Monday, April 13, 2015
The Filipino Worker is Due for a Raise
The Filipino worker is due for a raise. Although gains in the minimum wage for the National Capital Region (NCR - Top of the Range) have outpaced inflation since 1998, the gains have not kept up with productivity growth. If wages had kept up with productivity growth, wages would have been around 27% higher as of 2013, or Php 592 per day versus the actual rate of Php 466 per day. This means that the gains in productivity are being captured by the employers and has been leading to increasing income inequality.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Great Depression vs. Great Recession GDP Growth Rates
For the past few days, two illustrious economists, both Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers have been duking it out on the blogosphere about secular stagnation. In layman's terms, both are attempting to describe why does the US Recovery from the Great Recession feel so sluggish.
Although the overall collapse in REAL GDP was relatively shallow (-3.1% from peak to trough in real terms and -0.4% in nominal terms) and took place over two years (2008 to 2009), the recovery in the five years since then has been very anemic. The economy reached parity with its pre-recession peak GDP in nominal terms in 2010, only three years after the Great Recession started in December 2007. In real terms, it took an additional year, by 2011, to reach parity with its pre-recession peak. By 2014, the US economy is only 23% larger, in nominal terms, than the bottom in 2009, averaging only 4.19% growth every year since the Great Recession bottomed out. In real terms, the US economy is only 12% larger than the bottom in 2009, averaging only 2.2% growth every year since 2009.
The overall economic contraction during the Great Depression was much more severe (-46% in nominal terms and -27% in real terms from peak to trough) and took much longer (four years from 1930 to 1933). In real terms, economic parity with its pre-depression peak was only reached in 1936, seven years after the start of the Great Depression. Despite the severity and depth of the economic contraction, it only took three years after the 1933 bottom for the US economy to reach parity (in real terms) with pre-depression peak in 1929. Recovery, in terms of economic growth rates, was a lot more robust, averaging 10.9% annually during this period. In the four years since the US economy bottomed out in 1933, the US economy was 43.5% larger than the bottom in 1933, averaging 9.44% growth per year every year. In nominal terms, the US economy only recovered its pre-depression peak only sometime in 1941, when WWII spending began in earnest.
Source: www.worldbank.org, www.bea.gov, Reinhart and Rogoff, "This Time is Different"
Given this very sluggish recovery with no end in sight, it is no wonder that Ben Bernanke, who is only 60, said that he doesn't expect the price of money (interest rates) to rise in to its long-term average of around 4 percent in his lifetime.
Although the overall collapse in REAL GDP was relatively shallow (-3.1% from peak to trough in real terms and -0.4% in nominal terms) and took place over two years (2008 to 2009), the recovery in the five years since then has been very anemic. The economy reached parity with its pre-recession peak GDP in nominal terms in 2010, only three years after the Great Recession started in December 2007. In real terms, it took an additional year, by 2011, to reach parity with its pre-recession peak. By 2014, the US economy is only 23% larger, in nominal terms, than the bottom in 2009, averaging only 4.19% growth every year since the Great Recession bottomed out. In real terms, the US economy is only 12% larger than the bottom in 2009, averaging only 2.2% growth every year since 2009.
The overall economic contraction during the Great Depression was much more severe (-46% in nominal terms and -27% in real terms from peak to trough) and took much longer (four years from 1930 to 1933). In real terms, economic parity with its pre-depression peak was only reached in 1936, seven years after the start of the Great Depression. Despite the severity and depth of the economic contraction, it only took three years after the 1933 bottom for the US economy to reach parity (in real terms) with pre-depression peak in 1929. Recovery, in terms of economic growth rates, was a lot more robust, averaging 10.9% annually during this period. In the four years since the US economy bottomed out in 1933, the US economy was 43.5% larger than the bottom in 1933, averaging 9.44% growth per year every year. In nominal terms, the US economy only recovered its pre-depression peak only sometime in 1941, when WWII spending began in earnest.
Source: www.worldbank.org, www.bea.gov, Reinhart and Rogoff, "This Time is Different"
Given this very sluggish recovery with no end in sight, it is no wonder that Ben Bernanke, who is only 60, said that he doesn't expect the price of money (interest rates) to rise in to its long-term average of around 4 percent in his lifetime.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Another Sign that the Philippine Real Estate Bubble May Have Already Peaked? - Updated as of 4th Qtr. 2014
In a technical analysis of the price trends of financial securities, volume is a very important technical indicator. If the volume moves with the trend, the volume confirms the trend. When price and volume diverge, it is often indicative of a shift in the trend. For example, if an uptrending stock price is accompanied by lower and lower volumes, it may indicate that the price trend is weak and that prices may start to decline.
The same holds true for the real estate market.
US Real Estate Market
In the US, sales volumes peaked for US Total Home Sales (New and Existing Home Sales) at 8,4 million homes in 2005, a year before the US Median Sales Price peaked at US$ 225K in 2006. By 2007, the US Median Sales Price slipped by only 1% to US$ 223K while sales volumes had already dropped an astonishing 30.58% from the peak sales volume in 2005, to 5.8 million in 2007.
From then on, the US Median Sales Prices continued to decline year after year, bottoming out at $170K in 2011, or some 25% below the peak price level. By then sales volumes had already bottomed out a year earlier in 2010 to 4.5 million homes, or some 46% below peak volumes.
As of 2014, Median Sales Prices and Sales Volumes have begun to diverge, indicating a slowdown in the US Housing market.
Sources: Realtor.org, St. Louis Fed
Median Sales Price is a weighted average of the median sales prices of New Home Sales and Existing Home Sales
The same dynamic played out in both segments of the US Residential Real Estate Market: New Home Sales and Existing Home Sales.
Here is the chart for New Home Sales:
For the past year, US New Home Sales volumes have already flatlined.
And here is the chart for Existing Home Sales, the much larger market segment.
In 2014, US Existing Home Sales volume have begun to decline, and could be heralding another decline in US Home Prices.
Philippine Real Estate Market
Might the same dynamic be playing out in the Philippine residential real estate market? One problem bedeviling such an analysis is the dearth of data.
To my knowledge, the Philippines does not have adequate market data. For instance, there seem to be no published figures for sales volumes for residential homes. The best approximation of such data is HLURB's statistics for licenses to sell residential homes. This statistic represents only new homes and only represents licenses to sell for each residential unit and not the actual sales volumes.
Another issue is that there seems to be no price data on residential sales. The best data is assembled here, which in turn, is assembled from the Philippine Office of Colliers International, a global real estate agency. These prices, in turn, are based on the average prices of a prime 3 bedroom condominium unit in the heart of the Makati Central Business District. This is like basing nationwide US housing prices on the price of a prime 3 bedroom coop unit in Manhattan in New York, one of the priciest real estate markets in the US. The data available in the Philippines is not representative of the true state of the entire national residential real estate market. At best, it is an approximation of the Philippine Real Estate Market. The BSP has stepped into the picture to overcome this deficiency by developing their own real estate index, which would be more comprehensive in scope. Here is a possible candidate for such an index.
But based on the data available, we arrived at this chart:
Based on this data, volumes (as indicated by Residential HLURB licenses to sell) may have already peaked in 2012, while prices have continued their upward climb to date. Volume seems to have peaked at 264,237 units in 2012 and dropped 15% to 225,051 units in 2013. In 2014, volumes declined further to just 212,081 units or 20% below peak volumes. In other words, sales volumes have been declining for two solid years in a row.
Prices though, have continued to climb since 2012, another 14% in 2013 and another 7% in 2014, representing a 22% increase over 2012 prices.
Is the same dynamic that played out in the US Residential Real Estate Market playing out in the Philippines? It looks like it now that the downward trend in sales volumes has continued for two solid years in a row, but it may still be too early to tell.
The same holds true for the real estate market.
US Real Estate Market
In the US, sales volumes peaked for US Total Home Sales (New and Existing Home Sales) at 8,4 million homes in 2005, a year before the US Median Sales Price peaked at US$ 225K in 2006. By 2007, the US Median Sales Price slipped by only 1% to US$ 223K while sales volumes had already dropped an astonishing 30.58% from the peak sales volume in 2005, to 5.8 million in 2007.
From then on, the US Median Sales Prices continued to decline year after year, bottoming out at $170K in 2011, or some 25% below the peak price level. By then sales volumes had already bottomed out a year earlier in 2010 to 4.5 million homes, or some 46% below peak volumes.
As of 2014, Median Sales Prices and Sales Volumes have begun to diverge, indicating a slowdown in the US Housing market.
Sources: Realtor.org, St. Louis Fed
Median Sales Price is a weighted average of the median sales prices of New Home Sales and Existing Home Sales
The same dynamic played out in both segments of the US Residential Real Estate Market: New Home Sales and Existing Home Sales.
Here is the chart for New Home Sales:
For the past year, US New Home Sales volumes have already flatlined.
And here is the chart for Existing Home Sales, the much larger market segment.
In 2014, US Existing Home Sales volume have begun to decline, and could be heralding another decline in US Home Prices.
Philippine Real Estate Market
Might the same dynamic be playing out in the Philippine residential real estate market? One problem bedeviling such an analysis is the dearth of data.
To my knowledge, the Philippines does not have adequate market data. For instance, there seem to be no published figures for sales volumes for residential homes. The best approximation of such data is HLURB's statistics for licenses to sell residential homes. This statistic represents only new homes and only represents licenses to sell for each residential unit and not the actual sales volumes.
Another issue is that there seems to be no price data on residential sales. The best data is assembled here, which in turn, is assembled from the Philippine Office of Colliers International, a global real estate agency. These prices, in turn, are based on the average prices of a prime 3 bedroom condominium unit in the heart of the Makati Central Business District. This is like basing nationwide US housing prices on the price of a prime 3 bedroom coop unit in Manhattan in New York, one of the priciest real estate markets in the US. The data available in the Philippines is not representative of the true state of the entire national residential real estate market. At best, it is an approximation of the Philippine Real Estate Market. The BSP has stepped into the picture to overcome this deficiency by developing their own real estate index, which would be more comprehensive in scope. Here is a possible candidate for such an index.
But based on the data available, we arrived at this chart:
Based on this data, volumes (as indicated by Residential HLURB licenses to sell) may have already peaked in 2012, while prices have continued their upward climb to date. Volume seems to have peaked at 264,237 units in 2012 and dropped 15% to 225,051 units in 2013. In 2014, volumes declined further to just 212,081 units or 20% below peak volumes. In other words, sales volumes have been declining for two solid years in a row.
Prices though, have continued to climb since 2012, another 14% in 2013 and another 7% in 2014, representing a 22% increase over 2012 prices.
Is the same dynamic that played out in the US Residential Real Estate Market playing out in the Philippines? It looks like it now that the downward trend in sales volumes has continued for two solid years in a row, but it may still be too early to tell.
Monday, March 23, 2015
The Divergence: A Tale of Two Countries
They started on the same path, really. Two young and very poor countries in Southeast Asia that had just shrugged off hundreds of years of colonial rule.
The first country was at a distinct disadvantage. It was a tiny country - a city-state that was only a third the size of the second country's largest city. It had no natural resources, not even the most basic resource to sustain life: water. It's very survival was always under constant threat from its two next door neighbors, one of which was its former master.
The second country had a larger land mass, a larger population, and strong political, economic, and even cultural ties to the most powerful nation on earth, which had two large military bases that served to protect the young country from a dominant and belligerent country to its north.
Both countries were strategically located at the historical nexus of trade and commerce in the Far East.
Both were ruled by two ruthless dictators who assumed power at the same time and who wasted no time consolidating their power under One Party Rule (in essence, one-man rule). Both leaders were hell-bent on ruling their respective nations for life. Both rulers groomed their offspring to assume power after their regimes. Both were brilliant, geniuses even. The ruler of the first nation was a governance genius who gave up his life to enrich his country. The ruler of the second nation was a criminal genius who enriched his family at the expense of the nation. And that made all the difference.
The two rulers of the two countries? As you should have guessed by now, the first ruler was Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. The second? Why our very own Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines!
Yesterday, Lee Kuan Yew died, leaving his country as a first world nation, a model of governance throughout the world that routinely tops the governance indexes in terms of transparency and effficiency. Its political leadership and civil servants among the world's highest paid and least corruptible in the world. Lee Kuan Yew's son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has continued to guide the country in the same benevolent manner of his father, continuing Singapore's transformation into the economic superpower that it is today.
Lee Kuan Yew left this earth with a reputation as a political giant, the "Wise Man of the East."
As for Marcos? Marcos left his country in disgrace, booted out by his own countrymen in the 1986 "People Power Revolution." Because of his rampant looting of the economy, he left the nation as poor and even more in debt than when he first took over. He thoroughly earned the moniker "Ten Most Corrupt Leaders of the World." Marcos so thoroughly institutionalized corruption that the nation consistently ranked at the bottom half of many governance indicators even decades after his death.
In 1993, Singapore, with a population one twentieth of the Philippines, surpassed the Philippine economy in absolute size and has remained there ever since.
The first country was at a distinct disadvantage. It was a tiny country - a city-state that was only a third the size of the second country's largest city. It had no natural resources, not even the most basic resource to sustain life: water. It's very survival was always under constant threat from its two next door neighbors, one of which was its former master.
The second country had a larger land mass, a larger population, and strong political, economic, and even cultural ties to the most powerful nation on earth, which had two large military bases that served to protect the young country from a dominant and belligerent country to its north.
Both countries were strategically located at the historical nexus of trade and commerce in the Far East.
Both were ruled by two ruthless dictators who assumed power at the same time and who wasted no time consolidating their power under One Party Rule (in essence, one-man rule). Both leaders were hell-bent on ruling their respective nations for life. Both rulers groomed their offspring to assume power after their regimes. Both were brilliant, geniuses even. The ruler of the first nation was a governance genius who gave up his life to enrich his country. The ruler of the second nation was a criminal genius who enriched his family at the expense of the nation. And that made all the difference.
The two rulers of the two countries? As you should have guessed by now, the first ruler was Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. The second? Why our very own Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines!
Yesterday, Lee Kuan Yew died, leaving his country as a first world nation, a model of governance throughout the world that routinely tops the governance indexes in terms of transparency and effficiency. Its political leadership and civil servants among the world's highest paid and least corruptible in the world. Lee Kuan Yew's son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has continued to guide the country in the same benevolent manner of his father, continuing Singapore's transformation into the economic superpower that it is today.
Lee Kuan Yew left this earth with a reputation as a political giant, the "Wise Man of the East."
As for Marcos? Marcos left his country in disgrace, booted out by his own countrymen in the 1986 "People Power Revolution." Because of his rampant looting of the economy, he left the nation as poor and even more in debt than when he first took over. He thoroughly earned the moniker "Ten Most Corrupt Leaders of the World." Marcos so thoroughly institutionalized corruption that the nation consistently ranked at the bottom half of many governance indicators even decades after his death.
In 1993, Singapore, with a population one twentieth of the Philippines, surpassed the Philippine economy in absolute size and has remained there ever since.
Source: www.worldbank.org
It is only very recently that the Philippines has shrugged off its reputation as the "Sick Man of Asia" and has powered ahead of other nations to become the second fastest growing economy in the world.
Singapore and the Philippines started on the same path at the same time and were led by similarly autocratic leaders. But those paths diverged over time. The first leader took the route to economic success and glory, the second leader took the route to infamy. How we wish it had been the other way around.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Does China Even Have a Business Cycle - Construction Wise?
Does China even have a business cycle - construction wise?
This is a picture of China's business cycle from Business Insider.
This is a picture of China's business cycle from Business Insider.
On the face of it, this looks like a normal, ordinary business cycle with its ups and downs, booms and busts.
Business cyles invariably cause significant fluctuations in investment. Factories shut down as sales dry up and revamp up production once sales pick up. This is true for just about anything: Factories, Mines, Housing, and Buildings. Not so in China. The pace of China's Investment has been relentlessly trending upward, business cycle or not.
But from an investment perspective, China has been on an investment tear for almost for over fifty years straight. Gross Capital Formation (GCF) as a percentage of GDP has been on a relentless climb upward since 1962 and is still trending upward. At 49% of its GDP in 2013, China's GCF is 2.2 times the World Average of 22% as of 2013. It's historical long-term average GCF as % GDP is an astonishing 36.20% - almost 50 percent more than the long-term historical World average of 24.43%.
This is a pace that no other major national economy has been able to duplicate on a sustained on a long-term basis, not even the largest and fastest growing economies called the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). At 49% of GDP, China's GCF currently stands at almost double that of the historical average of the fast growing BRICs (inclusive of China): 26%
This is not just true of China's Invesmtnent Cycle, it is also true of its Construction and Real Estate Sectors (CRES) At 12.75% of the economy, the CRES is 37% higher than its historical long term average of 9.25%. It has stayed that way for a long time since the early 1990s, contributing to a substantial over investment.
An extended period of over investment invariably leads to an extended period of mal-investment and misallocation of investment resources to enterprises and ventures of dubious economic value that may eventually go bust.
Sources: www.worldbank.org; China National Statistical Yearbook
Monday, March 9, 2015
Do Philippine House Prices Have More Room to Run?
Philippine House Prices continued their relentless climb in the 4th quarter of 2014, climbing 1.03% over the third quarter. To date, prices have risen over 110.23% since the fourth quarter of 2004, outpacing inflation which has caused prices to climb by a corresponding 58.21% for the same period.
Given this substantial increase, do Philippine House Prices still have more room to run?
On the face of it, the answer is yes. Why? Because House Price Cost per Sq. M. amounts to just US$ 3,084, well below the Asian average of US$ 8,257. Out of 10 countries listed in the Global Property Guide, Philippine House Prices rank the third lowest in the region, just ahead of Cambodia (US$ 2,913) and just behind Thailand (US$ 3,952).
According to Global Property Guide, these prices are for residential properties in the center of the most important city of each country - either the administrative or financial capital of each country.
Source: Global Property Guide
But these prices ignore affordability. Different countries have different income levels. Therefore, countries that have a higher income on a per capita basis can afford pricier properties.
Unfortunately, there is a dearth of data when it comes to a city by city income statistics. The closest and most widely available data is GDP per capita, the latest of which is for the year 2013.
Source: www.worldbank.org
Based on this data, the Philippines has the third lowest GDP per capita for 2013: US$ 2,765, ahead of India (US$ 1,499) but below Indonesia (US$ 3,475). Naturally, both Singapore and Hong Kong boast of the highest incomes and therefore have the highest property prices.
Using GDP per capita as a proxy for income, on a house price to income ratio, the Philippines does not look so reasonably priced. After India (764 times income) and Cambodia (289 times income), the Philippines house price to income ratio comes in at 112 times income. This is higher even that bubblelicious China, which comes in at 102 times income. The Philippine House Price to Income Ratio is double the regional average of 50 times income.
| Country | Housing Cost Per Sq. M. in Prime CBD (in USD $) | Cost of 100 Sq. M. Residential Condo in CBD (in USD $) | 2013 GDP Per Capita (Current USD $) | Residential Price/GDP Per Capita (in USD $) |
| Cambodia | 2,913 | 291,300 | 1,007 | 289 |
| China | 6,932 | 693,200 | 6,807 | 102 |
| Hong Kong | 22,814 | 2,281,400 | 38,124 | 60 |
| India | 11,455 | 1,145,500 | 1,499 | 764 |
| Indonesia | 2,766 | 276,600 | 3,475 | 80 |
| Japan | 10,784 | 1,078,400 | 38,634 | 28 |
| Malaysia | 2,616 | 261,600 | 10,538 | 25 |
| Philippines | 3,084 | 308,400 | 2,765 | 112 |
| Singapore | 15,251 | 1,525,100 | 55,183 | 28 |
| Thailand | 3,952 | 395,200 | 5,779 | 68 |
| Average | 8,257 | 825,670 | 16,381 | 50 |
| Source: | Global Property Guide |
According to the Global Property Guide, Low Middle Income and Low Income countries like India and Cambodia generally have higher price to income ratios.
On a global basis, the Philippines has the third highest House Price to Income Ratio, behind India (764 times income), Cambodia (289 times income), Gambia (137 times income). It is tied with Madagascar (112 times income) and just ahead of Russia (108 times income). Among the Lower Middle Income countries, the Philippines ranks second behind India and just ahead of Indonesia (80 times income).
| Country | Housing Cost Per Sq. M. in Prime CBD (in USD $) | Cost of 100 Sq. M. Residential Condo in CBD (in USD $) | 2013 GDP Per Capita (Current USD $) | Residential Price/GDP Per Capita (in USD $) | Income Class |
| Russia | 15,772 | 1,577,187 | 14,612 | 108 | High Income |
| United Kingdom | 33,993 | 3,399,339 | 41,788 | 81 | High Income |
| Hong Kong | 22,814 | 2,281,400 | 38,124 | 60 | High Income |
| France | 18,128 | 1,812,848 | 42,503 | 43 | High Income |
| USA | 18,499 | 1,849,900 | 53,042 | 35 | High Income |
| Japan | 10,784 | 1,078,400 | 38,634 | 28 | High Income |
| Singapore | 15,251 | 1,525,100 | 55,183 | 28 | High Income |
| Israel | 9,511 | 951,100 | 36,051 | 26 | High Income |
| Antigua | 3,501 | 350,100 | 13,342 | 26 | High Income |
| St. Kitts and Nevis | 3,496 | 349,600 | 14,133 | 25 | High Income |
| Italy | 7,882 | 788,195 | 35,926 | 22 | High Income |
| Switzerland | 15,028 | 1,502,754 | 84,815 | 18 | High Income |
| Chile | 2,749 | 274,900 | 15,732 | 17 | High Income |
| Finland | 8,259 | 825,943 | 49,147 | 17 | High Income |
| Bahamas | 3,632 | 363,200 | 22,312 | 16 | High Income |
| Canada | 8,288 | 828,800 | 51,958 | 16 | High Income |
| Uruguay | 2,562 | 256,200 | 16,351 | 16 | High Income |
| Sweden | 9,292 | 929,219 | 60,430 | 15 | High Income |
| Spain | 4,575 | 457,499 | 29,863 | 15 | High Income |
| New Zealand | 5,611 | 561,100 | 41,556 | 14 | High Income |
| Netherlands | 6,522 | 652,221 | 50,793 | 13 | High Income |
| Trinidad & Tobago | 2,334 | 233,400 | 18,373 | 13 | High Income |
| Germany | 5,420 | 542,033 | 46,269 | 12 | High Income |
| United Arab Emirates | 5,037 | 503,700 | 43,049 | 12 | High Income |
| Australia | 7,626 | 762,600 | 67,458 | 11 | High Income |
| Ireland | 5,524 | 552,401 | 50,503 | 11 | High Income |
| Denmark | 5,711 | 571,142 | 59,832 | 10 | High Income |
| Puerto Rico | 1,365 | 136,500 | 28,529 | 5 | High Income |
| China | 6,932 | 693,200 | 6,807 | 102 | Upper Middle Income |
| Thailand | 3,952 | 395,200 | 5,779 | 68 | Upper Middle Income |
| South Africa | 4,101 | 410,100 | 6,618 | 62 | Upper Middle Income |
| Belize | 2,322 | 232,200 | 4,894 | 47 | Upper Middle Income |
| Lebanon | 3,693 | 369,300 | 9,928 | 37 | Upper Middle Income |
| Dominican Republic | 2,078 | 207,800 | 5,879 | 35 | Upper Middle Income |
| Brazil | 3,751 | 375,100 | 11,208 | 33 | Upper Middle Income |
| Colombia | 2,379 | 237,900 | 7,831 | 30 | Upper Middle Income |
| Peru | 1,810 | 181,000 | 6,662 | 27 | Upper Middle Income |
| Jamaica | 1,404 | 140,400 | 5,290 | 27 | Upper Middle Income |
| Mexico | 2,635 | 263,500 | 10,307 | 26 | Upper Middle Income |
| St. Lucia | 1,860 | 186,000 | 7,328 | 25 | Upper Middle Income |
| Malaysia | 2,616 | 261,600 | 10,538 | 25 | Upper Middle Income |
| Jordan | 1,282 | 128,200 | 5,214 | 25 | Upper Middle Income |
| Ecuador | 1,278 | 127,800 | 6,003 | 21 | Upper Middle Income |
| Argentina | 2,813 | 281,300 | 14,715 | 19 | Upper Middle Income |
| Panama | 2,001 | 200,100 | 11,037 | 18 | Upper Middle Income |
| Costa Rica | 1,642 | 164,200 | 10,185 | 16 | Upper Middle Income |
| India | 11,455 | 1,145,500 | 1,499 | 764 | Lower Middle Income |
| Philippines | 3,084 | 308,400 | 2,765 | 112 | Lower Middle Income |
| Indonesia | 2,766 | 276,600 | 3,475 | 80 | Lower Middle Income |
| Nicaragua | 1,342 | 134,200 | 1,851 | 72 | Lower Middle Income |
| Morocco | 2,015 | 201,500 | 3,093 | 65 | Lower Middle Income |
| Cape Verde | 1,300 | 130,000 | 3,767 | 35 | Lower Middle Income |
| El Salvador | 1,193 | 119,300 | 3,826 | 31 | Lower Middle Income |
| Egypt | 831 | 83,100 | 3,315 | 25 | Lower Middle Income |
| Cambodia | 2,913 | 291,300 | 1,007 | 289 | Low Income |
| Gambia | 667 | 66,700 | 489 | 137 | Low Income |
| Madagascar | 520 | 52,000 | 463 | 112 | Low Income |
| Tanzania | 700 | 70,000 | 695 | 101 | Low Income |
| Kenya | 900 | 90,000 | 1,246 | 72 | Low Income |
Source: www.worldbank.org
So do Philippine Housing Prices still have more room to run? Maybe so. But the odds looked stacked against it.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Putin vs. Marcos: Who is the Bigger Kleptocrat?
Bill Browder, the former CEO of the hedge fund Hermitage Capital Management and who was once Russia's largest foreign investor, told Fareed Zakaria of CNN that he believes that President Vladimir Putin of Russia is the world's richest man, with an estimated net worth of US$ 200 billion. This would make Putin more than twice as rich as Bill Gates, the world's richest man, with an estimated net worth of US$79 billion. Bill Browder would be in a strong position to know. He once conducted a "stealing analysis" of Gazprom, Russia's largest oil company, and concluded that "only 10%" of Gazprom's assets were being stolen, instead of 99% as indicated by Gazprom's market price, hence Gazprom's gross undervaluation.
Given that many of Russia's billionaires have strong ties to Putin, particularly in the oil and gas industries, Russia's main export and one of its largest natural resources, it is unsurprising that Putin, the one with the actual power to distribute Russia's biggest exported commodity, would have the biggest share of the Russian economic pie.
This is not hard to believe at all. One just has to look at the cost overruns of 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. With a revised budget of US$ 51 billion, the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi costs more than three times the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, roughly $14 billion. But the Sochi Winter Olympics was a much smaller event, with only 2,873 athletes representing 88 countries. In contrast, the London Summer Olympics was a much more massive affair, with around 10,700 athletes from over 205 countries. This is just one event in the course of Putin's 14 year reign. Multiply this by all the transactions that go through in Russia's US$ 2.1 trillion economy and US$ 200 billion in plunder sounds pretty darn realistic.
Bill Browder went on to claim that during "the first eight or 10 years of Putin's reign over Russia, it was about stealing as much money as he could." Sound familiar?
In absolute numbers, the size of Putin's loot would dwarf the US$ 35 billion that President Suharto was reported to have amassed in his 31 years in power. But Putin's rapaciousness ranks only 5th in the world, behind Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Sani Abacha of Nigeria, our very own President Marcos of the Philippines, and President Suharto of Indonesia. Why? A robber's ability to rob is determined by the size of the vault he is robbing. It just so happens that Putin's vault, namely the Russian economy, was so much bigger than the others. With a cumulative GDP of US$ 15.88 trillion from 1999 to 2014, Putin's vault is almost 6 times President's Suharto's cumulative GDP of $2.66 trillion from 1967 to 1998. But in terms of amount stolen as a share of the economic vault, Putin's loot amounts to only 1.26% of the cumulative Russian GDP in the 14 years that Putin has been in power.
So who was the bigger kleptocrat: Putin or Marcos? In this case, Macoy still comes out on top!
Given that many of Russia's billionaires have strong ties to Putin, particularly in the oil and gas industries, Russia's main export and one of its largest natural resources, it is unsurprising that Putin, the one with the actual power to distribute Russia's biggest exported commodity, would have the biggest share of the Russian economic pie.
This is not hard to believe at all. One just has to look at the cost overruns of 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. With a revised budget of US$ 51 billion, the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi costs more than three times the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, roughly $14 billion. But the Sochi Winter Olympics was a much smaller event, with only 2,873 athletes representing 88 countries. In contrast, the London Summer Olympics was a much more massive affair, with around 10,700 athletes from over 205 countries. This is just one event in the course of Putin's 14 year reign. Multiply this by all the transactions that go through in Russia's US$ 2.1 trillion economy and US$ 200 billion in plunder sounds pretty darn realistic.
Bill Browder went on to claim that during "the first eight or 10 years of Putin's reign over Russia, it was about stealing as much money as he could." Sound familiar?
In absolute numbers, the size of Putin's loot would dwarf the US$ 35 billion that President Suharto was reported to have amassed in his 31 years in power. But Putin's rapaciousness ranks only 5th in the world, behind Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Sani Abacha of Nigeria, our very own President Marcos of the Philippines, and President Suharto of Indonesia. Why? A robber's ability to rob is determined by the size of the vault he is robbing. It just so happens that Putin's vault, namely the Russian economy, was so much bigger than the others. With a cumulative GDP of US$ 15.88 trillion from 1999 to 2014, Putin's vault is almost 6 times President's Suharto's cumulative GDP of $2.66 trillion from 1967 to 1998. But in terms of amount stolen as a share of the economic vault, Putin's loot amounts to only 1.26% of the cumulative Russian GDP in the 14 years that Putin has been in power.
So who was the bigger kleptocrat: Putin or Marcos? In this case, Macoy still comes out on top!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)