From RenCen to Wolfsburg, all eyes are on China. Ok, so this year China will build and buy 18 million cars or thereabouts. But what about next year? Carmakers in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. are dependent on the Chinese growth machine. So what will it be? Boom or bust? Read More >
Today, Bloomberg delights its readers with the news that “General Motors Co.’s passenger-car venture in China sold its millionth unit this year, becoming the first carmaker to reach that sales level in the world’s largest auto market.” Spinmeistery at maximum revolutions.
Just a few days ago, the same Bloomberg had this story: Read More >
GM China, our recently no longer so reliable oracle for the Chinese market, raised its November sales by 11 percent, compared to an absolutely batty November 2009. 11 percent are not the same growth as the 109.5 percent GM China had recorded in last year’s November, but how much battier do you expect them to get? The more meaningful number is that for the first 11 months of 2010: From January through November, GM’s China sales jumped 33 percent to a mind-blowing 2.17 million units. GM China will most likely close out the year in the 2.35 to 2.4m area – this is higher than the total sales of some of Europe’s larger countries, and definitely a whole lot more than GM sells back home. Better get used to it. Read More >
After President Obama paid his outstanding union dues and slapped a 35 percent punitive tariff on Chinese car and light truck tires exported to the USA, we predicted two outcomes:
1.) It will start a trade war, and China will drag the U.S.A. in front of the WTO. Sure did. The WTO accepted China’s complaint, and the trade war turned into a major conflagration.
2.) We said that not a single new job will be created in the U.S.A., and “what the boneheaded decision does is simply shift tire production from China to other low cost producing countries.” Sure does. Read More >
If you are hoping that the Chinese bubble will burst in no time, putting China back on bicycles, then this story is not for you. If you are worried about little people in Asia using up all the precious hydrocarbons we use for our bigger cars, then we must warn you that reading further could be hazardous to your circulatory system. You have been warned. Read More >
Chinese dually. Picture courtesy transportfool.com
I spent an interesting Saturday with two old friends of mine. They had never met before. One, American, CFO of an insurance company, had been in the finance and banking business all his professional life. The other, born Chinese, naturalized American. Was one of the top mortgage writers in the Silicon Valley before the dotcom crash. Came back to China and heads a Chinese/American bank. The two got along splendidly.
Of course, we talked about money and cars. Recently, there was a discussion on TTAC on how the bursting of the Chinese real estate bubble would destroy the car market just like it had in the USA. I eagerly set out to pick their brains.
Quite oddly, the first one to throw water on the bubble theory was my friend, the staid CFO of the staid insurance company. Read More >
Some people think that Geely’s acquisition of Ford’s Volvo is driven by the desire for sorely needed know-how for China’s auto industry. Who thinks that way is “totally underestimating” the technological advances made by businesses in the Far East. This comes from none less than GM’s Nick Reilly. If anyone understands the true capabilities of the Chinese Auto industry, then it’s Reilly. He’s been there, in charge of a big part of China’s auto industry. He knows: Geely’s Volvo purchase can mean the great leap forward for Chinese car exports. Read More >
Yesterday, we reported that China wants to be a market of 20m cars in 2012. We didn’t predict that, just reporting the news, ma’am.
A hue and cry ensued: “Can’t be!”
Commentator ohsnapback, who’s forte is lawyering, a much more complex field than economics, prognosticated an immediate burst of the Chinese bubble, with a mega tonnage of more than 100 times of our housing bubble. The argument was promptly defused. After all, China doesn’t borrow money. They lend it. Mostly to the U.S.
Then, commentator ra_pro rolled out the really big ordnance: “As I said many times previously: Demography is Chinese destiny as it is Japan’s.” If people would only stop prattling on about demographics, and would check their data first. Read More >
Representatives Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Dan Boren (D- Oklahoma) are tired of Obama’s punitive tariff on Chinese tires. They called for a government report on the economy-wide effects of the measure, Reuters reports.
“I am concerned that the administration’s tire tax will cost us jobs in the United States and raise prices for tires for hardworking Americans,” Brady said. Read More >
News that GM is selling a control-shifting single share in GM Shanghai to its Chinese partner SAIC was the toads-from-heaven flourish at the end of an epic week for the RenCen. The day after the last of GM’s lifer CEOs left the building, Opel’s CFO followed suit. One management re-organization and a rough LA Auto Show later, came this symbolic surrender of GM’s largest market for a measly $85m. Accompanied by news that The General would buy out Suzuki’s stake in CAMI for an estimated $46.5m, no less. Oh yeah, and something about India. Freshly-minted CEO and notorious rattlesnake killer Ed Whitacre isn’t about be accused of not trying to shake things up. The only question is where will everything land?
It’s been year since we blogged Chinese press reports that China’s SAIC might buy GM. It turned out to be one of many Chinese rumors that followed. We became the target of hate mongering—some idiots even accused us of driving down GM’s and Chrysler’s stock price. Duh, buyout rumors usually drive prices up. At the time, the GM stock was worth at least a little money: the market cap of GM was less than Mattel. Months later, the stock was worthless. GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. Instead of the Chinese owning GM and Chrysler, the American taxpayer ended up holding the barf bag.
It took a year and six days to dawn on CNN Money that a Chinese-owned GM might not be such an outlandish idea after all. “A Chinese-owned GM, it could happen,” headlines CNN Money today.
Read More >
If right-wingnut Glenn Beck needs a China hater on the tube, he usually calls Gordon G. Chang. Chang is always good for talking bad about China. In 2001, Gordon Chang published a book titled. “The Coming Collapse of China.” In it, he predicted that China would implode by 2006, if not earlier, due to the mass of non-performing loans in Chinese state banks. Much to the chagrin of Chang, China is still standing. It must give Chang heart palpitations that the Chinese economy grew more than three times since he penned his doomsday book. To add injury to irony, instead of a China syndrome caused by the meltdown of Chinese banks, a non-performing global financing firm called Lehman Brothers started a chain reaction in 2008 that brought the world financial system to the brink of nuclear winter.
China ranks as the world’s third largest economy since it passed by Germany in 2007. China is likely to overtake Japan to become the world’s second largest economy, either this year or by 2010. In the world of Gordon Chang, all this growth must be as real as a Gucci bag at China’s notorious fake markets.
Read More >
A year ago, the 21st Century Business Herald reported that SAIC might buy GM and Dongfeng might buy Chrysler. TTAC was the first to break the story in the USA. As a result, our servers melted down, and we were accused of driving down GM’s and Chrysler’s stock price. Usually, buyout rumors drive prices up. But GM and Chrysler had only one way to go: Down. Months later, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. They became a ward of the US government. Chrysler was given away to Fiat. GM was trimmed down to the barest minimum and is still owned by the US government. And the China story turned out to be a myth.
Following this, stories of Chinese car companies buying US car companies became a regular staple. Up to now, it is mostly talk and little action.
Read More >
President Obama paid his outstanding union dues and slapped a 35 percent punitive tariff on Chinese car and light truck tires exported to the USA. The new duty will take effect on September 26 and comes in addition to an existing 4 percent duty, Reuters reports. Everybody, except for the United Steelworkers, agrees that this is one of the most boneheaded decisions of the new administration.
No American tire manufacturer supported the case. Cooper Tire even publicly opposed it. No wonder: US tire companies are the biggest offenders (in the eyes of the United Steelworkers), having moved most if not all of their budget segment tire production to low labor cost overseas sites. Chinese tires are not in the USA because China wants to rape and pillage the market. Chinese tires are here, because US tire companies set up joint ventures in China to make what the market demands: Tires for less.
China is not the only exporter of budget tires to the USA. According to the Wall Street Journal, 43 percent of the tires sold in the USA are imported. Only 11 percent are imported from China. The far larger share is imported from low labor cost countries such as Malaysia, India, or Central Europe. What the boneheaded decision does is simply shift tire production from China to other low cost producing countries. These countries can take advantage of 11 percent of the tires effectively removed from the US market. The low cost producers can raise their prices until the market settles. The American consumer will bear the cost. Not a single new job is created in US tire companies. Jobs will be lost at tire distributors and dealers. This decision achieves nothing for America except higher prices and troubles with China.
The American Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition wrote in a letter to the US Trade Representative John Kirk: “The absence of tires from China in the market will raise costs to downstream consuming industries, including automobile manufacturers, will limit consumer choices and affect most seriously those with the fewest resources. Thus, these tariffs will be the most regressive of taxes.”
“Those with the fewest resources” (i.e., the poor) are easiest sold on buying the import-restriction Kool-Aid. They drink it in big gulps: Imports bad for jobs. When they find out that fewer low cost imports mean higher prices, that they still have no jobs, and that their welfare check buys much less, then it’s too late.
The complaint by the US Steelworkers does not allege unfair trade practices. No longer needed. In US law, there is a special anti-China provision, called section 421. The Hong Kong Trade Development Council explains the complicated law in the most succinct way: “Under Section 421, the USITC determines whether a specific product from the mainland is being imported into the U.S. in such increased quantities, or under such conditions, as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption. ‘Market disruption’ is defined as rapidly increasing imports, either absolutely or relatively, so as to cause or threaten to cause material injury to a U.S. domestic industry. If the USITC makes an affirmative determination it proposes a remedy, which the president may or may not implement.”
The USITC is the United States International Trade Commission, “an independent, quasi-judicial federal agency that provides trade policy advice to both the legislative and executive branches of government.” The USITC is often called the International Trade Commission to give it a fake supranational flair. It’s pure US government.
“Market disruption” is a vague concept. If anyone feels disrupted by Chinese imports, they can petition the USITC. If the USITC accepts it and takes it to the president, and if he signs it, no more Chinese imports. Under Bush, for all his failings, every section 421 petition that reached his desk was rejected: He had to decide on strategically important goods such as wire hangers, steel pipe, brake drums and rotors and “pedestal actuators,” a component used in scooters for the disabled. All voted down.
Obama approved the first 421 petition that was put before him. China and US companies are rightly afraid that this will trigger a flurry of section 421 cases. “Multinational companies such as Caterpillar Inc., Citigroup Inc. and Microsoft Corp. have urged Obama to refrain from curbing imports, saying it could lead to a “downward protectionist spiral,” writes Bloomberg.
The United Steelworkers based their complaint on the allegation that Chinese tires had cost a paltry 5,000 union jobs over a number of years. Which of course is bunk. The jobs were lost because US consumers increasingly refuse to buy the high priced tires, and because US tire companies have reacted to consumer demand and moved their production elsewhere. Only one fourth of the tire imports comes from China.
Understandably, the Chinese are deeply upset. China’s state-run news agency, Xinhua, writes, “This ruling came at a time when the U.S. economy is at an uncertain turning point from the worst recession since World War II.” Officially, China exercises restraint. “Observers said that the president needs his people to help make domestic reform smoother,” is as low as Xinhua wants to publicly stoop.
The verbiage from China’s Ministry of Commerce is stronger: “China expressed strong dissatisfaction and is resolutely opposed to this,” said China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) spokesman Yao Jian. “This does not comply with WTO agreements on subsidies. The U.S. used an incorrect method to define and calculate the subsidies, which has resulted in an artificially high subsidy rate, hurting Chinese firms’ interests.”
What China is likely to do is threefold:
One, China will drag the USA in front of the WTO. China will have the tacit or open support from other low-cost countries, including the EU (many low cost countries, such as Poland or Romania are EU members.) The world will also love to slap around a country that demanded free trade as long as free trade was good for America. Note that China mentioned “subsidies.” The bail-outs will come on the table also. WTO proceedings can drag on forever.
Two, China will take some tit-for-tat measures. On the table is a hefty tariff on US auto imports to China. During the first half of the year, China imported more than $1 billion worth of automobiles from the US. China could buy fewer Boeings and more Airbusses. If things get really bad, China could put a dent in the Chinese growth of the automotive ward of the state, GM. Europe will love it all.
Three, Chinese President Hu Jintao will give Obama a tongue-lashing when they meet in Pittsburgh at the G-20 Summit September 24-25. Obama will be gently or not so gently reminded that America’s largest creditor deserves a little better treatment, or the money could be moved elsewhere. Timothy Geithner will also be reminded that his announcement in June that “Chinese assets are very safe” is bunk. The greenback is on its way down. A EURO bought $1.46 today and it’s heading toward $1.50. Come to think of it, a falling dollar is the best protection against cheap imports from all corners of the world: The lower the dollar, the more expensive the imports. A truly free market needs no section 421.
Forbes writes: “The current round of disputes will undoubtedly end up in a trade war, and China, a country extraordinarily dependent on exports, will surely be the biggest loser.”
Don’t bet on it.
America is already involved in two shooting wars which it couldn’t afford would China not buy its bonds. America cannot afford two shooting wars and a trade war with its largest creditor.
China is becoming the new America, while America is becoming the old China. Jack Perkowski thinks it’s happening right now. Jack is an Old China Hand and a colleague in the automotive parts business. He’s an American and a Yale graduate. Fifteen years ago, he came to China and started ASIMCO, an auto component manufacturing company. In January, Perkowski left the company. The global decline in the business didn’t spare ASIMCO. Perkowski is a true Lao Wai, which literally translates into “Old Foreigner” in Mandarin. From one of the first in China, we inherited a lot of his experience. Some is chronicled in Perkowski’s book Managing the Dragon, which made the bestseller lists. Most is regularly updated in Perkowski’s blog that goes by the same name. In a recent post, he left us some interesting thoughts. Some may find them revolting, even seditious.
During my time here, China has become the third largest economy in the world, the world’s largest market for cars, computers, cell phones and a host of other products, and the country has accumulated $2 trillion of foreign currency reserves. China is now the single largest investor in the United States, unthinkable in 1994 when China had less than $50 billion of reserves.
As the single largest creditor, is China worried about where the U.S. of A. are going? Perkowski sure thinks so:
Given all that has transpired, the leaders at Zhongnanhai must be scratching their heads, wondering what their counterparts in the United States are up to. It began with Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and a host of accounting scandals. In a flash, the financial statements of Chinese companies were just as believable and just as transparent, if not more so, than those of U.S. companies. Then it was Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Bank of America, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Citicorp and the meltdown of the U.S. financial industry. Hoping to learn how to develop its own financial system, China encouraged investments in its state-owned banks by leading U.S. players. Maybe they aren’t such good examples to follow after all?
While China is trying to divest itself from state-owned companies, what is China’s largest debtor doing? Just the opposite.
But the sharp left turn that the Obama Administration has taken since coming to power must really have China’s leaders wondering. Not just the banks, but now large industrial companies, are owned by the U.S. government, and the United States is doing what any government does when it owns companies—it meddles, and political, not economic, considerations are taking precedence.
The takeover of the car industry by the US government reminds Perkowski of the bad old days in China. The courts ignoring the law? Employment for the working masses trumps turning a profit? Where does one still find these egregious practices?
Rather than let the bankruptcy system work as it has over the years to restructure companies, billions of dollars, much of which will never be recovered, have been pumped into General Motors and Chrysler, two companies that represent less than 30 percent of the U.S. automobile market and have been losing market share to foreign-owned companies that now also happen to manufacture in the United States-all in the name of saving the jobs of the United Auto Workers, whose support played an important role in getting the current administration elected.
Central planners deciding the direction of the companies? Heads of state-owned enterprises serving at the pleasure of party bosses?
An administration-appointed car czar, not the company’s board of directors, has fired the General Motors chairman and CEO and installed a new CEO, president and chairman. General Motors is told what plants it cannot close and where its offices should be located. Barney Frank personally called the General Motors CEO to reverse a decision to close a GM distribution facility in his district, and President Obama himself assured Detroit’s mayor that GM’s headquarters would remain in Detroit, rather than move to a neighboring suburb. Undoubtedly, the Obama Administration and Congress will tell their management appointees what types of cars GM should produce. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai and their U.S. workers must be delighted with this turn of events.
At least we can find solace in the fact that there still is justice in America. Perkowski is beginning to have his doubts.
As for the vaunted ‘rule of law’ that the United States has been known for, ask the GM and Chrysler secured bondholders what they think. And as for manufacturing statistics—Americans are being told that the administration will ‘save or create’ 600,000 jobs this summer, a statistic that the Wall Street Journal has labeled an ‘immeasurable metric.’
I there anything that doesn’t remind Perkowski of the times before Deng Xiaoping? Yes. China was never ruled by Russian Emperors, who were famous for mistreating their serfs:
A newly appointed pay czar (there are now more than 20 such ‘czars’ in Washington) will now review the compensation of the top 100 managers of any company that has received support from the government.
So what does Perkowski suggest?
Somewhere along the line, the United States picked up that socialist economic playbook that Deng Xiaoping was smart enough to throw away. Perhaps the U.S. should ‘follow Deng’ and go back to what got the United States, and now China, to where it is today?
Recent Comments