
China's stock market favours foxes over hedgehogs
LONDON, May 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - 'The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.' The famous adage of the ancient Greek poet Archilochus is reflected in investors' deeply contrasting attitudes towards China's stock market. Over the past year, the foxes, who have a trading mentality, have been riding a rally in Chinese equities. Hedgehogs have stayed away. The one thing they know is that the People's Republic is no place for long-term investors.
Over the past decade, U.S. stocks have trounced Chinese equities. That order has reversed this year. Since the beginning of January, the S&P 500 Index (.SPX), opens new tab is basically flat while the MSCI China Index (.dMICN00000PUS), opens new tab, which includes mainland companies listed in Hong Kong and New York, has climbed over 10%. On the surface there's plenty for investors to get excited about. Chinese companies remain ultracompetitive, as evidenced by the country's massive trade surplus. The People's Republic boasts several world-class firms, including tech giant Tencent and carmaker BYD. It also dominates cutting-edge technologies from electric vehicles to battery storage.
Viewed over a longer period, Chinese equities have profoundly disappointed. Since the re-establishment of the country's stock market in the early 1990s, they have returned a mere 3.3% a year after inflation, according to UBS. That's just half the average long run historic return of the U.S. stock market, and in line with the return on Chinese bonds. The country's stocks look relatively cheap at 15 times cyclically adjusted earnings, less than half the level of their U.S. counterparts. But Chinese equities traded at a similar valuation 10 years ago.
What explains the systematically low returns from Chinese stocks? In his recently published book 'The Making of Modern Corporate Finance, opens new tab', the author and consultant Donald Chew argues that China has adopted the form of Western financial practices - stock exchanges, regulators, brokers, and auditors - but not their substance. Chinese companies and investors operate without the strict rule of law or strong property rights. Beijing views the stock market primarily as a place to raise cheap capital rather than reward those who provide it, says Chew. There's no market for corporate control in China. Minority shareholders have little influence.
Listed Chinese companies have low profit margins and sluggish asset turnover. Over the past decade, their returns on equity have fallen from 10% to 6%, according to Gillem Tulloch, founder of Hong-Kong based GMT Research. A recent paper, opens new tab by Ben Inker and Anna Chetoukhina of the Boston-based investment firm GMO finds that the mildly negative annual returns on Chinese stocks in the decade between September 2014 and September 2024 were due to deteriorating fundamentals and significant shareholder dilution. The issuance of additional stock lowered returns by 2.6% a year over this period, according to GMO.
The addition of several highly valued tech companies, such as Alibaba and Baidu, to the MSCI China Index provided an additional drag. Chinese stocks deserve a steep discount to other markets because companies reinvest close to 100% of their profits at structurally low returns, GMO concludes.
Future changes to the MSCI China Index may not to be so damaging to investors while the decline in returns on capital could turn out to be a cyclical phenomenon. After all, investors were put off by years of lacklustre returns from Japanese stocks until former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe instituted a series of reforms after returning to power in 2012. Since then, the Nikkei 225 Index (.N225), opens new tab has more than trebled.
Chinese authorities last year tried to revive the stock market as part of efforts to stimulate the world's second-largest economy. There's little evidence, however, that President Xi Jinping is a convert to shareholder value. If anything, he has moved corporate China in the opposite direction. Public companies are expected to conform to Xi's vision of 'common prosperity', which means avoiding supposed capitalist 'excesses' and following the Communist Party's priorities.
State-owned enterprises, which account for around half the Chinese market's capitalisation, are cogs in the party's machine. Their resources are often allocated at the government's behest. For instance, when Beijing launched its massive stimulus programme in late 2008, the biggest listed banks provided much of the credit, while many other SOEs became involved in supporting the property market.
Private Chinese companies regularly face pressure to support the government's priorities. Business leaders who step out of line, as Alibaba founder Jack Ma did in October 2020 when he publicly criticised Chinese financial regulators, face repercussions. Companies that operate in sectors that have fallen out of favour with Beijing are liable to be crushed, as investors in private education providers discovered in 2021.
Although the epidemic of corporate fraud that erupted in the early 2010s has abated, Chinese financial statements are the least reliable in Asia, says Tulloch. Company research provided by analysts based on the mainland is also of low quality, he says. The risk factors listed in Chinese IPO prospectuses are watered down to comply with rules banning comments that disparage government policies or the business environment, argues Ian Williams in his book 'Vampire State: The Rise and Fall of the Chinese Economy", opens new tab.
Despite the Chinese stock market's lacklustre returns over the past 15 years, investors have had opportunities to make money. During this period there have been several strong market rallies, including two full-blown bubbles, starting in 2014 and 2020.
The trick for investors is to front-run those rallies by gauging when Beijing is poised to support the market. That's what happened last year, when the People's Bank of China lowered the reserve requirement for banks and set up a stock market lending facility. The securities regulator banned short sales. Large shareholders were instructed not to sell shares and state-owned entities stepped in to support the market. More recently, Chinese tech stocks have benefitted from optimism about advances in artificial intelligence.
Speculative foxes who anticipated these moves are licking their chops. They should not overstay their welcome. Hedgehogs believe that foreign investors in China face similar risks to those operating, until recently, in neighbouring Russia. In their view, Chinese stocks are only ever a trade and not an investment.
Follow @Breakingviews, opens new tab on X
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
With families facing impossible choices, Labour's should be easy
Few causes seize the emotions of the Labour Party as does the alleviation of child poverty, and rightly so. More than a quarter of a century since prime minister Tony Blair pledged that his generation would be 'the first to end child poverty', far too many families struggle, through no fault of their own, to provide for their children. One index of that national failure is highlighted by The Independent today: the surge in demand for help from baby banks. The cost of living crisis, with sharply higher energy bills and food prices hitting the poorest households hardest, has left hard-pressed parents seeking help to provide for their offspring. More than 3.5 million essential items were handed out by these charitable units in 2024, including nappies, clothes and cots – an increase of 143 per cent on the previous year. This trend is entirely consistent with the official statistics. Some 4.5 million children, representing 30 per cent of all children in the UK, were estimated to be living in households with a relative low income after housing costs (that is, with an income below 60 per cent of the median) in 2022-23. According to Save the Children UK and the Baby Bank Alliance, 219,637 families were supported by UK baby banks in 2024 alone – an increase of 35 per cent on the previous year. As valuable, indeed essential, as the work of charities is in supporting children in need, it is no substitute for action by government, and this Labour government in particular. While the Blair and Brown administrations made some progress in achieving their stated aim, including the passage of the Child Poverty Act in 2010, the subsequent coalition and Conservative years saw an effective abandonment of it. The two-child limit was imposed in 2017, and has been a source of misery and resentment ever since. The pressure on ministers to make an immediate impact on child poverty is growing, and it is coming from both inside and outside the party. Almost as soon as the Starmer administration was formed last year, a rebellion on the two-child cap on child benefits was organised by backbenchers on the left of the party. Derided as 'the usual suspects', the rebel MPs were brushed aside and dealt with by having the Labour whip removed. But they laid down a marker of what should be expected from a Labour government, even if the manifesto was vague. Now, disquiet around wider cuts to the social security budget is growing, and spreading to the rest of the party, including the usually loyal 2024 intake. Those in more marginal constituencies will also have found their instinct for social justice being given fresh impetus by Nigel Farage, who recently pledged to abolish the two-child cap (albeit for natalist rather than socialist reasons). Removing the hated cap is once more – in the words of Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary – 'on the table'. So it should be. It would not end child poverty – this social evil is far too entrenched to be susceptible to such an easy fix – but it would result in an immediate and significant improvement for a great number of children. Child poverty is especially acute in larger households: 44 per cent of children living in families with three or more children are in poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group says that 350,000 children would be lifted straight out of poverty, and a further 300,000 would find their conditions improved. To place that in context, about half a million children were rescued from poverty across the entire span of the 1997 to 2010 Labour government. The problem is money, but it is not an extravagant amount when viewed in the context of the social security budget. Lifting the cap would cost the Exchequer some £3.4bn, or 3 per cent of the bill for working-age benefits. Indeed, even if one were to factor in a reversal of the cut to the winter fuel payment, and of the scheduled cuts to disability benefits, the total cost would be £10bn a year. That is a more substantial sum, but one that could still be accommodated inside an envelope of public spending amounting to £1,200bn. The process of running the UK's public finances has become one of absurdly tight margins, dictated by the chancellor's habit of allowing herself far too little room for manoeuvre in her self-imposed fiscal rules. Hence the constant crises and the wearying, never-ending search for cuts, which are too often made at the expense of those who can least afford them. As the chancellor approaches the comprehensive public spending review, she deserves some sympathy for the scale of the task ahead of her. She is right to say that no programme to support social justice can be launched on the basis of unsustainable public finances. The establishment of free breakfast clubs and stronger protections for renters and workers will also push child poverty rates lower. But some of the choices she has made have not been wise ones, and they now need to be revisited. Politically, it seems increasingly apparent that Ms Reeves and her colleagues on the Child Poverty Taskforce, led by Ms Phillipson and Liz Kendall, have no alternative, when they report in the autumn, but to renew Labour's mission to make sure no child goes without food, shelter or clothing. It now falls to their generation to eradicate this scourge for good.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Surge in parents turning to baby banks as UK's child poverty crisis laid bare
Demand for baby banks from parents struggling to feed their children has surged by more than a third in a year, The Independent can reveal amid record -high child poverty levels. As the cost of living continues to rise, a growing number of families are having to turn to baby banks with new data showing over 3.5 million essential items were handed out in 2024, including nappies, clothes and cots – an increase of 143 per cent on the previous year. Describing the rising need as 'absolutely shocking', actor and podcast host Giovanna Fletcher questioned how this is happening in the UK as she joins forces with MPs and children's charities to urge the government to take action. The new figures come after Labour delayed its flagship plan to cut child poverty until the autumn, although it insists the strategy will be 'ambitious'. Meanwhile, ministers debate whether or not to scrap the two-child benefit cap as the cost of living crisis continues to bite, and statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) remains equivalent to less than half the 2025 national living wage. Single father Adam Coggins, 34, said the pressures of parenthood took a toll on his mental health and forced him to reach out to a baby bank for the first time, fearing that without help his daughters, aged two and three, would not eat. The 34-year-old told The Independent: 'I was so uncomfortable going there because I've never had to ask for help before, I felt like a failure, that was hard… [But] without these people, we would be in trouble – they've saved a lot of people, especially when you've got two young kids, you need that help. That could be the difference between getting a couple of meals for them – getting two packs of nappies saves you money to get food for them.' Mr Coggins is among the 219,637 families supported by UK baby banks in 2024 alone – an increase of 35 per cent on the previous year, according to the data from Save the Children (STC) UK and the Baby Bank Alliance (BBA), which supports and advocates for the more than 400 baby banks nationwide. Stark government figures show that the number of children in poverty in Britain soared by 200,000 from 4.3 million to 4.5 million between 2023 and 2024. The BBA's analysis of its latest annual survey of members found that baby banks are stretched to the limit. Almost two-thirds (65 per cent) reported receiving more requests for help than they could meet, with referrals rising by 30 per cent last year, while over two-thirds (69 per cent) said they have waiting lists for key items. This marks a crisis when baby banks are a lifeline for families, providing essential items like clothing, nappies, toys, prams and food, as well as a safe space – often run by volunteers from community halls, warehouses and even front rooms. Bestselling author and podcast host Ms Fletcher recently visited baby banks in Leeds, Bedford and Bicester. Criticising the government's current approach and urging it to implement long-term solutions, she told The Independent: 'They have to take stock and look at the data... so many families are now having to make impossible choices about how to feed their family, how to clothe their family – and they're always coming up short, and that's such a massive pressure.' Kirsty-Louise Fulford, 31, met Ms Fletcher at Bicester Baby Bank. The 31-year-old and her partner sometimes rely on the baby bank for formula for their 16-month-old daughter and food for their son, aged three, as well as for nappies and baby wipes. 'Without the baby bank, I don't think I'd be able to cope,' she said. Jennie Bayliss, the baby bank lead at Faces Bedford, which runs Bicester Baby Bank, said they are completely reliant on donations but 'only getting busier', with at least 30 requests coming in every week. Labour MP for Norwich South Clive Lewis said: 'That baby banks even exist in one of the richest countries on earth is an indictment of our political choices. The fact they've now seen a 35 per cent surge in demand speaks to a crisis not of resources, but of priorities. If we can afford tax breaks for the wealthy, we can afford dignity for children. Ending child poverty is a political decision. This government is choosing not to make it.' Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside Kim Johnson described the reality that baby banks have become a lifeline for so many as a 'national disgrace', with families now 'pushed to the brink'. She said: 'Nappies, formula, and clothing are not luxuries – they are essentials for a child's wellbeing. No child should be growing up in poverty in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Yet baby banks are being left to do the job of government.' Also calling on the government to end child poverty, Labour MP for York Central Rachael Maskell said: 'The greatest impact of poverty can be found in the first years of life. No parent should have to depend on food, baby and multi-banks, but should have enough support to care for their baby.' A woman, who wished to remain anonymous, said that the homeless charity she works for is currently referring three or four survivors of domestic violence to baby banks per week. Without that support, she said the women and children 'would have nothing', even questioning how they would survive. Executive Lead at the BBA Dani Adams said: 'Families shouldn't have to worry about having a safe space for their children to sleep, or whether they have enough clothes to keep them warm, but the sad reality is that they are.' Director of UK Impact at STC Dan Paskins added: 'Scrapping the two-child limit to benefits and the benefit cap would be a start in alleviating the pressure not only on families but also the baby bank community. The UK government's long-awaited child poverty strategy is a pivotal moment to begin making positive changes for children.' A government spokesperson said: 'The government is determined to bring down child poverty. 'We've already expanded free breakfast clubs, increased the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes, uprated benefits and supported 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a Fair Repayment Rate on Universal Credit deductions. 'We will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy later this year to ensure we deliver fully funded measures that tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty across the country.'


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Dropping tactical nuclear weapons was a major strategic error. We must correct it
Britain must urgently restore tactical nuclear weapons to its defence arsenal. That thought understandably fills many minds with horror but the logic of strategy means that these weapons would in fact make us safer. If the enemy possesses a devastating capability that we do not he is far more likely to use it on us. And Putin, not to mention China, has vast and growing stockpiles of tactical nuclear weapons while we have none. Now it seems the Government may be thinking about tackling this vulnerability in the defence review due to be unveiled this week. After the Cold War ended Britain dropped tactical nuclear weapons from its inventory. Before that, faced by the conventional superiority of the Warsaw Pact, these bombs had been intended to halt Soviet armoured thrusts into Western Europe if our ground and air forces couldn't hold them back. They are relatively low yield, including in radiation, and are intended to obliterate major military targets such as troop concentrations, massed tank formations and airbases, rather than laying waste to entire cities and creating wide area nuclear fall-out. With highly inadequate European conventional forces now confronted by a violent menace, shown only too clearly by the war in Ukraine, we are again back in a situation where Nato nations are faced with the choice of resorting to tactical nuclear weapons or losing everything to Russian advances. Of course our strategic nuclear forces are intended to deter enemy aggression, but their credibility in a situation short of nuclear Armageddon now lies exposed. Is Putin likely to think that our response to his tactical nuclear strikes would be to go to ultimate escalation with a nuclear attack against Moscow or St Petersburg? And if not, what? The Americans have tactical nukes deployed in Europe but they can withdraw them at any time. And with so much at stake, can we any longer rely absolutely on the US nuclear umbrella to defend us and our Nato allies? Hopefully yes, but optimism is a fool's strategy. Britain would achieve greater certainty by generating a tactical nuclear force that could deter attack against our Nato allies and if necessary react decisively to a Russian assault. The cost would be huge but the countries we protect must also share the burden. That leads on to Ukraine. It is not a Nato member but there is no reason we should not have a bilateral agreement to provide nuclear cover to them as well. There is a lot of talk about Western security guarantees when this war is over but so far zero realistic proposals. Even Keir Starmer's plan to send in peace-keeping forces quickly dissolved into some sort of capability building somewhere far away from the front lines, guaranteeing nothing at all. Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons under the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. Many now believe abandoning a capability that could have deterred Putin's invasion was a fatal error. A British deterrent shield could provide the security guarantee that everyone knows is necessary. A much less desirable alternative, but one that should be considered, would be for Britain to help Ukraine renew its battlefield nuclear armoury. That would go against the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But surely it's time to re-think that anyway as the supposed rules based order lies in tatters. It only binds democracies, not dictatorships like Iran, North Korea, Russia and China. That is fine for taking the moral high ground but extracts a heavy blood price when only one side obliges itself to fight with both hands tied behind its back. Tactical nuclear weapons however would be no deterrent at all if there was any doubt about the political will to use them. That is certainly in question with our past and present leaders. But if in the event of disaster they can muster the courage, then possession of these weapons would at least provide them with an option other than capitulation.