The Press Monday, March 2, 1931. British Trade.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20175, 2 March 1931, Page 8

The Press Monday, March 2, 1931. British Trade.

shfe British trade figures printed in The PuffiSS on Saturday in a summary from our London correspondent were disturbing evidence e£ the general contraction that has occurred, bttt particularly of the contraction in manufactured exports, which fell by more than £130,000,000 from the 1929 level; and this evidence is elaborately surveyed by the Economist of January 17th. It prints two articles, one on the year's overseas trade, , tooths on Industrial profits, in which the resultant of foreign and domestic economic movements is measured. The first of these cites the official foreign trade values:

Excess 6f ifflpotftß over! "orW ?/ 330.4 351.7 881.* 887.3 Unfortunately, details show what the totals conceal, that the decline in raw material imports and "finished" exports iB much greater than the decline in "finished" imports:

On these , figures two comments ai'e j necessary. In the first* place, of coutse, the fall in dommodity ptioea mast be allowed for, and the wholesale pricelevel measures the fall from 1929 to 1930 as roughly, iOO to 05} but though this ratio helps to show that the shrinkage is partly duo fo. lower rallies, | the quarterly figures measuring. <W»* | Seas trad# by volume ahbw that thaw has been 4ft absplute £ All. The figUfM ■ for 1030 are based on the first thsfifl quarters only: '

xne aecona poinx, is inab, mui» the £avy decline manufactured ex> ports and the greater stability of *&» tiM itoport^HhMdl S* ■ & ttottwaiU. , V 1928 1829 1980 Cml

■■ y«w. Art* r ! ,nf HMrjjAr frtl»-oMf.<>' «U eontfnc- &- ied v«t prOflto provtrmout ttf Iffito wfctfHMT fquSjw^ Wp With egajQ then, it was pany account in profit .decline of fa returns of the\ Mfc' recorded fur-] Stt&fclof 42.4 and holds, i 1020*81) collapse, -fal«& ill the De■Hfctftti qmM ffV not to as M OtmfHA *O3l-22, Muee the w .djMsllne qu^i-taw" fatt Jriatignhigs six' per oeftfc, ftAsk Mil' (Old lipef 4eat against S«T W 'cltaift ilud thfl feists pi tlfc khunP> Which is s>eper, will ti&f.bei differently aprand <yvtt,« this would give IW9 SPO thrni it dqe?f but in the. ftdttoti of eomp&riflgy different. orders: of adversity is not \cry great. That ■which the Economist is exceedingly heavy. ifor; Wtake ffoflj the classified iwioygameO few of! the more they show the followV''^J,-' •• /r''}

The miscellaneous group is a specially accurate indicator of conditions pre--1 vailing; while the land mortgage group reflect* the adverse Changes in the primary producing Countries oversea. Another table, which we condense, shows how profits have been distributed:

The last column is an unsatisfactory featture> because it expresses a lessened ability to buttress business with reserves and at the same time satisfy shareholders' appetite for dividends; The average, i.7.9 per cent., contrasts with 19 per cent, in 1929 and 22.3 per cent, iri 1028. Another table translates the foregding into detail for the company groups, and this shows that while some industries were conservative, others, sudh as land mortgage, nitrates, and textiles, paid out in dm'entls more than they earned and therefore drew on reserves, the first group to the extent of £.180,705, the second for only £7208,' the third for £31,647. Finally, there are tables which show that the ratio of iiefc profits ]to capital Stood at 8.2 per cent., compared with 10.3 per cent. a.year ago and 11 per cent, two years ago;- and that the average rate of dividend on ordinary capital was 8.4 per cent, against 10.6 a year ago, while even_ this was achieved only by trimming down provision for reserves. The EedtooMst expects " considerably less agreeable dividend "declarations in doming months" and closes its article on overseas trade with an opinion which is securely £i anded on the evidence of its two analyses. " It is evident," the writer says, " that "if this country's economic position, "the exchange value of its currency, "and the material well-being of its "population are to be permanently " maintained, our competitive power " in markets abroad must be enhanced. " And this canflot be done without concerted effort and sacrifice on a scale "not yet, we fear, by any means " realised."

In 3 mllllBtiii 1984. 1931. 1929. 1930. Imports .. I,af7.4 l.aaO.B 1,044.8 Briti S t) ort a 80li0 JJS8.6 WB.g 670.6 R<j-B*port8 .» 140,0 120.3 10B.7 87.0 i4i exp<tttB 'B4i.0 843.0 «3t>.i 65f.B

In £ millions. 1829. 1930. He* Betallied tattled B*' Ira- , £*- , I«» Sooi, drink* to* i,- liStco t . ports. pertB. jloftH. potts/ 509.8 83.7 461.8 48.8 nbw thftttflbla and a# tieles mainly iiunt&nUfactured 285.3 78.9 312.4 68.B Articles wholly of maittly tbanufacturad 806.5 BTB.8 283.3 439.8

1924. 1928. 1929. 1980. Imports, Exports' .. 100 107.8 114.1 106.1 .. 100 104.7 108.3 90.6

- '' . fleams fftai loeb - fi a »»' • ::, Jii 84

QuSffceri 6t IDSOi Ordi , Pfef. He* gefve, N&6 Profits. ' £ DiVi Dlv. 618., Pdi'oentase. PlfSt .. 62,061,887 01.9 19.7 10i4 Second .. 79,717,393 56.5 24.9 18.6 Third . 23,626,502 62.8 18.9 18.8 Fourth .. 82,174,877 64.5 20.4 15il