Tag: economy

Can Australia continue the mining employment boom?

Assuming the mining industry will drive Australian employment may turn out to be risky.

The Prime Minister’s comments at the ADC China Forum last week raised an important question about Australia’s mining boom – can the industry sustain employment as the construction of mines, ports and railways are completed?

After her keynote speech at the event’s gala dinner the Prime Minister was interviewed by Busines Spectator’s KGB – Alan Kohler, Robert Gottliebsen and Stephen Bartholomeusz – about the country’s relations with China.

In that interview, the Prime Minister was upbeat about the continued employment bonanza from the resources boom.

I think overwhelmingly the prospects are good for resources. There is nothing to fear here. The absolute peak of the price cycle has probably passed, but we will still be doing good business in resources. It will be supporting jobs.

A few days earlier Fortescue Mining Group’s CEO, Nev Power, spoke to Alan Kohler on Inside Business.

Nev was a little more circumspect about the prospects for continued booming employment in the mining sector.

our capital expenditure program and expansion is coming to an end around mid-year. And then we’re into a very high volume phase and it’ll be a matter of driving the maximum efficiency out of the business through that phase.

So even if the iron price and export volumes do hold up, it looks like the resources employment boom may be reaching its end as mining projects move from the labour intensive construction phase to being relatively hands off production mines.

If Nev gets his way with ‘maximum inefficiencies there may be fewer jobs to go around.

The Prime Minister – along with all of Australia’s political leaders – remains hopeful, as she said in her speech.

So we are not, indeed we have never been, simply a quarry or a beach; ours is a diverse and sophisticated economy and a valued trading partner with the biggest global economies.

As the expansion phase of the mining boom tails off, that economic diversity is going to be tested. Hopefully there is a Plan B.

Similar posts:

There is no China Inc

The ADC China forum asked how foreigners view China as a nation.

“There is no China Inc” was the message from the first day of the Australian Davos Connection’s 2013 Future Summit in Melbourne last week.

For 2013, the annual two day ADC Future Summit was themed “China – where to from here?” with both international and Australian speakers discussing the Peoples’ Republic of China’s future and it’s effects on the world, particularly Australia.

Opening the speakers was Martin Jacques, Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the London School of Economics and Author of ‘When China Rules The World.’

Martin Jacques has been on the wrong side of history before, having been the last editor of Marxism Today before its closure in 1991, giving his overview of China’s development an interesting flavour.

Returning to the historical norm

History has never seen a country so big grow, so fast in Jacques view. The US and British economic revolutions featured lower growth rates and much smaller populations compared to the modern Chinese experience.

Jacques quotes leading Chinese economist Hu Angang’s belief that China is returning to its global position of two hundred years ago where the nation made up a third of the world’s global economy – double today’s share.

The resilience of China’s society in Jacques’ view is driven by four factors; its two thousand year old culture, the legitimacy of its government, the competence of the civil service and its lack of desire to build colonies.

Despite China’s historical reluctance to build overseas empires the nation’s rise is still going to dramatically change regional politics.

Australia’s Challenge

Jacques raises the question of Australia making the jump from being in the US political camp to engaging with China and America on an equal basis.

“Australia has an important role to play in the region but only if it chooses to express its own views and interests,” says Jacques. The nation’s interests are not necessarily those of the United States.

The US is uncomfortable with China’s rise and Jacques believes the Obama administration’s policies in the Pacific are destined to fail because the United State’s Asian Pivot is essentially a military response while the PRC’s rise is due to economic dynamism.

Jacques main point was that the west misunderstands China by viewing the country as a nation-state when in fact it is a civilisation. This was a question that troubled the following panel.

Culture or nation?

Dr John Lee of the University of Sydney thought the idea of China as a civilisation would worry its neighbours were that view taken to the logical end point, “would that mean that China views the region in fundamentally hierarchical terms?”

“Australia is in a strategic holding pattern,” says Lee. “Australia like every other country in the region is hedging closer to America and each other just in case China doesn’t turn out benign.”

For Hugh White, Australian National University Professor of Strategic Studies, this insecurity surrounding China comes down to choices.

“China wants to be healthy and strong,” says White. “To do so, China has to face choices, but so too does America.”

“For Australia the choice is are we prepared to be a spectator in the process.”

Maintaining growth

How China can continue its economic dynamism was the biggest question facing the panel.

Patrick Chovanec, Chief Global Strategist of Silvercrest Asset Management, thinks China cannot sustain its current level of economic growth and points out that prior to the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, China’s exports made up 8% of the country’s economy.

With the collapse in international trade following the 2008 crisis, that proportion dropped to 2%.

China made up that drop in demand by stimulating the economy and triggering the investment boom that sent global commodity prices – particularly iron ore and coal – soaring.

This infrastructure splurge is what Chovanec sees as unsustainable, and he challenges the view that Chinese urbanisation will drive the economy and imports.

“If you look around the world,” Chavonec says, “urbanisation has not driven economic growth.”

The problem with China’s infrastructure funded growth model is that building rates have to grow to maintain growth rates – if you build 100 high rises this year, you have to build 108 next year just to maintain the 8% growth rates.

Balancing sectional interests

Shifting from an export to a consumption based economy means a different China. “it creates a different set of winners and losers,” says Chovanec.

Balancing those interests of winners and losers is one of the key tasks for the Chinese leadership, “Various competing interests groups – the Party has to juggle the interests of those groups” says Linda Jackobson of the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

“We shouldn’t talk about China if it’s ‘China Inc.’” Jackobson says, “I don’t think China has a grand strategic plan. It has strategic goals but not a grand strategy.”

Jackobson sees there being three key objectives for the Chinese leadership; political stability, protecting territorial integrity and economic stability.

The role of the Communist Party

That political stability is an important factor when considering China’s leadership as stability is seen as maintaining the power of the Communist Party.

“We tend to assume an identity between the current communist government and the people.” Says Chovanec, “raising this issue is forbidden in many forums.”

Chovanec agrees with Jackobson that thinking about ‘China Inc’ and the assumption, or myth, of long term strategic thinking.

“When we look at Chinese companies going abroad we talk about the long term game plan.” Chovanec points out, “in fact if you look at the haphazard movements of Chinese companies moving abroad it’s been in fits and starts.”

The common factor from the first session’s speakers at the ADC’s China Forum was that the People’s Republic can’t be seen as a monolithic entity.

Should we accept Jacques’ view that China is a civilization and not a nation state, then understanding the relationships that underpin the cultural identity are key to working with the PRC.

On the other hand the panellists see China as a modern nation state with the government, like any other attempting to balance competing interests within society.

Both are more nuanced view of Chinese politics and the nation’s economy than what’s presented by the media and politicians.

Which was fitting as the Prime Minister gave the gala dinner keynote that evening which will be the subject of another post.

Similar posts:

Crying over spilt Chinese milk

Australia’s missteps in the Chinese milk market are part of a far deeper malaise in the Australian business community.

East Asian based expats have many conceits – the greatest being that they understand Asia.

For a high paid executive based in Hong Kong or Singapore sitting in a comfortable air conditioned CausewayBay or Beach Road highrise it’s easy to not to know what you don’t know.

In Bangkok though the drinkers at Bangkok’s Cheap Charlies Bar are under no illusions about the complexity of Asia as every night brings another surprise.

During the 1990s it was a regular drinking haunt of those working on the ground in South East Asia – aid workers from Cambodia, oil explorers from Vietnam. gem traders from Laos or builders in Myanmar all swapped stories about their trials and tribulations.

One of the toughest jobs was setting up a diary industry in tropical Thailand, no trivial task in an environment that isn’t kind to soft, milk producing cattle.

Through the late twentieth century the Australian government spent millions helping build the Thai industry with the intention of it helping the Aussie industry build markets and expertise.

Sometime in the late 1990s, the Australian industry decided programs like these were all too hard and not only withdrew from the Thai and Malaysian markets but also let the Chinese opportunity slip through their fingers.

Today, as Business Spectator reported last week, New Zealand’s Fonterra is not only beating the Aussies in China but also has substantial holdings in Australia as the company’s website describes;

The company has NZ$11.8 billion in total assets and revenues of NZ$13 billion and employs more than 18,000 people worldwide. In Australia, Fonterra has revenues of $1.9 billion, processes 21 per cent of all Australian milk and employs over 2,000 people. This makes Fonterra very much an Australasian company.

Fonterra’s story, both in China and Australia, illustrates how something went amiss in Australia’s business sector in the late 1990s.

The point of Australia’s deregulations and industry consolidations through the 1980s and 90s was to make local businesses and industries more competitive. Instead those Australian conglomerates have been sold to overseas interests as domestic investors find they aren’t interested in investing.

Instead Australian businesses decided that having being allowed to consolidate they could use their market power to clip the tickets of the industries they controlled rather than innovating or expanding internationally.

At the same time, Australia’s compulsory savings scheme poured billions into the local share market leaving boards under no pressure to perform better than the index.

The lazy investing philosophy forced internationally focused businesses to look for overseas investors and has created the steady flow of Australian business, farming and mining assets being sold onto overseas buyers.

In the meantime, the shock jocks and populists whip up xenophobia rather than holding Australian business community to account for its failure to seek and build new markets.

This doesn’t mean bad news for young Australians, there are opportunities for smart, innovative and hard working entrepreneurs to challenge the country’s staid duopolies.

If we choose not to challenge the comfortable duopolies, it may be the next generation of Aussie expats find more opportunities at Cheap Charlies in Bangkok than at home.

Similar posts:

Cheap coffee and the changing service sector

The rise of cheap automated coffee machines in service stations and convenience stores shows how the assumptions about the service economy are being challenged.

I noticed the queues one morning when calling into the local service station to grab a carton of milk at 5am.

There was a line of tradesmen out the door waiting to buy a $1 self serve coffee. Freshly ground with your choice of espresso, latte or cappuccino.

No messing around, no being patronised by snobby barista – just a cheap, decent quality cup of coffee.

For the last few years these machines have been popping up in convenience stores and service stations, freshly grinding beans to order and delivering a reasonable cup of coffee for a dollar or two.

7-11-cheap-coffee.jpg
Cheap coffee at the local convenience store

None of the machine made cups will beat a coffee made by a good barista, but are half or a third of the price being charged by many cafes whose product often isn’t much better (and sometimes worse) than that made by the machines.

With the rise of the service economy in the 1970s it was assumed employment would move from factories to jobs like baristas and serving in cafes, now we’re seeing automation taking over those jobs as well.

The 1970s assumption that the service industries would become the mainstay of the economy turned out to be true with over two thirds of the workforces in countries like the US, UK and Australian employed in them them by the end of the Twentieth Century.

Now industries are restructuring again and the assumptions that worked well for the last fifty years are being challenged by automation and increased outsourcing.

The idea we could build an economy based upon us all making coffee and waiting tables for each other was always problematic and so it is proving to be.

It’s worth thinking about the opportunities this presents for your business.

Similar posts:

Australia’s economic Hari-Kari

As the cheap credit era comes to an end, the Australian economy acts as if the party is never going to end.

“The Golden Era of Credit is Now Over” writes Maximillian Walsh in the Australian Financial Review today.

Max’s story relies mainly on the April edition of Bill Goss’ monthly newsletter where the founder of investment firm PIMCO writes about the talents of today’s market wizards;

All of us, even the old guys like Buffett, Soros, Fuss, yeah – me too, have cut our teeth during perhaps a most advantageous period of time, the most attractive epoch, that an investor could experience.

The credit boom of the last fifty years created many winners – investment bankers, property owners and those who sell things funded by easy finance.

One of the best examples of a fortune made through easy credit is Australia’s Gerry Harvey. Here’s one of Gerry’s ads from 1979.

Hurry into Norman Ross. You can use Bankcard or our easy credit system. You can even use cash!

Three years later Gerry was sacked from the business he founded and he set up Harvey Norman, promising John Walton and Alan Bond “I’m going to beat you.” By the end of the 1980s he had.

Gerry’s success is built on easy credit and the rise of the consumerist economy. From the hire purchase plans of the 1960s, the introduction of credit cards in the 1970s and the banking deregulations of the 1980s, Gerry was able to sell goods to eager consumers who could worry about paying later.

In the 1990s and 2000s a happy coincidence of easy credit and cheap Asian manufacturing – note the prices of electrical goods in that 1979 commercial – saw businesses like Harvey Norman grow exponentially.

Mao promised the Chinese a chicken in every pot, Gerry delivered a plasma TV in every Australian bedroom.

Today, as Bill Goss says, the credit party is over. Last drinks were called with the failure of Lehman Brothers on September 16th, 2008.

However this hasn’t stopped the Aussie economy, as the Sydney Morning Herald reports today Sales growth cheers Gerry Harvey.

In the same edition the SMH reports the government science organisation, the CSIRO, is cutting hundreds of staff. Notable in that article is a comment from the organisation’s CEO;

Dr Clark said more than 2000 companies collaborated with CSIRO but that industries were reducing the amount spent on research.

So at a time when the Australian economy is struggling with the effects of a high currency and exhibiting all the symptoms of the Dutch Disease, consumers are spending more on TVs and sofas while business cuts investment in research and development.

Karl Marx famously predicted that the last capitalist will be hanged with the rope they sold, Australians have a bunch of Harvey Norman branded credit cards for their financial seppuku.

Similar posts:

Driving a horse and cart in a digital economy

A lack of understanding about how to use digital tools threatens businesses in the 21st Century

“There’s no point in building a highway if no-one can drive” Tasmanian business leader Jane Bennett said about the Australian National Broadband Network during an interview last week.

Jane was touching on an important point about the digital economy – that most businesses aren’t equipped to deal with it.

That half of businesses in the US, UK or Australia don’t have a website illustrates that in itself. What’s really worrying is setting up a website is the easy part and has been standard for a decade.

In many respects this isn’t new, a similar thing happened when mains electricity or the motor car arrived. Many businesses clung desperately to their oil filled lamps and horse drawn carts way past the time these were superseded.

Well into the 1970s there were hold outs who continued to ply their carts despite the costs of keeping horses on the road being far greater than buying a truck.

That failure to learn about and invest in new technologies saw all those businesses die, many of them with the owner who’d eked out a living as a milko or rag and bone man for decades.

On a bigger level, the struggles of the local milkman with his Clydesdale is a worrying reflection of business underinvestment. These folk are stuck with old equipment because they didn’t have the funds to spend on bringing their equipment up to Twentieth Century standards.

In the 1980s I saw this first hand in some of Australia’s factories. A foreman at a valve manufacturer in Western Sydney boasted to me how he had done his apprenticeship on a particular lathe fifty years earlier.

That machine still had the belt and pulley assembly from the days when the factory was powered by a steam engine at one end of the plant. It had an electric motor bolted onto it some time in the 1960s but was largely unaltered since.

It was understandable many Australian factory owners wouldn’t invest after World War II – many industries were protected and property speculation offered, and still does, better returns.

Another reason for not investing was the sheer cost of buying new equipment, major capital expenditures are risky and for most businesses it wasn’t work taking those risks.

Today there’s a big difference, hardware and software are far cheaper than they were in the 1960s or 70s with the big investment being in understanding and implementing the new technologies.

Few businesses don’t have computers or the internet but most of the things we do online are just variations on how our great grandparents worked with documents, filing cabinets and the penny post. We have to rethink how we use technology in business.

It would be a shame if we find ourselves stuck on the side of the highway wondering what the hell happened in the early years of the 21st Century.

Stage coach image courtesy of Velda Christensen at http://www.novapages.com/

Similar posts:

Australia welcomes the multi generational mortgage

Australia starts to repeat Japan’s experience with multi generational mortgages. With a twist that might be more debilitating than the Japanese lost decades.

At the height of the Japanese property boom in the 1980s, the hundred year mortgage came into being.

Pushing payments onto children and grand-children was the only way home prices could continue to rise once they hit levels which the average Japanese worker could ever afford with a more traditional twenty or thirty year mortgage.

Twenty five years later Australia finds itself in a similar position as parents guarantee their childrens’ mortgages.

Repeating the Japanese mistake

While the Japanese looked to sticking their mortgages onto their kids and grandkids, Down Under the kids are fighting back and getting mum and dad to underwrite their unaffordable loans.

This weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald features in its property section the story of how Sharon and Graeme Bruce guaranteed their son’s and his fiance’s mortgage in Sydney’s inner suburbs.

While the story isn’t clear on the size of the deposit (which isn’t surprising given the SMH’s shoddy editing), it appears the Bruces’ have guaranteed around $300,000 so his son and future daughter-in-law can grab a five bedroom, 1.45 million dollar mansion.

One wonders what great businesses Matt and Hannah could build if mum and dad were prepared to stump up a similar amount to invest in a start up?

Australia’s property obsession

Sadly we’ll never know – in Australia, the smart money gets a job, pays off a mortgage and accumulates wealth through investment properties. What cows are to African tribesmen, negatively geared units are to the Australian middle class.

The hundred year strategy hasn’t worked too well for Japan, with a declining population those mortgages entered into a boom level 1980s values now don’t look so attractive and are one large reason for the nation’s lost decades.

In Australia, things aren’t likely to work so well either. The Baby Boomers and Lucky Generationals – those born from 1930 to 1945 – guaranteeing their kids’ and grandkids’ mortgages are relying on ever increasing property prices.

This is understandable given that few of them have any experience of long term stagnation, let alone decline, of property values but it leaves them incredibly exposed should the Aussie housing market slump.

Can an Aussie property decline happen?

Many Australians, particularly those with vested interests, maintain such a decline can’t happen but the prospects aren’t good as the SMH story shows;

The couple had attempted to buy a small terrace in Newtown but kept getting pipped at the post by other young professional couples. At a higher price point they had no competition.

Despite his parents’ generosity he said he would still need to rent out a few of the rooms to help pay for the mortgage.

So Matt can’t afford the mortgage. That’s not good starting point and one that could cost his parents dearly, which they don’t seem to care about much.

”Obviously my dad guaranteeing the loan was the only way we were going to purchase this,” Mr Bruce said. ”You need to have a 20 per cent deposit otherwise the banks want you to pay insurance … it’s a bit of a rort really.”

It’s fair to call mortgage insurance a rort – as it certainly is – but its purpose is to protect the banks should a mortgagee default and the financiers find themselves out of pocket.

With Matt’s parents getting him out of paying that insurance his bank has much better default protection, equity in his parents’ property.

Guaranteeing risk and misery

I’m not privy to the finances of Sharon and Bruce, but most of their contemporaries can ill afford to lose several hundred thousand dollars in home equity in their later years.

That is where Australia’s multi-generational mortgages could turn very nasty, very quickly as older Australians find themselves having to deliver on the guarantees they gave on behalf of their over committed offspring.

In Japan, it’s taken a long time for the population to realise their national wealth has been squandered on twenty years of propping up unsustainable property prices and economic policies.

One wonders how long it will takes Australians to realise the same has happened to them and what the political reaction will be.

Similar posts: