Share markets' verdict on Chinese and US economies

By John Ross
0 CommentsPrint E-mail China.org.cn, December 31, 2009
Adjust font size:

There has been intense debate among economists on the relative performance of the US and Chinese economies - in real terms now the world's two largest economies. But for many people far more important and interesting is the profitability of investing in their financial markets.

The chart below shows the movement of share prices so far this century, in dollar terms, of the Shanghai stock exchange compared to the three main US share market indexes– the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P500, and the NASDAQ. In each case it shows percentage change since the first day of trading in the century up to 24 December 2009.

The judgement made by share markets over a decade is clear. With the century now a fraction under 10 years old, those investing in the Shanghai Composite over that period would have made a profit of 170.9 percent. Anyone putting their money into the Dow Jones Industrial Average would have lost 4.3 percent; if they had invested in the S&P500 they would have lost 19.5 percent, and would have lost 41.4 percent on the NASDAQ.

The annual rate of return, measured in terms of share prices, on the Shanghai exchange was 11 percent, compared to a negative figure for the US indexes. Furthermore, these are prices in current terms - that is not considering inflation. If inflation is taken into account the losses on the Dow, the S&P500, and the NASDAQ would have been significantly greater while the gains in Shanghai would have remained high.

This 11 percent annualised return in share price terms on the Shanghai index also far exceeds the dividends paid on US shares. Therefore, taking 'total returns' into account, that is including dividend payments as well as share price increases, makes no significant difference to the comparison – as is confirmed by calculations carried out by Yan Wang, chief China strategist at BCA Research, a respected independent macro-economic research team.

There is a relationship between the emphatic market judgement on the superiority of China's economic performance over the US during the last decade, and the debate among economists regarding the long term economic performance of China and the US and the relative success of the economic stimulus packages they adopted to deal with the international financial crisis.

The apparently obscure issues which economists debate – savings rates, national accounting identities, investment ratios – are in reality intended to answer one decisive practical question. Which policies produce the best economic results? Strip out secondary issues and there are two fundamental positions on China's economic performance. The first, supported by the present author and others such as Jim O'Neill, chief economist of Goldman Sachs, Professor Danny Quah of the London School of Economics, Mark Weisbrot, and Yan Wang of BCA Research is that China's economic stimulus package has been successful and China's strong economic performance will continue.

The other view, that China's long term economic performance and/or stimulus package will be unsuccessful, is held in extreme forms by authors such Gordon Chang, Societe Generale analyst Dylan Grice, and in a milder form by Stephen Roach, Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia. Professor Michael Pettis of Peking University has formulated that side of the discussion with commendable clarity: 'I continue to stand by my comment… that the US would be the first major economy out of the crisis and China one of the last.' The author of this blog has argued, both here and elsewhere, the opposite: 'China will be the first major economy out of the crisis and it will emerge from it before the US.' These are two clear and diametrically opposed opinions which have now been tested by the facts.

Few people who have studied the relationship between economic fundamentals and share market performance believe that the two move together in a one to one fashion in the short term and of course there are short term fluctuations. But over a prolonged period, such as a decade, the performance of share markets does reflect underlying economic strength. The relative dynamic of the Chinese and US share markets reflects the evident macro-economic fact that in economic terms China has far out-performed the US.

This, furthermore, relates to the fundamental issue, of importance both to economists and financial investors, of the efficient allocation of capital. For economists the most fundamental test of efficient capital allocation is the development of 'total factor productivity' – the overall measure of how an economy's efficiency is improving. A recent article in The Economist notes that the most up to date analysis of this concludes, confirming many previous studies, that the rate of increase of total factor productivity in China is the highest in the world – the most recent estimate is that its rate of increase is four times that of the US.

But 'efficient allocation of capital' can also be used in the more popular senses of 'what is the financial return on your investment?' Where do you get the better return on your money? In that sense money put into the US stock market, in terms of share prices, over the last 10 years was entirely misallocated – you lost money on it. Money put into Chinese shares was far better allocated – those who put their money into China's shares, on average, made large gains.

All this casts a deeply practical light on the debate among economists on the relative performance of China's and the US economies. Those who argue that China's economic performance is not stronger than that of the US have to argue against not only a mass of macro-economic data and economic theory, but have to maintain that financial markets made a gross error in judging China's economic performance considerably superior to that of the US. The great outperformance of China's share markets over those of the US is not the most theoretically sophisticated argument regarding the relative economic dynamics of the two countries. But to most people it is not simply the most financially practical but the most convincing.

Certainly those who, believing the US economy would outperform China's, did not advise that a better return would be obtained from investing in China's share markets than in the US lost their clients a lot of money. This is not only a theoretical argument but a deeply practical one from a financial point of view.

The author is Visiting Professor at Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. From 2000 to 2008 he was Director of Economic and Business Policy to the Mayor of London, a post equivalent to the current position of Deputy Mayor. He was previously an adviser to major international mining and finance companies.

 

Print E-mail Bookmark and Share

Go to Forum >>0 Comments

No comments.

Add your comments...

  • User Name Required
  • Your Comment
  • Racist, abusive and off-topic comments may be removed by the moderator.
Send your storiesGet more from China.org.cnMobileRSSNewsletter
主站蜘蛛池模板: 1000部啪啪未满十八勿入| 中文国产成人精品久久96| 毛片a级三毛片免费播放| 午夜爽爽爽男女免费观看hd| 高中生被老师第一次处破女| 国产精品女人在线观看| 99久久精品费精品国产| 幼香视频在线观看免费| 久久久久久久久久久久久久久久久久| 极品美女aⅴ高清在线观看| 亚洲春色在线观看| 激情内射亚洲一区二区三区| 免费看h片网站| 精品无码一区二区三区爱欲 | 欧美午夜春性猛交xxxx| 亚洲精品短视频| 竹菊影视国产精品| 午夜免费电影网| 色吊丝在线永久观看最新版本| 国产免费午夜a无码v视频| 黄色aaa大片| 国产日韩成人内射视频| www亚洲欲色成人久久精品| 国产精品高清一区二区人妖| 97久久精品亚洲中文字幕无码| 大香网伊人久久综合观看| www884aa| 男生和女生在一起差差的很痛| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区久久 | 国内精品自产拍在线观看91 | 人妻少妇看a偷人无码精品| 精品一区二区三区免费视频| 另类孕交videosgratis| 自拍偷在线精品自拍偷| 国产三级在线观看播放| 里番acg全彩| 国产做受视频120秒试看| 香蕉97超级碰碰碰免费公| 国产在线视频第一页| 麻豆国产96在线|日韩| 国产成人av区一区二区三|