-->Du hast letzte Woche einen sehr interessanten Satz geschrieben, der mich seither nicht mehr recht losgelassen hat:

>So aber gehen Kreditdefla und Preisinfla (bei den"unverzichtbaren" Gütern) Hand in Hand.

Und je mehr ich darüber nachdenke, desto mehr erscheint mir genau dies der sich schon jetzt abzeichnende Weg zu sein. Um das zu verdeutlichen, will ich die Warenwelt einmal sehr grob - im Einzelfall schwierig abzugrenzen - in Basisgüter (die 'Unverzichtbaren') und Premiumgüter aufteilen.

Beispielhaft als Basisgüter: Nahrungsmittel, Kleidung, Wohnen, Fortbewegung, etc.

Premiumgüter erfüllen die gleichen Bedürfnisse, aber auf 'gehobenem' Niveau.

Der Rohstoffanteil der Basisgüter dürfte wesentlich höher liegen, als bei den Premiumgütern, in die viele weiche und z.T. nicht nachvollziehbare Faktoren einfließen (Warenpräsentation, Pflege des Markenimages, Serviceleistungen, höhere Gewinnspanne am Stück aufgrund geringerer Stückzahl, etc.).

In einer wirtschaftlichen Boomphase erschließen sich die Premiumgüter immer neue Käuferschichten, bei denen das Geld zunehmend lockerer sitzt und die aufgrund des eigenen wirtschaftlichen Wohlbefindens nunmehr bereit sind, sich häufiger etwas zu gönnen, was ihnen zuvor nicht eingefallen wäre (Gehobene Bekleidung, Restaurantbesuche, 'Events', etc.).

In der wirtschaftlichen Kontraktion geht es entsprechend andersherum. Die Leute überlegen sich angesichts drohender oder bereits eingetretener Einkommensverluste intensiv, was ihnen eine Sache wert ist und üben sich häufiger im Verzicht. Insbesonder die frischen Premiumkunden (also die ehemals Neureichen) substituieren ihren gehobenen Konsum tendenzell bald wieder durch den Konsum einfacherer Güter. Die Nachfrage nach den Basisgütern steigt und entsprechend sinkt die Nachfrage nach den Premiumgütern. Mit der Folge, dass die Schönwetteranbieter (alle Hersteller und Anbieter trendiger Produkte für die Neureichen) auf Ihren tendenziell überteuerten Waren sitzen bleiben, während die Basisgüteranbieter boomen (Aldi, etc.).
Da die Preise der Schönwetteranbieter in erheblichem Maße Luft enthalten (siehe oben), der bestenfalls gefühlte, jedoch keine tatsächlichen Werte gegenüberstehen, dürfte die sinkende Nachfrage in diesem Bereich fast zwangsläufig zu deflationären Tendenzen und in der Folge dem Ausscheiden dieser Anbieter führen. Einige von Ihnen dürften erstmals die Erfahrung eines Preiswettbewerbs machen.

Ganz anders die Situation im Segment der Anbieter von Basis-Gütern: Diese sind seit Jahren in härtestem Preiskampf gestählt, teilweise konnte in diesem Segment Kostendeckung nur noch über eine Mischkalkulation dargestellt werden. Die Preise dürften daher dort auch wenig Spielraum nach unten haben. Dies ist nicht zuletzt auch Ausdruck der Zweiteilung der Wirtschaft der letzten Jahre. Diejenigen, die Basisgüter anbieten, wenden sich ohnehin tendenziell an die Vergessenen des Aufschwungs, denen das Geld schon in den letzten Jahren nicht locker saß. Und eben diese Anbieter werden jetzt zu den großen Profiteuren der Wirtschaftskrise, weil auf ihr Sortiment nun auch mehr und mehr die Nachfrage der ehemals Neureichen trifft.

Noch ein Aspekt, der mir in diesem Zusammenhang interessant erscheint: Viele Hersteller haben ja eine breitere Palette bedient und dabei eine Mischkalkulation angewendet. Während im gehobenen Bereich üppige Gewinne aufgrund wenig preissensitiver Nachfrager sprudelten, mußte das untere Ende der Palette z.T. über diese Premium-Gewinne quersubventioniert werden. Wenn nun aber die Premium-Gewinne rückläufig sind, steigt die Notwendigkeit zur Preisanpassung der Basisgüter. In jedem Fall würde ich alle Unternehmen strikt meiden, die in den vergangenen Jahren verstärkte Anstrengungen zur Eroberung der Trend- und Premium-Segmente unternommen haben (diejenigen, bei denen der schlichte Erwerb einer Ware krampfhaft zu einem emotionsbeladenen und trendigem Erlebnis hochstilisiert wurde). Gerade diese Newcomer, oder noch nicht einmal richtig Angekommenen im Premium-Segment dürften erheblich stärker leiden, als die lange etablierten Premium-Hersteller und -Anbieter.

Ich denke also, dass es richtig ist, im Bereich der Schönwetter-Wirtschaft von rückläufigen Preisen auszugehen, während in den Basisgütern zumindest stabile Preise zu erwarten sein dürften.

Soweit ein paar ungeordnete Gedanken zum Thema.
Schönen Tag

JLL

P.S.: Eventuell gibt es ja auch unter den Anlagearten so etwas wie Basis- und Premium-Anlagen?

-->Halli Hallo,

also zum einen gibt es ja noch die Möglichkeit der Wechselkursschwankungen - so haben argentinische Aktien in Peso eine riesige"inflation" hinter sich, während sie in Dollar eine"deflation" hinter sich haben - das kann auch für den CRB gelten. Des Weiteren werden / Wurden Aktien ja nicht in die Inflation mit eingerechnet. So war vorher die Inflationsrate schon jahrelang zu gering (asset inflation) und könnte (trotz evtl. realer Deflation) in den Folgejahren zu hoch ausgewiesen werden.

Aber zu deiner"Theorie der Güterklassen":
Das ganze mag in bestimmten Verhältnissen ja richtig sein.
Wenn ich mir früher in der Parfümerie einen Duft für 100 € gekauft habe, dann kauf ich jetzt beim WalMart für 5 € - dieser Parfumhersteller wäre wohl fein raus.
Aber wenn ich mir einen Neureichen ansehe und der kauft beim Segmüller einen Super-tollen-extrem-weich-design-Sessel für tausende von Euros, der wird jetzt wahrscheinlich einfach gar nix kaufen? Und das gilt v.a. für reine Luxusgüter bei denen es gar kein billiges Ersatzgut gibt!?
Und wie ist das mit der Basis? WEnn die alte Oma nun weniger reale Rente hat und der Sozialhilfeempfänger ebenfalls und der alte Neureiche nun Arbeitslos ist oder nur noch zu einem Billiglohn arbeitet - die werden dann wol tatsächlich nochmals weniger konsumieren und somit bricht die breite Basis bei den Basisgütern nochmals ein - welcher Effekt ist größer??
Toby

-->Hallo JLL,

Mir ist aufgefallen, daß diesmal Gold dem CRB vorausläuft. Normalerweise ist es umgekehrt. Vielleicht deutet der CRB einen Dollarverfall an. Wäre insofern denkbar, weil die faulen Kredite nicht ausgebucht werden können. Dazu die riesigen Dollarbestände in ausländischer Hand.

Ich glaube wir müssen aufhören in"Infla" und"Defla" zu denken. Beide Begriffe setzen eigentlich einen GS voraus, den wir nicht haben. Wenn Japan in die Hyperinfla abdreht, werden wir genau beobachten müssen, wie das abläuft. Das würde einiges an offenen Fragen beantworten, Studienmaterial vom feinsten.

Gruß
Diogenes

-->Werde hierzu später noch was posten:

Finanzgrößen wie George Soros, Marc Faber oder Jim Rogers weisen immer wieder auf die Angebotsseite bei Gütern hin.
Die Nachfrage kann noch so stark wachsen und trotzdem kommt es oft zu keinen Preissteigerungen. Bestes Beispiel ist der Weizenpreis, der just zu dem Zeitpunkt angefangen hat zu fallen, als die Erdbevölkerung von 1 auf 6 Milliarden anstieg.

Metallpreise fallen seit Jahren wohingegen Eisenerz ansteigt. Stahlfirmen gibt es in jedem Land wie Sand am Meer nur Eisenerz Minen sind selten...

Kommt es zu einer Konsolidierung auf der Angebotsseite, so ist die Nachfrageseite nicht so wichtig, der Preis steigt trotzdem. Ausserdem heissst ein gestiegener Rohstoffpreis ja nicht, dass der in diesem Rohstoff getätigte Umsatz ebenfalls steigt...

Kupfer, Kaffee, Zucker & co. sind allesamt auf Preislevels angelangt, wo eine Überproduktionen KEINEN SINN mehr macht. Die Firmen werden konsolidieren, Pleite gehen und Farmer werden auswandern oder verhungern aber die Überproduktion, dessen bin ich mir sicher wird zurückgehen und die Preise werden steigen.

Was in den USA momentan mit den Corn Preisen passiert ist wohl erst der Anfang einer Megaspekulationsblase in den Rohstoffen.

-->von www.jimrogers.com

Breakfast of Champions?



Looking for a hot tip? Here's my advice: Do not buy the hype from Wall St and the press that stocks always go up. There are long periods when stocks do nothing and other investments are better.



That's not what a lot of people expect me to say these days. (It's probably not what they want to hear, either.) The Dow Jones Industrial Average and Standard & Poor's 500 indexes, after all, are down substantially, trading at levels not seen since 1998. To many investors, it seems like a perfect time to do some bargain shopping for battered quality stocks. Everyone knows"sell high and buy low" (though I'm always surprised at how few people follow that adage), so now appears to be an ideal time for a bottom feeder like me.



Sorry, bottoms in the investment world don't end with four-year lows; they end with 10- or 15-year lows. More important, many investors seem to have forgotten a hard reality: There are frequent periods when stock markets don't do much.



From 1900 to around 1920, for example, U.S. stocks floundered while the economy grew. Then stocks skyrocketed in the 1920s. In 1966, the Dow was trading around 1,000. By 1982, it was at 800, down 20 percent over 16 years and that is not adjusted for the high inflation of those years. So much for long-term investing.



Over the next 15 years the market soared.



We recently had a decade of unprecedented growth. Is it such a stretch to think that we might now see a mediocre period of equal length as has happened throughout history?



Despite my distaste for U.S. stocks, though, don't think I'm sour on all investments. I do believe there are some good bets out there. It will come as no surprise to faithful readers that I believe this is a great time to invest in stocks from other countries, where stock markets haven't been as exploited as the U.S. market has been in the last decade. On my recent trip around the world, I bought shares of companies in places like China and Chile, countries I feel have great potential. In fact, right now I own shares of companies in 28 countries. Of course, it is best to go to many of these nations to open brokerage accounts in order to buy stock, but I'm all in favor of Americans expanding their horizons. Plus, there are mutual funds that cater to the international investor as well as many foreign stocks that trade as American depositary receipts on U.S. exchanges.



The coming decline in the US dollar will make foreign stocks and currencies even more attractive.



I think this is also a great time to invest in private equity, helping companies grow from the ground up. It's much more effective to build a company quietly and soundly during a down market than it is to, say, try and ride a boom-and-bust cycle during a high-flying market, something like what we saw during the go-go 1990s. The stock market, many discovered, isn't exactly the best place to raise money when you're building because -- surprise! -- it turns out you need real earnings and real growth opportunities to build a healthy company. The"promise" of earnings just doesn't cut it.



It is easier to build a real company in times like these than when even your hopeless competitors can raise easy money from a delusional stock market. Fortunately real companies will have less competition now.



Perhaps the best investment opportunity I see these days is in commodities. Commodities are real assets -- raw materials and natural resources from all over the world. They're not"sexy" investments at the moment. It's hard to get investors fired up about pork bellies or orange juice; few people get calls from their broker about a great new lead mine. That may soon change.



Commodities have a lot going for them, particularly in our current economic environment. They are a great investment during an inflationary period (such as now - despite what the government and Wall Street try to tell us) because increases in the price of raw materials reflect the rising costs of goods. In addition, commodities tend to zig when the equity markets zag. During that flat period for the U.S. stock market between 1966 and 1982, the commodity markets were booming.



Historically, there has been a bull market in commodities every 20 or 30 years, and I think we're already in the throes of a new one. And while raw materials can lose value, the price of a commodity will never go to zero. When you invest in commodities futures, you're not buying a piece of paper that says you own an intangible piece of company that can go bankrupt. You're buying a contract to purchase a real, tangible bushel of corn or several hundred pounds of coffee.



On the flip side, commodities can go quite high, as high as anyone is willing to pay. Gold, you might remember, went from $35 an ounce to $850 during the 1970s alone.



The main reason few people have talked about commodities lately is because that market has been in a massive slump for about 25 years. Keep in mind that commodities’ prices move not because of magic, but because of shifts in supply and demand. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, high prices led companies to overproduce, leading to substantial excess supply and stockpiling. As a result, inventories swelled, demand dried up, and prices started to fall. A fiscal crisis in Asia and Russia in the late 1990s only exacerbated the problem.



Sugar peaked at $65.65 in 1974 and then fell to $2.56 in 1985. Oil went from $2 in the early 1970s to as high as $40 a barrel in 1981 before falling to $10 in 1986. Many commodities producers went bankrupt or closed facilities. No one expanded operations. I can probably count on one hand the offshore drilling rigs built in the last 20 years or the new rubber plantations. The tough times, though, helped many commodities producers become lean and mean through consolidation, mergers and cost-cutting. All that excess supply has been sopped up. Demand has continued growing, particularly in fast-expanding economies like those in Asia.



That said, most people don't think it's possible to make money in commodities. Many brokerages reduced or closed their coverage during the 1990s in favor of the red-hot equities market. You can no longer buy commodities at Merrill Lynch - one of the largest brokers in the world. My guess is many analysts and even executives are too young to know how profitable a hot commodities market can be. They will soon.



The commodities market is showing signs of life. Cocoa prices have doubled over the past year, rising 20 percent since the beginning of 2002 alone. Gold has recovered from a 20-year downturn; the price of an ounce is now around $315. As of June 24, the Dow Jones AIG Commodity Futures Index, a marginal benchmark for the commodities world, is up 11 percent since the beginning of the year.



I started the Rogers Raw Materials Fund (RRMF), an index fund that tracks price moves of 35 raw materials on commodities exchanges, on Aug. 3, 1998, just before I left on my trip. Since then, it's up about 50 percent while the S&P 500 is down.



Is it too late, then, to get involved in commodities? Definitely not.



Investors rarely recognize beginnings and ends of bull markets. We can look at recent painful history, but the same pattern has repeated for centuries.



US Shares



1998 1999
Advances 3928 4224

Declines 5879 5467

[Source: Wall St Journal]



Sixty percent [60%] of shares were down in the US in 1998 and the same pattern repeated in 1999 - hardly a bull market. Yet the press and Wall Street were braying to buy stocks because of the New Economy and the bull market. The public finally poured huge amounts of money into the stock markets in the 1999-2000 period even though the bear market was already underway.



Throughout history the public has always piled into the latest bull market right at the top so few have caught on to the bull market in commodities. I’ll sell when Merrill Lynch has commodity brokers in every office again and the TV networks are broadcasting from the soybean pits in Chicago.



An investor who put his money in the S&P Index in 1982 did extremely well, but so did one who got on board in 1983-85. I suggest you consider putting your money in a raw materials index now and staying with it for the next several years.



So what specific commodities do I like now if you do not want a fund? As a rule, I like to look for the ones that are beaten up. Hogs, orange juice, sugar, and coffee, for instance, have been especially hard hit. It sounds like a breakfast menu as investment plan, but it could be the best money you ever spend, particularly if U.S. stocks continue to flounder. After all, breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

-->Bolivien als kommendes Aufschwungland, wird bspw. in der Lage sein 15 % des Energiebedarfs von Kalifornien zu decken:

A New Frontier



"Go west, young man." It’s been the mantra of those seeking their fortune in the U.S. for generations. American pioneers headed west to the frontier land to build new lives. During the mid-19th century, fortune seekers looking to strike it rich headed to California in search of gold. People from all over the country packed their bags and laptops and headed to Silicon Valley when the dot-com craze hit.



Well, I have a change I’d like to make to that old adage. Go south, young man (or woman, for that matter.) Far south. South of the border, to be more precise. I think a region in South America is poised to be one of the next great new frontiers. And it’s growth could have a tremendous impact on the U.S. economy.



The region I’m talking about includes western Brazil, southern Peru, Bolivia and northern Chile. Isolated by mountains, jungles, and a subsequent lack of infrastructure, the region doesn’t get a whole lot of air time in the press, except to talk about border disputes, Bolivia’s cocaine trade and travel videos of trips to Machu Picchu, the walled city of the Inca Empire in Peru. I wanted to write about the area last year when I was traveling in South America but my visit coincided with the events of Sept. 11. In fact, I was in Puno in the heart of southern Peru when the attacks occurred.



I’m sure you’ve read the headlines about this region: collapsing currencies, impending debt default, foreign investment being withdrawn, governments in turmoil. Remember, I’m talking about frontiers, real ground-floor opportunities that will develop over a period of years, not weeks or months. The American West wasn’t made overnight but look at it today.



There’s certainly much to recommend this region in South America. The leaders in the surrounding countries are trying all the right things to develop their respective economies, privatizing state-run industries, bringing down inflation and reducing tariffs. They’re all natural-resource-based economies, which faithful readers know always attract my interest. There are certainly problems in the capitals of all four just as the US had lots of problems “back East” in the 19th century. One attraction of a frontier is to escape the problems of the “Establishment”. And, boy, is this “frontier” about to change!



The key to this region’s growth is the recent development of its infrastructure -- roads and highway systems, farms, pipelines and the like. Much of western Brazil and eastern Bolivia, for instance, lie in the Amazon basin and have rich resources like timber, iron ore, soybeans, coffee and cocoa. For companies with operations in this part of the world, the problem has always been finding a cheap and efficient method of delivering the fruit of their labor to the rest of us. The only possibilities were problematic roads to the Atlantic Ocean some 2,000 miles away.



That’s starting to change. Construction already has begun on a Trans-Oceanic Highway that would link both coasts, filling in the gaps and connecting existing highways in western Brazil and connecting it all to roads in Peru that lead to the Pacific Ocean. This is certain to benefit both the Brazilian and Peruvian economies and provide plenty of jobs. The Peruvian government recently announced a $130 million investment over the next two years to construct stretches of this Trans-Oceanic Highway in the Southeastern province. Many of the towns in Brazil’s interior, like Manaus and Rio Branco, are experiencing a kind of renaissance, too. Imagine going to Denver or Omaha or even San Francisco just when the transcontinental railroad was being put in. These kinds of transformations don’t happen every day.



The development of Bolivia’s natural-gas industry boasts even more potential. Proven and probable gas reserves in Bolivia jumped from 9.8 trillion cubic feet in 1998 to 70 trillion cubic feet in 2001. The second-largest producer (Venezuela is first) of natural gas in South America, Bolivia already exports natural gas to its neighbors. This year alone, Bolivia is expected to export 10 million cubic feet of natural gas -- $425 million worth -- to Brazil. (Keep in mind that Bolivia’s economy is tiny, with a gross domestic product of about $8 billion.) That number is expected to swell by 250 percent by 2005.



Like Brazil, the problem has been getting the gas out of the jungle. Large, multinational companies have been pouring into the region, salivating at what they feel could be a potential cash cow. In fact, a consortium of energy companies, which includes Spain’s Repsol, British Gas, and British Petroleum, have proposed spending $5 billion to build a pipeline from the fields to a port on the Pacific coast. Two American companies, Sempra Energy of San Diego and CMS Energy Corp. of Michigan, have agreed to purchase the gas, which would be marketed in California and Mexico. Evidently, enough gas could be shipped from Bolivia to fill 15 percent of California’s daily energy demand. Now understand why this region could have such a large impact on the U.S. economy?



Naturally, the plan must clear a few hurdles before it is put in motion. Jorge Fernando Quiroga Ramirez, the former president of Bolivia, was supposed to award the pipeline contract before he handed over the reins of office in early August. He’s since passed on that task to his successor, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, an American-educated businessman who narrowly won the recent elections. This may delay the process a little while.



The pipeline plans are also muddied by dated political disputes. Bolivia, after all, is a landlocked country. In order to get the natural gas to the Pacific, the pipeline needs to run through another country, either Chile or Peru. The hydrocarbon companies feel the pipeline should feed through northern Chile because that would be the shortest and most economic route. Local Bolivians, who still aren’t on speaking terms with Chile since losing coastline territory to their neighbor in a war more than 125 years ago, think the pipeline should run through Peru, which has even provided a port town, Ilo, on its southern coastline so Bolivians can have access to the Pacific. It’s become a major sticking point and an issue of civic pride for locals in Bolivia.



My feeling: They’ll work it out, one way or another. The financial windfall expected for all parties involved is too great to let such an opportunity pass. It’s certainly in Bolivia’s best interest. Experts estimate that a Pacific pipeline could produce $300 million in revenue for Bolivia, equal to what’s expected next year from the country’s Brazilian pipeline.



The region has lots more to offer. Chile’s infrastructure is one of the most impressive I’ve seen in a developing country, second only perhaps to China. Bolivia’s road system is expanding. Most of the highways will be toll roads, built by private companies. All four of these countries have stock markets, although Bolivia’s is still fairly small. (It won’t be for long.)



Tourism opportunities abound, from gorgeous coastline to lush rainforest to snow-covered peaks to cosmopolitan cities. I’d love to move to Cochabamba in central Bolivia. It’s known as the city of eternal spring because the temperature always sits around 70 degrees. It’s a beautiful place that reminded me of a European city, except that everything was cheap. Peru was in the midst of a civil war when I was there in 1991; tourists were afraid to visit. Now Cusco, a city in Southern Peru, is considered one of the trendiest towns in South America and businesses are booming. A sure-fire, get-rich recipe is to start businesses in countries where a war has just ended.



With the American economy still teetering and the possibility of war lingering over us, this may seem like an odd time for me to talk about a new frontier in South America with its various problems. But I think it’s exactly at a time like this that investors (and citizens) need to look outward rather than inward. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Closing off from the rest of the world only hurts us, both politically and economically. I spend my time studying and traveling the world looking for unexploited regions that are on the cusp of change. New frontiers, I’ll tell you, are hard to come by. In the U.S., none really remain, except perhaps Alaska. This may be one opportunity you don’t want to miss.