|
Arguably the biggest story from last week was that Hong Kong Shanghai
Bank (HSBC) one of the world’s largest banks, has taken a $10.6
billion hit on U.S. consumer loans, specifically in the subprime arena.
(Forget for a moment, what happened to smaller concerns like New Century
Financial or NovaStar.) These problems are not only bad in and of
themselves, but in their potential effects on the global economic
system. That’s because the bank has ties to China through its original
namesake, and to Britain and the United States, through the acquisition
of Britain’s Midland bank and America’s Household
International.
Like
Austria’s Credit Anstalt bank in relation to Germany in 1931, HSBC is
located barely outside of China, but with important indirect ties to
that country. (The bank’s traditional area of strength has not been in
China per se, but rather in lending to companies based in Hong Kong or
elsewhere offshore China that do business in China.) And HSBC’s links
to the United States go far beyond what Credit Anstalt boasted. Besides
being one of the largest banks around, HSBC thus represents a connection
between the world’s two most important economies like perhaps no other
bank in the world. Thus, a problem in one country could be transmitted
through HSBC via a weakening of the bank, to a curtailment of its role
vis-à-vis the other country.
The
danger arises because the world’s two big economic bubbles are U.S.
consumer spending and Chinese capital spending. HSBC’s recent problems
were tied to the former. So far, I haven’t heard of issues for the
bank in connection with the latter. Even so, the fact that HSBC is
having major problems at one end of the spectrum has to be unsettling.
And unfortunately I don’t know enough about the bank’s exposures at
the other end to even guesstimate the extent of potential problems
before they are actually reported.
At
the risk of a slight digression, one knows that the U. S. consumer
lending market is on its last legs when lenders like Bank of America
considers illegal immigrants a hot market for its loan products, because
everything better has already been mined. (I owned, then sold, the stock
in the past year when the full extent of the bank’s exposures became
apparent to me. If I were to take a position today, it would be short.)
This seems like a case of trying to suck the last bit of juice from an
already oversqueezed lemon, an extreme application of the well known law
of diminishing returns. HSBC, through Household International, was on
the horns of the same dilemma.
And
some think that Chinese capital spending may be in similar straits.
Columnist Jim Jubak is a case in point. In his article “Time is
Running Out on China’s Economic Boom,” he rightly points out that
“the current spate of growth has been built on non-renewable human,
environmental, and capital resources,” which is to say that it is soon
likely to regress to the global mean as Japan’s economic miracle did
in the 1980s. And such a regression, while normal for the United States,
would represent a hard landing for China. That’s because the
distribution of wealth in that nominally socialist, and increasingly
nationalistic, country is now so unequal (somewhat worse than the United
States, somewhat better than Brazil), that large segments of the
population would suffer even if the aggregates remained in positive
territory.
The
collapse of the Credit Anstalt Bank, with its ripple effect on Germany,
probably was more responsible than events stateside, for the length and
severity of the Global Depression of the 1930s. (And it ended Weimar,
Germany’s experiment with democracy, bringing about the rise of Adolf
Hitler and national socialism.) That’s because of its impact on the
already-shaky economies of a whole continent, Europe. Because of
China’s economic clout (represented by the fact that it is now the
largest international holder of U.S. dollars), the end of the Chinese
economic miracle would have grave consequences for the United States, as
well as for the rest of Asia. Hence I take little comfort in the
presumed ability of the Fed to ward off the crisis. And because its
importance is even greater in Asia than in the U.S., HSBC could have a
major role in bringing the Chinese miracle to an end.
Some
may find it hard to reconcile these remarks with my “constructive”
investment posture for 2007. The reason I am not a full fledged bear
right now is because historically, most of the nation’s financial
crises on one contributor’s February 15th list, have
originated in the corporate or international, rather than U.S. consumer,
sector. (My investments are tilted in favor of industrial, capital
goods, and international stocks, and away from U.S. consumer goods and
financials.) The non-consumer/non-financial areas are quite healthy for
now. Stateside, I believe the resident bear when he characterizes the
(consumer) subprime mortgage and securitization markets as a
“fungus” but like the resident bull (albeit with less assurance), I
don’t (yet!) believe that it will have national or global
ramifications. Even so, this posture is probably skating on thin ice,
because I regard this theme as “warm.” And if I hear that HSBC has
major problems with industrial exposures, perhaps to China’s troubled
state-owned enterprises (SOEs), my days as a “bull” will be
numbered.

© 2007 Thomas P. Au
Editorial Archive
CONTACT
INFORMATION
Thomas P. Au
R. W. Wentworth
New York City, NY
Email
|