China just indicated that its reserves reached $1808.8 billion at the end of June. That is obviously a huge sum — it is $126.6b more than China reported at the end of March. But the increase in June was surprisingly small — only $11.9 billion.
Moreover, the euro rose in June. After adjusting for valuation gains, China’s June reserve growth works out to something like $3 billion. That assumes that about 25% of China’s reserves are in euros — which may be too high. Still, the increase in China’s reported reserves in June is very low, both relative to the increase in past months and relative to China’s still-large trade and current account surplus.
The volatility in China’s reserve growth this year has been extraordinary. Reserve growth — without considering valuation gains – has gone from a high of $75 billion in April to a low of $12 billion in June. That is a bigger swing than the dip from close to $60 billion in January and February to $35 billion in March.
Adjusting for valuation effects (the dollar value of China’s euro reserves rises when the euro rises, and vice-versa) actually makes the swings bigger. After adjusting for valuation gains and losses, April’s reserve growth is close to $80 billion and June’s reserve growth is less than $5 billion.
Clearly the 100 bp rise in the bank reserve requirement – which may have subtracted $36 billion from June’s reserve growth — has something to do with the low total in June. But the reserve requirement also was hiked by 50 bp in April, so the bigger-than-usual increase in the bank reserve requirement in June is not the full explanation. Either hot money flows fell, or China has found a new way of keeping reserves from appearing on the central banks books.
Adding in the $36 billion in foreign exchange that China’s regulators likely pushed onto the banks in June brings the monthly total up to around $40 billion. The June trade surplus was about $20 billion, FDI inflows were a bit below $10 billion and interest income on China’s existing foreign assets were maybe $6 billion.
Sum it all up and everything roughly balances, implying modest hot money inflows. At least if the data that was reported captures the full picture. It is hard to know. China has cracked down on hot money inflows. At the same time, the huge swing in the very rough measure of hot money flows most analysts uses from April to June is a bit suspicious.
More tomorrow.
Update: Michael Pettis gets a slightly higher total for (adjusted) June reserve growth than I do: $50 billion v $40 billion. He assumes smaller valuation gains than I do, and puts a somewhat higher dollar value on the increase in China’s reserve requirement than I do. But I basically agree with his analysis. And I fully agree with core conclusion of his FT oped with Logan Wright, namely that the large increase in hot money flows to China over the last year poses a major challenge to China’s central bank, and significant risks to the financial system — as it is evidence of a highly pro-cyclical monetary and exchange rate policy framework.
The June reserve increase — whether $40 or $50 billion, after taking into account valuation changes and the rise in the state banks’ holdings of foreign exchange (see Logan Wright’s comments in the FT), brings the total increase in China’s foreign assets in the first half up to around $450 billion. That is $900 billion annualized. China’s current account surplus is on track to be around $400 billion (probably a bit less); FDI inflows are on track to be around $100 billion (probably a bit more actually, as the monthly data has tended to understate FDI inflows in the BoP data). That works out to around $500 billion. $900 billion in foreign asset growth consequently implies very large additional inflows, even if neither the trade nor FDI balances include any disguised hot money flows. The pace of foreign asset growth so far in 2008 implies that hot money flows — which likely were significant in 2007 — picked up substantially in the first half of 2008.
We don’t yet know whether the recent policies China has adopted to control these inflows are working. The modest June reserve increase suggests that they may be. But China now has an incentive to disguise its reserve growth to create the perception that these policies are working, and until China fully discloses all of its swaps with the state banks, it is hard to know if reserve growth has really slowed or if China simply is using new ways to move some foreign exchange off the PBoC’s balance sheet.
Andrew Batson of the Wall Street Journal has this exactly right: the lack of transparency about the management and accounting for China’s reserves — and the low quality of China’s balance of payments data — creates a lot of room to interpret, and to misinterpret, the Chinese data. China could do the world a favor by clarifying how exactly foreign exchange is moving around in China — and by doing the basics, likely disclosing its monthly reserve growth in a timely and predictable way. China’s foreign asset growth now matters too much to the rest of the world for it to produce some of the world’s worst reserves data.
So answer Batson’s opening question, China both has too many reserves and too few statistics.
One thing is now I think pretty clear: China seems to carry its dollar reserve portfolio at face value, rather than marking its bond portfolio to market. We know that Japan marks its bond portfolio to market, so falls in US rates tend to push up Japan’s reserves. If China does too, its reserves should move in a way that is somewhat correlated with Japan’s reserves. China has more bonds, and likely has more long-duration bonds, than Japan. Yet Japan’s reserves fell in April and rose in June, while China’s reserve growth was strong in April and weak in June. That is circumstantial evidence, I know — as market moves could be overwhelmed by other changes. But it is all we have to go on, and it does suggest, at least to me, that falling US long-term rates were not the main explanation for the rise in China’s reserves in q1.
I should have a set of detailed charts showing China’s 2008 foreign asset growth — or my best estimate of China’s foreign asset growth — up in the next day or two. Stay tuned.
Any sense if CIC received more transfers in Q2?
Perhaps we are seeing the effect of the reported slower pace of onshore fx lending?
During the month of June, a large number of the majority state-owned Chinese companies also pay their annual dividends based on 2007 profits. Rather than spread dividends quarterly as many US companies do, many Chinese companies due to foreign exchange regulatory issues, choose to pay annual dividends in a lump sum. Also many Chinese companies set annual shareholder dividends as a percentage of profits. Dividends were payable on PetroChina, Sinopec, CNOOC and China Mobile wireless. World’s third largest oil company, PetroChina pays $4.92 (3.90%) dividend which is significantly higher than the World’s largest oil company Exxon paying $1.60 (1.90%) dividend. For profitability, Fiscal year was a very good year for Chinese companies, 2008 is shaping up as more problematic.
Can you explain the difference between your conclusion of modest hot money inflows and Michael Pettis’ conclusion of massive and increasing hot money inflows in today’s FT column:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf8b8d58-5103-11dd-b751-000077b07658.html
??
What are the different assumptions you and he are making?
Noah — there is no difference. I agree with Pettis. Pettis and Wright were looking at the data for the first five months (and the data for the first six months won’t change much), which does show massive inflows. I agree with them there. My point was that if you believe the data (and I am not sure i do), then inflows in June here modest. But that doesn’t change the fact that I believe hot money inflows in the first 6 months were large.
Noah,
The difference is that Michael Pettis’s article is based on the data of the 1st quarter, while Brad here uses the latest number.
Brad,
My point was that if you believe the data (and I am not sure i do), then inflows in June here modest.
———————————
I do not see your logic here. If you do not believe June’s data, why do you believe the first 5 months? You cannot pick the favorite number to support your arguments.
Jin — in the past when Chinese reserve growth surprised on the low side, it subsequently has turned out that China was shifting funds to some other entity. In late 06, low reserve growth now seems to reflect the growing use of swaps. in late 07 it reflected the banks’ new fx reserve requirement. in march 08 it reflected funds shifted to the CIC. China hasn’t disclosed the size of the CIC or released 2008 data for the banks fx balance sheet (whcih has a line item that I think reflects swaps), so it is possible that funds were shifted around again.
Or it is possible that the slowdown in rmb apperciation (and fall in expected appreciation in the forward market) + tighter controls worked, and inflows really did slow.
My point is that absent more transparency, China only shows us one of many pots of fx that have grown in the past, and unless you know exactly what is happening to all the pots, there is a lot of uncertainty about the true pace of foreign asset growth.
p.s. I don’t believe the data from the first five months; I think it significantly understates china’s true foreign asset growth
China moving to rebuild Africa’s Congo infrastructure with State Investment
http://www.theage.com.au/world/chinese-spend-big-to-secure-africas-favour-20080714-3f1v.html
CHINA has entered a new phase in its modern-day scramble for Africa by moving to rebuild 3300 kilometres of roads in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The project is part of China’s largest single investment in Africa – a $A9.2 billion services-for-minerals deal signed in January.
China has also promised to repair more than 3000 kilometres of largely defunct railways, build 32 hospitals and 145 health centres, install two electricity distribution networks, and construct two hydroelectric dams and two airports.
In return, it has won the rights to five copper and cobalt mines in the Congo’s southern minerals belt.
The deal extends Beijing’s dominance over parts of Africa previously allied to the West.
One senior European diplomat in the capital Kinshasa said: “They are setting themselves up as being unlike other donors who are seen as too slow and always telling governments what to do.”
Some 2000 kilometres to the south, Mambwe Katenta, 45, stands beside a corrugated earth road snaking through dense bush. A mechanic is trying to fix his battered pick-up, damaged by Congo’s atrocious roads.
He said: “It is only (48 kilometres) to the city but we cannot reach there with the things we have to sell – tomatoes, cassava, charcoal … It has always been this way. But now we hear that the Chinese will come and fix this.”
He will not have long to wait. South of his village, on the other side of Congo’s second city, Lubumbashi, the Chinese are on their way. The Chinese Railway Engineering Company is rebuilding the road linking Congo’s south to Zambia.
bsetser: “In the past when Chinese reserve growth surprised on the low side, it subsequently has turned out that China was shifting funds to some other entity.”
Here’s two (pure guesswork) ifs that knock UDS20+bn off the reserves:
1. The CIC, for reasons that surpasseth man’s understanding, has decided to run a huge cash allocation, a la NCSSF, and USD20-25bn has been transferred to pay for the third party mandates that will be announced later this month.
2. CDB has received another recapitalisation round (through CIC/Huijin) as prep to transfer it our of CIC control. Again, USD20-25bn sounds about right.
On another note, if we agree that the numbers are probably wrong and that the PBOC is, at least to some extent, interested in managing appearances, doesn’t “we have conquered the problem of hot money speculation” sound like a good preamble to “and now we can resume RMB appreciation without enriching them”?
Recall that China’s stock market is 50% off its high. They are in a BEAR market.
I think this helps to explain some, not all, of the decrease in rate of reserves growth.
Tony
Tony, maybe, but the bear market preceded the slowdown in reserve growth. so it isn’t obvious to me.
MMcM — interesting points, as always. i can see why the CIC might want a cash heavy portfolio. Cash has outperformed equities recently, and until equities find a bottom, well, not investing can be better than investing. and it wouldn’t do to underperform SAFE’s safe portfolio by too much (at the same time the CiC cannot entirely emulate SAFE’s portfolio without losing its raison d’ etre).
But let me play devil’s advocate on your points (and on myself) for a bit. The big problem with the “more money was moved to the CIC in June argument” is that there isn’t really any supporting evidence. in the past, the cIc was funded by MinFin bond issuance — and there hasn’t been any issuance. Now it is possible that the CIC didn’t get all of the money raised in late Dec in q1 (tho there are decent sources claiming that this is indeed what happened), and the CIC got its final tranche in June (i.e. the transfers are done at the end of the quarter, hence the low march and the low june). Or it is possible that the SFE just put money on deposit with the CIc to invest, and gave up with the charade of selling minfin bonds to pboc that the pboc repos to the state banks (to sterilize reserve growth) to raise rmb that the minfin uses to buy fx from the pboc that is handed over to the CIC. But that would imply an end to SAFE/ CIC (and PBoC/ Finance ministry) rivalry that feels a bit strange …
as for the CDB, unless the pboc did the recap directly, wouldn’t the money have to first go through the CIC? which raises the issues above, namely, where is the supporting evidence?
at this stage, i am thinking either that the CIC didn’t get everything in q1, or that the PBoC revised 06 style fx swaps with the banks. or that the SOEs were told to hold on to their fx for as long as possible .. but it is certainly possible that inflows really did fall and there was less to mop up.
as for your final point, i suspect it could also be argued the other way:
appreciation = big inflows, problems with sterilization and inflation
no appreciation = smaller inflows, easier to sterilize and less inflation (see the recent data).
and if appreciation doesn’t reduce inflation and it annoys the textile sector, why bother? better to embrace the go slow policy?
to be honest tho, i have no clue which way china will go. tis hard to get a sense from new york! and the china watchers in beijing, shangai and hk are split.
Even if the June reserve growth was low, the expected growth in 2008 is incredibly high. Most of it is probably hot money, which poses a risk, see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf8b8d58-5103-11dd-b751-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1 . I wonder what the Chinese state could do against hot money inflow. What would happen if they did not buy all dollars offered to them for purchasing? Or do they have to buy all the 700 billion dollar (70% of all) this year to prevent too fast yuan appreciation?
In pure Devil’s advocate mode: can the official Reserve (SAFE) internally reserve against near-term liabilities? In other words, in calculating the growth of sterilised reserves, can SAFE net off, say, USD20bn for upcoming CIC mandates and, say, another USD25bn for a through-CIC recap of CDB? There’s USD45bn towards “victory over hot money” even though no cash has changed hands.
Back in the real world, I think most of my arguments don’t stand up to inspection: CIC will almost certainly fund the upcoming mandates out of cash and any CDB recaps will be both publicly hosannaed and cleanly delineated in the public accounts. I strongly suspect SAFE can’t actually reserve inside the reserves, although I admit I’d feel a lot more confident saying that in the US or UK…
I can assure you that, even within one small room of analysts in Shanghai, opinions are split about which way China will go, although I’ve yet to meet anyone who can make a convincing case that the Rmb should, as opposed to will, remain at or near current levels. Living here, one is daily exposed to purchasing power parity: I just shouldn’t be able to eat half a pound of well-prepared shrimp in an elegant restaurant in the most expensive commercial rental district of Shanghai for a little under USD12. Something’s gotta give.
Forgot to add: with little other than instinct to go on, I’d guess that the MoF bond programme will continue in the near term, despite a fairly heartfelt plea for alternatives from CIC, the discussion of which, I’ve no doubt, has consumed rather more CIC/MoF/PBoC/State Council members’ time this spring/summer than any of them would have liked. Alternatively, we may see CIC be the first to introduce zeros to the Chinese bond market.
AC:
Just a curious question: What are the credit market conditions like in China? Is it difficult to obtain a decent long term loan?
I wonder, if we see a shrinking total credit line as in the US. This might explain, why everybody is trying to hoard cash and highly liquid assets (and is fleeing stocks and real estate). Sterilized short term money would appear as increased FX reserves.
It may be that anyone who can and wants to convert dollars to RMB in order to take advantage of the expected reval has already done so.