Globalization: From Tail Wind to Head Wind

Air Bag, Wind Sock, Weather, Sky, Striped

Authors – Erik Weisman, Ph.D. Chief Economist Fixed Income Portfolio Manager | Robert M. Almeida Portfolio Manager and Global Investment Strategist |
MFS Investment Management

In brief

  • Globalization created a multi-decade tailwind for margins.
  • But there are growing signs that globalization has reached its limits.
  • As a result, margins may be at risk.
  • Changing business environments have a way of exposing corporate vulnerabilities, amplifying the importance of selectivity.

An accelerated brand of globalization, labeled by some as hyper-globalization, has been
underway for the better part of a generation. Spurred in part by NAFTA, the inception of the euro and China’s acceptance into the World Trade Organization, multinational companies have ridden the globalization wave along with its secular tailwind to margins. But with growing concern that globalization may have reached its limits, are margins at risk?

In the post–global financial crisis era, chief financial officers have become extremely adept at employing all manner of financial engineering in order to increase margins, earnings and stock prices. They’ve adopted capital-light strategies, increased leverage, engaged in debt financed mergers and acquisitions and bought back stock. Companies have also become proficient in driving down costs by managing global value chains, sourcing intermediate goods and services from around the world and assembling them in low-cost countries.

At the same time, they’ve engaged in international regulatory and tax arbitrage. But as we’ve globalized more and more, the marginal benefits of additional globalization have decreased. The value added resulting from NAFTA, the formation of the eurozone and offshoring appears to be at an end.

As good as it gets?

While globalization has ebbed and flowed for thousands of years, the post–Bretton Woods order that gave rise to today’s global value chain has been underpinned by the central role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund and the United States acting as the world’s enforcer.

Against that backdrop, the global value chain has been predicated on a relentless decline in tariffs. But there are growing signs that globalization may have reached it limits, with rising income inequality and a concurrent increase in populism among the symptoms.
The US–China trade war calls into question the viability of the global value chain in a world where tariff rates may be reversing their decades-long fall. If the US were to apply 25% tariffs on all imported goods from China, overall tariff levels would rise toward heights not seen since the 1960s.

However, global value chains weren’t designed for 1960s-style tariffs. At those heights,
value chains would likely fray. At the same time, non-tariff barriers are seemingly on the rise everywhere. The global value chain was built for a world of low tariffs in which free trade is seen as a public good. But recent events call that view into question, putting the multi–trillion dollar global value chain at risk.

No levers left to pull

In an environment where CFOs have already pulled all the available levers, is there any margin for error from an asset price perspective? We’d argue there isn’t much. If globalization is reversing and global value chains are undermined or forced to make expensive adjustments, gross margins are likely to be negatively impacted. Companies that generated above-average margins, profits and equity performance not because they produced superior products but because they effectively managed global supply chains may find themselves in unsustainable positions, no longer surrounded by an economic moat. And in an environment where management has few cards left to play and margins are at risk due to supply chain disruptions, companies with truly differentiated business models, unique intellectual property and strong brand equity are likely to be better positioned to deal with the shifting global conditions. Companies that are unable to quickly move production to avoid the impacts of tariffs and those without pricing power could be at risk.

This potential dislocation makes security selection increasingly important as market dispersion reasserts itself after a decade of monolithic index-driven price action. In essence, late in the business cycle investors have become much choosier, avoiding highly leveraged companies with falling gross margins as well as lower-quality cyclicals. As is often the case, changing business environments have a way of exposing corporate vulnerabilities, amplifying the importance of selectivity.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are subject to change at any time. These views are for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a recommendation to purchase any security or as a solicitation or investment advice from the Advisor. Unless otherwise indicated, logos and product and service names are trademarks of MFS® and its affi liates and may be registered in certain countries. Distributed by: U.S. – MFS Investment Management; Latin America – MFS International Ltd.; Canada – MFS Investment Management Canada Limited. No securities commission or similar regulatory authority in Canada has reviewed this communication. Please note that in Europe and Asia Pacifi c, this document is intended for distribution to investment professionals and institutional clients only. U.K. – MFS International (U.K.) Limited (“MIL UK”), a private limited company registered in England and Wales with the company number 03062718, and authorized and regulated in the conduct of investment business by the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority. MIL UK, One Carter Lane, London, EC4V 5ER UK provides products and investment services to institutional investors. This material shall not be circulated or distributed to any person other than to professional investors (as permitted by local regulations) and should not be relied upon or distributed to persons where such reliance or distribution would be contrary to local regulation; Singapore – MFS International Singapore Pte. Ltd. (CRN 201228809M); Australia/New Zealand – MFS International Australia Pty Ltd (“ MFS Australia”) holds an Australian fi nancial services licence number 485343. MFS Australia is regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.; Hong Kong – MFS International (Hong Kong) Limited (“MIL HK”), a private limited company licensed and regulated by the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (the “SFC”). MIL HK is approved to engage in dealing in securities and asset management regulated activities and may provide certain investment services to “professional investors” as defi ned in the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”). Japan – MFS Investment Management K.K., is registered as a Financial Instruments Business Operator, Kanto Local Finance Bureau (FIBO) No.312, a member of the Investment Trust Association, Japan and the Japan Investment Advisers Association. As fees to be borne by investors vary depending upon circumstances such as products, services, investment period and market conditions, the total amount nor the calculation methods cannot be disclosed in advance. All investments involve risks, including market fl uctuation and investors may lose the principal amount invested. Investors should obtain and read the prospectus and/or document set forth in Article 37-3 of Financial Instruments and Exchange Act carefully before making the investments.