Companies ignore the Perennials 55+ generation at their peril

Nearly a third of the the world’s High Income population are now in the Perennials 55+ generation.

Yet companies mostly ignore their needs – assuming that all they want are walking sticks and sanitary pads.  Instead, they continue to focus on the relatively declining number of younger people.

No wonder many companies are going bankrupt, and many investors are seeing their portfolios struggle.  As the chart shows:

  • The High Income group accounts for nearly two-thirds of the global economy
  • It includes everyone with an income >$12k/year, equal to $34/day
  • 31% of those in the world’s High Income population are now Perennials aged 55+
  • In other words, High Income Perennials account for a fifth of the global economy

This is a vast change from 1950, when most people still died around pension age.  But it seems very few people have realised what has happened.  When we talk about the global population expanding, we all assume this means more babies being born.  But in fact, 422m of the 754m increase in population between now and 2030 will be Perennials – only 120m will be under-25s.

It is therefore no surprise that central bank stimulus policies have failed.  Rather than focusing on this growth sector, they have instead slashed interest rates to near-zero.  But, of course, this has simply destroyed the spending power of the Perennials, as the incomes from their savings collapsed.

If the central banks had been smarter, they would have junked their out-of-date models long ago.  They would have instead encouraged companies to wake up to this new opportunity, and create new products and services to meet their needs.  Instead, companies and most investors have also continued to look backwards, focusing on the growth markets of the past.

The Perennials are the great growth opportunity of our time. Their needs are more service-based than product-focused – they want mobility,  for example, but aren’t so bothered about actually owning a car.  But it’s not too late to get on board with the opportunity, as the number of Perennials is going to continue to grow, thanks to the marvel of increased life expectancy.

I explore this opportunity in more detail in a new podcast with Will Beacham – please click here to download it.

Markets face major paradigm shifts as recession approaches

Major paradigm shifts are occurring in the global economy, as I describe in a new analysis for ICIS Chemical Business

Over the past 25 years, the budget process has tended to assume that the external environment will be relatively stable. 2008 was a shock at the time, of course, but many have now forgotten the near-collapse that occurred. Yet if we look around us, we can see that a number of major paradigm shifts are starting to occur in core markets – autos, plastics and others – which mean that ‘business as usual’ is highly unlikely to continue.

In turn, this means we can no longer operate a budget planning cycle on the assumption that demand will be a multiple of IMF GDP forecasts. Our business models will have to change in response to today’s changing demand patterns. Of course, change on this scale is always uncomfortable, but it will also create some major new opportunities.

Chemical companies in particular are clearly best placed to develop the new products and services that will be needed in a world where sustainability and affordability have become the key drivers for market success.

The transition periods created by paradigm shifts are never easy, however, due to the level of risk they create. The table gives my version of the key risks – you may well have your own list:

■ Global auto markets are already in decline, down 5% in January-August versus 2018, whilst the authoritative CPB World Trade Monitor showed trade down 0.7% in Q2 after a 0.3% fall in Q1

■ Liquidity is clearly declining in financial markets as China’s slowdown spreads, and Western political debate is ever-more polarised

■ The US$ has been rising due to increased uncertainty, creating currency risk for those who have borrowed in dollars; geopolitical risks are becoming more obvious

■ Some of the main “bubble stocks” such as WeWork, Uber and Netflix have seen sharp falls in their valuations, leading some investors to worry about “return of capital”

■ Chemical industry capacity utilisation, the best leading indicator for the global economy, has been in decline since December 2017, suggesting recession is close, and that bankruptcies among over-leveraged firms will inevitably increase

AUTOS PARADIGM SHIFT

The paradigm shift now underway in the global auto industry typifies the scale of the potential threat to sales and profits. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will likely be lost over the next 5-10 years in auto manufacturing and its supply chains as consumers transition to electric vehicles (EVs). The issue is that EVs have relatively few parts . And because there is much less to go wrong, many servicing jobs will also disappear.

The auto industry itself was the product of such a paradigm shift in the early 19th century, when the horse-drawn industry mostly went out of business. Now it is seeing its own shift, as battery costs start to reach the critical $100/kWh levels at which EVs become cheaper to own and operate than an internal combustion engine (ICE) on a total cost of ownership basis.

China currently accounts for two-thirds of global EV sales and sold nearly 1.3m EVs in 2018 (up 62% versus 2017). They may well take 50% of the Chinese market by 2025, as the government is now focused on accelerating the transition via the rollout of a national charging network. Importantly, though, Europe is likely to emerge as the main challenger to China in the global EV market.

VW is likely to be one of the winners in the new market. It plans to spend €80bn to produce 70 EV models based on standardised motors, batteries and other components. This will enable it to cut costs and accelerate the roll-out:

■ Its new flagship ID.3 model will go on sale next year at a mid-market price of €30k ($33k)

■ Having disrupted that market segment, it will then expand into cheaper models

■ And it expects a quarter of its European sales to run on battery power by 2025

The risk for suppliers to the auto industry is that the disruption caused creates a new playing field. Those who delay making the investments required are almost certain to become losers. The reason is simple – if today’s decline in auto sales accelerates, as seems likely, the investment needed for EVs will become unaffordable for many companies.

Nothing lasts forever. ‘Business as usual’ was a great strategy for its time. But it is clear that future winners will be those who recognise that the disruptive paradigm shifts now underway require new thinking and new business models. Companies who successfully transition to focus on sustainability and affordability will be the great winners of the future.

Please click here if you would like to read the full analysis

$50bn hole appears in New York financial markets – Fed is “looking into it”

Most people would quickly notice if $50 went missing from their purse or wallet. They would certainly notice if $50k suddenly disappeared from their bank account. But a fortnight ago, it took the New York Federal Reserve more than a day to notice that $50bn was missing from the money markets it was supposed to regulate.

Worse was to come. By the end of last week, the NY Fed was being forced to offer up to $100bn/day of overnight money.  And it was also clear that the authorities still have no idea of what is going wrong.

This is perhaps not surprising when one remembers, as I charted here between 2007-8, that the Fed failed to notice the subprime crisis until Lehman went bankrupt in September 2008.

For the past 2 weeks, extraordinary things have been happening in a critical part of the world’s financial markets. And unfortunately, the NY Fed didn’t notice until after it had begun, as the Financial Times later reported:

  • First, on Monday 16th, the repo market suddenly began to trade higher – reaching a high of 7%
  • Then as the market opened at 7am on Tuesday, “Rates rocketed upward again, to 6% within a few minutes and then to a high of 10%. That was four times the rate the repo market was trading the week before. Typically, repo prices move around by a few basis points each day — a few hundredths of a percentage point.

Finally, someone at the Fed woke up – or perhaps, somebody woke them up – and they announced $75bn of support to try and stop rates moving even higher. Even that had its problems, as “technical difficulties” meant the lending was delayed.

As Reuters then reported next day, this cash wasn’t enough. The shortage “forced the Fed to make an emergency injection of more than $125bn …. its first major market intervention since the financial crisis more than a decade ago.”

Of course, as with the early signs of the subprime crisis, the Fed then went into “don’t frighten the children mode“.  We were told it was all due to corporations needing cash to pay their quarterly tax bills, and banks needing to pay for the Treasury bonds they had bought recently.

Really! Don’t companies pay their tax bills every quarter? And don’t banks normally pay for their bonds?  Was this why some large banks found themselves forced to pay 10% for overnight money, when they would normally have paid around 2%?  And in any case, isn’t repo a $2.2tn market – and so should be easily able to cope with both events?

Equally, if it was just a one-off problem, why did the NY Fed President next have to announce daily support of “at least $75bn through 10 October” as well as other measures? And why did the Fed have to scale this up to $100bn/day last Wednesday, after banks needed $92bn of overnight money?

Was it that corporations were suddenly paying much more tax than expected, or banks buying up the entire Treasury market? The explanation is laughable, and shows the degree of panic in regulatory circles, that their explanation isn’t even remotely plausible.

We can expect many such stories to be put around over the next few days and weeks. As readers will remember, we were told in March 2008 that Bear Stearns’ collapse was only a minor issue. As I noted here at the time, S&P even told us that it meant “the end of the subprime write downs was now in sight“.

I didn’t believe these supposedly calming voices then, and I don’t believe them now. Common sense tells us that something is seriously wrong with the financial system, if large borrowers have to pay 10% for overnight money in a $2.2tn market.

And what is even more worrying is that, just as with subprime, the regulators clearly don’t have a clue about the nature of the problem(s).

My own view, as I warned in the Financial Times last month, is that “China’s (August 5) devaluation could prove to be the trigger for an international debt crisis”.  Current developments in the repo market may be a sign that this is more likely than many people realise.  I hope I am wrong.

 

Auto markets set for major disruption as Electric Vehicle sales reach tipping point

Major disruption is starting to occur in the world’s largest manufacturing industry.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs will likely be lost in the next few years in auto manufacturing and its supply chains, as consumers move over to Electric Vehicles (EVs).

As the chart from Idaho National Laboratory confirms, EVs have relatively few parts – less than 20 in the drive-train, for example – versus 2000 for internal combustion engines (ICEs).  There is much less to go wrong, so many servicing jobs will also disappear.

The auto industry itself was the product of such a paradigm shift in the early 19th century, when the horse-drawn industry mostly went out of business.  Now it is seeing its own shift, as battery costs start to reach the critical $100/kWh levels at which EVs become cheaper to own and operate than ICEs.

Unfortunately, this paradigm shift is coming at a time when global sales and profits are already falling. As the chart shows, sales were down 5.4% in January-August in the Top 7 markets versus 2018. And in the Top 6 markets, outside China, they were only 4% higher than in 2007, highlighting the industry’s current over-dependence on China:

  • India is suffering the most, with sales down 15% this year
  • But China’s woes matter most as it is the largest global market; its sales were down 13%
  • Europe was down 3% YTD, but on a weakening trend with August down 8%
    • All the major countries were negative in August, with Spain down 31%
  • Russia was down 2%, despite the economic boost provided by today’s relatively high oil prices
  • The USA and Japan were marginally positive, up 0.4% and 0.6% respectively
  • Only Brazil was showing strong growth at 9%, but was still down 28% versus its 2011 peak

EV sales, like those of used cars, are heading in the opposite direction. China currently accounts for 2/3rds of global EV sales and sold nearly 1.3m EVs in 2018 (up 62% versus 2017). They may well take 50% of the Chinese market by 2025, as the government is now focused on accelerating the transition via the rollout of a national charging network.

Interestingly, it seems that Europe is likely to emerge as the main challenger to China in the global EV market. The US has Tesla, which continues to attract vast investment from Wall Street, but it is only expected to produce a maximum of 400k cars this year. Europe, however, is ramping up EV output very fast as the Financial Times chart confirms:

  • The left-hand scale shows EV prices v range (km) for EVs being released in Europe
  • The right-hand scale shows the dramatic acceleration in EV launches in 2019-21

One key incentive is the manufacturers’ ability to use EV sales to gain “super-credits” in respect of the new mandatory CO2 emission levels. These are now very valuable given the loss of emission credits due to the collapse of diesel sales.

2020 is the key year for these “super-credits” as they are the equivalent of 2 cars, before scaling down to 1.67 cars in 2021 and 1.33 cars in 2022.  Every gram of CO2 emissions above 95g/km will incur a fine of €95/car sold. And as Ford’s CEO has noted:

“There’s only going to be a few winners who create the platforms for the future.”

VW NOW HAVE BATTERY COSTS AT BELOW $100/kWh
VW is likely to be one of the Winners in the new market.  It is planning an €80bn spend to produce 70 EV models based on standardised motors, batteries and other components.  This will enable it to reduce costs and accelerate the roll-out:

  • Its new new flagship ID.3 model will go on sale next year at a typical mid-market price of €30k ($34k)
  • Having disrupted that market segment, it will then expand into cheaper models
  • And it expects a quarter of its European sales to run on battery power by 2025.

The key issue, of course, is battery cost. $100/kWh is the tipping point at which it becomes cheaper to run an EV than an ICE. And now VW are claiming to have achieved this for the ID.3 model.

Once this becomes clearly established, EV sales will enter a virtuous circle, as buyers realise that the resale value of ICE models is likely to fall quite sharply.  Diesel cars have already seen this process in action as a result of the “dieselgate” scandal – they were just 31% of European sales in Q2, versus 52% in 2015 .

One other factor is likely to prove critical. The media hype around Tesla has led to an assumption that individuals will lead the transition to battery power.  But in reality, fleet owners are far more likely to transition first:

  • They have a laser-like focus on costs and often operate on relatively regular routes in city centres
  • They don’t have the “range anxiety” of private motorists and can easily recharge overnight in depots

The problem for auto companies, their investors and their supply chain, is that the disruption caused by the paradigm shift will create a few Winners – and many Losers – as Ford warned. 

Those who delay making the investments required are almost certain to become Losers.  The reason is simple – if today’s decline in auto sales accelerates, as seems likely,  the investment needed for EVs will simply become unaffordable for many companies.

 

 

No Deal Brexit still a likely option if opposition parties fail to support a new referendum

Canada’s normally pro-UK ‘Globe and Mail’ summed up the prevailing external view of Brexit last week:

“We begin this editorial with an apology to you, our faithful readers. In March, we described the Brexit situation, then careening through its third year and nowhere close to resolution, as an “omnishambles.

“An omnishambles is a state of utter chaos, total disorder and perfect mismanagement – which brings us to our apology. If you’ve been paying any attention to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, you know that, in declaring United Kingdom politics to have reached peak shambolic six months ago, we spoke too soon. Oh, did we ever.”

Within the UK, most people are totally confused by the mixed messaging surrounding Brexit.  Was it effectively postponed again when Parliament passed a law meant to stop No Deal? Or is it all still going to go ahead – deal or no deal – on 31 October, as the prime minister insists. Nobody knows.

There has also been no debate about what kind of policies should be pursued after Brexit. Instead, the media has often focused on the influence of  Johnson’s chief of staff, Dominic Cummings (pictured above, in casual dress).

Cummings led the Leave campaign under Johnson, and continues to carry out Johnson’s strategy today.  And whether by accident or design, his apparent fondness for tee-shirts also seems to be proving a useful tactic for diverting media attention away from discussion of potential food shortages.


Behind all the spin, Johnson’s strategy is simply responding to the opinion polls above.  He knows he has to win back Brexit Party voters if he wants to win a General Election.  Understandably, therefore,  he is going hard for the exit, declaring that he’d “rather die in a ditch” than leave after 31 October.

“Luckily” for him, he is up against Jeremy Corbyn – my local MP – who has completely failed to present a coherent policy on Brexit.  And Johnson has exploited this position by focusing on the Opposition’s continued failure to answer the critical question – “what would any extension be for?

It seems the Liberal Democrats will finally come off the fence under their new leader, Jo Swinson, and decide to campaign to remain in the EU. But we will have to wait to see if Labour’s Conference can force Corbyn to abandon his long-standing opposition to the EU.

If not, it is quite possible that the EU27 could refuse the extension request at next month’s Summit, if it doesn’t seem likely to lead to a second referendum or a new government.

Germany’s Chancellor Merkel has already set out her belief that Johnson wants to convert the UK to a form of Singapore-on-Thames. with a low tax, light-touch regulatory environment in direct opposition to the rules of the EU Single Market.

3 alternative and quite different scenarios therefore exist for the Brexit endgame:

  • No Deal. Johnson finds a way round Parliament and the No Deal Act, and leaves without a deal on 31 October. He then campaigns on the theme of ‘The People v Parliament’ and blames Parliament for blocking his hopes of getting a deal
  • 2nd referendum. The opposition parties threaten to install an interim government that would replace Johnson, and ask the Summit for an extension to allow an election and 2nd referendum.
  • ‘Plan B’.  Johnson understands the value of contingency planning.  Given his key policy is to leave on 31 October, he is already exploring the opportunity for a deal on the basis of accepting the EU’s proposed N Ireland-only backstop option.  He could then still campaign having (a) achieved a deal and (b) left as promised.

At the moment, Johnson clearly sees No Deal as his best option, as it means he doesn’t have to compromise.  So it is no surprise that the Foreign Secretary has warned they will “test (the No Deal Act) to the limit”, in order to leave on 31 October without a deal.

The compromise of a Plan B would clearly lose him DUP and Brexit Party votes.  But it might offer Johnson his best chance of staying in office, if the Opposition did agree to push for a new referendum. It would be humiliating, to say the least, if his term in office proved the shortest in history.

The next few weeks may therefore compel the ‘Globe and Mail’ to issue yet another apology to its readers.