主题：【欢迎点评】大摩亚洲首席经济学家谢国忠：泡沫之争 - 石油 vs. 房地产 -- Chieftain

Asia Pacific: Bubble Fight - Oil vs. Property

Andy Xie (Hong Kong)

Cyclical strength in the global economy, especially in China and the US, depends on the relative price change between property and oil. Property is the currency for consumption in the US and investment in China. A rising oil price is a tax that decreases the potency of property as a currency for expenditure.

The Fed cut interest rates aggressively to cushion the downturn from the bursting of the IT bubble. The excess liquidity led to a global property bubble, which turned into consumption boom in Anglo-Saxon economies and an investment boom in China. The Fed kept the interest rate at 1% for longer due to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the Iraq War. The property bubble has now become so big that inflated demand is overwhelming oil supply.

The high oil price creates massive income redistribution to oil producers from the rest of the world. It takes income away from US consumers and Chinese investors, who have been pumping up global demand. Hence, the income redistribution due to the higher oil price is contractionary for the global economy, in my view.

The global economy has experienced Japan’s property bubble in 1980s, the investment bubble in Southeast Asia in the 1990s, the IT bubble between the Asian Financial Crisis and 2000, and a global property bubble since. The demand impact from the property bubble has created an oil bubble. The oil bubble, however, is different from previous bubbles. It creates inflation and forces central banks to raise interest rates. That could deflate the property bubble, which would in turn kill the oil bubble also. If the global property bubble deflates in an environment of rising interest rates, it will likely lead to a global recession. I put the odds for such a scenario at 30% for the second half of 2005.

Property Bubble Sustains US Consumption …

As the Fed cut interest rates to 1% to fight deflation, it sparked a property bubble around the world. The bubble led to strong consumption growth in the US, despite anemic income growth, and massive investment in China, despite low returns on capital. The net wealth of the US households increased from US$42.3 in 2000 to US$45.2 trillion in 1Q04, within which the real estate component increased from US$12.5 to US$16.6 trillion. The value of real estate increased by 31% between 2000 and 2003, compared with 13% between 1997 and 2000. Without the extra increase in real estate value, US household wealth would have remained stagnant. Further, the consumption demand derived from the extra real estate wealth has revived US corporate profits and, hence, the stock market. US personal consumption increased by US$1 trillion between 2000 and 2003. Large tax cuts played an important role in creating this growth. However, I believe the property appreciation of US$4.1 trillion during this period may have been more important.

… and Fuels Chinese Investment

Investment and exports drive China’s economy. The money from exports has gone into investment, which has generated imports. Massive capital inflows, as reflected in an increase of US$303 billion in forex reserves since the end of 2001, have added to the funds for investment. However, because investment levels are too high, return on capital in China is generally low. Capital inflows and export income do not automatically translate into investment. Either the government has to make the investment or profit expectations must improve. The government pushed investment in 1998 and triggered an infrastructure investment boom. Rising profit expectations due to rising property prices have driven the current investment boom.

China’s property bubble has increased profit expectations dramatically. I have noticed widespread price inflation even in second-tier cities. Government statistics show a 20% increase in residential property prices nationwide since the beginning of 2002. I would not be surprised if the actual increase was more than one-third. Were we to assume that nominal GDP grows at 11% per annum and property prices do not increase, the current volume of property under construction would imply that new property sales are set to reach 11.4% of GDP in 2007 from 8.4% in 2004. I estimate the redistribution of income from property buyers to businesses (from local governments to developers and materials suppliers) at about 2.5% of GDP in 2004 and 3.5% in 2007, if the property price holds up. S&P 500 companies make about this much profit as a share of US GDP.

The numbers, however, do not add up; the expectation that all the property under construction could be sold at current or higher prices is irrational. Affordability is about ten times households’ disposable income nationwide and 12-15 times in the big cities. It is virtually impossible to sell over 10% of GDP in new property at such a high price. China’s property market is a vast bubble, in my view.

As property bubble has pumped up demand, the oil price has been rising. The tight demand-supply balance makes the oil price vulnerable to speculation, which is why speculation in oil is so rampant. I believe the property bubble has caused the oil bubble. I expect China’s GDP to increase by US$200 billion in 2004, while its oil consumption is set to rise by about one million barrels per day. I estimate that, as strong demand lifts the oil price by US$15 per barrel to around US$40, the incremental direct cost of the one million barrels is US$14.6 billion, while the indirect cost through higher bills for existing imports is another US$13.6 billion. Hence, the oil bill for a US$200 billion increase in GDP is US$28.2 billion, or 14% of the GDP increase, compared with an oil cost of 6% of GDP for the economy as a whole. In other words, the marginal cost of oil consumption is more than twice as high as the average. This sort of wasteful GDP growth is clearly not sustainable.

Further, the higher oil price is sparking inflation, forcing central banks to increase interest rates. The property bubble thrives on low interest rates and plentiful of liquidity. As central banks raise interest rates, the property bubble should deflate. Hence, I don’t see how the oil and property bubbles can coexist for long. The market is exhibiting considerable enthusiasm over oil, predicting an ever-rising oil price. This is a bubble phenomenon, in my view.

Speculation in oil could make a big difference to the global economy. The tight supply-demand balance makes the oil price highly sensitive to additional demand. Speculative demand could drive the oil price sky high and make these peaks last longer. This would force central banks to raise interest rates more quickly, which may deflate the global property bubble. If this happens, I think a global recession may follow.

1。每个经济体对原油价格上升的承受力不同，美国现在石油进口所占的GDP远低于70年代能源危机，但并不是说原油价格上升对美国毫无伤害；第二季度的GDP增长和个人消费都陷入新低；在这种情况下，是不是加息对联储来说是件两难的事情，加息，会让尚未复苏的商业支出也呆滞下来；不加息，市场预期未来通涨可能性加大，而一样推高利率。格老的本本难唱，也难得他唱得挺好。他老人家现在唱的是能源价格飑升是短期现象，市场呢也终于相信通涨还挺远；所以呢，格老一边加息，那边厢10年国债的利率从4.5%跌到了4.25%，当然了，也有可能在预先反应一些“突发”事件。

2。中国和美国唱的是不是一出，得自己掂量，毕竟美国还没停水停电的。

3。美国和欧洲都面临人口老化问题，没齐准心里都想着来点通涨，货币贬点值呀啥的，大家都睁着眼睛看就是乐。

市场永远比他更聪明.

一、 从2003年初他就开始唱衰亚洲股市，但事实上是去年亚洲股市市场表现全球第一，可以说是傻瓜也能有个50%以上的收益率；要是听他的减持亚洲股，你早被老板炒了。但也不能不说他有先见之明，只是早了6-9个月；

二、他的逻辑基本如下：2000年IT泡沫破灭 --》美联储连续13次减息至1% （加上减税刺激）--》导致美国房地产泡沫 --》美国基于财富增加而非收入增长的消费快速增长 --》中国出口的快速增长 --》加上廉价美元流入中国套利（预期人民币升值）--》中国外汇储备高速增长 --》（又由于固定汇率政策）中国人民币货币供应和信贷资金高速增长 --》中国的投资泡沫和经济高速增长 --》全球原材料和石油需求飙升 --》（加上全球经济逐步复苏、中东局势紧张、俄罗斯尤科斯案、OPEC增产能力有限）石油泡沫形成 --》既影响全球的总产出，又激发通涨 --》美联储进入加息通道 --》房地产泡沫开始破灭 --》上面所有过程逆转 --》石油泡沫破灭 --》全球经济衰退 （30%的可能性，时间在2005年下半年）

三、他的逻辑非常漂亮，能很好的自圆其说，经济学家做到这个份上也算不输此生了。但是他好象是首先假设泡沫一定会定时定点破裂，然后逻辑和/或逻辑的假设条件围绕结论转：

1。首先房地产有泡沫是正常的，其次泡沫可以是爆裂，也可以是逐渐消退。在后一种情况下，经济体本身就能承受和消化副面影响了；

2。加息不会象他想象的那样快 -- 美联储9月份加不加息还难说；英国央行今年应该就到此为止了；欧洲央行年内也难加息；我国香港由于联席汇率制度安排会跟得紧点，但亚洲各国跟不跟就没谱了（泰国可能会快点）；南韩干脆反其道而行之，昨天还减息25基点；中国我看4季度也不太可能加上来，即使加，能加美国的一半幅度就到顶了。

3。油价今年看来40美元一桶是站稳了，2005年下半年还难说。

4。中国经济他一直认为会硬着陆（因为投资泡沫破灭），我看最大的可能是波浪式着陆，时间会长一点，最后应该有惊无险。

5。亚洲各国的消费增长应该能部分弥补投资增长的减缓。

四、结论：他的文章不错，观点长期坚持不懈总会有对的时候，毕竟经济有波动是正常的，有异动也不奇怪。

多少外资哭着喊着要进中国呀，比当年东南亚还要疯狂些。也好，对银行的坏帐变现和金融改革是有利的。这个机会抓住，台海问题处理得细致些，中国长期看好。

首长好象一说经济就会面色一正，好玩，好玩。

forecasting and transaction cost。打个比方，人们赶火车，大多会提前去车站,forecasting也有这个问题，预计的时间常常比实际发生的时间早，呵呵。为什么会早，原因也许很多，不过预计结果的本身对于事件的推迟也许有一定的影响。

bubble从理论上来讲是很难处理的，好象关于bubble并没有一个明确清晰的定义，处理这类东东有时候经验是关键。

最后为首长的帖子呼吁一下，加精，加精。