Month: November 2014

The sucker flag is up, as the retail investor is back into the stock market

Vivek Kaul

It’s morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money – W C Fields

The Indian retail investor is a sucker. He invests when the markets are high and he gets out when the markets are low. Don’t believe me? Look at the table that follows.
This table shows the net inflows(total inflows minus total outflows) into equity mutual funds in India during the course of a financial year. As can be seen in 2007-2008 equity mutual funds saw a net inflow of Rs 40,782 crore. This was the time when the stock market was on fire. In early January 2008, the Sensex almost touched 21,000 points. It had started the financial year at around 12,500 points.

earInflows/Outflows in/from
equity mutual funds (in Rs Crore)
2007-200840,782
2008-20091,056
2009-2010595
2010-2011-13,405
2011-2012264
2012-2013-12,931
2013-2014-7,627
2014-2015 (from April 1,2014 to October 31 2014)39,217

Source :Association of Mutual Funds in India


And when the party was on the retail investor couldn’t have been far behind. He poured money into equity mutual funds. In January 2008, equity mutual funds saw a net inflow of Rs 12,717 crore. The stock market started to fall from mid January onwards. In fact, the Sensex fell from 21,000 points to 17,500 points in a matter of a few days.
So, the good things came to an end pretty soon. Over the next few years, the faith of the retail investor in the stock market came down dramatically and inflows into equity mutual funds almost dried down. In 2010-2011, the outflows from equity mutual funds reached Rs 13,405 crore. The trend continued in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 as well.
What these data points clearly show us is that the retail investor poured money into the stock market at high levels and got out only once the market started to fall. The opposite of the buy low, sell high, strategy that the stock market experts keep talking about. But what else do you expect from a sucker.
Nevertheless, things seem to have started to change again. The retail investor seems to be back into the stock market. This financial year (between April and October 2014) has seen a net inflow of Rs 39,217 crore into equity mutual funds. And if things go on as they currently are, the year might see the highest inflow into equity mutual funds ever.
This is not surprising given that the Sensex has rallied by close to 25% between April and October 2014 to reach almost 28,000 points. And this has got the suckers interested in the stock market all over again.
In fact, the Indian retail investor isn’t the only sucker going around. Maggie Mahar in her book Bull!—A History of the Boom and Bust, 1982–2004, makes a similar point about American investors during the dotcom bubble.
Between 1982 and 1996, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gave positive returns in 12 out of the 14 years. In eight of the 12 years that the Dow had given positive returns, the absolute return had been 20 percent or more. This led to more investors entering the stock market.
The number of investors in the stock market increased, as many middle class investors made their first jump into the stock market. Wealthier Americans already owned stocks. Nearly three-fourths of those having financial assets of $500,000 or more had made their first investment in stocks sometime before 1990. Some 33 percent of the households with financial assets of $25,000 to $100,000 bought their first stock or invested in a mutual fund that in turn invested in stocks between 1990 and 1995. But 40 percent of those owning financial assets in the range of $25,000 to $99,000, and 68 percent of those with financial assets of less than $25,000 made their first purchase after January 1996.
So, the American retail investor started taking interest in technology stocks only after January 1996, and by that time the dotcom bubble was well and truly on. A similar sort of dynamic was visible in the real estate bubble that followed, when a large number of individuals started taking loans to buy homes that they wanted to flip, only by 2005-2006, when the bubble was at its peak.
Economic theory tells us that more often than not, higher prices dampen demand and lower prices increase demand. But when the stock market witnesses a bull run, investors do not behave like normal consumers.
As Mahar puts it in Bull! “In the normal course of things, higher prices dampen desire. When lamb becomes too dear, consumers eat chicken; when the price of gasoline soars, people take fewer vacations. Conversely, lower prices usually whet our interest: color TVs, VCRs, and cell phones became more popular as they became more affordable. But when a stock market soars, investors do not behave like consumers. They are consumed by stocks. Equities seem to appeal to the perversity of human desire. The more costly the prize, the greater the allure.”
This is something that every investor should try and remember.
What these examples show is that the retail investor tends to enter a market only once its done well for a while. In the process he or she ends up making losses or limited gains.
Let’s compare this to a situation of an investor who had invested regularly in the stock market over the years, through a systematic investment plan.
Let’s consider the Goldman Sachs Nifty BeES fund for this exercise. This particular fund is essentially an exchange traded index fund and invests in stock that constitute the Nifty index. A regular monthly investment in this fund from September 2007 till November 2014, would have yielded a return of 14.10% per year. During the same period the Nifty has given a return of around 9.15% per year, barely matching the rate of inflation.
What is the point of investing in the stock market over the long term, if you can’t even beat the rate of inflation?
Now let’s say you had started investing in January 2008, when the stock market was at a then all time high level and continued to invest in the Nifty BeES till date. The returns on the systematic investment plan would be 14.84%. During the same period the Nifty gave a return of 4.5% per year. Some savings accounts would have given more return than that.
Moral of the story: Successful stock market investing can be simple and boring at the same time.
To conclude, retail investors entering the stock market in droves has been a clear sign of the market nearing its high levels, in the past. Is that the case this time around as well? This remains a difficult question to answer given that foreign investors are the ones really driving the Indian stock market.
As long as Western central banks maintain low interest rates, these investors can borrow money at low interest rates and invest them in financial markets all over the world, including India. Given this, the retail investor entering the market right now may not turn out to be suckers at the end of the day.
But the same cannot be said about the retail investors still waiting in the wings.
Stay tuned.

Disclosure: The basic idea for this column came after reading this piece in the Business Standard

The column originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com on Nov 13, 2014

Of foreign investors, China and the Hotel California song

china

In response to the last column a reader wrote in on Twitter saying “shudder to think what would happen [to the stock market] if FIIs[foreign institutional investors] packed their bags and left.” Since the start of the financial crisis in September 2008 and up to October 2014, the FIIs have made net purchases (gross purchase minus gross sales of stocks) close to Rs 2.76 lakh crore in the Indian stock market. During the same period, the domestic institutional investors(DIIs) made net sales of Rs 95,219 crore.
The FIIs have continued to bring in money even during the course of this year. Between January and November 10, 2014, they had made net purchases of stocks worth Rs 65,751.25 crore. During the same period, the DIIs had made net sales of stocks worth Rs 30,136.32 crore.
Over and above this, the FIIs own around 26% of the BSE 100 stocks. Deepak Parekh in a recent speech estimated that after excluding promoter shareholding and the retail segment, which do not have too much liquidity, FIIs dominate close to 70% of the stock market.
What all these numbers clearly tell us is that the foreign investors run the Indian stock market. But that we had already established in the last column. In this column we will try and address the question as to what will happen if foreign investors packed their bags and left? The simple answer is that the stock market will fall and will fall big time. The foreign investors control 70% of the stock market and if they sell out, chances are there won’t be enough buyers in the market.
Nevertheless, the foreign investors also know this, so will they ever try getting out of the Indian stock market, lock, stock and barrel? This is where things get a little tricky.
Let’s try and get deeper into this through a slightly similar situation in a different financial market. Over the years, the United States(US) government has spent much more than it has earned and has financed the difference through borrowing. As on November 7, 2014, the total borrowing of the United States government stood at $ 17.94 trillion dollars. The US government borrows this money by selling financial securities known as treasury bonds.
A little over $6 trillion of treasury bonds are held by foreign countries. Within this, China holds bonds worth $1.27 trillion and Japan holds bonds worth $1.23 trillion. Even though the difference in the total amount of treasury bonds held by China and Japan is not much, China is clearly the more important country in this equation.
Why is that the case? James Rickards explains this in great detail in Currency Wars—The Making of the Next Financial Crisis. The buying of treasury bonds by the Japanese is not as centralized as is the case with China, where the People’s Bank of China, the Chinese central bank, does the bulk of the buying. In the Japanese case the buying is spread among the Bank of Japan, which is the Japanese central bank, and other institutions like the big banks and pension funds.
The United States realizes the importance of China in the entire equation. Right till June 2011, China bought American treasury bonds through primary dealers, which were essentially big banks dealing directly with the Federal Reserve of the United States. But since then things have changed. The treasury department of the US (or what we call finance ministry in India) has given the People’s Bank of China, a direct computer link to its bond auction system.
Also, there is a great fear of what will happen if the Chinese ever decide to get out of US treasury bonds, lock, stock and barrel. It will lead to a contagion where many investors will try getting out of the treasury bonds at the same time, leading to a fall in their price.
A fall in price would mean that the returns on these bonds will go up, as the US government will continue paying the same interest on these bonds as it had in the past. Higher returns on the treasury bonds will mean that the interest rates on bank deposits and loans will also have to go up.
This can lead to a global financial crisis of the kind we saw breaking out in September 2008. Nevertheless, the question is will China wake up one fine day and start selling out of US government bonds? For a country like China, which holds treasury bonds worth $1.27 trillion, it does not make sense to wake up one day and start selling these bonds. This as explained earlier will lead to a fall in bond prices, which will hurt China as the value of its investment will go down. China has invested the foreign exchange that it earns through exports, in treasury bonds.
As on September 30, 2014, the Chinese foreign-exchange reserves stood at close to $3.89 trillion. Hence, nearly one third of Chinese foreign-exchange reserves are invested in US treasury bonds. Given this, it is highly unlikely that China will jeopardise the value of these foreign-exchange reserves by suddenly selling out of treasury bonds.
What China has done instead is that since November last year its investment in US treasury bonds has been limited to around $1.27 trillion. Also, some threats work best when they are not executed.
Hence, when it comes to the Chinese and their investment in treasury bonds, the situation is best expressed by the Hotel California song, sung by The Eagles: “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
Now let’s get back to the FIIs and their investment in the Indian stock market. Isn’t their situation similar to the Chinese investment in US treasury bonds? If they ever try to exit the Indian stock market lock, stock and barrel, it is worth remembering that they control nearly 70% of the market. When foreign investors decide to sell there won’t be enough buyers in the market. Hence, stock prices will fall big time, leading to foreign investors having to face further losses on the massive investments that they have made over the years.
Given this, are the Chinese in the US and foreign investors in India in a similar situation? Does the Hotel California song apply to foreign investors in India as well? Prima facie that seems to be the case. But there is one essential difference that we are ignoring here.
Nearly one third of Chinese foreign-exchange reserves are invested in US treasury bonds. Hence, China has a significant stake in the US treasury bond market. The same cannot be said about foreign investors in India’s stock market, at least when we consider them as a whole.
As Deepak Parekh said in a recent speech “India ranks among the top 10 global equity markets in terms of market cap. However, India accounts for just 2.4% of the global market capitalization of US $64 trillion.” Given this, in the global scheme of things for foreign investors, India does not really matter much.
Hence, if a sufficient number of them feel that they need to exit the Indian stock market, they will do that, even if it means that they have to face losses in the process. As mentioned earlier, in the global scheme of things, these losses won’t matter. Also, a lot of money brought into India by the FIIs has been due to the “easy money” policy run by the Federal Reserve of the United States and other Western central banks.
These central banks have printed money to maintain interest rates at low levels. The foreign investors have borrowed money at low interest rates and invested in the Indian stock market. Once these interest rates start to go up, it may no longer make sense for them to stay invested in India. Of course, it is very difficult to predict when will that happen.
Nevertheless, it is worth remembering what Steven Pinker writes in his new book The Sense of Style—The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century: “It’s hard to know the truth, that the world doesn’t just reveal itself to us, that we understand the world through our theories and constructs, which are not pictures but abstract propositions.”
And whatever I have written in today’s column is my abstract proposition. Hence, the question still remains: Will foreign investors ever sell out of the Indian stock market, lock, stock and barrel? 

Sensex at 28,000: Will the real Indian stock market investor please stand up?

bubbleVivek Kaul

I have cooked my own food for over 12 years now. Over the years, as boredom from cooking on a daily basis has set in, the quality of what I cook has deteriorated. These days the food I cook is just about edible.
Given this, I like to watch some mindless television while eating. This ensures that I don’t pay attention to what I am eating and as a result, don’t end up cribbing to myself. What works best in this scenario, especially during lunch time, are business news channels.
If you are the kind who still watches them, you would know that a major part of the day on these channels is spent in trying to figure out which way the stock market is headed. The anchors of these channels talk to so called “experts” who give their “gyan” on why they feel the market moved the way it did, and which way they think it’s headed in the future.
More often than not these experts are optimistic and keep telling us that the market is only going to go up from here. Nevertheless, as you and I know that is not how things always turn out. It is especially interesting on days the markets rise, to see these experts thump their chests and tell the viewers “I told you so!”
The reasons for their optimism vary from day to day. It can be low inflation on one day and the hyperactive Modi government on another. On days they run out reasons they like to tell us the “India growth story is still intact”. Come rain or sunshine, these experts always have their reasons ready. And that makes it great fun to watch.
(I have to confess here that I have this recurring dream where I have been invited to a studio of a business channel and am asked “Mr Kaul, which way do you think the stock market is headed?” And I look write into the eyes of the anchor and tell her “Mam, it’s headed only one way and that’s up”.
“Why do you say so?” she asks, with her eyebrows fluttering. And I reply: “The whole country of the system is juxtaposition by the haemoglobin in the atmosphere because you are a sophisticated rhetorician intoxicated by the exuberance of your own verbosity.”)
Jokes apart, these experts especially the Indian ones, never really tell us the real reason behind the Indian stock market going up.
Between April 2007 and October 2014, the foreign institutional investors(FIIs) made a net purchase(gross purchase minus gross sales of stocks) of Rs 2.06 lakh crore in the Indian stock market. During the same period the domestic institutional investors(DIIs) made net sales of Rs 22,715 crore.
Things get more interesting once we look at the numbers between September 2008 (the month the current financial crisis started) and October 2014. During this period, FIIs have made a net purchase of Rs 2.76 lakh crore. In the same period, the DIIs made net sales of Rs 95,219 crore. These data points tell us very clearly who is really driving up the Indian stock market. In the aftermath of the financial crisis breaking out in September 2008, the developed nations of the world led by the United States and United Kingdom carried out quantitative easing or printed money and pumped it into their respective financial systems, to keep interest rates low.
This was done in the hope that at low interest rates people would borrow and spend more, and all the spending would help revive economic growth. What happened instead was that large financial institutions managed to borrow money at low interest rates and invested it in financial markets all over the world. This has driven up stock markets all over the world, including the BSE Sensex.
The inflow of foreign money has been particularly strong this year. As Abhishek Saraf and Abhay Laijawala of Deutsche Bank Market Research point out in a recent report “On a year to date basis too, India has witnessed the highest FII inflows into equities at ~US$14billion.”
This has helped the Sensex rally by more than 33% since the beginning of this year. But the interesting thing is that DIIs have continued to stay away. Since the beginning of this year they have made net sales of Rs 27,241.5 crore.
Nevertheless, October 2014 has been an exception to this, with the DIIs making a net purchase of Rs 4,103 crore. This is for the first time since August 2013, when the net purchase of the DIIs was higher than that of the FIIs. In fact, FIIs made net sales of Rs 1683 crore during the course of the month.
The question to ask here is why have the DIIs not invested anywhere as much as the FIIs have in the years since the financial crisis broke out. The answer lies in the fact that DIIs (primarily insurance companies and mutual funds) ultimately invest money they collect from the retail investors.
The retail investors had bailed out of the stock market lock, stock and barrel, in the aftermath of the financial crisis. They haven’t returned since. A major reason for the same was the fact that insurance companies sold expensive unit linked insurance plans (or Ulips) to retail investors.
Many agents promised investors that their money once invested in the stock market would double in three years. That clearly did not happen, and individuals who had bought Ulips essentially went around footing the bill for the high commissions that insurance companies paid their agents. And this ended up giving the stock market a bad name.
Also, many retail investors started entering the stock market only in late 2007, when the market was already at a very high level and ended up making losses. As Deepak Parekh said in a speech last week in Mumbai “Retail investors tend to enter stock markets on the highs and lose confidence on the lows.”
Further, DIIs represent only the indirect participation of the retail investor in the stock market. What about the direct participation? This is very minuscule. As Parekh pointed out “On the retail side, the picture is grimmer. Direct participation of retail investors in Indian capital markets is 1.4% of the population compared to China at 9.4%, UK at 16% and US at 18%.” Or as maverick investor Shankar Sharma once told me during the course of an interview “The Sensex is just a two square mile phenomenon — Fort to Nariman Point. That is about all that is interested in the Sensex.”
Parekh in his speech estimated that after excluding promoter shareholding and the retail segment, which do not have too much liquidity, FIIs dominate close to 70% of the market. What this clearly tells is that it is the FIIs have used the “easy money” provided by the central banks of Western countries to drive the Indian stock market, and, in turn, have benefited the most from it as well. This has also helped the BSE Sensex cross the level of 28,000 points more than a few times in the recent past.
Given this, the next time you see an Indian expert trying to give you reasons on why the stock market is rallying, try and tell this to yourself: “he knows not what he is talking for he is on television.”
To conclude the question to ask here is whether it is time to allow big provident funds like the employee provident fund, the government provident fund and the coal mines provident fund to invest a part of their corpus in the stock market? This will be one way of ensuring that some regular Indian money also keeps coming into the stock market and foreign investors are not the only ones to benefit. And that is something worth thinking about.

The article originally appeared on www.equitymaster.com on Nov 11, 2014

Eight things you need to know about falling oil prices

oil

Vivek Kaul

The price of oil has been falling for a while now. As I write this the brent crude oil is selling at around $80.4 per barrel. There are several reasons behind the fall and several repercussions from it as well. Let’s look at them one by one.

1) The Chinese demand for oil has not been growing at the same rate as it was in the past, as Chinese economic growth has been falling. As Ruchir Sharma, head of Emerging Markets and Global Macro at Morgan Stanley Investment Management wrote in a recent column in The Wall Street Journal “The growth rate in Chinese demand for oil has plummeted to nearly zero this year, down from 12% in 2010. This is arguably the main reason why oil prices are down.”
2) In the past when oil prices fell, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) led by Saudi Arabia used to cut production to ensure that supply fell and that ensured that prices did not continue to fall. This hasn’t happened this time around. As the Saudi oil minister Ali Naimi told Reuters on November 12, “Saudi oil policy has been constant for the last few decades and it has not changed today.” He added that: “We do not seek to politicise oil…for us, it’s a question of supply and demand, it’s purely business.”
And what is this pure business Al Naimi is talking about? The United States and other western nations like Canada have had a boom in shale oil production. This boom has led to the United States and Canada producing much more oil than they were a few years back. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that United States in 2013 produced 12.35 million barrels per day. This is a massive increase of 35% since 2009. In case of Canada the production has gone up by 22.8% to 4.07 million barrels per day between 2009 to 2013.
Shale oil is very expensive to produce and depending on which estimate one believes it is viable only if oil prices range between $50 and $75 per barrel. Hence, by ensuring low oil prices the Saudis want to squeeze out the shale oil producing companies in Canada and United States.
3) So is the Saudi policy working? The US Energy Information Administration in its latest Drilling Productivity Report said that the seven largest shale oil companies will produce 125,000 barrels more per day in December 2014 in comparison to November 2014.
Hence, the Saudi strategy of driving down oil prices to ensure that the production of oil by shale oil companies is no longer viable, hasn’t seemed to have had an impact yet. Nevertheless that doesn’t mean that a fall in oil prices will have no impact on shale oil production.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has said that the investment in shale oil fields will fall by 10% next year, if oil prices continue to remain at $80 per barrel. Faith Bristol, chief economist of IEA recently said “there could be a 10 per cent decline in US light tight oil, or shale, investment in 2015 [from full-year 2014 levels]”…I wouldn’t be surprised to see statements from different companies in the weeks and months to come [outlining a change in] their investment plans and reducing budgets for investments in North America . . . especially the United States.” And this will have an impact on the production of shale oil in the medium term, if Saudis continue to sustain low oil prices.
4) Nonetheless, the interesting thing that the United States and other Western nations may never have to increase production of shale oil, just the threat of doing that will act as an insurance policy. As Niels C. Jensen writes in the Absolute Return Letter for November 2014 “There is nothing easier to get used to in this world than higher living standards, and the populations of most oil producing nations have seen plenty of that in recent years. Shale [oil] is a threat against those living standards, and falling oil prices are the best assurance they can hope for that shale [oil] will never become the major production factor that we are all being told that it could become. It is very expensive to produce and thus requires high oil and gas prices to be economical.”
But even with that shale oil can act as an insurance policy against high oil prices, feels Jensen. As he writes “In a rather bizarre way, shale [oil] has thus become an insurance policy, as the western world never have to ramp up shale production to levels that have been discussed. The sheer threat of doing so should keep the oil price at acceptable levels.”
5) Also, low oil prices are going to benefit nations which import oil. “A $20-per-barrel drop in oil prices transfers $6-700 billion from oil producing nations to consumers worldwide or nearly 1% of world GDP. Assuming consumers will spend about half of that on consumption, which historically has been a fair assumption, the positive effect on GDP in consumer countries is 0.5%,” writes Hunt. And this is clearly good news for oil importing nations like India. Falling oil prices are also benefiting airlines and shipping companies given that oil is their single biggest expense.
6) News reports suggest that China is using this opportunity to buy a lot of oil. As a recent report on Bloomberg points out “The number of supertankers sailing toward China’s ports matched a record on Oct. 17 and is still close to that level now.”
7) The countries that are likely to get into trouble if oil prices continue to remain low are primarily Russia and Iran. Russia relies heavily on exports of oil and gas. As a recent article on cnbc.com points out “In 2013, for example, Russia’s energy exports constituted more than two-thirds of total exports amounting to $372 billion of a total $526 billion.” Further, the Russian government’s budget gets balanced (i.e. its income is equal to its expenditure) at an oil price of anywhere between $100-110 per barrel. Iran’s case is similar. Hence, both these countries need higher oil prices.
As a recent Oped in the Los Angeles Times points out “Russia and Iran compete with Saudi Arabia in the international oil market, and both need oil prices to be at roughly $110 a barrel in order to balance their budgets. If oil prices remain at $80 a barrel, the strategic ambitions of Tehran and Moscow could be severely undermined.”
8) Saudi Arabia also gets hit by a lower oil prices. “Saudi produces close to 10m barrels per day, similar to Russian output. A $20 fall in the oil price, costs Saudi Arabia about $200m per day,” a recent article in The Independent points out.
But Saudi Arabia has more staying power than the others. The fact that Aramco (officially known as Saudi Arabian Oil Company) has deep pockets is a point worth remembering. As Vijay Bhambwani, CEO of BSPLIndia.com recently told me “Saudis can produce low cost arab light sweet crude very cost efficiently and only the recent state welfare schemes implemented after the arab spring, have raised the marginal costs. Even a slight rollback / delayed released of the additional welfare payments (US $ 36 billion) can add sizeable cash flow into the Saudi national balance sheet and give it additional staying power.”
To conclude, there are many different dimensions to falling oil prices and the way each one of them evolves, will have some impact on oil prices in the days to come .

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Nov 13, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

Inflation dips, but here’s why Indians don’t believe it will stay low


deflationHere is the good news—the inflation as measured by the consumer price index for the month of October 2014 came in at 5.52%. It was at 6.46 % in September 2014 and 10.17% in October 2013. The price of food products which make up 42.71% of the consumer price index rose by 5.59% in October 2014, in comparison to the same period during the previous year.
A major reason for the fall in inflation has been a global fall in food prices. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price Index averaged at 192.3 points in October 2014. It was lower by around 0.2% in comparison to the September number. In comparison to a year earlier, food prices fell by 6.9%. Global food prices have now fallen for seven months in a row, and this has been the longest slide since 2009.
While food prices on the whole haven’t been falling in India, vegetable prices fell by 1.45% during October 2014 in comparison to October 2013. Interestingly, they had risen by 45.7% in October 2013 in comparison to October 2012. Cereal prices during the month went up by 6% in comparison to 12% a year earlier. Also, only two food products showed an increase in price of greater than 10%. The price of milk went up by 10.8% and the price of fruits went up by 17.5%.
Nevertheless, food prices might start rising again. The government has forecast that the output of kharif crops will be much lower than last year and this might start pushing food prices upwards all over again. As the Business Standard reports “As per very preliminary estimates, India’s food grain production in 2014-15 kharif crop season is expected to be around 120 million tonnes, nearly 9.5 million tonnes less than last year, but officials have said that there could be a further downward revision in the estimates as arrivals gather steam from middle of November onwards.”
And this could push up prices in the days to come. As As Rupa Rege Nitsure, Chief Economist, Bank Of Baroda told Reuters “recent data shows that towards the end of October we have seen spikes in vegetable prices as well as in cereal prices because of delayed monsoon. So there’s a big question of sustainability of these readings.”
Falling food inflation has come as a big relief given that half of the expenditure of an average household in India is on food. In case of the poor it is 60% (NSSO 2011). Over and above this a fall in global oil prices has also helped. Fuel and light inflation in October 2013 was at close to 7%. In October 2014, the number came in at 3.3%.
Hence, it can clearly be seen that there has been some relief on the inflation front.
For more than five years, inflation in general and food inflation in particular was very high. High inflation ate into the incomes of people and led to a scenario where their expenditure went up faster than their income. This led to a cut down on expenditure which was not immediately necessary.
With food inflation coming down, this should leave more money on the table for people to spend and at least theoretically should lead to a revival of consumer demand and hence, industrial activity. It is worth remembering here that when people cut down on expenditure, the demand for manufactured products falls as well. This is in turn reflected in the index of industrial production (IIP).
The IIP for the month of September 2014 was 2.5% higher in comparison to September 2013. This is a little better than the IIP for the month of August 2013 which was only 0.4% higher in comparison to August 2013. The IIP is a measure of the industrial activity in the country.
The manufacturing sector which forms a little over 75% of the IIP, grew by 2.5% during the course of the month. The number had fallen by 1.4% in August 2014. Hence, there seems to have been some recovery on this front. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that recovery will sustain in the months to come.
As Nisture put it “What really matters is that all other indicators of economic activity actually have slowed in the month of October, whether it is PMI, or credit demand or auto sales. So I don’t think that today’s reading of industrial production is sustainable.”
Further, what is worrying are the consumer goods and the consumer durables sectors. The numbers representing these sectors are both down in comparison to last year. When we look at the IIP from the use based point of view it tells us that consumer durables (fridges, ACs, televisions,computers, cars etc) are down by 4% in comparison to September 2013. The consumer goods are down by 11.3%.
What this clearly tells us is that despite falling inflation, people still haven’t come out with their shopping bags.  When consumers are going slow on purchasing goods, it makes no sense for businesses to manufacture them.
Why is that the case despite falling inflation? A possible explanation is the fact the wounds of a very long period of high inflation still haven’t gone away. People are still not ready to believe that low inflation is here to stay. Hence, inflationary expectations (or the expectations that consumers have of what future inflation is likely to be) are on the higher side.
As per the Reserve Bank of India’s Inflation Expectations Survey of Households: September – 2014, the inflationary expectations over the next three months and one year are at 14.6 percent and 16 percent. In March 2014, the numbers were at 12.9 percent and 15.3 percent. Hence, inflationary expectations have risen since the beginning of this financial year.
The only possible way to bring them down is to ensure that low inflation persists in the months to come. Only then will people start to believe that low inflation is here to stay. And once that happens, it won’t take much time for some consumer demand to return. As Shivom Chakrabarti, Senior Economist at HDFC Bank told Reuters “The real improvement in industrial production will be seen next year when inflation comes down, which will spur consumer spending and exports will be higher.”

The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on Nov 13, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)