Francophone economist working in the US seem to be on something of a roll.
Olivier Blanchard (with Giavazzi and Sa) has developed an interesting model for US current account adjustment.
Helene Rey and Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas have incorporated the fact that dollar depreciation helps the US external position by increasing the dollar value of US external assets into their model for the dollar's value. Being French, they emphasize the advantages of the United States' “exorbitant privilege.” Being sane, they realize that a bit of exorbitant privilege doesn’t make a 6-7% of GDP trade and transfers deficit sustainable forever.
Olivier Jeanne and Romain Ranciere’s model for reserve adequacy strikes me as equally important. Their model can help to determine how many reserves emerging economies need to protect against the risk that a sudden stop in capital flows will lead to a sharp crisis. The current reserves of emerging economies can then be compared with the level predicted by the model. That is one way of determining who has too few reserves — and who has too many.
Their conclusions are eminently reasonable.
More public debt creates more need for reserves. Balance sheet mismatches – something that Jeanne and Ranciere proxy using the ratio of foreign liabilities to money in the banking sector — create more need for reserves. An over-valued exchange rate creates the need for more reserves. Capital account integration increases the need for reserves. That was the (hard) lesson of the 1990s.
So an emerging economies with lots of public debt, a heavily dollarized banking system, an open capital accout and an overvalued exchange rate (Argentina, circa 2000) really, really need reserves.
Jeanne and Ranciere determined that countries generally need more reserves than called for by the Guidotti-Greenspan rule (hold reserves equal to your short-term external debt) to limit the risk of a crisis. That seems right to me. I have long though that emerging economies should hold around 10% of their GDP as reserves – and it now seems that informal rule of thumb has a bit of empirical support.
Of greater interest right now, though, is the fact that their model can be used to determine is a country is holding more reserves than it needs:
“Our framework provides a decomposition of the observed level of reserves between one component that can be justified as insurance against sudden stops and one component that cannot.”
What are the results?
Well, Latin America had far too few reserves in the 1980s. And it has about the right amount now. Though they note that some unnamed big countries in Latin America are a little on the low side. Or least they were back in 2004. Some large countries have increased their reserves significantly since then.
“The model might be interpreted to suggest that the current level of reserves is, on average, adequate in Latin America. However if is important to note that reserve coverage is estimated to be insufficient in some relatively large individual countries.”
Emerging Asia, by contrast, now has far more reserves than it needs.
“For the Asian countries following 1997-98, however, the model suggests that the buildup of reserves has been excessive – a finding consistent with previous analyses.”
Indeed, their model suggest that Emerging Asia economies held twice as many reserves as they needed in 2004. Asian countries had reserves equal to 26% of GDP; Jeanne and Ranciere's model suggest that they only needed reserves equal to 12% of GDP. See p. 30.
And since 2004, Asian reserves have only gone up. Particularly in one very big and important country. Jeanne and Ranciere don’t provide the level of reserves their model suggests a country like China should hold. But given the structure of their model, it seems safe to assume that China has a relatively modest need for reserves. It doesn’t have much stated public debt, which cuts its need for reserves. You can argue that China has more public debt than the reported in the official data, given all the bad bank loans, bad local government debt and the AMC bonds that the central government will eventually have to assume. But China doesn’t have an overvalued exchange rate. It certainly doesn’t have an internal balance sheet mismatch. And it isn’t integrated into global capital markets. If emerging Asia is over-reserved, it is safe to assume that China is very-over reserved.
Even those who are not obsessed with China's reserves, though, should take a look at the Jeanne-Ranciere paper. It makes a real contribution to the debate on reserve adequacy in the emerging world. And it is precisely the kind of work the IMF should be doing.
p.s. Olivier Jeanne was a colleague during my stay at the IMF. I don’t know Romain Ranciere personally, so i am not 100% sure that he is part of the Francophone world — though his surname is suggestive.
re: “I am sure he is French”
Might you elaborate in political and economic terms – just exactly what this means to you?
that means reserves are probably the right size in an expected depreciation framework… besides, china’s economy is a lot bigger than GDP suggests (going by PPP…)
p.s. I edited the post to avoid misunderstandings from my little “french” joke; it was meant to poke fun at American anti-French stereotypes, but it didn’t seem to work
It worked for me just fine.
sorry brad – guest #1 was “L.” looking mainly for clarification as to how much we might be able to categorize economic views and interpretations by nationality defined by – citizenship? education? – but surname?… And one of the maps I have on the wall in front of me shows that France’s population is now more then 10% ‘muslim’ (source: http://www.islamicpopulation.com) – thinking about islamic economics and their possible influence on what might be traditionally thought of as a ‘french’ economic perspective. – L.
??
I know the subject of the post is another, but … I thought the US anti-French sentiment had fallen quite a bit in the US after the French were proven (painfully) right by facts on Iraq… What do you observe in your own circles?
Expected depreciation of their dollar reserves and upward appreciation of yuan-GDP to PPP?
Most EM currencies trade at a big discount to PPP — and China’s trades at an enormous discount. Some convergence toward the EM norm is reasonable, but the RMB isn’t gonna rise to PPP levels anytime soon. Even with a 50% nominal appreciation (doubling China’s $ GDP), China is overreserved.
Gheorgius — I suspect US doesn’t particularly like being proven (painfully) wrong; I don’t think all that many people say “you know, the French were right back in 2003.” it has taken us Americans a long enough time to admit what has been obvious to most of the world — staying the course isn’t a sensible strategy if you are on a course toward ruin.
And the “at least we aren’t French” line still usually works for laugh in various economics contexts (growth, labor markets, productivity, abiltiy to integrate immigrants, etc) — even though, in some sense, the US housing market is very French. France remains the poster child in most of the US for a stereotyped view of European rigidity.
Any views on the Jeanne/ Ranciere methodology for assessing reserve adequacy? Personally, I found it extremely clever.
What if you took the extreme case? 50% reserve loss due to dollar depreciation and China’s $ GDP doubling? Would China still be overreserved?
Jeanne/ Ranciere – yes clever paper
Additions
low diversification of the economy and of the export sector increases the need for reserves
maturity of the foreign debt (short maturities increase the need for reserves )
ownership -private vs public – of the foreign debt (latter increases the need fore reserves)
low degree of openness and flexibility ofthe economy and real wages >> increases the need for reserves
ex-rate regime (fixed ->increases the need for reserves)
Exhaustible resources economy –> increases the need for reserves
High risk economy (Naples, California, Small flat pacific islands ) –> increases the need for reserves
But I also feel that this paper has little to do with China. Chinese Reserves are a side effect of Ch. policies that want a stable exrate for interasian trade + industrialisation strategy based on joint ventures where the deal is cheap L against learning
Guest — in my view, yes. Say no further reserve growth and GDP rises to $5 trillion. 20% is in my view more than enough for an economy like China. Remember, it doesn’t have a lot of the other risk factors. Even with a big appreciation, China’s currency wouldn’t be obviously overvalued (current account in balance, no balance sheet mismatches from fx exposure domestically b/c the banking system operates in rMB, closed capital account, etc).
As usual, Stephen Jen has a different view (see his monday note)
Brad, I like the Jeanne/Rancierre model very much, especially defining the optimal reserve level around the marginal rate of substitution rather than optimal output (IIIB) as per Greenspan-Guidotti. I think this is the key nice feature of the model, since it captures the consequences of financial tumult on real people.
That said, it would take a lot of vetting to figure out the reliability of the parameters used in calibrating the model. A sensitivity analysis would alse be highly desirable. There’s apparently a typo in the section “Benchmark Calibration and Sensitivity Analysis,” since it lists six parameters but states 7 (they missed g, output growth).
The basic idea, though, is pretty reasonable: the reserves one maintains should be a function of the historical probability of crisis, the ratio of short-term debt to GDP, the return on
reserves, the term premium, output growth, and the risk-aversion parameter. The latter two and especially the last look a little bit aery-faerie to me, but maybe if I thought about it some more, they wouldn’t.
http://federalreserve.gov/releases/bulletin/0906assets.htm
US reserves are only $66.6bn; that’s 0.50% of a $13.2tn economy. Does that mean US reserves are too low?
Also, from what I understand, I was under the impression that after Dec. 11 China will fully open its banking sector to foreign competition in order to meet its WTO obligations. This would allow foreign banks to conduct foreign currency business with Chinese enterprises and individuals throughout China. Wouldbn’t that put a hole in China’s capital account controls?
US reserves are very low by most standards — think of it this way, the US has outsourced intervention to defend the value of the US currency to central banks in Asia and the middle east. Jokes aside, the US doesn’t tend to actively manage its currency, so it hasn’t accumulated many reserves. And in the old bretton woods system, it was the responsibility of everyone else to manage their exchange rate v. the $, not the responsibilty of the US.
Of course, so long as financial flows continue without interruption, the US has little need for reserves. Actually, the US is now in a position where it has so few reserves relative to its short-term (external debt) that a few more won’t help much.
As for China’s capital account liberalization, I suspect the Chinese are far more worried that foreign institutions will open up holes that allow more money to go in not allow more funds to go out — right now, China wouldn’t mind more outflows, so long as they are controlled. Moreover, I think the big change coming up is that foreign institutions will get to compete for RMB business — and thus take in RMB deposits/ make RMB loans … in principle, allowing foreign participation in domestic banking markets is consistent with ongoing controls tho i also recognize that holding to that principle may be difficult.
Brad, in light of Chinese (rising) reserves, current eco data out of US, and energy prices doing what they are doing, what is your outlook for the US for 2007? As bearish as Nouriel, surprised by the (still) consumer resiliency? What about EM currencies? Maintenance of BW II or time to play the real exchange rate bet?
Not as bearish as Nouriel — but then again, who is? Yes, I am somewhat surprised by the resilience of the consumer. But I also don’t follow the broad US data as closely at the trade and capital flows data. And there, I have been surprised by the recent pick up in non-oil imports — i.e. consumer strength. But then again, non-oil imports were very flat for the first six months of the year, so they aren’t a perfect indicator of consumer trends either.
As for currencies, I guess the best guess is more of the same. Lower oil prices/ higher spending will dent the oil exporters surplus — and higher spending may generate some inflationary pressures/ pressure for nominal appreciation. Russia already has had some real appreciation via inflation (argentina too). And, as for china, I guess the best bet is more of the same — though part of me thinks that there will have to be a bit more real appreciation somehow. but that bet hasn’t paid off for sometime.
Why do I think something has to change vis a vis China? I was just plotting out current y/y export and import growth rates through 07, and that generates an 07 trade surplus in the $250b range, and a current account surplus north of $300b. Lower oil = bigger Chinese surpluses.
all in all, I increasingly think you need renewed $ weakness inside the G-3 to put real pressure on the EM $ pegs. Otherwise, I don’t quite see what drives the big EM peggers to change, given how committed they have been. And to me the big surprise is that the cyclicals haven’t weighed a bit more on the dollar.
Not very enlightening, I know.
Brad,
What specifically would you want the government of China to do with all the reserves that they do not “need”?
Brad–As you know, the theory of optimum reserve holding was developed many years ago, though not much use nowadays. The paper by the two IMF economists is interesting, but may not be so useful for China. Why? Because China’s reserve accumulation has been more motivated by the need to maintain undervalued currncy than to increase reserves for contingency. From the latter perspective, which the Chinese authorities have never considered seriously (at least since 2003),
probably only one third or one half of the current reserves would be necessary. So, although the paper provide insight to us, it may not impress the Chinese authorities at all.
Anti-guest — I am modest; I would be happy to see China develop a strategy that limits the pace of its future reserve increase. As a Chinese economist noted in the people’s daily, china is on track to add another $1 trillion of unneeded reserves over the next few years unless it makes some big changes.
What would I do then:
a) Meaningful RMB appreciation over time (this means ongoing reserve accumulation during the period of controlled appreciation)
b)Serious fiscal stimulus — in effect, rather than overpay for US assets and build up a hidden fiscal loss on the PBoC’s balance sheet, build up China’s own social safety net.
c) Develop strategies to increase the returns on China’s existing extenral assets. Government investment corporations and the like. This likely means more portfolio equity.
d) controlled capital outflows — to the extent that china’s government can convince private chinese citizens to hold dollars rather than RMB, China could sell its reserves to private Chinese citizens looking to invest abroad.
But my basic advice is simple: if you are already in a hole, stop digging. Or at least find a way to slow down …
No doubt there are other ideas.
HK — I still occasionally see arguments to the effect that china is building up its reserves to protect against an Asian crisis. I agree that that that argument didn’t make much sense when China had $500b, let alone a $ 1 trillion — but I think it helps to have a strong empirical justification for it.
Romain Ranciere: Yes, I am French….
Romain — thx for the info, and congrats on the paper, it really is superb.