pdnew/themes/default/assets/svg/bg.svg

102 lines
18 KiB
XML
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- Created with Inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/) -->
<svg width="1e3" height="3850" version="1.1" viewBox="0 0 1e3 3850" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<style>
@font-face {
font-family: 'Clear Sans';
src: url('/theme/fonts/ClearSans/ClearSans-Thin.ttf');
font-weight: 100;
font-style: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'Clear Sans';
src: url('/theme/fonts/ClearSans/ClearSans-Light.ttf');
font-weight: 300;
font-style: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'Clear Sans';
src: url('/theme/fonts/ClearSans/ClearSans-Regular.ttf');
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'Clear Sans';
src: url('/theme/fonts/ClearSans/ClearSans-Italic.ttf');
font-weight: normal;
font-style: italic;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'Clear Sans';
src: url('/theme/fonts/ClearSans/ClearSans-Medium.ttf');
font-weight: 500;
font-style: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'Clear Sans';
src: url('/theme/fonts/ClearSans/ClearSans-MediumItalic.ttf');
font-weight: 500;
font-style: italic;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'Clear Sans';
src: url('/theme/fonts/ClearSans/ClearSans-Bold.ttf');
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'Clear Sans';
src: url('/theme/fonts/ClearSans/ClearSans-BoldItalic.ttf');
font-weight: bold;
font-style: italic;
}
text {
font-family: 'Clear Sans';
}
</style>
<g fill="#171717">
<g stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="10">
<text x="37.943279" y="3721.0254" font-size="24px" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="37.943279" y="3721.0254">Was the U.S. always a plutonomy - powered by the wealthy, who aggrandized larger</tspan><tspan x="37.943279" y="3751.0254">chunks of the economy to themselves? Not really. For those interested in the details, we</tspan><tspan x="37.943279" y="3781.0254">recommend “Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich” by</tspan><tspan x="37.943279" y="3811.0254">Kevin Phillips, Broadway Books, 2002.</tspan></text>
<text x="37.387276" y="3286.6675" font-size="24px" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="37.387276" y="3286.6675">Lets dive into some of the details. As Figure 1 shows the top 1% of households in the</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3316.6675">U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3346.6675">2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3376.6675">together. Thats about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3406.6675">with similar slices of the income pie! Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S.</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3436.6675">households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawed</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3466.6675">from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3496.6675">33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3526.6675">(or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3556.6675">40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together. This</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3586.6675">is data for 2000, from the Survey of Consumer Finances (and adjusted by academic</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3616.6675">Edward Wolff). Since 2000 was the peak year in equities, and the top 1% of households</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3646.6675">have a lot more equities in their net worth than the rest of the population who tend to</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="3676.6675">have more real estate, these data might exaggerate the U.S. plutonomy a wee bit.</tspan></text>
<text x="18.897636" y="3212.293" font-size="28px" font-weight="bold" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="18.897636" y="3212.293">THE UNITED STATES PLUTONOMY - THE GILDED AGE, THE ROARING TWENTIES,</tspan><tspan x="18.897636" y="3247.293"> AND THE NEW MANAGERIAL ARISTOCRACY</tspan></text>
<text x="37.219276" y="3003.395" font-size="24px" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="37.219276" y="3003.395">The U.S., UK, and Canada are world leaders in plutonomy. (While data quality in this</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="3033.395">field can be dated in emerging markets, and less than ideal in developed markets, we</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="3063.395">have done our best to source information from the most reliable and credible</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="3093.395">government and academic sources. There is an extensive bibliography at the end of this</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="3123.395">note). Countries and regions that are not plutonomies: Scandinavia, France, Germany,</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="3153.395">other continental Europe (except Italy), and Japan.</tspan></text>
<text x="16.741636" y="2967.1277" font-size="28px" font-style="italic" font-weight="bold" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="16.741636" y="2967.1277" fill="#171717" font-size="28px" font-style="normal" font-weight="bold">RIDING THE GRAVY TRAIN - WHERE ARE THE PLUTONOMIES?</tspan></text>
<g font-size="24px">
<text x="37.195278" y="2776.6233" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="37.195278" y="2776.6233">5) Since we think the plutonomy is here, is going to get stronger, its membership</tspan><tspan x="37.195278" y="2806.6233">swelling from globalized enclaves in the emerging world, we think a “plutonomy</tspan><tspan x="37.195278" y="2836.6233">basket” of stocks should continue do well. These toys for the wealthy have pricing</tspan><tspan x="37.195278" y="2866.6233">power, and staying power. They are Giffen goods, more desirable and demanded the</tspan><tspan x="37.195278" y="2896.6233">more expensive they are.</tspan></text>
<text x="37.387276" y="2379.7729" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="37.387276" y="2379.7729">4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2409.7729">consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2439.7729">number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2469.7729">There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2499.7729">surprisingly small bites of the national pie. Consensus analyses that do not tease out the</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2529.7729">profound impact of the plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2559.7729">hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc, i.e., focus on the “average”</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2589.7729">consumer are flawed from the start. It is easy to drown in a lake with an average depth</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2619.7729">of 4 feet, if one steps into its deeper extremes. Since consumption accounts for 65% of</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2649.7729">the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8% of the</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2679.7729">MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key</tspan><tspan x="37.387276" y="2709.7729">for equity market participants.</tspan></text>
<text x="37.219276" y="1926.0375" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="37.219276" y="1926.0375">Fixing these “global imbalances” that many pundits fret about requires time travel to</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1956.0375">change relative fertility rates in the U.S. versus Japan and Continental Europe. Why?</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1986.0375">There is compelling evidence that a key driver of current account imbalances is</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2016.0375">demographic differences between regions. Clearly, this is tough. Or, it would require</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2046.0375">making the income distribution in the Anglo-Saxon plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2076.0376">Canada) less skewed to the rich, and relatively egalitarian Europe and Japan to suddenly</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2106.0376">embrace income inequality. Both moves would involve revolutionary tectonic shifts in</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2136.0376">politics and society. Note that we have not taken recourse to the conventional curatives</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2166.0376">of global rebalance - the dollar needs to drop, either abruptly, or smoothly, the Chinese</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2196.0376">need to revalue, the Europeans/Japanese need to pump domestic demand, etc. These</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2226.0376">have merit, but, in our opinion, miss the key driver of imbalances - the select plutonomy</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2256.0376">of a few nations, the equality of others. Indeed, it is the “unequal inequality”, or the</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2286.0376">imbalances in inequality across nations that corresponds with the “global imbalances”</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="2316.0376">that so worry some of the smartest people we know.</tspan></text>
<text x="37.219276" y="1699.4578" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="37.219276" y="1699.4578">3) Most “Global Imbalances” (high current account deficits and low savings rates, high</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1729.4578">consumer debt levels in the Anglo-Saxon world, etc) that continue to (unprofitably) pre-</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1759.4578">occupy the worlds intelligentsia look a lot less threatening when examined through the</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1789.4578">prism of plutonomy. The risk premium on equities that might derive from the dyspeptic</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1819.4578">“global imbalance” school is unwarranted - the earth is not going to be shaken off its</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1849.4578">axis, and sucked into the cosmos by these “imbalances”. The earth is being held up by</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1879.4578">the muscular arms of its entrepreneur-plutocrats, like it, or not.</tspan></text>
<text x="36.907276" y="1548.2767" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="36.907276" y="1548.2767">2) We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more</tspan><tspan x="36.907276" y="1578.2767">income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their</tspan><tspan x="36.907276" y="1608.2767">economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and</tspan><tspan x="36.907276" y="1638.2767">globalization.</tspan></text>
<text x="37.243279" y="1189.0295" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="37.243279" y="1189.0295">Well, here goes. Little of this note should tally with conventional thinking. Indeed,</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1219.0295">traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it. We will posit that: 1) the</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1249.0295">world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1279.0295">by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest. Plutonomies have occurred</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1309.0295">before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1339.0295">the Roaring Twenties in the U.S. What are the common drivers of Plutonomy?</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1369.0295">Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist-</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1399.0295">friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1429.0295">overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1459.0295">inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the</tspan><tspan x="37.243279" y="1489.0295">rich and educated of the time.</tspan></text>
<text x="37.219276" y="716.78064" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="37.219276" y="716.78064">In early September we wrote about the (ir)relevance of oil to equities and introduced the</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="746.78064">idea that the U.S.is a Plutonomy - a concept that generated great interest from our</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="776.78064">clients. As global strategists, this got us thinking about how to buy stocks based on this</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="806.78064">plutonomy thesis, and the subsequent thesis that it will gather strength and amass</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="836.78064">breadth. In researching this idea on a global level and looking for stock ideas we also</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="866.78064">chanced upon some interesting big picture implications. This process manifested itself</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="896.78064">with our own provocative thesis: that the so called “global imbalances” that worry so</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="926.78064">many of our equity clients who may subsequently put a lower multiple on equities due to</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="956.78064">these imbalances, is not as dangerous and hostile as one might think. Our economics</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="986.78064">team led by Lewis Alexander researches and writes about these issues regularly and they</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1016.7806">are the experts. But as we went about our business of finding stock ideas for our clients,</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1046.7806">we thought it important to highlight this provocative macro thesis that emerged, and if</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1076.7806">correct, could have major implications in terms of how equity investors assess the risk</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1106.7806">embedded in equity markets. Sometimes kicking the tires can tell you a lot about the</tspan><tspan x="37.219276" y="1136.7806">car-business.</tspan></text>
</g>
<text x="18.505638" y="680.00934" font-size="28px" font-style="italic" font-weight="bold" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="18.505638" y="680.00934" fill="#171717" font-size="28px" font-style="normal" font-weight="bold">WELCOME TO THE PLUTONOMY MACHINE</tspan></text>
</g>
<circle transform="translate(18.898)" cx="28.346" cy="481.89" r="5.6693" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers"/>
<text x="74.918556" y="489.81696" font-size="24px" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="10" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="74.918556" y="489.81696">There is no “average consumer” in a Plutonomy. Consensus analyses focusing</tspan><tspan x="74.918556" y="519.81696">on the “average” consumer are flawed from the start. The Plutonomy Stock</tspan><tspan x="74.918556" y="549.81696">Basket outperformed MSCI AC World by 6.8% per year since 1985. Does</tspan><tspan x="74.918556" y="579.81696">even better if equities beat housing. Select names: Julius Baer, Bulgari,</tspan><tspan x="74.918556" y="609.81696">Richemont, Kuoni, and Toll Brothers.</tspan></text>
<g transform="translate(18.898 18.898)">
<circle cx="28.346" cy="292.91" r="5.6693" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers"/>
<text x="55.612915" y="300.55258" font-size="24px" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="10" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="55.612915" y="300.55258">Equity risk premium embedded in “global imbalances” are unwarranted. In</tspan><tspan x="55.612915" y="330.55258">plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have</tspan><tspan x="55.612915" y="360.55258">a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current</tspan><tspan x="55.612915" y="390.55258">account deficits, consumption levels, etc. This imbalance in inequality</tspan><tspan x="55.612915" y="420.55258">expresses itself in the standard scary “ global imbalances”. We worry less</tspan></text>
<text x="56.020916" y="187.28674" font-size="24px" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="10" text-align="center" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="56.020916" y="187.28674" text-align="start">The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S.,</tspan><tspan x="56.020916" y="217.28674" text-align="start">UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy.</tspan><tspan x="56.020916" y="247.28674" text-align="start">Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc</tspan></text>
<circle cx="28.346" cy="179.53" r="5.6693" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers"/>
</g>
<g stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="10">
<text x="17.777637" y="169.7731" font-size="28px" font-style="italic" font-weight="bold" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="17.777637" y="169.7731" fill="#171717" font-size="28px" font-style="normal" font-weight="bold">SUMMARY</tspan></text>
<text x="16.125639" y="101.61855" font-size="36px" font-weight="bold" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="16.125639" y="101.61855">Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances</tspan></text>
<text x="15.201638" y="53.601639" font-size="48px" style="paint-order:stroke fill markers" xml:space="preserve"><tspan x="15.201638" y="53.601639" fill="#171717" font-size="48px" font-weight="bold">Equity Strategy</tspan></text>
</g>
</g>
</svg>