A lot has been written about the effect, length, and recovery from this recession (or depression). So many smart people (mostly investment and economics specialists) got it wrong, and some got it very right. To be honest, no-one is really sure what is going to happen, and anyone who says that they know, needs to have some ice-cubes poured down the front of their trousers. At the moment, we are lucky to be able to guess what is going to happen to the markets in the next week, let alone the next year.
But that said, we can look at previous recessions, as well as the latest data, to predict some elements of consumer behaviour. What happens to the markets, though, is anyone’s guess.
I think the first thing to point out is that recession cycles are thought to be normal part of living in a world of inexact balances between supply and demand. We accept that to have growth, we also need to have times when growth becomes unsustainable, and the world economy, to some degree, corrects itself. At present, there is something in the area of 33 trillion dollars of debt out there, and the walls came tumbling down, because some of the creditors basically said, “I wouldn’t mind getting some of that debt paid off, please”.
So, commentators and politicians are saying that this is/going to be the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Our general understanding of the Great Depression was that caused to some degree by underconsumption and overinvestment (leading to an “economic bubble), malfeasance by bankers and industrialists, and incompetence by government officials. The only consensus viewpoint is that there was a large-scale lack of confidence. Unfortunately, once panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could make more money by keeping clear of the markets as prices got lower and lower and a given amount of money bought ever more goods.
After WWII through to around 1990, consumers spent around 90 per cent of their after-tax income on goods and services and saved around 10 per cent. During the Great Depression, saving went negative, but they were extreme conditions when a huge number of consumers had no income and had to draw on whatever assets they had to survive. One of them major problems during the Great Depression was that the recovery was slow (1933 – 39). Then there was six years of war, which had a major influence on spending, saving, conserving. However, once the war was over, the manufacturing boom, driven by the war, meant that for the first time products became more and more available, and as time went on, cheaper and cheaper to make.
So what about this one?
Since 1990, household debt has risen from around 80 per cent of income to around 130 per cent. So household finances are badly stretched at present. There has been very little change in ratio of total household net worth from post-war to 1990. But after 1990, there was a significant increase in household wealth in proportion to disposable income, i.e., we have more money to spend, and products cost less.
This is then couple with the fact that economy has been more stable since 1985, than in prior postwar recessions – recessions have been less frequent and also shorter and smaller.
Because our wealth has increased, we have saved less, because we don’t feel the need to save for a rainy day (because we believe that we will always have money). The optimism bias tells us that if times are good, we assume that times will continue to be good. People have more individual debt than ever before – Household debt in Australia has tripled since 1990 and accounts for around 150 per cent of households’ disposable income. In the UK it is even worse – in January 2009, outstanding personal debt was at £1,479 (AUD3,000) billion and rising by £1 million (AUD2 million) every 10.6 minutes.So the first issue is that people are much more worried about outstanding debt than ever before.
What we are seeing is shifts in consumer behaviour; broadly speaking you could say that there are three segments and potential responses to the GFC;
1. Those in immediate danger – people who have lost their jobs; who have seen their superannuation income disappear. These people have basically stopped spending – not only on luxuries, but on basics, on everything.
2. People who aren’t in direct danger, but know somebody who is, or are worried that they might be in danger in some way – they might have a large mortgage, large debts on their credit cards, or be employed in a precarious industry. They are going to spend money more carefully. These people will cut-back on luxuries and discretionary purchases.
They might wait a bit longer for their next haircut, or put off on upgrading their TV set. These are the people who were most influenced by the marketing and manufacturing boom over the past 17 years. These were the targets of many of the marketers over this time – they are the conspicuous consumers. They will be the ones who might spend a bit of the $900 bonus, but also keep some or pay off debts.
Marketers are partly to blame for this, as well. They have fuelled the debt crisis by offering people credit that they could not afford – and they have been excited by consistent, and significant growth.
And our leaders are also to blame, because they have driven the choice bandwagon, which has meant that consumers believed that they were entitled to choose between 30 espresso machines, or 60 different mobile phones. They have also introduced economics in to the general conversation, and convinced us that the upwards of 3 per cent growth is the only way that the economy can operate.
3. And the third group are those who have piles of disposable income – the people who have no debts, have paid off their mortgages, to the point where all their income is disposable. In the short-term, what we will see from them is that they won’t change their behaviour dramatically, but they may cut back on the conspicuous nature of their consumer behaviour.
Since the Great Depression we have learned to make things better and cheaper – while exploiting the people in developing countries and the environment. We are now seeing this come to a head – it is an interesting time, because as well as the economic crisis, we are also facing a dramatic environmental crisis, that was all put in train because we became good at making stuff.
• McDonalds sales are soaring – while restaurants are showing reduced clientele.
• Airlines will see a slow-down, particularly in the low price segments – price sensitive consumers will simply travel in other ways. And the low-price model is not sustainable without close to 100 per cent yields.
• The small-format, large discount supermarkets like Aldi will see an increase in business. This is an important issue – people will still need to buy food, but the type of food that they buy will change. Lower priced brands, even store brands are the ones that will benefit most. High-end grocers will struggle.
• We are likely to see people putting off grooming activities, such as hairdressing, facials, massages and waxing. I am willing to go on record to say that we will most likely see negative growth in the Brazilian.
• Manufacturers of computers, including Apple computers, will see a slowdown, as consumers wait a bit longer to replace their current computer. Even the Apple Superstores are doing some discounting.
So, in the short-term, we will see people buying low price goods, or putting off services for a bit longer, e.g., instead of getting their hair done every six weeks, they will get their hair done every eight to ten weeks.
We will also see people not renewing or making the effort to get out of contractual arrangements that were based on inertia, i.e., when things were going well, they ignored that their gym membership was being deducted monthly, because they convinced themselves that they would use it at some point. Now, we will see people actually cancelling these memberships, because the apathy has been influenced by their awareness of the GFC. For many people, membership of a gym will become a luxury or discretionary.
So rather than one particular behaviour, we will see people adapting in different ways. A lot has been written about the effect, length, and recovery from this recession/depression. So many smart people got it wrong, and some got it very right.
I think the first thing to point out is that recession cycles are thought to be normal part of living in a world of inexact balances between supply and demand. We accept that to have growth, we also need to have times when growth becomes unsustainable, and the world economy, to some degree, corrects itself. At present, there is something in the area of 33 trillion dollars of debt out there, and the walls came tumbling down, because some of the creditors basically said, “I wouldn’t mind getting some of that debt paid off, please”.
So, commentators and politicians are saying that this is/going to be the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Our general understanding of the Great Depression was that caused to some degree by underconsumption and overinvestment (leading to an “economic bubble), malfeasance by bankers and industrialists, and incompetence by government officials. The only consensus viewpoint is that there was a large-scale lack of confidence. Unfortunately, once panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could make more money by keeping clear of the markets as prices got lower and lower and a given amount of money bought ever more goods.
After WWII through to around 1990, consumers spent around 90 per cent of their after-tax income on goods and services and saved around 10 per cent. During the Great Depression, saving went negative, but they were extreme conditions when a huge number of consumers had no income and had to draw on whatever assets they had to survive. One of them major problems during the Great Depression was that the recovery was slow (1933 – 39). Then there was six years of war, which had a major influence on spending, saving, conserving. However, once the war was over, the manufacturing boom, driven by the war, meant that for the first time products became more and more available, and as time went on, cheaper and cheaper to make.
So what about this one?
Since 1990, household debt has risen from around 80 per cent of income to around 130 per cent. So household finances are badly stretched at present. There has been very little change in ratio of total household net worth from post-war to 1990. But after 1990, there was a significant increase in household wealth in proportion to disposable income, i.e., we have more money to spend, and products cost less.
This is then couple with the fact that economy has been more stable since 1985, than in prior postwar recessions – recessions have been less frequent and also shorter and smaller.
Because our wealth has increased, we have saved less, because we don’t feel the need to save for a rainy day (because we believe that we will always have money). The optimism bias tells us that if times are good, we assume that times will continue to be good. People have more individual debt than ever before – Household debt in Australia has tripled since 1990 and accounts for around 150 per cent of households’ disposable income. In the UK it is even worse – in January 2009, outstanding personal debt was at £1,479 (AUD3,000) billion and rising by £1 million (AUD2 million) every 10.6 minutes.So the first issue is that people are much more worried about outstanding debt than ever before.
What we are seeing is shifts in consumer behaviour; broadly speaking you could say that there are three segments and potential responses to the GFC;
1. Those in immediate danger – people who have lost their jobs; who have seen their superannuation income disappear. These people have basically stopped spending – not only on luxuries, but on basics, on everything.
2. People who aren’t in direct danger, but know somebody who is, or are worried that they might be in danger in some way – they might have a large mortgage, large debts on their credit cards, or be employed in a precarious industry. They are going to spend money more carefully. These people will cut-back on luxuries and discretionary purchases.
They might wait a bit longer for their next haircut, or put off on upgrading their TV set. These are the people who were most influenced by the marketing and manufacturing boom over the past 17 years. These were the targets of many of the marketers over this time – they are the conspicuous consumers. They will be the ones who might spend a bit of the $900 bonus, but also keep some or pay off debts.
Marketers are partly to blame for this, as well. They have fuelled the debt crisis by offering people credit that they could not afford – and they have been excited by consistent, and significant growth.
And our leaders are also to blame, because they have driven the choice bandwagon, which has meant that consumers believed that they were entitled to choose between 30 espresso machines, or 60 different mobile phones. They have also introduced economics in to the general conversation, and convinced us that the upwards of 3 per cent growth is the only way that the economy can operate.
3. And the third group are those who have piles of disposable income – the people who have no debts, have paid off their mortgages, to the point where all their income is disposable. In the short-term, what we will see from them is that they won’t change their behaviour dramatically, but they may cut back on the conspicuous nature of their consumer behaviour.
Since the Great Depression we have learned to make things better and cheaper – while exploiting the people in developing countries and the environment. We are now seeing this come to a head – it is an interesting time, because as well as the economic crisis, we are also facing a dramatic environmental crisis, that was all put in train because we became good at making stuff.
• McDonalds sales are soaring – while restaurants are showing reduced clientele.
• Airlines will see a slow-down, particularly in the low price segments – price sensitive consumers will simply travel in other ways. And the low-price model is not sustainable without close to 100 per cent yields.
• The small-format, large discount supermarkets like Aldi will see an increase in business. This is an important issue – people will still need to buy food, but the type of food that they buy will change. Lower priced brands, even store brands are the ones that will benefit most. High-end grocers will struggle.
• We are likely to see people putting off grooming activities, such as hairdressing, facials, massages and waxing. I am willing to go on record to say that we will most likely see negative growth in the Brazilian.
• Manufacturers of computers, including Apple computers, will see a slowdown, as consumers wait a bit longer to replace their current computer. Even the Apple Superstores are doing some discounting.
So, in the short-term, we will see people buying low price goods, or putting off services for a bit longer, e.g., instead of getting their hair done every six weeks, they will get their hair done every eight to ten weeks.
We will also see people not renewing or making the effort to get out of contractual arrangements that were based on inertia, i.e., when things were going well, they ignored that their gym membership was being deducted monthly, because they convinced themselves that they would use it at some point. Now, we will see people actually cancelling these memberships, because the apathy has been influenced by their awareness of the GFC. For many people, membership of a gym will become a luxury or discretionary.
So rather than one particular behaviour, we will see people adapting in different ways. .
Read the rest of this entry »
Most of us like to think that we make decisions in a rational, sensible way. We prefer to believe that when it comes to making choices, whether to get out of bed, buy a lotto ticket, turn left at the next set of lights, or even buy that house, the choices we make typically reflect our desires; we choose what, all things considered, we want. The process by which we make choices is pretty straightforward. We consider the pros and cons of a particular choice, or perhaps even do a more formal cost-benefit analysis. After weighing up our options, we choose the product we want the most. For the most part, it is a process that is carried out in the conscious mind. Pretty straightforward. 
Reports
