The stock market had a bad day today, with the SSE Composite down 3.62%, mainly on rumors that banks will be seeking to raise equity capital next year in response to their loan surge this year.  On Tuesday Bloomberg reported that the five largest banks were supposed to have submitted plans to regulators for raising money, after unprecedented lending eroded their capital.

I would argue that a more compelling reason to raise capital is the almost-certain surge in NPLs over the next three or four years.  In fact I am pretty surprised that these rumors caught the market by surprise.  Every time that banks have engineered a policy-induced surge in lending, they have followed up with a surge in NPLs, and it would be pretty extraordinary if this time were any different.  A refusal to raise capital levels would have been very imprudent, and it is pretty clear that the PBoC and the CBRC are already worried about the impacts of the credit expansion on the banking system.

Raising capital by selling equity is one way for banks to protect themselves from the consequences of bad lending, but I have been arguing for a long time that the main way banks have been recapitalized in the past has been the very wide spread between the PBoC-mandated lending and deposit rates.  This was more or less confirmed in an interesting but perhaps little noticed speech last week by Governor Zhou.  According to an article in Reuters,

China needs to maintain a certain spread between deposit and lending rates in order for banks to be able to support the economy, Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People’s Bank of China, said on Friday. The central bank sets a ceiling on the rates banks may pay depositors and a floor on their lending rates. The built-in margin is a rich source of profit for Chinese banks that strengthens their balance sheets.

Speaking at a forum, the central bank chief also said China must ensure that its pro-investment policies do not lead to overcapacity, which he said was already plaguing some sectors.

The low deposit rates mean that Chinese savers are effectively being taxed to replenish bank capital.  Although this may be necessary in order directly to maintain the health of the banking system, it indirectly undermines the banking system in another way.  By forcing Chinese households not only to subsidize China’s very low cost of capital for producers and SOEs, but also to protect the banks from the effect of economically non-viable policy loans, Chinese households are bearing a pretty hefty share of the cost of China’s investment-led boom, and it is these same households whose surging consumption will be necessary to absorb the increased production resulting from the investment boom.

Given the increased financial burden being placed on them, I doubt that they will be able to do so.  After all, it is because of lesser versions of these same policies in the past that the enormous gap between production and investment exists in the first place.  And if they cannot raise their consumption sharply to absorb all this additional excess production, the banks will be stuck financing rising inventory and unprofitable companies.  It’s a vicious circle.

There is no easy way to resolve this problem, and it is pretty clear that Governor Zhou understands this, at least this is how I interpret his warning about pro-investment policies leading to overcapacity.  Interestingly enough around the same time as his speech the Financial News , a government newspaper, published a PBoC opinion piece that argued, according to an article in the South China Morning Post this week, that the “mainland should immediately halt some of its real estate stimulus policies, or risk inflating a bubble that in its bursting would wreak financial and even social trouble.”

On the same day the CBRC also struck.  According to an article in People’s Daily,

China’s banking regulator on Monday asked the country’s commercial banks to better manage risks and avoid year-end volatility in lending. Commercial banks should ensure that lending increase was kept in a stable and sustainable pace, the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) said.

Financial institutions with low capital adequacy ratio and no practical remedy plans would face restrictions in various sectors such as overseas investment, branch increase and business expansion, it said.  The CBRC called for enhanced inspections in financial system to detect problems after surging loan extends between the fourth quarter last year and the second quarter this year.

There seems to be a real tug of war.  On the one hand much of China’s industrial and exporting sectors along with provincial and local leaders, are eager to see a continuation of the financial policies that have goosed employment and GDP growth at the expense of domestic consumption.  On the other hand the macro and financial specialists are worried about the growing imbalances and their impacts on the financial sector.  Professor Yu Yonding of the CASS Post-Graduate school, a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee and one of the smartest analysts on China, gave a speech in Melbourne yesterday in which he warned about China’s over-reliance on exports and investment and suggested that the imbalances are worsening, not improving.  I strongly recommend that interest readers check out the speech for themselves.

In part the debate resolves around the issue of financial sector reform, especially of the banking system.  This is an extremely important topic because most economists and analysts, including me, believe strongly that financial sector reform will be one of the most important steps forward for the healthy development of the Chinese economy.  The Chinese financial system misallocates capital on an heroic scale.

A few days ago I was in a debate with a friend of mine about whether or not there has in fact been financial sector reform and liberalization in China, even after the US financial crisis gave anti-reformers what seemed like an unanswerable argument against financial liberalization.  My friend argued that instead of taking the easy way out and backtracking, China has in fact deepened financial sector reforms.  In support he referred to numerous statements by regulators to this effect, and other moves to liberalize finance in China.  For example there is no question that the Chinese bond market is growing.  According to an article in Tuesday’s Financial Times,

Emerging east Asia’s local currency bond markets have tripled as a proportion of the global market since the Asian financial crisis, but remain plagued by poor liquidity, according to a report published on Tuesday by the Asian Development Bank.  It says the region’s local currency bonds outstanding accounted for 6.2 per cent of the global total in the first quarter of this year, compared with 2.1 per cent in the fourth quarter of 1996, on the eve of the 1997-98 Asian crisis.

The $3,658bn of bonds outstanding amounted to nearly seven times the value in 1996, reflecting efforts by governments in the region to strengthen and deepen local bond markets to avoid the pitfalls of extensive borrowing in foreign currencies.

The bulk of the increase reflects a surge of local currency bond issuance in China, which accounted for 3.7 per cent of the global market in the first quarter of 2009, from just 0.2 per cent in 1996.  China remains the fastest-developing market for local currency corporate bonds, growing 87.7 per cent year on year, but the Philippines was second, with 65.8 per cent growth year on year, according to the ADB’s Asia Bond Monitor.

Perhaps more excitingly, foreign firms are likely to be welcomed into China’s domestic bond markets.  Rumors about this started on Monday with a CICC report and then seem to have been confirmed in an article in today’s People’s Daily:

Foreign companies may be able to sell bonds in China within a year as the government expands its domestic capital markets, according to China International Capital Corp (CICC), the No 2 underwriter of yuan debt this year.  ”The first group of future international issuers is likely to be blue-chip companies,” John Cheng, CICC’s investment banking managing director, said in an interview on Tuesday.

Overseas “firms will increase their presence in China and they’ll need to match their growing yuan assets with instruments in yuan, be it debt or equity,” he said.  China is urging domestic companies to tap bond and equity markets for funding and reduce reliance on banks after regulators said record loan growth poses risks. Authorities will consider allowing sales of high-yield corporate bonds to provide new sources of funding, People’s Bank of China Deputy Governor Hu Xiaolian said on Nov 18.

But in spite of the good noises, I am very skeptical about whether there has been real reform or liberalization in the financial sector, especially during the past year.  Why?  Because for me this would involve two main types of reform, on neither of which has there been any advance.  First, interest rates would have to be decontrolled and liberalized in order to remove the financial repression implied by extremely low interest rates.  I see no evidence that this has happened.  Interest rates are as controlled, and as much a policy tool, as ever.

Second, there needs to be substantial improvement in bank governance, so that the lending and investment decision is a function of economic rather than non-economic factors.  This is another way of saying that there must be a reduction in the process that leads to such massive capital misallocation.

Although there have been a series of baby steps in that direction, I would argue that these were completely undermined – reversed, in fact – by the surge in lending this year.  Any chance that the financial system is getting better at making the capital allocation decision was blown away by the events especially of the first half of this year.  The Chinese financial system, I would argue, is less liberalized, and certainly less efficient, today than it was one year ago and even five years ago.  This may sound like an outrageous statement, but reform has to be more than tinkering on the side.  To matter it must address the fundamental problems in the financial sytem – which I believe to be distorted interest rates and weak governance – and I don’t believe either has been addressed.

Finally, I want to mention two additional recent papers that have come out on the Chinese economy.  First is my misnamed “Brief” for the Carnegie Endowment, which discusses the tug-of-war between rising US savings and persistently high Chinese savings and what the consequence are for the global balance and international trade.  Second is a paper called “Overcapacity in China: Causes, Impacts and Recommendations,” released today by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China.  Full disclosure: I was involved partially in the preparation of the paper.

And for those who celebrate my favorite holiday: Happy Thanksgiving.

The release of September trade data earlier this week was pretty interesting, although because of two or three extra working days last month, plus the very big holiday at the beginning of October which might have pushed activity into September, some of the comparisons are misleading.  Exports were down 15.2% year-on-year, better than the expected 20-21%.  Imports were down 3.5%, much better than the expected 15%.  Month-on-month figures showed a rise in both imports and exports.

So much ink has been spilled in discussing these numbers that I won’t try to summarize, but it is worth noting that for many analysts the numbers were a very positive surprise.  Typical was this Reuters report reprinted in the New York Times:

China reported surprisingly strong trade figures on Wednesday, providing fresh evidence that the world’s third-largest economy is firmly on the path to recovery and that global demand is improving too.

…Brian Jackson, an economist at Royal Bank of Canada in Hong Kong, said the slower pace of decline was good news for China’s recovery because growth this year has depended too much on the government’s 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) stimulus package.

But even in this article there were hints that the numbers, especially the import numbers, might not be as positive as expected.

Commodities were a driving force behind the sharp improvement in imports. China bought a record 64.55 million tons of iron ore in September, up 30 percent from August; imports of copper rose 23 percent.

Merrill Lynch’s October 14 research report puts it this way:  “Commodity import growth was stunning.”  Andrew Batson in an article in today’s Wall Street Journal explains why the high commodity share of imports might not be as positive an indicator of surging demand as the headline numbers suggest:

A pickup in China’s metal imports in September is stoking debate about how much of the nation’s commodity intake this year is driven by demand and how much is stockpiling that will soon end.

…The trade figures issued Wednesday showed China’s imports of copper rebounding from July and August slowdowns to post a 87% rise from a year earlier. Iron-ore imports also hit a monthly record, at 64.55 million tons in September, up 65% from a year earlier. The gains in imports defied many forecasts that purchases would slow after China took advantage of low prices early this year to build up stocks of many commodities. The data could be a signal that underlying demand for raw materials is stronger than first thought.

I read the data differently – not so much as evidence that demand is stronger then we thought but rather that real imports are weaker than we thought.  According to the October 14 research report by Mark Williams, of Capital Economics, “We do not expect the trend to last. China’s recovery is being driven by investment, but the recent pace of commodity import growth has been much faster than justified by the rise in current demand.  Inventories of many metals have more than doubled since the start of the year (copper inventories are up 500%).”

I think I agree with Mark.  I already discussed in last week’s entry the recent conversations I have had with chemical and steel analysts and investors who were puzzled by their inability to match China’s imports with any reasonable estimate of the end use of these products.  One place where we might see the discrepancy is in a rise in inventories, but although these have been rising, they haven’t been rising fast enough to account for the differences.

Are investors stockpiling?

It seems that there may be another explanation, and that is stockpiling by private investors.  From what I am being told, it seems that a number of wealthy Chinese investors have been speculating directly in commodities, and so some of this inventory buildup is occurring not at the company level but at the investor level.  The Wall Street Journal article mentions this possibility:

Copper stockpiles also have increased. Royal Bank of Scotland analysts estimate that as much as 900,000 metric tons of unreported copper stocks have built up in China this year. There has been some official purchasing by the State Reserves Bureau, but also a lot of private traders buying imported copper because it could be resold for a higher price domestically.

I have no information about how these positions might be financed, if this is true, but I would worry if they were debt financed, and I would worry even more if corporations were financing them indirectly by lending to principles.  Shang Ning, the very smart secretary of the PBoC Shadow Committee seminar I run at Peking University, has been trying to figure out ways of indirectly measuring this kind of stockpiling, but frankly we don’t as of yet have any very good ideas.

Clearly a lot of policymakers are worried about excess commodity stockpiles.  Earlier this week Bloomberg reported on plans to curb steel production.

China, the world’s largest steel producer, is working on plans to curb excess capacity as the nation faces “severe oversupply,” according to the nation’s third-largest mill.  The government may have detailed plans on how to close obsolete mills, advance mergers and reduce the number of iron ore importers by the end of the year, Deng Qilin, the general manager of Wuhan Iron & Steel Group, said in an interview.

…“The government will impose strict measures to effectively close outdated mills and boost consolidation,” Deng, also the chairman of the China Iron and Steel Association, said while attending the World Steel Association annual meeting in Beijing yesterday. “We bigger players will surely benefit from such a move.”

There is more than just steel.  An article in yesterday’s Xinhua reports the following:

The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) will mainly redress production overcapacity in six sectors, said Chen Bin, director of the Department of Industry of the NDRC, Thursday.  The six sectors include steel, cement, plate glass, coal-chemical industry, polycrystalline silicon and windpower equipment.

The NDRC also warns of obvious production overcapacity in sectors like electrolytic aluminum, ship manufacturing and soybean oil extraction, said Chen during an on-line interview on www.gov.cn., the website of China’s central government.  He said China would fight serious overcapacity in sectors like steel industry and offer guidance for new-born industries like windpower equipment to avoid low level repetitive construction.

China has achieved preliminary progresses in fighting the global economic downturn, but the foundation for economic recovery is not stable yet and overcapacity might lead to bankruptcy, unemployment and bad bank loans if it was not checked in time, he said.

Industrial policies create overcapacity

I agree with the last paragraph, but otherwise I am pretty skeptical about the fight against overcapacity.  According to my model of China’s overcapacity problem, the source of the imbalance is a set of industrial policies that systematically shift income from households to producers, and as long as these policies continue there is little chance of resolving the problem of excess production.  I have a longish piece coming out next month as a Carnegie Brief on the Carnegie Endowment website, in which I discuss this as part of a discussion about why I expect a rising US savings rate to lead almost inexorably to trade tensions.  Here is the relevant section from the first draft:

Although China is still a very poor country, there is no question that Chinese household income has grown substantially over the past few decades, but it has not grown nearly as quickly as GDP.  While China’s GDP grew at 11-12% over the 2002-2007 period, for example, MIT economist Yasheng Huang estimates that household income grew at a much lower 9%.  If we were able to adjust Huang’s measure to take into account changes in other forms of household wealth – which are described below – growth in household income would have been even lower.  This is why consumption has declined as a share of national income, and why China’s total production has exceeded its total consumption by a large and growing amount.  This is at the root of China’s high savings rate.

Why haven’t Chinese households maintained their share of national income?  Largely because the rise in household income was constrained, especially in the last decade, by industrial polices which were aimed at turbo-charging economic growth.  These policies systematically forced households implicitly and explicitly to subsidize otherwise-unprofitable investment in infrastructure and manufacturing.  Although these policies powered employment and manufacturing growth, they also led to wide and divergent growth rates between production and consumption.  These policies included:

• • An undervalued currency, which reduces real household wages by raising the cost of imports while subsidizing producers in the tradable goods sector.
  • Excessively low interest rates, which force households, who are mostly depositors, to subsidize the borrowing costs of borrowers, who are mostly manufacturers and include very few households, service industry companies or other net consumers.
  • A large spread between the deposit rate and the lending rate, which forces households to pay for the recapitalization of banks suffering from non-performing loans made to large manufacturers and state-owned enterprises.
  • Sluggish wage growth, perhaps caused in part by restrictions on the ability of workers to organize, which directly subsidizes employers at the cost of households.
  • Unraveling social safety nets and weak environmental restrictions, which effectively allow corporations to pass on the social cost to workers and households.
  • Other direct manufacturing subsidies, including controlled land and energy prices, which are also indirectly paid for by households

By transferring wealth from households to boost the profitability of producers, China’s ability to grow consumption in line with growth in the nation’s GDP was severely hampered.  Of course the gap between production and consumption is the savings rate, and as production surged relative to consumption, a necessary corollary was a rising Chinese savings rate.

The basic problem, then, is that there are very powerful policies that force a discrepancy in production and consumption growth, and the only way to eliminate overcapacity is by reversing these policies.  I am not sure that attempting to address overcapacity by administrative means can succeed, and certainly the track record of other efforts over the past year to address the imbalance doesn’t suggest otherwise.

The trade impact

In the steel sector here is one consequence of the continued surge in production, according to an article in this week’s Financial Times:

The unexpectedly swift recovery in China’s steel production has sparked fears that a glut of exports could puncture steel prices as the global industry struggles to emerge from the economic downturn, rival steelmakers have warned.  SK Roongta, chairman of the Steel Authority of India Ltd (Sail), said Chinese over-production was “a point of concern” for the world’s steel producers.

During the past year, producer margins have come under severe strain from falls in prices and high input costs. Global output fell more than 20 per cent in the first half of 2009.  The head of India’s largest state-owned steel group said that Chinese production accelerated 15 per cent in the past quarter, beating forecasts of just reaching double-digit growth.

“We believed that China would grow, but the growth in the past three to four months has certainly been a surprise. I’m not sure this level can be sustained,” he said.  “The magnitude of the growth is a surprise; not the growth per se.”

Meanwhile on Tuesday in the New York Times the always-perceptive David Barboza spells out very explicitly the implications in a much-discussed article titled “In Recession, China Solidifies its Lead in Global Trade”:

With the global recession making consumers and businesses more price-conscious, China is grabbing market share from its export competitors, solidifying a dominance in world trade that many economists say could last long after any economic recovery.

…China is winning a larger piece of a shrinking pie. Although world trade declined this year because of the recession, consumers are demanding lower-priced goods and Beijing, determined to keep its export machine humming, is finding a way to deliver.  The country’s factories are aggressively reducing prices — allowing China to gain ground in old markets and make inroads in new ones.

There are lots of reasons given for why China is able to increase its market share so dramatically, but there is little doubt in my mind that this process will cause rancor and increasing hostility, especially among trade competitors, and the focus will be on policies that continue to subsidize manufacturers.  Barboza goes on to say:

One reason is the ability of Chinese manufacturers to quickly slash prices by reducing wages and other costs in production zones that often rely on migrant workers.  Factory managers here say American buyers are demanding they do just that.

…Because China produces a diversified portfolio of low-priced and essential items, analysts say the country’s exports can hold up relatively well in a recession.  Few other countries can match what has come to be called the “China Price.”

“China has a huge advantage,” says Nicholas R. Lardy, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “They can adjust to market changes very rapidly. They have flexibility in their labor markets. And as consumers trade down the quality ladder, China can benefit.”

The expiration of textile quotas in large parts of the world this year has also allowed China to increase its market penetration.  But equally important are government policies that support this country’s export sector — from Beijing keeping its currency weak against the dollar to its determination to subsidize exporters through tax credits and billions of dollars in low-interest loans from state-run banks.

Although the “wage flexibility” enjoyed by Chinese corporations may seem like a huge advantage, remember my earlier comments about how sluggish household income growth relative to GDP growth is the source of the overcapacity problem (consumption is likely to grow as fast as household income grows).  If I am right, it means that measures that can improve China’s export competitiveness are not good for the rebalancing effort if they exacerbate, rather than reverse, the process of transferring income from households to corporations.  Lower wages, of course, do just that, and so they cannot be a solution to China’s underlying overcapacity problem except to the extent that they allow China to expel trade competitors.  This is not a permanent solution by any means, especially in a world of rising trade tensions.

New loans still soaring

There are two pieces of related recent news.  The first, released on the same date as the trade data, was the PBoC announcement of new loans for the month of September.  According to an article Wednesday in Xinhua:

China’s new yuan-denominated loans in September rose to 516.7 billion yuan (75.68 billion U.S. dollars) from August’s 410.4 billion yuan, the People’s Bank of China, the central bank, said Wednesday.   New yuan-denominated loans in the first nine months stood at 8.67 trillion yuan, 5.19 trillion yuan more than the same period last year.

China’s foreign exchange reserve hit a new high of 2.2726 trillion U.S. dollars at the end of September, according to the central bank.  China’s monthly new loans had slowed from June’s high of 1.53 trillion yuan to 355.9 billion yuan in July as a result of bank contracting credit and the central bank’s open market operations. The figure rose to 410.4 billion yuan in August and then to September’s 516.7 billion yuan.

The broad measure of money supply, M2, which covers cash in circulation and all deposits, was up 29.31 percent from a year earlier to 58.54 trillion yuan at the end of September.   The narrow measure of money supply, M1 (cash in circulation plus current corporate deposits), was up 29.51 percent to 20.17 trillion yuan.

I think most people were surprised by the September net new loan number, expecting something in the RMB 450 billion range (last September total new lending was RMB 378 billion).  Although the current new lending of RMB 517 billion  is much lower than the astonishing RMB 963 billion monthly average this year, when you include the net paydown of bill financing in September of RMB 353 billion, the total new medium and long-term financing in September was actually RMB 870 billion.  This suggests that in fact September lending was equal to this year’s monthly average (especially if you think of the explosion in bill financing early this year as a form of “anticipated” lending).

Regular readers of my blog will know that I have no doubt that this kind of loan expansion can only make the overcapacity problem worse, since either it directly boosts current or future production, or, by leading to a rise in NPLs that will ultimately be paid for by Chinese households, it constrains future consumption growth. Interestingly enough, according to an analysis in Caijing, the share of new loans from the Big 4 was only 21%.  This is down substantially from 40% in August, 47% in July, and a whopping 70% in the first six months of 2009.

What gives?  For one thing, it means that most of the decline in lending from the insane levels of the first half of the year is explained by the decline in lending among the Big 4.   It is not so much that new lending is being pushed downward, since the smaller banks are increasing their lending at roughly the same rate as they have all year.

Chen Shanshan, an analyst at Bocom International Holdings, said large commercial banks scaled their lending after regulators tightened credit controls at the start of the third quarter.  Also, medium-sized banks saw their lending capabilities restrained by the tighter regulatory controls on capital requirements, he said.

“Banks are now actively selling loans,” and mostly selling them packaged as syndicated loans, an executive with a large commercial bank told Caijing.

I am not sure from this whether they are selling down to other banks or to investor groups.  Any color from any of my readers would be much appreciated.  As an aside on the reserve numbers, I haven’t done the numbers yet, and I have not had a chance to discuss this with Medley’s Logan Wright, but my initial back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that hot money inflows may have moderated but are still positive.

The second piece of related news was the release yesterday by the US Treasury Department of its semi-annual report on exchange rate policies.  “Both the rigidity of the renminbi and the reacceleration of reserve accumulation are serious concerns which should be corrected to help ensure a stronger, more balanced global economy consistent with the G-20 framework,” the report said. “The Treasury remains of the view that the renminbi is undervalued.”

While the People’s Daily headline today was “U.S. says China not currency manipulator”, and most of the focus of the article was positive (although it did acknowledge that “it also alleged that the Chinese currency renminbi’s exchange rate showed a ‘lack of flexibility’ in recent period”), the Financial Times article was a little more nuanced:

The Obama administration said on Thursday that it had “serious concerns” about the value of the renminbi, but stopped short of accusing China of manipulating its currency in a closely watched report to Congress.

The Treasury toughened its language on China in its semi-annual report on exchange rate policies. While acknowledging that Beijing had been important in steadying the global economy, it said recent moves to accumulate more foreign exchange reserves “risk unwinding some of the progress made in reducing imbalances”.

But the Treasury did not say China was manipulating its currency, in spite of pressure from US labour groups and scores of legislators who argue that the undervalued renminbi makes China’s exports unfairly cheap . Pressure has built this year as manufacturers suffer huge job losses and the US unemployment rate creeps towards 10 per cent .

I am willing to bet that over the next year or two the language gets tougher, not easier.

Finally, I saw the following very interesting article on today’s Bloomberg:

China’s Ministry of Finance is, for the first time, allowing local governments to use the proceeds of land sales to fund stimulus projects, the China Daily reported, citing a ministry circular.  Local governments are required by the end of this month to have provided 1.18 trillion yuan ($173 billion) out of the 4 trillion yuan stimulus plan announced by Premier Wen Jiabao in November, the English-language paper said. Many local governments are finding it difficult to secure funds for projects because of the economic slowdown, the newspaper said.

As Beijing slowly unlocks from its 60^th anniversary celebrations – the streets are still relatively empty but more and more people are going out, although my local Starbucks still hasn’t reopened, forcing me to go elsewhere for my hardcore caffeine fix – a lot is still going on in the rest of the world. Both the US and the IMF have come out with releases that help us to pick through the problems that China and the world are facing.

Before discussing these releases, let me make a quick digression to an event that a lot of people have been asking me about. Two weeks ago China Construction Bank announced that it would rollover 24.7 billion yuan in bonds that it had “purchased” from its AMC, Cinda, for another 10 years. Bank of China and ICBC, which sit on 473 billion yuan worth of AMC bonds, will probably do the same when their AMC bonds come due.

What does this all mean? Remember that as part of the recapitalization of the banks after the NPL fiasco of 10-15 years ago, the AMCs (asset management companies) were created to purchase and liquidate the bad debt. There is a big argument as to whether or not they took out all the garbage loans, but at any rate they bought a lot of bad debt and, since they had no assets of their own, paid for them with issues of medium term bonds, which they exchanged in two tranches. One tranche was for 100% of the face value of one portion of the bad loans they took on, and the other was for 50% of face of the rest of the bad loans they acquired.

The problem of course is that these bad loans were worth a lot less than either 100% of face or even 50% of face. In fact they have been liquidated at a rate of about 20% of face. This leaves the AMCs bankrupt and unable to repay the bonds, so when they came due the bonds were simply rolled over. There is a sort of comfort letter from the Ministry of Finance (its exact value is in dispute), so the banks have been able to get away with treating the bonds as money good. The point of all this is to remind us that all the .losses for the earlier spate of bad loans, even assuming that all the bad loans were identified and cleaned up (which I doubt) have not been resolved.

Someone (the banks? The Ministry of Finance?) will eventually have to pay up. If the process is allowed to drag on for many years, I suspect that the banks will pay out of retained earnings, but since retained earnings at the banks consist primarily of the very wide spread between the lending rates and the interest rates that banks are allowed to pay depositors, ultimately this means that households will be forced to recapitalize the banks. If there is a short term problem, however, perhaps leading to a crisis of confidence in the banks, I suspect that the MoF (unless debt at the sovereign level in the mean time becomes a problem) will explicitly guarantee the bonds or take them directly on the government balance sheet.

US unemployment picture is ugly

To return to the rest of the world, unemployment in the US is not getting better. Yesterday the Labor Department released figures that showed the US unemployment rate climbing to a fresh 26-year high of 9.8% in September. According to an article in the Financial Times:

Official figures on Friday showed that non-farm payrolls dropped by 263,000, making it the 21st consecutive month that the US economy has shed jobs. The data were worse than even the most grim expectations, as economists predicted a 175,000 drop in payrolls, and followed a decline of a revised 201,000 jobs in August when the unemployment rate was 9.7 per cent.

Although I think most economists are expecting that US economic growth in the third quarter was a fairly healthy 3%, as far as China is concerned it is not the future growth in the US economy that matters so much as future growth in US consumption. A jobless recovery in the US, if that is what we get, probably means that dragging household consumption will not be the engine of US growth, and even less will it be the engine of Asian growth, which it was for so many years. Any Asian and Chinese recovery predicated on a revival of out-of-control US consumption is likely to be disappointed.

On Thursday the IMF released its World Economic Outlook, which was mildly positive on the global economy, arguing that “the recovery has started, financial markets are healing, and in most countries growth will be positive for the rest of the year as well as in 2010,” although in line with the US employment report it worried that “the pace of recovery is expected to be slow and, for quite some time, insufficient to decrease unemployment” (later in the report they say “the current rebound will be sluggish, credit constrained, and, for quite some time, jobless”). The report also argued that because most of the “recovery” has been based on public spending and, I guess especially in Asia, gearing up capacity without much regard for demand, an economic recovery was likely to be slow and risky.

The IMF seems increasingly to be agreeing with the “global imbalances” analysis of the economy, probably to the dismay of China and other surplus countries. Early in the report it says:

To complement efforts to repair the supply side of economies, there must also be adjustments in the pattern of global demand in order to sustain a strong recovery. Specifically, many economies that have followed export-led growth strategies and have run current account surpluses will need to rely more on domestic demand and imports.

This will help offset subdued domestic demand in economies that have typically run current account deficits and have experienced asset price (stock or housing) busts, including the United States, the United Kingdom, parts of the euro area, and many emerging European economies. To accommodate the shifts on the demand side, there will need to be changes on the supply side.

Surplus countries must consume more

The interesting thing for me was this focus on surplus countries. Although there does seem to be an economic rebound, the report says, the recovery will be weak unless countries with large trade surpluses step up domestic demand. To keep growth up, surplus countries like China must boost domestic spending, and appreciate their currencies. This pretty tough claim will probably not make Beijing, Berlin or Tokyo very happy, although it does chime with US views on global trade imbalances. In their own words:

To complement efforts to repair the supply side of economies, there must also be adjustments in the pattern of global demand in order to sustain a strong recovery. Specifically, many economies that have followed export-led growth strategies and have run current account surpluses will need to rely more on domestic demand—notably emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere and Germany and Japan.

This will help offset subdued domestic demand in economies that have typically run current account deficits and have experienced asset price (stock or housing) busts, including the United States, the United Kingdom, parts of the euro area, and many emerging European economies. In these economies, private consumption and investment are unlikely to pick up the slack that will be left by diminishing fiscal stimulus, given that household incomes and corporate profits will be subdued and balance sheet repair will be under way for some time, implying higher saving rates.

The authors of the report do not seem terribly optimistic about the prospects for a sustainable spurt in surplus-country domestic demand in the near term (“This process of rebalancing global demand will be drawn out.”) but I am not sure, perhaps because the IMF is after all a very politicized institution, that they specify the trade consequences. They acknowledge that there will be a problem with expected increases in savings in one part of the world conflicting with high savings elsewhere, and they don’t seem very optimistic about prospects for a surge in investment, but it seems to me that they shy away from working out how this will happen and how the pain will be distributed (through the trade account, I would argue).

What about overinvestment?

In a section in Chapter 4 of the report entitled “Do Precrisis Conditions Help to Predict Medium-term Output Losses?” there was an interesting discussion about the relationship between output losses associated with a crisis and pre-crisis investment levels. On especially commented on section had this:

The prominent role of investment and capital losses suggests that the level and evolution of precrisis investment would be good predictors of eventual output losses. Indeed, regression results provide strong evidence that economies with high precrisis investment-to-GDP ratios, measured as the average investment-to-GDP ratio during the three years before the crisis, tend to have large output losses.

In contrast, the investment gap, defined as the deviation from its historical average of the investment-to-GDP ratio during the three years before a crisis, is not statisti­cally significant. We return to potential interpretations of these results later in this section, but it is worth mentioning that the precrisis investment share is particularly robust as a leading indica­tor, even after controlling for the level of the current account balance. This suggests that countries that have high investment rates tend to experience larger output declines follow­ing banking crises, irrespective of whether the investment is financed by foreign or domestic savings.

For those of us who worry about China’s having recently increased its already-excessively-high investment rate, this passage was an uncomfortable read. In addition for people like me, who believe strongly that the very process of misallocated investment will act as a damper on future consumption growth (and I think this is becoming much more widely accepted, or at least discussed, in policy circles), the combination of warnings over overinvestment and pleas for more consumption from trade surplus countries is deeply worrying. By the way, for a short and quick view of why I think consumption won’t grow, you can check a recent debate held by the New York Times on the subject of Chinese consumption growth.

So what about all this excess investment? The State Council recently made a lot of noise about its determination to curb excess capacity. Here is the Financial Times version of the story:

China has issued a stark warning about the risk from rising overcapacity in the economy, saying it could hamper recovery and lead to a surge in non-performing bank loans. The State Council, the country’s cabinet, issued a new plan to combat overcapacity in seven industries, barring new aluminium smelters for three years and criticising “blind expansion” in parts of the steel and cement industries.

The cabinet statement, which came late on Tuesday evening in Beijing, follows a crescendo of warnings from senior officials. It also outlined measures to restrict manufacturing of equipment for “green” industries of wind and solar power. China’s economy has rebounded sharply in recent months due to an investment boom – much into infrastructure – fuelled by increased public spending and a surge in lending by the state-owned banks.

But over the past three months many government officials have begun to publicly warn that the credit binge could create overcapacity in heavy industry, which could produce a new round of bad bank loans.

The article in the South China Morning Post adds some color, and a partial explanation of why all these angry statements about preventing excess capacity over the past few years have had so little effect:

In unusually blunt wording, the cabinet also pointed its finger at local authorities. “Some regions have acted illegally. We are once again seeing cases of illegitimate approvals, of construction starting before it has been approved, and of construction starting even as the approval process is underway,” it said.

The cabinet’s strident warning about overcapacity underscored why officials have been circumspect about the economy, repeatedly saying that it has shown signs of recovering from the global financial crisis but is still not on solid ground.

It is hard to give up investing

The truth is everyone in the world is against the creation of “excess” capacity, but as long as Beijing has in place policies that explicitly subsidize investment and production, it will take an awful low more than fulminating against wasteful investment to eliminate it. I would argue that wasteful investment is the automatic consequence of policies that lower the cost of capital to “unreasonable” levels, implicitly socialize risk, and otherwise subsidize producers in the name of boosting employment.

Since Beijing has very explicitly chosen to attack rising unemployment in the short term – probably wisely, although also probably more ferociously than was optimal – there is little they can do to prevent a massive rise in wasteful investment. You cannot take an economy with the highest investment rate in history, and already massive waste, and very quickly force investment rates up even higher, without also increasing waste. The problem with all this wasted investment, of course, is that someone must pay for it, and that “someone” will undoubtedly be Chinese households, who will then almost certainly go on to disappoint us by failing to splurge on consumption.

And are they really serious about tackling excess capacity? Here is what Bloomberg said in an article earlier this week about the shipping industry:

China and South Korea’s support for shipbuilders may add to a glut of capacity, slowing a recovery in freight rates and vessel prices. The world’s two largest shipbuilding nations have taken steps this year to aid shipyards and safeguard jobs as customers delay or scrap orders amid tumbling world trade. That support will likely ensure more vessels enter service, even as lines mothball and scrap existing ships because of a lack of cargo.

“The Chinese and Koreans, in particular, will make sure that these ships come,” Philip Clausius, chief executive officer of lessor First Ship Lease Trust, told a conference in Singapore yesterday. The “daunting number” of ships that “will hit the market over the next three, four, five years will make the recovery a rather slow and painful one.”

China’s bid to become the largest shipbuilding nation by 2015 may also worsen the glut as it competes for market share, said Matthias Umlauf, senior economist at HSH Nordbank AG. The world’s shipyards have dry-bulk ship orders with a combined capacity of 64 percent of the existing fleet, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

China has “the chance to become the world’s largest shipbuilding nation and they will not let this chance go,” said Umlauf. “They will support their national champions and that will definitely add to the overcapacity situation.”

As I have said many times before, I don’t see how pressures to increase savings in the US and other trade-deficit countries will not conflict with pressures in China, Germany, and other trade-surplus countries to maintain policies that force up savings rates, especially if sustainable global investment rates decline. The only outcome, I think, is increasing trade tensions. In that light, today Bloomberg reported a very worrying escalation of the conflict:

The two largest groups representing U.S. companies in China said the Asian nation has enacted a series of policies discriminating against foreign investors and imports. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.-China Business Council said in testimony today that Chinese contracting rules, technical standards and licensing requirements were protectionist. Chinese officials have made the same charge against the U.S. following President Barack Obama’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese tire imports.

Both organizations have previously defended China, calling it a large and growing market for U.S. exports and lobbying to fend off legislation aimed at punishing China for currency policies and government subsidies. The criticisms of the two U.S. groups reflect mounting tensions that economists said could spark a spiral of retaliatory measures between the countries.

“There are growing indications that China’s movement toward a market economy has stalled,” Jeremie Waterman, senior director for China at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, testified to a hearing at the U.S. Trade Representative’s office today. “The voices of protectionism in both countries are on the rise.”

Three weeks ago China Daily published a pretty funny article about a recent survey on credibility that had taken place in China. According to the article,

At a time when shamelessness is pervasive, we are often at loss as to who can be trusted. The five most trustworthy groups, according to a survey by the Research Center of the Xiaokang Magazine, are farmers, religious workers, sex workers, soldiers and students. 

A list like this is at the same time surprising and embarrassing. The sex business is illegal and thus underground in this country. The sex workers’ unexpected prominence on this list of honor, based on an online poll of more than 3,000 people, is indeed unusual. 

It took the pollsters aback that people like scientists and teachers were ranked way below, and government functionaries, too, scored hardly better.  Yet given the constant feed of scandals involving the country’s elite, this is not bad at all. At least they have not slid into the least credible category, which consists of real estate developers, secretaries, agents, entertainers and directors.

I am not sure what secretaries have done to get themselves such poor rankings (could they mean party secretaries?), and I am not sure what kind of directors they mean (movie directors? managing directors?) but not everyone found this survey funny.  Last week a columnist in the People’s Daily had this to say about the same survey:

 

In recent years, China has already paid a high price for the prevailing credibility crisis. The annual losses caused by bad debts have reportedly amounted to about 180 billion yuan, and the direct economic losses induced by contract fraud each year is also up to 5.5 billion yuan. Besides, shoddy and fake products contribute to another great loss involving at least 200 billion yuan. Generally, credibility crisis would cost China as much as 600 billion yuan every year.
The shortage of credibility is not only seen in the market transactions, but in the officialdom as well. Corruption in any form is about to erode the faith of the general populace in authorities and officials at different levels.

Although I fully accept that sex workers are more credible than government officials, I am outraged that teachers are so much lower on the list than prostitutes.  Since bankers have become so out-of-fashion recently, I have been vociferously denying my banker roots and assuring everyone that I am and always have been a professor, but now it seems that in order to get any respect I am going to have to buy tight jeans and a leather jacket and try to convince friends that I actually make my living turning tricks.  At my age it won’t be easy, but probably a lot easier than convincing people that I am a farmer (unless it’s on a plate I can’t tell a potato from a chicken) or a priest.

Speaking of low credibility, last week the South China Morning Post reprinted a New York Times article on continued losses in the US banking system:

Banks in the United States are now losing money and going broke the old-fashioned way: They made loans that will never be repaid.  As the number of banks closed by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corp has grown rapidly this year, it has become clear the vast majority of them had nothing to do with strange financial products that seemed to dominate the news when the big banks were nearing collapse and being rescued by the government.

…Staying away from strange securities has not made things better. Jim Wigand, FDIC’s deputy director of resolutions and receiverships, says lenders that are failing now are in worse shape – in terms of the amount of losses relative to the size of the banks – than the ones that collapsed during the last big wave of failures from the savings and loan crisis.

The severity of the current string of bank failures shows many of the proposed remedies batted about since the crisis began would have done nothing to stem the closures.  These banks did not go beyond their depth with derivatives or hide their bad assets in off-balance sheet vehicles. Nor did their traders make bad bets; they generally had no traders. They did not make loans they expected to sell quickly, so they had plenty of reason to care that the loans would be repaid.

What they did do is see loans go bad, in some cases with stunning rapidity, in volumes that they never thought possible.  That so many loans are souring is a testament to how bad the recession – and the collapse in property prices – has been. But looking at some of the banks in detail shows they were also victims of their own apparent success. Year after year, these banks grew and took more risks. Losses were minimal. Cautious bankers appeared to be missing opportunities.

Besides the fact that this suggests that it is not just in China that prostitutes may be more respected than bankers, I found this article very interesting for two reasons.  The first is because it suggests pretty clearly that green shoots notwithstanding, we are far from an end to the banking crisis in the US (and, I assume, elsewhere), and it is going to take a while longer before bank balance sheets are robust enough to expand.  All of this will adversely impact both consumer spending and business investment for the foreseeable future.

The second reason I found this article interesting is that I think it supports an argument I have been making for a while, that the current financial crisis was not “caused” by derivatives or complex securitizations.  It was caused, as nearly all financial crises in history have been caused, by banks being forced to accommodate excess liquidity and taking on too much risk – something they must do when monetary conditions are too loose for too long.  Making opaque investments in derivatives and complex securitizations is, of course, one way to take on too much risk, but it in no way caused the excessive risk-taking.

When observers insist that it was the deregulation and fragmentation of the “Anglo-Saxon” financial model, and the ease with which Wall Street was able to innovate financially that caused the big losses, I can sympathize only with the observation that we paid an awful lot of money to some very smart people whose great contribution to society – a newer kind of exotic swap, let’s say – was not terribly valuable.  But it wasn’t the system itself that caused the crisis.  After all one of the main reasons for the prestige of the “Anglo-Saxon” model was that its greatest competitor, the very highly regulated, rigid, highly integrated and almost innovation-devoid counterpart, the Japanese banking system, collapsed so frightfully – if less spectacularly – after 1990, and now the article cited above suggests that a lot of banks even in the US also managed to collapse in very old-fashioned ways – something Hyman Minsky would have predicted would happen even without the help of dastardly derivatives.

This is one of the reasons why I take it almost as an article of faith that the massive expansion in Chinese credit will lead inevitably to a massive expansion in bad lending, and that the “great” economic data is actually worryingly weak given the amount of resources, especially banking resources, expended to produce those numbers.  Too many regulators here who should know better (and too many foreign observers, too) are convinced that Chinese banks are safe from losses because Chinese banks were too slow to understand complex financial instruments and so took on very limited (and often ill-advised) exposure to these instruments, and because they continue to be sharply constrained in their abilities to do so.  In fact the biggest losses are always caused by exposure to real estate or lending against insufficient future cashflows, whether these comesin the form of old-fashioned loans or in the form of total-return swaps on sub-prime mortgage tranches.

Interestingly enough, it seems that recently there has been an increasing chorus of warnings within China about mounting risks in the banking system, and more generally about problems in the fiscal stimulus package.  For much of the year the Chinese fiscal stimulus has been described – as I heard repeatedly during my testimony last February in Washington, to my surprise – as the “gold standard” of stimulus packages, but over the past two months the number of worriers seems to have expanded dramatically.  The Financial Times in an article earlier this week put it this way:

Official readings of industrial production, fixed investment, power consumption and gross domestic product all show a strong revival, while equity and property prices have soared in recent months. There have even been signs of a recovery in exports, although these are still about one-quarter below the levels of a year ago.

But a growing number of economists and officials say the positive growth data hide worrying structural imbalances and the government’s response to the crisis may only have postponed an inevitable reckoning. With the world looking to China as a beacon to lead the way out of economic gloom, a second downturn would have a big impact on global confidence, not to mention commodity prices.  “There is such a thing as good 5 per cent growth and bad 8 per cent growth,” according to one senior adviser to the government. “We worry that what we’re seeing falls more into the latter category.”

The concerns are the ones I have been discussing here for the past year – the fiscal stimulus is exacerbating the domestic imbalances, non-performing loans are certain to rise dramatically, and there is little evidence that consumption is going to grow organically quickly enough to absorb Chinese capacity.  The article goes on to say:

“The main concern we have now is that a tremendous volume of loans was extended very rapidly to the corporate sector at a time when corporate profitability was declining,” says Charlene Chu at Fitch Ratings. “That would suggest there will be some significant asset quality problems down the road.”

While state-owned enterprises have been inundated with loans from the state banks, economists worry too that China’s vibrant private sector has been largely left to fend for itself.  “The fiscal and monetary policy response to the crisis has mostly benefited the largest enterprises and biggest projects,” says Wang Yijiang, professor of economics and human resources management at the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing. “The small and medium-sized enterprise sector provides 75 per cent of the jobs to China’s urban workforce but now it is shrinking for the first time in 30 years of economic reforms.”

Not surprisingly, it was Chinese economists who were quicker to sense the problems than most foreign economists and observers, whose optimism has generally been more robust.  For example the highly respected Yu Yonding, an economist with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a former member of the PBoC’s monetary policy committee (who told me three months ago at a conference at Tsinghua University, during which I presented my now-standard argument that China’s development model was about to fail, that the problem with my analysis was that I am much too optimistic about China), had an OpEd piece in today’s Financial Times that repeats the familiar litany:

China has rebounded from the global slump with vigour. In the second quarter, its official figures showed year-on-year gross domestic product growth of 7.9 per cent. Those who doubt the quality of China’s macroeconomic statistics can check its physical statistics: in June, electricity production increased 5.2 per cent, reversing the falls of the previous eight months. It is almost certain that China’s GDP will grow more than 8 per cent this year.

But there are problems looming. More investment thanks to China’s rescue package threatens to worsen the already severe overcapacity, while the cash injection is already creating asset bubbles.

Dr. Yu warily suggests specific policy recommendations when he says that “China’s rebalancing is more the result of the global economic crisis than of policy initiative. China could do more to eliminate both internal and external price distortions to reduce its dependency on external markets.”  Eliminating these price distortions involves, I suspect, revaluing the currency, liberalizing interest rates, and doing the other things that I and others have suggested would address the root imbalances between consumption and production, albeit at the expense of accelerating unemployment in the short term. 

Premier Wen himself has been actively warning about trouble ahead.  Earlier this week the South China Morning Post had this to say (although I wasn’t able to find any reference in the local press):

Premier Wen Jiabao warned the mainland faces new economic problems and said Beijing would stick to its stimulus plan because the recovery lacks a solid foundation, according to comments reported yesterday. Mr Wen cautioned against being “blindly optimistic” despite improvements in the economy, according to a statement on the State Council’s website.

“[The economy] still faces many new difficulties and problems,” Mr Wen was quoted as saying during a visit to southeastern China that ended yesterday. “There are still a lot of unstable and uncertain factors ahead and the economic situation ahead is still very grave, although both the world economy and the national economy are making positive changes now.”  He cautioned that the effects of some government measures might fade while others would take time to show results, the cabinet statement said, without elaborating.

Meanwhile there is more and more talk about attempts by the PBoC and the CBRC to limit and control the banking expansion.  The CBRC has apparently been tightening capital adequacy requirements and is reportedly going to disqualify subordinated debt from being counted as bank capital.  Chinese banks have been encouraged to raise their capital ratios, and one of the ways they have done so is by selling subordinated debt – there was about $30 billion issued in the first half of 2009, versus about $10 billion in 2008.  But much, if not all, of this subordinated debt was purchased by other banks, so it always made a lot of sense to eliminate bank subordinated debt from any notion of a capital cushion.  In a banking crisis, just when banks need capital, this asset immediately becomes worthless.

Yesterday’s Financial Times had an interesting little piece on all this:

The banking regulator last month told lenders to raise reserves to 150 per cent of their non-performing loans by the end of this year, up from 134.8 per cent at the end of June. A communiqué last Friday canvassed views on deducting holdings of other lenders’ subordinated or hybrid debt from supplementary (non-core) capital. Then there are softer measures, such as reminding banks to ensure that loans for investment in fixed assets actually end up there. The central bank also has raised money-market rates to drain liquidity. The effects of all this can be seen in the M2 measure of money supply, which was up 28 per cent at the end of July, year on year, but which fell 3 basis points from the end of June.

This is how China tightens: imperceptibly, by degrees. As Goldman Sachs points out, China’s last tightening cycle began not when it raised rates in November 2004 but 18 months earlier when the central bank began to issue short-term bills to mop up excess cash. Listen to the rhetoric now, and you can almost hear the fluttering of doves. But look at the evidence, and it is obvious that hawks are gathering.

 

Although I am often surprised by how eagerly foreign commentators have embraced the Chinese fiscal stimulus story and see it as a great, shining success, I am happy to say, mercifully, that in China there is a lot more skepticism.  There seems to be a serious debate among Chinese policymakers over the stimulus package.   

The debate lists, on one side, people centered on the PBoC, the CBRC and the National Bureau of Statistics, who are worried that the stimulus may be exacerbating Chinese imbalances.  On the other side are people in the State Council, the Ministry of Commerce and in the provincial and municipal leadership who are more worried that any half-heartedness will lead to a significant rise in unemployment.   

In the past week or so the former, with whom I am of course in complete sympathy, seem to have become increasingly worried and have been making a lot of noise.  The formidable Hu Shilu, editor of Caijing, (and by the way Evan Osmos wrote a very interesting article about her in the current New Yorker) recently made a strong case against continuation of the current fiscal program when she wrote in an editorial this week that “a policy that encourages loose lending and investment is driving China’s economic engine down an old, unsustainable path.” 

Various signals suggested China’s economy had returned to a stable track by the end of the second quarter, giving us an opportunity to reassess macroeconomic policy.  Data released by the National Bureau of Statistics showed that China’s GDP rose 7.1 percent in the first half of the year, and 7.9 percent in the second quarter alone. Apparently, China’s economy has bottomed out. 

Arduous efforts contributed to this upward trend. External developments have had a much more serious impact on China’s economy recently than during the Asian Financial Crisis a decade ago. However, first half growth was only a bit below the level recorded in 1998. And although heavily dependant on exports, China may yet achieve its 2009 growth target of 8 percent, even while other major export countries report contractions. 

These achievements could intoxicate Chinese policymakers. But we see no miracles here. In fact, economic growth recovery in China is being driven by investment. Some 6.2 percent of the country’s first half GDP growth rate can be credited to investment, while consumption accounted for 3.8 percent. The net export business contributed a minus 2.9 percent to the growth rate figure. 

Hu makes the point that the “surprisingly high” Chinese growth is neither surprising nor cause for celebration.  It is the automatic outcome of a huge stimulus, and the real question, as I have argued many times, is not whether high current growth indicates that China has turned the corner on the crisis (it most certainly has not, in my opinion), but whether the cost of achieving this growth is excessive and will lead to more difficult conditions in the future. 

It’s long been acknowledged that China’s traditional methods of achieving economic growth cannot be sustained. However, we are now racing down this traditional path of economic development.  

Dramatic increases in the currency supply and lending have been backing this investment, the single most important engine of economic growth. M2 increased 28.5 percent and yuan-based lending rose 34.4 percent in the first half, setting new records for each. But nominal GDP growth was only 3.8 percent during the first six months of 2009. And these astronomical increases in currency and lending are a double-edged sword that can support GDP growth as well as endanger the economy. 

…It’s high time we re-emphasize the actual policy of moderation. A moderately loose monetary policy is necessary for an unpredictable, downward-sloping economy. However, monetary policy that’s too loose will have more drawbacks than merits once an economy levels out. It’s only a matter of time before loose monetary policy leads to inflation and asset bubbles. 

She concludes, very diplomatically I think: 

In the current economic environment, the more quickly China’s economy grows, the greater the effort needed to adjust future methods of economic development. Now is the right time to consider the timing of exit from stimulus. The third quarter can be a crucial juncture. 

She is not alone in criticizing the stimulus.  Another formidable lady, Wu Xiaoling, former People’s Bank of China vice governor, was interviewed by National Business Daily on Wednesday, and warned that the combination of excess capacity and excessively loose monetary policy was leading to asset bubbles.  According to an article in yesterday’s South China Morning Post, 

“Under conditions of overcapacity, excess money supply will not lead to rises in price indexes, but it could generate asset bubbles,” she said at a forum in comments reported by the Chinese-language National Business Daily.  ”The money has really gone out and if it is a time when there is no investment in the real economy and no one will put the money in banks to earn interest, then the funds will flow into the property market and stock market,” she said.  

China’s central bank may have to raise banks’ reserve requirements to mop up excess liquidity, she said, adding that this was simply a tool for managing the money supply and should not be misunderstood as monetary tightening. 

…Ms Wu said that China faced a dilemma in easing the rate of loan growth. Inflationary pressures would arise if lending continued at the same pace, but without sustained lending, many big projects may wind up unfinished because they are contingent on longer-term financing.” 

Although an increasingly large number of Chinese academics and think tank researchers have been raising warning cries, I think she is the first official or ex-official to go so public with her worries.  That doesn’t mean other public officials don’t act as if they are worried.  The CBRC for example announced this week the good news that the NPL ratio declined from 2.42% at the end of 2008 to 1.77% at the end of June.   

Part of this reflected an actual decline in NPLs, and most of it of course reflects the surge in new loans, but the CBRC is not acting complacent.  They have reinforced credit control policies on second-home purchases and their spokesman insisted earlier this week that there would be “strict enforcement” of the CBRC’s mortgage lending policy.  

According to another article in Caijing, “the authorities have consistently been encouraging banks to raise their loan-loss coverage, reflecting fears that the massive surge in new credit extended in the first half may lead to a rise in bad loans.”  The South China Morning Post had this to say on that subject: 

Beijing has required banks to raise their bad-loan reserve ratio to 150 per cent at the end of the year, forcing the lenders to set aside an additional 70billion yuan ($79HK.4 billion) as provision amid deteriorating asset quality, a fresh sign of China’s mounting worries about a backlash from its stimulus package.  

Liu Mingkang, the chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, told a government working conference over the weekend that all mainland-based banks including local units of foreign giants such as Citigroup  and HSBC Holdings must boost their reserve ratio to 150 per cent, as risks were increasing amid a torrent of imprudent loans in this year’s first half.  

“Rapid growth in banking loans has led to accumulated risks,” Mr Liu was quoted in a CBRC statement as saying. “Reckless operations of banks were seen as some banks rushed to extend loans without due diligence.” 

The article goes on to quote She Minhua, a banking analyst at China Jianyin Investment Securities as saying “The requirement is basically a message that asset quality deterioration is deepening.  A serious problem will probably surface in 2010.” 

And Zhu Hongren, spokesman for the Ministry of Industry & Information Technology, said earlier this week that China, the world’s largest steel producing nation, should curtail “reckless investments” in the industry by withholding project approvals.  According to an article in Bloomberg: 

China’s demand for steel is about 500 million metric tons, less than the annual output capacity of 660 million tons, Zhu Hongren, spokesman for the Ministry of Industry & Information Technology, said at a conference in Beijing today. Zhu is reiterating figures given by the China Iron & Steel Association in February for last year.  

Crude steel output in China rose to a record 266.6 million tons in the first half as the nation’s $586 billion stimulus package spurred demand from builders and carmakers. Annualized, this would beat the 460 million tons output forecast by the steel association for this year.  

“The industry must produce according to market needs, and avoid adding to the excess capacity,” Zhu said. “They should avoid reckless investments. The government must also take action to curtail additional investments by companies that are already in excess.”  

Even Justin Lin, the World Bank’s chief economist, and someone who has been more of a cheerleader for China’s economic model than a critic, made a statement that suggests to me an indirect criticism of the fiscal stimulus package, although he (and others) may disagree with my interpretation.  According to a July 15 article in the Telegraph:  

But for all the warnings I don’t want to exaggerate my account of rising skepticism among Chinese economists and regulators.  In spite of possible back-door attempts by the PBoC and the CBRC to manage the excesses associated with the fiscal stimulus, it is pretty clear I think that policy is still being managed largely by policymakers who are far more worried about rising unemployment in the short term than about asset bubbles and an exacerbation of the unbalanced development model. 

The front page of today’s People’s Daily, for example, makes this clear.  They cite Finance Minister Xie Xuren’s insistence that “China will stick to proactive fiscal policy in the second half.”  According to the article, which is also carried in Xinhua: 

China will continue its proactive policy and reform its economic structure in the second half of this year to boost economic growth, Finance Minister Xie Xuren said Thursday.  Xie told local financial bureaus at a conference in Beijing on Thursday that the proactive policies, which included increased investment from government, tax cuts and subsidies to low income families, had taken effect in stimulating a recovery of the national economy. 

Xinhua today also prominently cites Peking University professor Li Yining as saying that “China should stick to its proactive fiscal policy and moderately easy monetary policy to fuel the economic growth as the foundation for recovery is not solid yet.”  I was not at the conference, so I wonder if professor Li’s comments were spun a little, because according to the Xinhua article he also said that “the current economic advance was pushed by investment, which was not the final demand – stable economic recovery should be sustained by increased consumption,” and warned that Chinese banks should “improve credit quality and structure.” 

So for all the rising skepticism among policymakers and scholars I think there is little doubt that we are going to see still more fiscal stimulus along the lines we have already seen.  If there is indeed global excess capacity, as Justin Lin says there is, I cannot see how an investment-driven program to increase capacity, and one which is almost certain to involve a huge additional misallocation of capital (after all, 8% growth given the sheer size of the fiscal and banking stimulus is actually a disappointingly low level of growth), can be much more than a short-term stop gap.  On the contrary, I think it will make the medium term adjustment even more difficult. 

On that note I want to recommend Victor Shih’s excellent OpEd piece in the Wall Street Journal – Asia yesterday.  He argues that: 

Should this pace of credit expansion continue for the remainder of the year, China may well face a difficult trade-off down the road. The economy is unlikely to face a financial crisis because most of the debt is owed to domestic investors and depositors and China can still prevent large-scale capital flight. However, if inflation spikes next year, the central government will have to choose between shutting off credit, which will reveal a massive nonperforming loan problem currently obscured by a torrent of new loans, or an unprecedented level of inflation. High inflation is destabilizing, as it has caused major runs on the banks before. If additional credit expansion in the face of rising inflation is not an option, the greater the extent to which lending is uncontrolled at the moment, the bigger a nonperforming loan problem the central government will face in the future. 

An often overlooked ingredient to China’s success story is that generations of top-level central technocrats like Chen Yun, Yao Yilin and Zhu Rongji time and again used their political influence to constrain local investment bubbles, thus forestalling high inflation and major financial crises. Past retrenchment campaigns were unpopular and controversial, but senior technocrats nonetheless maneuvered to stop uncontrolled local investment. As credit continues to rocket toward the stratosphere, China is in increasing need of such leadership again. 

Before closing this long post I want to add three additional comments.  The first involves a conversation I had with one of my Tsinghua students who graduated in 2003 and now works as a currency trader.  Last year he bought a few apartments in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan, his home province, for speculative purposes, and in spite of surging land prices he seemed to think it was a terrible trade.   

I asked him why, and he said that although real estate prices had gone up dramatically since he bought the apartments, and he needed the money back, he nonetheless found himself unable to sell the apartments.  That’s a little weird, I thought.  Rising prices should mean eager buyers, but he can’t get anyone to take the apartments off him?   

Has any other of my blog readers experienced anything similar?  Of course the historian in me remembers that during the final two years of the Japanese bubble, when land prices soared to levels never before seen in history, there were complaints by sellers that transaction volume was so thin that they couldn’t actually sell their land. 

My second comment concerns university unemployment.  I have been writing for three years that unemployment among college graduates in China was soaring, and that authorities were understandably nervous.  So nervous, it seems, that they have been putting pressure on university to do more to get jobs for their graduates by limiting their next-year enrollment to the number of graduates this year with jobs. 

There are, of course, two ways to improve statistics.  One way is to improve the underlying reality.  The second way is just to fake the numbers.  According to a Tuesday article in the People’s Daily:  

I had no idea that I already had a job,” the student, who had been hunting for work, wrote anonymously on a website.  In order to ensure a high employment rate and deliver a satisfactory work report during the global financial crisis, some Chinese universities have been faking work contracts or employment agreement for graduates, Southern Metropolis Daily reported yesterday.  

This kind of thing will mean that the college employment numbers, a very useful figure for understanding the effect of economic growth in China, are now much less useful.  Already the People’s Daily article cites differences between the Ministry of Education numbers and a private firm’s numbers. 

The Ministry of Education said that nearly two thirds of them [2009 college graduates] had already secured jobs before graduation in early July.  But this figure differs widely with an employment report from an independent consulting firm on higher education.  A report from MyCOS HR Digital Information Co said 58 percent of prospective graduates had not signed job contracts by the end of June and that 2 percent had contracts cancelled. 

By the way the article has an interesting graph on the number of college graduates over the past eight years, for those who are interested.  The total number of university graduates has surged from 1.45 million in 2002 to 5.59 million in 2008 and 6.10 million this year.  The intervening years saw 2.12, 2.80, 3.38, 4.13, and 4.95 million graduates. 

My third comment is about the great article in today’s Wall Street Journal on the explosive development of the Beijing music scene, a subject that all my friends know is one dear to my heart.  Anyone who is interested in knowing more about this scene should read it. 

Tags: Steundent employment, Victor Shih

I don’t have time to do a long entry today, but in my June 30 entry I marveled at the huge explosion in new lending, and claimed that credible rumors suggested that total new loans for June would be an astonishing RMB 1.2 trillion.  That would bring total new lending for 2009 to RMB 7.06 trillion, nearly three times last year’s first-half total of RMB 2.45 trillion.

Well, I was wrong.  Here is what an article that just came out on Bloomberg says:

China’s new lending more than doubled in June from a month earlier, increasing concerns bad loans and asset bubbles will emerge amid a credit boom.

New lending was 1.53 trillion yuan ($224 billion), the central bank said on its Web site today, bringing total lending this year to 7.4 trillion yuan. The calculation for new loans is preliminary, the central bank added.

The government is countering an export collapse by flooding the economy with money to fuel domestic demand. Rapid credit growth poses a risk to the nation’s lenders and a concentration of credit in some industries and businesses may damage the stability of the financial system, the banking regulator said yesterday.

“Excess liquidity is fueling speculation and that means asset bubbles and wasteful investment,” said Isaac Meng, a senior economist at BNP Paribas SA in Beijing. “Expect credit to slow dramatically in the second half.”

I was more than 20% too conservative in my prediction.  This is the third biggest month in history, and of course all three of them occurred this year.

Today bank stocks were down, on rumors that the very high and clearly unsustainable loan growth rates would soon come to an end.  If you need any evidence of how topsy-turvy things have become that fact should be enough.

Under “normal” circumstances the possibility that banks would continue to force new loan growth at anywhere near the current rates should raise terrible concerns about an explosion in future loan losses and cause bank stocks to collapse.  Instead, it is concern that this lending spree might come to an end that causes bank stocks to fall.

Of course this might not be totally irrational.  If you believe, as most of us do, that there is an implicit guarantee by the government on future loan losses, then this is clearly a heads-we-win, tails-the-government-loses proposition.  Let them pile on the loans at the guaranteed spread between lending and deposit rates.

I guess it is time to introduce something that I might call the Pettis Rule of Banking (although I am way, way down on the list of people who first thought of this):  “It is not even theoretically possible in a banking system in which bankers are given unlimited liquidity, tremendous pressure to make loans, and an implicit guarantee against losses, that enormous amounts of bad loans will not be made.”

“China’s overall surge in credit in the first half of 2009,” an article in yesterday’s People’s Daily assures us, “is normal and healthy; however problems still exist in the structure, quality and flow of credit. China should continue to optimize credit structure and guard against potential risks.”

Credible rumors suggest that new loans in June will hit RMB 1.2 trillion or more, as banks rush to inflate their quarterly loan numbers, just as they did in March, on the assumption that any cap in quarterly loan growth will be based on the previous quarter’s numbers. I would argue that new lending in 2009, running at 2 to 3 times the new lending over the same period in 2008, is not at all normal and is very unlikely to be healthy. Here, by the way, is the breakdown for this year and last year (the June number is a rumored projection, so it may change):

New loans	2008	2009
January	804	1,600
February	243	1,100
March	286	1,900
April	464	591
May	319	665
June	332	1,200
Half year	2,448	7,056
July	382
August	272
September	378
October	182
November	478
December	772
Total	4,912

These are amazing numbers. The People’s Daily article indicates, I think, the schizophrenic attitudes prevalent in China today, with growing nervousness in some circles about the consequences of this explosion in lending riding side by side with a determination to keep it up.

We are going to get 8% growth this year come what may. Since late last year I have been writing about how this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink strategy of throwing everything possible into countering the effect of the global contraction on the Chinese economy might result in higher growth this year and next but will make China’s necessary transition even more difficult and will almost certainly result in much slower growth over the longer term.

I am more certain than ever that this is the correct analysis. The biggest damage is likely to be in the banking sector, which will then create problems in the fiscal accounts. Here is how I see the two greatest risks associated with a sharp rise in NPLs:

1. NPLs are implicitly obligations of the government, whose debt is probably much higher than most of us think and whose commitment to maintaining high levels of growth will result in rising fiscal deficits. In my opinion there is almost no chance that we will not find ourselves worrying about the fiscal position of the government in the next few years. I know this may sound alarming, and it is certainly a little premature, but historical precedents are neither comforting nor forgiving.

2. If NPLs rise sharply, the banks must be protected and recapitalized. Unfortunately this will mean keeping lending rates low, to slow down NPL accumulation, and deposit rates much lower, to maintain banking profitability. As I have discussed many times before, most explicitly in my June 3 entry, low lending rates are one of the most powerful of China’s production subsidies, and low deposit rates, by acting effectively as a significant tax on household income, will significantly constrain consumption growth – basically households will be heavily taxed to protect borrowers and to recapitalize banks, and this cannot help but affect consumer spending. The consequence is that banking policies will be set directly in opposition to the necessary transition that China must make as the US trade deficit continues its long term decline.

Worries about rising NPLs in the banking sector are often brushed off with the claim that the explosion in new lending is implicitly guaranteed by the government so there is nothing to worry about as far as the banks are concerned. Would that were so. Fitch, the ratings agency which seems to be distinguishing itself as the most prudent in its analysis of the banks, has already pointed out that the self-reinforcing relationship between bank credit quality and government credibility, and if government debt is really in the range of 50-70% of GDP, which I suspect it is, I am not sure how much room there is for an explosion in bad debt.

The People’s Daily article also addresses this issue of government guarantee:

Loans secured for government projects mostly rely on “government credibility” – an invisible guarantee offered by local governments. According to data from the Jiangsu Banking Regulatory Bureau, of the loans issued by Jiangsu’s large banks to finance government platforms at all levels, 57.27 percent rely on public finances to repay debts and 49.13 percent are backed by financial commitment letters issued by local governments.

It is often difficult for banks to obtain prompt, comprehensive and correct information about the future disposable financial resources and implicit liability of local governments. If a local government faces financial difficulty, it will undoubtedly affect the quality of banks’ credit assets.

“It is often difficult,” to repeat that scary last sentence, “for banks to obtain prompt, comprehensive and correct information about the future disposable financial resources and implicit liability of local governments.”  There is a distinction between loans implicitly guaranteed by local government and those of the central government, and already there has been a lot of talk in various finance circles about the fiscal position of local governments, whose revenue sources have been badly hit – and the more desperate they are the more likely they are to guarantee loans – but I don’t know how real the distinction is. Provinces and municipalities are implicitly or explicitly guaranteed by the central government, and in the case of wide-spread payment difficulties I suspect the central government will have to step in anyway.

On this subject let me make a quick detour into history. Edward Chancellor, in his book Devil Take the Hindmost, makes an interesting comment about the famous English Bank Act of 1844:

Under the terms of the Bank Act (also known as Peel’s act after the Prime Minister) the Bank of England’s discretionary ability to issue notes was restricted to a statutory £14 million above its holdings of bullion. A currency tied firmly to gold, argued the bullionists, would prevent over-speculation by defining the limit of credit and offering no escape for the reckless during a crisis. The belief that the government had legislated away financial crises provided many with a false security in the year ahead.

Aside from (I hope) undermining the inexplicably widely-held belief that financial crises occur only in periods of fiat currency, and were unknown during the gold standard days, the real punch line for me is that within just a couple of years of the Bank Act, England experienced an out-of-control railway bubble whose collapse led to the great financial crisis of 1847. I am also currently reading Lords of Finance, and I believe that it was irving Fischer – a terribly smart man who nonetheless got 1929 very, very wrong -  who pointed out that one reason we were very unlikely to see a crash and depression was that the new Federal Reserve Bank was in a position to guarantee the absence of systematically foolish behavior. It seems that few things are more dangerous than the belief that governments can eliminate or sharply reduce the risk of financial crisis. The idea that a country’s financial system can act as crazily as it likes as long as the government is willing to protect it from its folly runs not only into the problem of undermining government credibility as bad debts surge, but the very belief almost guarantees that the financial system will act in a crazy way.

Can I prove that the Chinese banks are systematically behaving the way banks always seem to under such liquidity conditions? I can’t, and won’t be able to for a few years, but the anecdotal evidence bears terrible resemblance to the same kinds of anecdotal evidence in previous banking crises. For example, last week the People’s Daily had this article:

Three major Chinese lenders said Tuesday that auditors had discovered irregularities in their lending last year, but added that these findings would not affect their financial results. The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China Construction Bank (CCB) and China CITIC Bank said in separate statements that the National Audit Office (NAO) found some violations of rules in last year’s routine audits. None of the lenders revealed the amount of loans involved in these violations.

…ICBC, China’s largest lender, said in Tuesday’s statement that some of its branches were found to have violated rules in business operations, and some weaknesses in management were also pinpointed.

The bank added it had corrected the violations and had moved to improve risk management and internal controls. The other two lenders said some of their branches had been found to have extended loans against rules or been negligent in supervision over borrowers after the loans were made.

And of course there’s a lot more evidence of credit gaps. Along with a study by a local economist suggesting that an awful lot of new lending was ending up on the gaming tables of Macau (which after all may perhaps be economically more justifiable than further commodity stockpiling), Wei Jianing, a deputy director at the macro-economics department of the Development and Research Center under China’s State Council, worries about money leaking into illegal stock speculation. According to an article in yesterday’s Bloomberg:

Chinese new bank loans worth about an estimated 1.16 trillion yuan ($170 billion) were invested in the stock market in the first five months of this year, China Business News reported, citing a government economist.

That’s 20 percent of the 5.8 trillion yuan loans banks extended in the period, the Shanghai-based newspaper said.

…A further 30 percent of the loans in the first five months may have been used for discounted bill financing, or short-term credits used to fund working capital needs, China Business News said today. These funds may help form a financial bubble, the newspaper cited Wei as saying, adding this is the economist’s personal view.

Stock market speculation is likely to be the least of the worries. At least there is a chance that some of those loans will get repaid. I am not sure this is true of all the other loans being made. In fact I guess I just take it as an iron-clad rule of finance that when bankers are under huge pressure to lend, and especially when there is a perception that someone is willing and able to backstop the risk, every banking system in history has or will behave in exactly the same way.

In that light today’s New York Times had an interesting article on an Argentine private banker who ended up committing fraud at UBS, even after he left to join Chase, with almost laughable ease.

The curious case of Mr. Arbizu, whose career exploded when a Chase customer discovered and reported his crime in May 2007, offers a rare window into this well-shielded world, and raises questions about how carefully some of its largest institutions monitor their bankers.

In telephone and e-mail interviews held in the last eight months, Mr. Arbizu put himself in what he said was the “3 percent of bankers who at some point get confused because of the pressure. We feel like we can take risks that other people don’t even dream to do, and that we can manage that risk — I don’t know why.”

What does this sorry story of fraud have to do with my topic? Perhaps not much, but at the very least it indicates how easy it is even for well-managed banks (ok, stop snickering, UBS is indeed relatively well-managed, but even the best managed banks have never been able to avoid stupid behavior during credit bubbles) to permit, under conditions of rising liquidity and surging financial markets, some very shaky behavior, and I would be utterly shocked if a lot of the same things weren’t occurring in Chinese banks. A lot of analysts like to claim that the credit risk management systems among Chinese banks have improved dramatically. This may very well be true, but it is easily possible for a risk management system to improve from “terrible” to “a little less terrible,” and in the past three weeks I have had conversations with an auditor for one of the Big Four banks and with a foreign advisor who has advised the Chinese government on the setting up of credit risk management systems, and both have totally and without reservation dismissed out of hand the quality of the risk-management systems of Chinese banks.

Under these conditions, and with the amount of what perhaps we can politely call non-credit-related aspects of the lending decision, is it really such an heroic assumption to assume that we are going to see problems in the quality of loan assets? I know it is now very fashionable to dismiss risk management at UBS, Chase and other Western banks, but risk management is still really a lot more experienced and independent at UBS and Chase than at their counterparts here in China.

What makes me worry even more was, paradoxically, the OpEd piece suggesting the opposite by CBRC chairman Liu Minkang, appearing the weekend edition of the Financial Times, in which he suggests that US and European banks would have been better served had the regulatory framework been as prudent as that in China.

Sometimes the most effective way to address a complex issue is by using basic, simple but useful measures. Practice shows us that traditional tools work, especially considering that financial engineering can malfunction. In recent months we have noticed that many regulators in the rest of the world have also started to embrace this “back to basics” approach.

Much has been written about what triggered the global financial crisis, but in my view it can be attributed to five factors. First of all, the firewall between capital and banking markets was eroded by unsound financial innovations. Second, macro-prudential regulation was neglected. Third, financial institutions had too much leverage and were too opaque. Fourth, incentives for staff at financial institutions were driven by short-term gains, rather than long-term benefits. Fifth, the bail-out put the cart before the horse by pumping in capital and liquidity before cleaning up balance sheets.

There is a long tradition of bankers and regulators waggling their fingers at their fallen brethren in other countries and suggesting that their own practices are much better and should have been more widely copied – just before they find themselves stuck in an even worse quagmire. Although Chinese bankers are probably right to feel annoyed, and just a little pleased, after all the self-important drivel they have had pressed on them by foreign bankers and regulators, still, I would really resist the temptation to hold up China’s system as a model. Like with Japanese bankers in the late 1980s sloughing off Americans and Europeans for their terrible banking practices that were so unlike banking practices in Japan, this is just tempting fate, and Dr. Liu’s five risk factors, and especially the second and the last two, are not exactly foreign to the Chinese banking system.

Before closing, I know I have made a number of references to the 33 A.D. banking crisis in Rome as one of the first recorded cases of a banking panic. I often get questions on it, so just for the fun of it, and because I have wanted to do this for a long time, let me post here a portion of Chapter 15 from Will Durant’s History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity from their beginnings to AD 325

The famous “panic” of A.D. 33 illustrates the development and complex interdependence of banks and commerce in the Empire. Augustus had coined and spent money lavishly, on the theory that its increased circulation, low interest rates, and rising prices would stimulate business. They did; but as the process could not go on forever, a reaction set in as early as 10 B.C., when this flush minting ceased. Tiberius rebounded to the opposite theory that the most economical economy is the best. He severely limited the governmental expenditures, sharply restricted new issues of currency, and hoarded 2,700,000,000 sesterces in the Treasury.

The resulting dearth of circulating medium was made worse by the drain of money eastward in exchange for luxuries. Prices fell, interest rates rose, creditors foreclosed on debtors, debtors sued usurers, and money-lending almost ceased. The Senate tried to check the export of capital by requiring a high percentage of every senator’s fortune to be invested in Italian land; senators thereupon called in loans and foreclosed mortgages to raise cash, and the crisis rose. When the senator Publius Spinther notified the bank of Balbus and Ollius that he must withdraw 30,000,000 sesterces to comply with the new law, the firm announced its bankruptcy.

At the same time the failure of an Alexandrian firm, Seuthes and Son due to their loss of three ships laden with costly spices and the collapse of the great dyeing concern of Malchus at Tyre, led to rumors that the Roman banking house of Maximus and Vibo would be broken by their extensive loans to these firms. When its depositors began a “run” on this bank it shut its doors, and later on that day a larger bank, of the Brothers Pettius, also suspended payment. Almost simultaneously came news that great banking establishments had failed in Lyons, Carthage, Corinth, and Byzantium. One after another the banks of Rome closed. Money could be borrowed only at rates far above the legal limit. Tiberius finally met the crisis by suspending the land-investment act and distributing 100,000,000 sesterces to the banks, to be lent without interest for three years on the security of realty. Private lenders were thereby constrained to lower their interest rates, money came out of hiding, and confidence slowly re-turned.

Except for the exotic names (I was delighted to see that there was a banking firm by the name of Brothers Pettius – maybe an ancestor of mine?) and the spice-bearing ships, this story has a remarkably contemporary ring to it, as do nearly all historical accounts of financial crisis, by the way.   This story is not totally relevant to China today except to the extent that it indicates how difficult it is for banking systems flush with cash to avoid speculative lending, and how the very fact of their speculative lending then creates the conditions that can bring the whole thing crashing down. Hyman Minsky told us all about this kind of thing.  There has never been a political or economic system in history that has been able to avoid the consequences of excessive liquidity within the banking system. Even the Romans learned this, and they learned it the hard way, as we always do.

Tags: CBRC, Chancellor, Rome

Things have been so busy this past week with various writing commitments and with the celebration of the third anniversary of my music club (four amazing shows with some of Beijing’s greatest artists and a lot of support and coverage from local music scene participants an the press) that I have been neglecting my blog. For today’s entry I don’t have any major points to make but I did want to take a look at some of the anecdotal information we are getting about the bank-part of the fiscal stimulus package.

The context is last week’s post in which I argued that the almost certain reversal over the next few years of American ability to grow consumption at a faster rate than GDP will put huge pressure on the Asian development model, and will require Asian consumption to grow much faster than Asian GDP. However if the current loan explosion is mismanaged, this may itself sharply constrain Chinese consumption growth, thus locking China into a long transition period of turgid growth.

In that light two weeks ago The Economic Observer, one of the better local newspapers, had an interesting article titled “Millions of Small Businesses Still Starved of Credit”. The growth of smaller businesses, many of which are in the service industry, is one important way for Chinese net consumption to grow, but it seems that their ability to obtain financing is being sharply limited by formal or informal policies that are driving capital into the investment sector. The article suggested that even with the explosive loan growth in the banking system, smaller companies are finding it extremely difficult to get loans.

New loans in China for the first quarter of this year would amount to nearly 4.6 trillion yuan, but behind the staggering figure, millions of small and medium-sized businesses nationwide were still struggling to raise funds.

Data from the National Association of Industry and Commerce (NAIC) showed that in January of this year, private firms had 421 billion yuan in short-term loans, a 700 million yuan decrease from December 2008. That was despite 400 billion yuan in new short-term loans released that month.

The article goes on to mention a survey of businesses in Chongqing that indicated that 82% of small and medium-sized businesses there considered the lack of funds the main hindrance to their development. Quoting Chen Yongjie, an official with the National Association of Industry and Commerce, the article goes on:

The Chinese government has recently pushed measures to solve financing problems for small and medium-sized businesses – for example, China’s Banking Regulatory Commission has required banks to open loan departments exclusively for small companies. But Chen said it was hard to tell how effective these measures would be: “What we can see clearly now from the statistics is that loans for small and medium-sized businesses are still dropping.”

It would be normally be surprising that loans are expanding so rapidly (we have already increased net new lending in the first quarter of 2009 by more than all of last year’s loan increase) while whole sectors of the economy are struggling to find financing, but my friend Dan Rosen sent me a Bloomberg article from Friday with a line which he found very funny and a tad startling. According to the article:

The largest borrower in the quarter was government-owned China Aviation Industry Corp., or AVIC, the nation’s biggest aerospace company. The Beijing-based company received 236 billion yuan from 11 Chinese banks, including ICBC, China Construction and Bank of China. It won another 100 billion yuan of credit from Export-Import Bank of China on April 16, without specifying how the money will be used.

AVIC General Manager Lin Zuoming said in an April 16 interview with Beijing-based newspaper Economic Observer that his biggest worry is how to allocate the borrowings to increase returns.

It’s the last line, of course, which Dan marked out. The largest single borrower, it turns out, has taken out around $35 billion in loans but doesn’t seem terribly certain about why he borrowed the money. I don’t want to read too much into a single throwaway line, but it is certainly consistent with all the stories and rumors we hear about banks lending not because borrowers need money for specific (hopefully profitable) projects but rather because they want to show loan growth, and the safest way to do that is to convince large companies and projects with explicit or implicit government guarantees to borrow massive amounts of money. Of course it helps that managers aren’t terribly concerned about creating value for their shareholders, but this is almost certainly a recipe for future growth in NPLs.

Obviously I (along with most of the readers of my blog) am not the only ones to realize this. Friday’s South China Morning Post had this to say:

Citic Bank Corp, the country’s seventh-largest lender, is optimistic about this year’s earnings outlook and is reining in loan growth to safeguard against a rise in bad loans. Chief executive Chen Xiaoxian said the bank would adopt stricter loan checks and had sent inspectors to those branches that had recorded a surge in discounted bill financing in the first quarter. “Banks need to take more forceful actions to increase risk controls,” he told reporters.

The article goes on to say:

Total lending by mainland banks in the first quarter reached a record 4.58 trillion yuan, close to the government’s minimum target for the whole year of 5 trillion yuan. Asked about his top concern, Mr Chen said: “Of course, it is asset quality given such fast loan growth.”

Mr Chen called the surge unsustainable. He did not disclose how much Citic Bank had lent in the first three months, but he said the pace would slow. “No matter how complicated your businesses are, you must clearly know the default rate,” he said of lessons learned from the global financial crisis.

Of course Mr. Chen is right. The current rate of loan growth is unsustainable and the biggest concern must be the risk of a sharp rise in NPLs. One would expect that all of this would quickly cause the PBoC to put the brakes on lending. The always intelligent Jim Walker of Asianomics thinks this will happen, but is nonetheless so worried about continued loan expansion he asks in an April 14 report:

Exactly why is this process dangerous?

First of all, China has an extremely high M2 to GDP ratio to begin with. As Figure 2 shows, M2 in 2008 already represented 158% of GDP. Compare this with money conditions in the US where M2 accounts for just 54% of GDP (the US ratio is read off the left-hand scale). If the US’ monetary easing efforts are such that investors are convinced that the dollar is no longer available reserve currency then the conclusion must be the same as regards the renminbi – only much more so. The only reason that the renminbi is not nose-diving in world currency markets is because domestic economic actors are not allowed to sell it.

For Walker, the explosive growth in lending is exacerbating what was already a very big problem, China’s huge bank-funded overinvestment. He goes on:

The second word of warning is that this breakneck monetary expansion will have to cease soon. The PBoC says that it will support economic growth through easy monetary conditions. It has certainly been true to its word so far but the problem will quickly become one of having a ‘tiger by the tail’. In Hayek’s analysis of economic growth he concluded that the only way an economic system hooked on credit could maintain its growth rate was for it to add ever increasing amounts of credit to that already existing. Adding the same amount of credit would result in recession-like conditions.

This, in his view, was the road to hyperinflation. The alternative, putting the brakes on monetary expansion, would lead to economic depression. On the assumption that Beijing will not wish to risk a hyperinflationary outcome we suspect that it will slam the brakes on the banks (which are clearly out of control already) within the next few months, regardless of the comments being made by the PBoC today. The next move in monetary policymaking in China will be to tighten, a move that will be badly received by markets that are already starved off profits.

Perhaps, but most analysts are betting against Walker. Xinxin Li of the Observatory Group points out that Wednesday’s decision by the State Council (effectively the equivalent of the executive cabinet) to reduce the capital ratio requirement for financing capital spending for infrastructure “is a further effort by the central government to implement its massive fiscal stimulus plan, in order to boost investment demand and support economic growth.” In his opinion the current policy environment “makes any hawkish statement from the PBoC politically incorrect. Just a couple of days ago, Vice Premier Li Keqiang said that the global financial crisis is having a deeper impact on the Chinese economy, showing that the top leaders are unlikely to drop their guard on the economic difficulties until Chinese economy firmly is on a recovery track..” In his April 28 report he concludes:

While the PBoC is concerned about the current pace of money expansion, it is unlikely to impose tightening measures to slow lending growth in the near term, due to an unclear economic outlook and the political priority on economic growth. China’s loose monetary conditions will likely persist in Q2.

The problem here is that Jim Walker’s analysis may be right but Xinxin Li’s prediction may also turn out to be right (and I suspect that Li doesn’t necessarily disagree with Walker’s analysis). Just because there is an urgent need for a policy doesn’t mean that it will happen. I remember that in early 2007 I argued aggressively that the PBoC would have to engineer a maxi-revaluation of the RMB because a slow revaluation would create huge hot money problems for the country. Of course the maxi-revaluation didn’t happen, and many of my friends seem to find my very wrong prediction a never-boring topic of conversation, but I defend myself by saying the analysis was correct, the prediction of huge hot money inflows was also correct, and soon enough the warnings about how destabilizing these inflows will be will also turn out to be correct. The global crisis intervened, and we will now see that China’s failure to have adjusted the currency much earlier, as a way of accelerating the transition from export growth to domestic-consumption growth when conditions were so good, will have a very painful cost.

So even if Jim Walker is right in that Beijing has no choice but to slow loan growth, he can still be wrong about assuming that they will. That of course would be the worst possible outcome.

Before ending, I wanted to cite a line from my friend Justin Winkle, who was responding to the comment discussed above that Dan Rosen found funny and startling. I am sure this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under consideration, but here it is anyway.

My quote of the year is a line from Lewis Carroll appropriated by my stockbroker to describe the global economy: “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

As long as I am doing literary allusions I was just rereading PG Wodehouse’s classic Joy in the Morning, in which Lord Worplesdon explains to Bertie Wooster, in one of their very rare moments of camaraderie, why an American businessman they know seems so easily startled:

“Odd, this neurotic tendency in the American businessman. Can you account for it? I can. Too much coffee.”

“Coffee?”

”That and the New Deal. Over in America, it appears, life for the businessman is one long series of large cups of coffee punctuated with shocks from the New Deal.

I guess you can find economic history in the oddest places.

Tags: Lewis Carroll, PG Wodehouse, SMEs

One of the few areas in which the Chinese fiscal stimulus package is unquestionably having a positive effect is on growth forecasts – although mainly because forecasts seem to be coincident indicators more than leading indicators. In the past couple of week Morgan Stanley raised its 2009 forecast for Chinese GDP growth from 5.5% to 7.0%, while Goldman Sachs upgraded growth forecasts from 6.0% to 8.3%. UBS has raised its forecast from 6.5% to between 7% and 7.5%. RBS has jumped from 5% to 7% and Barclays is up from 6.7% to 7.2%. On the other hand Standard Chartered, worried about the sustainability of the “rebound,” has kept its 2009 GDP growth forecast at 6.8%, and the IMF is still at 6.5%

At any rate I’ve never provided my own forecast of Chinese growth partly because I am not smart enough to come up with an economic forecast and partly because it always seemed to me that in the short-term Chinese growth was going to depend very heavily not on economic conditions but rather on the hard-to-predict outcome of the fierce policy debate taking place in China. As I see it, one side of the debate – which seems to include people around the PBoC and the National Bureau of Statistics, along with many of the more prominent of the think-tank policy critics – is arguing that as difficult as it is, the crisis is a good occasion to force China to change its development model and financial system in a direction that will provide China with a healthier basis for stable, long-term growth. They are eager to see policies aimed at switching resources from production to consumption, even at the expense of a short-term increase in unemployment, and they tend to see the recent surge in credit and investment not as solutions to the crisis but rather as policies that will make things worse for China in the medium term.

On the other hand a different group of policymakers and power brokers – who include, I think, the Ministry of Commerce, the important exporter constituencies, and above all the powerful provincial and municipal leaders – are much more concerned with enacting measures that immediately address the expected rise of unemployment in the short term. These measures include pouring money into investment – mainly into infrastructure and the SOEs – and of course the huge increase in bank lending. They often point out that these policies saved China after the 1997-98 crisis, and so can save China again.

As an aside, and without wanting to take the 1930s analogy too far, this debate in China is a little like the split in the 1930s between the internationalists in the US who favored hard money (incorrectly, I think) and a rapid liquidation of overcapacity (painful but probably correct), and who vehemently opposed measures, including tariffs and competitive devaluations, to boost employment via boosting the export of overcapacity, versus the large and powerful constituencies, dominated by local congressmen, miners, farmers and many industrialists, who stressed immediate moves to weaken the currency, boost production, and resolve US unemployment even at the expense of the global system. In part because the 1929 stock market collapse thoroughly discredited bankers and economists, and in part because politicians are always more likely to be influenced by large domestic constituencies than by internationalists, the latter group pretty resoundingly won the debate, at least in the early part of the crisis, and clearly not to the US’s obvious benefit.

Although the debate is much less transparent in China today than it was in the US in the early 1930s, I think the latter group – the domestic constituency and provincial leaders – is once again winning the debate, at least for now. It is probably no surprise to regular readers of my blog that I largely disagree with this camp, and the main reason I didn’t want to forecast very low 2009 GDP growth numbers with much confidence is because I doubt the former group will win the debate. As I see it, the massive expansion in credit and investment we are experiencing is simply more of the same set of policies that, especially over the past five years, have pushed China ever deeper into the Asian development model, and to the extent that they are successful they will keep pushing China, which I think of as exemplifying the Asian development model on steroids, in the same direction. Beijing, in other words, is increasing the dosage of steroids. (I think I am mixing metaphors all over the place.)

The reason I think this is a mistaken strategy is because I would argue that the Asian development strategy is dead, and over the next three to five years it will become increasingly evident that 2008 was the year it died. I may be wrong, of course because it is doubtful but not inconceivable that the great consumption party in the US can resume for a few more years. It would not be the first time that what seemed like an unstoppable correction in the trade imbalances was interrupted. To a certain extent we already saw a dress rehearsal for this event in the 1987 crash, around which time the US trade deficit, which had risen to around 3.5% of GDP the year before (a level which seemed unimaginably high at the time), began its inexorable reversion, to the point where the US achieved a small surplus in the early 1990s.

The period during and after the 1987 crash more or less marked the end of that stage of the Japanese miracle, although by then Japan was so caught up in the monetary expansion that had begun with the automatic monetizing of its massive trade surplus with the US in the early 1980s, that an internal bubble kept the local party going for another 2-3 years before it, too, finally ended, and ended disastrously – although many people, especially here in China believe, mistakenly in my opinion, that the bubble was set off by the Plaza Accord.

But the Asian development model didn’t really die then (although the temporary shift in US consumption may have created the serious dislocations that helped lead to the 1997 crisis). At the time the US was itself caught up in great productivity and liquidity growth cycles that kept the model alive by causing a surge in US growth and, later, an even more rapid surge in US consumption.

The rise of US savings

What does the structure of US growth have to do with the Asian development model? As I see it the Asian development model involves polices that aim directly or indirectly at boosting savings and channeling huge amounts of subsidized resources (usually subsidized by savers, and so constraining consumption) into investment and manufacturing capacity. Some people call this mercantilism, and in many ways it does correspond to certain classic mercantilist policies, but I am wary of defining it this way because “mercantilism” is such a loaded word.

At any rate because the combination of consumer constraint and producer subsidy meant that growth in production was likely seriously to outstrip growth in consumption, the Asian development model necessarily involved generating large and consistent trade surpluses – either Asian countries exported the difference between consumption and production or they would have been forced to run up ever increasing inventory. Of course for small countries, running trade surpluses didn’t matter too much – and it made sense to have a strong external outlook because domestic markets weren’t big enough to create the necessary efficiencies and economies of scale to justify the huge investment, and their individual trade surpluses were easily buried within overall global trade.

In other words for small countries the need to export is not likely to be a constraint since they can always generate trade surpluses without creating significant global trade distortions. But when large countries, or a large grouping of countries, have policies aimed at generating trade surpluses they run into a very strict constraint – that some country or group of countries must be capable and willing to run large corresponding trade deficits. Without this willingness to run trade deficits, the Asian development model must inevitably run into brutal 19th-Century-style cycles of rapid production growth leading to overinvestment crises.

This is the main vulnerability of the Asian development model – its dependence on an importer of last resort. We don’t often think of this as a weakness because for so long the US was seen as the automatic importer of last resort, so much so that we didn’t even consider it a constraint. But we may have gotten lazy in our thinking. Many people who should know better simply write off US consuming habits as something endemic to American culture, and we just assume it as a universal constant, but in fact US consumption levels, like those of every other country, respond to changes in conditions, and these are about to change.

There are at least two reasons for the change. The first has to do with specific policy initiatives, and the second with changes in underlying economic conditions, especially household balance sheets. To address the first, I will refer to President Obama’s economic speech last week when he said: “We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity — a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest, where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.”

A New York Times editorial draws from Obama’s speech at least one important implication for the future growth of China and Asia:

In a series of comments in recent weeks, Mr. Obama has begun to sketch a vision of where he would like to drive the economy once this crisis is past. His goals include diminishing the consumerism that has long been the main source of growth in the United States, and encouraging more savings and investment. He would redistribute wealth toward the middle class and make the rest of the world less dependent on the American market for its prosperity. And he would seek a consensus recognizing that an activist government is an acceptable and necessary partner for a stable, market-based economy.

…Embedded in that approach is a far-reaching implication: that the rest of the world should no longer count on the United States to snap up imported goods or run up large trade deficits. It is by no means clear that Mr. Obama has the policy tools needed to bring about that kind of change; we are, after all, fundamentally a consumer society. His advisers point to his support for innovative ways of increasing personal savings.

We should never underestimate the immense flexibility of the US and its ability to restructure itself at a pace far faster than most other countries can manage (anyone who grew up in the dismal 1970s will remember the dramatic – and seemingly improbable – US economic transformation of the 1980s), and if the Obama administration is serious about creating conditions for an increase in US savings, it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to bet heavily against success..

Negative US consumption growth?

More importantly, during the past decade while the US was growing rapidly, the US trade deficit surged from just over 1% of GDP to over 7% of GDP. When consumption growth exceeds GDP growth, which must happen when the trade deficit is growing, it necessarily implies a build-up of debt, and sure enough, debt levels in the US surged while savings collapsed to zero and the trade deficit grew rapidly.

Those days are almost certainly over. Even without Obama’s desire to create conditions for an increase in US saving rates, US households have to increase their savings and rebuild their balance sheet, which means that we have several years ahead of us of deleveraging and increased savings. It also means we have several years ahead of US consumption growing more slowly than US GDP. I don’t think anyone is expecting much net growth in US GDP for the next three or four years, and so it is not at all implausible that we will see negative growth in US consumption and, as a consequence, a collapse in the US trade deficit, which may even turn into a trade surplus. The pace of this transition will largely depend on US fiscal policies aimed at slowing, but not eliminating, the contraction in demand.

If the US is no longer the importer of last resort, and if no one else can replace the US in that role in the medium term (I stress medium term because in the long term the demographic changes in Europe and Japan – and China for that matter – may well result in rising trade deficits in those countries), then any development model that necessarily results in production growth exceeding consumption growth – high savings development models, in other words – will run into the trade deficit constraint. They must run surpluses to grow, but if no one else runs sufficiently large deficits, they simply cannot run those surpluses.

This is what I mean about the “death” of the Asian development model. The not-so-hidden but also not-always-explicit assumption behind Chinese growth – with China, as I wrote earlier, representing the Asian development model on steroids – is that large and growing US trade deficits were vital to its success. But if the US is now entering a period of contracting deficits, the model is dead.

This is why I am worried about recent fiscal and credit policies. It is not just that these policies are slowing down the rate at which China will adapt to the new world of lower US trade deficits. More importantly perhaps is that the only obvious replacement for US demand – domestic Chinese demand – will itself be sharply constrained by current policies, especially credit policies.

Why? Among other things because if the explosion in new lending (loans are up 15% in the first quarter of this year) leads, as it almost certainly will, to a subsequent explosion in non-performing loans, in the next few years just as China is expanding its production and struggling with US reluctance to absorb its rising excess capacity, the resolution of the NPLs will itself constrain Chinese consumption. Resolving future NPLs, in other words, will reduce future domestic consumption growth in China, just as the current resolution in the US of bad loans and shattered household balance sheets must come with reduced US consumption growth.

This is because if China’s banks see an explosion in non-performing loans it will have to pay for that increase in the coming years in one or both of two ways. The central government can recapitalize the banks by giving them money, which they have raised by borrowing or increasing taxes, or the regulators can keep deposit rates very low as a way of subsidizing bank profitability so that they earn their way out of the NPL losses. They did both after the last banking crisis, and will probably do both again. There is a third thing they can do, appropriate the money from SOEs, but I suspect that there won’t be nearly enough to resolve the NPLs – the World Bank estimates that the last banking crisis cost China 55% of GDP.

Both strategies will represent, ultimately, a large transfer of income from households to banks, and in either case it will also represent a continued drag on consumption growth in the medium term. If the government borrows to bail out the banks, it will divert resources from the real economy and so slow income growth. If it raises taxes, it will reduce disposable income and so reduce household consumption growth. If it keeps interest rates low it will again reduce disposable income (interest income is an important source of income) and so slow consumption growth (in China lower interest rates tend to increase the savings rate).

Since it is unlikely that the US will be in a position in the near future to return to the halcyon days of large trade deficits, and since no other economy can replace the US in the role, turgid consumption growth in China will translate directly into turgid GDP growth for many years. Rising non-performing loans are not a small threat to China’s long-term growth. If the Asian development model is dead, China will need domestic consumption growth more than ever, and this is cannot be the best time for China to try to revive the production-enhancing model in a way that may limit future domestic consumption growth.

By the way in their next meeting the Guanghua Students Monetary Policy Committee will debate whether or not the PBoC should cap loan growth. I will report the arguments and conclusions of these remarkably sophisticated students.

Replenishing bank capital

One of the students in Peking University’s Guanghua Students Monetary Policy Committee, a group for which I am an advisor, put together last week a summary of plans to raise capital adequacy ratios for Chinese banks.  I thought it would be useful to reproduce his numbers.  According to him, Shenzhen Development Bank, Everbright, China Merchant Bank and CCB have recently issued RMB 83.2 billion ($12.2 billion) in subordinated debt.  Minsheng Bank, ICBC, Industrial Bank and BoC plan to issue an additional RMB 243 billion ($35.5 billion) of subordinated debt.  Minsheng is also planning to issue RMB 1 billion in shares. 

At the same time in December the CBRC required that the big five banks raise their loan loss provisions from 100% to 130% of the loans in the bottom three of the five credit categories.  Off the top of my head I think the second category – “special mention” loans – comprises roughly three times as many loans as the bottom three categories combined, and many analysts assume that anywhere from one-half to all should properly be classified as doubtful or impaired.  Given the huge growth in lending and lax lending standards during the past few years (during what had to be a great time to be a banker), I think skepticism about the quality of bank portfolios is very much in order.

Policymakers are assuring everyone that the banking system is healthy, as policymakers everywhere always do.  I, of course, have my doubts, so I think it is very prudent that while they praise the banking system on one hand the authorities are making banks take on more capital and larger loan loss provisions.  I think it is extremely unlikely that we don’t see a surge in NPLs over the next two years.  This is particularly likely since credit expansion for February turned out to be RMB1.1 trillion, three to four times the amount of new lending last February which, when combined with last month’s RMB1.6 trillion, means than net new loans for the first two months of this year are significantly more than half of net new lending in 2008.  Of course it might be pointed out that most of this new lending is to state-sponsored projects and was strongly “encouraged” by policymakers, so it is likely to come with explicit or implicit guarantees, but in the case of a surge inNPLs I suspect that banks will nonetheless be forced to take losses before the government itself steps in.

Aside from loan and capital-raising figures other numbers are not looking too positive.  The wholesale price index came out today, with wholesale prices falling 6.0% year on year.  Part of this was caused by falling crude and commodity prices, but there is enough left over to make me continue wondering about underlying liquidity conditions.  Logan Wright told me Saturday that he expects to see very low, or even negative, reserve accumulation over the quarter, and regular readers of my blog know that I consider reserve accumulation to be the strongest indicator of underlying monetary conditions in China.

Manufacturing output for the first two months of the year was up 3.8% from the same period last year, which was well below already low projections (because of the moving Spring Festival holidays it doesn’t make much sense to compare individual months in the first quarter).  Much of what little growth occurred was powered by a surge in concrete production and, to a lesser extent, by a sharp increase in vehicle sales.  The optimists would say that this shows that the government stimulus is working.  Pessimists would argue that the increase in auto sales may well be short-lived because it surged largely after a cut in taxes, and there are persistent rumors of a significant increase in car purchases by government-related entities.   In both cases the  growth in sales might then be seen as anticipated purchases that take will have trouble persisting.

Likewise pessimists would also argue that the surge in concrete production is not evidence that the stimulus is having an effect but rather evidence  that people believe that it will have an effect, and so are building inventory in anticipation (the same is probably true of the recent surge in steel production and inventory levels).  This is good news if the stimulus actually does have a big impact on demand, since rising inventory prevents bottlenecks, but of course bad news if the stimulus turns out to be weaker than expected, in which case the need to work off inventory will slow future production to below actual usage. 

Aside from high loan growth numbers and low growth in manufacturing output, retail sales figures also came out last week.   According to an article in Thursday’s South China Morning Post: 

Growth in retail sales slowed to 15.9 per cent over January and February from December’s 17.4 per cent growth and 22 per cent in October, the statistics bureau said.  “It seems clear the domestic demand is slowing in China, and this could be happening at a faster pace than the sales data suggest,” said Moody’s Economy.com analyst Sherman Chan in a report. “Having households pull back on spending is exactly what China does not need.”

Beijing is trying to prod consumers to spend more with measures that include subsidizing appliance purchases for rural families. But families save heavily for education, health care and other expenses, and analysts say they are unlikely to spend more on consumer goods until Beijing creates a social safety net to ease such burdens.  A market research company, DDMA, said a February survey found 45 per cent of those polled had cut back on spending, down from 7 per cent in January. 

Xinhua put a different spin on the numbers in an article the next day: 

China’s retail sales grew 15.2 percent in the first two months to 2 trillion yuan (293.8 billion U.S. dollars), the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said Thursday.  The figure, although lower than the 20-percent-plus increase a year earlier, was encouraging, analysts said.

Retail sales growth in January and February was equal to or even higher than last year adjusted for inflation, said Zhuang Jian, senior economist with Asian Development Bank.  The consumer price index (CPI), a major gauge of inflation, hit a 12-year high of 8.7 percent in February 2008 but fell 1.6 percent in the same month this year.  “Domestic consumption has remained stable so far, despite the economic slowdown,” he added.  

I think Xinhua’s interpretation is probably closer to the mark but in either case it seems, not surprisingly, that household consumption is almost certainly declining.  Remember that retail sales are not a great indicator of household consumption in China because they include lots of other things, including government consumption.  In addition I should add thatCICC , one of China’s three leading investment banks, came out with a report on March 11 which I cannot excerpt but which basically advised caution about the retail sales figures and the outlook for household consumption.

A difficult transition

On a very different subject, two days ago I received a very interesting and intelligent email from one of my readers, a student who I believe is from the South of China (I am guessing this because he mentioned his plan to set up a business in Guangxi) although I am not sure if he is currently at Peking University or at another school.  He has allowed me to reprint his email, although I am not sure whether he is comfortable with my using his name, so I will reprint part of his letter while leaving out his name and any private references.  I have edited the letter slightly to make it follow the format that I use in this blog:

Being a student and a loyal reader of your blog, you have all but convinced me that China should continue to allow its currency to appreciate, for China and the world’s sake. This is in spite of the fact that my family runs an export business and appreciation of the currency will most definitely affect our business in a negative way.  In light of the global financial crisis, the big theme in China is how to increase domestic spending and gradually make the export oriented businesses more domestic-dependent. And I always tell myself that the appreciation of the RMB will help because imports will be cheaper and that will directly increase the purchasing power of Chinese consumers. 

Today, I went shopping with my girlfriend at Carrefour and I was trying to find some evidences to support my theory. Today we bought about RMB100 of food, typical of the things that we would need for the next 2-3 days.  Roughly, I would say we bought RMB30 worth of meat (chicken and pork), RMB40 worth of fish, RMB20 of milk/dairy and RMB10 of shampoo.  Then I try to determine how much the Chinese consumers would save if the exchange rate was changed.  Here is what I realize: 

All RMB 100 of food are made right here in China. Even the RMB10 foreign brand shampoo is made by a factory in Shanghai. So, I thought, what would happen if the dollar to RMB exchange rate becomes 1:4? Well, the cost of making these items wouldn’t decrease that much because most of the components that go into producing these items are not imported and would stay pretty much the same. (Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.)

However, if the exchange rate suddenly becomes 1:4, a lot of Chinese exporters, including my family’s juice business, which actually has a good margin compared to other labor intensive industries, will go out of business.  

In addition, perhaps now it would make economic sense for western companies to import their products (beef, fish, milk, shampoo) into China (of course assuming that the tariffs stay the same) and domestic consumers would buy imported goods because they are better quality and may now be cheaper.  

So this also adds additional pressure to the manufacturers. furthermore, perhaps now P&G would in this new exchange rate environment consider producing its shampoo in the U.S., because relatively speaking, P&G’s cost of production in the U.S. would have gone down.So China gets hurt in a multiple of ways as a result of China revaluing its currency: 

 So in conclusion, on the one hand, based on PPP or Big Mac index, I get the impression that the RMB is greatly undervalued (i.e. 1 Big Mac in US is $4, and 1 Big Mac in China is RMB 12-15). Yet, if the RMB were to really go up in value, the economy would definitely be hurt in many ways.

This is a great letter because (aside from the fact that it shows why I enjoy teaching here so much, given the intelligence and thoughtfulness of so many of the students I meet) it indicates in a very concrete way how complex the policy decisions are and how difficult the transition process is likely to be.

The first thing I would bring up is the issue of the effect of revaluation on the food purchased at Carrefour.  Of course it is true that the cost to make those Chinese-made goods would not decline in RMB terms except to the extent that they included foreign components (which may be more than many realize, since much of the fertilizer used by Chinese farmers comes from abroad, as does the oil they use to transport their products to Carrefour), but that does not necessarily mean that their cost to the consumer would not decline.  All of these things can be manufactured abroad, and it may be that Malaysian chickens, Australian milk or the same shampoo manufactured in Vietnam would become so much cheaper that either Chinese consumers would begin to buy more foreign food, or Chinese producers would have to lower their costs or improve their quality to compete.  This directly benefits Chinese consumers. 

Of course it might hurt Chinese farmers and producers, and this is why the transition becomes difficult.  In a very abstract way we can argue that whatever pain the farmers feel is less than the gains other Chinese enjoy.  Cheaper food for Chinese consumers means that they have more money leftover to go to restaurants, buy books, or get haircuts, and so Chinese businesses that supply these services will benefit.  

In an even more abstract sense we can argue that China does some things relatively better than other countries, and some things relatively worse – that is, the specific conditions in China, including its infrastructure, labor markets, educational systems, and so on mean that Chinese can do some things more productively and efficiently and other things less so.  By allowing the RMB to appreciate (or by otherwise relaxing constraints that affect the relationship between production and consumption), Chinese businesses and producers will be forced to concentrate on the things they can do more productively and efficiently than others, while leaving others to do the things they don’t do so well.  

This increases the total economic well-being of China and the countries with which it trades, and so at least in principle every country can become a little better off.  Remember that if China buys more from abroad, that doesn’t mean that Chinese producers must sell less.  Whatever money China exports to pay for those imports represents a net increase in either 1)foreign buying of things that Chinese producers are good at making or 2)foreign investment in China, which increases the productivity of Chinese workers.  Both of these are good for China’s economic prospects and both result in rising employment. 

But there is no getting around the fact that the process will be painful in the short term, as the student writing the letter has pointed out.  Although in the long run China and Chinese workers and consumers will almost certainly be better off as China makes the transition to a more balanced and domestic-driven economy, there are nonetheless short term costs.  Resources and labor will not be smoothly reallocated from exporters to domestic service producers and manufacturers who serve the local markets.  What usually happens is that, to use the very dry jargon of economists, these resources and labor will be “freed up” as exporters go bankrupt or downsize.  

As economic conditions change, and as exporting becomes less profitable, businesses aimed at local consumers will take advantage of newly available assets, resources and labor to begin operating, and gradually China will once again reach more or less full employment with a very different economic structure.  But of course remember that at first, domestic demand (and domestic employment) will actually decline as workers lose their jobs.  This is where the government can and should play an important role, for example by boosting domestic consumption as much as possible so that it quickly becomes profitable for Chinese companies to target the domestic market. 

Allowing and even encouraging this transition may therefore seem like a bad idea for China, but as the global crisis shows, it will be impossible for a large economy like China’s to continue depending so much on the export sector and on foreign investment.  It must make the transition, and the later it does so the more difficult it will be. 

 When the US made a similar transition 200 years ago, after the panic of 1797 when the Bank of England suspended gold payments, and when the US Quasi-War with France and the Napoleonic Wars in Europe decimated the US export trade, it did so over at least two very difficult decades, and after sharp rise in unemployment in the early years.  Eventually the whole country shifted its economic structure and, needless to say, the shift turned out to be crucial for the subsequent success of the US economy.  

Japan was forced to confront the failure of its own export-led model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and, as everyone knows, the process has not been easy.  Of course it would have been better for the US and Japan if they had try to adjust earlier, when global trading conditions were optimal, but like China in the past decade, it is hard to make an adjustment when things seem to be going so well.  It almost always takes a crisis to force the change, even though this makes the process of change that much more difficult.

By the way although much of the above is a fairly standard exposition on how free trade benefits everyone, I am not necessarily a believer in unfettered free trade for China.  Remember that under conditions of free trade and no currency intervention Chinese businesses and producers will be forced to concentrate on the things they can do better than others, while leaving others to do the things they don’t do so well.  This of course benefits the whole world in the short term, but China may not be happy over the long term with its comparative advantages.  It might find that cheap labor and low technological skills are not the kinds of advantages it wants to enjoy.

In that case a very strong argument can be made that selective protection can alter the relative advantages China has by encouraging innovation and development in areas in which China now has a relative disadvantage.  I won’t say much more about this (which is anyway likely to be highly controversial) except to note that as far as I have been able to determine from the historical evidence, with exception of a few very small trading nations, every technologically and socially advanced country since the British in the 17th and 18th centuries did so behind trade and other barriers aimed explicitly at altering the country’s technological and commercial position. 

Much of this theory is beautifully summarized and implemented in Alexander Hamilton’s writings, and it is worth noting that the US, unlike its largely free-trading counterparts in Latin America, had the highest import tariffs of any major country for most of the 19th Century.  The risk of this kind of protectionist policy of course is when trade protection is allied with attempts to foster national champions, which almost always results in the worst of both worlds.  Competition breeds innovation, and state-supported national champions are almost always global losers. 

Before closing I should switch the subject and mention that Canada’s Globe and Mail had an article Friday about my insistence that a very wide-spread claim — that China is Washington’s banker — is based on a misunderstanding of the reserve accumulation process, and that it is probably more useful to think of China as a shop that sells to the US and accumulates IOUs, rather than as its banker.  You can find the article here.  Banker’s lend discretionary money, whereas grocers only accept IOUs from important clients on purchases from the store.  It is an important distinction, I think.

 

 

 

 

Tags: Subordinated debt