Brazil's stock market, as measured by the inflation-corrected Bovespa index, has more than quadrupled in value since President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva's first election victory in October 2002, and is now at almost twice the peak achieved in 2000.
In comparison, the inflation-corrected Shanghai Composite only doubled during this period, while the US market, as measured by the inflation-corrected Standard and Poor's 500, increased only 50 percent. Indeed, the US has never experienced a fourfold increase in stock prices in less than five years, even during the late 1990s bubble.
Given that Lula is an avowed leftist who counts Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban President Fidel Castro among his friends, Brazil's performance is all the more surprising.
How could he manage to preside over such a spectacular stock-market boom? Are Brazilians too exuberant? Might it be time for foreign investors to pull their money out?
Stock-market movements are certainly hard to explain, but there are reasons to believe that Brazilians might be rationally exuberant. Corporate earnings in Brazil have gone up roughly as fast as stock prices. With the price/earnings ratio remaining stable and moderate, the stock-market boom does not appear to reflect mere investor psychology.
On the contrary, the real question is why the increase in stock prices has not outpaced growth in corporate earnings. After all, in the 1990s, the US stock-market surge (as in many countries) was fueled by record-high price/earnings ratios.
In 1998, the price-earnings ratio in the US was 24, compared to a historical average of around 15. By contrast, the run-up in stock prices in Brazil started from a very different point, with the price-earnings ratio as low as six in 1998.
When a stock-market boom reaches historic proportions, a story always develops to rationalize it. The news media typically present reasons to justify the view that the economy has entered a "new era." Sometimes the stories are mere fabrications to validate market optimism, as with the 1990s boom. But, at other times, the stories seem more solid.
Lula has called this a "magic moment" for the Brazilian economy. While such words merit caution, economy fundamentals bear them out. The currency, the real, has been strengthening steadily, to nearly twice its value against the US dollar in October 2002, when Lula was first elected.
Inflation and interest rates are falling, the country is running with a trade surplus, foreign investment is flowing in at a high rate, and the government has more than paid off its debts to foreigners, becoming a net creditor to the rest of the world.
So stock investors seem to be recognizing Brazil's economic vitality, carefully watching corporate earnings rise, and running with them. After being lone believers through 2002, Brazilian stock market participants are now finding that investors from all over the world want to join the party.
Nevertheless, given corruption scandals involving prominent government figures that have come to light over the past few years, it is natural to wonder why the stock market has remained so strong.
Why haven't the stories of corruption caused a crisis, as similar scandals in South Korea and Malaysia did during the Asian financial crisis of 1997? Indeed, while the scandals have shaken the government, Lula was reelected last year, and investors continue to pour money into the stock market.
One reason is that the scandals have provided an opportunity for investors to see Brazilian freedom of speech and democracy in action. Newspapers and television commentators have been relentless in reporting the scandals, helping to prove to Brazilians and foreign investors alike that the political system is sufficiently stable to withstand open criticism.
Lula remains popular with Brazilians because his populist rhetoric shows real sympathy with the less affluent, and with foreign investors because he has always tempered his radicalism to accommodate economic reality.
He recently criticized Bolivian President Evo Morales' threats to seize foreign assets for his failure in this regard.
"Radicalism is incompatible with the common sense needed from someone who governs," Lulu said.
That combination of philosophical radicalism and economic pragmatism has proven to be a perfect formula for Brazil's progress.
Granted, the future is unknown; we have no crystal ball to predict the Bovespa's likely path. But, for me, the story is far more convincing than the one told during the 1990s stock-market boom.
Robert Shiller is professor of economics at Yale University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS