Boom time going West - Treasury

From today's herald.

That will not help property investors sentiment in Sydney.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/05/16/1147545326435.html?from=top5

AUSTRALIA could be on the cusp of a sustained resources boom but it will have a dark side - depressed wages, stunted manufacturing and an exodus of workers and investment from Sydney to the mining states, the Government's chief economic adviser has warned.

The Treasury secretary, Ken Henry, said yesterday that property prices would fall and Sydney professionals would shift to Perth as the country continued its adjustment to "extraordinarily high" resources prices.

Dr Henry said China's industrialisation could yield high export prices and low import prices for much longer than commonly thought. These profound changes would raise Australian profits and lift consumption but, counter-intuitively, weigh on national employment and depress wages and economic growth.

In a speech in Sydney, Dr Henry delivered a blunt and controversial warning that governments should help, rather than resist, the shift from manufacturing and services in south-eastern Australia to mining in the the west and north. A retreat to corporate welfare or a failure to invest in education and retraining would make the adjustment more painful, he said.

Dr Henry set the test of good policy: "Proposals that resist the changes I have outlined here should themselves be resisted."

Dr Henry's speech to Australian Business Economists, follows the Government's $50 million subsidy to Ford Australia, and the budget's confirmation that spending on defence would outstrip spending on education.

Dr Henry showed the resources boom had produced a "two-speed" economy, with unemployment rising in the south-eastern states but falling in the west and north. But this might be a preview of what was to come, as investment and workers continued to leave places such as Sydney.

Dr Henry said Sydney was a "pretty good" place to visit - but would nevertheless lose professionals: "I don't think everybody in this room should be moving to Perth. But let me make this prediction: some of you will."

Sydney's manufacturers, stuck on the dark side of the resources boom, could face years of pressure. "Even if the exchange rate were not to appreciate they would eventually feel the squeeze because they would find it increasingly difficult … to compete with the construction and resources sectors for [capital and labour]," he said.

"That's going to have implications for asset prices, particularly property prices, in the resource-rich areas and in the non-resource rich areas."

Dr Henry said commentators had not realised exports could fall or remain flat in a sustained mining boom.

He said the current account deficit would be permanently higher as large dividends were paid to overseas investors.

Demand for labour would fall - after an initial boom - as the economy moved from labour to capital-intensive industries.

Treasury is acutely aware that Australia has never handled a terms of trade boom gracefully and has usually plunged into recession after the bust.

While Dr Henry assumed a sustained mining boom, Treasury's budget forecasts assume commodity prices will fall rapidly. He said the "prudent" tax revenue forecasts were "insurance" against a terms of trade bust and played down the need for larger budget surpluses, saying the Government's debt-free balance sheet gave it "enormous flexibility" to allow the budget to go into deficit if necessary.

Treasury's acceptance of a diminishing manufacturing industry attracted a withering response. "It is so sad to be revisiting this economic museum - to think it's all going to be coal and iron ore is just nuts," said an HSBC economist, John Edwards.
THE GREAT DIVIDE

- NSW's unemployment rate is 5.6 per cent; Western Australia's is 3.9 per cent.

- Manufacturing has fallen to 13 per cent of the economy from 15 per cent 10 years ago and 18 per cent 20 years ago.

- Manufacturing exports are worth $2 billion a year less than five years ago.

- One-third of companies say they are "very concerned" about manufacturing prospects.
 
What did people say about Perth during the last mining boom? And the last mining crash? In a way this is good: scare the chickens away from the eastern cities. Let the market fall and rents rise. Gives real investors a chance to pick up a few Eastern properties.
Alex
 
Hey all,
Alexlee asks an interesting question, does anyone in forum land have any memory or direct experience of the Perth market when there was a previous resource boom, and how it all ended up?

I am not even sure of when a previous resource boom was, but according to the REIA ( this is directly from Michael Yardneys book, thought id btter add that, hope thats cool with Michael :) ) in 1980 perths median house price was $41,500 and Melbournes was $40,800.

Was this around the time of a previous resources boom? Or is this way off?

5 years later in 1985 Perths median was $51,300 and Melbournes was $75,300?

Perths median has once again overtaken Melbournes.... what happens next?

Any experienced forumites have any ideas?
 
Hi all,

Now let's see...

We have a government official basically saying...

"This time it's different"

Hmmm, now where have I heard that line before??:rolleyes:

bye
 
From some articles I've found on the net, it seems that in the 1960s mining demand was driven by the rapid industrialisation of Japan. There were hiccups due to the oil crises, etc. In the end capacity (new mines) increased to such an extent, together with higher costs (equipment, skilled staff, etc) met with softer demand.

That's what I'm predicting with China. Will it grow to be one of, if not the most powerful economy in the world? Most likely yes, in another generation or two. Is this a supercycle? Probably, but there will be hiccups along the way.

I think the mining companies will go crazy buying equipment and hiring (ever more expensive) staff to create new capacity. That’s what you can see in Perth now. This will drive costs up, and then something will happen (US property tanks, Chinese yuan appreciates - as the yen did in the 80's that spelled the end of the Japanese bubble, oil crisis, Chinese political issues – such as China attacking Taiwan) that will reduce demand.

All those expensive mines will suddenly become unviable. Staff get laid off, and you get a general recession across the board. After that, China will try to fix the problems, and it’s either like the US resurging after the depression and savings and loan crises (and still with regular recessions along the way) or more like Japan, which delayed its reforms and prolonged its recession.

Given the lack of realism shown by the Chinese government (did anyone see some of the inane comments given by Chinese censors about Mission Impossible 3? That Chinese people will find it hard to accept warfare on the streets of Beijing? The Americans destroy most of their cities in movies!) and the unwillingness to take responsibility for mistakes inherent in Asian cultures, I’m betting on the latter. You have the leaders and elite living like kings but expecting the ordinary people to conform to communist ideals. Sooner or later that will cause social upheaval.
Alex
 
Alex,

The chinese have shown some forethought in managing economic growth lately - rather than pursue a 'growth at any cost' policy, its now moving towards a more sustainable policy that focuses growth on the under-devloped interior. Although I agree with your statement that there will be hiccups. Quite possible some big ones!
 
I'm sure they'll learn it, and that's why long term China will be right up there with the US. Though further down the line there will be issues like pensions and demographics (that one child thing practically cut out a whole generation of women).

I just don't believe they'll get it right the first time. They need to change their whole culture. It's taken Japan 20 years to START developing a newer view of economics (more free market instead of government handouts all the time). There will be slumps, that's when there'll be opportunities to buy in, and then there'll be more booms. The chinese are going to discover what a great place Australia is. In the same way as the Japanese dominated Hawaii, Gold Coast, etc in the 80's, the Chinese will do the same. Or it might be the Indians or the Russians.
Alex
 
Here's a graph of Perth prices I was emailed after asking a similar question about the end of the last boom. Apparently it ended late 70s roughly, when gold hit about us$1000/oz before crashing back down to earth.

Looks like a pretty soft landing to me.

Ed

p.s. curious that ounce == oz, and also Gold == AU == oz and our national colours include gold!
 

Attachments

  • perth30years.jpg
    perth30years.jpg
    85.9 KB · Views: 123
Front page West Australian today:

Boom pushes WA pay to Sydney level

WA's one-in-100-year boom is about to make the State's workers the highest paid in the nation, with fresh figures revealing the average wage is now just $7 a week lower than in NSW.

The average weekly wage in WA grew 1.3 per cent to $1070 in the three months to February but fell 0.1 per cent in NSW to $1077, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures revealed.

If the trend continues in the June quarter, which many economists say is highly likely given the growing skills crisis in WA, the State will boast the nation's best paid workers.

-----------

http://www.thewest.com.au/20060519/news/general/tw-news-general-home-sto134216.html
 
Is anyone seeing shades of the internet bubble here? Back in the late 90's software engineers, etc were being snapped up at ridiculous salaries by dot com companies. Silicon Valley property and office space shot into the stratosphere. Then demand fell off, and suddenly all those expensive staff are killing the companies.

Everyone is saying how mining companies will make record profits because resource prices are going up. How about the increasing costs (staff, machinary, office space)? If resource prices falter, will that mean some of those mines that might take 20 years to build are better off left on hold? In which case, what happens to all of those expensive engineers, etc that were hired to build those mines?
Alex
 
Alot of the workers are in construction - I read recently about a project that employed 1200 workers during construction (duration - 1 year) but only needed 300 to actually run the site. Not sure if this is the general case, but something to consider.
 
If commodity prices pull back, you have to wonder how many of those massive 20 year projects suddenly become unviable. Rising expenses from salaries, machinary etc isn't a problem when you have rising revenues (and ability to raise capital) but when that revenue falls off......
 
Alexlee

If it smells like one , If it looks one and sounds like one .......

It probably is a bubble.

Then again things could be different this time :rolleyes:

See Change
 
alexlee said:
If commodity prices pull back, you have to wonder how many of those massive 20 year projects suddenly become unviable. Rising expenses from salaries, machinary etc isn't a problem when you have rising revenues (and ability to raise capital) but when that revenue falls off......

You need to qualify what you mean by a '20 yr project'

Mostly the project lifespan runs 18 months to 2 yrs ( construction/upgrade phase) and there may be many projects running consecutively.

The actual purchase contracts are for 20 and 25 yrs.

So if what you are saying is that the buyer defaults on the contract, or is able to negotiate lower prices going into the future, thus the bottom line for the mining company gets too skinny, thus retrenchemnts/redundancies, etc. well that is another kettle of fish.

Hardly comparable to the dot.com 'blue sky' bubble.

This is investment in plant, equipment, infrastructure, in order to increase production in order to fulfill increasing contract orders.

Bit of perspective would be useful guys....

kp

PS.. Interesting to note RIO have just negotiated a 19% odd, price rise for iron ore for the next 12months and the share price goes backwards.
So I guess, that their business on the ground, bears no resemblance to how the 'market' rates them.
Maybe thats where the real bubble is.....
 
kph, of course, I'm only getting my info from the newspapers. I'm certainly not experienced in this field.

Every time someone says 'this time it's different', though, I have to ask, what did you say last time? What happened last time there was a mining boom and what caused the bust? Even assuming commodity contracts are honoured, wouldn't those skyrocketing costs bite into profit?

If Russia can default on its national debt (and now re-emerge on the back of high oil prices!), maybe China reneging on its mining contracts isn't so far-fetched (especially if there's political unrest).
Alex
 
I agree.
Its no so far fetched, as are other scenarios that can occur.

Apart from political unrest, we could have recessions, depressions, disease pandemics, global economic meltdowns, etc, etc.

But all things being equal, and with buyers honouring contracts, then there is no reason to forcast a bust any time soon.

And don't forget that a lot of the projects are energy related, not just commodities or metals.
The worldwide demand for natural gas is hardly going to decrease !!

kp
 
I searched for this on the net but couldn't find much that's relevant. Does anyone know what happened during the last mining boom? My understanding is that Japanese demand came down, while expensive supply came on line. It might be a case of finding the theories to fit my own preconceptions but I'm seeing a lot of parallels between the post-war Japanese boom and the Chinese boom.

Did they have long term contracts last time? If so, why did it still go bust? If iron ore contracts are priced annually, doesn't that mean prices can just crater with immediate effect on profits?

Saying that natural gas, oil, iron, etc demand is not going to decrease reminds me of the late 90's when they said that the internet stocks will stay high because internet traffic isn't going to come down. Internet traffic DID keep going up, but that didn't support the stocks because so much of it was speculation and not based on real business value. While mining companies of course make real earnings and hard cash, how much of it is due to speculators pushing up the spot price?

Surely part of the spot price (which is what is driving those contract prices for, say, iron ore) is driven by hedge funds and non-production-related reasons. How can we say that the current price of iron ore is entirely 'justified' by demand? In the same way as how could you say that Amazon at $400 and Google at $600 is 'justified' by the business? PE is one measure, but e.g. in the case of iron ore the contracts are only for a year and is based on the spot iron price, the spot price can crater due to speculators leaving the market. This will flow immediately into the next iron ore contract price, lowering mining company earnings.

I'm just wondering how much of the spot price is actually due to demand, and how much is speculative bubble. If, say, the demand justifies $60 of the Rio share price and speculation the other $18, that means Rio can fall 20%+ if sentiment changes. So much of resource demand is driven by China now that a blowup (say a banking crisis: E&Y put out an estimate of bad loans in China that is roughly equal to China's foreign reserves). The US and Japan had banking crises too, which resulted in recessions (shorter for the US because they bit the bullet, longer for Japan because they didn't).

The Chinese cultural mentality of blame shifting and 'face' suggests that they won't admit their mistakes and will probably prolong the recession.
Alex
 
Back
Top