China: selling Treasuries and buying yen? What do we know about how China manages its foreign assets?

by Brad Setser
December 2, 2007

Put the latest from Stratfor and Yves Smith (Naked Capitalism) together, and it seems like China may be scaling back on its holdings of US treasuries in order to buy yen.  Stratfor hints that China may have a policy of reducing its holdings of Treasuries; Smith argues that China is buying yen:

My Asia sources tell me that China is willing to let the yuan appreciate only if the yen rises first, and they are actively buying yen to make sure that comes to pass

Welcome to a world where large state funds are the dominant player in the market.   China certainly could try to use its financial might to try to help it achieve commercial goals — like helping Chinese firms compete with Japanese firms. 

And while there are tentative signs that China is shifting its portfolio around, I am a bit more cautious than either Statfor or Smith. 

China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange is buying fewer Treasuries, but it may just be buying more Agencies.   China probably is also buying more yen.  But that may just be because it is buying more of everything as its reserves swell.   We really don’t know.   SAFE certainly doesn't tell us.

I personally would be surprised if China has made a major shift away from dollars – and not just because Li Yang of the Chinese Academy recently cautioned against abrupt portfolio shifts.

Why?   See the following graphs, the first two prepared with help from Arpana Pandey of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

The first graph plots known Chinese holdings of US assets (the data comes from the US Treasury's Treasury International Capital data, but you need a guide to find it …) against China’s reported reserves.

chinese_holdings 

A few things jump out: 

First, China’s recorded holdings of US assets tend to jump sharply in June (see June 2004, June 2005 and June 2006).    There is a simple reason:  The Treasury survey data has consistently shown a larger increase in Chinese holdings than the increased implied by the monthly TIC data.   There is no particular reason to think that this has changed.  When China’s June 2007 holdings are revised following the release of the next survey data (early next year), China’s holdings of US debt will be revised up.

Second, total Chinese holdings of US assets are rising.  Indeed, they seem to be rising at pretty much the same rate as they rose between mid-2005 and mid-2006.     Now it is certainly possible to argue that they should be rising faster, since the pace of China’s reserve growth picked up.   But it is equally possible to argue that China is just buying more through offshore centers (Hong Kong, London), so the survey revisions will just be bigger. 

Third, China has clearly increased its purchases of Corporate bonds and Agency bonds relative to its purchases of Treasury bonds.

Finally, if you look at this graph – and imagine how the graph will look after the survey revisions – it is quite possible to argue that China holds over 70% of its reserves in dollars.    The revisions took the dollar share well above 70% in 2006.   And even the survey doesn’t capture all Chinese holdings.  It doesn’t capture China’s holdings of dollar-denominated emerging market and World Bank debt.  It doesn’t capture offshore dollar deposits.  It doesn’t capture any funds that have been handed over to private managers (this is why the survey doesn’t pick up the Gulf’s investment in the US).  And it doesn’t pick up Chinese holdings of some complicated structures – as the structure that holds the US debt likely will be domiciled in an offshore tax haven.   

The US data isn't picking up everything China owns. Then again, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (the agency that manages China’s reserves) isn’t the only entity in China that holds the state’s assets.   

The China Investment Company has some foreign assets (though not many right now).   And the state banks also have a foreign portfolio.   Some of that portfolio is financed out of money that they have raised themselves.   But a decent chunk is financed out of money borrowed (through swaps) from the central bank as well as the reserves injected into the state banks as part of the recapitalization process.  So long as the foreign exchange risk resides with the PBoC/ the MoF/ CIC I would consider this to be a form of hidden reserves.  Basically, the management of some of the state’s foreign assets has been outsourced to the state banks. 

The second graph makes a slew of adjustments – for state bank recapitalization, for known swaps between the PBoC and the banks, for the unwinding of some swaps tied to the bank and for the financing of the CIC — to try to get a better picture of the total foreign assets held by China's central government.   I won’t bore you with the details of the adjustment.  Suffice to say that it is the best that I can do at this stage – and that Logan Wright (Stone and McCarthy/ Survived SARs) helped me improve my data on the swaps. 

chinese_adjusted_holdings 

The higher level of total assets — together with unchanged US holdings — suggests a somewhat lower US dollar share.  The survey revisions — the jumps in Chinese holdings every June — seem to have brought China’s US holdings up to around 70% of the state’s total foreign exchange exposure over the past few years.  There is no guarantee that the next survey will similarly bring China’s holdings up to the line representing 70% of China’s known foreign assets.   But there is still a reasonable probability that it will.      

Incidentally, the data from China’s net international investment position indicates that Chinese state banks and other large institutional investors hold far more debt than the roughly $100b of additional assets implied by my adjustment.  The NIIP data indicates that Chinese portfolio investment increased from $117b at the end of 2005 to $229b at the end of 2006, with particularly rapid growth in the second half of 2006. That suggests my adjustment probably still understates the swaps the PBoC has done with various state banks/ institutional investors — either that or China has persuaded more state institutions to take unhedged dollar exposure.  Adding the $230b in known portfolio investments to China's known reserves would bring China’s total foreign portfolio investments to around $1.7 trillion at the end of October. It also implies — in my view, roughly $1.2 trillion in total Chinese exposure to the US dollar

Let’s look at the likely revisions associated with the publication of the next survey in a bit more detail.   The following chart shows the Treasury’s data on total Treasury holdings of various countries over time.   The data on Chinese Treasuries reported below is slightly different from the data on Treasuries in the other two graphs.   I left short-term Treasury holdings in the s-term category while the data on total Treasury holdings adds short-term Treasuries to long-term Treasuries when it reports the stock of Treasury holdings.   This has no material impact on the data: China has very few short-term Treasuries.

 china_through_london

 

A four things stand out. 

The first is that the UK’s holdings of Treasuries are increasing very rapidly right now.  If you didn’t know better, you might expect the UK to soon overtake China as the second largest holder of Treasuries.   Brazil’s holdings are also growing faster.  Unlike the increase in the UK’s holdings, that is real.  Brazil’s reserves are growing rapidly. 

The second is that the survey always revises the UK’s holdings down.   In June 2002 and June 2003, the downward revisions in the UK’s holdings were offset by an upward revision in Japan’s holdings.  In June 2004, June 2005 and June 2006, the downward revision in the UK’s holdings were offset by large upward revisions in China’s holdings.  Looking at the unrevised data can lead to misleading conclusions.

Third, the revisions haven’t increased OPEC (mostly the Gulf countries) holdings that much.  This is likely because the survey doesn’t pick reserves that are managed by outside fund managers, and the Saudi Monetary Agency makes much more extensive use of outside fund managers than the PBoC/ SAFE. 

Fourth, it is reasonable – based on past patterns and the strong increase in China’s reserves — to think that a reasonable fraction of the roughly $125b increase in British holdings of Treasuries from mid 2006 to mid 2007 represents Treasuries that London-based banks bought from the US and then sold to China (or sold to Singapore and Hong Kong banks who then sold to China).   China’s total Treasury holdings are likely to be closer to $500b than $400b.  

Incidentally, China is possibly worried that its Treasury holdings will soon surpass Japan’s holdings. China’s holdings are rising, and Japan’s reserve managers are slowly cutting back on their Treasury holdings and buying more Agencies (or at least they were until the recent spate of bad news about the Agencies financial health … ).   

That is one potential reason for China to scale back on its new Treasury purchases.   If China took the top position in the league table the US publishes every month, its actions would get even more scrutiny in both the US and Japan. 

At this stage, I don’t think we have enough data to conclude that China has definitely cut the share of its reserves held in dollars, as opposed to buying more of everything as its foreign assets swell.  That said, a change in the way China manages its reserves is certainly possible.   It has happened in the past. 

In June 2003, the US data suggests that China's total holdings of US assets were substantially higher than 70% of its reserves.   By mid 2004, the dollar share was down to about 70% (taking into account funds shifted to the banks through Central Huijin).   

During this period – a bit earlier actually – it also changed the way it buys US debt so that a smaller share of its purchases showed up in the TIC data.   More recently, it has increased the share going to Agencies and corporate debt.  It has been particularly active in the market for so called “Agency MBS” (mortgage backed securities with an Agency guarantee) over the past couple of years.  I used to think the “corporate debt” purchases that register in the US data primarily reflected Chinese purchases of private mortgaged-backed securities – but I am now no longer so sure.  The Treasury data only shows $9.5b in mortgage-backed ABS (see table 25) as of June 2006.  That number is low given the disclosed subprime exposure of China’s banks.   The US data isn't picking up all Chinese purchases of MBS.  But Chinese banks in particular may have been buying more floating rate US corporate debt than I initially thought.    

 China probably invests in more different currencies than most central banks, just as it invests in a broader range of US debt than most central banks.  The diversity of China’s holdings reflects, among other things, the pressures associated with the sheer size of China’s assets.   But it also likely reflects a series of policy decision taken over the last five years or so.  Reserve managers operate within a mandate set from on high.

Back to the initial question. 

Has China cut back on its purchases of Treasuries, at least relative to the overall growth in reserves?  Almost certainly.  There appears to have been a slowdown in Chinese purchase of Treasuries over the past six months relative to the trend implied by the unrevised data.    Total holdings usually go up slowly between the surveys — and then get revised up even more.  Recently total holdings haven't been going up. That suggests something is changing — though we won't really know until we learn what share of the increase in the "UK's holdings" are really an increase in Chinese holdings.     

Has China increased the share of its vast holdings invested in yen?   Possibly.   The US data doesn’t allow us to answer that question.    China could increase its yen allocation by 1% (around $15b) or even more without it ever registering in the US purchase data.   The margin of error is simply too big.   But it is certainly plausible that China has opted to increase its exposure to Japan.  The CIC almost certainly will have a higher yen share in its portfolio than the PBoC (it caused a stir by advertising for managers with knowledge of the Japanese market), but the CIC hasn’t really started to make big investments yet.

Two things though should be clear: 

First, China hasn’t reduced its overall exposure to the US even if it is buying less Treasuries.   It is buying more Agencies and US corporate bonds.   Even if it is diversifying at the margin (and I am not at all sure that it is), its overall exposure to the US is rising quite rapidly.  

And second, China still holds very little US equity.

Indeed, the most important shift that shows up in this data isn't any change it the overall composition of China's portfolio.  It is that the pace of China’s reserve growth really slowed in q3 – and even more if you add in October.    It slowed more than I think can be explained by the funds shifted to the CIC.   I suspect that a policy decision was taken to “persuade” both China’s banks and state-owned firms to hold more foreign exchange, and perhaps to hold more foreign exchange on an unhedged basis.

More on the slowdown in the Chinese reserve growth, Michael Pettis’ intriguing suggestion that China increase its dollar allocation (better to buy at the bottom than the top) and the CIC later …

Post a Comment37 Comments

  • Posted by Guest

    Brad:

    I’d really like to see an analysis, at some point, of the impact of MNC’s on trade across Asia. Further, the impact of declining exports to the developed world would have on such trade. Living in the developing world I see bubbles all around me. Prices per meter of luxury housing going from 1000 USD a meter to 4,000 in less than 3 years. Luckily I have been ahead of the curve on many instances (watched dot.com bubble from late 1990′s, was out), in real estate (sold most before end of 2004, the last in May), and was on gold if a little late.

    Personally, I suspect that China will be forced to revalue or face the reimposition of trade barriers (from US and EU, might be that weakening dollar and wage stagnation might reverse the tide as we move out over time). I believe “freer” trade is on withering legs. Plus, I believe a resurgent populace might force change upon gov’ts, especially as suffering increases, especially among large population Developed populations (US; and EU should it last). The fact that Doha hasn’t been able to be completed, and a rise bilateral trade agreements leads me in the direction of these conclusions.

    NOTE : Comment had been edited.

  • Posted by bsetser

    Guest — I edited the last two paragraphs of your comment to remove the personal insults. I spent a lot of time gathering data for this post, and would rather have the discussion focus on the content of the post, not the commenting style of certain regular commentators here. Sorry for the edits, but the last paragraph in particular was a bit over the top.

  • Posted by Peter Schaeffer

    Mr. Setser,

    I can certainly appreciate the amount of effort required to produce a post as long and detailed as this one.

  • Posted by Guest

    Sorry…but I enjoy reading the posts of you and your knowledgeable followers, am tired of wading through cuts and pastes of a decidedly biased pundit.

    Actually, I made the mistake of naming your resource on another site and the unnamed poster to which I had “insulted” had migrated here. I know hime to be one and the same as he has cross-posted to both sites using similar sources. He is much more civil on this site. Yet the determination that he has to hijack the site is no less intense. Excuse me for my error. Others please do as Brad suggests and ignore my ignorance, frustration, or what have you.

    Sorry, Brad, will refrain in the future and sorry for any inconvenience. But, I implore people to leave the links to popular media, surely of less quality than the analysis which goes on here, to your politically motivated activities on sites elsewhere. I should remind that quantity is not quality, something American consumers have seem to have forgotten yet may be remembering soon as their habits shifts to lesor consumption, hopefully.

  • Posted by Bernardo Aito

    Hi Brad,

    I was thinking: the inclination of the red, dotted line in your first and second graph should be a proxy for the real devaluation of the Dollar (i.e. if you assume that China’s reserves go up mainly as a consequence of exchange rates manipulation).

    Now, I haven’t time for this at the moment, but it would be interesting to plot a graph of the Real Dollar vs. the red, dotted line, and see their correlation. Plus, we could add a couple of estimates for the future value of the real dollar and consequent rise of reserves, just to check if Li Yang statements are consistent.

    Best.

    Bernardo

  • Posted by GGSM

    Brad,
    I remember reading some 2 weeks ago I guess (lost now) about a rather “inside” report outlining how the CIC will invest 2 thirds of its 200bill in local Chinese Banks with very little going into equities globally. For 2 reasons mainly. To restructure dodgy balance sheets and also as a pool of liquidity for lending mainly to the rural/agariculatural sector. That also ties in with the Govt’s stated agenda for the coming 5 years ie boosting internal demand with emphasis on reducing the wealth gap between urban and rural China. On the face of it then, the potential for increasing the share of US equities in China’s reserves is rather remote. Which would mean the trend you have indicated in your graphs are set to continue. Which raises some questions I have which I hope you may care to comment on;
    - The increases seen in purchases of agency and corporate paper leads me to believe that China is seeking to offset potential future dollar devaluation by adjusting its portfolio towards higher dollar yielding- yet riskier- instruments.How do you see it?
    - It can be gleaned from this that while this mode of adjustment in reserves is underway it would be in China’s interests not to revalue it currency to any great extent because if China did reval significantly, the $’s yielded from these investments would simply buy less yuan.(Which is what China want’s/needs to spend) So, is this another indication that the gradual reval approach of the yuan will be maintained?
    Thanks.

  • Posted by RebelEconomist

    Very informative post Brad!

    If I may indulge in a little “I told you so”, I am not surprised to hear stories that China is buying more yen. I repeat a comment I made here three weeks ago:

    “Cheng Siwei talked about buying strong currencies, but does anyone have any views on whether the Chinese might put more yen in their reserves? Japan has a large diversified economy with close links to China, and is a relatively secure, stable country with a liquid bond market. It has no inflation despite its public sector debt problem, and depreciation of its historically weak currency is unlikely. Perhaps the Chinese avoid the yen for historic/political reasons? I wonder why the yen is not a much larger reserve currency generally though.”
    Written by RebelEconomist on 2007-11-08 07:53:18

    RebelEconomist is available to dispense reserves management advice for a moderate fee!

  • Posted by Anonymous

    Superb post and presentation of data.

  • Posted by Guest

    Written by RebelEconomist on 2007-12-03 04:54:55

    Good stuff. But you may want to hone your rationale before extrapolating to your first invoice.

  • Posted by Guest

    less tolerance on your part for “raw” and “tasteless” commentary would also be appreciated – assuming you are not seeking more of the same.

    and once again, if you could direct your responses to guest and anonymous comments to the time and date of the post or specific remarks in quotations, especially if you truly cannot differentiate – although it was my understanding that you could. as you must know, guest and anonymous are most definitely not all the same commenters. as they choose to emphasize their comments, or excerpts of commentary published by others, please reciprocate by responding to specific statements rather than the whole category.

  • Posted by Guest

    Written by Guest on 2007-12-03 07:22:22

    To whom would you be speaking?

  • Posted by Nicolas

    Whatever the case China is no fool and will not make mincemeat out its currency like the U.S. is doing. Why would anyone want to hold treasuries of a FED out to turn the U.S. dollar into toilet paper? It would make little economic sense let alone political.
    The U. S. is irresponsible towards itself and its capitalist trading community.

  • Posted by bsetser

    GGSM — the China investment corp has been quite clear that 2/3s of its initial $200b will go toward the state banks. $67b has already been “Spent” buying the assets of Central Huijin from the PBoC. At least initially, the CIC will be more of a bank recapitalization vehicle than an external investors. I don’t think this indicates any rebalancing of china’s policy priorities though — if china wanted to emphasize domestic demand, they need to get rid of a peg that forces them to use policy to restrain domestic demand. rather it indicates that the bureaucratic battles (over ownership of the recapitalized banks) between the finance ministry and central bank were settled in the finance minister’s favor. since china wants to reduce the fx it managed as well, that meant creating a vehicle for doing the recap controlled by the finance ministry with access to foreign exchange (there is a bureaucratic backstory here).

    yes, china is trying to get a bit more yield than it can get on treasuries. it also probably has more money to invest than can be easily placed in the treasury market (now that net issuance is well under $200b annually, with some of that scooped by the US fed).

    yes, any revaluation would reduce the yuan value of china’s dollars. however, in my view, this doesn’t call for gradualism — as China can only keep the pace of revaluation gradual by buying more dollars all the time and thus adding to its losing position. financially speaking, china would be best off taking its lumps now. but the impact of a sudden move on the export sector makes this a difficult choice.

  • Posted by Dave Chiang

    I never believed that the China PBoC would be buying US Dollars through London intermediaries. A trillion dollars worth of US Treasuries is more than enough for China’s Central Bank. Unless one can prove definitively otherwise, it’s very clear that the China PBoC has scaled down holdings of US Treasury bonds by diversifying into other non-US Dollar asset classes. – Dave C.

    Gulf Arab State Petrodollar recycling supporting US Dollar, not China PBoC Central Bank
    http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm

    Over the past six months, China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have been net sellers of $65 billion of US Treasuries. However, the Arab Oil kingdoms have picked up the slack, boosting their holdings of US Treasuries, thru their agents in London, and providing the dollar with vital life support. Holdings of US Treasuries from the United Kingdom have soared by $205 billion from a year ago, allowing Asian central banks to scale down their exposure to US bonds in an orderly fashion.

    The Arab Oil kingdoms are plowing petro-dollars into US Treasuries, but are also facing the same quagmire that’s entrapping China — an inevitable devaluation of their pegged currencies versus the US dollar.

    Now, Washington is asking the Saudi king for more big favors — maintain the Saudi riyal peg to the dollar at all costs, and start pumping more oil this winter, to keep prices from climbing above $100/barrel. But keeping the dollar peg intact threatens the Saudi kingdom will hyper inflation and social unrest. Pumping more oil endangers budding relations with Iran, and could trigger a sharp downturn in the Saudi stock market, which is just starting to recover from a brutal 60% correction.

    The Bernanke Fed is printing worthless paper currency in exchange for OPEC’s oil is right on target, and fully understood by the political leaders who control 75% of the world’s proven oil reserves. The Federal Reserve has allowed the MZM money supply to expand by $850 billion this year, up 13% from a year ago. The broader US M3 money supply is 15.8% higher, its fastest in history, monetizing the prices of crude oil and gold, key hedges against inflation, to all-time highs.

  • Posted by Guest

    For Stability, China must develop its interior. That is a tall order beyond their current ability. Without continued emphasis upon its export for growth agenda they would be hard pressed to develop that interior. Without purchasing foreign debt, were they to invest that within, they would have even higher inflation than they currently have. Without continueed development they would be hard pressed to mop up the millions of rural to urban immigrants yearly. Violent demonstrations which have reached 6 figures from the GoC’s own accounts would accelerate, provincial leaders whose subsidies have withered, at least decreased might distance themselves further from the weak tenacles of Beijing. This might lead to provincially centered military units siding with the rural poor, from which they hail. This could lead to a dire crisis indeed.

    No Nicolas, it doesn’t seem to me that the Chinese leadership is stupid at all. It seems they are focused upon the right problems rather than simple opportunity cost (loss) of barely yielding paper. They have much more on their plate to consider; like unity, stability, maintainance of the status quo, and hundreds of millions increasingly aware of the inconsistencies and growing inequality of the system.

    They seem to be doing a good job.

  • Posted by bsetser

    DC — the gulf does buy through london (though it may rely more on private fund managers even for its safe fixed income portfolio than most of asia). But the pattern of revisions over the past several years makes it very clear that the chinese are the biggest buyers through london.

    See the graph above — it would be nice if you addressed it.

    Russia is actually number 2, but they buy more agencies and i only did the numbers for Treasuries …

    the gulf to be clear doesn’t show up in either the TIC or the survey data b/c of the use of third party fund managers.

  • Posted by Guest

    poster of “2007-12-03 08:27:51″

    When you state that China owns 1 trillion of US treasuries are you disputing Brad’s assertion that Chinese holdings are closer to 500 than 400 billion?

    In fact, are you doubling it? Could you provide the source?

  • Posted by Dave Chiang

    When you state that China owns 1 trillion of US treasuries are you disputing Brad’s assertion that Chinese holdings are closer to 500 than 400 billion? – Guest

    That’s just a rough estimate of mine. I should have stated 1 trillion of Treasuries and Agency bonds. Fannie Mae and Freddies Mac bonds are Agencies rated AAA due to US Treasury implicit backing. Fannie Mae is too big to fail and would receive a taxpayer bailout when push comes to shove. Countrywide Mortgage has been receiving a stealth taxpayer bailout through the Federal Home Loan bank, as per Nouriel Roubini.

  • Posted by Dave Chiang

    China’s state-run investment fund to invest in domestic assets
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/business/worldbusiness/29yuan.html?_r=1&ref=asia&oref=slogin

    HONG KONG, Nov. 28 — As governments in the Middle East take big stakes in American companies, China’s state-run investment fund has quietly shifted its focus from overseas deals to bolstering the country’s troubled banking system.

    The fund, the China Investment Corporation, plans to spend roughly two-thirds of its $200 billion assisting Chinese banks, according to a person familiar with the company’s decision making.

  • Posted by Dave Chiang

    As per World Bank stats, the average Chinese middle class simply doesn’t have the consumer purchasing power to buy foreign-made products. The US should stop bashing Chinese over their high savings rate and low consumption. – Dave C.

    China’s middle class purchasing power:
    http://psdblog.worldbank.org/psdblog/2006/06/the_potential_o.html

    The McKinsey Quarterly looks at the potential value of China’s emerging middle class. Some of their estimates:

    Today 77% of urban Chinese households live on less than 25,000 renminbi a year (about $3,000)

  • Posted by Guest

    2007-12-03 07:57:15 – obviously to the editor/owner/operator of this blog which, looking at the top of my browser, appears to be ‘RGE’

  • Posted by Nicolas

    500/600 Billion? What a low ball figure. Only a year or so ago it was over TWO TRILLION. They must have unloaded a hell of a lot of treasuries lately and no surprise there.

  • Posted by London Banker

    @ Brad

    This just in from Thomson (via AFX):

    DUBAI (Thomson Financial) – Gulf Arab leaders will not decide at their annual summit whether to end their currencies’ peg to a sliding dollar, the official WAM news agency reported the UAE foreign minister as saying.

    “There is no intention to take a decision at this summit regarding de-pegging the Gulf currencies to the dollar,” WAM reported Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan as saying at a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council in Qatar.
    ______________________

    As I read this, GCC is saying that depegging won’t be discussed AT THIS SUMMIT but is absolutely on the table for the near term. This may be a diplomatically worded shot across Bernanke’s bow to warn him against another rate cut that would further impair the dollar assets of the GCC.

    Also, great post! Very informative.

    For those still sceptical about China buying through London, you might remind them that China does this so that it can hold custody off-shore outside US jurisdiction through the international depositories. The ex-US depositories can’t be monitored by the US authorities because of bank secrecy laws in Belgium and Luxembourg, allowing China to dispose of, trade or assign as collateral any US assets without it being quite so transparent. Also, assets held off-shore are secure from US seizure or freezes as they are deemed outside US jurisdiction, which is important given the US record of seizing assets as retaliation.

  • Posted by Guest

    Written by bsetser on 2007-12-03 08:15:50

    I do not think the domestic demand in China can be driven by changing peg system. If you think China appreciates yuan to increase imports, I think it might work. But it is hardly Beijing’s interest. The social security net and medical insruance are probably the main reasons.

  • Posted by Anonymous

    China is all about gradualism.
    Why didn’t you add the hedges funds to your “Who is buying through London” chart, you may discover a strange ballet …

  • Posted by Dave Chiang

    Thanks London Banker. You have convinced me that China does this so that it can hold custody off-shore outside US jurisdiction through the international depositories.

  • Posted by bsetser

    h funds may have been buying recently (tho my sense is that h.fund buying shows up in the caribbean) but if h funds are doing the buying, the fall in london holdings associated with the survey revisions wouldn’t be associated with a rise in chinese holdings. A shift to ireland of luxembourg maybe …

    the big hedge fund purchases of treasuries were in 04 (tied to the fall in the s-term v long-term spread) and more recently …

    L banker — I think you may have described the Gulf more than China. the fed’s custodial data from q1 and q2 strongly suggests that someone (and I am not sure who — but it cannot be the middle east) was buying through london and then shifting custody to the NY fed. The likely suspects are China or Russia. Right now, i guess Russia is a more likely candidate …

  • Posted by Dave Chiang

    Absolutely China is all about gradualism. Over a century of turmoil has taught the Chinese not to make rash political or financial moves. Even with their very modest incomes, the Chinese people enjoy a high personal savings rate no matter what social safety net is provided. Europeans who lived through World War II and survived by selling pieces of Gold and Silver for food will understand. Chinese-Americans save as much or a higher percentage of their incomes than their counterparts in China. New York’s Chinatown has more banks per square mile than even the Wall Street financial district.

    In Guangzhou, my brother in-law works now as a manager in Minshing Banking Corporation, and my sister on-law works as a medical doctor. They don’t even own a car, they take public transportation, but recently paid $120K cask for an condo flat. All of their income goes toward private school education for their daughter, and saving money for retirement. During the hot summer season, even the air conditioner is only turned on in the bedroom.

  • Posted by Twofish

    DC: As per World Bank stats, the average Chinese middle class simply doesn’t have the consumer purchasing power to buy foreign-made products.

    This isn’t quite true. The average Chinese urban middle class has a paid off house and hence no rent payments. If they work for an SOE, the get health benefits. So there is a much higher fraction of discretionary income than the figures seem to indicate.

    Also, the huge savings in the PRC comes not only from household income but also a huge amount of corporate savings.

    There certainly are cultural and historical reasons for high savings, but judging from the “new generation” in Taiwan and South Korea and the difference in people in the US that lived through the great depression and those that didn’t, those are factors are transient. The savings surplus right now is likely to turn into a massive deficit in the next decade or so.

    One other thing about the Chinatown figure, these are misleading because:

    1) There are actually few banks in Wall Street, and Wall Street needs to be understood metaphorically than literally. Most of the major banks moved out of Wall Street for midtown a decade or two ago, and Deutsche Bank is the only major bank that I know that still has it’s headquarters physically in Wall Street.

    2) Chinatown consists largely of new immigrants from Fujian. Looking at second and third generation Chinese-Americans, you see the same lack of savings that you have in other Americans for the same reasons.

  • Posted by Twofish

    bsetser: The Treasury data only shows $9.5b in mortgage-backed ABS (see table 25) as of June 2006. That number is low given the disclosed subprime exposure of China’s banks.

    Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) are completely different from Asset-backed securities based on mortgages (ABS). MBS includes only prime securities, and the ABS based on mortgages are in the corporate asset backed category and other asset backed category

    The difference is

    mortgage-backed securities backed by prime mortgages backed by the income and credit of the borrower

    asset-backed securities backed by sub-prime mortgages backed by the value of the house

    So your prime mortgage-backed securities is *NOT* an asset backed security. The valuation models are different.

  • Posted by Twofish

    Uggghhh… Looking at the tables, it’s less clear to me how they are breaking things up because the terminology is different than the one I’m used do. It’s clear that agency ABS is used to include MBS’s which are usually considered a different category when you make valuation models for these things.

  • Posted by bsetser

    my understanding is that Agencies includes MBS with an Agency guarantee. China owns a lot of that.

    corporate debt is everything that is not a treasury or an agency (with agency defined as both the agencies own issuance and MBS with an Agency guarantee). the category of corporate debt is broken into asset backed securities and straight corp debt (unsecured i would assume). And within ABS (see table 25 of the survey) there is a breakdown for MBS.

  • Posted by Dave Chiang

    This isn’t quite true. The average Chinese urban middle class has a paid off house and hence no rent payments. If they work for an SOE, the get health benefits. So there is a much higher fraction of discretionary income than the figures seem to indicate. – Twofish

    Take for instance an electrical engineer at Foxcomm, a Chinese contract manufacturer based in Shenzhen, an engineer there earns about a $600 USD salary per month. Have you been back to China recently? A modest condo flat in Shenzhen or Guangzhou middle class neighborhood sells for $100,000 USD. Beijing and Shanghai have even a higher selling price to salary ratio. And the same Toyota Camry or Honda Accord that sells for $20K in the United States, sells for $35K in China due to 50% import tax.

    I would also add that my brother in-law who previously worked at the Bank of China only was provided employer paid health insurance for himself and not his family. The chemical products SOE trading firm that my mother in-law worked for has financial problems, and discontinued paying pension and health care benefits for retirees. It is only because my father in-law was a distinguished scientist that he receives a pension and health benefits from the central Chinese government.

  • Posted by Guest
  • Posted by bsetser

    dc — i don’t often agree with you, but i do agree that china, like the us, needs to do a better job of providing health care to all of its citizens.

  • Posted by Twofish

    DC: A modest condo flat in Shenzhen or Guangzhou middle class neighborhood sells for $100,000 USD. Beijing and Shanghai have even a higher selling price to salary ratio.

    In 1998 the government gave title of the apartments which were owned by state-owned enterprise employees to them for free. This means that if you had a residency permit at that time, you got what is now a very expensive apartment for free. Ownership of apartments for people with official residency permits is very high. It’s new migrants that have big problems.

    DC: I would also add that my brother in-law who previously worked at the Bank of China only was provided employer paid health insurance for himself and not his family. The chemical products SOE trading firm that my mother in-law worked for has financial problems, and discontinued paying pension and health care benefits for retirees. It is only because my father in-law was a distinguished scientist that he receives a pension and health benefits from the central Chinese government.

    But all you need is one person with those connections and you have health care. The other people in the household can work in the private market so you get the best of both worlds.

    The problem here is that all this is good if you are already in the urban workforce. It makes life very difficult for migrants.

  • Posted by Fabio

    Dave Chiang on 2007-12-03 09:16:51 – extremely interesting data … Finally, enough unsupported opinions.