US Fed holds off from raising record low interest rates

The US Federal Reserve has announced its much-anticipated decision to maintain interest rates at the current level of around zero percent. Fed Chair Janet Yellen retreated on the impending rise due to concerns regarding the global economy and China’s slowdown.

“We’ve long expected to see some slowing in Chinese growth over time as they rebalance their economy. There are no surprises there. The question is whether or not there will be a risk of a more abrupt slowdown than most analysts expect,” Yellen said at a press conference, according to the BBC.

Following the announcement, Yellen spoke of the possibility of increasing the interest rate in October instead

Although the US unemployment rate fell to 5 percent in August, the lowest level since 2008, the Fed is keen to see a further improvement to the labour market before raising interest rates. In addition, the target inflation rate of around 2 percent has not been achieved either – which places more pressure on the Fed to hold off on the increase.

Further domestic concerns include falling stock prices and the appreciation of the dollar – factors which could lead to slowing economic growth in the country, despite its positive performance over the past year.

Following the announcement, Yellen spoke of the possibility of increasing the interest rate in October instead. Despite general consensus in the Fed that the rise will take place before the end of the 2015, Reuters reported that four policymakers believe it will not happen until next year or beyond.

Both the World Bank and the IMF have called for the Fed to continue holding off due to the impact that the increase may have on emerging markets, particularly given this year’s global economic slowdown.

What does it take to make a city ‘smart’?

Despite covering just two percent of the globe’s surface, more than half of the world’s population now lives in cities, consuming approximately 75 percent of mankind’s resources. Given the rapid rate of urbanisation, economies must contend with a multitude of complex challenges as pressure mounts for cities to become sustainable, in all aspects related to the term. Those that don’t will bear increasingly harmful repercussions – economically, socially and politically. It’s not just a matter of greener practices; all factions of society stand to lose unless practical solutions to rapidly expanding populations are implemented.

As the world adjusts to the urban phenomenon of the 21st century – albeit it at a frustratingly slow pace – there are some cities that stand out in terms of their efforts to become sustainable. Singapore has made commendable strides to reduce congestion in urban dwellings; Munich is a pioneer in green energy, while Rio de Janeiro is taking steps to tackle its infamous favela crisis.

Yet, no city has got it completely right yet. There is no utopic centre that resolves the various, interlinked obstacles they face, from housing to quality of life and water scarcity – the list goes on. “Cities that are not sustainable begin to breed other problems – not just environmental ones”, said Gilberto Arias, Senior Advisor, participating at the UNFCCC in climate change and sustainable development.

Top 10 sustainable cities, 2015

Frankfurt
London
Copenhagen
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Berlin
Seoul
Hong Kong
Madrid
Singapore

Source: Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index

Multifaceted challenges
Traffic jams are the mainstay of any metropolis – as all city dwellers know too well. Not only is road congestion detrimental to the environment, (according to the International Road Transport Union, traffic increases CO2 emissions by around 300 percent), it also holds significant economic and social implications. The inefficiency of a city’s road network can stunt both private and public sectors, wasting valuable time and money. Yet air pollution is not limited to vehicles – businesses, homes and public structures alike are guilty of harmful carbon emissions.

The consequences of climate change are already being witnessed globally, identifiable as unpredictable weather conditions that severely disrupt cities and their communities. City mayors and businesses are charged with the feat of promoting efficiency and implementing more effective monitoring systems, but these kind of changes do not happen overnight – they require governmental support for training, funding and most importantly, motivation.

As resources become more scarce and expensive, the issue of efficiency becomes increasingly vital in all aspects of city living and sustainable practices. At present, multiple cities around the world suffer from water shortages – from developing cities such as Sao Paolo, to wealthier counterparts, including Las Vegas and Tokyo. In June, San Diego’s Water Authority banned several activities and placed limits on irrigation with portable water – but a long-term solution requires far more than just temporary cutbacks.

Efforts to reduce consumption, such as partnerships with local businesses and campaigns to advise citizens, can effectively change social habits and perception. Educating a city’s populace holds the key to success as sustainability necessitates support and participation from all layers and sectors of society.

The European Commission’s SWITCH report argues that by introducing green areas and clean rivers to a city, a foundation is laid for the health and character of urban communities. This in turn further motivates initiatives and a desire for a city to become more sustainable. Green architecture, including construction with biomaterials, green rooftops and urban farming not only bring a natural element to the built environment that is aesthetically pleasing, they also penetrate the social consciousness of a city.

Finding some answers
The struggle of transportation within confined urban spaces has forced some city administrators to create innovative solutions. After a warning that congestion would cost Singapore over $2bn, the country’s Land Transport Authority (LTA) introduced the e-Symphony payment card in 2008, enabling citizens to pay for buses, the metro, road tolls and even consumer goods with a simple touch. The huge advantage of the system is that it enables Singapore’s Ministry of Transport to collect extensive data on a daily basis that can alter public transportation routes in order to ensure efficiency.

Improvements are made on a regular basis, such as a distance based fare structure that was introduced in 2010. “LTA is currently working on contactless payment modes that will allow devices with Near-Field Communication technology such as wristbands and mobile phones to be used at the fare card readers in the near-term”, an LTA spokesperson told World Finance. “We are also working towards an account-based payment system where commuters are identified upfront and the transaction will be processed and charged back-end, similar to post-paid mobile phone subscription schemes. By leveraging on innovative technologies, we hope to bring greater convenience to commuters through innovative fare payment systems.”

Yet the system is not without its flaws. There are many cities that would struggle to implement a payment card that so accurately tracks movements and payments, particularly as the threat of cyber security looms more so than ever. “The Singapore proposal is very good, but you have to be careful with what you’re asking people to do, because you’ll have a backlash in different areas. In other parts of the world, people are very nervous about the information they give out to people and the government, but Singapore has a much stronger government”, Arias argued.

Understanding the cultural and social nuances between cities is crucial in order to create unique, bespoke strategies that are effective to the area in question. This again highlights why careful planning is key to the process, so that all caveats of an initiative are examined and incorporated to achieve long-term success.

On the other hand, Bolivia has taken to the skies to solve the crippling traffic jams in La Paz. Over the last two years, the incumbent government has ploughed $234m into the construction of the world’s largest cable car system, and plans to invest a further $450m into a six-line expansion. As well as being the most cost-effective solution presented by the authorities, it has fewer maintenance costs than other systems – but naturally, it also has its own risks. “I think the example illustrates that not all solutions are appropriate to all cities and that the palette is wide open for city administrators to approach intelligent and resilient urban growth.

“The cable car concept was pioneered in Medellín, Colombia and has been a huge success, not only for urban transport, but also as a tourist attraction. These are now, I believe in existence or in planning in Lagos, Nigeria, Rio de Janeiro and other cities. The cost is less than an underground system – though there will be safety issues to consider, of course”, Arias told World Finance.

Survival of the fittest
Sustainability also extends to planning for potential catastrophes and natural disasters. As demonstrated by the typhoon paths that hit Vanuatu earlier this year, which Arias explains were equivalent to the size of the Gulf of Mexico, “It really doesn’t matter where you are – you don’t have to be at the eye of a storm to have a problem. And because we have cities that are more densely populated, more people get displaced, which means that resilience for cities is important not just for places that get hit by the storm, but because people at the storm area may come to your city for shelter.” The increasing incidence and size of natural disasters also highlights the danger of maintaining a centralised power generator system, and the need to implement a robust energy strategy.

Flooding is also affecting more areas than ever before and poses grave danger to densely populated areas. “Cities at risk of flooding as a result of climate change or due to their geographic location can learn from the strategies that the private sectors has helped deliver in places like Rotterdam, where severe floods in the middle of the 20th century were the catalyst for actions taken that have kept the city safe up until the present day”, said John Batten, Global Cities Director at Arcadis, a firm specialising in global natural and built asset design and consultancy.

Curitiba in Brazil is another well-documented example of a city that has successfully mitigated against the risk through an innovative approach to flood management that began in 1995 following floods that caused $40m in damages. The Integrated Urban Drainage Master Plan involved a strategic network of parks in urban areas to not only absorb precipitation runoff, but also to provide corridors for transport through the parks and add aesthetic value to the city. An early-earning system is also in place, which has been supported by a high level of public awareness and involvement.

A tactical approach
“Effective planning can help cities create a framework to become more sustainable by helping to set a clear long-term vision for what it wants to be done and setting a roadmap of how it can get there”, said Batten. “To do this, cities need to take a balanced view of their sustainability vision.” This entails a thorough understanding of various principles and cooperation among all stakeholders in order to provide lasting solutions that meet a city’s needs, while also making it a desirable place to live and work.

More involved growth management practices and a strategic approach is vital for cities to accommodate for their expanding communities, before costs and issues spiral out of control. “We need to figure out better ways to do management of these things because without organisation, planning will become very resource intensive. If you allow cities to sprawl without any real planning or logic to it, transportation from the edges to the centre will be very difficult and expensive – not only in terms of infrastructure, but also in terms of time and services, things like fire services, hospitals, policing, all becomes very difficult”, Arias told World Finance.

A deeply collaborative and strategic effort is therefore crucial in order to make cities smart. We are in the midst of the age of urbanisation – a first in history. As such, governments face issues that they have never before encountered, issues that could be their downfall unless addressed quickly and effectively. But being sustainable involves a complex web of policies, projects and stakeholders.

It is far more than just creating green urban spaces and cleaning rivers – it entails an integrated system that works harmoniously to maximise the potential of a city. And the approach itself is not as simple as a one size fits all proven method – herein lies the difficulty. “Each city has its own challenges, which means that the priorities differ from city to city. While Los Angeles has a need to improve its water supplies, New York is investing in better protection from future storms. Where London needs to replace its ageing infrastructure, Jeddah is building completely new. The challenge for any city is to balance the needs of its people, the planet and profit, so while all are important, some need more immediate attention based on the individual circumstance”, Batten explained.

Creating sustainable centres is not just the moral obligation of city administrators, it is absolutely necessary for survival – with a responsibility to all parties. Involving the private sector can fill the gap in terms of funding, for doing so is to their benefit as much as the populace.

And as technology improves and innovative solutions appear across the globe, more and more cities will be inspired to follow suit. The world is changing – socially, economically and environmentally – cities are therefore responsible for accommodating this new era, and there is certainly no more time or energy left to waste.

Telecoms is experiencing something of a facelift

The breathtaking pace at which technology is advancing is causing massive changes within the global telecommunications industry. Whereas a few established providers dominated many markets, now new entrants, some of whom come from outside the industry itself, are challenging them. This is in turn forcing a wave of consolidation across the world’s telecommunications markets, with many smaller firms being snapped up as a way of defending against these new entrants.

In recent months there have been a number of high-profile mergers between telecoms players. In January, Hutchison Whampoa, the Hong Kong-based telecom giant, bought the UK’s leading mobile provider O2 for £10.25bn ($16.05bn), combining it with the Three network in the process.

Time Warner Cable’s (TWC) proposed merger with rival Comcast rumbled on for the best part of a year before collapsing, only for rival Charter Communications to swoop in and acquire TWC for $55bn. Understandably for such a large deal, US regulators are scrutinising it in the same way it looked at the Comcast deal. However, Charter has made a number of big concessions to try and secure the deal, including promises over both existing jobs and new ones.

Elsewhere, Mexican telecoms mogul Carlos Slim has seen his monopoly of the industry in his home country hit regulatory troubles. He is now facing the prospect of his telecoms empire, including America Movil, being broken up. In order to cope with this new challenge in his domestic market, Slim is expanding his operations overseas, in particular looking to take holdings in European fixed-line telecom companies.

Other companies are looking at ways to broaden their service, capturing customers in the so-called ‘triple play’ deal where they have broadband, telephone and television products all from the same provider. In the UK, BT has expanded into its own cable television service, bidding huge amounts of money for the coveted Premier League and Champions League football matches to secure viewers. It is also in the process of confirming a deal to acquire Mobile Telecom firm EE for £12.5bn ($19.6bn), marking a return to the space 13 years after it sold its stake in Cellnet, which subsequently became O2.

Monthly streaming cost

$7.99

Hulu

$8.99

Netflix

$14.99

HBO NOW

New digital entrants
There are also a number of new entrants into the telecoms market from the tech industry. While the likes of Skype and Whatsapp have been slowly eating into the phone call and messaging business of traditional carriers, the likes of Apple and Google are now getting in on the action. Apple’s FaceTime service has added Wi-Fi voice calls, while Google has launched its own wireless network to power voice calls and data use. Project Fi is Google’s affordable, Wi-Fi service, which it has been testing in a number of US cities. Launched in July, it could present a credible challenge to existing carriers.

It’s not just in broadband and mobile networks that bigger telecom firms are being challenged. In September, Apple unveiled a dramatically updated version of their Apple TV digital set-top box, which is seen as a precursor to a new online streaming television service to rival the likes of Netflix and Amazon. The existing Apple TV has not been updated in three years and has therefore been surpassed in capability by products from Amazon, Google and other new players in the market like Roku. However, the new service will likely harness the power of developers with its own app store, as well as boosting integration with other streaming services.

The company has faced considerable difficulty in persuading existing cable providers to sign up to its own television streaming platform, because these firms don’t want to hand over valuable advertising and viewing data. It’s expected that this service will eventually come in 2016.

HBO has recognised the changing way people are viewing television. For a long time, the popular cable television service refused to offer an online alternative to its cable package, insisting only traditional customers could get access to online versions of its show. Then, earlier this year, it unveiled an updated HBO NOW web app that non-cable subscribers could pay for, allowing them to watch popular shows like Game of Thrones and True Detective. Available on Apple TV, at first exclusively, the service is now being launched across many other digital platforms.

Speaking about the reasons for their change in stance, HBO’s CEO Richard Plepler told reporters in April, “We’re making HBO available in as many was as possible to our consumers. That’s a win for the consumer, that’s a win for our partners and that’s a win for HBO.”

Plepler described the new service as being aimed at a new generation of tech-savvy television viewers who aren’t accustomed to paying for cable subscriptions, describing it as a “millennial missile”. He added, “We think this is a terrific opportunity to earn 10 million broadband-only homes in the US, and that’s largely a millennial audience.”

Monthly costs
HBO will be charging customers of its new online platform a price of $14.99 per month, compared to the relatively cheaper Netflix and Hulu offerings, which are both around half that amount. Plepler believes, however, that customers would be willing to pay the higher price because of the high-quality content it offers. “We think we have a premium product. We have extraordinary content… and it’s the price of a movie ticket and a bucket of popcorn. If you look at the value of that, we think it makes perfect sense and we think the consumer is going to agree with us.”

Instead of cutting into HBO’s existing cable subscriber base, Plepler believes that it will merely expand the number of consumers the company caters to. “We see this as an expansion of the pie, [it is] not cannibalistic at all of our current business. It is very additive to our business.”

The topic of how much to charge for online streaming services is one being hotly debated. Netflix’s monthly fee of $8.99 is widely seen as pretty cheap for the amount of content on offer, nevertheless, the company has struggled to make much money, even though it has steadily increased its user base. Earlier this year, the company announced it had beaten expectations by increasing its subscriber base to 59.6 million, which represented a significant increase on the 46.1 million users the year before. It saw total revenues jump by 24 percent to $1.6bn, reflecting the growing trend of people choosing to use streaming services for their entertainment.

However, while it has expanded its number of users, Netflix has also been heavily investing in original and exclusive content to attract those user figures. As a result, it has seen its profits tumble, to $24m for the first quarter of this year, compared to $53m for the same period in 2014. While this drop in profit can be explained away through international expansion and investment in original content, there has been speculation that the company will have to either raise the cost of its subscription or bring in advertising to help it continue.

Indeed, the company announced it would be testing adverts on the platform in June. Although these are just for their own original programmes – such as political drama House of Cards – the move has certainly worried fans of the platform. However, a spokesman attempted to reassure those users that plans for full-blown advertising across the platform was not going to happen and Netflix had “zero intention” of doing so in the future.

Future trends
Over the coming years there is likely to be further consolidation among the traditional players, as well as bigger moves by tech giants. There will also be considerable investment into new technologies, including 5G spectrums, cloud data infrastructure, and the rise of wearable technology demands on networks. For the traditional players to remain relevant, they will need to look at the tech giants entering their markets as inspiration to innovate themselves.

How the global telecoms market looks in the future will likely depend on how big players react to these new digital entrants, as well as how committed regulators are to ensuring there is enough competition in the market. At the same time, new technology is being invested in at a rapid rate, and all it takes is a dramatic breakthrough for the telecom industry to be shaken up once again.

Saudi Arabia’s stock exchange opens to foreigners – what are the implications?

For the first time in Saudi Arabia’s economic history, the country’s $509bn stock exchange market, known as the Tadawul, is available for international trade. Despite being one of the world’s largest economies, Saudi Arabia is the last of the G20 countries to open its stock market to foreign businesses. It could transform the country and perhaps even the entire region, as capital flows into various industries and the transition to adopt international standards is made.

Granting foreign access to the Tadawul is the latest facet of the Saudi administration’s $130bn strategy to bolster non-oil industries and diversify the economy. As 90 percent of the Saudi economy is driven by the petrochemical sector, the recent volatility of the global market and plummeting oil prices has stressed the necessity of a new model and of achieving emerging market status more than ever before.

The Tadawul lists 165 publicly traded companies in industries ranging from agriculture to telecommunications, and of course, petrochemicals

Talk of the prospects for both foreign parties and the country itself has stirred since the decision was first unveiled in 2014 by the Capital Market Authority (CMA). While there has been growing anticipation within the international sphere, frustration over the lack of information also mounted as the self-set deadline approached. When June 15 came this year, the flurry of foreign investors expected by Saudi authorities did not occur, thus marking various challenges that still exist for the wealthy nation. That being said, the fiscal possibilities are vast and the stock market holds the key to unlocking this incalculable potential.

A new game
The Tadawul lists 165 publicly traded companies in industries ranging from agriculture to telecommunications, real estate, and of course, petrochemicals (see Fig. 1). According to the Tadawul 2014 Annual Report, real estate is the biggest sector and comprises 16 percent of the market.

Given the size of the Saudi economy, international participation is estimated to bring around $40bn of foreign capital into the economy; “it’s certainly the largest in terms of the GCC – it comprises more than 47 percent of the region’s GDP and it has the largest population base”, said Dr John Sfakianakis, Director of the Middle East at the Ashmore Group.

As expected, there are several clauses for foreigners that wish to trade on the Tadawul. Individuals are excluded; only companies are permitted, and sizeable ones at that. Firms must have $5bn in assets under management and five years experience in order to play the game. The idea being that if only serious players participate, the stability of the market is ensured. The CMA is also hopeful that these rules will attract investors with long-term objectives in the country and also limit the flow of hot money.

Foreigners, whether they live in the country or abroad, can own up to 49 percent of a single stock. Qualified foreign investors (QFI) can each have up to five percent of holdings in a single stock, with a 20 percent cap of foreign investment in a single stock. At present, there is a limit of 10 percent in terms of QFIs for the whole market. The country’s ‘negative-list’ – which catalogues businesses that forbid foreign participation – also extends to the Tadawul.

The real estate market in Islam’s holy cities, Makkah and Medina, are the most notable area of exclusion. While six companies have been specified as being off-limits, including Jabal Omar Development, Makkah Construction & Development and Taiba Holding, which, according to The Gulf Times, collectively account for approximately seven percent of the Tadawul All Share Index.

A key consequence of the liberalisation of the Tadawul is that the system will be subject to tighter regulations and will therefore benefit from greater transparency. As a result of the new framework, qualified investors will be able to vote in general assembly meetings and nominate board members, thereby highlighting one way in which corporate governance in the country’s private sector is expected to improve. As Sfakianakis predicts, “a direct effect for them will be to become more governance orientated from the regulatory standpoint and more transparent from the corporate standpoint.”

What is unusual in the Saudi case is that achieving greater liquidity is neither the focus of the shift, nor is it actually that important. At present, the Tadawul is already extremely liquid, particularly in comparison to other countries in the region. According to Reuters, Saudi Arabia trades around $2bn per day on average, thereby dwarfing the collected efforts of say Abu Dhabi and Dubai, which trade a combined volume of $150 to $200m. Instead improving the regulatory framework is the focus of the CMA, and is a core aspect in the goal to achieve the MSCI’s emerging market status. It is predicted that Saudi Arabia will achieve the MSCI emerging market index within the next two to three years – the impact of which could be pivotal in the country’s economic history. Saudi authorities understand the importance of achieving the index, not only as others in the region, such as Qatar and the UAE, have already done so, but also because it will fully incorporate the nation into the emerging market world. “I think there are two phases to the flow of money in Saudi Arabia, one is happening as we speak and it will continue to increase in volume and size over the next two years, and then the next phase of the inflow of money is going to happen because of MSCI inclusion”, Sfakianakis told World Finance.

In turn this status presents a host of opportunities for Saudi Arabia, a new standing for the country within the international framework and will grant it a more powerful voice on the global economic stage. Moreover, it is logical for an economy the size of Saudi Arabia’s to have emerging market status, which plays a role in laying a new path for the future of the country.

MSCI status will be a game-changer for Saudi Arabia, as it will further ease the obstacles preventing foreign investors from joining the Tadawul, while also making it safer for them to do so. The UAE achieving MSCI Index in June illustrates the catalytic transition that can also be expected for Saudi Arabia; it changed what could be invested in and the amount of holdings that a foreign company can have – it essentially changed the way that the UAE’s stock market operates. For Saudi Arabia, inclusion will enable the market to benefit from a reinforced investment landscape, inspire greater confidence and become increasingly attractive for investors.

Top five stocks in Saudi Arabia

Existing challenges
When the market opened in June, the initial reaction hoped for by the CMA did not transpire. Not only had investors not flooded the market, but stocks even fell, highlighting existing challenges and the trepidation of foreign companies. Some industry experts attribute this to an over-valuation of listed companies as a result of high earnings. Others blame administrative issues with licensing and a requirement to settle money up front, as opposed to two days following the investment. At face value, these issues will indeed prevent some investors from entering the Tadawul, but they are only short-term hindrances.

The obstacles are actually more complex and pertain to the ideological. “I think the challenge is getting to know the country and going beyond the stereotypical view that many people have about Saudi Arabia, the concerns whether it is related to geopolitics or visiting the country”, Sfakianakis explained. In-depth research is therefore required by foreign investors in order to gain a better understanding about the economy and the industry of interest, as well as the country itself. “I think it’s important for investors to develop interpersonal ties and relationships so that they see for themselves what the country yields. This plays a very important part of formulating ideas, because the region, especially Saudi Arabia, is based on these network ties and local knowledge”.

“There is always this drive to diversify the economy – it’s easier said than done”, added Sfakianakis. “But Saudi Arabia is more than oil, this is an important point that people forget. First of all, Saudi Arabia doesn’t get impacted as a result of a fall in oil prices, the average Saudi in the street doesn’t feel the price of that.” Despite oil prices being reduced by half, the incumbent regime has maintained the same levels of public spending by making withdraws from vast large reserves that were earned from the oil boom of the 2000s. Moreover, the share prices of petrochemical companies have not dropped by 50 percent either – highlighting an economy that is far more varied and robust than many people assume.

“I would say that for the investor, the diversification story is important and the reason for that is that Saudi Arabia is all about the demographics – it’s all about the individual who has benefitted from the changes that have taken place over the last ten years – they have entered the labour market more actively and more gainfully, and as a result they have a higher purchasing power”. As Sfakianakis explained, regardless of low oil prices, the purchasing power in Saudi Arabia remains extremely strong. This is underscored further when comparing the purchasing power of other emerging markets that lag behind on a per capita basis.

The Saudi economy has a long way to go, there is still a lot of work to be done and it will take patience and perseverance. However, the basis is there – and a strong one at that. The government has a formidable level of capital reserves and it continues to earn a great deal of revenue from the energy sector, regardless of the current price. Furthermore, it is unlikely that prices will remain at their current levels, with many experts predicting an increase over the course of the next two quarters.

There are a number of strong industries in the country, such as real estate development, healthcare and plastic manufacturing – with the greater focus and funding that these sectors are receiving, they are likely to grow considerably in the coming years and spill over into neighbouring states.

Saudi Arabia acts as the epicentre of the Gulf; this role will only be consolidated further as the economy strengthens and diversifies. With a new premier at the helm, the country seems to be on course to achieve this feat, the opening of the Tadawul being a historic step along this road. The MSCI Index will be next and when it does occur, not only will Saudi Arabia’s economic transformation transpire, the whole region will begin a new economic chapter.

China supports Africa’s iron mines and steel market

Chinese investment and trade with Africa encompasses many industries and commodities, from oil projects in Angola and Sudan, to cotton from Burkina Faso and fish from Namibia. Recently, however, China has increasingly been investing in iron-ore mines and steel metal works. While Chinese purchase of African mines is nothing new – it has for many years owned and operated Zambian copper mines – the Communist state has made a number of notable acquisitions of late.

One result of the West African Ebola outbreak in 2014, aside from the tragic loss of human life, has been a slowdown of mining operations in the region. In August of that year Mining Review noted that the health crisis had increasingly made it ‘difficult to transport supplies and skills to the mines’. The world’s biggest steelmaker, ArcelorMittal, the industry magazine reported had, “seen disruption to the expansion of its iron ore mine in Liberia due to the Ebola outbreak. Furthermore, the share prices of some mining companies in Sierra Leone, such as London Mining and African Minerals, have slumped on potential disruption of operations there.” By the end of the year, African Minerals had shut down the continent’s second-largest iron-ore mine, in Tonkolili, Sierra Leone.

At every point in the production process of steel, from the mine to sales, it seems, China is acquiring new assets on the
African continent

Industry take-over
The mine was quickly snatched up by the Chinese state owned enterprise Shandong Iron and Steel Group in April this year. Likewise Hebei and Steel Group – also an SOE – is building a massive steelworks in South Africa, while in May 2015 it was granted permission to buy out the Swiss firm Duferco’s African steel processing and sales network. At every point in the production process of steel, from the mine to sales, it seems, China is acquiring new assets on the African continent. The country is by far the world’s largest steel producer and reportedly facing a glut. According to The Guardian in June, steel was “cheaper per tonne than cabbage”. The motive behind such moves, then, raises some questions.

In March, the National People’s Congress’ opening session started with a declaration that the government is doing everything it can to fight pollution. China’s high polluting steel industry has been at the heart of this, with a number of the worst polluting mines shut down. There is speculation then that China could be trying to shift its high polluting metal industry overseas, where pollution is not its problem.

Alternatively, these seemingly counterintuitive acquisitions may be seen as part of a strategy to solidify China’s reputation in Africa. Due to the country’s supposed newcomer status, China is using a “stick-at-it-strategy”, according to Henry Tugendhat from the Institute of Development Studies. “They hope that good behaviour during a crisis – even if it loses them money in the short run will secure them better contracts in the future”, wrote The Economist. “The better the mine, the fewer impurities in the ore, and the cheaper it is to turn it into high-grade metal.”

The next step
This seems unlikely. China has had a longstanding partnership with many African countries. The famous 1955 Bandung Conference, where 29 countries met to try and foster Afro-Asian relations and to oppose colonialism, China committed itself to fostering economic relations with African states, leading to 50,000 Chinese workers helping to construct the Tanzam railroad that linked the port of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania with Zambia.

Economic cooperation accelerated after China’s gradual embrace of market reforms. In the 1980s total trade between the country and the continent was worth $1bn a year. This increased sixth fold by the 1990s, and by 2012 reached $163.9bn. By 2014, ODI from China to Africa totalled $130bn. At the same time, on average Africans have the highest positive view of China, according to polling by the Pew Research Centre in 2014. China, it would seem, does not need to curry favour by investing in currently unprofitable mines. Chinese intentions aside, these acquisitions will provide much needed jobs and investment for the continent.

Isn’t it time Americans got a four-day week?

A four-day workweek seems like a no-brainer. Who wouldn’t want to work fewer hours for the same amount of pay? Sadly, implementing a reduction in working hours, although well within the realm of possibility, is not as simple as it sounds and, according to Daniel Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the Royal Holloway University in London, anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest.

What bothers him most about the 32-hour working week debate – a topic that has seemingly sprung out of the ether and gained prominence in the media recently – is that people appear to believe that they’re going to get something for nothing. That somehow we can work fewer hours, but keep the exact same living standards.

He does, however, believe that people in the US are spending far too much time in the office. “Americans certainly work too much”, said Hamermesh. “We are getting richer and richer, despite everyone’s complaints, and yet our hours haven’t dropped one iota.” And he isn’t the only one who thinks that Americans are overworked.

We are getting richer and richer, despite everyone’s complaints, and yet our hours haven’t dropped one iota

In a recent Gallup poll, full-time US workers, on average, work a whopping 47 hours a week (see Fig. 1). That’s a whole 13 hours more on average than the Norwegians. A country that, believe it or not, is considerably more productive than the US. So much so that its GDP per capita is $100,818.50, which is nearly double that of its American brothers and sisters ($53,041.98), despite its proclivity to working less.

One explanation for why Americans are working more than anyone else is because they consume more than anyone else. Data compiled and published by the World Bank shows that household consumption expenditure per capita in the US sits at a whopping $31,190. Meaning that Americans consume on average $11,220 more than the French, a country where they work 35 hours per week on average and where the average household consumption comes in at just $19,970.

Another thing stopping Americans from spending less time at work is how they choose to fuel such disproportionately high levels of consumption – by taking on a whole lot of debt. Economic data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis shows that the ratio of household debt to GDP in the US in 2013 was 81.5 compared to just 54.9 during the same period across the pond in France (see Fig. 2).

“We are definitely on the consumer treadmill”, explained the British psychiatrist, award-winning author, and Director of UCLA’s Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behaviour, Peter Whybrow. “You can have a choice about whether or not you want to work 32 or 40 hours a week in a theoretical sense, but in fact, Americans work 47 hours on average because they simply can’t afford not to.”

Your economy needs you
The Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush managed to make headlines and upset a large proportion of the electorate after he told onlookers during a routine visit to New Hampshire earlier this year that Americans need to work longer hours in order to pull the country out of its economic slump.

“We have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows”, said Bush during an interview with the editors of the New Hampshire Union Leader. “It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this rut that we’re in.”

The former Governor of Florida is right, to a degree. Working longer hours would, for a while at least, help give the US economy a boost, but working excessively for a prolonged period of time can actually reduce overall productivity rather than increase it.

In an article for Salon, the journalist Sara Robinson points to research collated by Evan Robinson, a software engineer interested in programmer productivity. In a white paper he produced for the International Game Developers’ Association in 2005, he outlined the history of the 40-hour workweek and provided evidence that long-term worker output is maximised near a five-day, 40-hour workweek.

Despite the evidence, longer hours might be agreeable for workaholics up and down the country and they should not be denied the right to work more if they wish too. But as the science shows, working in excess of 40 hours a week can negatively affect productivity and, therefore, this metric should not be used to justify longer hours. Equally there are a lot of people that would like to spend a lot less time at work and there are a number of socio-culture benefits derived from spending less time at work, such as strengthening interpersonal relationships by giving friends and families more time together.

The real question, therefore, according to Hamermesh, is how do we get more flexibility and more freedom for those who want to work less, while not infringing on those who wish to work more?

“This is not going to be accomplished on a broad-brush federal legislative basis”, said Hamermesh. “It is doable, and I think it would actually help employers, because happier workers are going to be more productive. But some kind of one-size fits all will not make people better off.”

One solution he offers, and one provided in abundance by many other developed countries around the world, is greater paid holiday allowance. As it stands, there is no statutory minimum in the US, with annual leave being left to the discretion of the employer, though the vast majority do offer paid vacation as part of the compensation and benefits package.

Yet the average amount of paid vacation offered by private employers, according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, is just 10 days after one year of service, with 14 days permitted after five years, 17 after 10 years, and 19 days after 20 years.

Compare this with Germany, a country that, according to the World Economic League Table 2015, is the seventh largest economy in world, and still manages to offer its workforce 34 days off a year for some much needed rest and relaxation.

Average hours worked by full-time US workers aged 18+

Living for leisure
“I think [more paid vacation] would be a heck of a lot better”, said Hamermesh. “Also, the impact on total industrial output would be much smaller than if we cut hours.”

It’s important to remember that cutting back to a 32-hour week is the equivalent to taking two months off each year. It is also necessary to consider that neither a four-day week, nor greater allowance of paid vacation is going to happen unless companies are guaranteed that their competitors are doing the same. So it will require some kind of federal mandate in order to stop a company gaining an advantage in the market. But even if more holidays are the answer, and legislative action is taken to provide it, it is unlikely that many Americans will even take a break.

“Americans don’t take holidays”, said Whybrow, half-jokingly. “I think they take on average seven to nine days of holiday a year. My joke has always been: if we keep going like this we will be able to reduce that to a weekend.”

There really does appear to be a cultural aversion to taking time off in the US. In a recent report by the LA Times, it found that “more than 135 million Americans, or 56 [percent]” have not taken a vacation in over a year. So not only does the US not have a lot of leisure time, it appears that many are struggling to know what to do with the minimal amount they’re currently afforded.

Getting people to slowdown and take some time off is extremely difficult in today’s world, especially in the US, where workers work longer in order to support a higher rate of consumption, and where consumption itself is deeply connected with the American dream.

That is not to say that other cultures around the world are not consumerist by nature, but as the data makes clear, they are nowhere near the sorts of levels exhibited in the US.

Contrast this with the relaxed attitude of the French. A country that prides itself on being the land of the long lunch; taking a two-hour break from the daily grind to talk, drink, eat and unwind and you start to realise that the work-life balance is effected by socio-cultural forces, as much as economic ones.

Household debt-to-GDP ratio

Cultural shift
“Man does not live for bananas, televisions and air-conditioned cars, we live for leisure, enjoyment, and to help others, but I don’t think we are doing enough of that in the US”, explained Hamermesh. But getting the US to embrace a world with less work, especially when long hours has been a staple of its society for so long, will inevitably take time.

One company that is attempting to find a better work-life balance and provides a strong case for a shorter working week is the San-Francisco-based company, Treehouse, which maintains a four-day workweek for its employees.

So far, it has managed to generate a $3m plus yearly revenue run rate, boasts a team of 34 full-time staff, with the intention of hiring more in the coming months, and has even managed to secure $4.75m worth of investment from the likes of Chamath Palihapitiya, Kevin Rose and David Sze, according to a recent company blog post.

“We have proven that you can take it from an experiment to something that is actually doable for real companies [and] for real people in highly competitive markets”, said the company’s CEO, Ryan Carson, during a short documentary produced by The Atlantic. “Right now, we can compete with scary companies like Google for talent because we pay full salaries and we give you full benefits and we basically take ridiculously good care of people because we think it’s the right thing to do.”

It is unclear whether more US companies will follow in the Treehouse’s footsteps or if the country as a whole will one day become famed for its relaxed attitude to work in a similar fashion to the French. Though, the mere fact that US workers are beginning to question their work-life balance and even entertain the idea of a four-day week means that it is a possibility.

Liquefied natural gas suffers from a series of setbacks

Poring over the biggest stories of 2013, it quickly becomes apparent that the energy industry of then was awash with bright hopes for the future; for reduced energy poverty, for renewables, and – most of all perhaps – for LNG. Born of advances in technology and changing consumption patterns, its ready availability and proximity to major consumers has handed the industry, particularly in Asia, a much-needed pick-me-up (see Fig. 1)

“Liquefied natural gas has experienced remarkable developments in commercialisation and export capacity in a span of just 50 years”, wrote Craig Pirrong, Professor at the Bauer College of Business University of Houston, in a paper entitled Fifty Years of Global LNG. “The world now stands on the cusp of another major surge in capacity.”

Treading on the tailcoat of America’s shale revolution, LNG’s relative cleanliness and easy availability hinted at a not-too-distant future wherein natural gas rather than oil would be the lifeblood on which the global economy would feed. Advances in drilling technology, together with supply constraints in Japan, China and in Eastern Europe paved the way for a gas-fired transition, and significant discoveries in Canada, Mozambique and Australia, to name a few, have ignited a fire under the industry.

Reduced emissions and improved energy efficiency are the promises of an LNG revolution, and, assuming these to be true, a spike in consumption looked in 2013 to be nailed on with certainty. Two years on, however, and the global energy market is a changed proposition.

Blow after blow
An oil price collapse at the turn of the year – which needs no explanation here – was significant not just for oil producers, but also for rival energy companies. And where, prior to the decline, LNG’s competitiveness gave rise to a string of ambitious projects, the Brent price swing has reset the price differential and dialled down its prospects. Fresh from a hard knock in the summer of 2014, courtesy of ExxonMobil’s Papua New Guinea project, LNG prices – in the wake of the oil price collapse – have suffered another blow, and margins in many instances have been squeezed to borderline unmanageable extremes. What’s more, with the price of natural gas so closely tied to Brent crude fluctuations, analysts at the turn of the year were united in the opinion that the resource, after a half century-long rise, was headed only one way.

In South Korea the return of nuclear power has contributed to an almost 20 percent decline in
LNG imports

“The first quarter of 2015 could be the last hurrah for LNG prices for a while”, said Trevor Sivorski of Energy Aspects, speaking to Reuters at the time. Far from the optimistic outlook that has so characterised its 50 year rise, analysts – many for the first time – have started to fear for the immediate future of LNG, as the fall in global oil prices has unearthed weaknesses not seen until now.

For a resource that is yet to carve out a niche, at least as far as pricing is concerned, its value is dictated still – some would say illogically – by long-term fixed contracts indexed to the price of oil. Existing as a means of injecting stability into an otherwise unstable supply/demand equation, the ties also mean that any bad news for the black stuff is bad news for natural gas. However, the emergence of LNG as a global contender – soon to eclipse iron ore as the second most traded commodity after oil – means that this formula is seen by many as inadequate to reflect the commodity’s true value.

According to Bloomberg, around 73 percent of global LNG is sold in this manner, and the majority of the rest sold as Asian spot cargoes, with neither priced according to the resource’s own fundamentals. Under this framework, expectations at the year’s onset read that LNG prices would fall from $15 to $16 per million British thermal units (Mbtu) to around $10 or $11, and in doing so render billions of dollars in planned projects unviable.

Speaking about LNG’s close ties to oil, Andrew Grant, Financial Analyst at Carbon Tracker, said that the falling price of crude is “very significant,” adding, “LNG prices have fallen significantly, both on a long-term contract basis and spot basis. Further, following market tightness in recent years [and particularly since Fukushima], the market has swung into oversupply that may last for several years.”

One key reason why these contracts can prove so destructive, both to planned projects and to the overall health of the market, lies in Asia, where there’s good reason to seek an oil alternative, preferably one that is more readily available and cheaper. However, in linking the value of LNG to that of oil, Asian buyers are unable to realise the benefits on its own terms.

It could even be said that low LNG prices fail to reflect the value of the resource itself, yet talk of oil-delinkage is premature, given that most sellers would rather keep the long-term guarantees tied to existing price mechanisms rather than the gains associated with independence. True, the price hit has impacted key segments of the LNG business, some critically so, though the issues go far beyond pricing, and extend also to the undue importance placed on the resource in days past.

Fig 1 LNG

Dealing with over capacity
Occupying a two-thirds majority share of the global LNG trade, unfavourable demographic trends in Asia have contributed to a glut in supplies, and in doing so stifled the industry’s growth.

In Japan, as one of the three traditional LNG buyers alongside South Korea and Taiwan, a nuclear retreat has done much to ease the transition to natural gas and reinforce the country’s existing commitments to the oil alternative. If only for the simple reason that Japan is a credit-worthy buyer willing to invest in LNG, investors in the 1960s ploughed billions of dollars into its development, to the point that the resource today is often mentioned alongside oil and coal as a stalwart of the energy market. Adopted first as a low-pollution alternative in a time when environmental regulations were beginning to take hold, a nuclear retreat inflated LNG’s prospects.

Accounting for about a third of all global LNG shipments, Japan last year spent over $63bn on the resource, although spending in the first half of this year is down on the last. What’s more, public opposition to nuclear is waning and the government looks dead set on a restart, which together suggest that the window of opportunity for LNG is narrowing. Also, in South Korea the return of nuclear power has contributed to an almost 20 percent decline in LNG imports, whereas in China sluggish growth has contributed to a nine percent decline.

While in Asia demand for the resource is slowly falling, production remains a constant, with the resulting excess finding its way to lesser consumers, mostly in Europe, which, while useful, contributes to some of LNG’s spiralling price. Whereas on the one hand pricing mechanisms and changing consumption patterns in Asia are part of the decline, discussion on the subject has focused mostly on oversupply and its consequences for planned projects.

“Partly due to the long lead time, LNG supply is covered for a low demand scenario for the next decade. Beyond this LNG with supply costs below around $10/mmBtu delivered to Japan will be needed”, according to a Carbon Tracker report on the subject, entitled Carbon supply cost curves: Evaluating financial risk to gas capital expenditures. “But there are $283bn of high cost, energy intensive LNG projects that would continue to be deferred if demand disappoints. In particular the number of LNG plants in the US, Canada and Australia could disappoint those expecting large LNG industries to develop.”

Fig 2 LNG

Stumbling over hurdles
An explosion of export capacity is yet to come online, with a great many projects having hit a roadblock recently courtesy of price concerns, and with many projects still underway, the implications for the industry at large are unclear. Insofar as supply is concerned, some analysts fear that a string of completed projects could inflict price pressures on the industry reminiscent of the shale boom. Having enjoyed a prolonged stint in which supply has been equal to or just shy of demand, early signs show this is no longer the case, and that the imbalance could be setting in for the long haul.

“We see the main challenge as the large number of LNG projects that have recently come on stream or are being built. We expect the LNG market to grow over the next 20 years, but the build out of capacity has been such that the market is oversupplied already, and there remains a large pipeline of further projects that have been proposed”, said Grant. “In our recent gas report, under a scenario where LNG demand grows by 3.5 percent over the next 20 years, no new developments are needed at all until 2024.

Beyond this, some projects will be able to go ahead in the next 20 years, but only the most efficient and cost advantaged – we see a limited amount of additional US Gulf Coast supply, Mozambique, brownfield Pacific and some other projects as being the most likely. A significant number of the proposed projects, however, are simply not needed.”

In North America at least, a procession of multi-billion dollar export terminals are scheduled soon to reach conclusion, which, while important for the continent’s low carbon drive, could depress Asian prices further.

The only thing keeping prices from falling through the trapdoor is a spill over of uncertainty stemming from the oil price collapse. In this sense LNG has suffered from the decline and benefitted, as cautious investors choose not to resume LNG projects, and, in doing so, keep prices relatively stable until the oil price picks up.

Having said that, there’s a consensus that the uncertain situation in the oil market is staving off the inevitable, and may even magnify the consequences, given that the LNG market has been made vulnerable already by a spate of uncertainty. Ultimately, LNG looks on course to perform well in the years ahead (see Fig. 2), though its recent short-term setback has highlighted the dangers of the reigning pricing structure and the risks associated with a sudden explosion in supply.

A tough road ahead for China’s manufacturing industry

China muscled in on America’s hard-earned manufacturing dominance in 2010 when the news broke that the resurgent eastern superpower had clinched a title held by the US since 1895. Powered by a mass migration of people from rural farmland to inner city factories, along with a record investment drive at home and abroad, the world’s number two economy became the world’s number one manufacturer (see Fig 1).

The news item was one that took very few by surprise. Back in 2000, the powers of Western Europe, North America and Japan accounted for 72 percent of manufacturing output, though by 2010 their collective share of the market was down to barely more than half. China’s factory output, meanwhile, tripled, and multinationals from around the world eyed its cheap and plentiful supply of labour with keen interest. Responsible for a measly three percent of global production in 1990, today its share borders on a quarter.

Manufacturing now makes up approximately one third of China’s GDP, far and above any other economy of its stature, and locals – for whom simple manufacturing jobs no longer cut it – are looking to advance up the ladder. Where photos of workers scrambling for an early morning shift or penned tightly on a factory floor were once commonplace, the sector’s barebones make-up and lack of governance are no more. Auto manufacturing, robotics and consumer electronics all feature in the modern-day picture, and the sector’s simple beginnings are today but a distant memory.

Manufacturing now makes up approximately one third of China’s GDP

With this, workers’ rights are more stringently upheld and their pay more plentiful, and this newly anointed manufacturing powerhouse is losing jobs as a consequence. After a dramatic climb to the summit, China is no longer the world’s factory floor, and given that the sector employs approximately 15 percent of the national workforce, continued declines could inflict serious pains on its population.

Falling factory output
At the turn of the year, manufacturing activity shrunk for the first time in more than two years, and the figures that followed served only to reinforce the reading that China was headed for its worst economic showing in almost a quarter of a century. After a three-decade-long stint of breakneck expansion, the country’s factory output looks set to suffer the adverse effects of China’s ‘new normal’: single-digit and sustainable growth.

Figures from HSBC’s Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) in April showed that job shedding was at its worst in seven months, as manufacturers offloaded positions in response to worsening market conditions and lacklustre demand. Capping a 17th consecutive month of contraction, insofar as manufacturing employment was concerned, the findings again signalled to policymakers that solutions must come soon if they are to stop the rot.

“Wage levels for factory workers increased rapidly during a period of high inflation in the early 2010s, but in the last couple of years, the rate of pay increases has dropped,” said Geoffrey Crothall, Communications Director for the China Labour Bulletin and former correspondent for the South China Morning Post. And while the country is stabilising more so than it is collapsing, the same priorities remain: manufacturing must move on or die out.

For a country that has in recent times grown accustomed to double-digit growth and any investor of its choosing, its expansion remains largely dictated by simple manufacturing. For all intents and purposes, the age of cheap labour in China has come to an end, and a failure on the industry’s part to either diversify or progress to the next stage could leave it dangerously exposed to the whims of low-cost manufacturing.

Fig 1

Rising wages
Where investors from across the globe in years past clamoured to get in on the building spree, mostly in and around coastal provinces and commercial centres, increased taxes, land prices and regulation ate into their margins. Workers that once toiled on the land for barely a basic day’s pay have grown accustomed to regular working hours and branded goods, and inflated salary expectations have chipped away at its former competitiveness.

“The vast majority of the economy has seen double-digit wage growth for the past decade, with the minimum wage in many cities doubling in less than five years,” according to a report authored by the Director and Chairman of McKinsey Asia, Gordon Orr. “This has created an expectation that this is simply the new normal for income growth. It is not.” Looking only at average annual wages in manufacturing, the figure jumped to RMB 46,431 ($7,406) last year, up from RMB 15,757 ($2,527) in 2006 (see Fig 2).

“Manufacturing wages are up fourfold in dollar terms over the past decade. In recent years, private-sector enterprises have had to agree to annual wage increases three to four percentage points higher than state-owned enterprises in order to narrow the significant pay differential that had developed by 2010,” reads the report.

Official figures state that monthly wages for factory workers last year were up 11.6 percent to RMB 2,832 ($457), although the figures vary greatly from region to region given that local governments stipulate the minimum wage. According to data from CBX Software’s Q2 Retail Sourcing Report, wages have risen in 16 of 31 provinces, while Trading Economics statistics show that wages in select areas of the Northern Hebei Province were up 22 percent last year. Likewise, wages in Shaanxi and Tibet were up 16 and 17 percent, and in Guangzhou City base pay was up a mammoth 22 percent.

The wage situation is made even more problematic by a divergence of interests, with foreign investors on the one hand seeking an attractive home away from home, and the government on the other, whose ambition it is to lead the transition to consumer-orientated economy. The difficulty lies in striking the right balance between modest pay and maintaining an appropriate level of cost competitiveness. However, in promoting growth less driven by imports, the focus has fallen on industries outside of low-cost manufacturing; this, alongside regulatory reforms and an appreciating currency, has played a major part in discouraging low margin investment.

For any manufacturer under the assumption that China’s is a passive workforce, make no mistake: its workers are militant and organised. There are few who shy away from worker action, and figures compiled by Voice of America recently found that there were nearly 1,400 strikes in 2014. Furthermore, looking at the opening two months of the year, the number has climbed higher still.

“A substantial number of labour disputes in the manufacturing industry are triggered by factory closures, relocation, mergers and acquisitions,” said Crothall. “All too often, employers ignore employees’ legal entitlements to severance pay, social insurance etc, but employees are very well aware of their rights and entitlements and are willing to take collective action to defend them.”

Broken down into its simplest parts, China’s budding geopolitical influence and economic clout has grown exponentially over the past few decades, and with this so too have worker expectations – not unreasonably so. The issue arises when foreign investors, whose reasons for being there are primarily the country’s low-cost and loose-touch regulations, find that the benefits of a Chinese home away from home have escaped elsewhere.

Fig 2 China manufacturing

Big names bow out
“Many foreign manufacturers are downsizing or leaving the country due to an increase in the supply of low-cost/low-quality products, as well as an increase in labour costs in China,” said Melody Kong, Business Analyst for China Market Research Group. Foxconn, for example, has voiced concerns time and again that rising worker demands could eliminate its competitive advantage, and the firm, which assembles both the iPhone and iPad, has lately favoured markets outside China.

Going back to 2013, the company’s founder, Terry Gou, spoke on the difficulty of convincing young workers to take low-paid assembly line jobs. “The young generation don’t want to work in factories, they want to work in services or the internet or another more easy and relaxed job,” were his comments, according to the Financial Times. “Many workers are moving to the services sector and, in the manufacturing sector, total demand [for workers] is now more than supply.”

Having shifted Foxconn’s manufacturing base away from its native Taiwan in the late 1980s, China’s largest private sector employer looks to be doing much the same again in a bid to make peace with cheaper alternatives. “Probably the biggest challenge is moving away from the labour-intensive, low-cost, low-profit-margin model of production that fuelled China’s boom years towards higher-value production that relies to a greater extent on skilled and experienced labour. There are fewer young people entering the work force and those [who] are joining tend to be better educated and have higher aspirations,” said Crothall.

Microsoft has also been shutting up its Chinese factories lately, for fear of the country’s spiralling wage demands and militant tendencies. If only to appease a workforce that in 2013 was reported by The Washington Post to have taken hostages in response to job layoffs, Microsoft handed out free Lumia 630 phones to the first 300 workers to leave, provided they left quietly. Plant closures in Beijing and Dongguan, both in China’s expensive south-east, stink of a nationwide retreat, and the resulting 9,000 job losses make up half of the 18,000 announced in 2014. Where Foxconn has shifted its manufacturing operations to India, Microsoft has done much the same, though in Vietnam.

The decisions fall in step with that of fellow mobile manufacturer Samsung a year previous; made when the realisation hit that the low costs and slack regulations on which the market was built were no more. Constrained by the rising costs of Chinese production, it didn’t take long for Vietnam, with its promise of cheap labour and generous tax incentives, to come calling. Speaking to Bloomberg about the move, Lee Jung Soon of the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency, said: “The trend of companies shifting to Vietnam from China will likely accelerate for at least two to three years, largely because of China’s higher labour costs [see Fig 3].” He added: “Vietnam is really aggressive in fostering industries now.”

Rival names and regional expansion
Where China and Thailand’s benchmark purchasing managers’ index has contracted for months on end, neighbouring Vietnam has racked up a plus-50 reading every month since August 2013. New orders are flooding in and productivity is on the rise. Facilitated both by accommodating government policy and a robust workforce, Vietnam is fast emerging as Asia’s latest manufacturing powerhouse.

Aside from Vietnam, major manufacturers are also looking to nearby Indonesia, Bangladesh, India and Thailand in keeping to their preferred margins. Rwanda, Ethiopia and Tanzania, meanwhile, have been received warmly by the garments industry. “A lot of industries that rely on low-cost labour, such as the garment industry, for example, have already relocated a lot of production to smaller Asian counties such as Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia and even further afield in Africa. So the problem for manufacturers in China is not higher wages as such, but more to do with matching up the differing needs and requirements of employers and employees,” said Crothall. “It is very common for employers to complain that they cannot find the right staff and for workers to complain that they cannot find the right job.” However, while these countries and others better satisfy the financial specifications of low-cost manufacturing, they present new and often unseen challenges.

Reliable access to electricity, socioeconomic stability and a robust infrastructure network each underpin China’s manufacturing superiority. Without them, investors run the risk of exposure to unforeseen losses and complications.

Easy to forget is manufacturing’s contribution not just to the national economy, but also to the building of ‘Factory Asia’ as a whole, and for as long as the region continues to attract investment, China’s prestige will remain. If not the immediate future of Asia’s manufacturing push, China is most certainly the biggest beneficiary, and any branches added to the continental supply chain promise to stoke the engine.

For example, China’s increased share of the global manufacturing pie means that its reliance on imported components is far less now than in years past – 35 percent, as opposed to 60 percent in the 1990s. Furthermore, the empowered Chinese consumer means that the country is today home today to both the making and selling side of the business, and any company privy to this information would surely see fit to stay loyal.

“Many Chinese manufacturers have realised these challenges, and they are making good progresses in improving the situation – they are becoming more competitive up the value chain, by investing heavily in hi-tech facilities such as robotics and state-of-the-art facilities so they can compete for higher value manufacturing contracts,” said Kong. “For example, over the next decade we will probably see more Chinese factories capable of fabricating microchips, or making aerospace components. The process has already started, there just may be consolidation in the market as low-value manufacturers go out of business and hi-tech, high-value manufacturers expand.”

With observers quick to cast China as a country whose attractiveness has faded in light of its inflated price tag, the focus should fall instead on whether the country can advance up the value chain in a way that its precursors could not. Unlike Mexico and South Africa before it, China must now make good on its standing at the helm of Factory Asia and make clear that its capacity goes beyond that of a low-cost manufacturing hub.

Cost of labour

Made in China 2015
In a bid to take Chinese industry to the next level, policymakers in May unveiled the Made in China 2015 initiative, in the hope that the blueprint would offer some indication on how exactly manufacturing might go about extending its influence to new areas. With tighter constraints on resources, greater wage expectations and wave upon wave of regulatory reform to contend with, the State Council has set out a series of commitments to revitalise the sector.

“Increasing labour costs is one of the key factors that is causing China’s manufacturing problems,” according to Kong. “However, in order to solve these problems, Chinese manufacturers also need to focus on improving technology and try to become more competitive up the value chain, to meet the growing demand for high-quality products.”

Homing in on a chosen 10 advanced industrial sectors, including robotics, aerospace, advanced transport and new-energy vehicles, the government has promised to boost its R&D spending to 1.68 percent of manufacturing revenues by 2025, up from 0.88 percent in 2013. Doing so, according to the blueprint, should whet investor appetites once again, and in doing so upgrade Chinese industry.

Labelled often, and unfairly so, as an industry past its better days, China’s manufacturing sector is about to dive headlong into a multibillion-dollar modernisation process, from which there is no reasonable chance of return. Low-cost manufacturing – and all its trappings – will likely move inshore and abroad, as China takes heed of Germany’s Industry 4.0 concept, if only to make good on Beijing’s ambition to become an industrial superpower by 2049. In order to realise broad-based and sustainable gains, the country must forsake its low-cost supremacy and move its industry into the fast lane.

AB InBev launches bid to buy SABMiller

Brazilian owned AB InBev has entered into talks to takeover SABMiller. If successful, the move would enable it to dominate the world’s global beer market with a combined worth of at least $230bn. AB InBev’s bid has not yet been disclosed, although industry experts predict that it could be anywhere in the excess of SABMiller’s current market value, $75bn.

Speculation has been rife for over a year that the two companies would merge to form a group that brews one third of the world’s beer

Speculation has been rife for over a year that the two companies would merge to form a group that brews one third of the world’s beer. At present, AB InBev leads the global market with 45 percent, while London-based SABMiller boasts 25 percent with well-known brands such as Coors, Fosters and Grolsch, among numerous others.

Given the size of both companies, it is expected that AB InBev will have to sell several assets in order to comply with anti-trust rules, which could see it sacrifice some of its market share in China. Yet the acquisition will enable the Brazilian group to strengthen its presence in Africa considerably as SABMiller has brewing operations in 17 countries and distributes in a further 21 on the continent.

Over the past year, both companies have suffered significant setbacks in terms of sales and share prices. Despite its market dominance, AB InBev’s profits plummeted by 32 percent in this year’s second quarter. This downturn can be largely attributed to Brazil’s struggling economy and changing consumer tastes in North America and Europe, which is seeing a growing trend for wine and spirits.

The reaction to the news has been generally positive, with an increase in share prices for both companies – 21 percent for SAB Miller and 8 percent for AB InBev, according to CNN Money.

In accordance with UK acquisition rules, if AB InBev does not make a formal offer by October 14 it must exit the talks.

Trading loses its human element as futures pits close down

The decision by CME Group to close many of its open outcry futures trading pits in Chicago and New York came in response to trading volumes falling to just one percent of the company’s total futures volumes. Thus helping to put the final nails in the coffin of a 167-year-old tradition that, for many, embodies the very heart and soul of the global financial market, in favour of the unparalleled efficiency and speed offered by machines.

Though the decision itself was a long time in the making, as a consequence of more and more volume migrating to electronic trading screens that promise greater liquidity and price transparency, when the closing bell finally rang for the last time the mood in the pits was sombre to say the least. “It felt like losing a close friend”, recalled John Pietrzak, a corn broker for more than 35 years. “It certainly wasn’t a celebration.”

The frantic, frenzied style of trading that is a staple of the open-outcry futures pits saw traders hooting and hollering for attention, all the while throwing out bizarre hand signals…

Sentiments such as these are understandable considering his family’s long history on the trading floor. His grandfather first started at the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) as a runner when he was just 13 years old ferrying messages between clerks and taking phone orders from customers that would then be passed on to brokers to execute. His father would then join his grandfather in pits in his early 20s. However, his own path to the trading floor, unlike his elders, was not as immediate. Instead, opting to start his financial career as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), though it wasn’t long before he realised that it wasn’t the right fit for him.

“There really isn’t a lot of thrill in being an accountant”, he said. “So I decided to go down to the trading floor and scream and yell and try and make a lot of money.”

Another veteran of the exchange is Scott Shellady, best known for wearing a black and white cow print jacket to help him stand out from the crowd. While he, along with many of his colleagues had recognised a long time ago that the closing of the pits was inescapable, it didn’t stop him feeling a sense of loss when the inevitable finally came to fruition.

“It was sad”, explained Shellady. “There were a lot of gold guys who came back and toured the floor before they said goodbye. It is a strictly no smoking building, but I saw one guy sit down and have a big fat cigar, which was kind of a cool thing to see. It was a real passing of the torch.”

As a member of the board of directors at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), Pietrzak knew that if the futures pits continued to transact less than one percent of total CME volume, as they had done for several years, that it would be one of the first places the exchange would look to make changes. Even so, the fact that it took as long as it did to shut down the pits, shows just how difficult a decision it was and what the tradition meant to all those involved.

Hand-to-hand combat
When the CME began the process of stripping away over half of its 35 trading pits on July 2, it wasn’t just taking away a defining feature of the Chicago’s financial centre, but one of the city’s most popular tourist attractions. The frantic, frenzied style of trading that is a staple of the open-outcry futures pits saw traders hooting and hollering for attention, all the while throwing out bizarre hand signals that have become synonymous with the market itself. But while both insiders and outsiders alike will sadly miss the pits, the CME is after all a business and has to listen to its customers.

One of the main drivers behind CME’s decision to close pits was end users demanding access to greater levels of liquidity and transparency, along with wanting an ever-lowering of transactions costs, all of which are easily provided through electronic trading screens. But while these systems may provide access to all of the above in abundance, the one thing they will never be able to emulate successfully is the fun of the floor.

“I just enjoyed the fact that the pits were a form of hand-to-hand combat”, explained Shellady. “The sights, the sounds and smells of the pit that help you make your decisions on a guttural level rather than staring at a computer screen all day and listening to the air conditioning – its just not as fun.”

Not only do the dozens of screens that he and his colleagues now sit behind fail to offer the same buzz that they felt on the floor of the exchange, but they also fail to offer an adequate feel for the market. “There used to be a great sense to the market that you picked up just from the way the crowd reacted and it is very difficult to get that from a screen”, said Pietrzak. “The screen is a machine; a bunch of algorithms, and trying to pick up the rhythm of the market on it requires a very different skillset. You can surround yourself with dozens of screens that give you information that you never had access to down on the floor, but the buzz, the electricity in the room that was always there was something you don’t get fed off of”, he added.

Tech transparency
Traders nowadays needn’t rely on flashy trading jackets or their loud voice in order to buy low and sell high, nor do they require knowledge of the vast array of hand signals designed to communicate their position in the market. Instead, they need to adapt to the speed of electronic trading, along with the many different strategies that allow them to gain the edge in a market where transparency is abundant.

Since the financial crisis in 2008, risk-averse regulators looking to more closely monitor trading activity have acted as a catalyst for the development and proliferation of electronic trading, which is meant to offer greater market efficiency. This relatively new technology is meant to provide more proficient markets by offering greater liquidity, price transparency, and counterparty anonymity, with the trader’s identity being kept a secret to all parties, except the broker nominated to execute the trade.

But while many, including the regulators, favour the transparency offered by electronic trading, many senior traders with experience of both the pit structure and CME’s trading platform GLOBEX, assert that there is a lot of meaningful information on the floor that simply cannot be replicated electronically.

“In my opinion, the screens present less transparency”, said Pietrzak. “When you were in the pit you always knew when the guys that represent hedge funds were buying or selling and when the commercials were buying or selling. But there is almost no way to discern that now.

“I’m looking at my screen right now and I can’t tell you whether the size on the bid side is a hedge fund or an algo”, he added.

In Pietrzak’s opinion the market has traded in the thrill of the floor for not just greater efficiency of trade, but also an increased certainty of trade too. He admits that when he started on the trading floor back in 1979 that often the size of orders on the bid and offer side wouldn’t match up, causing a number of missed trades.

“You’ve effectively traded a certain amount of the transparency for knowing it was Cargill buying corn or Bunge selling wheat”, he explained. “You used to know that by who was selling the orders in the pits for making sure that all those trades and positions were checked and correct. It used to be minutes to confirm a trade, but now it occurs in terra-seconds.”

Human error
The trading floor was once the place that provided the most market colour – those precious nuggets of information that helped investors and traders get a feel for the direction the market was heading that day. The best brokers were the ones that got it right more often than they got it wrong and over time a number of trends arose that helped provide investors with a handle on the market. Old adages like Tuesday reverses a Monday or Turnaround Tuesday were successful for many people in the market.

The trading floor was once the place that provided the most market colour

But with the increased efficiency of electronic trading, offering greater certainty of price, and thus allow people to know more accurately where the market is at any given time has removed the need for such pricing proverbs. But Pietrzak hopes and asserts that losing this common sense approach to the market needn’t be lost and could even be incorporated into automated systems over time.

“Common sense was always important in the pits”, he said. “Not only that, but when you’re wrong, being able to catch yourself and turn it around. Typically machines don’t do that and once they start buying they keep buying. There are some algos that don’t do this and just take advantage of inefficiencies in the market, but the problem is that most of those systems have narrowed the inefficiencies so much that their profitability is diminishing.”

Before the shift to electronic trading human error and misinformation created a lot of inefficiencies, which added greater risk and instability to the market, something that many would like to reduce as much as possible. However, it was these same discrepancies between real and perceived market value in which many traders made their fortunes.

Ultimately, the move to automated systems will provide a far more efficient and fairer market for all, but there are concerns still about a market dominated by machines.

“When you were filling orders or you were trading for yourself and the market got away from you, you could always stop”, said Pietrzak. “You could stop trying to buy and stop trying to sell and just wait for things to settle down, but now, with all the machines all going the same way at the same time that doesn’t happen. There still has to be some human interaction with the markets to make them reliable and give confidence to the investing public that it is still a true market, not just a roulette wheel or a slot machine.”

In the end, much of the fear surrounding electronic trading and the subsequent reduction of human element posing a substantial risk to the market are unfounded. In fact, it is easily argued that behind every automated system is a person tinkering away. Meaning that the human element is still present, but instead of existing in a physical form on a trading floor is incorporated into the algorithms trading strategy in digital form.

Evolve and thrive
Regardless, of the pros and cons of electronic trading, it is the direction that the market has decided to take. Though it didn’t stop a small number of traders attempting to oppose the CME’s plans by requesting the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to review the potential repercussions the move would have on the market.

Their chances of success were slim to say the least, and in reality, their efforts represented a last-ditch attempt to try and delay the inevitable.

“It was futures traders who wanted to try and keep the pits open for a few more months”, explained Shellady, “but in the grand scheme of things, more people just wanted it to be over and done with. The sooner you make the career change the better”.

The cow-coat wearing trader doesn’t just talk the talk and asserts that change needn’t be seen as a bad thing. He still has a business executing customer orders on the screen, in a similar fashion to the brokers in London. “We are going to adapt and embrace the change rather than run from it”, he added.

The spectacle of the trading floor has not gone away completely, however. The floor-based S&P 500 futures market, which continues to provide an important venue for trading the underlying futures contract for the open outcry S&P 500 options market, will remain open on CME Group’s Chicago trading floor for the time being.

But for those traders that had to say goodbye to the job they love in July, the CME showed why so many refer to it as their home from home, helping floor traders who want to continue trading by making booth space available following the closure of the futures pits.

“Anybody who has been trading in the last five years has to have known that this was coming”, said Pietrzak. “Somebody who plays golf has to adjust their game as they get older and in the same way businesses have to adjust too. People who want to not only survive, but thrive in the future have to change with the times.”