…the world gets a cold.
I’ve read some version of this notion off and on in the financial media for the last week. Which reminds me of decades past where folks would speculate that if the US didn’t do well economically then the rest of the world wouldn’t either. We seem to be getting a new version of that with China now.
Don’t let it fool you. China continues to contribute nicely to global growth and that’ll help prop equity prices. From MarketMinder this week:
“…slower growth” is something of a misnomer. Yes, if China hits the full-year target, in percentage terms, growth will be slower than 2012’s 7.8%. But in dollar terms, it will accelerate—a $339 billion increase, compared with 2012’s $327 billion rise. Should China match the target for the next few years, the dollar-based gains get bigger and bigger—and higher than the dollar gains seen when the growth rate exceeded 10%. The slower growth rate isn’t a sign of weakness. It just means China’s growing off a much bigger base. In fact, China could miss the target and still add significant value to the global economy and be a key source of revenue for developed-world companies—what ultimately matters for stocks.” – Cracks in the China?
Check out Guy Sorman’s latest article in City Journal: A Brief History of American Prosperity.
It will both soothe those fearing the demise of the US economy and inform of the dynamic American economic past.
Lately, there’s been a torrent of popular press refuting the notion that small business “drives” the US economy. This is sheer nonsense.
The only way to get a big company is for a small one to get big. Huge companies don’t just materialize out of thin air. (Occasionally there are spin-offs, but these are comparatively rare.) Of course big companies have more profits and do more hiring—they’re, well, a lot bigger. But no company starts out huge; they start small. You have to have lots and lots and lots of small companies come and go, with access to capital, hiring and firing, to get just one Facebook or Microsoft or FedEx, or Caterpillar, and so on.
The reason this is so important is because we need constant renewal of our big companies, they aren’t at all static in place or size—take a look at what was in the Fortune 500 just 20 years ago versus today…vastly different! Small companies become big companies and big companies falter or shrink (hello, Kodak?), and those are the things that drive growth, innovation, productivity, and jobs. Not a stagnant pool of big companies that expand and contract like an accordion with growth/recession.
Nurturing the real job creators – John Bunzel
With much hubbub about what a European recession might do to the US , particularly since exports are a significant portion of the economy, the analysts at Fisher Investments took a peek at US export exposure to the region (see below).
It’s pretty clear that—while there of course would be additional knock on effects to a recession in a region as big as the eurozone—the US is not headed for automatic economic doom as a result of its trade there. As of June, US exports to Italy were a little over 1% of total exports; Spain is even less, coming in at roughly 0.7% of total exports; even Germany (the healthiest of the bunch) is well under 4%.
US Leading Economic Indicators rose sharply, well more than expected in October. Why’s that important? Remember, just a few weeks ago, how recession not only seemed a foregone conclusion, but some experts even believed we were already in one? Through history, LEI generally needs to turn significantly negative in order to get a recession. That’s not where we are today.
Remember, stock investors should care greatly about the overall direction of the economy. But economic growth as measured by GDP is different than investing in the future profits of a company.
- S&P 500 Showing Record Sales Clashes With Slower Growth Rate
- Capital Spending Nears 2008 Level as U.S. Skates New Recession
This blog has made this point often, but it can’t be repeated enough.
Today’s first ever FOMC Chair press conference is certainly the start of something new—but having nothing to do with economic or monetary policy. That I could see watching from Fisher Investments HQ, virtually nothing interesting or heretofore unknown was said. It was all very…political. Bernanke was well spoken, he was empathetic, he was balanced, he was sensible. He was all the things you look for in a politician’s speech.
So what we have here is not so much a new era of improved communication between the Fed and the public, but more like a politicization of the Fed—Big Ben is now an inch closer to being the head of the US economy in the public’s eyes—in some ways almost more than the president. Think of what an evolution that is: just 30 years ago the Fed was barely thought of at all for macro economics, now Bernanke is speaking to everything from inflation to manufacturing to the Japanese earthquake. Said another way, people believe he is in charge, and—gulp—has some mighty control over what the US economy does and is. In reality he mostly sets monetary policy and governs the banks—a vital part, but just a part, of the economy. Ben now seems less interested in saying what is true or what he really thinks than he is in saying things that he believes will be good for the market, good for the economy, will instill confidence in the system, confidence in him, etc. Oh, and also he will talk and behave in ways that preserve his job and ego (recall that this is an appointed post by the president).
The Fed Chairmanship is now—as of today—more of a public figure-headed institution than ever before. Time will tell what that means—the Fed is one of the most evolutionary public financial entities in all market history, and they’ve never been static in their policy or function.