Chicago, IL – November 25, 2009 – Zacks.com announces the list of stocks featured in the Analyst Blog. Every day the Zacks Equity Research analysts discuss the latest news and events impacting stocks and the financial markets. Stocks recently featured in the blog include: Citigroup Inc. (C), Intuit Inc. (INTU), ENI S.p.A (E), BP plc (BP) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A).

Get the most recent insight from Zacks Equity Research with the free Profit from the Pros newsletter: http://at.zacks.com/?id=5513

Here are highlights from Tuesday’s Analyst Blog:

Citi Expects Strong Economic Growth

Citigroup Inc. (C) forecasts strong economic growth in many countries in 2010. But although the company expects several countries to experience economic growth, it predicts that the growth will be somewhat uneven.

According to the annual report of Citi’s Investment Research and Analysis group, though growth will be strong and even across major economies in the beginning of the year, it will be uneven later. Citi expects Asia, excluding Japan, to experience sustained economic growth. Though the U.S. is expected to see fairly strong economic growth, the recovery will be more gradual in Europe and Japan.

Citi also upgraded its 2010 gross domestic product forecasts for the U.S., Japan, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Korea, Argentina, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Turkey.

The report also suggested that Central Banks are unlikely to hike key interest rates through the next year. However, credit availability is expected to remain restricted at least for a year or two as banks seek to raise additional capital under regulatory pressure. Also, inflation on a global basis appears to be controlled. Additionally, countries will need to achieve fiscal sustainability to post strong economic growth.

Disappointing Forecast at Intuit

Intuit Inc. (INTU) recently reported results for the first quarter. Revenues increased 2% to $493 million, driven by growth in core businesses.

Revenues from Financial Institutions segment increased 7% while Employee Management Solutions Payroll service increased 9%.

Loss per share came in at 10 cents, much better than the Zacks Consensus Estimate of a loss of 22 cents per share, mainly due to cost control activities undertaken by the management. The company had postponed some of its marketing costs for the quarter.

During the quarter, the company repurchased $300 million worth of stock in the quarter, and the board has now approved a new repurchase program of $600 million. Intuit ended the quarter with more than $1 billion in cash and investments.

Going forward, management expects revenues between $3.3 billion and $3.43 billion in fiscal 2010, up 4% – 8%. Earnings per share are projected between 29 cents and 32 cents. Revenues for the second quarter are projected between $800 million and $835 million, up 1% – 6%. Earnings per share are expected to come between 15 cents and 18 cents.

The forecast was much lower than the street estimates, leading to a 2% fall in share price after the results were announced. On the conference call, management stated that the company is yet to find a significant improvement in business sentiment among small business customers who use the company’s flagship products such as QuickBooks software and Turbo Tax programs.

ENI Buys Uganda Blocks

ENI S.p.A (E) entered into a definitive agreement with Heritage Oil to buy the latter’s 50% interest in blocks 1 and 3A in Uganda . Total consideration for the contract is $1.35 billion. The contract also provides an additional consideration of $150 million, either in cash or in kind, on fulfillment of certain conditions in the future.

The company was pursuing an approach of sustainable development through its expertise and technologies in the African continent. And this transaction is part of this development strategy.

Located in the Lake Albert basin, blocks 1 and 3A have resources of more than 1 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Of this, nearly 70% has already been discovered with approximately 28 wells drilled in the area. The agreement is subject to approval by the competent authorities.

Eni has been producing in the African continent for a long time. The company is currently acting as an operator in many oil-producing countries such as Angola, Ghana, Nigeria, the Republic of Congo, Gabon and Mozambique. Total production per day from these regions currently amounts to about 450,000 barrels of oil equivalent.

Eni’s upstream portfolio spreads over a number of fields in several countries. Its lower reliance on a handful of large fields, both in its existing portfolio and its future growth pipeline, is in contrast to the growth profile of BP plc (BP) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A), both of which are heavily dependent on the delivery of a few key projects.

In addition, Eni’s lack of exposure in the refining and marketing space is also a significant positive in the current compressed margin environment, in our view. We, however, believe that all these positives are already reflected in its valuation. As such, we recommend a Neutral rating for the stock.

Want more from Zacks Equity Research? Subscribe to the free Profit from the Pros newsletter: http://at.zacks.com/?id=5515.

About Zacks Equity Research

Zacks Equity Research provides the best of quantitative and qualitative analysis to help investors know what stocks to buy and which to sell for the long-term.

Continuous coverage is provided for a universe of 1,150 publicly traded stocks. Our analysts are organized by industry which gives them keen insights to developments that affect company profits and stock performance. Recommendations and target prices are six-month time horizons.

Zacks "Profit from the Pros" e-mail newsletter provides highlights of the latest analysis from Zacks Equity Research. Subscribe to this free newsletter today: http://at.zacks.com/?id=5517

About Zacks

Zacks.com is a property of Zacks Investment Research, Inc., which was formed in 1978 by Leonard Zacks. As a PhD in mathematics Len knew he could find patterns in stock market data that would lead to superior investment results. Amongst his many accomplishments was the formation of his proprietary stock picking system; the Zacks Rank, which continues to outperform the market by nearly a 3 to 1 margin. The best way to unlock the profitable stock recommendations and market insights of Zacks Investment Research is through our free daily email newsletter; Profit from the Pros. In short, it's your steady flow of Profitable ideas GUARANTEED to be worth your time! Register for your free subscription to Profit from the Pros at http://at.zacks.com/?id=5518.

Visit http://www.zacks.com/performance for information about the performance numbers displayed in this press release.

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/zacksresearch

Join us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Zacks-Investment-Research/57553657748?ref=ts

Disclaimer: Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investors should always research companies and securities before making any investments. Nothing herein should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security.

Contact:
Mark Vickery
Web Content Editor
312-265-9380
Visit: www.zacks.com

Chicago, IL – November 12, 2009 – Zacks.com announces the list of stocks featured in the Analyst Blog. Every day the Zacks Equity Research analysts discuss the latest news and events impacting stocks and the financial markets. Stocks recently featured in the blog include: Vodafone Group Plc (VOD), Telefonica (TEF), Deutsche Telekom (DT), France Telecom (FTE) and Verizon (VZ).

Get the most recent insight from Zacks Equity Research with the free Profit from the Pros newsletter: http://at.zacks.com/?id=5513

Here are highlights from Wednesday’s Analyst Blog:

Vodafone Profit Leaps, Lifts Savings

Vodafone Group Plc (VOD), the largest wireless carrier in the world by revenue, has announced interim results for fiscal year 2010 with adjusted net income of £4.58 billion (US$7.3 billion) increasing 15% year over year from £3.99 billion (US$6.4 billion) reported a year ago, driven by favorable exchange rate movements and reduced tax. Adjusted earnings exclude one-time items such as impairment losses.

The telecom giant reported consolidated revenues of £21.8 billion (US$34.8 billion) for the period, representing a 9.3% year over year growth. Favorable exchange rate (euro-sterling) swings and net impact of merger and acquisition initiatives contributed to this growth. Excluding these impacts (organic basis), revenue declined 3% year over year.

Group service revenue declined 2.6% year over year on an organic basis to £20.5 billion (US$32.7 billion), primarily due to weaker contributions from European markets as recessionary conditions curbed demand for wireless services. Adjusted EBITDA increased 2.9% year over year to £7.5 billion (US$12 billion) driven by cost control.

Revenues for the European segment increased 3% year over year (down 5.1% on organic basis) to £14.9 billion (US$23.8 billion). Service revenue in Europe declined 4.5% organically as growth in Italy and the Netherlands was more than offset by decreases across Spain, Germany and the UK due to a weaker economy, regulatory pressure and intense competition.

Decline in voice revenue continues to offset growth in data. Revenue in Germany and the UK remains under pressure due to mobile termination rate (inter-operator fees) cuts. Vodafone is also losing customers in the UK as subscribers switch to its major rival Telefonica’s (TEF) O2 which is marketing iPhone in the UK.

Moreover, Deutsche Telekom (DT) and France Telecom (FTE) have recently finalized an agreement to combine their UK units, which will create the largest mobile carrier in the UK.

This segment posted revenues of £3.7 billion (US$5.9 billion), up 36% year over year. Organically, service revenue fell 3.2% as consistent growth at Vodacom (South Africa) and increase in subscriber count were partly offset by weak contributions from Romania and Turkey. Service revenue at Vodacom increased 4.2% on an organic basis as a result of healthy subscriber accretion.

Asia Pacific & Middle East segment continues to perform in line with expectation. Revenue surged 15.9% year over year (11.3% organically) to £3.1 billion (US$4.9 billion), driven by continued strong growth in India , the single biggest contributor to organic revenue growth. Service revenue in India increased 20.5% organically boosted by roughly 55% growth in wireless customer base amid intense price competition.

During the six-month period, Vodafone registered roughly 20.6 million net new mobile connections across its operations, bringing the total subscriber base to 323.3 million (83.5% represented by prepaid). India continues to be a key driver for subscriber growth with a net addition of 14 million customers in the first six months of fiscal 2010.

In Europe, the company registered a net loss of 262,000 subscribers during the half-year period. Verizon’s (VZ) mobile unit, Verizon Wireless, in which Vodafone holds a 45% stake, however, posted a net addition of 1.1 million customers.

Want more from Zacks Equity Research? Subscribe to the free Profit from the Pros newsletter: http://at.zacks.com/?id=5515.

About Zacks Equity Research

Zacks Equity Research provides the best of quantitative and qualitative analysis to help investors know what stocks to buy and which to sell for the long-term.

Continuous coverage is provided for a universe of 1,150 publicly traded stocks. Our analysts are organized by industry which gives them keen insights to developments that affect company profits and stock performance. Recommendations and target prices are six-month time horizons.

Zacks "Profit from the Pros" e-mail newsletter provides highlights of the latest analysis from Zacks Equity Research. Subscribe to this free newsletter today: http://at.zacks.com/?id=5517

About Zacks

Zacks.com is a property of Zacks Investment Research, Inc., which was formed in 1978 by Leonard Zacks. As a PhD in mathematics Len knew he could find patterns in stock market data that would lead to superior investment results. Amongst his many accomplishments was the formation of his proprietary stock picking system; the Zacks Rank, which continues to outperform the market by nearly a 3 to 1 margin. The best way to unlock the profitable stock recommendations and market insights of Zacks Investment Research is through our free daily email newsletter; Profit from the Pros. In short, it's your steady flow of Profitable ideas GUARANTEED to be worth your time! Register for your free subscription to Profit from the Pros at http://at.zacks.com/?id=5518.

Visit http://www.zacks.com/performance for information about the performance numbers displayed in this press release.

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/zacksresearch

Join us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Zacks-Investment-Research/57553657748?ref=ts

Disclaimer: Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investors should always research companies and securities before making any investments. Nothing herein should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security.

Contact:
Mark Vickery
Web Content Editor
312-265-9380
Visit: www.zacks.com

India’s largest infrastructure-focused private equity fund – IDFC Private Equity – is buying out the assets for about $134 million. BP owns 100 megawatts (MW) of wind energy generating facility in two states in India.

Wind is an important part of BP’s energy portfolio. It brings a steadily growing stream of revenue to the company. As energy is sold under long-term purchase agreements, it offers a low-risk return on investment. Yet, the company is divesting assets in India to focus on more dynamic US wind market.

With oil majors cutting capital spending across the board in response to the global recession, BP has scaled back a total of 225 MW wind installation projects this year. The wind assets in China and Turkey are also in this array, apart from the assets in India.

The wind business is surprisingly similar to oil exploration and production. With the economy showing early signs of improvement and the US wind market expected to bounce back in 2010, the company is focusing on the United States.

BP has a total installed capacity of 12,200 MW in wind power. The company saw 30% growth in wind-energy generation capacity globally in 2008 with 50% growth in the U.S.

BP is enjoying a competitive position in terms of its size, reputation, credit-worthiness, access to capital and knowledge of the energy business. It is also one of the few US wind companies that can directly benefit from tax changes introduced by the US stimulus package, which can in turn boost the company’s competitive advantage.

All major steel producing countries like China, Japan, Germany, the U.S., Brazil, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine showed peak monthly figures so far this year. Production in the Middle East, where demand was buoyant last year due to booming infrastructure spending, edged up by 2.5% in July. Monthly steel output in China, the world’s biggest producer and consumer of steel, climbed 12.6% to 50.7 million tons. Steel production in India also increased, but only by a modest 4.3% to 4.7 million tons during the month.

However, global steel production was down 19.9% to 652.9 million tons for the first 7 months of 2009 compared with the same period a year ago. North America posted a 41.6% fall in year-to-date steel production while Europe saw a drop of 42.1% during the same period. Steel output in Asia was down 6.1%, with Japan posting a production decline of 38.5%.

Key steel consuming industries like auto, shipbuilding and construction experienced weak demand in the last quarter, forcing global steel makers to cut production levels. U.S. Steel Corp. (X) had slashed production by almost 62% during the second quarter, while Korean steel maker POSCO (PKX) cut production by about 15% during the period. The operating environment deteriorated so sharply that POSCO was forced to lower production for the first time in its history in December last year.

Given our expectations for weak steel demand through the rest of 2009, we believe that global steel production will continue to be lower compared to last year. On the other hand, given the declining inventory levels, we believe the rate of deterioration in steel production will moderate in the coming months.

TiklaKazan, MyScreen's technology-based solution, was made available to a select group of Turkcell customers, allowing them to participate in the trial for a period of four weeks in exchange for free airtime. Results of the trial were positive, with 82% of subscribers confirming they would recommend MyScreen to a friend. Subscribers also confirmed that they would prefer to see a full-screen advertisement at the end of the call, as opposed to receiving an SMS or MMS.
 
MyScreen's mobile advertising solution helps brand advertisers deliver targeted full-screen advertisements to subscribers at the end of every call, based on their demographic and interest profile. In return, subscribers accumulate rewards for every advertisement viewed on their phone, which can be redeemed for free airtime, downloadable content or value-added services from the telecom provider.
 
Turkcell’s seeks to grow in the Turkish wireless market (which is at least another year away from saturation) through high-quality, valued-added services. Turkcell has a stake in numerous subsidiaries, giving it access to markets such as Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Northern Cyprus and Ukraine. It acquired an 80% stake (through its subsidiaries) in Belarusian Telecommunication Network.

Despite increasing competition, Turkcell has been able to meet price wars with competitors, which has enabled the company to generate healthy profit margins and cash flow in excess of capital spending needs.

Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. is the dominant provider of Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) mobile communications services in Turkey with 37 million subscribers. The company was formed in 1994 and has been operating under a 25-year license since 1998. Its major competitor is Vodafone Group Plc. (VOD).

I should stress immediately that this is not a virtue but rather a vice, but I do think that exploring  conventional economic theory (and moving beyond?) is an important part of the process. In the end, the argument should be amendable to plain English and, as it were, plain common sense and intuition as well as, of course, empirical falsification. One thing which I can promise though is that there will be no mathematical models; at least there, I should have provided some comfort. If you want the math, you will have to wait for the thesis.

The best way to frame the following argument is perhaps to insert it in the chronology of the thesis where it appears, in the end, as a perspectivation on aggregate global capital flows. What precedes this is thus an, hopefully convincing, account of the fact that Germany and Japan are effectively dependent on exports to grow as a result of their demographic profiles.

Some Thoughts on Export Dependency

First it would be worthwhile taking a look at the following sketch (click to enlarge) which captures a lot of the issues that will be discussed below. Essentially, it attempts to show, as nastily and brutishly short as possible, what export dependency means in the context of what we could call conventional economic theory.

For non-econ wonks it is likely to be quite difficult to read, but in fact; it is fairly simple. The X-axis  represents the age of an economy here exemplified in the phases of the age transition derived from a study by Malmberg and Sommestad that discusses the demographic transition as a transition in age structure (and not population growth). But really, it could just as well be median age where a median age of 40-50 would the limit to the right and, let us say, about 20-25 to the left. The Y-axis is adopted directly from Higgins (1998,  e.g. table 1, p. 350) who uses empirical estimations to model the effect from age on, in this case, the current account. As I, Higgins also use age on the x-axis (age distributions) and on the y-axis he has age coefficients. This basically means that a negative value signifies that the age structure in the economy influences the current account negatively (i.e. pushing the CA towards a deficit) while the reverse is true for a positive value. Essentially, we need not, initially, bother with the numerical value of such age coefficients here, but merely note whether it is positive or negative and then secondarily we may look at the level effect (i.e. whether the effect is numerically large).

I should immediately point out that there are no direct empirical basis for the curves. The line which is labeled trajectory of export dependency is basically a cubed function designed to show a more less linear association between export dependency and ageing with the added and important feature (hence the cubed functional form) that export dependency tends to increase exponentially when you move into very old age. The blue line naturally do contain some empirical foundation in that it originates from an empirical study Higgins (1998) where it is constructed based on empirical estimations. I shall not go into Higgin's empirical framework here since it would take us into the dark world of time series econometrics but merely point out that Higgins manages to come up with what we could call the textbook representation of the effect of ageing on the current account and it is worth pointing out that he is not the only one. Also Supan et al. (2007), Bryant (2006), Henriksen (2002) and Summers et al. (1990) (among a myriad of other studies) postulate either through theoretical elaborations or empirical estimations a relationship which may be approximated by the chart above.

In theoretical terms, the basis for this "hump-shaped" relationship between ageing and the current account is derived in the context of the simple, yet crucial, intuition derived from Modigliani's life cycle hypothesis which states that consumers spend their working age years saving for retirement where they will dissave those accumulated assets. Then, at some point during working age there is a "peak" which is characterised by the time when the saving rate is highest and thus also, indirectly, where the effect on the current account should be largest. Following convention, this is modeled in economics through the idea of overlapping generations and often in the form of a neo-classical growth theory framework or simply a general equlibrium representative agent framework. I shall not open pandora's box and discuss the merit of these methods here but merely point out that I think it is very difficult to argue against the the basic intution which lies behind these models and thus, as it were, the intuition from the life cycle hypothesis.

In essence of course, the real issue is one of calibration and thus one of empirical analysis to see just how this postulated hump may materialise as well as of course realizing that ageing is not the only variable which influences the current account. It is also here that the fun begins and where things very quickly become very complicated. 

In this respect, it is worthwhile focusing the attention on the so-called dissaving phase which should be a natural result of the move towards an ever higher share of the elderly in the population. The basic mechanism here is simply that in standard economic models "old" economic agents will dissave their entire asset and thus as the old cohorts increasingly will outnumber the young cohorts the dissaving of the former will trumph the saving of the latter and lead to dissaving on an aggregate level. All sorts of ill prophecies have been proposed in the context of this dissaving hypothesis, not least that we are facing an asset meltdown scenario in 2050 because there will be far too many elderly wanting to offload their assets to a much smaller base of younger cohorts who cannot support a satisfactory price (yield) level.

Now, the problem here is that empirical studies have shown that the idea of dissaving, while intuitively strong, is difficult to verify to the extent that theoretical models suggest. This is not difficult to imagine I think. By very nature of the uncertainty of the mortality schedule people do not (cannot) dissave to 0 and beyond this there are may be bequest motives. In an open economy context this further creates the rather dubious situation in which economies well into their old age will have to run persistent external deficits because, presumably, savings will have decline far faster than domestic investment demands. I say dubious here because this is exactly where I have chosen to take my stab at trying to amend the theoretical framework.

Consequently, I am not so sure that this is a plausible end point in the context of continuing population ageing. Specifically, I would like to ask the simple question of whether it is actually optimal for any society to dissave as the theory postulates. I don't think it is and while it is certainly not unlikely that economies may actually dissave (defacto) they will still be dependent on exports to grow and thus the difference between the two curves into the latter age transitions represents an externality. This is also why I think that economies, in stead of responding with dissaving, will fight the point at which they reach this stage since when they do it is effectively game over. Imagine for example how the likes of Germany and Japan would ever be able to finance an external deficit brought about solely on the basis of the fact that savings has declined so fast as to not even be able to meet domestic investment demand which in itself will be declining. In this situation, wouldn't it be much smarter to maintain savings persistently higher than domestic investment demand which can of course only be materialized in an external surplus. I think it will and it is this point which you need to keep in mind as we move forward.

Implications for Global Capital Flows

With these considerations in mind, the key question then becomes; what happens when more and more economies grow to become increasingly like Germany and Japan? (As we know they will, at least in the context of the OECD). Naturally, not everyone can maintain excess exports over imports at the same time so something, as they say, has got to give and it is this something, as it were, which is the topic of this entry.

The focus on the implication of ageing on aggregate global capital flows is not new and is, in fact, an integral part of the analysis in Supan et al. (2007), Higgins (1998) and Bryant (2006) which were also mentioned above. However, in the following we are going to relax the condition of dissaving normally assumed in e.g. OLG models and accept that the propensity to run an external surplus will increase as an economy ages.

If we do this, it should not require too much imagination to see the issues that may rise. For starters, I want to reiterate yet again the trivial fact that not all economies can run an external surplus at one and the same time. This means, quite naturally, that what might be optimal from the point of view of a single economy (i.e. maintaining a surplus as it ages) may not be viable or optimal from the point of view of the global economy.

In order to frame the discussion it is natural to take our point of departure in the discourse on global macroeconomic imbalances.

As so many other things, the financial crisis has completely dislocated this system but it still worthwhile to ponder the nature of the global financial system in a post Asian crisis perspective and up until now. Consequently, the global macroeconomic landscape has long been characterized by what many has termed Bretton Woods II in which a large batch of especially Asian and oil exporting economies have been pegging their currencies to the US dollar who in turn have been running a large current account deficit to match the savings surplus in emerging markets such as China, South Korea, the Petroexporters, Brazil and Russia. In fact, if we cut a lateral line through this argument we could say that the world has hitherto been characterized by the Anglo-Saxon economies running external deficits to match surpluses in big emerging markets as well as Japan and Germany.[1] That however changed abruptly with the advent of the financial crisis and it is interesting to note the initial response by market participants and many scholars in their interpretation. Consequently, as it became clear that the US economy had been mortally wounded on the back of the subprime mortgage debacle the US Fed slashed nominal interest rates significantly. As a result the USD plummeted which led many commentators to hail the US economy’s fall from grace and specifically coined the notion of decoupling in which the Eurozone economy and Japan were pinned as the ones taking up the slack in steering forward global demand. Initial versions of the decoupling thesis thus centered on the shift in emerging market exports from the US to Japan and, especially, the Eurozone and thus in the process also a shift from the US dollar to the Euro as a global reserve currency. As it turned out this was nothing but a mirage masked by the fact that US policy makers essentially acted preemptively to a crisis which turned global during the summer 2007 and now most major central banks in the OECD have slowly bitten the bullet and followed Bernanke into quantitative easing to combat the risk of deflation which would be devastating in the context of the debt overhangs some economies face. Moreover, and as a general point, the global economy already decoupled from the US, and indeed OECD, economy a long time ago. Consequently, it is an irrefutable fact that the global economy is undergoing a fundamental change in which emerging economies such as India, Turkey, Brazil, China; Chile etc will ascend to account for an ever larger share of global GDP and growth. The crucial question is then; how will this process and the process of global ageing be transmitted to the global economy through capital flows?

As a starting point to answer this question I would like to draw the attention to comments made by two of the most prominent members of the global financial punditry in the form of US economist Paul Krugman (PK) and the Financial Times’ chief economics commentator Martin Wolf (MW).

Starting with the former[2] he recently pointed to the fact, in the context of Japan, that external demand was instrumental in ending the slump and providing a relative bounce between 2003 and 2007. As PK further goes to argue, this may present a rather ominous outlook since the extent to which we are all, in the OECD, currently stuck in a “Japan-style” liquidity trap the way out may constitute a rather crowded route. As PK poignantly points out at the end of his small piece;

(...) needless to say, we can’t all export ourselves out of a global slump. So, how does this end?

Krugman 2009

This is indeed a good question and MW makes a similar argument in a recent column[3] where he points towards the fact that the global imbalances themselves may prove to be an impediment to a swift global recovery.

 In short, if the world economy is to get through this crisis in reasonable shape, creditworthy surplus countries must expand domestic demand relative to potential output. How they achieve this outcome is up to them. But only in this way can the deficit countries realistically hope to avoid spending themselves into bankruptcy.

Martin Wolf (2008)

This is of course a very appealing proposition and also goes to heart of idea that, at least, one part of the solution of the current global crisis lies in the resolution of global macroeconomic imbalances. But prey tell, how are these surplus countries going to revert towards a growth path characterized by a more balanced external account and perhaps even an external deficit?

It is in this context that the argument presented in this thesis becomes important. Consequently, there is a big risk that these surplus economies (e.g. Japan and Germany) simply will not be able to heed the call of MW. The main reason for this inability is then, in part, exactly to be found in the economic profile of a rapidly ageing economy with a median age pushing 40 year mark and beyond. Japan and Germany as well as the economies next in line to reach their age bracket cannot achieve growth based on domestic demand in a way which would allow them to suck up excess global capacity through an external deficit.

This is a very important point to stress in the context of the global economy and must be stressed with great emphasis.

Some Charts to Go With This

In order to try to make sense of all this consider the supply/demand chart below which plots the supply and demand for savings in the global economy. Following convention, the X-axis represents quantity and the Y-axis represents price. In this specific case, the X-axis can be seen as the total demand (from deficit nations) for excess investment beyond the level which can be achieved through domestic savings. The Y-axis then becomes the price[4] (interest rate) which equates this demand with the level (supply) of excess savings provided by the surplus nations beyond the level which can be absorbed by domestic investment demand

(click to enlarge)

As a natural consequence of the intuition underlying this small model, equilibrium is a forced (and always binding) condition since, by definition, the sum of external deficits must equal the sum of external surpluses in the global economy. 

If we accept the idea behind the theoretical framework presented in this thesis it is very easy to see the implications of a sustained global process of ageing. As is shown in the diagram the supply of excess savings (external surpluses) will increase with ageing [S(1) to S(2)]. But this is not the only effect. Following the simple intuition of a closed system an increase in supply must be meet by a decrease in demand too since we assume that economies are moving from a position as external deficit nations to a position of external surplus nations. In this sense, the constant level of output (quantity) is largely a simplifying trick in the sense that we let the entire adjustment process occur on the return of the excess savings of surplus nations rather than the quantity of excess widgets they can produce to sell abroad.[5] This produces an effect whereby ageing reduces the price of excess savings in equilibrium.

In order to move forward from here we need to mentally relax, as it were, the idea that deficits need to equal surpluses in equilibrium. In concrete terms, we need to understand the idea of equilibrium does not capture the notion of dependency on exports/foreign asset income to grow.

This is amended in the following graph; (click to enlarge).

The key here is the notion of the critical price level [6]. This should be seen as the level needed to sustain an acceptable level of growth in ageing economies and is thus a direct proxy for export dependency. As the global economy ages and assuming that equilibrium must hold at all times, the supply of excess savings and the demand for these savings decrease both lowering the equilibrium price and quantity. However, the critical price level remains. One key implications of this is a systematic oversupply of savings, or glut if you will, produced by the process of ageing and it is very important to understand that this oversupply is very tangible. It represents the value of external surpluses which would be enough for the likes of Germany, Japan etc to maintain a growth rate consistent with expectations and essentially the maintenance of their market economies. In the jargon of the theory, it represents the point at which ageing economies are optimally smoothing consumption and saving as a function of their intertemporal preference for the latter over the former. Of course, it cannot exist as a real entity but it may still have real implications.

The first obvious effect is to make the variation of ageing economies’ output very sensitive to the variation in out of deficit nations and thus global output. In its strictest form, this is how export dependency emerges. Another notable effect would be that it drives down the return in ageing economies to such an extent that it may fuel so called carry trade flows in which traders borrow in low interest rates currencies and invest in high interest rate currencies. Another example would be how these savings may be used to fund temporary and unsustainable build up of credit expansion in economies running external deficits. This is to say that if the equilibrium depicted above essentially is binding in the long run the implied existence of this excess pool of savings may lead to sudden outward jumps of the demand curve and thus the creation of credit bubbles. The main key to take away from this small economic model is thus the idea of an externality of ageing on a global level. This externality arises as a direct function of the implied existence of an excess of savings over demand as the global economy ages. In the context of the theoretical framework above the externality should be seen as function of the crowding of economies in one end of the spectrum on intertemporal preferences for consumption and saving. Crucially, it also means that what we might find to be optimal in the context of a single economy is not optimal on a global level a point which is certain to make standard economic modeling of aggregation from the representative economy level to the global economy very difficult. In empirical terms it means that what one might find to be the optimal path in a time series perspective of one economy may turn out to have radically different implications in the cross section when more or all global economies are involved.  

Further studies should attempt to develop this idea further since it provides a useful venue of analysis as an alternative to the traditional idea drafted from life cycle theory that global ageing will entail dis-saving on an aggregate level.

List of References

David M. Cutler & James M. Poterba & Louise M. Sheiner & Lawrence H. Summers (1990)
"An Aging Society: Opportunity or Challenge?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 21(1990-1), pages 1-74.

Henriksen, Esben (2002) – A Demographic Explanation of U.S. and Japanese Current Account Behavior, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University

Higgins, Matthew (1998) – Demography, National Savings, and International Capital Flows, International Economic Review, Volume 39 (1998) Issue (Month): 2 (May) pp 343-69

  Borsch-Supan, Axel H; Alexander, Ludwig; and Krüger Dirk (2007) – Demographic Change, Relative Factor Prices, International Capital Flows and their Differential Effects on the Welfare of Generations, NBER Working Paper No W13185

[1] With the German surplus mainly materializing itself in an intra-European imbalance.

[2] Paul Krugman (2009) – The Eschatology of Lost Decades, NYT blog post

[3] Martin Wolf (2008) – Global Imbalances Threatens the Survival of Free Trade

[4] Which is assumed to be exogenously determined for all involved economies through the equilibrium in this system.

[5] Remember that I am assuming that quantity is fixed and that the entire adjustment takes place on the price. In a more realistic representation the adjustment would of course take place on both the price and quantity.

In a bubble, Day and Night

Is it Bust or is it Boom

That frames thy fearful asymmetry?*

 (click on pictures to enlarge)

Can you feel it? That calm and soothing feeling of low volatility and heaven bound risky assets driven by green shoots and second derivatives. Well, if you can't you are excused since neither can yours truly, or more precisely; he has a distinctly difficult time seeing from where people get the idea that we are headed for a broad based global recovery. However, beauty as always lies in the eye of the beholder and whichever way you look at it would be difficult to completely deny that the three key ingredients for a global recovery (and a resurgence of carry trade) in the form of low volatility, steadily climbing risky assets, and benign credit wholesale market credit conditions certainly seem to be present in ample quantities.

Now, while it is true that the level of volatility is still higher now than it was pre Q4-2008 and indeed pre August 2007 the trend so far this year has been inexorably down which reflects the perception that the worst may be over as well as the discourse of second derivatives and green shoots which has been with us throughout Q2 2009. With respect to equities they have equally begun to nudge up and are up some 5-10% from the beginning of the year in relation to Europe and the US. If you count from the trough reach some time during the first quarter this year, the increase would of course be bigger. The strength of the recovery discourse has taken many by surprise or perhaps more precisely, it has frustrated many. For example, I take note of the fact that two of the most astute macro traders (at least in my book) are feeling decidedly puzzled by the way the market is behaving at the moment. I cannot say that I blame them. For someone who take pride in being up to date in terms of macroeconomic data and analysis one would find it difficult to track the amount of bullishness which currently appear to have taken hold.

Now, I should immediately point out that I am not blind to the existence of the second derivative. I mean, I took calculus and I can also eyeball a graph in changes when I see one. My only gripe is that it only takes the faintest of scratch in the surface of the second derivative/green shoot glamour image to see that the fundamentals have not changed and moreover that the crisis has now moved its locus away from the US and right smack into the mainland of Europe in the form of significant downside risks in relation to Southern Europe and the ongoing mess in the CEE.

Yet, who is listening to a Danish student of economics anyway?

Consider consequently that the past couple of weeks brought us Bernanke's "exit talk" testimony to congress, news that a certain Mervyn residing at Threadneedle street would beat Bernanke to the exit, news that Russia is actually seriously considering issuing (and expecting foreign investors to bite) debt to cover its 2010 deficit, news that Hungary actually lowered interest rates despite, one could easily infer, an abyss of downside in the form of a plunging forint and a liability side denominated in Swiss francs, and finally Timmy's trip to China where it seems that the main message carried was one of reassurance that the US most certainly intend to vigilant towards the rising deficit.

We could add the Q2 GDP print in the US (preliminary) put up a much better figure, - 1% annualised, than expected which has so far been interpreted as a sign of recover although yet again I think that narrating this as a sign of an impending recovery is somewhat of a stretch. Meanwhile, Europe is heading straight for deflation and although I know that some economists, especially those of the old academic guard, consistently have been pointing to the benign effects of rigidness on the downside it is very important to remember that those same prices will need to adjust in key Eurozone countries absent a currency to bear some of the burden and thus price/wage rigidity may turn out to be a curse rather than a blessing.

Where is the Recovery?

The easiest way to approach this question is perhaps to point out where the recovery isn't and here I am talking about the OECD in general. Surely, we may succeed to avoid future cataclysmic events but the something has changed and new fundamentals are taking over. For example, I seriously doubt that many people have considered what it means for the global economy that the US economy will need to run an external surplus and I also think that most people have not yet realized the consequences of the unfolding mess in Europe and the Eurozone. On the other hand I have also stressed before how I am not, after all, a permabear in the sense that I do indeed see positive signs in emerging economies such as for example Brazil, India, Chile, Turkey, and China (although the latter is different for a number of reasons). I won't call this decoupling because evidently it isn't. To stay in the jargon I would rather call it re-coupling since this is essentially what it is and one key issue is the extent to which the new global economic system will help to even out the present imbalances and what consequences this, in some sense, inevitable rebalancing will have on surplus and deficit economies respectively. In this context and although one should always be careful in quoting onself, the following from an entry back in May still sums up quite well how I see the world at the moment;

We are very much still stuck in the mire and especially so in the context of the so-called developed OECD economies where it is difficult to see where any speedy recovery is going to come from. On the other hand the world is not made up entirely by the OECD edifice and it is exactly the potential for an asymmetric "recovery" and how global monetary policy might serve to transmit such a recovery which is the topic of this entry.

For the specifics of how I see the role of global monetary policy and global liquidity I recommend you to visit the actual post. However, it is worth noting that in a world where major global central banks are destined to keep rates low for an extended period it does not take much creativity to imagine the dynamics by which the global economy may potentially move forward driven by carry trade flows financed in the developed world seeking yield in whatever economies that might be able (and willing) to absorb the tide which is coming.

As I have stressed on several occasions it is exactly this reshuffling of the global economy on the back of the financial crisis which is at the heart of the matter. One obvious consequence is thus that the global economy, at one and the same time, increasingly will be populated by an increasing amount of economies with the need (and desire) to deleverage as well as an increasing amount of economies dependent on exports to achieve economic growth. In wonkish terms, global economies will tend to move towards the same intertemporal preference for consumption and saving and since global intertemporal smoothing, by definition, occurs through current account imbalances it is not difficult to see how there is a constraint on many economies’ ability to smooth their consumption and saving decisions optimally in the case of a process of crowding in one end of the spectrum.

An obvious question here becomes; who, if any, will be the economies tilting the scale in the other direction through their ability to provide capacity (return) for other nations' desire to save more?

How are things in Emerming Market Land then?

Personally, I have tended to put my focus elsewhere than China most prominently because I think that the old narrative of the BRIC economies taking over the helm is not an adequate way to look at it. Essentially, I would put Brazil and India one one side and Russia and China on the other side since in the case of the latter they are about to grow old much before they become the economies so many people expect to become. Apart from Brazil and India I also see a fairly wide batch of emerging economies with the potential to do the heavy lifting as we move forward and I would include here economies such as Chile, Indonesia, Turkey, Morroco and a number of others. Much more than quibbling about the actual candidates here I want to emphasise the importance in realizing how this global realignment won't take place with the emergence of one single economy taking over from the US, but rather with a "basket" of economies/currencies driving the realignment.

Having said all this, it is pretty difficult to get around the fact that everything seems to be revolving around China at the moment. More specifically fears are growing that in an effort the counter the global recession and in a world where 6-8% growth rates are, in general, difficult to come by Chinese authorities as well as foreign investors are fuelling a bubble in China which may look like the one currently unravelling in e.g. the Baltics look minuscule [quote from Bloomberg and the FT]. Thus and even though I would argue that the analysis should have a different fundamental focus it is still cast in the perspective of, first China and then the BRICs in general.

The BRIC nations, which also include India and Russia, have the four best performing stock markets in dollar terms this year among the world’s 20 biggest, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. China’s Shanghai Composite Index has soared 85 percent in dollars while Brazil’s Bovespa Index rose 77 percent. India’s Sensitive Index, or Sensex, climbed 61 percent and Russia’s RTS Index gained 60 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index in the U.S., by comparison, is up 8.4 percent while Japan’s Nikkei 225 Stock Average rose 7.5 percent.

Investor appetite for emerging-market assets is building on speculation that countries such as China and Brazil will be among the first to recover from the worst global recession since World War II, said Vinicius Silva, New York-based emerging markets strategist for Morgan Stanley. “It highlights the fact that demand for emerging-market assets remain strong and that companies, particularly in the BRIC markets, are using the improvements in capital markets to raise capital,” Silva said.

(FT)

Shares in Shanghai and Hong Kong tumbled on Wednesday as investors snapped up two newly listed mainland construction groups while selling down the rest of the market after reports that China’s central bank might rein in bank lending. Shares in China State Construction Engineering rose by as much as 90 per cent on their debut before closing 56 per cent stronger in Shanghai. China’s largest house-builder had last week raised Rmb50.2bn ($7.34bn) in the world’s biggest initial public offering since Visa raised $19bn in March 2008.

It is way beyond the scope of this post to open the box on what is really going on China. In terms of that topic I reserve the right to deal with it later and refer, thus far, to my styling on Blake above. However, I did like the recent analysis by Morgan Stanley's Qing Wang in which he talks about whether China is over-investing or over saving as well as the very relevant question of where the money would be spent were it not being used to finance the massive infrastructure investment program. Or, what is the opportunity cost of China's fixed asset investment program?

Given China's high national savings rate, from the perspective of the economy as a whole, there are only three forms in which China can deploy its savings: 1) onshore physical assets; 2) offshore physical assets; and 3) offshore financial assets. Since China maintains tight controls over outbound capital flows, about 70% of China's total offshore assets are in the form of official FX reserve assets as a result of investment made by a single-largest investor - the central bank. Moreover, we estimate that about 65-70% of China's official FX reserves are invested in US dollar assets, the bulk of which are US government bonds.

In response to this I ask the simple question. What is actually the capacity in China to create return on current and future investment of the magnitudes we are talking about both in the context of money supplied by domestic stimulus packages as well as foreign money thirsty for yield? Wang touches exactly upon this question as he questions just how much China can suck up. I would put it much more bluntly. China's capacity is declining and will continue to do so as we move forward as a result of the ageing which the one child policy is set to produce. This is really the missing story on China at the moment I feel and one story which could go a long way to differentiate the story. In this respect I do agree wholeheartedly with Michael Pettis when he says;

I have warned for a long time that it would be very difficult for China to make the necessary transition to a consumption-led economy quickly enough to accommodate the global adjustment taking place. Unless it is willing to see its economy collapse, there is simply no way China can reduce its negative net demand quickly enough to match the contraction in US demand and so avoid squeezing the hell out of the global tradable goods sectors. That is why policy coordination is so important, especially between China and the USD, and of course that is why I continue to be a pessimist. I do not think this policy coordination is taking place. I will write about this more later this week.

The only thing I would add is that this is not simply a question of correcting US-China imbalances, but a more more deep rooted issue in terms of fundamental drivers of international capital flows and the future supply of net capacity.

Moving on to safer ground I recently did a lengthy analysis on Chile in which I concluded that the economy was one of to watch for relative good news in relation to the financial crisis. Recently, we learned how Chilean banks booked a healthy US 959 million profit in the first half of 2009 and although this number is useless in itself I think that it is pretty obvious from digging into the specifics (see article) that although Chile financial sector has seen its share of losses, the picture is a lot less dire than elsewhere. In fact, if we look at one of graphs that I showed in my analysis of Chile, we see that financial services have held up remarkably well during the financial crisis (see also here), no doubt due to strong underlying fundamentals as well as a very aggressive policy reaction from the central bank. 

Generally, analysts and local observers in Chile are beginning to notice green shoots with increasing regularity and unlike the ones observed in Europe or elsewhere in the OECD I am more confident that the ones in Chile are going to be long lived although 2009, in all likelihood, will be a tough year when the chapter is closed. The following quote is from Bloomberg;

Chile’s economy may be starting to recover from its slump as extra government spending spurs growth, Finance Minister Andres Velasco said today. Velasco has spent more than $4 billion this year on tax cuts and extra outlays. He will pull $8 billion from Chile’s offshore savings funds in 2009 to help pay for the stimulus as well as to plug the budget deficit caused by slowing growth and lower receipts from mining.

Chile is facing the deepest recession since 1999 after revenue from exports declined and a virus ravaged its salmon farming industry. The economy shrank faster than forecast in the first half and probably contracted in the second quarter from the first, the central bank said on July 8.

“These policies have effects, but they don’t occur overnight, they don’t happen in one month or one quarter,” Velasco said. “We have to continue working, we have to keep a cool head and at the same time be prudently optimistic.”

Now, Velasco has a distinct interest, of course, in spinning the story in a certain way but until evidence surfaces to the contrary I am willing to buy this story. More generally, the influence of China also pops up in the context of copper prices where many suggest that a large part of the recent increase in Copper prices (and indeed commodities) owes itself exactly to the stimulus money from China. As a side note on this, it seems that the link between rising Copper (and commodities in general) is being increasingly linked to a story of stockpiling in China and then of course, what will happen when China decides that it has had enough. This was a story I picked up on in my analysis of Chile (picked off from Macro Man) and it appears to be gaining traction as an actual analytical explanation.

Elsewhere in Latin America, Morgan Stanley's Latam analyst on Brazil Marcelo Carvalho simply throws in the towel, as it were, devotes an entire note to the link between Brazil and China and what this means for the economic growth of the former. As will come as no surprise Carvalho notes the strong link between Brazil's economic performance and commodity prices and since China certainly seems to be driving the latter, if not directly, then through its effect on overall global sentiment then the rampant growth in China may add positively to the outlook in Brazil.

Moving the perspective up a further notch and as a concluding remark on my, admittedly, selective tour of the emerging market edifice I will leave you with the recent general statement from Morgan Stanley's Manoj Pradhan;

The strong worldwide rally in risky assets since March reflects not just the relief that the worst is likely behind us, but also anticipation of a return to growth for most economies. Much is expected from Emerging Markets, particularly from Asia ex-Japan, which is expected to outperform the rest of the world. Markets and investors realize, however, that not all EM economies are alike, and some will show output growth that is lower than the 1.3% growth our global team expects from the G10 economies in 2010.

Thanks for nothing might be your immediate response here and although I agree that this is extremely general it does sum up the main discourse at the moment whether you agree or not.

Bottomline - What to Watch?

The answer to this question depends on your perspective of course but it seems abundantly clear that if the locus of the financial and economic crisis has moved from the US to the shores of Europe and in particular Eastern and Southern Europe, the corresponding locus of the recovery has moved to Asia (ex-Japan) and most forcefully China. I think it is important to understand how and why these two discourses may co-exist as we move forward.

I believe it is obviously clear that the global economy is not heading for a quick rebound here, but it is equally as clear that some economies will be able to post growth rates that are much above the mean of what the OECD is able to. In this way, one key theme to watch is how this difference is transmitted through to the global economy e.g. in the form of carry trade flows but also in the form of an evolving process by which some economies begin, and go through, their inevitable adjustment and rebalancing phase.

In this specific context I have to be more than a little bit skeptical about the capabilities of China. This is not out of an inherent disdain towards the country but, on the contrary, because I fear that China may ultimately succumb to all those hopes and subsequent load pinned on her shoulders. In this sense I think, although I acknowledge that I have presented no formal analysis to back it up, that the recovery is some way to really materialize and that it may just ultimately be bust and not boom that frames China's economy.

---

* Apologies to William Blake; and of course to Macro Man for encroaching on his territory.

The company holds relatively high market share positions in many key markets -- ice cream in Turkey, laundry detergent in South Africa and soups & sauces in Indonesia. Unilever Brazil is the seventh largest operating company in that country.
 
Similarly in Asia, Unilever is a market leader in many categories including face care, skin cleansing, hair care, and fabric cleaning. The strategy of building relationships with local customers and suppliers through the managers who share the same culture is paving the way towards success in the developing and emerging markets for Unilever.

Another strong market for Unilever is Russia, with 7 manufacturing and production sites, along with leading brands such as Becel, Brooke Bond, Calvé, Hellmann's, Knorr and Lipton, together with Axe, Cif, Clear, Domestos, Dove, Rexona, Sunsilk and Timotei.

In addition, to strengthen Unilever’s existing dressing’s portfolio and its competitive position in Russia, one of its priority countries, the company acquired Baltimor Holding ZAO's sauces business, the leading ketchup business in Russia.

The acquisition, which follows the purchase of Russia's leading ice cream business, Inmarko, in 2008 and its commitment to build a state-of-the-art food production facility in Tula, further consolidates the position of Unilever's business in Russia.

Unilever’s research and development, along with its knowledge of the foods business -- coupled with Baltimor's local strengths -- can significantly enhance the company’s position in the Russian ketchup and dressings market.

We currently maintain a Buy rating on Unilever, as we expect the stock’s P/E to expand from current levels, driven by benefits from various growth plans along with cost savings from overhead simplification project.

I have added the piece below (with my emphasis) ...

Let me attempt, perhaps foolhardily, to map out a scenario of how the global economic crisis could evolve in continental Europe.

Even if we assume a recovery elsewhere, Europe’s economy may be stuck at low growth for some time. To understand why, it is perhaps best to look at sectoral balances for households, companies and the public sector.

The current account can be expressed as the difference between national savings and investments. Of the world’s 10 largest economies, the US, the UK and Spain used to run the largest current account deficits before the crisis. The US household sector has been shifting from a negative savings rate before the crisis to a positive rate of 4 per cent of disposable income now. The US corporate sector used to have a large negative savings rate, but this has almost disappeared. So far, the increase in net savings in the US private sector has been balanced by increased borrowing from the US government.

I am making three assumptions: the first is that the return to a positive US household savings rate is permanent – even under a scenario of a strong economic recovery. US households will take time to repair their balance sheets after the housing and credit disaster. Second, I also expect US companies not to return to the high level of borrowings that prevailed before the crisis. Third, I expect the US government to reduce its deficit after 2010. The recent rise in long-term bond yields should serve as a reminder that deficits cannot go on rising forever.

Taking all three factors together, the US will shift from a strongly negative current account balance towards neutrality, perhaps even a small surplus for a short period. I expect similar shifts in the UK and Spain at different magnitudes.

Among countries with large current account surpluses, the three biggest are China, Japan and Germany. I am focusing on Germany here. The German household sector will maintain its high savings rate. The German government increased its deficit during the crisis, but is now looking for a quick fiscal exit strategy. The Bundestag has recently voted through a constitutional balanced-budget clause, which requires cuts in the deficit almost right away. Japan will probably maintain its larger fiscal deficit for longer, but if we take Germany, China and Japan together, we will not see a sufficient and sustained fiscal expansion to compensate for the sectoral shifts elsewhere.

Global current account surpluses and deficits add up to zero. So if everybody is saving more, who will be dissaving? It will have to be the corporate sector in the countries with large net exports. So if the US, the UK and Spain are heading for a more balanced current account in the future, so will the surplus countries.

The current account balance can also be expressed as the sum of the trade balance, net earnings on foreign assets, and unilateral financial transfers. In several countries, including the US and Germany, the gap between exports and imports serves as a good proxy for the current account. A fall in the trade deficit in the US, UK and Spain implies a fall in the combined trade surplus elsewhere. And as some of the shifts in the US and the UK are likely to be structural, this will have long-term effects on others. In particular, it means the export model on which Germany, China and Japan rely, could suffer a cardiac arrest.

What about the argument that a large part of German exports goes to the rest of the eurozone? This is true, but there are imbalances within the eurozone too. Spain has been running a current account deficit of close to 10 per cent of gross domestic product. As that comes down, so will Germany’s equally unsustainable intra-eurozone surplus.

Through what mechanism will this export-sector meltdown come about? My guess is that in Europe it will happen through a violent increase in the euro’s exchange rate against the US dollar, and possibly the pound and other free-floating currencies.

Exchange rate devaluation would greatly help the US and others to reduce their current account deficits, but it will impair the economic recovery in countries with large trade surpluses and free-floating exchange rates. Last week’s remarks by Angela Merkel, who criticised the Federal Reserve and other central banks for running inflationary policies, sharpened investor perceptions of transatlantic policy divergence and decoupling. Many investors are now starting to bet on a strong appreciation of the euro – the last thing Ms Merkel wants.

Neither Germany nor Japan is politically equipped to deal with an exchange rate shock. China may continue to manage its exchange rate, but the Europeans are much less likely to intervene in foreign exchange markets. For the time being, the governments of the classic export nations cling on to their export-based economic model, the model they know best. Their only strategy, if you call it that, is to hope for a miraculous bail-out from the US consumer – which is not going to happen this time.

If my predictions prove correct, Germany will be down and out for a long time with a huge and still unresolved banking crisis, an overshooting exchange rate and lower net exports, presided over by politicians who panic about domestic inflation. This will not end well.

Really, what people need to think about here is the important of deleveraging on a macroeconomic level and what this will mean for aggregate global demand. As I have pointed out before, emerging markets such as Brazil, Turkey, India, Chile, etc are coming (and fast too), but will they be able to provide enough capacity of to suck up the massive increase in desired savings we are going to observe? Well, this is of course only one of the questions here and what we really need is a sound theoretical framework to explain all this and as you might have guessed by now it is crucial that we allow demographics to enter the equation as a driving force for the propensity (desire) to run an external surplus and thus to maintain excess savings vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

If you add the effects of the continuing demographic shifts to the obvious need for economies such as the UK, the US, etc to correct (regardless of underlying demographis) you end up with a problem and specifically a problem of excess saving relative to the willingness and ability to absorb these savings through aggregate demand or if you will productive investment. In terms of (wonkish) economic theory we can think about ageing on a macroeconomic level as the crowding towards one end of the intertemporal spectrum of consumption and saving. Consequently, one can expect (and show) why ageing economies, in stead of simply accepting the inevitable decline through dissaving, will have an intertemporal preference to push forward dissaving (consumption) relative to maintaining a surplus on their external accounts as a cushion againts dissaving. 

I will have much more on the theoretical front here as we move forward.