Tuesday, June 29, 2010

How decoupling will play out

I find the hypothesis difficult to digest that all markets will remain coupled for all times to come. I have always maintained that decoupling plays out over a longer time frame and in the short run due to the linkages of the financial markets the movement of asset classes across countries tend to be linked to each other. However given the widely different growth prospects across economies in the longer run there is likely to be a very significant decoupling.
For example if we consider the real estate market in Western economies and in India. The Indian real estate market after going through a strong upmove in the mid 1990s went through a phase of nearly 10 years where the prices did not move up at all. A number of investor who bought property in the mid 1990s got the same or lower price for them till the year 2004, at which point the real estate boom started in India. However this was a time when real estate performed exceedingly well in countries like the US, UK and a large part of Europe.
The hypothesis that all markets are coupled and follow the US markets is the story of Western analysts who refuse to believe that the engines of economic growth are shifting Eastwards today.
The most historic event of decoupling has been the big boom in the US stock markets right through the 1990s, which corresponded to the bursting of the Japanese stock market bubble. The Dow went up from a level of 1938 at the end of 1988 to a level of 11500 by the end of the year 1999. In the same time period the Japanese markets fell from a level of 39000 at the end of 1989 to a level of 19000 at the end of 1999. Thus the biggest boom of the stock markets in the US corresponded to the big decline in Japanese stock markets and the economy.
I believe that a similar thing is likely to happen over the next decade for India (and some other emerging economies).
The reasons are very similar. The Indian economy is very well placed to grow at a rapid pace over the next decade given the huge structural strengths. The financial system in India is in a very robust position, Savings rate is high and household debt is extremely low, fiscal consolidation seems to be well under way with the government willing to take key reformist decisions. Funding costs for the huge investments required for infrastructure development will remain low due to the deflationary scare in Western economies which will key rates low for a prolonged period of time. As such both equity and debt funding should be easily available. Consumption growth in India will be strong with the nearly 10% expansion in Percapita GDP per year over the next decade. Thus both investment and consumption will drive economic growth.
It is estimated that over the next five years the average growth in the US economy will be 1.8%, Europe 0.8% and Japan 0.5%. As against this India is expected to grow at the rate of 8.5% and China at 7.5-8%.
The key is to see how this will play out in the decoupling story. The reason is very simple. If the US grows at 1.8% pa with fears of deflation then the long term i.e. 10 year earnings growth should track the nominal GDP growth plus some benefits due to productivity improvements and due to the fact that US MNCs have got a significant overseas presence which will benefit from the growth of the emerging economies where they have a presence and will contribute to their growth. In Indian the nominal GDP growth will be around 15% pa and there will be significant productivity improvements over the next decade. Now if we take the base of earnings today at 100 as on today both for the US and India and take an earnings growth rate of 4% for the US and 20% for Indian companies then the base of 100 will be 148 for the US and 619 for India at the end of 2020. As such the Dow Jones index from a level of 10000 is likely to be 15000 in that year and the BSE Sensex from a level of 18000 is likely to be 110000 by that year. Looks slightly incredulous so let’s discount it by 20% to get a level of around 90000 by that time.
In both the decades of the 1980s and 1990s the Sensex went up by around 6 times. This was a time when the average GDP growth in India was around 5.5%. Now that we are in an 8-9% GDP growth phase a similar thing is most likely and probable than not.
The overall financing costs in India are also likely to go down due to the upgrade of the countries credit ratings which will reduce the risk premium of investing into India. As such valuations are likely to only move up rather than down and the levels of the markets at 5 times the current levels are more on the conservative side than on the aggressive side.

As such investors will be better of buying into all dips to play the long term bull market of India.

8 comments:

  1. Abhishek SinghJun 29, 2010 01:51 AM
    We all perhaps remember this old saying “When US sneezes, the rest of world catches a cold”. This is because United States is the biggest economy in the whole world. Even the emerging markets (EMs) and prominently BRIC nations’ combined GDP is only 60% that of the US. For a long time the emerging economies (which are mostly export oriented) have depended heavily on the consumption behavior of the US. Hence to analyze whether the decoupling has happened, we need to explore how these EMs have grown in the last decade with respect to the US economy. It would be unfair if we do not analyze financial (investment) and business (trade) decoupling separately.

    As per me, Business decoupling is happening at a rattling speed.One of the reasons for this is the tremendous increase in local consumption and investments. These EMs are building more power plants, constructing new highways and skyscrapers and other infrastructure projects, pushing up demand and inter EMs trade opportunities.We, in India, are evident to that.

    But what about financial decoupling? Recently we saw how the sub-prime crisis caused immense turbulence in the stock markets right from the US to EMs, which witnessed heavy selling by the US based financial institutions due to the change in risk behavior of investors. The credit monster has hurt both the US and EMs financial markets. Even in the past, when EMs were net foreign borrowers, capital inflows tended to dry up during global downturns as foreign investors shunned risky assets. It appears as if the financial decoupling is still not as strong as the business decoupling. However, these economies now have much better monetary and fiscal policies to protect their economies from the fallout.

    Thus, the old saying still remains “When US sneezes, the rest of world catches a cold” relevant but extremely limited in magnitude. I won’t say that decoupling is fully complete; it may take a decade or so to restrict US flu to its premises, without spreading cold elsewhere...
    ReplyDelete
  2. Abhishek SinghJun 29, 2010 01:55 AM
    We all perhaps remember this old saying “When US sneezes, the rest of world catches a cold”. This is because United States is the biggest economy in the whole world. Even the emerging markets (EMs) and prominently BRIC nations’ combined GDP is only 60% that of the US. For a long time the emerging economies (which are mostly export oriented) have depended heavily on the consumption behavior of the US. Hence to analyze whether the decoupling has happened, we need to explore how these EMs have grown in the last decade with respect to the US economy. It would be unfair if we do not analyze financial (investment) and business (trade) decoupling separately.

    As per me, Business decoupling is happening at a rattling speed.One of the reasons for this is the tremendous increase in local consumption and investments. These EMs are building more power plants, constructing new highways and skyscrapers and other infrastructure projects, pushing up demand and inter EMs trade opportunities.We, in India, are evident to that.

    But what about financial decoupling? Recently we saw how the sub-prime crisis caused immense turbulence in the stock markets right from the US to EMs, which witnessed heavy selling by the US based financial institutions due to the change in risk behavior of investors. The credit monster has hurt both the US and EMs financial markets. Even in the past, when EMs were net foreign borrowers, capital inflows tended to dry up during global downturns as foreign investors shunned risky assets. It appears as if the financial decoupling is still not as strong as the business decoupling. However, these economies now have much better monetary and fiscal policies to protect their economies from the fallout.

    Thus, the old saying still remains “When US sneezes, the rest of world catches a cold” relevant but extremely limited in magnitude. I won’t say that decoupling is fully complete; it may take a decade or so to restrict US flu to its premises, without spreading cold elsewhere...
    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJun 29, 2010 03:14 AM
    Hi sandeep since you follow astrology what are your views on a rare planetary event termed as the Cardinal Climax said to occur somewhere on July 30 - 01st August 2010.
    ReplyDelete
  4. valueinvestor2010Jun 30, 2010 10:05 AM
    Sandipji is it possible that there is an Emerging Market Carry Trade developing?
    Interest rates in EU & US are at record lows but there is no growth.
    India, Brazil and a few EM's have higher interest rates and decent local growth[not export growth].
    As a result firms will borrow cheap there and invest here.[e.g. Abbott, Japanese investment in Kotak today]
    If done right it could give us good FDI and make the market an outperformer.
    Otherwise it could lead to sharp inflation and appreciation in currency exchange rates??Just wanted to check if I am on the right track.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Nirav DoshiJul 2, 2010 03:35 AM
    I agree to the analysis. Even if you go back in 2006 same time around today i.e. in June we were at 10000 sensex level today we stand at 17500 which is 15% CAGR return. Remember we also had 60% down trend and a 125% upswing in this time frame. So if you go with same rate for another 10 years we will be at 70500 considering all the volatility to come during the decade.

    So i feel 90000 as per your analysis is very much possible.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Vijay SivasankaranJul 3, 2010 06:59 AM
    Sandip - Good work in SBI - And Thanks ;)

    6 times growth from 18000 looks yummy - One big chunk of that please... Few arguments against the post(Mungerism)...

    1) There is no guarentee that sensex companies earnings need to grow in a similar fashion - It could undergrow the market and may never realize the potential

    2) what are your thoughts on things that could go against the growth you mentioned for sensex even if the GDP grows as predicted?
    ReplyDelete
  7. DB SystemJul 10, 2010 09:04 PM
    Well, i am a professional FX, Option and Future trader. Methods we use at wall street are not usually published. 5% folks really make lot of money. Sandip has done a great job with his posts, it is refreshing to read up on his ideas.

    While the debate is on, maybe folks want to try this out, my brother made $10,878 (USD) in 12 months, starting with $10,000 capital. Working for the bank i am not allowed to use any such tools, but this has really worked well, i saw his reports. You can download this forex trading automatic system, takes few hours to setup and start making money while you sleep.

    http://wallstreetforex.forexprofitsreview.com/

    Keep up the debates!
    ReplyDelete
  8. TeeKayJul 11, 2010 10:04 AM
    Hi Sandip -
    Whereas I feel that you have tried to back up your hypotheses with lots of logic, one thing I have realised is that logic does not work at all times in the markets. You never know what kind of political uncertainity or Euro Zone debt crisis or US credit crisis will strike us and make us all look like fools.

    The market might end up even more than what you suggest,the point i am trying to make is that you being a financial expert should advise more caution rather than painting such a rosy picture in front of gullible retail investors. Even the so called expert fund managers are in the same category as retail investors.

    To give you an example, I started investing in stock markets in the year 2004, with 50% self managed funds, and 50% investments thru the mutual fund industry.

    Today, I stand at 4% gain for self-managed funds just because i never believed the long term bull theory. My mutual fund investments ( one of them in JM also ) stand at 5% loss.

    However, my friends/cousins who believed in the rosy picture of Mutual Fund managers/salespersons now rue their decision of sticking with them with some of them having losses over 20%.

    Please remember than your articles are being read by ordinary retail investors who are investing their hard earned money. They are uneducated ( in the finnacial world) , hence they are gullible and are like children who want to play with fire. In such cases, experts like u need to caution them.
    ReplyDelete