Share This

Friday, 3 January 2014

Investing in 2014

Value Investing Summit 2014 - 'Live'


The end of the year is the time to reflect on the past and the beginning of the year is time to reflect on the future. 

SO how did your portfolio do last year?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average for US stocks hit 16,576 with a 26% gain for the year, the best year since 1996. By comparison, the Hang Seng Index performed 3%; Tokyo Nikkei did best at 57% and Bursa Malaysia ended 10.5% higher, just a tad off its record high.

On the other hand, the fastest growing economy in the world had the worst stock performance – the Shanghai A share index closed the year at -8%. Gold prices fell 27% to US$1,196 per oz, while property prices seemed to have done well in the United States and China. Bond prices are now extremely shaky, with the JPM Global Aggregate Bond Index falling by 2% during the year.

What is going on?

The answer has to be quantitative easing (QE) by the advanced country central banks. The world is still flush with liquidity and since investors are unclear on what direction to invest in, they have reversed investments in commodities (such as gold), avoided bonds because of prospective rises in interest rates and essentially piled into stocks.

Individual investors like you and I tend to forget that the market is really driven today by large institutional investors, including fast traders with computer-driven algorithms that have better information than the retail investor and can trade in and out faster and cheaper. It is not surprising that retail investors who have traditionally driven Asian markets have been moving more to the sidelines.

Even institutional investors are not equal. Long-term fund managers like pension funds and insurance companies are, by and large, highly regulated, with restrictions on what they can or cannot buy. So it is not surprising that the biggest money managers are today even larger than banks. BlackRock, the largest independent fund manager alone looks after nearly US$4 trillion, larger than most banks in emerging markets.

There are, of course, two types of asset management – active (where the managers actively invest according to their judgement on your behalf) and passive, where they simply follow the market indices or buy exchange traded funds (ETFs) that track market indices. According to the Towers-Perrin study of top 500 global asset managers, during the last decade, passive managers did better than the group as a whole.

So should we trust the market experts? I have been reading for years Byron Wien’s annual Predictions for Ten Surprises for the Year. Byron used to be a top investment pundit for Morgan Stanley but he is now working for Blackstone. His prediction of surprises is defined as events where average investor would assign one-third change of happening, but which he believed would have a better than 50% change of happening. He got roughly seven out of ten wrong in 2013, the more relevant mis-calls being the price of gold, a possible drop in S&P 500, the price of oil and the A share index.

Bill Gross, one of the top bond fund managers, pointed out that retail investors tend to be conservative, focusing largely on safe portfolios, such as investment grade and high yield bonds and stocks. But institutional investors have gravitated instead into alternative assets, hedge funds and more unconventional assets. Unfortunately, all these assets are “based on artificially low interest rates”. So if low interest rate policies are reversed, investors have to be prepared.

He rightly pointed out that the advanced country central banks are “basically telling investors that they have no alternative than to invest in riskier assets or to lever high-quality assets.” But if they withdraw QE or “taper”, then higher interest rates will cause a reversal of investment prices and also cause de-leveraging.

In other words, in order to bail out the world and keep the advanced economies afloat, their central banks are asking global investors to bear quite a lot of the risks of the downside. The smart money might be able to get out fast enough, but most retail investors do not have the skills to time their investments right.

So what should the retail investor do?

Peter Churchouse, who writes one of the best reports in Asia called Asia Hard Assets Report, quoted his son’s advice as “Buy good companies with strong earnings, strong growth and rock solid management. The world will go on.”

Quite right.

But how do we know which companies have rock solid management? My answer is: watch not what the annual report say (by all means read them), but look at what the management does. I have always tended to shy away from companies with high-profile CEOs who tend to win “Manager of the Year” awards.

There is, of course, no substitute for solid own research and look for yourself how the company or the economy that it operates in is doing.

The consumer or tourist is still the best investor because seeing for yourself gives you a feel of what is quite right or wrong with the country and just visiting the retail outlet, getting a sense of the service quality and the employee attitude would give you first hand what is right or wrong with the company you are investing in.

My favourite economy in Asia right now has to be Indonesia. I spent nearly 10 days over Christmas going through the markets of the most densely populated cities in Java and my conclusion was that Indonesia is on the move – literally. The population is young, mobile and connected. Every other shop seems to be selling mobile phones, cars or motorbikes. The quality of the retail shops, design and service has been improving over the years. And despite the coming elections, there is hope for change.

My bet, therefore, for 2014 is that if we stick to the better-run companies in the stronger economies, we should be better prepared for any tapering of QE to come.


Contributed by Tan Sri Andrew Sheng

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is president of the Fung Global Institute.

Thursday, 2 January 2014

Diaoyu islands activist makes a splash

A mainlander who tried to fly a hot-air balloon hundreds of kilometers to the disputed Diaoyu Islands was rescued by Japan's coast guard after ditching in the sea.

Xu Shuaijun, 35, took off from Fujian province on Wednesday morning in an attempt to land on one of the Tokyo- controlled islands, a Japan coast guard official said.

It was an ambitious goal - hot-air balloons travel largely at the mercy of the wind, and the islands are tiny specks in the East China Sea 359 kilometers away from the take-off point.

Xu sent a request for help several hours into his flight and ditched in the sea, with a Japanese rescue helicopter picking him up 22 kilometers south of his goal.

Xu, who was unhurt, was handed over to a Chinese patrol ship outside Japanese territorial waters. Photos distributed by the Japan coast guard showed a striped, multicolored balloon drifting half-deflated.

On his verified account on Weibo, Xu posted a short message declaring that he had been returned safely to Fuqing city in Fujian.

"I have returned safely," he wrote. "Thanks everyone for your concern."

His supporters wrote back with words of support, with many declaring him a "hero" who had done well even if he had fallen short of his target.

"So awesome!" one user wrote. "What innovative thinking and action!"

"It's enough that you came back safely," wrote another. "Brother Xu, your countrymen are proud of your pioneering act!"

Xu did not post any further details on his voyage but in two September microblog postings, he excitedly made note of his plans. 

In one, he shared a photo of a red Chinese flag with islands in the background.

"I got some expert advice today and am now full of meteorological knowledge! I'm flying to the Diaoyu Islands! Be Chinese with attitude."

In another, he posted what appeared to be a map of his planned route, with a bright yellow line drawn between the Fujian coast and the islands.

He declared the mission "the most difficult in the history of hot-air balloon flight."

-  AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Related posts:
1.Japan stole Diaoyu Islands
2.Japan’s buying Diaoyu Islands provokes China to strike back
3.Defeated Japan ought to honor terms dictated by Cairo Declaration in post-war world order

Wednesday, 1 January 2014

Japan Prime Minister Abe’s Yasukuni visit deals blow to Japanese-US ties

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's shameful visit to the notorious Yasukuni Shrine on Thursday strikes a serious blow against US-Japan relations. The visit was completely unnecessary and directly flouted friendly and constructive advice from the Obama administration. Americans should view the present Cold War era alliance with Japan as not only unnecessary but in fact counterproductive given the trend of rising militarism in Japan.

Often people in the US and in Europe perceive that WWII started in Europe with Hitler's attack on Poland in 1939. But the fact is that the road to WWII started with the Japanese invasion of China in September 1931.

Then 10 years later, the Japanese treacherously attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Americans will never forget this day of infamy and betrayal.

Abe's visit to the notorious shrine is a direct affront to US President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden who both have worked hard to calm tensions over issues in the East China Sea. Just recently, Biden on his visit to the region encouraged the creation of joint Sino-Japanese mechanisms for crisis management.

Obama and Biden are doing their best to respond to a changing world and to the emerging multipolar international system. They have been acting in good faith toward Japan on the basis that Japan is believed to be a friend.

The American people have not held a grudge against Japan about WWII. But the increasing militarism and unacceptable behavior of leaders such as Abe may well bring back memories of WWII and cause perspectives to change.

My godfather served in the US Navy during WWII. He fought in the Pacific. I remember as a child in the 1950s hearing about his participation in the Battle of the Coral Sea. He returned home after the war and lived out his days in San Diego, California. I still have some letters he wrote to my late parents during the war.

A cousin of my father was not so fortunate. He did not return from his duty in the navy in the Pacific as he died from a kamikaze attack against his ship.

There was never once that I recall a negative word about Japan or the Japanese in my family's household. The war was over and that was that. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen on both sides had done their duty for their respective countries. Time to move on, was the feeling Americans had.

This generous attitude of many in the older generation of Americans can change as Americans of the present generation and future generations reflect on WWII. The insulting behavior of Japanese politicians such as Abe, combined with Japan's trend toward militarization and extremism, may well open eyes and dispense with a heretofore "polite" attitude. The world has seen the results of such trends before.  American opinion, if betrayed, turns rapidly.

Has Japan ever really sincerely apologized for WWII? Germany so apologized and the memory of Nazi horrors is seared into German consciousness. It has consistently demonstrated its good faith through its economic integration in Western Europe and through its constructive and peaceful foreign policy. 

Abe's shameful behavior shows Japan's official attitude for the entire world to see. He is the prime minister of Japan. He is not a private citizen making a personal religious commemoration for spirits of the war dead.

Washington must reflect carefully on its national strategy and the Asia-Pacific component. So far, the unimaginative policy has been to continue the Cold War alliance structure and to revamp US relations with the region on the basis of increased military power projection to encircle a rising China.

The Abe shrine visit should be a clear warning to Washington that this strategy is deeply flawed and not sustainable.  The US alliance with Japan and Japan's rising militarism may well prove fatally counterproductive.

Contributed by Clifford A. Kiracofe

The author is an educator and former senior professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Related posts: