costs in the Pearl River Delta mean it is being less used to handle shipments of manufactured goods from that part of China. Second, "industrial action" hit Hong Kong for the first time in many years earlier in 2013...

Like Shenzhen, Hong Kong’s throughput has been pinched by the decline of South China manufacturing, as high labour costs impel factory owners to shift operations to China’s interior or elsewhere in Asia. Hong Kong narrowly missed losing its third place position against Shenzhen, which marginally increased volumes in 2012 by 1.6%.

The biggest operator in the port, Hutchison International Terminals, was hit by the first major industrial action in Hong Kong in 20 years that began on March 28, 2013. The strike involved 450 port workers, including crane operators and stevedores, and lasted for 40 days. The strike caused a 20% drop in throughput at the Hong Kong operations of HPH Trust — a Singapore-listed Hutchison spin-off that comprises many of Hutchison’s Hong Kong assets.

As a result, many major port operators are divesting themselves of Hong Kong.  Indeed, the years it served as the world's gateway to China are numbered since, well, the former crown colony was reabsorbed by the mainland in 1997 and became a special administrative region (SAR). The handover happened a long time ago, and there is certainly no lack of mainland ports companies can now use--no need to use HK as an intermediary with the Reds in charge here as well:

Dropping volumes in Hong Kong was a factor in divestments by major port operators. In March 2013, HPH Trust bought Asia Container Terminals Holdings for $503m from joint owners Dubai-based DP World and Singapore-based PSA. Simultaneously, DP World sold 75% of its interest in Hong Kong’s Kwai Chung Terminal berth 3 and in ATL Logistics Centre Hong Kong for $463m to Goodman Hong Kong Logistics Fund.

While Hong Kong still retains an edge for operational efficiency, it also faces continuous erosion of demand, as more operators make direct calls to mainland ports. The competitiveness of Shenzhen ports has been boosted by easing of customs requirements for ocean to ocean transhipment.

Hong Kong retains its place as the world's freest economy, but certain parts of its portfolio no longer dominate its unique selling proposition as others have caught up. I hate to say it, but the port business may truly be a "sunset industry" for HK as some have presaged.

Read More

Colonial Mentality: Chinese Shun Their Own Brands

Given the truckload of goods China makes for the rest of the world, it may seem odd that the Chinese are concerned with their inability to develop homegrown brands: Why should you develop your own brands when Apple/General Electric/Samsung and whoever else have you have done the heavy lifting of brand-building for you as a contract manufacturer? It's certainly not easy, either--none of the world's top 100 brands are mainland Chinese. The answer is as simple as it is clear: actually making consumer goods constitutes an ever-decreasing share of the profits--if any. The higher value-added activities come from branding, marketing and goodwill which emanate from (surprise!) building up a brand name. In other words, the Chinese get the grunt work and the industrial pollution, while Western companies get the cushy high-salaried jobs and clean air.

Just in time, the FT has an article discussing how the Chinese perpetuate this lamentable situation themselves by preferring imported to local brands. In sociology, it would be classified under "colonial mentality" or believing that former colonizers--be they the Japanese or the Europeans--are superior. After all, they managed to colonize you, right?

Chinese consumers want foreign goods. Whether sports shoes or cars, televisions or mobile phones, cosmetics or nappies [diapers to non-Brits], surveys show that foreign brands predominate. Shaun Rein of China Market Research Group says people trust foreign brands not to cut corners and associate them with more of an established heritage than their domestic labels.

This spells trouble for China as its people become more middle-class and spend more on non-essential items. The more that they buy foreign goods, the more that the proceeds of China’s progress will accumulate to shareholders elsewhere. It will also mean fewer profits for Chinese companies to reinvest in innovation and expertise at home in electronics, for example.

Moreover, there is the matter of "sham" trade surpluses (the image above comes from the ADB Institute): trade figures aside, once you adjust for the actual value-added of Chinese exports, the results look rather less impressive:

Its lack of popular brands is already visible to some degree in its trade balances with other countries. China may run a large nominal surplus but when economists adjust those numbers for the value that it adds or gives away in making goods that are consumed at home or abroad, the numbers tell a very different story.

For example, its total trade surplus with the US drops from $189bn to $127bn on a value-added basis, according to calculations by economists at BBVA, the Spanish bank. Most of this reduction is due to value given away in electrical and optical equipment, textiles and clothing.

Consider it as a warning sign. Sometime ago, I wrote a journal article together with a marketing scholar about the pressing need for the likes of China to develop brands of its own. Suffice to say that message has gone unheeded, and things may get worse in terms of prospects for Chinese development going forward if this matter is not addressed:

If China can follow its neighbours and develop its own powerful brands like Samsung of South Korea, or Toyota of Japan, it can sell not only to its own 1.35bn people but to billions of others all over the world.

If it does not build or buy such brands there is a risk that its consistent trade surpluses will become deficits in the decades ahead. That is not what the push to rebalance China’s economy towards consumerism is supposed to do.

Consider these folks warned. After all, if you don't buy your own brands, what confidence will others have in them?

Read More

China's 'Maritime Silk Road' as a Hegemonic Project

 The wrangling over both the US government shutdown and the debt ceiling caused Barack Obama to cancel his attendance at the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) shindig being held this year in Bali, Indonesia. So he stayed at home to deal with a localized insurrection led by an angry, mostly whitebread crowd, "Tea Party" members, they call themselves. Just desserts, I say. His absence triggered yet another round of commentary about the existence of American hegemony in general and its alleged "pivot to Asia" in particular. Some say the absence does not matter; others think it's a culmination of US decline.

At any rate, this notable omission only served to highlight China's latest plan (gimmick?) to curry favor with other nations in the Asia-Pacific. After having its Noughties-era outreach efforts to ink economic agreements alike free trade deals undermined by its strident assertions to territorial disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea, the PRC seems to attempting to return to a more diplomatic approach. The Silk Road was named after the commercial routes plied by China when it was an empire. At APEC, keynote speaker Xi Jingping's main talking point concerned the "Maritime Silk Road" which once again promises improved relations with neighbors through commercial ties.

On Oct. 3 during his trip in Indonesia, Xi [Jingping] said in a speech that China and the ASEAN will promote maritime cooperation and build a 21st-century maritime Silk Road. This was also brought up by Li [Keqiang] in his seven-point proposal on China-ASEAN cooperation in Brunei on Wednesday. [B]uilding a maritime Silk Road will involve a new consensus, including discussing the signing of a treaty on good neighborliness, friendship and cooperation, strengthening security exchanges, setting up an Asian infrastructure investment bank and prioritizing maritime connectivity development...

In the seven-point proposal, Li [Keqiang] said "the two sides should launch negotiations on upgrading their free trade area and strive to bring bilateral trade to one trillion U.S. dollars by 2020 so as to allow ASEAN countries to benefit more from regional integration and China's economic growth." Zhang Jiuhuan, former Chinese ambassador to Thailand, Singapore and Nepal, said, "Upgrading the free trade area is another significant step for the Chinese government to beef up China-ASEAN cooperation." 

President Xi and Premier Li have been flogging this idea for many months in ASEAN countries, although they have not yet taken it to the Philippines and Vietnam with which it has the most pronounced maritime disputes in Southeast Asia. Still, they allude to the success of the China-ASEAN FTA which they wish to use expand and use as a focal point in strengthening ties:

Starting operation in 2010, the China-ASEAN free trade area is the largest one among developing countries. China is the largest trading partner for ASEAN, and the association is the third largest trading partner for China. According to Zhang, bilateral trade volume between China and the ASEAN grew from 78.2 billion U.S. dollars in 2003 to 400.1 billion U.S. dollars in 2012. Volume reached 210.56 billion U.S. dollars in the first half of this year, up 12.2 percent year on year.

Zhang said "upgrading the free trade area" is needed for both sides. He said the area will help improve the trade of commodities and services and investment cooperation in order to provide convenience and freedom. "All-dimensional cooperation will create more favorable conditions for the maritime Silk Road," said Zhang. "China's economic growth will also bring about more opportunities." 

The idea remains the same in a liberal sense: improved economic ties will smoothen relations--including frayed ones over territorial disputes. However, reception of the Maritime Silk Road idea is mixed among Southeast Asian countries as you would expect: Malaysians are more sanguine, but then again their territorial conflicts with China are not particularly heated. How successful can the Maritime Silk Road project be in calming neighbors? I personally believe that building more economic ties is welcome, but they will be accompanied by more guarded opinions of China's broader intentions. That is, for how long can it afford to give security matters lesser priority while the "security dilemma" the PRC has created makes others feel insecure?

President Xi Jinping and Premier Li have toured ASEAN extensively; it reflects their strategic outlook of developing relationships with neighbouring countries. The new leadership is trying to diffuse tension in the SCS by using various techniques, of which MSR is one. However, a revival of the MSR looks bleak. Also, earlier the route was used for the import of precious stone, wood and spices but today it will used for oil and gas, which is directly connected to the energy security of not one but many countries. There is an emerging security architecture in the region which has led to an increased arms build-up, and the assertiveness of new regional powers has further complicated the regional military balance, which makes the MSR an unlikely prospect.

Moreover, isn't this the same China that disinvited the Philippine president from participating in a trade mission due to the South China Sea imbroglio? More commerce is welcome, but I believe that economic and security matters are becoming less positively correlated in terms of Sino-ASEAN dynamics. That is, stronger economic ties do not necessarily imply improved security ties. Remember, trade has been increasing against a backdrop of worsening conflicts over the South China Sea with the Philippines and Vietnam especially.

Lastly, wasn't the Silk Road at its height when China effectively enforced a tributary system on others in the region? Perhaps the metaphor China has chosen is not a good one since its original iteration had others accepting their subordinate position relative to the Middle Kingdom. The PRC always says it does not seek hegemony (alike white people do), but it has given the rest of us reason to doubt.

Read More

The (Delayed) Ascent of PRC Rating Agencies

There was another large controversy about Chinese firms operating Stateside three years ago when the PRC-based credit rating agency (privately-owned, mind you) Dagong was denied by the SEC from being granted Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO) status. As IPE Zone readers know by now, NRSRO status is important insofar as gaining this recognition allows a credit rating agency to legitimately evaluate what is still the most liquid capital market of them all for dollar-denominated debt. Then, the SEC claimed that Dagong could not comply with the Feds' standards for tranparency if so required:

[W]e find that we must deny Dagong's application because, irrespective of the jurisdictional question, it does not appear possible at this time for Dagong to comply with the recordkeeping, production, and examination requirements of the federal securities laws.

The "jurisdictional question" concerns the Chinese SEC equivalent the China Securities Rating Commission (CSRC) having its own set of rules concerning access to such documents. At any rate, Dagong was partly culpable in not properly explaining how it would handle SEC requests for information about ratings in terms understandable to Westerner bureaucrats. Dagong even threatened to sue, but nothing came of it:

Chinese rating agency Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. called the Securities and Exchange Commission's recent denial of its application as an officially recognized bond rater in the U.S. discriminatory and said it considers taking legal action against the agency.

In a strongly worded statement posted on the company's website Sunday, Dagong said SEC's sole reason for denying its application is the commission can not conduct cross-border supervision over the Chinese firm.

At any rate, Dagong has not given up on its quest to become a global player in the ratings game. Aside from the publicity stunt of downgrading US debt from AAA status before S&P, it now has done what few PRC ratings firms are willing to do in downgrading local issuances regardless of the argument that the government always stands ready to bail out SOEs which constitute a large part of the Chinese economy:

At the end of June, Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. broke ranks with its local competitors and downgraded three bonds issued by infrastructure-construction companies wholly owned by Chinese cities. It said it was losing faith in the governments' backing of the bonds [...] The three bonds Dagong downgraded—for the infrastructure-construction arms of local governments in Jilin, Jiangxi and Hubei provinces—had their ratings lowered by only one notch and still are rated investment grade.

Another strategy aside from establishing an image of political independence at home is using Europe instead of the US as Dagong's Western beachhead:

Dagong's go-it-alone stance is a measure of its ambitions. Chairman Guan Jianzhong—a trained accountant who took over in 1998 and owns a chunk of the 20-year-old private firm, according to a person familiar with the company—has spoken bullishly about the need to break the lock-hold Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings have on global debt ratings. Dagong hopes investors would be open to a new ratings firm after the global financial crisis resulted in a major loss of faith in the established players.

European regulators have taken note. In June, before the downgrades, six European Union regulators approved the registration of Dagong's Milan-based unit, allowing it to rate companies in Europe. Dagong previously had been turned down by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 after it applied to do the same in the U.S.

The best way to combat Western discrimination is to tell it like it is when handing out ratings, since being proven right by subsequent bond issuer performance is the best way to gain others' confidence. Besides, who exactly is going to argue that Western ratings firms are any good in this day and age? As bond issuances increase from China in particular and East Asia in general, the clout of Asian ratings firms should increase accordingly.

The lame 2010 NRSRO application aside which appeared to fail due to unpreparedness as much as discrimination, it's only a matter of time. 

Read More

Vaporware 3.0? Shanghai Free Trade Zone

In technology-related industries, the term "vaporware" is used for hardware or software that is all hype and no substance. Either the announced products do not even materialize, or if they do, their features are far less impressive than promised. For our purposes, consider them as "vaporware 1.0" and "vaporware 2.0" respectively.

Today, let us consider yet another overhyped entity that is somewhat larger in scale. Try the largest city in the world's largest country--Shanghai, People's Republic of China--boasting a population of an astonishing 23 million. Just yesterday, a 29 square mile chunk of it formally became the Shanghai Free Trade Zone, but no one is entirely sure what this means. Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing said it may in time overtake Hong Kong as its economic openness--in banking and other services as well as with a more freely traded yuan--would attract more FDI from elsewhere. Yet, for something so highly touted, how Shanghai will achieve this "world capital" status remain unclear even now after its official launch date:

Well, that’s the plan, at least. The government has so far been clear in its intention to introduce financial reforms in the zone, but not as clear on how they will actually take place. The details on what can and cannot be done there, and when certain reforms will be implemented, remain sketchy. The reforms planned for this Shanghai zone will be much more difficult than those that took place in the trade- and manufacturing-focused zones of yesteryear. Factories, and the shirts, shoes and TV sets they make, are easy to monitor and control; not so financial flows, which could surge in and out of the zone with destabilizing speed. Financial firms could also take advantage of different interest rates and currency values inside and outside the zone to turn a quick buck.

In other words, the Chinese authorities need to ensure that arbitrage opportunities are limited. So the rules are not yet finalized, but there was a grand opening, right? Er, no--it was the softest of soft launches, actually:

Officials at the launch of the zone on Sunday promised a far more open and streamlined environment for foreign firms to do business in China, along with the relaxation of policies for a raft of service sectors, including banking.

However, the absence of senior Beijing leaders at the launch and few specifics on bolder reforms such as a more convertible yuan and liberalised interest rates left some disappointed, while officials stressed the zone remains a work in progress.

Vagueness and a lack of Beijing bigwigs does not make for a promising start. How about promises of greater Internet freedom, then? Well...they turned out to be unsubstantiated rumors after all that you could go tweeting and Facebooking to your heart's content:

The People's Daily, the official mouthpiece of China's ruling Communist Party, denied a recent report in the South China Morning Post saying that people would be allowed to access Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times and other politically sensitive, banned websites within a groundbreaking free trade zone set to launch this month in the country's financial hub, Shanghai. "Today (our) journalists obtained the information from a very powerful channel that these reports are wrong," said the People's Daily.

Let us consider what we have learned so far, then. Unspecified promises for greater economic liberalization at a later date, no bigwig apparatchiks on hand to lend support, and no new freedoms of expression. It doesn't sound so promising to me. However, us gweilo (foreign devils) may be thoroughly mistaken as Chinese themselves are speculating by buying up land there at a fearsome clip:

The property market near the soon-to-be free trade zone is also on a roll. Housing prices have soared 20-30 per cent in one month in the area just outside the Waigaoqiao gates, according to Shanghai Yuexin Real Estate “It seems crazy to me. Nobody knows the exact situation about the zone and they didn’t even take a look at the homes before buying them,” said Xi Xinlei, a Shanghai Yuexin agent.

What is the relevant principle here: A sucker is born every minute, or are some people smarter than you and me? If it's the former, perhaps PC World will in the near future consider the Shanghai Free Trade Zone as the top vaporware product of all time. Stay tuned; some folks have already made fairly large bets that Shanghai is entering a new golden age.

Read More

East / Southeast Asia's Demographic Bifurcation

There's are always interesting demographic discussions about the "West and the Rest," but there are also interesting demographic variations within regions.Take the Asia-Pacific: While Japan is emblematic of the problems with a shrinking population, it will soon be joined in that situation by a number of East Asian neighbors absent large rises in fertility or large-scale inward migration:

"Japan was largely the only country that was aging and shrinking in terms of its labor force and population in the previous decade. But in the coming decade, several Asian countries – including China, South Korea, Hong Kong [...] will see their labor forces shrink. This will have important implications for GDP [gross domestic product] growth, consumer spending and asset prices, judging from Japan's experience..."

Japan is home to the fastest aging population in the world, with almost a quarter of its population over the age of 65. The country has struggled with sluggish growth stemming from a shrinking workforce, which has put pressure on the government to boost productivity levels.

OTOH, you have the more demographically promising Southeast Asian countries that have not yet reached a similar stage in the demographic transition as their wealthier northern neighbors:

The U.N. sees the working-age population in Indonesia and the Philippines peaking in 2058 and 2085 respectively, later than previously anticipated. At the same time it brought forward forecasts for other Asian countries including China, where the working-age population is expected to peak in 2015, and its total population, currently around 1.3 billion people, is seen decreasing after 2030.

BofAML's Chua says demographics are useful indicators of real GDP growth, noting a strong correlation between changes in working-age population and growth in the real economy over the past decade (2002-2012). 

To be sure, demographics alone do not drive economic growth. However, Japan's example does illustrate the pitfalls to having too few working-age people going forward. Previously marginalized as development laggards, more are taking notice of Indonesia and the Philippines as investment opportunities partly for demographic reasons. 

Read More

The Tricky Business of Catering to PRC Tourists

Since I am currently writing up some tourism-related research, two recent articles about the global industry catering to Chinese travelers caught my eye. While there is some debate going on as to whether tourism is the world's largest industry, we can safely conclude that it is a very large one. Combine that fact with China becoming the second-largest economy in the world and the embrace of Chinese tourism is only natural: As early as the mid-Nineties, I remember visiting Parisian luxury boutiques and seeing the effects of the first wave of PRC tourists as most had salesladies who were fluent in Mandarin. However, that is pretty much a baseline expectation nowadays.

(1) To be sure, the cruise ship industry has been hurt by high-profile incidences of American liners alternatively sickening and killing their passengers. Fortunately, its tarnished reputation is not (yet?) global. There are pockets of opportunity alike China. Again, it's only natural that the Chinese would take to the open sea since they have the world's busiest seaports--the infrastructure is already there. What has been lacking, however has been marketing: Chinese with an interest on going on cruise ships cannot be away for too long since they probably are too busy making money (unlike, say, their American counterparts who can go on decade-long cruises if there were some Wall-E style). Hence the popularity of short trips around East/Southeast Asia:

When the Mariner of the Seas arrived in Shanghai in June, it became the largest ocean liner with a home port in China — a 138,000-ton mega-ship that boasts an ice rink, 10 pools, a rock-climbing wall and a mini golf course. But the 3,800 passengers it can carry don’t get long to enjoy the array of amenities. The ocean-going giant, owned by Royal Caribbean International, mostly makes three- and four-night trips to South Korea that start at about the equivalent of $500 per person. 

The preference for such short cruises is one of the major challenges international cruise lines face as they focus more resources on luring Chinese customers, says Zinan Liu, the Shanghai-based managing director for China and Asia for Royal Caribbean, whose parent company is the world’s second-largest operator, with slightly more than 23 percent of all cruise passengers. (Carnival Corp. is the largest, with a little more than 48 percent.) 

If Chinese take to cruising in the same way as North Americans and Europeans, they could provide as many as 40 million cruise guests a year, according to a 2010 market analysis by Royal Caribbean. That is twice the number of passengers expected worldwide this year. But unless they work for international companies, most Chinese take vacations only during the public holidays clustered around traditional festivals like Chinese New Year, usually a week or less at any one time.

(2) However, all is not just moneymaking with PRC tourists. Whereas the rest of the world once had to deal with loud, brash Americans and pack-rattish Japanese, today the accusations of poorly-mannered tourists are aimed at the Chinese:

Now it is China’s turn to face the brunt of complaints. The grievances are familiar — they gawk, they shove, they eschew local cuisine, and last year, 83 million mainland Chinese spent $102 billion abroad — overtaking Americans and Germans — making them the world’s biggest tourism spenders, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization.

Their numbers have also placed them among the most resented tourists. Mainland Chinese tourists, often laden with cash and unfamiliar with foreign ways, are tumbling out of tour buses with apparently little appetite for hotel breakfast buffets and no concept of lining up [...]

Certainly, more cultured Chinese are ashamed of the poor behavior of some of their compatriots who believe that spending a lot means they do not need to observe manners:

But the greatest opprobrium seems to be coming from fellow Chinese. In May, a mainland Chinese tourist in Luxor, Egypt, discovered that a compatriot had carved his own hieroglyphics on the wall of a 3,500-year-old temple. “Ding Jinhao was here,” it declared. A photo of the offending scrawl spread rapidly on Chinese social media, and outraged citizens tracked down the 15-year-old vandal. The uproar subsided after his parents issued a public apology. 

Embarrassed by the spate of bad press that month, Wang Yang, China’s vice premier, publicly railed against the poor “quality and breeding” of Chinese tourists who tarnish their homeland’s reputation. “They make loud noises in public, scratch graffiti on tourist attractions, ignore red lights when crossing the road and spit everywhere,” he said, according to People’s Daily. 

As the saying goes, you take the good with the bad and try to mitigate the latter through better customer education. There remain instances when the customer is not always right.

UPDATE: This rude Chinese tourists trope is gaining popularity. The South China Morning Post adds to it. 

Read More

Li Ka-Shing: When Shanghai Overtakes Hong Kong

Here's a nice illustration of a recurrent debate concerning Asian political economy that I will be able to use for classroom purposes. Hong Kong-based tycoon Li Ka-Shing, known as "Superman" for his business prowess, has offered a pointedly Asian opinion on the prospects of Shanghai overtaking his hometown as the world's gateway to China. While teaching development studies, I make it a point to differentiate the perceived utility of political and economic freedom. The Western view, of course, is that both go hand in hand. On the other hand, many Asian commentators believe that leaders have the right to withhold political freedom provided that economic freedom of the growth-promoting variety is given.
Hence Li Ka-Shing's very Asian point: As the Chinese megacity is granting more economic freedom of the sort Hong Kong enjoys--Shanghai is soon to become a free trade zone with looser capital controls, currency convertibility and so on that other PRC cities do not enjoy--Hong Kong's comparative advantage in those respects may be eroded. What's more, the clamor for too much political freedom among Hong Kong's residents is distracting it from the real task at hand of maintaining its economic preeminence. A card-carrying CCP member could not have said it any better:

Li Ka-shing, Asia’s richest man, said Hong Kong needs to raise its competitiveness if it wants to avoid losing out to Shanghai, where China is setting up a free trade zone, Radio Television Hong Kong reported. Li, the 85-year-old chairman of Hong Kong-based Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd. (1) and Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. (13), said the Shanghai free trade zone “will affect Hong Kong heavily,” RTHK reported on its website, citing comments Li made at a briefing yesterday.

The [Shanghai Free Trade Zone] may allow freer yuan convertibility, liberalize interest rates and relax restrictions on foreign investment, which may threaten Hong Kong’s status as China’s biggest financial center. The former British colony risks falling behind its rivals if citizens there don’t start rallying behind Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, a Chinese official said yesterday.

“China is a big market and in the long term it can’t just rely on Hong Kong as its only hub,” said Kevin Lai, a Hong Kong-based economist at Daiwa Capital Markets Ltd. “I worry more about the deteriorating political environment in Hong Kong than about Shanghai establishing a free-trade zone.” Leung’s government has increasingly been drawn into a debate about the speed of electoral reform, as opposition lawmakers press for the open nomination of candidates for the election of Hong Kong’s next leader in 2017, rather than by committee as legislated.

Stupid politics, Li Ka-Shing is probably saying...what about making money, Hong Kong's real purpose? And what are we to make of those "Occupy," er, more-communist-than-mainland-self-styled-Communists?

Li said that Occupy Central, the movement proposed by some civic groups to pressure the Hong Kong government into accelerating the introduction of full democracy, may damage the economy and the city’s reputation as a financial center, according to the RTHK report.

Hong Kong residents should focus on the economy rather than politics, as Singapore leapfrogs the Chinese city as a financial center by many measures, the Standard newspaper reported today, citing remarks made to a business delegation by Wang Guangya, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office. The city should give more support to Leung, he said.

He may be 85, but alike octogenarian Lee Kuan Yew, he's as sharp as tacks and unafraid to offer an unpopular opinion if it needs to be aired. For what it's worth, the various "Occupy" movements are closely associated with US-based protests. I think he missed an opportunity here to say, "Do you want to make Hong Kong's economy like America's?"

That should shut them up real good.

Read More

Does US Discourage PRC FDI? Uncle Sam Sez No

This is a follow-up to a recent post about the Chinese food conglomerate Shuanghui International attempting to purchase US pork producer Smithfield. If it pushes through, this deal will be the largest Chinese acquisition of an American firm to date. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are all sorts of dubious "national security" concerns which many believe the US deploys as an excuse for blatantly discriminatory attitudes towards China. I have called it "hog farm protectionism" in this case. Recently, Greg Gilligan, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, weighed in on these goings-on back in the US of A prior to the completion of the CFIUS process for this acquisition. He too believes that making pork a "national security" issue is, well, hogwash at a time when the United States needs job-creating FDI...even from [gasp, choke!] China:

American policy makers need to ask why the U.S. is not attracting more job-creating Chinese investment. While weakness in European economies has certainly played a role in this recent trend by offering Chinese investors bargain asset prices, we can't ignore the perception that the U.S. harbors an underlying hostility to Chinese investment. Recent political opposition to Shuanghui's acquisition of Smithfield reinforces this perception. Indeed, the response to this deal is representative of several worrying trends.

One is Washington's tendency to define American national security interests unreasonably broadly. Some opponents of the Smithfield deal have suggested that pork production is a national security issue. It's hard to credit that argument in an economy where Americans already have access to an unimaginable array of foods, including a wide range of meats. Another is Washington's lack of transparency in its approach to vetting these deals. Politicians and policy makers are starting to move the goal posts with each deal. One example of this is the CFIUS process itself, the results of which aren't published. Earlier this year, a U.S. district court judge refused to throw out a claim by Chinese-invested Ralls Corporation that it had been denied due process when, without adequate explanation, regulators demanded that it divest its interests in four wind farms. The lack of clarity about how Washington will decide investment issues is a problem.

Meanwhile, back in DC, the folks at the US Treasury replied to what they believed to be a mischaracterization of Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) procedures by Mr. Gilligan. Assistant Secretary for International Markets Marisa Lago counters:

Greg Gilligan, in "America Needs the Smithfield Deal" (Sept. 4) mischaracterizes the role and processes of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and inaccurately describes the U.S.' policy on foreign investment.Contrary to Gilligan's claims, the CFIUS review process is non-discriminatory and transparent in its rules and procedures [...]

Unlike other countries that place restrictions on investments in broad swaths of the economy, impose ownership caps, or review foreign investment for economic and other considerations unrelated to national security, CFIUS applies the same rules to each transaction that it reviews, regardless of the country of the investor or the economic sector of the investment. We welcome investment in our entire economy and from all countries, and from private and state-owned investors alike. Unless a transaction presents a national security risk, we welcome it.

And while we are required by law to keep information filed with CFIUS confidential, the rules that govern the CFIUS process, including its governing statute and regulations, are publicly available and fully disclosed online. It is a process that enables us to protect national security in a manner fully consistent with our policy to encourage foreign investment.

Her response reminds me of Robert S. McNamara's: answer the question that you wish to answer, not what was actually asked. Many discussions that make or break PRC investment are conducted in backroom, informal meetings and not in public deliberations. So, saying that the rules are disclosed does not necessarily mean that the investors-to-be have a fair opportunity to air their views during deliberations. More importantly, she skirts the problem that "national security" is made to cover pretty much everything they can think of: If the Chinese purchase is unpopular with the political classes, they will find a way to relate it somehow to "national security."

Going back to Gilligan, the evidence he cites for Chinese contempt is that the PRC is increasingly resorting to similarly vague and open-ended reasons that may be used to discourage US investment in the future:

Rules passed in 2011 allow the Ministry of Commerce to review a transaction's national security impact based on considerations of "economic stability" and "social order," without defining what these terms mean. Beijing also imposes an opaque and unpredictable review process on many foreign investments. It is hard for American businesses, or our government officials, to persuade Beijing to change such rules when Washington increasingly behaves in the same way.

At any rate, the CFIUS has since cleared the way for the Shuanghui-Smithfield deal. Whether through embarrassment if it went ahead with "hog farm protectionism," do remember that past years have witnessed US opposition over what I would argue are similarly specious "national security" grounds. Consider the cases of Huawei-3Com and CNOOC-Unocal where the prospective Chinese investors pulled out knowing they would be turned down anyway.

Still, the Smithfield deal shows improvement on the part of the US, but keep in mind that the more relaxed Canadians have permitted far larger deals with the Chinese in industries supposedly subject to "national security" concerns. Me? I will reserve judgment until a larger mooted purchase of an American firm in energy or high-technology sectors by a Chinese one comes around.

Read More

China: #1 in Shale Gas Reserves, Paltry Production

Much has been made of the United States growing energy independence as it taps shale gas reserves at home. A salutary effect has been reducing the trade imbalance America is legendary for. However, the US is far from the only country with a lot of shale gas reserves. China purportedly has the most, but it has been quite slow in tapping these reserves. The numbers tell the story of China's backwardness:

Beijing has struggled to find a way to emulate the frenetic exploration and production activity of the shale gas boom in the United States, and the latest setback makes reaching even a modest 2015 output target of 6.5 billion cubic metres (bcm) unlikely. This is only a fraction of the 224 bcm of shale gas the United States produced in 2011, and would amount to just 6 percent of China’s total current output of natural gas.

Why this sloth? There are environmental concerns over fracking in places such as Europe, but let's just say they are outweighed in China's case by the more immediate cause of energy security. Others would even argue that shale gas is less polluting than burning coal. So China lags behind despite its even larger dependence on imported energy. It's a combination of various things, with less readily accessible reserves and uncertain land ownership featuring large:

When [Shell] began a multibillion-dollar effort to tap China shale gas a few years ago, it seemed like a can't-miss wager. China has the world's most extensive shale gas reserves, biggest energy market, and a government pushing for expanded gas production.But for Shell and its state-controlled partner, China National Petroleum Corp. the reality on the ground makes its bet look riskier.

The region's rough terrain, poor infrastructure and deeply buried gas formations present tough technical challenges. The area is so densely populated and intensely farmed that drilling sites are being built within 360 feet of homes in villages like Maoba—upsetting residents who complain of noise, dust and environmental concerns. To ease the way, Shell and its partners are compensating local residents and local government officials for using their land and roads and other inconveniences.

You would have thought that in an authoritarian regime alike China, it's easier to excavate since the state owns more land and can evict people if it is deemed necessary, but no: it's proven easier to pay US (private) landowners for mining for shale gas. By contrast, in China you have militant residents who do not want to deal with the mess of fracking since they will not benefit directly from state-owned resources. I argue that a lot of their environmental complaints would be mitigated otherwise. Such difficulties are compounded by rudimentary infrastructure in parts of China with lots of shale and an unclear regulatory framework:

Some shale-rich countries, including China, are short on developed roads, water and drilling contractors trained in modern safety standards. Others like France and Bulgaria have put up legal barriers to the hydraulic fracturing needed to extract shale gas. And unlike in the U.S., where landowners generally own rights to gas beneath their property, minerals in many countries are owned by the state, giving residents little financial incentive to support drilling near their homes [...]

Regulatory concerns also heighten China risks. The country hasn't finalized fracking regulations. And to fight inflation, the government controls prices at which gas may be sold, which could weigh on profits.

So there are still areas China is falling behind the United States. Good governance champions will highlight that the unclear regulatory framework for this industry in China is harming prospects for mining shale reserves.

Read More

S China Sea: PRC Unwelcomes Philippine President

All China's hard work building economic ties with Southeast Asia is now in peril: Hot on the heels of the Philippines taking China to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) against China's wishes--the PRC has constantly reiterated that it wants to solve the maritime dispute bilaterally--comes this latest blow to China-Philippine relations. Not only are there obvious legal complications to the Philippines unilaterally calling for arbitration which is usually called for by both parties, but rousing the ire of China may have negative economic repercussions.

China has what I call a petulant brand of diplomacy over maritime disputes. If it doesn't get its way, it throws a tantrum seemingly unbecoming of a would-be challenger to American hegemony. Simply, it doesn't stay cool. This is especially true in China's willingness to let security-related tussles spill over into the economic sphere. Witness it boycotting last year's annual World Bank/IMF meetings which were being held in Tokyo as trouble over the East China Sea resurfaced.

Now to the snub: Since 2003, part of China's charm offensive aimed at Southeast Asia aside from concluding an FTA with ASEAN has been hosting the CAExpo trade fair for encouraging Chinese foreign investment in Southeast Asia (see image above). In past years it has been customary for the head of state of the "country of honour" to go to China. This year the Philippines has this designation, and its president scheduled a trip to the Middle Kingdom despite strained ties. However, the Chinese recently rolled back the red(s) carpet, telling him he has was not welcome:

When Malacañang [the Philippine president's residence] got word on Wednesday that it was not a “conducive time” to set foot in Chinese soil, President Aquino, who was supposed to attend a trade fair and business conference in the southern Chinese city of Nanning, changed his mind and backed off. “The President has decided not to proceed to Caexpo (China-Asean Expo), taking into consideration China’s request for him to visit the country at a more conducive time,” said Raul Hernandez, spokesperson of the Department of Foreign Affairs...

China’s request was relayed to Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario late Wednesday, he said.Amid China’s apparent snub of President Aquino, Del Rosario is choosing to stay calm. Del Rosario yesterday opted to hold back in reacting to China’s decision to virtually uninvite Mr. Aquino from attending the regional trade expo as he still hoped to save the relationship between Manila and Beijing.

He admitted, however, that exercising such restraint is tough, considering the gravity of what happened. “For the sake of preserving our relations with China, I think it is best to limit our remarks to what had previously been stated,” Del Rosario told the Inquirer via text message yesterday. “As may be evident, we are all having the greatest of difficulties in exercising restraint for what they had done to our President,” said the official.

It's partly a demonstration of China's growing economic clout that the Philippines is still sending a sizeable delegation hoping to drum up business, but how exactly would you interpret your president being declared persona non grata in China affecting prospects for attracting investment? The symbolism is not promising.

UPDATE: The Associated Press reports that Philippine officials were aghast at China's two conditions for allowing Aquino to visit China, including withdrawal of its arbitration case at ITLOS:

Two Philippine officials told The Associated Press that China wanted Manila to withdraw a U.N. arbitration case over disputed islands in the South China Sea. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.

Chinese officials have also cited a new standoff between China and the Philippines over the Second Thomas Shoal, which is called Ayungin Shoal by Filipinos and Ren’ai Reef by the Chinese, the Philippine officials said. China has asked Manila to remove a navy ship that ran aground on the shoal years ago, but the Philippine officials said the area was well within their territorial waters.

This could be true or hearsay; at the end of the day, the fact remains that the Chinese told the Philippine president to stay home.

Read More

So, Why are China, Japan, ROW Dumping Treasuries?

There is a debate going on here in the rest of the world concerning the United States. It isn't really whether American officials are trustworthy, but whether they are more of BS artists or ripoff artists. When it comes to foreign holdings of US Treasuries, it's arguably both: The United States likes to con others with "strong dollar" rhetoric as it runs unfathomable deficits and the dollar falls to some godforsaken level. There is a lie, and a large financial consequence to believing in such nonsense.

Or, is there a limit to global gullibility? Will the rest of the world continue to be held hostage to this "financial balance of terror"? As it turns out, the top two suckers--China and Japan--have actually been selling loads of dollar detritus in recent months. What's more, the rest of the world are following suit, intensifying movement away from greenback garbage:

China and Japan led an exodus from U.S. Treasuries in June after the first signals the U.S. central bank was preparing to wind back its stimulus, with data showing they accounted for almost all of a record $40.8 billion of net foreign selling of Treasuries. The sales were part of $66.9 billion of net sales by foreigners of long-term U.S. securities in June [there is a two-month lag with this data series], a fifth straight month of outflows and the largest since August 2007, U.S. Treasury Department data showed on Thursday.

China, the largest foreign creditor, reduced its Treasury holdings to $1.2758 trillion, and Japan trimmed its holdings for a third straight month to $1.0834 trillion. Combined, they accounted for about $40 billion in net Treasury outflows.

Bernanke spooking the markets by suggesting that the Fed will soon stop accumulating nearly unlimited Treasuries to lower borrowing costs is resulting in others' pre-emptive action to avoid near-term losses:

"The sell-off in Treasuries and Bernanke's tapering remarks are related," said Michael Woolfolk, global market strategist at BNY Mellon in New York. "Lightning doesn't strike in the same place twice, but Bernanke repeated his comments in June and that roiled the market."

He said the net Treasury outflow was the highest since at least 1977 when the government started compiling the data. June was the fifth straight month that foreign investors sold long-term U.S. securities, but the specific selling of long-term government bonds was the big turnaround as foreigners had bought $11.3 billion of Treasuries in May.

Are we reaching the outer limits to global gullibility in buying Treasuries? Given the aforementioned time lag in reporting the data, it will be interesting to note from forthcoming reports whether rising interest rates Stateside are driven more by Bernanke signalling the end of "money for nothing" policies or by central banks worldwide dumping Treasuries en masse.

Heaven knows, this world would be a much better place if the latter trend continues. Central bankers of the world, don't be afraid to dump those treasuries and teach America a lesson; in the end, only you will be responsible for your people suffering losses from hanging on to such worthless pieces of paper in their name.  

UPDATE: To be fair, the FT expects some bottom-fishing to buoy capital inflows into America in the next report.

Read More

Only in Hong Kong: Designer Handbags as Collateral

It's been such a long time since we've had a luxury goods feature, so here's one: Anyone who has been known to Asia knows the social pecking order here among cosmopolitan (small-c, that is) women has something to do with carrying designer handbags. Mainland China is becoming a large and lucrative market and Japan remains a steady customer for big-ticket items, but Hong Kong is still a prime destination--especially in designer-handbags-per-capita terms since the city is Asia's second largest market overall for these products. It does help that you can buy these items duty-free there. Some markets are built to retain their advantage for the long haul.

Therefore, it was only perhaps a matter of time that this global financial centre began offering to accept these designer handbags as collateral. Sure the mainland Chinese buy lots of those too, but those hordes of noveau riche do not have longstanding experience valuing such goods. Moreover, the kinds of financial services they offer are nowhere near as sophisticated as those of Hong Kong which are obviously on the cutting edge. So,without further ado, welcome the pawnbrokers accepting designer handbags:

Say hello to the handbag-backed loan, a unique Hong Kong phenomenon. While money lenders typically ask for cars and homes as collateral, Hong Kong's Yes Lady Finance Co. seeks its customers' beloved handbags. The four-year-old company accepts handbags on the spot, assesses them for their condition and authenticity and then procures loans within half an hour, as long as the bags are Gucci, Chanel, Hermès or Louis Vuitton. Occasionally, they'll consider a Prada.

Prada? It's so very gauche, dahling [I adopt a haughty pose and turn up my nose at its mere mention]. Questionable workmanship and excessive marketing hype aside for the latter brand, many residents actually prefer this kind of fast finance to avoid the red tape incurred while dealing with conventional consumer loans. Hence, many customers are not really hard up as you would assume in other settings, but whose cost-benefit analysis regard handbags-as-collateral favourably:

In a city driven by consumers' voracious appetite for the newest and latest luxury products, handbag-driven loans are a lucrative business. Yes Lady takes a purse and lends clients 80% of the bag's value. Customers get the bag back by repaying the same loan with 4% monthly interest, within four months. Classic purses and special-edition handbags often retain much of their retail price.

The company recently gave out a roughly US$20,600 loan in exchange for a Hermès Birkin. But Yes Lady's purse-backed loans come in all sizes and start at about US$190 with no upper ceiling. Yes Lady is carving out a niche for itself in a city with 200 licensed pawnbrokers and over 900 moneylenders. The pawn industry, one of the city's most traditional forms of lending, targets primarily poorer residents and foreign domestic helpers. Pawnbrokers typically only accept watches, jewelry and electronics as collateral.

But unlike pawnbrokers, Yes Lady, whose Cantonese name translates to "Rich Woman," has a different customer in mind: wealthy locals whose money is tied up—sometimes literally—in a luxury accessory [...] Angel Yam, a white-collar office worker, says she doesn't really care if she gets back the Chanel purse she recently traded in for a total of roughly US$1,550. "I have too many idle handbags at home," she said. "I don't feel any loss when I take some of them as collateral for loans."

So there is a shallow, materialistic culture at work here among status-seeking handbag collectors and the cottage industry dedicated to serving them, but I'm rather more impressed by the financial innovation it has spawned in one of the world's most cutthroat of capitalist societies.

Read More

Screw Panama; Chinese & $40B 'Nicaragua Canal'

It's been a long time since we've had a video feature, but now is as good a time as any. Recently, a young Chinese telecoms magnate came to an arrangement with the (rather impoverished) Nicaraguan government to develop a Panama Canal alternative slicing through that Central American republic:

Wang Jing, a 40-year-old Chinese telecommunications billionaire, has emerged as the next mogul to give it a go. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who fought the U.S.-backed contras in the 1980s, signed a 50-year concession on June 14 that grants Wang’s HK Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Co. (HKND) rights to develop a $40 billion project that includes a canal, an oil pipeline, two deepwater ports, an interoceanic railroad, and two airports.

Apart from his youth, question marks surround whether a telecoms guy knows anything about infrastructure development. Certainly there is no lack of such projects in the PRC--it just so happens that Wang has no experience with any of them. So obscure is this guy that the Nicaraguan leader even described him as a "ghost" during the signing ceremony:

Wang, whose HKND Group launched its website just days prior to the concession signing, is relatively unknown. “Why Wang Jing?” asks Margaret Myers, China and Latin America program director of Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington research group. “He has no experience in canals or large infrastructure projects. He is a telecommunications guy in China.”

Wang is chairman of more than 20 enterprises in 35 countries, including Beijing Xinwei Telecom Technology, according to the website. He’ll be owner and chief executive officer of HKND, which describes itself as an international infrastructure developer that will design, build, and operate the canal, its first project. “Here is the ghost,” Ortega said when Wang appeared to sign the concession on June 14. “He’s flesh and bone.”

Still, there is a commercial oportunity here insofar as cargo ships become larger and larger. Pretty soon, the Panama Canal may no longer be able to handle all the volume passing through:

The project comes as Panama prepares to finish a $5.25 billion expansion of its 99-year-old canal. On June 20, Honduras announced plans to work with a Chinese company on an Atlantic-to-Pacific railroad to boost trade across the Central American isthmus. “I think it is the right time now given the expanded ship sizes out there,” says Bill Wild, a former deputy CEO of Australia-based contractor Leighton Holdings (LEI:AU) and HKND’s chief project adviser. “Even the Panama Canal can’t come close to handling the big ships being built.” The Panama Canal Authority refutes this.

Despite the understandable scepticism, it will be interesting to watch whether this is a work of genius or a boondoggle on the part of the Nicaraguans in placing their bets on an unknown quantity.

UPDATE: It seems Ortega and Wang have already disagreed in public over the canal's route. Once more, I am not so optimistic about it coming true since so many grand plans to build this canal have been mooted over several decades.

Read More

PRC TV Drama Viewership: The Int'l Pecking Order

Popular culture has a way of reflecting preferences and biases, especially when taken from an international perspective. Commercial implications aside, the WSJ's China Real Time blog has an interesting feature on TV drama viewership habits in China, with British dramas such as Downton Abbey gaining an increasingly large audience in the mainland. As in Western nations, certain demographics are more sought after than others. Their measure? The number of threads started on discussion boards per various demographics:

Comparing levels of discussion on different social media sites, a recent study from entertainment research company Entgroup (in Chinese) found that British dramas were catching on among China’s wealthy and well-educated youth. While virtually unknown on the Chinese Internet a few years ago, British dramas now account for more than 9% of foreign TV discussion across Chinese social media sites, compared to around 28% for Korean soap operas, according to the study.

On websites that cater more exclusively to white collar workers and college students, the number for British shows jumps to more than 13%, versus less than 1% for Korean soaps, according to the Entgroup report, which found that more than half of those who followed British dramas held at least a bachelor’s degree.

Using this measure, there appears to be a "snob appeal" phenomenon at work:

That puts British shows at the top an increasingly snobbish pop-cultural hierarchy in China — described by local media as the “disdain chain.” (鄙视链 in Chinese) – in which British drama fans look down on fans of American shows, who themselves look down on Korean soap fans, who in turn look down on fans of domestic dramas.

So we have a viewership hierarchy that goes: Great Britain > United States > South Korea > China.

What determines this hierarchy is certainly up for debate: Is it storyline quality? If you watch some of the Korean dramas, the writing is really superb even if they are not watched so much outside Asian cultures given plotlines that revolve around filial piety alien to Westerners. Is it a historical continuation of an inferiority complex? The British forced China to open its markets and took over Hong Kong besides, while China successfully invaded Korea more than once. Is it production values? American dramas remain the slickest, while Korean ones are not that far behind.

My preferred explanation--and one that is consistent with the logic of snob appeal--is that cultural distance determines this hierarchy. Being steeped in historical periods, British dramas require more background knowledge about others' histories than more readily accessible US/Korean/Chinese fare that typically have contemporary settings. Add the harder-to-understand British accents to the Olde Worlde settings and you have all the ingredients of snob appeal.

Read More

Latest US China-Bashing: Hog Farm Protectionism

I am a true connoisseur of all sorts of protectionism: the more obscure and inscrutable the justifications for it, the more I savour the hypocrisy. Free trade? Get outta here! In recent years, the United States has served up some of the more ridiculous examples of what is, at heart, unvarnished racism on the part of American lawmakers. (You don't see them block European foreign investment on a regular basis, do you?) When the purchase of minor American producer Unocal by Chinese SOE CNOOC, "national security" concerns were raised. There was also the matter of 3Leaf, a minor player in the server market, being subject to Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) harassment over interest from Huawei. Nevermind that 3Leaf was a marginal player in the server market in the same way UNOCAL was in energy, but rampant and rather irrational fears of Chinese snooping on US data were in play. After the Snowden incident, Xinhua correctly described the utter hypocrisy behind American data security concerns with the US being "the biggest villain of our age" in cyber-snooping activities.

 More recently, we have had the latest twist on American "national security" concerns regarding the Chinese. It doesn't really matter that the suitor in question isn't an SOE; I guess Yanks believe once you've seen one of them you've seen them all. I am thus wryly amused by this latest form of "hog farm protectionism" as China's Shuanghui International attempts to purchase America's Smithfield International.

A Senate committee on Wednesday criticized a major merger of U.S. and Chinese agricultural interests, saying the combination of two major pork producers could have negative impacts on U.S. food and economic security.

The hearing before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry was exploring the impact of a proposed merger between Smithfield Foods, the leading pork producer in the U.S., and Shuanghui, China’s largest pork producer.

The $7.1 billion acquisition is the largest purchase of a U.S. company by Chinese business interests. The merger sparked skepticism from committee members who were concerned about Smithfield’s ability to maintain compliance with food-safety standards expected in the U.S.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/10/196351/senate-committee-wary-of-us-china.html#.UeFeNKxjuSo#storylink=cpy

A former US trade official, Robert Herztein, added fuel to the fire by tortuously describing this "hog farm protectionism" in terms of the Chinese unleashing tainted food products on an unaware American public:

It could, of course, be a stretch to conclude that Chinese ownership of Smithfield, the world’s largest pork producer, might impair U.S. national security...Reports of egregious food adulteration in China suggest a culture where companies have little concern for safety and health standards.

While there has been an episode of a supplier providing tainted meat to Shuanghui, it has since increased its monitoring of its supply chain. (I invite Shuanghui's critics to find the smoking gun that indicates Shuanghui promoted the use of chemicals hazardous to human health instead of implying this to be the case. Moreover, Herzstein conveniently ignores that Smithfield has been scaling back use of the controversial drug ractopamine in order to meet Chinese demands to be free of this feed additive. In the last year, Smithfield has lessened ractopamine usage in half--presumably in expectation of a China deal: 

This March, China began requiring third-party verification that U.S. pork products were ractopamine-free. Russia, the sixth-largest buyer of U.S. pork, had blocked imports of U.S. meat using ractopamine weeks before...The measures highlighted a sharp contrast with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which approved ractopamine for use in commercially-raised swine in 1999 and stands by that decision, saying its safety has been corroborated four times. It is used in more than half of the U.S. hog herd, analysts estimate.

By early May [2013], Smithfield already had moved two of its plants - including Tar Heel, North Carolina, the world's largest pork-processing facility - off ractopamine. When the third plant converts on June 1, "over 50 percent of our operations will have no ractopamine as part of their feed rations," CEO Pope said.

Shuanghui also has its own rather self-serving FAQ, but nevermind: I am honestly at a loss as to why Americans always ascribe the worst to the Chinese. Given such intense scrutiny, how likely would it be that they would (a) divert fuel supplies meant for the US to China, (b) build routers to deliberately spy on American communications or (c) risk a mass poisoning of American pork consumers? It makes no sense. Not only would they lock out other Chinese firms from investing in the US for years and years, but the ferocious backlash would ensure that their days of doing business Stateside are numbered. Forced divestiture or a massive public boycott; the result would be the same.

As a more pragmatic, less ideological sort, here's my suggestion to the Yanks: Why don't you let the Chinese invest and see what happens instead of pigging out on racist protectionism all the time? I truly doubt that egregious violations of public safety on a massive scale would occur, Snowden-style. For aforementioned reasons, getting rid of "national security" transgressors would be so very easy and set an example besides.

Read More