nomura china
TRANSCRIPT
3 September 2009 Nomura
AN
CH
OR
R
EP
OR
T
Any authors named on this report are strategists unless otherwise indicated. See the important disclosures and analyst certifications on pages 85 to 88.
Multi-Strategy | A S I A
ASIAN BANK REFLECTIONS: VOLUME 4 Paul Schulte +852 2252 1409 [email protected] Nomura Asia Financials Research Team
Enter the ‘S’ curve: Savers become consumers The few banks in the West that can lend do not want to lend in the West because of unsafe collateral values. So they are diverting their balance sheets to under-leveraged emerging markets with defensive collateral values, specifically in Asia.
At the same time, China is going through a phase of development (the $6,000 GDP/capita S-curve) whose hallmarks are powerful surges of credit and stock market capitalisation. (Indonesia and India are right behind.)
It enters this growth phase with the largest absolute pool of household savings ($3tn) and the largest savings/GDP (55%) ever recorded in the post-War period.
The global credit crisis is providing a backdrop of non-inflationary price trends. This removes a core problem for countries during this period: high inflation.
In this phase, China has a loan/deposit ratio of 67% and a leverage ratio of 17x – both of which are among the lowest in the world.
Sectors which are likely to thrive during this period are banks, broker-dealers, hotels, retail, protein producers, health care and clothing. Laggards are phones, oils and coal.
The risk is neither inflation nor excess lending. Leverage levels are near all-time lows. The real risk is a lack of renewal and preservation of air, soil, river and sea resources from overuse. Massive investment is urgently needed to deal with contamination from toxic nitrogen, sulfur and carbon compounds.
On August 10, we advised investors to take profit on A shares, in particular the banks. This report offers a fresh perspective on the market as it finishes its consolidation.
NEW THEME
Bank picks Name Ticker Rating PriceStan Chart STAN LN BUY £13.96 CCB 939 HK BUY HK$5.85 BoC 3988 HK BUY HK$3.77 ICBC 1398 HK BUY HK$5.29 UOB UOB SP BUY S$16.7 PNB PNB IN BUY INR682.5 BoC HK 2388 HK BUY HK$15.5
Note: Pricing as of 31 Aug 09
Strategist Paul Schulte +852 2252 1409 [email protected]
Analysts Mixo Das +852 2252 1424 [email protected] Sayan Datta (Associate) +852 2252 1412 [email protected] And the Regional Financials Team
N O M U R A I N T E R N A T I O N A L ( H K ) L I M I T E D
3 September 2009 Nomura 1
Multi-Strategy | A S I A
ASIAN BANK REFLECTIONS: VOLUME 4
Paul Schulte +852 2252 1409 [email protected] Nomura Asia Financials Research Team
Our View Every country was or is an emerging market. We went back to see how these
countries behaved and conclude that they have similar patterns. China is at $6,000 GDP/capita and is entering a high growth phase. The biggest difference is its mammoth savings, which are double other GEMS savings at the same point of time.
Anchor themes
For China to achieve the same level of per-capita GDP as Thailand, we should expect an average of US$3bn per day in new credit for the next five years. Protein demand will result in an increase of 19mn pounds of meat consumption per day.
Health and environmental damage present a drag of more 10% of GDP per year. A very substantial commitment of tens of billions of US dollars should reduce the damaging effects of high growth.
Enter the ‘S’ curve: Savers become consumers We put China alongside 23 countries which already have or are currently going through the $6,000 GDP per capita phase of development. On average, China’s current high growth levels are mostly ‘normal’, despite very high absolute numbers.
If China grows anything like past and present emerging markets in this $6,000-$9,000 GDP/capita corridor, we believe we should see average increases of consumption PER DAY of the following: 1) $3bn in credit, 2) $1.4bn in market cap., 3) $116mn in hotel spending, 4) $65mn in health care, 5) $105mn in retail spending, 6) 19mn lbs of meat, 7) 62bn gallons of water for meat production alone, 8) 188mn lbs of plants for cattle, 9) 90,000 tonnes of steel and 10) 30,000 tonnes of cereal.
We believe that underleveraged Hong Kong will be a major beneficiary of this high growth in services. The fastest-growing sectors going forward are likely to be all in services, including financials, hotels, clothing retail and health care. Despite these large increases, China only gets to per-capita levels of consumption seen in Colombia or Thailand.
China’s service sector will likely grow at the expense of trade. Consumption will grow as net exports fall. (The flip-side is that the US will do the opposite). Investment/GDP should taper off. The make-up of the stock market will change a lot.
All this growth is, indeed, possible. But it comes with an ever-rising price tag – unsustainable demands on land, water and air resources, as well as high emissions of carbon, sulfur and nitrogen compounds. In our view, China should create a multi-billion dollar environmental super-fund, couching it in terms of national security. Otherwise, it will jeopardize its much-desired wealth trajectory.
If nothing is done to preserve and renew air, water, land and public health resources, however, the long-term consequences are very dangerous. The pressure on commodities will be enormous. Let’s not forget: India and Indonesia are right behind. Also inside:
Our banks universe in Appendix I, Global Signals for Equities in Appendix IV.
G3 Sovereign Bullish GEMS Sovereign Bullish TED spread Bullish US HY credits Bullish Asia ex-Japan IG Bullish VIX Neutral US IG credits Bullish GEMS Currencies Bullish TIPS Alert-falling
N O M U R A I N T E R N A T I O N A L ( H K ) L I M I T E D
Bank picks Name Ticker Rating PriceStan Chart STAN LN BUY £13.96 CCB 939 HK BUY HK$5.85 BoC 3988 HK BUY HK$3.77 ICBC 1398 HK BUY HK$5.29 UOB UOB SP BUY S$16.7 PNB PNB IN BUY INR682.5BoC HK 2388 HK BUY HK$15.5
Note: Pricing as of 31 Aug 09
We add BoC HK to our bank picks.
NEW THEME
Strategist Paul Schulte +852 2252 1409 [email protected]
Analysts Mixo Das +852 2252 1424 [email protected] Sayan Datta (Associate) +852 2252 1412 [email protected] Mahrukh Adajania +91 22 6785 5704 [email protected] Anand Pathmakanthan, CFA +65 6433 6986 [email protected] Srikanth Vadlamaniu +65 6433 6957 [email protected] Grace Wu +852 2252 1565 [email protected] May Yan +852 2252 6190 [email protected]
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 2
The Good News "[There is] a rarely discussed consequence of the aspirations of China's people, and other developing countries to a First World lifestyle. This might mean acquiring a house, appliances, utensils, clothes, consumer products. And it also means access to doctors and dentists educated at much expense; eating abundant food grown at high production rates with synthetic fertilizers; eating industrially processed food; and travelling by car instead of bike or on foot. And, China will not tolerate being told not to aspire to First World levels.
China has the largest population in the world and its economy is growing the fastest. If China's per capita consumption rates rise to First World levels, and even if nothing else about the world changes, (then) China's achievement of First World standards will approximately double the world's human resource use and environmental impact. But it is doubtful whether even the world's current human resource use and impact can be sustained. “
The Bad News “Marring the superlative achievements of China are the environmental problems, among the most severe of any major country. The long list ranges from air pollution, biodiversity losses, cropland losses, desertification, disappearing wetlands, grassland degradation, invasive species, overgrazing, river flow cessation, salinization, soil erosion, trash accumulation, and water pollution and shortages.
Like the rest of the world, China is lurching between accelerating environmental damage and accelerating environmental protection. These lurches involve more momentum than those of any other country … China may conclude that its interests require environmental policies as bold, and as effectively carried out, as its family planning policies.“
“Something has to give."
Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, PP 359-377. (Pulitzer Prize winner)
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 3
Contents
‘S’ Curve Portfolio 4
Looking Ahead 5
I. How much can China grow? 8
II. Defining the ‘S’ curve 11
III. Comparing China with other countries 12
IV: Comparing the Chinese Financial Sector to the Rest of the World 15
V. China and the Rest of the World 21
VI. The birth of the services sector 23
VII. Power 25
Appendix I: Valuation comparisons 29
Appendix II: Time frame for data 31
Appendix III: Data by Category 32
Appendix IV: Global signals for equities 79
Appendix V: Portfolios 82
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 4
Portfolio
‘S’ Curve Portfolio
Exhibit 1. ‘S’ Curve Portfolio CCB 939 HK BOC HK 2388 HK China Construction Bank Corporation provides a complete range of banking services and other financial services to individual and corporate customers. The bank's services include retail banking, international settlement, project finance, and credit card services.
BOC Hong Kong (Holdings) Limited provides a comprehensive range of financial products and services to retail and corporate customers. Its products include retail banking, corporate banking, and treasury services. The Company operates its branches in Hong Kong and China.
CCB
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
BoC HK
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
HK & Shanghai Hotels 45 HK Jin Jiang 2006 HK
The Hong Kong and Shanghai Hotels, Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates and manages hotels, food, beverage outlets, and clubs. The Company also invests in properties.
Shanghai Jin Jiang International Hotels (Group) Company Ltd. owns and operates hotels.
HK&Shanghai Hotels
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
Jin Jiang
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
Hang Lung 101 HK Li Ning 2331 HK Hang Lung Properties Limited, through its subsidiaries, invests in, develops and manages properties. The company also manages parking lots.
Li Ning Company Limited researches, designs, manufactures, distributes, and retails sports footwear, apparel and accessories for sport and leisure use.
Hang Lung
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
Li Ning
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
Mindray MR US Beijing Ent. Water 371 HK Mindray Medical International Limited develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices. The company offers patient monitoring devices, diagnostic laboratory instruments, and ultrasound imaging systems.
Beijing Enterprises Water Group Limited, through its subsidiaries, trades computer-related products. The company also trades mobile phones and in-door telephones. The company is targeting investment in and development of water treatment and environment business.
M indray
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
Beijing Ent. Water
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
China Everbright 257 HK Shun Tak 242 HK China Everbright International Limited provides environmental protection project management and consultancy services. The company's operations are broken into environmental energy, water, construction and technology.
Shun Tak Holdings Limited, through its subsidiaries, develops, invests and manages properties. The company also provides shipping and related services. In addition, Shun Tak operates hotels and invests in securities.
China Everbright Int .
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
Shun Tak
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
Netease NTES US China Agri 606 HK NetEase.com Inc. provides an Internet community for Chinese users. The company's Web site offers email, online auctions, online chat rooms, personalized Web sites, instant messaging, Web hosting, and e-commerce services.
China Agri-Industries Holdings Ltd. produces biofuel and biochemical. The company also processes oilseed and wheat, and produces malt used for beer brewage.
Netease
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
China Agri
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09
Source: Bloomberg, Nomura research
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 5
Executive Summary
Looking Ahead China is behaving like an ‘average’ emerging market at $6,000 per capita GDP. (However, it is about 20 times larger than any other emerging market previously known)
S-curves measure change or growth over time. Science uses it for research in embryos, viruses, productivity and economics. The development of emerging markets to mature markets typically goes like clockwork and is a classic ‘S’ curve. They really are not that different. The major phenomenon is a surge of growth at around the $6,000 to $9,000 GDP per-capita range (a sideways ‘S’) followed by a tailing off of growth in the $10,000 and above per capita level. There is a period of catch-up and then another surge. The period of growth from $6,000 to $9,000 per-capita GDP is arguably the fastest growing period in a country’s development. China entered this phase in the past 12 months.
To help quantify what happens during this phase, we went back and examined 23 countries (ones that are now developed but were emerging markets in 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and ones that are currently emerging). We examined several thousand national data points from the late 1960s to now. We did the same for 20 sectors in the same time period. These economies faced many perils as they moved from emerging to developed status: inflation, deflation, export slowdowns, stagflation, recession and boom times. They are large and small – domestic and export-oriented. The uncanny conclusion is that there is a clear and undeniable pattern to development. If we place these developments next to those of China, we can ‘triangulate’ to see if China is growing too fast – or too slow?
The conclusion we draw is that China is actually growing at a ‘normal’ rate – the issue is that this is a country which is growing at a ‘normal’ rate for a young emerging market. It is just that it is about 20 times larger that the ‘normal’ emerging market. If the past is anything to go on, we should expect this growth rate to stay high – and very likely accelerate.
We say accelerate because while China is very similar to other countries in terms of the pace of growth, it is very different in a few areas. The most stark and profound difference is its savings rate. Young countries are savers – there is uncertainty, limited wealth, no social security net and little credit. In other words, there is no ‘nouveau riche’ who spend like crazy. At a certain point, however, many things coalesce to produce a consumer boom – something which is happening in China right now. This consumer boom happens after a long boom in infrastructure (this arguably happened in the past 12-14 years in China).
The sheer size of China’s savings, however, is astonishing. While the average savings rate of emerging markets globally at the $6,000 per capital level is very high at 25%, China’s is at 55%. Average deposits for emerging market countries at that level are $2,800 per capita, while China’s is at $4,700 per capita. China currently has one of the lowest loan/deposit ratios in the world – even after the recent boom in credit.
Given this large pool of savings, we believe that China can endure a multi-year surge of credit (we think it will be in excess of $4tn) in what is currently a non-inflationary environment and still end up with among the lowest loan/deposit ratios in the world. (We remind investors of our major theme – as Western leverage falls, Asian leverage rises). As Western leverage falls, this puts more pressure on the healthy banks that are still on their feet to lend to places such as China without any leverage (and, therefore, secure collateral values).
Exhibit 2 shows the difference when it comes to savings and leverage; as the West consumes less and saves more, China will (and must) spend more and save less.
S curves measure change or growth over time; our 23 countries ranged from $6,000 GDP/capita to $35,000 GDP/capita; the fastest growth period is $6,000-9,000 per capita; China is there now
We also performed the same exercise for 20 sectors
China shows mostly normal ‘symptoms’ of an emerging market at the $6,000 GDP/capita range
Economies seem to ‘come together’ at the $6,000 GDP/capita level; it is a consumer and services take-off
Young emerging markets all have high savings rates, but China’s is the highest on record times two
With exceptionally high savings, the loan/deposit ratio can stay under 1 for a multi-year period as credit grows
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 6
The quick summary table in Exhibit 2 highlights the only real differences between China and other emerging countries before it. We want to illustrate that China’s level of savings is the highest seen in the post-war era and could produce an unprecedented consumer boom – IF IT WANTS THIS. Our conclusion is that it clearly wants to and, therefore, will.
Exhibit 2. China is similar to emerging countries before it, except that it saves more and invests more
Savings Deposits Investment Consumption Services
% of GDP per capita % of GDP % of GDP % of GDP
China at $6000 54% $4,700 40% 35% 40%
World at $6000 25% $2,800 28% 58% 55%
China current trend FALLS FALLS FALLS TAKES OFF TAKES OFF
West current trend RISES RISES RISES FALLS FALLS
Source: Nomura research
On the sectoral front, China’s development, on average, is quite in line with other emerging markets at this $6,000 take-off stage. (Of course, we are mindful of the adage that, on average, you do not need a raincoat in Buffalo, New York). So, we want to highlight the few industries which showed the greatest expansion in our study.
There are five industries which consistently show the greatest amount of growth during this take-off stage. These are hotels, credit, health care, clothing and retail. In Exhibit 1, we highlight a portfolio of our favourite stocks in these sectors (and others discussed further into this report).
The fastest growing parts of the economy going forward should be services, in our view. And China is coming from a very low contribution of services to overall GDP. We would include leisure activities, such as vacations, gambling, second homes, golf and recreation. This just happens. As one famous economist put it: “Economies go because they are ‘a-goin’. They gather momentum as success builds on success.” This is China. Western companies that can provide China with leisure activities, medical and dental services and fashionable retail will also be winners, in our view.
There are other industries, however, which look as if they might be saturated in China if we look at the per-capita ownership of goods. These include telephones, motorcycles and TVs. Bringing more TVs, motorcycles or phones to China is ‘bringing coal to Newcastle’. Speaking of coal, China is also using much higher per-capita levels of coal than other emerging markets in this same stage of development.
The trends discussed above are all on the upside (which increase during this phase). There are also some definite trends which are to the downside:
1) Savings rates go down during this period of time, typically by 3%, as people discover credit, mortgages, lay-away plans and the consumer-led joys of new money.
2) Investment as a percent of GDP goes down, typically by about three percentage points. The infrastructure build-out is finishing up (roads, highways, airports, sewerage, etc).
3) Inflation has a tendency to go down after a rise during the initial $4,000 to $7,000 per capita surge. It tends to fall by about 25% into the $9,000 per capita level.
The big surprises of our study were the fast growth of health care, hotels and clothing
The service sector will be the fastest growing part of the Chinese economy for the next 5 years
Phones, TVs, motorcycles exhibiting signs of saturation
Trends of past and current GEMS show a rise in consumption and a fall in investment at this $6,000 to $9,000 GDP/capita stage
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 7
There is one vital caveat. We start and end this research with the all-important issue of environmental sustainability. China is going through an emerging markets growth phase similar to Japan in the late 1970s. The problem is that China’s absolute starting level of output is equal to Japan NOW. This means that it is entirely conceivable for China to produce the equivalent of yet another Japan by 2014. This has profound implications for environmental sustainability. We highlight a litany of well-flagged problems which confront China. Jared Diamond has written compellingly on this in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book called Collapse: How Countries Choose to Fail or Survive. The business of environment will be the number-one way in which the West can help China develop. This is really the exciting industry for investors and Western countries – making China’s growth sustainable. We also include Asian counters that are prominent in this business in our portfolio.
Exhibit 3. Executive summary: If the PRC is anything like 23 other emerging market during the $6,000 to $9,000 per capita phase, below shows how much change we should see by industry (2009-13)
Category Increase Comment
Financials
Credit(US$) 5.5 tn CAGR of 14%;among the highest CAGR for any item
Deposits(US$) 5.2 tn 11% CAGR
Market cap(US$) 2.6 tn Market cap (%GDP) should reach 100%
Consumer
TVs .2 bn Surprisingly unexciting;TV/capita already high
Spending on hotels(US$) 211.0 bn Highest CAGR
Spending on clothing(US$) 99.6 bn Very high CAGR
Spending on retail(US$) 192.0 bn CAGR of 7.5%
Spending on health(US$) 123.0 bn CAGR of 13%;among the highest CAGR for any item
Utilities
Electricity(KWH) .8 tn CAGR of about 4%
Natural gas(tonnes oil equivalent) 38.0 mn CAGR of about 8%
Telephones 146.0 mn 5.8% CAGR;surprisingly unexciting category
Transport
Cars 16.0 mn Around 5.5% CAGR same as Singapore
Motorcycles 32.6 mn 3.5% CAGR;lower than expected
Food and water
Meat(kg) 15.7 bn Increase of 35 bn lbs of meat
Cereals(tonnes) 63.3 mn Probably conservative estimate
Water for meat (gallons)* 114.0 tn Demand for protein creates huge strain on water
Plants for meat (lbs)* .4 tn 400 bn lbs of plants to be consumed by cattle is a lot of manure
Industrials
Oil(barrels) .7 bn Increase of about 150 mn barrels of oil per year
Steel(tonnes) 161.0 mn More than 150 mn tons increase after 5 years
Coal(tonnes oil equivalent) .2 bn Increase of 40 mn tons a year
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), British Petroleum website (BP), World Steel Association (WSA), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Nomura research
The one main risk to an otherwise inevitable trend of powerful growth is an inability or unwillingness of the government to tackle air, river, sea and land contamination
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 8
China on the S-Curve
I. How much can China grow? We measure China against 23 other previous and current emerging markets in the same phase of growth Trying to understand just how big China is – and just how much it has grown and can still grow – can seem incomprehensible and futile. We liken it to reading a book on astronomy. We read about distant galaxies where stars blow up and leave black holes which are the same size as our solar system. We read about other stars which, when they finally “burn out", create an explosion which lasts 10,000 years and leaves gaseous nebulae which are, literally, trillions of miles long.
So, we thought it would be a good idea to do what the astronomers do when they try to figure out just how big things are and how where in the life cycle they are. They measure how big a thing is by triangulating. They know how big a star is by measuring it against something else. Then they measure how much energy comes from a star and compare that to ones which are smaller and/or closer. That is what we do here with China.
We have placed China's growth trajectory next to the growth trajectory of 23 other countries which have been exactly where China is now. In other words, all countries in the OECD were once emerging markets with $6,000 per capita GDP on a purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted basis. And emerging markets have very similar characteristics – just as stars near and far have similar characteristics. In that way, we can see how big China is (or actually how small it is AND how young it is) relative to the experience of other advanced and emerging markets.
The interesting thing is that countries – like stars or people – have life cycles. We use the ‘S’ curve to describe a life cycle. The ‘S’ curve is a nice way to explain the early part of the life cycle. It measures performance or development over time. In the economic sense, it shows that the early part of a country’s development will tend to have a very steep slope (a big surge of consumption relative to shifts in income) if we look at per capita income (from $6,000 to $9,000) and measure consumption. This will subsequently level off. This is the classic reason why investors love emerging markets.
This is the point in a country's life cycle when it is growing the fastest and when consumption is also growing the fastest. It is, incidentally, the point where market capitalization as a percentage of GDP grows the quickest and tends to reach an average peak of 100% before levelling off. This is the secular bull market phase. This is intuitively easy to understand. When a young economy reaches a certain size, more people have better jobs and begin to save more but without any credit.
At some point, however, the stars align enough and wealth accumulates. Good policies, good products and low wages are usually the cause. And people get credit cards, mortgages, lay-away plans. Men buy new Levi’s at the same time as they buy a motorcycle. Women buy new furniture at the same time they buy new and more expensive dresses, make-up or shoes. At this time, people get fillings filled and can visit a doctor regularly for the first time. And so on. Durables rise, and so do retail and services.
So, we took a look at China's development now and placed it against the development of other countries in a similar point in their histories. When we place China's per capita consumption of various items, we can draw one important conclusion. The per capita GDP of China as calculated by the World Bank, IMF and CIA is about $6,000 per capita on a PPP-adjusted basis. We placed where China is now against other countries in similar phases of their development and, in most cases, China is behaving exactly like a country with per-capita GDP of about $6,000.
We try to estimate China’s growth path from here by comparing it to 23 other countries that have gone through this same phase
This $6,000 to $9,000 per capita GDP phase is the period of the highest growth; China is there now
Good policies and stable prices are the simple ingredients for a take-off phase
China really does walk and talk like a $6,000 GDP/capita country
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 9
Exhibit 4. China summary: How much will China grow if it is like the 23 other emerging markets?
Population(mn)GDP/capita(US$)
Per capita (2008) Total (2008)
Per capita (2013) Total (2013) Increase Increase / day
Financials Credit(US$) 3860 5.1 tn 7600 10.6 tn 5.5 tn 3.0 bn
Deposits(US$) 5045 6.7 tn 8500 11.9 tn 5.2 tn 2.8 bnMarket cap(US$) 74(%GDP) 85(%GDP) 2.6 tn 1.4 bn
Currency (CNY/US$) 6.9 6.6 4%Inflation(%) 6.0 4.5 -25%
ConsumerTV s per 100 41 0.5 bn 51 0.7 bn 0.2 bn 90000
Spending on hotels(US$) 122 162 bn 268 373 bn 211 bn 116 mnSpending on clothing(US$) 91 121 bn 158 220 bn 99.6 bn 54 mn
Spending on retail(US$) 290 385 bn 414 578 bn 192 bn 105 mnSpending on health(US$) 96 124 bn 177 247bn 123 bn 65 mn
UtilitiesElectricity(KWH) 2405 3.2 tn 2888 4.0 tn .8 tn 457 mn
Natural gas per 100(tonnes oil equivalent) 5.5 73 mn 8.0 111 mn 38 mn 21000Telephones per 100 29.0 384 mn 38.0 530 mn 146 mn 80000
TransportCars per 100 3.0 39.8 mn 4.0 55.8 mn 16.0 mn 10000
Motorcycles per 100 7.0 92.9 mn 9 126 mn 32.6 mn 20000
Food and waterMeat(kg) 67.0 89 bn 75.0 105 bn 15.7 bn 8.6 mn
Cereals(tonnes) 0.3 425 mn 0.4 488 mn 63.3 mn 30000Water for meat (gallons)* 486420 646 tn 544500 760 tn 114 tn 62 bn
Plants for meat (lbs)* 1474 1.9 tn 1650 2.3 tn .4 tn 188 mn
IndustrialsOil(barrels)* 2.1 2.8 bn 2.6 3.5 bn .7 bn 40000
Steel(tonnes) 0.3 438 mn 0.4 599 mn 161 mn 90000Coal(tonnes oil equivalent) 1.1 1.4 bn 1.2 1.6 bn .2 bn 130000
Evolution of Consumption by Category
6012 9088
2008 20131328 1395
Note: Assumptions for Exhibit 2: 1% annual growth for China population, 9% CAGR for China GDP/capita (Source: IMF), 1 kg = 2.2 lb, 3300 gallons of water = 1 lb of meat (Source: UCLA), 10 lb of plant =1 lb of meat (Source: Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive), 7.5 barrels = 1tonne of oil
Growth rate in per capita figures for all categories (China) is based on a study of 23 countries moving from GDP/capita 6K US$ to 10K US$. Data has been collected for these countries over a time period of last 40 years. Details are provided in page xxx.
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, FAO, BP, WSA, IMF, Nomura research
Exhibit 4 is the result of months of picking around to find the most reliable data we could muster. It meant looking through dozens of central bank data series, national accounts, Internet surfing and lots of questions. We asked ourselves where we are with regard to China’s latest full-year data. Next, we aggregated the data for all of the 23 countries in our study and looked at the development in consumption of 20 items over the time period when these countries were in the same take-off phase as China.
Then we aggregated these data and got an average of, say, trends in oil consumption for all 23 countries during the time when these 23 countries were going through their $6,000 to $9,000 per capita phase of development, i.e. what China should experience over the next few years. After we got the CAGR of oil consumption for each country, we then arrived at an average CAGR which we think is a fair representation of the behaviour of an emerging market prior to reaching the $9,000 per capita GDP level.
Exhibit 4 shows our findings. A similar growth path would see China expand the services sector significantly
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 10
Then we used the CAGR for each of these groups and applied it to China between now and 2013. Incidentally, we feel quite confident that these numbers are, if anything, on the lower side. THE AVERAGE CAGR FOR ALL COUNTRIES FOR ALL PRODUCTS DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME IS ABOUT 7%. We have a starting point and we have an end point. We use the growth rate of historical emerging market experience of both (now) developed and (current) emerging markets. In fact, we think the numbers are quite robust because they represent countries which have gone through good times and bad times, i.e. boom times in the 1990s, inflation in the 1970s, market crashes in the late 1990s, and the stable 1980s.
Exhibit 5. Top five fastest growing industries for GEMS in the US$6K-9K GDP/capita corridor and how much per day China will likely spend
Industry CAGR US$/day
Hotels 17% 116 mlnCredit 14% 3 blnHealth 13% 65 mlnClothing 12% 54 mlnRetail 8% 105 mln
Source: Nomura research
The end product shows just how much change should occur if China is anything like the many emerging markets which have gone before it. The changes are all stark. We want to add, however, that the net changes by industry will only get China to a level of wealth (about $9,500 per capita GDP) equivalent to Colombia, Thailand or Romania. This still leaves China squarely in the GEMS camp. We see, for instance, that we should expect the following between now and about 2013:
1) Credit in China should increase by more than $5tn. This should still leave the country with a loan/deposit ratio under 100%. This is equivalent to about $3bn in loans per day for the next several years.
2) Deposits should also grow by $5tn, i.e. at a CAGR of 11%.
3) The biggest surprise of our study was the consistent phenomenon of very high increases in health care and hotel spending. This is followed by retail. The CAGR of hotel spending was 17% – the highest of any industry we examined. The second highest was credit. Health care was third.
4) We were surprised to see that when phones per capita were placed next to the average phones per capita of countries in the same growth phase, China was way above. This would suggest some degree of phone saturation. The same is true for motorcycles.
5) The staggering numbers come in food. China is right on the average line for the other 23 markets we examined. We all know the drill when it comes to creating one pound of meat. This has been catalogued exhaustively. One pound of meat requires 15,000 litres of water and 10 pounds of plant life for cattle to be brought to maturity and slaughtered. Here is where the numbers become frightening and where the warnings of Jared Diamond need to be heard. If China’s per capita meat consumption grows anything like other emerging markets, daily meat consumption will be 8.6mn kilograms. The daily water requirement from this will be 62bn gallons. And the amount of plant life will be 188mn pounds. That leads to a lot of manure – another issue which has consequences for water runoff to streams, rivers and oceans. We are very certain these numbers are on the conservative side.
Let’s explore further and quantify where China is and how far it can go by using a virtual tour of charts.
The five most explosive sectors are hotels, credit, health, clothing and retail
Our favourite stock picks for the ‘S’ curve portfolio come from these sectors
Staggering but true: one pound of beef requires 15,000 litres of water and at least 10 pounds of plants
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 11
II. Defining the ‘S’ curve Very large increases in consumption as per capita GDP moves from $6,000 to $9,000
Exhibit 6. A Typical ‘S’ curve: NICs average credit (y-axis) vs GDP per capita (x-axis) (US$ 1979-1993) (HK, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan)
1800
3800
5800
7800
9800
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: UN data, Nomura research
We have incorporated several thousand data points for 23 countries and for 20 categories. These countries range from Singapore to Brazil – from the US as an emerging market in the 1960s to Thailand today. The categories we chose range from clothing and bank loans to health care and hotel rooms. The ‘S’ curve for all of these groups has a very strong tendency to show a sharp acceleration between $6,000 and $9,000 per capita GDP.
We never use statistics which show up results that defy logic or common sense. But this trend clearly reflects common sense: $4,000 to $6,000 per capita GDP and a savings rate of 25% for a population of 40mn people (GDP of $200bn) will create a critical mass of funds to bring about the creation of a banking system capable of funding an infrastructure build out. If savings are an average of 25%, then the savings pool would be $50bn. Investment/GDP will be very high at about 35%, or $70bn. These are the numbers one needs to create meaningful infrastructure. (A metropolitan mass transit system, for instance, is about $5bn alone, on our estimates).
After that period of fulfilling basic infrastructure needs, life gets more expansive. People can get to work quickly on public transit. They have savings which is about 25% of income (too much!). So, they begin to buy luxury items, Levi’s, make-up kits, TVs and durables. They buy new fillings and get small medical problems looked after. They get credit cards and take small vacations in hotel rooms.
So, Exhibit 6 for the newly industrialized countries (NICs) (when they were baby emerging economies) is very much like what China is going through now. We must not forget that these countries had very high credit growth during this period. The average increase in credit creation was 150% from the $6,000 to the $9,000 level. Most of the NICs got through this period in three to four years. In the case of Korea, it had an annual growth rate of more than 30% during its take-off phase in 1987-1989. Incidentally, the take-off for Korea in 1988 and China today both revolved around hosting the Olympics.
Our point is simple: China is there right now! Let’s go through various countries, industries and then triangulate China’s position by comparing it to other ‘stars’ and see which industries are likely to be super-charged at this point in time and which ones actually may be surprisingly lacklustre. We want to make money for investors. The way to make money is to be first to spot the trends and position for the future.
The ‘S’ curve defines the growth path for consumption of just about anything as GDP per capita increases
This $6,000 to $9,000 phase sees an evolution from an investment-driven economy to a consumption-driven economy as more wealth security enables spending
It is clear, therefore, that China’s credit growth is quite in sync with its current phase of growth; there is nothing unnatural about it!
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 12
III. Comparing China with other countries For details on categories, markets and time periods please refer to Appendix II.
Exhibit 7 shows the average evolution of consumption for all the categories in our study across all 23 countries put together. So, this is our ‘S’ curve line – the change in consumption relative to the change in GDP. Put simply, this slope is very steep during this period and then tapers off after about $10,000 per capita. Starting from a small number, the growth rate is enormous. Subsequently, however, another sofa will not fit. And there are no more cavities left to fill. And one already has enough shoes.
When we place China on the chart (the blue dot) we see that as a country with a $6,000 per-capita income, its current consumption fits nicely. People no longer focus on buying make-up and Levi’s. They focus on their stock investments. Or they buy an expensive pair of glasses or an expensive iPod.
If we look at Exhibit 8, we can see where China is now relative to where the US was when the US was an emerging market in the 1960s and early 1970s. China is actually a bit ahead in terms of consumption relative to where Americans were when they had per-capita GDP of $6,000. So, we need to be careful about the Confucian savings ethic stereotype. (We will see later that despite being a little ahead on consumption, China’s savings are in a different league compared to any other country during its take-off phase in the post-War world.)
Exhibit 7. Average consumption/capita across all 17 consumption categories (1972 – now)
Exhibit 8. Comparison between where China is now and where the US was in consumption/capita
Average change in consumption across 17 categories in 23 markets betw een 1972 and 2008 (GDP/capita 5K US$ ==100)
China
90
110
130
150
170
190
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
USA average change in consumption across 17 categories from 1972 to 1978.(GDP/capita 5K US$
==100)
China
90
110
130
150
170
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, FAO, BP, WSA, IMF, Nomura research Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, FAO, BP, WSA,
IMF, Nomura research
Again, we want to place China near something else in order to see how large or small it really is. This is the triangulation that astronomers do when they are trying to see how big a star is. Exhibits 9 and 10 show the EU and the UK. Exhibit 9 more explicitly shows the steepening slope of the ‘S’ curve. We can see that from about $5,500 to $9,000, there was a sharply steepening slope. After that, it tends to have a pause. The same is true for the UK in Exhibit 10.
China’s growth is not unnatural; it is very much in line with other economies in their past
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 13
Exhibit 9. Comparison between where China is now and where the EU was in consumption/capita
Exhibit 10. Comparison between where China is now and where the UK was in consumption/capita
EU average change in consumption across 16 categories from 1974 to 2004(GDP 5K/capita US$
==100)
China
90
110
130
150
170
190
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
UK average change in consumption across 16 categories from 1976 to 1982(GDP 5K US$/capita
== 100)
China
90
110
130
150
170
190
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, FAO, BP, WSA, IMF, Nomura research Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, FAO, BP, WSA,
IMF, Nomura research
Exhibit 11 shows the current crop of emerging markets. These include Brazil, Malaysia, Thailand, Mexico and Chile. The recent history of emerging markets is very interesting. These emerging markets which were in their take-off stage over the past 15 years (from the late 1980s to 2007) show a wild ‘S’ curve. Between per-capita income levels of $6,000 and $10,000, there is a change of more than 100% in consumption. We will explore the many categories which go to making up this aggregated line later.
Exhibit 11. Comparison between where China is now and where the EM were in consumption/capita
Exhibit 12. Comparison between where China is now and where the NICs were in consumption/capita
EM average change in consumption across 16 categories from 1986 to 2008 (GDP/capita 5K US$
==100)
China90
130
170
210
250
290
330
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
NICS average change in consumption across 17 categories from 1980 to 1993 (GDP/capita 5K US$
==100)
China
90
110
130
150
170
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, FAO, BP, WSA, IMF, Nomura research Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, FAO, BP, WSA,
IMF, Nomura research
Exhibit 12 shows the NICs when they were in their emerging market phase. The results are similar. These markets are Singapore, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Their period of tremendous growth ($6,000 to $9,000) was in the Ronald Reagan years. Each of these economies has some eerily similar qualities to it. We say eerie because the focus of industries, the population density and the export intensity among and between them is very different. Yet they have grown in similar ways to that of the Euro-zone and the US. This is remarkably similar to recent discoveries by astronomers that stars in the galaxy (and other galaxies) are actually not very different from each others in terms of size and life span – and that there are only about three or four different types of stars.
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 14
Exhibit 13. Comparison between where China is now and where the Japan was in consumption/ capita
Exhibit 14. China average consumption/capita forecast based on the experience of past and present GEMS
Japan average change in consumption across 16 categories from 1976 to 1982 (GDP/capita 5K US$ ==100)
China
80
100
120
140
160
180
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
China average change in consumption across 17 categories (GDP/capita 5K US$ ==100)
Current
80
110
140
170
200
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, FAO, BP, WSA, IMF, Nomura research Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, FAO, BP, WSA,
IMF, Nomura research
Lastly, we can look at Exhibit 13 and see Japan’s trajectory during its take-off period in the period of 1976-77 to 1982. The economy was in a state of powerful growth. The total growth in consumption during this phase was in the neighborhood of 70%.
The conclusion we draw from this section is that countries are actually pretty plain vanilla. Their life cycles are remarkably similar whether they have large or small populations or whether they are export-oriented or domestically oriented. We also wish to point out these similar trends have occurred irrespective of global slowdowns, long bull markets, periods of high or low inflation.
Countries have a powerful start at $6,000 to 9,000 per capita GDP. Prior to this is a very powerful surge in investment, high savings, low services, heavy manufacturing and below-average government spending. At the $6,000 per capita GDP level, there is a tremendous surge in credit, services, tourism, leisure and durables. They then slow down for a bit.
Life cycles of countries are very similar; this consumption growth phase always occurs at this time
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 15
IV: Comparing the Chinese Financial Sector to the Rest of the World
Exhibit 15. Average market cap (%GDP) Exhibit 16. Average investments (% GDP)
Average market cap(%gdp)
China
40
60
80
100
120
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Total average investments(%GDP)
China
20%
30%
40%
50%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, Nomura research Source: economicwebinstitute.org, pwt.econ.upenn.edu, Nomura research
Here is where it gets interesting. As with other economic and industry phenomenon, the development of the financial sector has an uncanny pattern as well. Exhibit 15 shows the trend in stock market capitalization over time as per capita GDP grows. The period of $6,000 GDP/capita to $9,000 GDP/capita has a strong tendency to see rising stock market capitalization relative to GDP. China’s current stock market cap/GDP is almost exactly where we would expect it to be given its current GDP/capita of $6,000. We should expect China’s market cap to rise to about 90% of GDP if it behaves like any other emerging market. We caution investors that our numbers are very much on the conservative side. We have never seen a savings pool like China has today. And we also need to mention that China’s savings pool (like all savings pools) is constantly seeking returns. And young savings pools are more inclined to seek out risk compared to older savings pools (Japan). Young savings pools are more tolerant of inflation and risk. Older savings pools are intolerant of inflation and risk. So, policies will tend to reflect this.
Our conclusion here is twofold:
1) There is a bottled up savings pool of about $3tn in household savings deposits looking for returns in a country which has a closed capital account – a de facto non-convertible currency. The world has never before seen a savings pool this large – this pool of savings is over 50% of GDP. China needs to let the currency open up and it needs to let the private sector create opportunities for returns on these savings. It is entirely possible – we should expect given the facts – that China’s stock market cap/ GDP could easily exceed 100% of GDP in short order.
2) All this is happening during a time when inflation is currently NEGATIVE. So we would make the case that real interest rates are artificially high and need to come down. So, China is deploying credit and public debt in an environment of non-inflationary growth. This is a global phenomenon – not a Chinese deflationary phenomenon. So, this global disinflationary credit crisis is a ‘gift from the gods’. Other emerging markets during this phase had one major problem: inflation. Inflation during this period of growth has always been very high at about 10-12%. China should expect higher inflation next year. It can put on the brakes then – not now.
China’s current stock market cap as a percentage of GDP is right in line with past and present GEMS – a move to 100% would be normal
We make no apologies for our optimism. This is what the current facts allow us to conclude
Low global inflation is a powerful tailwind for China to ride the high growth momentum that is normal and expected
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 16
Exhibit 16 also reinforces our optimism. China’s investment is about 40% of GDP. The global average during this phase of development is also very high at about 30%. If we take the NICs, though, the average investment/GDP at their $6,000 pre capita mark is very high at 34%. So, this number should clearly come down. China’s infrastructure build-out can bring about non-inflationary growth (increases in output not to be slowed down by bad roads, ports, highways and shipping).
Exhibit 17. Average consumption (% GDP) Exhibit 18. Average services (% GDP)
Total average consumption(% GDP)
China
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Average services(%GDP)
China
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: economicwebinstitute.org, pwt.econ.upenn.edu, Nomura research Source: World Bank, Nomura research
We have written much on the topic of shifts in consumption in China relative to the rest of the world. China’s consumption is currently about 35% of GDP. Of all the 23 countries we look at in this study, we did not come across one country in the past 50 years which had as low a level of consumption as China. The same is true of services. While sectoral trends between China and other GEMS in a similar trajectory of growth are similar, the trends in consumption and savings are, shall we say, out of whack. China’s services as a percentage of GDP are also unusually low. This is so low that when we put China’s current level against other GEMS in a similar period of time, the changes in the service sector (and they are BIG) are barely perceptible. During the $6,000 to $9,000 per capita take-off phase, we have recorded changes in the service sector’s contribution to GDP of 7-10 percentage points.
Exhibit 19. Average credit/capita (US$) Exhibit 20. Average deposit/capita (US$)
Total average credit per capita
China
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Average deposit per capita
China
500
2500
4500
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data, Nomura research Source: UN data, Nomura research
With deposits above average and credit below average, trends suggest $4tn in credit with L/D <1
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 17
Exhibit 21. Average savings (% GNI) Exhibit 22. Average annual inflation (%)
Total average savings (%GNI)
China
15%
25%
35%
45%
55%
65%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Total average inf lation %
China
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, Nomura research Source: World Bank, Nomura research
Exhibit 17 also shows a classic change in the ‘S’ curve. We have been very vocal about this throughout 2009. Growth rates in credit for China as it goes through this per-capita corridor are absolutely normal. In fact, many countries have had growth rates in credit that exceed those of China during this similar phase of growth.
Furthermore, we want to increase the volume of the microphone here and reiterate that China is entering a high-credit-growth phase of economic growth at a time when five very important developments are occurring -
1) Banks in the West that can lend (and there are very few) do not want to lend in the West because of unsafe collateral values. So they are diverting their balance sheets to emerging markets that are under-leveraged and have more secure collateral values;
2) China is going through a phase of development which is traditionally one of the strongest periods in a country’s growth for credit and for stock market growth.
3) China is entering this period of growth with one of the largest absolute pools of household savings ever recorded (double the levels of the 23 countries we examined, which is most of the world’s GDP) in the post-War period as well as the largest savings/GDP ever recorded in the post-War period. (Exhibit 21)
4) The global credit crisis is providing a backdrop of non-inflationary price trends. This is a vital link because the number-one problem traditionally for countries during this period is high and sticky inflation which has tended to be 10-12%. (Exhibit 22)
5) Lastly, we want to reiterate the starting point of this new growth phase. China has a loan/deposit ratio which is one of the lowest in the world (Exhibit 23) – and it has a leverage ratio which is also one of the lowest in the world.
The five points above are the core for our bull case for China. We also strongly feel that ALL FIVE OF THESE CRITERIA apply to Hong Kong as well. To add to that, Hong Kong has a currency board which forces it to receive US interest rates (which we believe will remain lower for longer than many other observers believe). So, Hong Kong is potentially similar to China, only with more liquidity!
Key point: China entering a hot point of growth with super high savings rate and low leverage.
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 18
Exhibit 23. China’s Loan/Deposit Ratio is the lowest in the world
Loan/Deposit 2H09
67 7181 82 84
107116
123
140 143
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160C
hina
Indo
nesi
a
Japa
n
Indi
a
Braz
il
US
Kore
a
UK
Euro
pe
Aust
ralia
Source: UN data, Nomura research
Exhibit 24. Avg. credit/capita for 23 nations(US$) Exhibit 25. USA credit per capita (US$)
Total average credit per capita
China
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
USA credit per capita
China
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 110GDP per capita
Source: UN data, Nomura research Source: UN data, Nomura research
To sum it up, we take a look at China’s current level of credit (on a PPP-adjusted basis) and conclude that these levels should easily double over the next five years (Exhibit 24). We would add that China’s loan/deposit ratio should still remain below 1 by the end of this phase.
Exhibit 26 our best attempt to show how the world will change – it is all about leverage
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 19
Exhibit 26. It is all connected – as the US spends less, China will spend more
Net Exports vs Consumption % GDP (1951-now )
-5%
-3%
-1%
1%
3%
5%
7%
9%
35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85%
Consumption
Net
E
xpor
ts
ChinaAsia exJPUS
Source: CEIC, Nomura research
To square the circle, we can see that as consumption rises in China, exports as a percent of GDP should fall. And the trade surplus should also fall. Inside the US, we see a banking system with: 1) insufficient capital and 2) insufficient savings. Therefore, the banking system is constrained in terms of offering new loans for credit cards, mortgages, cars and durable goods financing. So, the US will consume less and export more. And, the US banking system, because it is capital-constrained, will be forced to put more riskless bonds (government debt) on its balance sheet.
We wish to reiterate that all this is related. And Exhibit 26 shows this. The only reasons why the US was able to do what it did was because China did what it did. Now, that is changing. As China consumes more, its trade surplus will fall and it will be able to buy less US debt. As the US consumes less, its trade deficit will fall and it will be able to buy more US debt. Exhibit 26 also shows that as savings rates in the US rise, consumption falls, banks can replenish their savings pools and lend again (much later) and the system can function again. But this healing process means that China’s domestic economy will growth at a much faster pace than its export sector. And the Chinese banking system (and Asia’s banks) will seek out defensive forms of collateral as there are mostly unsafe collateral levels in the West (given oversupply in both residential and commercial property). We strongly believe that Western banks that can lend will seek out defensive collateral values in Latin America and Asia.
To round off this section, in Exhibits 28-30, we thought it would be fun to look at where China is now relative to where the US, EU and NICs were during the same phase of their development. We do this because we want to show that levels of credit in China are actually very normal. So enjoy the virtual tour of credit for a few moments. The first one shows were China is now and where we should expect it to be given the experience of past and present emerging markets. China is actually below the level of credit per capita for Europe at the same stage. It is right on par with the NICs. And it is below where the US was at the same time it was going through its emerging-market phase.
Western banks held back by too little capital and too little savings; Asia has the opposite problem – equilibrium WILL be restored
With safe collateral and low leverage, China banks will grow unusually fast as the world re-balances
China is bang in line with other markets which were in the $6,000 GDP/capita corridor and slightly below the US and EU in the same period
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 20
Exhibit 27. China credit per capita (US$) Exhibit 28. EU average credit per capita (US$)
China credit per capita
China current
2500
4500
6500
8500
10500
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
EU credit per capita
China
2000
5000
8000
11000
14000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data, Nomura research Source: UN data, Nomura research
Exhibit 29. NICs average credit per capita (US$) Exhibit 30. US credit per capita (US$)
NICS credit per capita
China
1800
3800
5800
7800
9800
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
USA credit per capita
China
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data, Nomura research Source: UN data, Nomura research
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 21
V. China and the Rest of the World We often forget that all developed countries were once emerging markets with huge poverty, disturbing differences in wealth and few rich cities
Retail is way behind Welcome back from your virtual tour of global credit. We briefly examine where China is relative to the aggregate level of per capita consumption of several items of other emerging markets. This will give us a good idea of two things. 1) ABSOLUTE. It will show us where China stands NOW relative to other countries when they were at the $6,000 per capita income level. 2) RELATIVE. It will also give us an idea of which industries tend to have the greatest change over this high growth phase, i.e. from $6,000 to $9,000 GDP/capita.
Exhibit 31. Average retail/capita (US$)
Average retail value per capita
China
100
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data, Nomura research
Exhibit 31 shows two important things. First, it shows that China is very far behind other emerging markets during their start-up phase. Second, it shows that the retail sector tends to have rates of growth which are among the highest of any of the categories we examined. We want to add a cautionary note. Many people pooh-pooh this phenomenon of increases in per capita income for China by saying “Most of China is poor and always will be poor”. We want to offer two anecdotes.
The first is the presidential race of Robert Kennedy in 1968. He was a favourite to win the presidential race before his assassination in July 1968. He wrote and spoke often about the appalling levels of poverty he encountered during his countrywide campaigns. The level of poverty in the Appalachians at that time was atrocious. The Appalachian Mountains cover ten states along the eastern seaboard. Many of the people in these states had no indoor plumbing, no access to medical care, no education, no dentists. They were dirt poor – the American equivalent of peasants at the time.
The second is the book called The Glory and the Dream by Pulitzer Prize winning author William Manchester. (It is an excellent book.) One of the main themes of his book is just how poor most of America was in the 1950s and 1960s. We forget, but much of the US was a relatively poor country after World War II. There were six or seven big cities, but most of the country in the 1950s did not even have indoor plumbing. Indeed, the rich-poor gap in the US right now, while on a very different scale, is arguably more acute than that of China.
We forget that in the 1960s, the US was six rich cities and 100 poor ones; pockets of poverty everywhere
William Manchester catalogued the mass poverty within the US into the 1960s
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 22
So, the large differentiation between the rich and poor in China is quite ‘normal’. Again, the difference is that China is just so big. The number of people below the $1,000 GDP/capita level in China is equivalent to the population of TWO Japans. But the problems of income distribution in China are really not that different from many other countries in their early ‘emerging market’ experiment.
Exhibit 32. Average TVs/1,000 of population Exhibit 33. Average telephones/1,000 of population
Average TV per 1000 China
250
280
310
340
370
400
430
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Average telephones per 1000China
170
210
250
290
330
370
410
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, Earthtrends, Nomura research Source: World Bank, Earthtrends, Nomura research
Exhibit 32 and 33 show us that China may well have too much of two things: phones and TVs. Per-capita phone ownership is now almost two times the average of other countries in their early take-off phase. And TV ownership is about 25% higher than other countries in the similar phase of development. We would almost want to call these two industries ex-growth in an emerging markets context. We should still see large increases in TV and phone ownership, but the rate of change (in the emerging market context) lies in other industries like hotels, retail and medical services.
Indeed, we can see from Exhibit 32 and 33 that the expected increase for phones and TVs is relatively small – both in absolute amounts and in the rate of change. The expected daily increase in phones is about 80,000 units. We imagine installed capacity for phone production is much larger than this. Our assumed growth rate is about 6% p.a. and we calculate this by taking the aggregate growth rate of phones of countries during their $6,000 GDP/capita take-off experience.
We did the same for TVs and came up with an expected daily increase of TV sets of about 90,000 over the next five years. This is a high number, of course. But the rate of growth is slow and falling.
China’s problems are very similar to the US and other NICs in their own emerging stage, except that it is much larger
Phones and TV show a degree of saturation relative to past and current emerging markets
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 23
VI. The birth of the services sector In an earlier section we saw that China’s service sector was currently about 40% of GDP, while the emerging market average was north of 55%. We should expect that the services sector not only grows to catch up with the average of the emerging markets, but it should continue to grow relative to other parts of the economy for a sustained period. In fact, the biggest surprise of this study was that the services sector is what tends to drive growth for these emerging markets as they reach that $6,000 GDP/capita level. This is because the move from $3,000 to $6,000 is dominated by investment in infrastructure, heavy machinery, low-price exports, and the building blocks of the economy. At the $6,000 level, people can begin to focus less on just working and accumulating savings and more on actually spending those savings on leisure activity.
Exhibit 34. Average spending on hotels /capita (scaled)
Exhibit 35. Average spending on clothing /capita (scaled)
Average personal spending on hotels
China
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Average personal spending on clothing
China
70
120
170
220
270
320
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data, Nomura research Source: UN data, Nomura research
So, Exhibit 34 and 35 show that China is very much in sync with many other countries when they were emerging markets (or current emerging markets) at the $6,000 per-capita level. In the case of hotels, we see the classic ‘S’ curve at work. The slope of the line is moving up sharply when it passes the $6,000 level and continues to move up until it doubles at the $9,000 level. In retrospect, we should not be surprised. Most countries go from having few people traveling for vacation to very many traveling for vacation in a short period of time, precisely as a function of the rapid accumulation of savings which accompanies the early growth of an emerging market. We are keen on Hong Kong & Shanghai Hotels and Jin Jiang. We include these in our portfolio.
Exhibit 35 shows the trends in clothing in emerging markets (past and present) relative to China. Again, China’s growth is right in line with the emerging markets. If China grows anything like the 23 other markets we examined, we should see a doubling in clothing sales over the next few years. Our retail analyst Candy Huang likes Li Ning. We include this in our portfolio.
The fastest rate of change should come in the service sector – starting now
A great surprise of this study was the pre-eminence of the growth rate of hotels and clothing
Spending on health care was also intriguing as it has one of the highest growth rates for current and past GEMS at this stage
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 24
Exhibit 36. Average spending on health care/capita (scaled)
Average personal healthcare spending
China
70
170
270
370
470
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: UN data, Nomura research
We save the best of this section for last. This was a big surprise to us as well. At the $6,000 per capita level for emerging markets (past and present) we see in Exhibit 36 a very nice ‘S’ curve. This shows a big jump in spending on healthcare. The average goes from about $100 per capita to more than $200 in a short time. That number accelerates sharply until $10,000 per capita GDP.
China is there right now. The remarkable thing is that these numbers show 100% growth in just a few years, but it is still $170 per capita. This represents a mere 2% of GDP for health care. This compares to about 5% for Thailand. The highest in the world is in the US, where it is 16%.
Yankun Hou is a big fan of Mindray, so we want to watch that one. We include this in our portfolio. This is a very different phenomenon from the medical tourism movement in South-East Asia. China is developing powerful momentum for the satisfaction of domestic medical and dental services. We have been to many seminars and conferences on the monumental problems and difficulties in developing a medical industry. Welcome to the real world! China is facing the same daunting problem of any other emerging market, only the problem is 30-40 times larger. The government has entered the fray here with a commitment in excess of $60bn for the funding of local clinics and hospitals.
In the late 1980s, this writer was working with the Indonesian government and watched the country build a clinic in every single village throughout the country in a few years. If the government wants to do this, it can. Millions of pages have been written on early medical services for adolescents and the way in which this helps produce healthier, smarter and more productive adults. Nothing but good can come from significant investment in medical services.
Tremendous growth has already occurred, but it is only at $170/capita
Every developed country has gone through the same issue of universal health care – China is no different, except in its scale
Indonesia’s success with Puskesmas (village clinics) is classic example of national healthcare; a clinic in every village within 15 years – and Indonesia has 16,000 islands
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 25
VII. Power Protein for humans and electricity for industry & transportation are the heart of the environmental threat Lastly, we discuss per-capita consumption of energy. This includes energy for industry and transportation and energy for people.
A. Energy for Industry First, we discuss energy for industry and transportation. Our utilities team under Ivan Lee has catalogued China’s development over the past many years. China has one new coal-fired power plant coming on line about every two weeks somewhere in the country. And about 70% of the country’s power is fired with coal. China is now confronting another environmental and human problem with coal and that is coal mining. More than 6,000 coal mines are expected to be closed over the next two years due to unsafe conditions which put human life in peril, according to The Guardian ( 19 November 2008 ). So, China is increasingly importing more coal from Indonesia and Australia. Despite this, Exhibit 37 shows that it is remarkable that China’s per-capita installed capacity of electricity is still half that of current and past emerging markets. In addition, the dependence of China on coal is reflected in the fact that per-capita reliance on coal is almost double that of past and current emerging markets (Exhibit 38).
Exhibit 37. Average electricity/capita (KWH) Exhibit 38. Average coal/capita (tonnes oil eq.)
Average electricity per capita (KWH)
China2000
3200
4400
5600
6800
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Average coal per capitaChina
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, Earthtrends, Nomura research Source: BP, Nomura research
Exhibits 39 and 40 show that China’s per-capita usage of oil and natural gas is way below that of other past and current emerging markets. We were surprised by this outcome, so we dug deep into the numbers and found that a significant number of countries (mostly in Europe) went through their ‘emerging market’ phase before the oil shock when oil consumption plummeted as governments forced energy conservation and fuel efficiency upon its populations. Another important reason why China is below the rest of the world is that its auto per-capita figures are way below the rest of the world.
We have written many trees worth of research on this – coal way over-used on a per-capita basis; Oil per-capita use may surprisingly go sideways or even fall
China is way ahead of the curve in natural gas usage
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 26
Exhibit 39. Average natural gas (tonnes oil equivalent) /capita
Exhibit 40. Average oil/capita (tonnes)
Average natural gas per 100
China0
20
40
60
80
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Average oil per capita
China0.2
0.7
1.2
1.7
2.2
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: BP, Nomura research Source: BP, Nomura research
In Exhibit 41 we see that per-capita ownership of cars is only about three per 100 people for China. The average growth rate here is not as high as we would have expected, but we would assume that due to the low starting point, growth in China’s per-capita ownership of cars should be higher. (Motorcycles, on the other hand, show the opposite trend; in fact the current numbers suggest a saturation effect in motorcycles, as China’s per capita ownership is double that of past and current emerging markets.)
We have a somewhat controversial take on the future of cars. China’s car industry is very tiny compared to the US car industry. It has no pension problems. It is highly competitive and, therefore, highly flexible. It has one of the lowest HHI ratios (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) in the world, indicating extreme competitive pressures. On a recent trip to Korea, we came across the CEO of a major conglomerate who told us that a delegation from China recently made a trip to Korea and indicated that it wanted to have full production of an electric vehicle (EV) by the end of 2010. This is exciting news and makes us think that China may be the birthplace of the mass production of the electric car within a few years. It makes us think that the era of the combustion engine may be over within the next ten years. It is our strong hunch that Japan, Korea and China may join forces and produce the technology for a mass-produced electric car very soon.
Why? Jared Diamond explores this in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. Air pollution in many cities in China is the worst in the world. Pollutant levels are several times higher than levels considered safe. Nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide are rising due to cars and coal-fired power plants. Acid rain has spread over much of the country. Average levels of lead in blood in China are more than double what other cities around the world would consider dangerous. There are two major considerations. The first is that these very high levels of pollution cause mental and intellectual problems in the development of children. Second, about 300,000 deaths per year in China are attributed to air pollution (Source: Jared Diamond Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive.) Jared Diamond estimates this to be about $54bn in health costs, or about 8% of GDP.
Hence, the urgent need to address the issue of the electric vehicle and clean coal technologies. In accordance with this, we would include BYD in our portfolio, but at a later date. Why? In our view, investors should place BYD, Wonder Auto (WATG US), and Tianneng (819 HK) on a watch list. We think they are very attractive from a fundamental point of view, but are technically vulnerable so we do not include them.
The end of the combustion engine is nigh – you heard it here first
Japan, Korea and China may just be the innovators and mass producers of the electric car – by 2011?
Necessity is the mother of invention; lead and carbon monoxide poisoning cost China $54bn/year
Put BYD, Wonder Auto and Tianning on a buy list, just not yet
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 27
Exhibit 41. Average cars/100 of population Exhibit 42. Average motorcycles/100 of population
Average cars per 100
China0
5
10
15
20
25
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Average motorcycles/100
China
2.20
3.20
4.20
5.20
6.20
7.20
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, Nomura research Source: CEIC, World Bank, Earthtrends, UN data, Eurostat, Nomura research
B. Energy for People
As people get richer, they will eat out more and eat more protein Now, we discuss energy for people. There are two forms of energy – carbohydrates and protein. Our work proves that protein intake increases dramatically starting at about $5,000 per capita GDP and accelerates through the $10,000 GDP/capita range. Simply put, people who get richer want to go out to dinner more often and want to eat more beef, pork or chicken. And they want better quality meat or chicken which requires larger and better fed pigs, cattle and chicken.
The net effect of this is overgrazing. Pork used to be the overwhelming meat in China. But affluence created demand for lamb, beef, chicken and eggs. This puts pressure on grasslands and the solid waste of livestock creates methane (contributing to greenhouse gases) and the animal droppings volumes are three times those of industrial solid waste. When we add to this the fish droppings and fertilizers for aquaculture, we can see that the demand for protein has consequences which reverberate through the ecosystem. The demand for protein from fish and shrimp has caused over-fishing in both rivers and oceans.
The really astonishing thing is that the amount of water to create one pound of meat is staggering. It requires about 15,000 litres of water to produce one pound of meat. This is very well catalogued. And the use of water for agriculture is highly wasteful, both in China and India. This is largely because water has no price, so no one conserves it. Water shortages are completely preventable, but plant closures due to water shortages are costing billions to the economy. The quantity of fresh water per capita in China is 75% less than the average for the world. And the south gets most of it.
The issue of cereals is also significant. We expect growth in cereals to continue to remain high but not as high as one might expect. The increasing amounts of protein in diets means the growth rate of cereals could actually stagnate. Nonetheless, the rate of change is still positive. If China’s rate of growth in cereals is anything like that seen in past and present emerging markets, we should see a daily increase of about 30,000 tonnes. We will not go into detail here, but we should mention that increasing numbers of scientific studies are showing concern about the excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides in China. For instance, China uses about 14% of the world’s pesticides, according to the USDA.
Problems that arise with increased protein demand are over-grazing, aquaculture pollution, over-fishing, and eutrophication
Water for the creation of protein is a very serious problem; this reinforces Sean Darby’s Water portfolio
Growth rate of cereals will be low, but protein growth is far higher than carbohydrates at this point
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 28
Exhibit 43. Average meat/capita (kg) Exhibit 44. Average cereals/capita (tons)
Average meat per capita
China
50
54
58
62
66
70
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Average cereals per capita
China0.30
0.50
0.70
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, Earthtrends, FAO, Nomura research Source: World Bank, Earthtrends, FAO, Nomura research
All of these problems need solutions. We understand through Ivan Lee’s team that revolutionary and creative moves are afoot to treat ground water. Centralized intervention is increasingly common in China to settle contentious issues of land contamination, soil erosion from invasive pollution sources, excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers. Motivated by this, we include China Everbright and Beijing Enterprise Water in our portfolio.
This writer has been conducting research on China for 20 years. It is clear that the authorities absolutely ‘get it’. When they do get their hands around a thorny and politically difficult problem, there is usually a solution. The most important and most vital problem in China – and the world – is the environmental erosion from growing industry, greater prosperity and better standards of living. Jared Diamond’s conclusion is that China will lurch in the direction of environmental protection. We are beginning to see this right now.
China gets it! Expect the government to lurch in the direction of environmental protection in the near future
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 29
Appendices
Appendix I: Valuation comparisons
Exhibit 45. Valuation comparison – Asian Banks under coverage Nomura Price P/E (x) P/BV (x) Yield (%) ROE (%) EPS growth (%) Ticker Company Rating (local) FY09F FY10F FY09F FY10F FY09F FY10F FY09F FY10F FY09F FY10F CHINA China (H-share) 1398 HK ICBC-H Buy 5.4 13.1 10.9 2.3 2.0 3.4% 4.1% 19% 19% 7% 15% 939 HK CCB-H Buy 6.0 12.6 10.5 2.2 1.9 3.6% 4.3% 19% 19% 3% 15% 3988 HK BOC-H Buy 3.6 11.6 10.0 1.6 1.4 3.9% 4.5% 14% 14% 5% 10% 3328 HK BOCOM-H Neutral 8.1 13.6 11.2 2.1 1.8 2.8% 3.5% 16% 17% -12% 16% 3968 HK CMB-H Neutral 16.7 15.9 13.2 2.9 2.3 0.9% 1.1% 20% 19% -37% 15% 998 HK CITIC Bank-H Buy 4.8 11.6 9.4 1.5 1.3 2.6% 3.2% 14% 15% 4% 18% Average 13.1 10.9 2.1 1.8 2.9% 3.5% 16.9% 17.2% -5.0% 15.0% China (A-share) 600000 CH SPDB Neutral 21.2 13.3 13.6 2.4 2.1 1.6% 1.6% 20% 17% -25% -3% 600016 CH Minsheng Reduce 7.7 22.2 22.6 2.4 2.2 0.5% 0.5% 11% 10% -14% -2% 000001 CH SZDB Buy 22.2 16.9 13.7 3.2 2.6 0.3% 0.4% 21% 21% 531% 24% 002142 CH Bank of Ningbo Neutral 11.4 24.5 21.8 3.1 2.8 1.4% 1.6% 13% 13% -13% 12% 601009 CH Bank of Nanjing Buy 15.5 20.4 18.4 2.7 2.4 2.0% 2.2% 14% 14% 1% 11% Average 19.5 18.0 2.8 2.4 1.2% 1.2% 16% 15% 96% 9% China Average 16.0 14.1 2.4 2.1 2.1% 2.4% 16% 16% 41% 12% HONG KONG 11 HK HSB Neutral 110.10 16.3 14.8 3.7 3.5 5.7% 5.7% 24% 24% -16% 11% 2388 HK BOCHK Buy 15.54 13.1 10.4 1.8 1.7 4.6% 5.8% 14% 16% -16% 22% 23 HK BEA Neutral 25.00 17.9 13.7 1.4 1.3 2.8% 3.6% 8% 10% 944% 34% 302 HK WHB Buy 70.80 20.3 12.1 1.8 1.7 1.2% 4.1% 9% 15% -32% 72% 349 HK ICBC (Asia) Buy 15.62 10.9 9.8 1.3 1.2 5.5% 6.1% 12% 13% -10% 11% 440 HK DSF Buy 41.60 13.9 9.6 1.0 0.9 1.8% 3.1% 7% 10% -37% 114% 636 HK FBHK Neutral 3.17 36.5 9.4 0.8 0.7 1.9% 4.7% 2% 8% -72% 626% 1111 HK CHB Reduce 13.48 16.1 13.1 1.0 0.9 3.4% 4.2% 6% 7% 85% 23% Average 18.1 11.6 1.6 1.5 3.4% 4.7% 10% 13% 106% 114% KOREA 105560 KS KB Financial BUY 51,500 19.8 11.0 1.1 1.0 0.0% 0.0% 6% 10% -61% 80% 055550 KS Shinhan BUY 41,000 19.3 11.2 1.0 0.9 0.0% 0.0% 5% 9% -56% 73% 086790 KS Hana Financial NEUTRAL 32,750 1,167.0 1,167.0 0.8 0.7 0.3% 0.3% 0% 6% -99% 0% 053000 KS Woori REDUCE 14,050 26.9 11.8 0.9 0.8 0.0% 0.0% 3% 7% -7% 128% 024110 KS IBK REDUCE 13,500 42.6 15.1 0.9 0.8 0.0% 0.7% 2% 6% -79% 183% 004940 KS KEB NEUTRAL 11,150 57.8 12.4 1.0 1.0 0.0% 0.9% 2% 8% -84% 368% 005280 KS Busan Bank NEUTRAL 11,250 16.3 12.9 1.1 1.0 0.9% 0.9% 7% 8% -63% 27% 005270 KS Daegu Bank NEUTRAL 14,550 15.8 11.5 1.2 1.1 1.0% 1.4% 7% 10% -53% 38% Average 170.7 156.6 1.0 0.9 0.3% 0.5% 4% 8% -63% 112% SINGAPORE DBS SP DBS Neutral 12.64 16.0 13.9 1.2 1.1 4.4% 4.4% 8% 8% -41% 15% OCBC SP OCBC Buy 7.74 14.9 13.3 1.4 1.3 3.6% 3.6% 10% 10% 8% 12% UOB SP UOB Buy 16.70 13.5 11.3 1.4 1.3 3.6% 4.2% 11% 12% -4% 19% Average 14.8 12.8 1.3 1.3 3.9% 4.1% 10% 10% -12% 15% MALAYSIA AMM MK AMMB Holdings Buy 4.11 12.8 12.5 1.4 1.3 1.5% 2.2% 12% 11% 28% 3% BCHB MK Bumi-Commerce Neutral 9.95 16.3 14.4 1.9 1.8 1.9% 1.9% 12% 12% 11% 13% MAY MK Malayan Banking Reduce 6.51 17.6 17.1 1.7 1.6 1.5% 2.0% 11% 8% -47% 3% PBKF MK Public Bank Buy 9.95 14.4 12.8 3.2 3.0 5.2% 5.9% 24% 25% 3% 13% Average 15.3 14.2 2.1 1.9 2.5% 3.0% 15% 14% -1% 8% THAILAND SCB TB Siam Commercial Neutral 77.00 13.5 11.9 1.9 1.7 2.6% 3.2% 15% 15% -9% 13% BBL TB Bangkok Bank Neutral 110.00 12.9 10.5 1.1 1.0 2.7% 2.7% 9% 10% -19% 22% KBANK TB Kasikorn Bank Buy 72.50 12.9 11.3 1.4 1.3 2.8% 2.8% 11% 12% -12% 14% BAY TB Bank of Ayudhya Reduce 17.80 19.3 15.6 1.3 1.2 0.8% 1.4% 7% 8% 14% 24% Average 14.7 12.3 1.4 1.3 2.2% 2.5% 10% 11% -7% 18% INDIA AXSB IN Axis Bank Buy 923 18.2 15.1 3.2 2.7 1.1% 1.1% 19% 21% 69% 30% ICICIBC IN ICICI Bank Neutral 751 22.2 19.1 1.7 1.6 1.4% 1.2% 8% 9% -10% 16% HDFCB IN HDFC Bank Neutral 1457 27.6 22.8 4.1 3.1 0.7% 0.9% 17% 16% 18% 21% SBIN IN SBI Reduce 1754 13.5 11.9 1.7 1.6 1.0% 1.0% 14% 14% -11% 13% PNB IN PNB Buy 662 9.4 8.1 1.4 1.2 1.4% 1.4% 16% 16% -9% 16% Average 18.2 15.4 2.4 2.1 1.1% 1.1% 15% 15% 11% 20% Asia Average 45.1 40.1 1.8 1.6 2.1% 2.5% 12% 13% 18% 51%
Source: Bloomberg, Nomura Estimates; Note: Pricing as of 31 Aug 09
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 30
Exhibit 46. Key ratio comparison– Asian Banks under coverage Nomura Chg in NIM (bps) Credit cost Impaired loan Cost-to-income Total CAR Ticker Company Rating FY09F FY10F FY09F FY10F FY09F FY10F FY09F FY10F FY09F FY10F CHINA China (H-share) 1398 HK ICBC-H Buy (71) 1 0.6% 0.7% 2.0% 2.1% 36% 36% 12% 12% 939 HK CCB-H Buy (77) 2 0.8% 0.8% 2.1% 2.2% 38% 38% 12% 12% 3988 HK BOC-H Buy (57) 1 0.5% 0.9% 2.4% 2.5% 43% 43% 12% 12% 3328 HK BOCOM-H Neutral (93) 10 0.8% 1.0% 1.7% 1.9% 40% 40% 12% 12% 3968 HK CMB-H Neutral (115) 9 0.4% 0.7% 1.2% 1.6% 45% 45% 13% 13% 998 HK CITIC Bank-H Buy (94) 15 0.6% 0.8% 1.3% 1.4% 41% 41% 11% 10% Average (85) 6 0.6% 0.8% 1.8% 2.0% 41% 41% 12% 12% China (A-share) 600000 CH SPDB Neutral (58) (3) 0.7% 1.0% 1.5% 2.3% 48% 47% 10% 9% 600016 CH Minsheng Reduce (74) 14 0.6% 0.6% 0.9% 1.0% 49% 47% 7% 6% 000001 CH SZDB Buy (52) 12 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 45% 45% 8% 8% 002142 CH Bank of Ningbo Neutral (46) 13 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 0.9% 43% 42% 12% 11% 601009 CH Bank of Nanjing Buy (48) 8 1.0% 0.9% 1.4% 1.3% 31% 31% 14% 13% Average (78) (3) 1.1% 1.3% 1.6% 2.6% 43% 42% 12% 11% China Average (71) 7 0.7% 0.8% 1.4% 1.6% 42% 41% 11% 11% HONG KONG 11 HK HSB Neutral (22) (4) 0.4% 0.4% 1.3% 1.4% 31% 30% 15% 14% 2388 HK BOCHK Buy (33) 4 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 40% 31% 15% 15% 23 HK BEA Neutral (29) 18 0.5% 0.4% 1.2% 1.4% 58% 57% 13% 14% 302 HK WHB Buy (2) 6 0.4% 0.3% 1.0% 1.1% 56% 41% 15% 16% 349 HK ICBC (Asia) Buy (1) (0) 0.3% 0.2% 1.0% 1.3% 35% 35% 14% 14% 440 HK DSF Buy (10) (3) 0.8% 0.6% 1.6% 1.6% 59% 45% 16% 16% 636 HK FBHK Neutral 19 (1) 1.0% 0.8% 1.9% 2.2% 70% 54% 14% 14% 1111 HK CHB Reduce (1) (3) 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 58% 54% 16% 16% Average (10) 2 0.5% 0.4% 1.1% 1.2% 51% 43% 15% 15% KOREA 105560 KS KB Financial Buy (26) (3) 1.3% 1.1% 1.9% 1.6% 48% 43% 14% 13% 055550 KS Shinhan Buy (25) (3) 1.2% 0.8% 2.3% 1.9% 42% 45% 12% 12% 086790 KS Hana Financial Neutral (37) 0 1.5% 1.4% 2.3% 1.9% 46% 40% 14% 13% 053000 KS Woori Reduce (30) (1) 1.3% 1.1% 2.8% 2.4% 47% 44% 10% 10% 024110 KS IBK Reduce (7) (2) 2.0% 1.8% 3.4% 2.9% 36% 34% 11% 11% 004940 KS KEB Neutral (59) (13) 2.3% 1.6% 2.2% 1.8% 44% 44% 11% 11% 005280 KS Busan Bank Neutral (30) 2 1.7% 1.6% 2.8% 2.3% 44% 43% 14% 14% 005270 KS Daegu Bank Neutral (28) (1) 1.8% 1.7% 2.6% 2.4% 46% 45% 12% 11% Average (30) (3) 1.6% 1.4% 2.5% 2.1% 44% 42% 12% 12% SINGAPORE DBS SP DBS Neutral 6 3 1.2% 1.0% 4.5% 4.1% 42% 43% 17% 15% OCBC SP OCBC Buy 10 (2) 1.0% 0.8% 3.5% 3.3% 37% 39% 15% 14% UOB SP UOB Buy 8 (1) 1.2% 0.8% 3.6% 3.4% 38% 38% 17% 17% Average 8 0 1.1% 0.9% 3.9% 3.6% 39% 40% 16% 15% MALAYSIA AMM MK AMMB Holdings Buy (23) (12) 0.6% 0.8% 5.1% 5.4% 51% 49% 14% 15% BCHB MK Bumi-Commerce Neutral (14) 19 1.0% 0.6% 5.4% 5.9% 51% 51% 14% 13% MAY MK Malayan Banking Reduce (2) (1) 0.7% 0.8% 4.0% 4.4% 52% 53% 14% 14% PBKF MK Public Bank Buy (1) (16) 0.6% 0.5% 1.3% 1.8% 31% 32% 13% 13% Average (10) (3) 0.7% 0.7% 4.0% 4.4% 46% 46% 14% 14% THAILAND SCB TB Siam Commercial Neutral (37) 7 0.9% 0.9% 6.5% 6.7% 48% 47% 12% 13% BBL TB Bangkok Bank Neutral (37) 9 0.9% 0.7% 6.7% 7.3% 54% 53% 14% 14% KBANK TB Kasikorn Bank Buy (38) 18 1.1% 0.9% 5.8% 6.5% 57% 59% 16% 15% BAY TB Bank of Ayudhya Reduce (24) 12 1.3% 1.2% 12.1% 12.6% 60% 59% 16% 16% Average (34) 12 1.1% 0.9% 7.8% 8.3% 55% 55% 15% 15% INDIA AXSB IN Axis Bank Buy 4 (2) 1.0% 1.1% 0.4% 0.8% 43% 42% 14% 12% ICICIBC IN ICICI Bank Neutral 28 34 1.8% 1.9% 1.9% 0.6% 44% 41% 16% 15% HDFCB IN HDFC Bank Neutral 2 (24) 1.7% 2.0% 0.6% 0.7% 61% 54% 15% 16% SBIN IN SBI Reduce (10) (16) 0.8% 0.7% 2.6% 2.8% 47% 46% 13% 13% PNB IN PNB Buy (11) (5) 0.7% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 47% 47% 12% 12% Average 3 (3) 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 48% 46% 14% 14% Asia Average (29) 2 0.9% 0.9% 2.5% 2.6% 46% 44% 13% 13%
Source: Bloomberg, Nomura Estimates; Note: Pricing as of 31 Aug 09
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 31
Appendix II: Time frame for data
Exhibit 47 lists the time frame for the data we have used. Each entry denotes the starting year for the data set.
Exhibit 47. Time frame for data series for all categories U
S
Can
ada
Mex
ico
Braz
il
Ger
man
y
Net
herla
nds
UK
Hon
g K
ong
Japa
n
Mal
aysi
a
Sing
apor
e
Sout
h Ko
rea
Taiw
an
Thai
land
Nor
way
Aust
ralia
Swed
en
Fran
ce
Italy
Spai
n
Turk
ey
Sout
h Af
rica
Chi
le
Chi
na
Meat 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 - 1979 1992 1979 1987 - 2003 1974 - 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Cereals 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 - 1979 1992 - 1987 - 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
TV 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 1985 - 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Cars 1972 1973 - - 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 1985 2003 - - - 1975 1976 1979 1991 - 1992 2007
Motorcycles 1972 - - - - - 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 1985 2003 - - - 1975 1976 1979 1991 - - 2007
Oil 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 1985 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Steel - - 1986 1993 - - - 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 1985 2003 - 1974 - - - - - 1996 1992 2007
Coal 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 - 1987 1985 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Electricity 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 - 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Natural Gas 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 - 1979 1992 - 1987 1985 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 - 1992 2007
Phones 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 1985 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Spending on Retail 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 - 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Spending on Hotels 1972 1973 1986 - - 1974 1976 - - - 1979 1987 - 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 - 1996 - 2007
Spending on Clothing 1972 1973 1986 - 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 - 1979 1987 - 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 - 1996 - 2007
Spending on Healthcare 1972 1973 - - 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 - 1979 1987 - 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 - 1996 - 2007
Deposits 1972 1973 - - 1975 - - 1979 - - - 1987 1985 2003 - - - - - 1979 - - - 2007
Credit 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 - 1992 1979 1987 - 2003 - 1974 1973 1975 1976 - 1991 1996 1992 2007
Savings (%GNI) 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 - 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Services (%GDP) 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 - 2003 - 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Consumption (%GDP) 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 1985 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Investments (%GDP) 1972 1973 1986 1993 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 1985 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Inflation (%) 1972 1973 - - 1975 1974 1976 1979 1979 1992 1979 1987 - 2003 1974 1974 1973 1975 1976 1979 1991 1996 1992 2007
Market Cap (%GDP) - - 1986 1993 - - - - - 1992 - 1987 - 2003 - - - - - - 1991 1996 1992 2007
Source: Nomura research
Definitions of groupings
EU: UK, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, France, Italy, Spain & Turkey
EM: Mexico, Brazil, Malaysia, Thailand & Chile
NICs: HK, Korea, Singapore & Taiwan
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 32
Appendix III: Data by Category
Exhibit 48. Order of Categories in Appendix # Exhibit Category # Exhibit Category # Exhibit Category 1 49 Meat 8 56 Coal 15 63 Credit 2 50 Cereals 9 57 Electricity 16 64 Deposit 3 51 TV 10 58 Gas 17 65 Hotel 4 52 Cars 11 59 Phones 18 66 Clothing 5 53 Motorcycles 12 60 Services 19 67 Healthcare 6 54 Oil 13 61 Savings 7 55 Steel 14 62 Retail Source: Nomura research
Exhibit 49. Meat per capita (kgs)
USA meat per capita (kgs)
94
98
102
106
110
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada meat per capita (kgs)
92
96
100
104
108
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
UK meat per capita (kgs)
60
64
68
72
76
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Germany meat per capita (kgs)
84
88
92
96
100
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Brazil meat per capita (kgs)
50
60
70
80
90
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500GDP per capita
Japan meat per capita (kgs)
20
24
28
32
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 33
Korea meat per capita (kgs)
0
10
20
30
40
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Malaysia meat per capita (kgs)
38
44
50
56
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Singapore meat per capita (kgs)
68
72
76
80
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Thailand meat per capita (kgs)
25
27
29
31
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000
GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Australia meat per capita (kgs)
40
50
60
70
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
France meat per capita (kgs)
88
92
96
100
104
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 34
Spain meat per capita (kgs)
50
60
70
80
90
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Italy meat per capita (kgs)
60
64
68
72
76
80
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
China meat per capita (kgs)
60
68
76
84
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO, Nomura Research
Exhibit 50. Cereal per capita (tons)
USA cereals per capita (tons)
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada cereals per capita (tons)
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 35
UK cereals per capita (tons)
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Germany cereals per capita (tons)
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Brazil cereals per capita (tons)
0.25
0.29
0.33
0.37
0.41
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000GDP per capita
Japan cereals per capita (tons)
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Korea cereals per capita (tons)
0.38
0.42
0.46
0.5
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
malaysia cereals per capita (tons)
0.23
0.26
0.29
0.32
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 36
France cereals per capita (tons)
0.27
0.47
0.67
0.87
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Australia cereals per capita (tons)
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Italy cereals per capita (tons)
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Spain cereals per capita (tons)
0.27
0.47
0.67
0.87
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO
Thailand cereals per capita (tons)
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.4
0.41
0.42
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500GDP per capita
China cereals per capita(tons)
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.37
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends, FAO Source: Earthtrends, FAO, Nomura research
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 37
Exhibit 51. TV s per 1,000 of population
USA tv per 1000
400
440
480
520
560
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada tv per 1000
380
400
420
440
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends Source: Earthtrends
UK tv per 1000
360
380
400
420
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Germany tv per 1000
380
400
420
440
460
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends Source: Earthtrends
Brazil tv per 1000
120
170
220
270
320
370
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000GDP per capita
HK tv per 1000
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends Source: Earthtrends
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 38
Japan tv per 1000
250
350
450
550
650
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Malaysia tv per 1000
100
130
160
190
220
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends Source: Earthtrends
Singapore tv per 1000
290
300
310
320
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Korea tv per 1000
180
200
220
240
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends Source: Earthtrends
Taiw an tv per 1000
304
306
308
310
312
314
316
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Australia tv per 1000
250
290
330
370
410
450
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends Source: Earthtrends
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 39
France tv per 1000
250
290
330
370
410
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Italy tv per 1000
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends Source: Earthtrends
Spain tv per 1000
240
260
280
300
320
340
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
China TV per 1000
370
410
450
490
530
570
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: Earthtrends Source: Earthtrends, Nomura research
Exhibit 52. Cars per 100 of population
USA cars per 100
44
46
48
50
52
54
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada cars per 100
33
36
39
42
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 40
UK cars per 100
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Germany cars per 100
20
24
28
32
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Malaysia cars per 100
5
9
13
17
21
25
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
HK cars per 100
6
7
8
9
10
11
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Japan cars per 100
14
16
18
20
22
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Singapore cars per 100
5
6
7
8
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 41
Korea cars per 100
0
2
4
6
8
10
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Taiw an cars per 100
2
6
10
14
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Thailand cars per 100
3
4
5
6
5000 6000 7000 8000GDP per capita
France cars per 100
25
27
29
31
33
35
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Italy cars per 100
26
29
32
35
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Spain cars per 100
15
19
23
27
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 42
China cars per 100
1
2
3
4
5
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat, Nomura research
Exhibit 53. Motorcycles per 100 of population
USA motorcycles per 100
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
UK motorcycles per 100
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
HK motorcycles per 100
0.23
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Japan motorcycles per 100
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 43
Korea motorcycles per 100
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Taiw an motorcycles per 100
1
2
3
4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Singapore motorcycles per 100
4
4.5
5
5.5
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Malaysia motorcycles per 100
14
18
22
26
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Thailand motorcycles per 100
21
23
25
27
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000GDP per capita
France motorcycles per 100
0.4
0.7
1
1.3
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 44
Spain motorcycles per 100
1
2
3
4
5000 7000 9000 11000 13000
GDP per capita
Italy motorcycles per 100
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat
China motorcycles per 100
6
6.6
7.2
7.8
8.4
9
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, CEIC, Eurostat, Nomura research
Exhibit 54. Oil per capita (tons)
USA oil per capita (tons)
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada oil per capita (tons)
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 45
UK oil per capita (tons)
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Germany oil per capita (tons)
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Brazil oil per capita (tons)
0.36
0.41
0.46
0.51
0.56
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Japan oil per capita (tons)
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Korea oil per capita (tons)
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Singapore oil per capita (tons)
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 46
Malaysia oil per capita (tons)
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
HK oil per capita (tons)
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Taiw an oil per capita (tons)
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Thailand oil per capita (tons)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
France oil per capita (tons)
1.6
2
2.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Australia oil per capita (tons)
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 47
Italy oil per capita (tons)
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Spain oil per capita (tons)
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
China oil per capita (tons)
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF, Nomura research
Exhibit 55. Steel per capita (tons)
Brazil steel per capita (tons)
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Thailand steel per capita (tons)
0.02
0.07
0.12
0.17
0.22
0.27
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000GDP per capita
Source: WSA Source: WSA
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 48
Korea steel per capita (tons)
0.2
0.4
0.6
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Japan steel per capita (tons)
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: WSA Source: WSA
Malaysia steel per capita (tons)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Singapore steel per capita (tons)
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: WSA Source: WSA
Taiw an steel per capita (tons)
0.15
0.35
0.55
0.75
0.95
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
HK steel per capita (tons)
0.26
0.3
0.34
0.38
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: WSA Source: WSA
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 49
Australia steel per capita (tons)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
China steel per capita (tons)
0.27
0.31
0.35
0.39
0.43
0.47
0.51
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: WSA Source: WSA, Nomura research
Exhibit 56. Coal per capita (mn tons oil equivalent)
USA coal per capita
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada coal per capita
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.05
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
UK coal per capita
1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Germany coal per capita
1.6
1.68
1.76
1.84
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 50
Brazil coal per capita
0.06
0.07
0.08
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Japan coal per capita
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Korea coal per capita
0.5
0.54
0.58
0.62
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Malaysia coal per capita
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
HK coal per capita
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Taiw an coal per capita
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 51
Thailand coal per capita
0.1
0.14
0.18
0.22
0.26
5000 6000 7000 8000GDP per capita
Australia coal per capita
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
France coal per capita
0.3
0.5
0.7
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Italy coal per capita
0.15
0.19
0.23
0.27
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Spain coal per capita
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
China coal per capita
0.85
1.05
1.25
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF, Nomura research
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 52
Exhibit 57. Electricity per capita (KWH)
USA electricity per capita
7500
8500
9500
10500
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Canada electricity per capita
9000
11000
13000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
UK electricity per capita
4300
4500
4700
4900
5100
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Germany electricity per capita
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Brazil electricity per capita
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Japan electricity per capita
4000
4200
4400
4600
4800
5000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 53
Korea electricity per capita
1200
2200
3200
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Malaysia electricity per capita
900
1900
2900
3900
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
HK electricity per capita
1500
1900
2300
2700
3100
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Thailand electricity per capita
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
5000 6000 7000 8000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Singapore electricity per capita
2000
3000
4000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Australia electricity per capita
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 54
France electricity per capita
2000
3000
4000
5000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Italy electricity per capita
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Spain electricity per capita
2300
2500
2700
2900
3100
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
China electricity per capita
2000
2400
2800
3200
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank, Nomura research
Exhibit 58. Natural gas per 100 (tons)
USA gas per 100
150
190
230
270
310
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada gas per 100
184
188
192
196
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 55
UK gas per 100
55
59
63
67
71
75
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Germany gas per 100
40
60
80
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Brazil gas per 100
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500GDP per capita
Japan gas per 100
0
4
8
12
16
20
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Korea gas per 100
2
6
10
14
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Malaysia gas per 100
40
60
80
100
120
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 56
Taiw an gas per 100
0
4
8
12
16
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Thailand gas per 100
35
45
55
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
France gas per 100
25
30
35
40
45
50
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Australia gas per 100
20
40
60
80
100
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Italy gas per 100
39
39.5
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Spain gas per 100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF Source: BP, IMF
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 57
China gas per 100
4
5
6
7
8
9
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: BP, IMF, Nomura research
Exhibit 59. Phones per 1,000 of population
USA phones per 1000
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Canada phones per 1000
320
340
360
380
400
420
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
UK phones per 1000
200
240
280
320
360
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Germany phones per 1000
150
200
250
300
350
400
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 58
Brazil phones per 1000
50
90
130
170
210
250
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000GDP per capita
HK phones per 1000
190
230
270
310
350
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Japan phones per 1000
280
300
320
340
360
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Singapore phones per 1000
150
190
230
270
310
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Malaysia phones per 1000
50
90
130
170
210
250
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
GDP per capita
Korea phones per 1000
150
200
250
300
350
400
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 59
Taiw an phones per 1000
180
220
260
300
340
380
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Thailand phones per 1000
96
100
104
108
112
116
120
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Australia phones per 1000
150
190
230
270
310
350
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
France phones per 1000
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Italy phones per 1000
160
200
240
280
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Spain phones per 1000
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 60
China phones per 1000
230
270
310
350
390
430
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank, Nomura research
Exhibit 60. Services (% of GDP)
USA services (%GDP)
61
62
62
62
63
63
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada services(%GDP)
54
56
58
60
62
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
UK services (%GDP)
55
56
57
58
59
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Germany services (%GDP)
54
56
58
60
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 61
Brazil services (%GDP)
30
40
50
60
70
80
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000GDP per capita
HK services (%GDP)
64
66
68
70
72
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Japan services (%GDP)
50
52
54
56
58
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Singapore services (%GDP)
59
60
61
62
63
64
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Malaysia services (%GDP)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Korea services (%GDP)
46
48
50
52
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 62
Thailand services (%GDP)
44
45
46
47
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000GDP per capita
Spain services (%GDP)
50
52
54
56
58
60
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Australia services (%GDP)
50
52
54
56
58
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
France services (%GDP)
58
60
62
64
66
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Italy services (%GDP)
52
54
56
58
60
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
China services (%GDP)
36
38
40
42
44
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank, Nomura research
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 63
Exhibit 61. Gross savings (% GNI)
USA savings (%GNI)
16%
17%
18%
19%
20%
21%
22%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada savings (%GNI)
20%
21%
22%
23%
24%
25%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
UK savings (%GNI)
15%
17%
19%
21%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Germany savings (%GNI)
16%
18%
20%
22%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Brazil savings (%GNI)
10%
14%
18%
22%
26%
30%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
HK savings (%GNI)
25%
28%
31%
34%
37%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 64
Japan savings (%GNI)
28%
31%
34%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Singapore savings (%GNI)
25%
35%
45%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Malaysia savings (%GNI)
30%
35%
40%
45%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Korea savings (%GNI)
35%
37%
39%
41%
5000 7000 9000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Thailand savings (%GNI)
29%
31%
33%
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000GDP per capita
Australia savings (%GNI)
20%
24%
28%
32%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 65
France savings (%GNI)
19%
20%
21%
22%
23%
24%
25%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Italy savings (%GNI)
20%
23%
26%
29%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank
Spain savings (%GNI)
16%
20%
24%
28%
32%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
China savings (%GNI)
52%
53%
54%
55%
56%
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: World Bank Source: World Bank, Nomura research
Exhibit 62. Retail per capita (US$)
USA retail per capita
500
900
1300
1700
2100
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Canada retail per capita
400
800
1200
1600
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 66
UK retail per capita
300
700
1100
1500
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Germany retail per capita
400
800
1200
1600
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Brazil retail per capita
150
550
950
1350
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
HK retail per capita
600
900
1200
1500
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Japan retail per capita
300
600
900
1200
1500
1800
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Singapore retail per capita
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 67
Malaysia retail per capita
300
500
700
900
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Korea retail per capita
200
500
800
1100
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Thailand retail per capita
200
400
600
800
5000 6000 7000 8000
GDP per capita
Australia retail per capita
1200
1500
1800
2100
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
France retail per capita
400
800
1200
1600
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Italy retail per capita
400
800
1200
1600
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 68
Spain retail per capita
600
800
1000
1200
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
China retail per capita
150
250
350
450
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data, Nomura research
Exhibit 63. Credit per capita (US$)
USA credit per capita
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Canada credit per capita
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
UK credit per capita
1200
2200
3200
4200
5200
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Germany credit per capita
6000
10000
14000
18000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 69
Brazil credit per capita
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
HK credit per capita
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
Singapore credit per capita
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Malaysia credit per capita
1500
2500
3500
4500
5500
6500
7500
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
Korea credit per capita
500
1500
2500
3500
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Thailand credit per capita
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000
GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 70
Australia credit per capita
800
1800
2800
3800
4800
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Italy credit per capita
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
France credit per capita
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
China credit per capita
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data, Nomura Research
Exhibit 64. Deposits per capita (US$)
USA deposits per capita
2400
2900
3400
3900
4400
4900
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada deposits per capita
1800
2300
2800
3300
3800
4300
4800
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 71
Germany deposit per capita
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Korea deposit per capita
800
1300
1800
2300
2800
3300
3800
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
HK deposit per capita
3500
5500
7500
9500
11500
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Taiw an deposit per capita
1000
3000
5000
7000
9000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
Thailand deposit per capita
1200
1700
2200
2700
3200
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000GDP per capita
Spain deposit per capita
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 72
China deposit per capita
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: CEIC, World Bank, Eurostat, Bundesbank, UN data, Nomura research
Exhibit 65. Personal spending on hotels per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
USA hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
UK hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Korea hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 73
Singapore hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
70
90
110
130
150
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Thailand hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
70
90
110
130
150
5000 6000 7000 8000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
France hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Australia hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Italy hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Spain hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
450
850
1250
1650
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 74
China hotel spending per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ =100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
GDP per capita
Source: UN data, Nomura research
Exhibit 66. Personal spending on clothing per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
USA spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
90
130
170
210
250
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
UK spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Germany spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 75
Korea spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
110
170
230
290
350
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Japan spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
70
90
110
130
150
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Singapore spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
70
90
110
130
150
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
HK spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
90
130
170
210
250
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Thailand spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
80
85
90
95
100
105
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000GDP per capita
Australia spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K
GDP/capita = 100)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 76
France spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Italy spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
150
250
350
450
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Spain spending on clothing per capita (US$ 5K GDP/capita = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
China spending on clothing per capita (GDP/capita 5K
US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data, Nomura research
Exhibit 67. Personal spending on health care per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
USA spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Canada spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 77
UK spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Germany spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
90
130
170
210
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data Spain spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K
US$ = 100)
50
90
130
170
210
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
Korea spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Japan spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Singapore spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
90
130
170
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 78
HK spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Thailand spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
France spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita
5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Australia spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data
Italy spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita 5K US$ = 100)
50
150
250
350
450
550
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000
GDP per capita
China spending on healthcare per capita (GDP/capita
5K US$ =100)
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000GDP per capita
Source: UN data Source: UN data, Nomura research
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 79
Appendix IV: Global signals for equities
Exhibit 68. Sovereign CDS
0
20
40
60
80
100
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
US Sovereign CDS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
Japan Sovereign CDS
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
Eastern Europe Sovereign CDS
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
China Sovereign CDS
Exhibit 69. Corporate CDS
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
US IG CDX (125 IG corps.)
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
US HY CDX (100 junk US corps.)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
ITRAXX Europe (Top 125 IG corps.)ITRAXX Japan (Top 50 IG corps.)
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
ITRAXX Asia ex-Japan IG (Top 50 IG corps.)
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 80
Exhibit 70. Emerging markets indicators
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
EM CDX (15 countries)
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
EM Spread (USD GEMS bonds - Treasury)
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul 1-Sep
CNY/INR
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
1-Jan 5-Feb 12-Mar 16-Apr 21-May 25-Jun 30-Jul1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600USD/PLN
USD/KRW
Exhibit 71. Liquidity, volatility, and recovery
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul 1-Sep
Ted Spread
100120
140160
180200220
240260
280300
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul
Equity Risk (VIX)
FX Risk (EUR/JPY Vol)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul 1-Sep
US Baa Spread over Treasury
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1-Jan 1-Mar 1-May 1-Jul 1-Sep
US HY spread over IG
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 81
Exhibit 72. Global breakeven inflation
US 1 year breakeven inflation (%)-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
29-May 12-Jun 26-Jun 10-Jul 24-Jul 7-Aug 21-Aug
US Breakeven Inflation Curve (%)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Current
- 1 month
- 2 months
UK 2 year breakeven inflation (%)
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1-Jun 15-Jun 29-Jun 13-Jul 27-Jul 10-Aug 24-Aug
UK Breakeven Inflation Curve (%)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Current
- 1 month
- 3 months
Japan 7 year breakeven inflation (%)
-3.3
-3.1
-2.9
-2.7
-2.5
-2.3
-2.1
-1.9
-1.7
-1.5
2-Mar 2-Apr 2-May 2-Jun 2-Jul 2-Aug
Sweden 5 year breakeven inflation (%)
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2-Mar 2-Apr 2-May 2-Jun 2-Jul 2-Aug
Note: Breakeven inflation is the difference between the nominal bond yield and the real bond yield of closest maturity. Real bond yields based on CPI in the US, Japan and Sweden; Retail Price Index in the UK; CPI ex-Tobacco in France; EU HICP ex-Tobacco in Germany and Italy; Weighted Average of Eight Capital Cities: All-Groups Index in Australia.
Breakeven Curves based on extrapolation of best available maturities for each market.
Source for all charts: Bloomberg, Nomura research
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 82
Appendix V: Portfolios
Exhibit 73. ‘S’ Curve Portfolio Mkt Cap Liquidity Altman P/B Div Yield P/E
Company Ticker Sector US$mn (US$mn) Z-Score FY09E FY09E FY 09E
CCB 939 HK Banks 176,383 348.4 n/a 2.3 4.1 n/aBoC HK 2388 HK Banks 21,198 44.0 n/a 1.8 3.9 17.3HK&Shanghai Hotels 45 HK Hotels 1,637 1.0 1.8 0.6 0.9 37.6Jin Jiang 2006 HK Hotels 1,154 3.1 1.9 1.2 1.1 58.5Hang Lung 101 HK Real Estate 12,917 26.9 4.0 1.5 NA 18.4Li Ning 2331 HK Retail 2,904 12.5 8.0 8.0 2.1 n/aMindray MR US Health Care 3,346 24.1 6.3 6.0 0.8 23.2Beijing Ent. Water 371 HK Water Treatment 651 4.5 2.2 2.3 0.0 33.4China Everbright Int. 257 HK Environment Control 1,150 3.4 2.0 2.8 0.7 22.7Shun Tak 242 HK Macau Property 1,350 7.2 1.6 0.9 2.7 n/aChina Agri 606 HK Food 2,708 5.4 3.4 1.3 2.3 9.9Netease NTES US eServices 5,407 88.2 20.7 5.0 0.0 16.4
Average 52.0 3.8 2.9 2.0 30.2 Note: Priced as of 1 September 2009 Source: Factset, I/B/E/S, Worldscope, Nomura research
Exhibit 74. Solvency Portfolio Mkt Cap Liquidity Altman P/B Div Yield Return since
Company Ticker Sector US$mn (US$mn) Z-Score FY09E FY09E Inclusion
Santos STO AU Energy 11,051 57.4 3.2 1.8 2.7 22%Sinofert 297 HK Materials 3,177 16.3 3.0 1.7 0.4 0%Petrochina 857 HK Energy 202,133 141.7 4.1 1.6 3.2 -9%ONGC ONGC IN Energy 51,920 8.9 4.4 2.5 2.9 69%SK Energy 096770 KS Energy 7,441 61.6 2.8 1.1 2.1 1%POSCO 005490 KS Steel 32,218 114.1 4.2 1.4 2.1 7%Ayala Corp AC PM Property 3,126 2.6 2.1 1.5 1.4 59%China Agri 606 HK Food 2,708 5.4 3.4 1.3 2.3 32%Parkway PWAY SP Health Care 1,561 4.8 1.4 1.7 1.9 50%
Average 45.9 3.2 1.6 2.1 29%* Note: Priced as of 1 September 2009. Transaction costs not included in returns. Past performance should not and cannot be viewed as an indicator of future performance. Complete record upon request.
Source: Factset, I/B/E/S, Worldscope, Nomura research
Exhibit 75. Reflation Portfolio Mkt Cap Liquidity Altman P/B Div Yield Return since
Company Ticker Industry Group US$mn (US$mn) Z-Score FY09E FY09E Inclusion
Standard Chartered STAN LN Bank 43,833 124 n/a 1.9 2.8 61%BoC 3988 HK Bank 120,505 211 n/a 1.7 4.1 58%ICBC 1398 HK Bank 227,082 277 n/a 2.3 4.0 53%UOB UOB SP Bank 16,952 43 n/a 1.5 3.3 12%PNB PNB IN Bank 4,277 3 n/a 1.3 2.9 31%CCB 939 HK Bank 176,383 348 n/a 2.3 4.1 13%BoC HK 2388 HK Bank 21,198 44 n/a 1.8 3.9 0%Average 168 n/a 1.8 3.5 38%
China Coal 1898 HK Coal 16,745 45 4.2 1.8 2.1 30%Yanzhou Coal 1171 HK Coal 7,220 43 7.4 1.7 2.6 42%Average 44 5.8 1.8 2.3 36%
Great Eagle 41 HK Property 1,311 3 2.3 0.5 3.4 60%Agile 3383 HK Property 4,304 31 2.7 2.1 1.8 105%Ayala AC PM Property 3,043 3 2.1 1.4 1.4 47%UOL Group UOL SP Property 1,832 4 1.7 0.7 2.6 77%China Resources Land 1109 HK Property 11,081 53 n/a 2.1 0.8 39%Soho China 410 HK Property 2,945 13 2.2 1.3 2.9 25%Average 18 2.2 1.3 2.2 59%
Average 86 3.2 1.6 2.8 47%* Note: Priced as of 1 September 2009. Transaction costs not included in returns. Past performance should not and cannot be viewed as an indicator of future performance. Complete record upon request.
Source: Factset, I/B/E/S, Worldscope, Nomura research
Please see Under the Hood, August 24, 2009, for details of the last change to our Model portfolios here
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 83
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 84
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 85
ANALYST CERTIFICATIONS Each research analyst identified on page 1 hereof certifies that all of the views expressed in this report by such analyst accurately reflect his or her personal views about the subject securities and issuers. In addition, each research analyst identified on page 1 hereof hereby certifies that no part of his or her compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views that he or she has expressed in this research report, nor is it tied to any specific investment banking transactions performed by Nomura Securities International, Inc., Nomura International plc or any other Nomura Group company.
ISSUER SPECIFIC REGULATORY DISCLOSURES Conflict-of-interest disclosures Important disclosures may be accessed through the following website: http://www.nomura.com/research/Disclosures/public/main.asp. If you have difficulty with this site or you do not have a password, please contact your Nomura Securities International, Inc. salesperson (1-877-865-5752) or email [email protected] for assistance. DISCLAIMER: PLEASE NOTE THAT THE TRADING IDEAS PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT IN NO WAY RELATE TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RATINGS APPLIED TO STOCKS BY NOMURA EQUITY RESEARCH ANALYSTS. Online availability of research and additional conflict-of-interest disclosures: Nomura Japanese Equity Research is available electronically for clients in the US on NOMURA.COM, REUTERS, BLOOMBERG and THOMSON ONE ANALYTICS. For clients in Europe, Japan and elsewhere in Asia it is available on NOMURA.COM, REUTERS and BLOOMBERG.
Important disclosures may be accessed through the left hand side of the Nomura Disclosure web page http://www.nomura.com/research or requested from Nomura Securities International, Inc., on 1-877-865-5752. If you have any difficulties with the website, please email [email protected] for technical assistance.
The analysts responsible for preparing this report have received compensation based upon various factors including the firm's total revenues, a portion of which is generated by Investment Banking activities.
Distribution of Ratings: Nomura Global Equity Research has 1613 companies under coverage. 36% have been assigned a Buy rating which, for purposes of mandatory disclosures, are classified as a Buy rating; 33% of companies with this rating are investment banking clients of the Nomura Group*. 41% have been assigned a Neutral rating which, for purposes of mandatory disclosures, is classified as a Hold rating; 61% of companies with this rating are investment banking clients of the Nomura Group*. 21% have been assigned a Reduce rating which, for purposes of mandatory disclosures, are classified as a Sell rating; 6% of companies with this rating are investment banking clients of the Nomura Group*. As at 30 June 2009. *The Nomura Group as defined in the Disclaimer section at the end of this report.
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 86
Explanation of Nomura's equity research rating system in Europe, Middle East and Africa, US and Latin America for ratings published from 27 October 2008: The rating system is a relative system indicating expected performance against a specific benchmark identified for each individual stock. Analysts may also indicate absolute upside to price target defined as (fair value - current price)/current price, subject to limited management discretion. In most cases, the fair value will equal the analyst's assessment of the current intrinsic fair value of the stock using an appropriate valuation methodology such as discounted cash flow or multiple analysis, etc.
Stocks:
• A rating of "1", or "Buy", indicates that the analyst expects the stock to outperform the Benchmark over the next 12 months. • A rating of "2", or "Neutral", indicates that the analyst expects the stock to perform in line with the Benchmark over the next 12 months. • A rating of "3", or "Reduce", indicates that the analyst expects the stock to underperform the Benchmark over the next 12 months. • A rating of "RS-Rating Suspended", ” indicates that the rating and target price have been suspended temporarily to comply with applicable regulations and/or firm policies in certain circumstances including when Nomura is acting in an advisory capacity in a merger or strategic transaction involving the company. Benchmarks are as follows: United States: S&P 500, MSCI World Technology Hardware & Equipment; Europe: Please see valuation methodologies for explanations of relevant benchmarks for stocks (accessible through the left hand side of the Nomura Disclosure web page: http://www.nomura.com/research); Global Emerging Markets (ex-Asia): MSCI Emerging Markets ex-Asia.
Sectors:
A "Bullish" stance, indicates that the analyst expects the sector to outperform the Benchmark during the next 12 months. A "Neutral" stance, indicates that the analyst expects the sector to perform in line with the Benchmark during the next 12 months. A "Bearish" stance, indicates that the analyst expects the sector to underperform the Benchmark during the next 12 months. Benchmarks are as follows: United States: S&P 500; Europe: Dow Jones STOXX® 600; Global Emerging Markets (ex-Asia): MSCI Emerging Markets ex-Asia.
Explanation of Nomura’s equity research rating system for Asian companies under coverage ex Japan published from 30 October 2008 and in Japan from 6 January 2009: Stocks:
Stock recommendations are based on absolute valuation upside (downside), which is defined as (Price Target – Current Price) / Current Price, subject to limited management discretion. In most cases, the Price Target will equal the analyst’s 12-month intrinsic valuation of the stock, based on an appropriate valuation methodology such as discounted cash flow, multiple analysis, etc. • A "Buy" recommendation indicates that potential upside is 15% or more. • A "Neutral" recommendation indicates that potential upside is less than 15% or downside is less than 5%. • A "Reduce" recommendation indicates that potential downside is 5% or more. • A rating of "RS" or "Rating Suspended" indicates that the rating and target price have been suspended temporarily to comply with applicable regulations and/or firm policies in certain circumstances including when Nomura is acting in an advisory capacity in a merger or strategic transaction involving the subject company. • Stocks labelled as "Not rated" or shown as "No rating" are not in Nomura's regular research coverage. Sectors:
A "Bullish" rating means most stocks in the sector have (or the weighted average recommendation of the stocks under coverage is) a positive absolute recommendation. A "Neutral" rating means most stocks in the sector have (or the weighted average recommendation of the stocks under coverage is) a neutral absolute recommendation. A "Bearish" rating means most stocks in the sector have (or the weighted average recommendation of the stocks under coverage is) a negative absolute recommendation.
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 87
Explanation of Nomura's equity research rating system in Japan published prior to 6 January 2009 (and ratings in Europe, Middle East and Africa, US and Latin America published prior to 27 October 2008): Stocks:
• A rating of "1", or "Strong buy", indicates that the analyst expects the stock to outperform the Benchmark by 15% or more over the next six months. • A rating of "2", or "Buy", indicates that the analyst expects the stock to outperform the Benchmark by 5% or more but less than 15% over the next six months. • A rating of "3", or "Neutral", indicates that the analyst expects the stock to either outperform or underperform the Benchmark by less than 5% over the next six months. • A rating of "4", or "Reduce", indicates that the analyst expects the stock to underperform the Benchmark by 5% or more but less than 15% over the next six months. • A rating of "5", or "Sell", indicates that the analyst expects the stock to underperform the Benchmark by 15% or more over the next six months. • Stocks labeled "Not rated" or shown as "No rating" are not in Nomura's regular research coverage. Nomura might not publish additional research reports concerning this company, and it undertakes no obligation to update the analysis, estimates, projections, conclusions or other information contained herein. Sectors:
A "Bullish" stance, indicates that the analyst expects the sector to outperform the Benchmark during the next six months. A "Neutral" stance, indicates that the analyst expects the sector to perform in line with the Benchmark during the next six months. A "Bearish" stance, indicates that the analyst expects the sector to underperform the Benchmark during the next six months. Benchmarks are as follows: Japan: TOPIX; United States: S&P 500, MSCI World Technology Hardware & Equipment; Europe, by sector — Hardware/Semiconductors: FTSE W Europe IT Hardware; Telecoms: FTSE W Europe Business Services; Business Services: FTSE W Europe; Auto & Components: FTSE W Europe Auto & Parts; Communications equipment: FTSE W Europe IT Hardware; Ecology Focus: Bloomberg World Energy Alternate Sources; Global Emerging Markets: MSCI Emerging Markets ex-Asia. Explanation of Nomura's equity research rating system for Asian companies under coverage ex Japan published prior to 30 October 2008: Stocks:
Stock recommendations are based on absolute valuation upside (downside), which is defined as (Fair Value - Current Price)/Current Price, subject to limited management discretion. In most cases, the Fair Value will equal the analyst's assessment of the current intrinsic fair value of the stock using an appropriate valuation methodology such as Discounted Cash Flow or Multiple analysis etc. However, if the analyst doesn't think the market will revalue the stock over the specified time horizon due to a lack of events or catalysts, then the fair value may differ from the intrinsic fair value. In most cases, therefore, our recommendation is an assessment of the difference between current market price and our estimate of current intrinsic fair value. Recommendations are set with a 6-12 month horizon unless specified otherwise. Accordingly, within this horizon, price volatility may cause the actual upside or downside based on the prevailing market price to differ from the upside or downside implied by the recommendation. • A "Strong buy" recommendation indicates that upside is more than 20%. • A "Buy" recommendation indicates that upside is between 10% and 20%. • A "Neutral" recommendation indicates that upside or downside is less than 10%. • A "Reduce" recommendation indicates that downside is between 10% and 20%. • A "Sell" recommendation indicates that downside is more than 20%. Sectors:
A "Bullish" rating means most stocks in the sector have (or the weighted average recommendation of the stocks under coverage is) a positive absolute recommendation. A "Neutral" rating means most stocks in the sector have (or the weighted average recommendation of the stocks under coverage is) a neutral absolute recommendation. A "Bearish" rating means most stocks in the sector have (or the weighted average recommendation of the stocks under coverage is) a negative absolute recommendation. Price targets Price targets, if discussed, reflect in part the analyst's estimates for the company's earnings. The achievement of any price target may be impeded by general market and macroeconomic trends, and by other risks related to the company or the market, and may not occur if the company's earnings differ from estimates.
Multi-Strategy | Asia Paul Schulte
3 September 2009 Nomura 88
DISCLAIMERS This publication contains material that has been prepared by the Nomura entity identified on the banner at the top or the bottom of page 1 herein and, if applicable, with the contributions of one or more Nomura entities whose employees and their respective affiliations are specified on page 1 herein or elsewhere identified in the publication. Affiliates and subsidiaries of Nomura Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the "Nomura Group"), include: Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. ("NSC") Tokyo, Japan; Nomura International plc, United Kingdom; Nomura Securities International, Inc. ("NSI"), New York, NY; Nomura International (Hong Kong) Ltd., Hong Kong; Nomura Singapore Ltd., Singapore; Nomura Australia Ltd., Australia; P.T. Nomura Indonesia, Indonesia; Nomura Securities Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia; Nomura International (Hong Kong) Ltd., Taipei Branch, Taiwan; Nomura International (Hong Kong) Ltd., Seoul Branch, Korea; Nomura Financial Advisory and Securities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, India (Registered Address: 2nd Floor, Ballard House, Adi Marzban Path, Ballard Pier, Fort, Mumbai, 400 001; SEBI Registration No:- BSE INB011299030, NSE INB231299034, INF231299034).
This material is: (i) for your private information, and we are not soliciting any action based upon it; (ii) not to be construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction where such offer or solicitation would be illegal; and (iii) based upon information that we consider reliable, but we do not represent that it is accurate or complete, and it should not be relied upon as such.
Opinions expressed are current opinions as of the original publication date appearing on this material only and the information, including the opinions contained herein, are subject to change without notice. If and as applicable, NSI's investment banking relationships, investment banking and non-investment banking compensation and securities ownership (identified in this report as "Disclosures Required in the United States"), if any, are specified in disclaimers and related disclosures in this report. In addition, other members of the Nomura Group may from time to time perform investment banking or other services (including acting as advisor, manager or lender) for, or solicit investment banking or other business from, companies mentioned herein. Further, the Nomura Group, and/or its officers, directors and employees, including persons, without limitation, involved in the preparation or issuance of this material may, to the extent permitted by applicable law and/or regulation, have long or short positions in, and buy or sell, the securities (including ownership by NSI, referenced above), or derivatives (including options) thereof, of companies mentioned herein, or related securities or derivatives. In addition, the Nomura Group, excluding NSI, may act as a market maker and principal, willing to buy and sell certain of the securities of companies mentioned herein. Further, the Nomura Group may buy and sell certain of the securities of companies mentioned herein, as agent for its clients.
Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision and, as such, the report should not be viewed as identifying or suggesting all risks, direct or indirect, that may be associated with any investment decision.
NSC and other non-US members of the Nomura Group (i.e., excluding NSI), their officers, directors and employees may, to the extent it relates to non-US issuers and is permitted by applicable law, have acted upon or used this material prior to, or immediately following, its publication.
Foreign currency-denominated securities are subject to fluctuations in exchange rates that could have an adverse effect on the value or price of, or income derived from, the investment. In addition, investors in securities such as ADRs, the values of which are influenced by foreign currencies, effectively assume currency risk.
The securities described herein may not have been registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and, in such case, may not be offered or sold in the United States or to U.S. persons unless they have been registered under such Act, or except in compliance with an exemption from the registration requirements of such Act. Unless governing law permits otherwise, you must contact a Nomura entity in your home jurisdiction if you want to use our services in effecting a transaction in the securities mentioned in this material.
This publication has been approved for distribution in the United Kingdom and European Union as investment research by Nomura International plc ("NIPlc"), which is authorised and regulated by the U.K. Financial Services Authority ("FSA") and is a member of the London Stock Exchange. It does not constitute a personal recommendation, as defined by the FSA, or take into account the particular investment objectives, financial situations, or needs of individual investors. It is intended only for investors who are "eligible counterparties" or "professional clients" as defined by the FSA, and may not, therefore, be redistributed to retail clients as defined by the FSA. This publication may be distributed in Germany via Nomura Bank (Deutschland) GmbH, which is authorised and regulated in Germany by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority ("BaFin"). This publication has been approved by Nomura International (Hong Kong) Ltd. ("NIHK"), which is regulated by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, for distribution in Hong Kong by NIHK. Neither NIPlc nor NIHK hold an Australian financial services licence as both are exempt from the requirement to hold this license in respect of the financial services either provides. This publication has also been approved for distribution in Malaysia by Nomura Securities Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. In Singapore, this publication has been distributed by Nomura Singapore Limited (“NSL”). NSL accepts legal responsibility for the content of this publication, where it concerns securities, futures and foreign exchange, issued by its foreign affiliate in respect of recipients who are not accredited, expert or institutional investors as defined by the Securities and Futures Act (Chapter 289). Recipients of this publication may contact NSL in respect of matters arising from, or in connection with, this publication. NSI accepts responsibility for the contents of this material when distributed in the United States.
No part of this material may be (i) copied, photocopied, or duplicated in any form, by any means, or (ii) redistributed without the prior written consent of the Nomura Group member identified in the banner on page 1 of this report. Further information on any of the securities mentioned herein may be obtained upon request. If this publication has been distributed by electronic transmission, such as e-mail, then such transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this publication, which may arise as a result of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version.
Additional information available upon request. NIPlc and other Nomura Group entities manage conflicts identified through the following: their Chinese Wall, confidentiality and independence policies, maintenance of a Stop List and a Watch List, personal account dealing rules, policies and procedures for managing conflicts of interest arising from the allocation and pricing of securities and impartial investment research and disclosure to clients via client documentation.
Disclosure information is available at the Nomura Disclosure web page: http://www.nomura.com/research
AP88a/f/90b
Nomura Asian Equity Research Group Hong Kong Nomura International (Hong Kong) Limited
30/F Two International Finance Centre, 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2536 1111 Fax: +852 2536 1820
Singapore
Nomura Singapore Limited 5 Temasek Boulevard #11-01, Suntec Tower Five, Singapore 038985, Singapore Tel: +65 6433 6288 Fax: +65 6433 6169
Taipei Nomura International (Hong Kong) Limited, Taipei Branch 14/F, 109 Min-Sheng East Rd, Sec 3, Taipei, Taiwan Tel: +886 2 2547 9300 Fax: +886 2 2547 9387
Seoul Nomura International (Hong Kong) Limited, Seoul Branch 17th floor, Seoul Finance Center, 84 Taepyeongno 1-ga, Jung-gu, Seoul 100-768, Korea Tel: +82 2 3783 2000 Fax: +82 2 3783 2500
Kuala Lumpur Nomura Securities Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. Suite No 16.3, Level 16, Menara IMC, 8 Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 2027 6811 Fax: +60 3 2027 6888
India Nomura Financial Advisory and Securities (India) Private Limited 2 North Avenue, 8th floor, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051, India Tel: +91 22 6785 5151 Fax: +91 22 6785 5050
Sydney Nomura Australia Ltd. Level 33, 126 Phillip Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia Tel: +61 2 9321 3500 Fax: +61 2 9321 3990
Tokyo Equity Research Department Financial & Economic Research Center Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. 17/F Urbannet Building, 2-2, Otemachi 2-chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8130, Japan Tel: +81 3 5255 1658 Fax: +81 3 5255 1747, 3272 0869
Caring for the environment: to receive only the electronic versions of our research, please contact your sales representative.