Washington Square Capital Management Blog

A couple of news articles on the topic of China caught our attention last week.  In an article titled Cooling Property Market Tests Beijing’s Nerves, the Financial Times reported on the sudden, marked slowdown in apartment sales within mainland China and the potential government response to this phenomenon.  What stood out amongst all the anecdotal information is that apartment prices in Tongzhou (a suburb of Beijing) are currently hovering around USD $3,500 per sq. meter (or USD $325 per sq. ft.), perhaps more if you consider the CNY (Chinese Yuan or Renmindi) is undervalued to the USD.  We admit that we’ve never visited China, so we don’t have firsthand knowledge of real estate market trends in Tongzhou (it could be the Greenwich of Beijing for all we know, and in fact, it looks like a pretty nice place from space).  We also readily admit that we aren’t experts when it comes to navigating the complexities of the Hukou system of permits.  Perhaps Tongzhou is the recipient of pent-up demand from people who cannot buy apartments within Beijing proper.  Still, we think $325 per square foot is a bit high, especially when you consider the real estate market in suburban New York (the wealthiest city in the wealthiest nation in the world).   We conducted a quick (completely unscientific) analysis of the property market by looking for new developments in the NYC suburbs (accepting at face value sq. ft. area claims made by the developer).  We end up with asking prices in the range of $250-400 per sq. ft. (across the river in Jersey), $400-600 per sq. ft. (in Brooklyn and Queens) and $250-400 (Westchester).  Median household income in New York City (2008) was $56,000.  Beijing’s statistical bureau doesn’t publish median household income, but they do say that in 2009, disposable income per capita was CNY 26, 700 (USD $4,000).   By our estimate, that puts median household income around USD $12,000-15,000, or 20-25% of that in New York.  Yet prices are roughly comparable.   In our view, these levels are unsustainable and highlight the growing disparity between real estate prices and what Chinese citizens can reasonably be expected to pay for these properties.

Last week also saw the IPO of the Agricultural Bank of China (ABC), the last of China’s major state-owned banks to go public.  Like all the other state-owned banks, ABC spun-off a package of bad loans prior to going public.  What we’re wondering is whether they’ve also spun-off all the employees who made those bad loans (over 10% of ABC’s USD 828 Bn balance sheet at end 2007).  We’re also wondering it is possible to make USD $110 billion in bad loans in an economy that is growing at a 10% clip.  Fitch Ratings has some ideas.

1. We expect to see the US unemployment rate to peak at 11% in 2010. We may have been a bit aggressive with this call.  While the US job market remains anemic, the unemployment rate now stands at 9.5% (the lowest all year), partly because of workers who have dropped out of the labor force (stopped looking for jobs).  A falling unemployment rate would normally be encouraging news, but private sector job-creation continues to be very slow, despite the record amount of stimulus that has been pumped into the economy. In addition, the most recent jobs data has been disappointing, so the looming threat of a “double-dip” recession remains high and 11% unemployment later in the year is not out of the question.
2. Investors will continue to re-allocate towards less volatile investment classes, like bonds in 2010. This scenario has been playing out as we expected.  According to ICI[1], only $7.82 billion in new money has been invested into equity funds through June 23^rd 2010, while bond funds have seen $154.35 billion of net inflows.  Over the last eight weeks (where we’ve seen equity markets correct), net inflows into stock funds have been -$31.29 billion, while bond funds have seen +$33.98 billion over that same period.  We continue to believe demographic factors in the US and Europe as well as an increasing wariness towards stocks after two major bubbles in 10 years will lead investors to allocate larger portions of their portfolios to fixed income investments with a higher claim on corporate cash-flow than stocks.
3. We expect a number of credit downgrades for developed nations as their persistent deficits come into focus.  The US Dollar will strengthen in any ensuing flight to safety. This prediction has been right.  Since the start of 2010, we’ve seen credit downgrades to Greece, Portugal and Spain, as well as a massive bailout plan for Greece.  The US dollar started 2010 valued at 1.4323 per Euro, but strengthened as the situation in Europe deteriorated.  It reached a level of 1.1875 per Euro on June 6^th and has recently bounced back to the 1.25 range.  We expect continued pressure on the Euro until a workable solution for the sovereign debt crisis has been reached.
4. Interest rates will remain effectively at 0% until the 4^th quarter of 2010, where we will expect to see the Fed raise rates to the 1-2% range. So far this prediction has been accurate.  The Fed has kept the fed funds rate at historically low levels.  It remains to be seen whether or not the Fed opts to raise rates in the 3^rd or 4^th quarters.  While most commentators believe the latest round of economic statistics have made a hike unlikely until 2011, we still believe there’s a good chance the Fed raises rates to the 1-2% level after the mid-term elections in Q4 2010 and then pauses for an extended period.
5. Continuing the trend from 2009, paying down debt will remain the highest priority for US consumers as they attempt to get their financial houses in order. This trend appears to be holding up.  In May, the personal savings rate reached 4%, which is the highest level it has been in 8 months and a far cry from the .8% we saw in April 2008.  Outstanding consumer revolving debt also continues to decline.   The most recent data from the Fed (for April) shows revolving debt at $838 billion, which is down from $866 billion at the start of 2010 and $958 billion at the start of 2009.
6. The US economy will see almost negligible growth for 2010. It’s a bit early for this call since we won’t see this year’s GDP data until 2011.  Current GDP estimates are on track for 3% growth in 2010.  The caveat, of course, is that this has been accomplished with record government stimulus.  If the economy is unable to stand on its own without the crutch of stimulus, it’s entirely possible the second-half will be much weaker.
7. Corporations will increasingly turn to mergers and acquisitions to grow market share. This prediction could go either way.  According to the NY Times, the first half of 2010 has seen $810.3 billion in global mergers and acquisitions.  Through the same period in 2009, this number was $814.6 billion.  However, many of the 2009 deals were a result of government activity in the banking sector, whereas 2010 has seen deals taking place across a range of industries.  A recent Ernst & Young study of more than 800 senior executives across the world showed that 57% of businesses surveyed said they are likely to acquire other companies in the next 12 months.  This number was 33% in the last survey (in November of 2009).  Whether or not these executives follow through on this sentiment remains to be seen.
8. Growth in emerging markets will continue to outpace developed economies.  But this will not be enough to offset the stagnation in developed economies or lead to a robust global recovery. This trend appears to be holding up in 2010.  After a year of gaudy returns, the global equity rally faded in the second quarter.  As of June 30^th, the MSCI emerging markets index was -7.22% year to date, the MSCI EAFE index (which tracks developed markets in Europe, Australasia and the Far East) was -14.72% year to date and the S&P 500 was -7.57%.  We continue to believe equity market returns across the world will be negative in 2010.
9. We believe there is continued risk for a massive correction in China. While we have not yet seen a “massive” correction in China, the Shanghai composite index is now at a 15 month low and is down over 25% through the end of Q2.  We continue to believe equity and real-estate markets in China are over-valued and there is further to fall.
10. In 2010, certain commodities are poised for a sharp sell-off.  Top of our lists for a correction are gold and oil. This call has produced a mixed result.  Gold is up over 13% through the end of Q2 while oil is down over 14% over the same period.  While gold remains a popular investment alternative to faltering currencies (Euro, USD), we believe its big run-up over the past few years puts it firmly into bubble territory.   We believe oil prices will remain depressed until the global economy is back on its feet.

---

[1] The Investment Company Institute, which tracks mutual fund flows

Like most market participants, we watched the market moves yesterday afternoon with a certain degree of amazement.  Since US equity market prices are far higher than underlying valuation (according to our measures) we were not surprised by the extent of the drop.  But we were very surprised by the speed at which the drop occurred, as well as the speed of the partial recovery.  It reminded us of the precipitous declines and partial reversals we saw during the height of the credit crisis in 2008 and 2009.

While there have been some theories put forth to explain what happened yesterday, we do not have a definitive explanation for the rapid decline and subsequent recovery.  That said, we would like to share a few observations about yesterday’s trading and its broader implications:

1. Equity markets were already down substantially (on the order of 3-4%) before the sudden drop occurred between 2:30 and 3:00pm. During their (brief) lows, the broad indexes were down over 9% before recovering.  We closed the day down 3-4% across the major indices.
2. The sudden decline took us through multiple significant technical support levels. Volume was steady through the morning, picked up around noon and rocketed after 2:30.  Yesterday was the second highest-volume day on record.
3. There were various (as yet unsubstantiated) rumors of “trader error” causing the decline. There have also been reports that many high-frequency trading operators stopped trading entirely since they hit internal limits which kick in under extreme conditions.
4. Though the US equity markets are receiving most of the attention, they are not the only source of the current volatility. Numerous other markets saw immense turbulence yesterday, including, but not limited to, overnight funding (libor), treasuries and particularly currency markets.

The last point is the most significant for investors. There is a reasonable suspicion is that yesterday’s activity in the currency markets was part of an unwinding of the carry trade. Carry-traders are very sensitive to risk since they run large, leveraged positions which can be quickly wiped out. If this is correct, the events of this week were broadly similar to moves that occurred in August 2007, which affected quantitative hedge funds mostly, and marked the beginning of the declines of 2008 and 2009. See Andrew Lo’s paper, What happened to the quants in August 2007.

The technical reasons for the stock market decline are what have received the most scrutiny in the press. In our view, the steady surrender of volume and responsibility from trading floors (where participants meet market-makers face to face) to electronic exchanges with liquidity provided by automated high-frequency trading systems certainly exacerbated the sudden acceleration of the decline, but did not cause it.

Not-withstanding purely technical reasons affecting the speed and steepness of a 15 minute decline, the underlying reasons for increased risk-aversion are real. We also believe it betrays extremely short-term memory to claim that such sudden declines do not occur in a specialist managed market. We only need to point to Black Monday (October 19, 1987), when the market dropped 22% over the course of the day.  In 1987, most stock was traded via specialists on the physical floor of the NYSE.   In that instance, automated selling by “portfolio insurance” providers accelerated the decline.  Yesterday, the NYSE maintained a relatively orderly market, the extremely low-priced trades appear to have occurred on secondary exchanges with low liquidity where numerous market sell or stop loss orders may have encountered a limited number of bids and shallow order books.   In and of itself, this is not unusual, stocks always decline suddenly when there are a lot of sellers and no buyers.

This is an interesting debate, but in our view is largely irrelevant for investors.  One market commentator remarked:

For starters, let’s all keep in mind that these things don’t happen in a healthy tape. The jitters from Greek rioting and possible contagion were the necessary preconditions for a crash like that.

The major conclusions we draw from the trading action of the past week is that:

1. Numerous market participants have limited conviction and their default stance is to step aside quickly in a falling market.
2. The Euro-zone crisis will continue to roil markets until it is properly addressed.
3. There are many underlying concerns about commodity prices, Chinese real-estate prices, credit-worthiness, etc. and they can manifest themselves very quickly.

Given the information we have, and our view of overall valuations, we caution investors to remain extremely vigilant and maintain a defensive posture.

Further reading:

Felix Salomon’s initial take: How a market crashes

Felix after taking a deep breath: Deconstructing the crash

Bloomberg’s Nina Mehta and Craig Nagi: Market fragmentation may get review after stock drop

A very interesting, disturbing, but perhaps unsurprising article in today’s FT, about how Russia may have tried to get China to simultaneously dump GSE securities on the market to exacerbate the US financial crisis.  Sounds like a cross between international espionage and hostile takeovers, but scarier:  Paulson claims Russia tried to foment Fannie-Freddie crisis

John Authers writes in the FT on the efficacy of crude regulation that clearly demarcates acceptable and unacceptable behavior and actions.