China’s new barbell portfolio: Treasuries and commodities?

by Brad Setser
May 21, 2009

Keith Bradsher’s New York Times story on the recent evolution of China’s foreign portfolio gets — at least in my view — the story right. Of course, that may be because I was — rather obviously — a source for the story. Check out the charts that accompany the article!

The basic story of China’s foreign portfolio is simple: it is trying to reduce the amount of (credit) risk in its fixed income portfolio while simultaneously taking on more commodity risk.

China’s purchases of Treasuries (especially short-term bills) have gone up even as China’s reserve growth has slowed, as China shifted money out of Agencies and — in all probability — out of money market funds that are taking credit risk and other privately managed accounts. The failure of Reserve Primary had a big impact on China. Bradsher:

“Financial statistics released by both countries in recent days show that China paradoxically stepped up its lending to the American government over the winter even as it virtually stopped putting fresh money into dollars. This combination is possible because China has been exchanging one dollar-denominated asset for another — selling the debt of government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a hurry to buy Treasuries. ….

China was the world’s biggest buyer of [securities issued by government-sponsored enterprises] a year ago, splashing out more than $10 billion a month. But in the 12 months through March, it actually had net sales of $7 billion, and ramped up purchases of Treasuries instead. China has also changed which Treasuries it buys. It has done so in ways calculated to reduce its exposure to inflation or other problems in the United States. As recently as a year ago, China actively bought long-dated bonds, seeking the extra yield they could bring compared to Treasury securities with short maturities, of which China bought virtually none. But in each month since November, China has been buying more Treasury bills, with a maturity of a year or less, than Treasuries with longer maturities. This gives China the option of cashing out its positions in a hurry, by not rolling over its investments into new Treasury bills as they come due should inflation in the United States start rising and make Treasury securities less attractive.

At the same time, China has sought to ramp up its exposure to commodities. China’s government clearly is adding to its strategic stockpiles — and perhaps encouraging state firms to build up inventory as well. China’s government is encouraging Chinese state firms to invest more abroad, especially in the mining sector. And China’s government is providing financing to cash-strapped commodity exporters (Russia, Kazakhstan, Brazil and no doubt others) to help tide them through a rough patch and, China hopes, to secure future supplies. Bradsher:

“This spring China has also been stepping up its purchases of commodities, which are usually bought in dollars. Iron ore has been piling up on Chinese docks, government stockpiles of crude oil and grain are being expanded and stockpiles are being started for products like gasoline, diesel and sugar.”

China’s government presumably likes commodities in part because it believes in its own story — and, if you are bullish on China, conventional wisdom holds that you also should be bullish on commodities. China also hopes that its investments abroad will help to assure it a secure supply of the raw materials it needs. At the most basic level, the more investment in commodity production now, the lower the future price — and as a commodity importer, China would benefit from lower prices. And China could well view commodities as an inflation hedge.

That said, commodity price are volatile — so holding commodities is not devoid of risk. Buying the equity of commodity producers can be equally risky. And there is a long history that shows that investing in mineral production abroad is risky.

These though are risks that China seems to want to take right now.

Conversely, China doesn’t seem keen to take risk in the fixed income market. The old game of buying Agencies to get a bit more yield than Treasuries offer is over. And, I would guess — based on China’s comments about the importance of protecting the value of China’s investment in the US — that China also isn’t all that keen on the long-term bonds of large financial institutions. At least those that are not guaranteed by the FDIC.

China though doesn’t seem to have found a way to reduce its currency risk, despite all the recent talk. Probably because it is hard for a large country that pegs its currency tightly to the dollar to do so. China — per Bradsher — has found that it cannot buy gold without moving the market. That applies to currencies too.

Best that I can tell — see Figure 7 of the latest Setser/ Pandey paper on the management of China’s foreign portfolio — the United States’ share of China’s total portfolio has been fairly constant. The US data on its own suggests that China was moving out of dollars from mid-07 to mid-08,* and then moved back into dollars last fall. My best guess though is that the US data overstates both the move out of dollars from mid-07 to mid-08 and the move back into dollars in the fall. Rather than moving out of the dollar, China was moving out of Treasuries — and increasingly holding dollars in ways that the US data doesn’t pick up. Call it reaching for yield. After the crisis, China moved back into Treasuries — and started holding more of its dollars in ways captured by the US data. That at least is my best guess.

One thing to watch going forward: what China does if its reserve growth picks up again, and it has to put more money to work. For the past six months, China has essentially been reallocating its existing portfolio. Given China’s still large current account surplus, that was only possible because private money was leaving China. But if China ends up recovering faster than the rest of the world, capital inflows to China could easily resume … pushing China’s reserves back up.

* China’s recorded purchases of US assets from mid-07 to mid 08 are inferred primarily from the survey data. And the increase in China’s stock of Treasuries and Agencies was lower than I would have anticipated given the overall increase in China’s foreign assets. This period was also marked by large institutional changes in the way China manages its reserves – changes that potentially meant that the US data missed some of China’s holdings. For example, the CIC’s large holdings of dollar-denominated money market funds also did not appear in the survey data — likely because the CIC invested in “offshore” funds. Greater use of private managers and managed accounts will tend to lower recorded US holdings as well. There is also some uncertainty about the total scale of China’s foreign portfolio — which has an impact on the calculation of the United States share of the portfolio. I have compared China’s US holdings to its total foreign portfolio, not just to its reserves. That means that I am including the CIC and the PBoC’s other foreign assets and a (complicated) measure of the state banks foreign portfolio alongside China’s reserves.

Post a Comment23 Comments

  • Posted by greg

    China’s commodity deals with exporting countries can not be understood simply from the standpoint of reserves portfolio management. These deals generally involve China providing long-term loans in exchange for guaranteed long-term supply from commodity exporting countries. Details of the agreements were not published but it is generally believed that the price that China will pay is more or less based on future market price while the interest rates of the loans are based on market rates (e.g., LIBOR). Also, the loan will be repaid, but not by commodity supply and I don’t believe any of the deals involve equity transaction – I’m excluding Rio Tinto/Chinalco deal.

    So China does not really diversify away the (dollar) currency risk and is not getting better prices for the commodities. From a financial transaction point of view, they’re just long-term loans for guaranteed supply in the future. Presumably, China can buy these commodities in the open market in the future since it has to pay market rate anyway.

    So what’s in it for China?

    In the case of Russia and Kazakhstan, it’s strategic obviously. With the deals, China makes sure it can get oil from the countries that are closest to it and are also most secure. China has invested substantially in the transport infrastructure (pipes) and refining capacities in Xinjiang and Manchuria and both Russia and Kazakhstan will also need to invest in corresponding infrastructure on their sides of the borders to support the deals. Furthermore, China’s investments in these interior provinces will no doubt help develop these places and address the regional economic imbalance. The agreement with Russia has been 15 years in the making and has been an ordeal for China. In the end, the financial crisis has given China the opportunity to close the deal.

    The deal with Brazil does not have such a benefit, but it helps to increase and balance trade with Brazil, a resource-rich country and large emerging market that will have growing importance to China. It’s China’s way of engaging with a country: increase trade, increase understanding and ultimately increase political influence.

  • Posted by WStroupe

    Brad,

    This is precisely how a CB with large reserves and a large present exposure to the dollar would position itself if it had fundamentally come to the conclusion that it only had a short period, say 1-3 years, in which to count on the dollar remaining fairly stable. Also, if you had concluded that by the end of that period your non-dollar, non-U.S. trade options will have significantly come into their own and you could progressively, during that period, weaken your currency peg to the dollar.

    1. You lean away from the fixed-income position because the inflationary risks are unacceptable going forward.

    2. You lean heavily toward higher liquidity vs higher yield, the short-dated Treasuries offering the best here of any financial assets, and you can sprint out of Treasuries relatively quickly if you need to, going deeper into hard assets, for example.

    3. You convert your Agencies and other ‘garbage’ into short-dated Treasuries.

    4. You employ multiple new policies and mechanisms to quickly boost trade with your global partners, move toward using regional currencies in that trade, thus decreasing your reliance upon the U.S. market and the dollar.

    5. You’re careful during this period not to do something radical that risks triggering a dollar sell-off.

    6. You loan your dollars to your own companies and trade partners, spend your dollars on commodities and equities in commodity-based companies around the globe, spend your dollars on domestic stimulus packages, increase your gold holdings, increase your holdings of other currencies (naturally via your boosted trade with these partners), all of which works to decrease the percentage of dollars being held in your reserves, thus decreasing your dollar exposure over time.

    As for China’s reserves beginning to grow more rapidly again, that would depend upon whether that occurs as a result of its trade with the U.S. or with other partners – I have some trouble seeing that U.S.-China trade is going to increase much, since the U.S. economy is still in deep trouble. But if, as China hopes, its trade with all its other partners is boosted going forward, then its reserve growth should naturally mean an increase in non-dollar assets for the most part. Especially if the Brazil-China model of using regional currencies in trade takes off and flies.

    It’s certainly early in the game, but I think I see a coherent strategy on China’s part emerging.

    greg said “So China does not really diversify away the (dollar) currency risk and is not getting better prices for the commodities. From a financial transaction point of view, they’re just long-term loans for guaranteed supply in the future. Presumably, China can buy these commodities in the open market in the future since it has to pay market rate anyway.”

    I think we have to wait for more details to be revealed about these deals – hence, I’m not sure your conclusions are correct. It’s difficult to envision China agreeing such deals unless it’s getting much more bang for its buck than you assume it is getting.

  • Posted by Twofish

    First of all it’s a pretty skewed barbell. Close to a trillion in Treasuries and it’s investment in commodities are in the tens of billions. It’s also not that much of an “investment” since the commodities being bought are those that are planning to be used.

    bsetser: China’s purchases of Treasuries (especially short-term bills) have gone up even as China’s reserve growth has slowed, as China shifted money out of Agencies and — in all probability — out of money market funds that are taking credit risk and other privately managed accounts.

    Not clear. The thing about Agencies is that their credit risk is clearly greater now than they were a year ago, and with the Fed pouring money into the agencies, the spread isn’t near enough to cover the risk. By contrast, the risk in money market funds is roughly what they were a year ago.

    Also, I don’t think that anything that China is doing is part of a thought out “strategy” but rather short term reaction to events.

    The reason that SAFE is going away from corporate bonds is likely because doesn’t want long term investments in anything, and if you want to invest in short-term corporate commercial paper, this basically involves creating your own trading operation.

    There is also the matter that you have different people in China doing different and often contradictory things. One reason that people in China may be speculating in commodities, is that the government has cracked down on speculation in practically everything else.

  • Posted by greg

    Wstroupe: I think we have to wait for more details to be revealed about these deals – hence, I’m not sure your conclusions are correct. It’s difficult to envision China agreeing such deals unless it’s getting much more bang for its buck than you assume it is getting.

    Fair enough. There might be some other side agreements than simply long-term loan for guaranteed long-term supply. But my point is not that China did not get enough bang for its buck. My point is that even if there are no other agreements, they’re still worthwhile deals for China – they’re certainly much better than holding tons of T-bills.

  • Posted by WStroupe

    greg said of China’s resources deals, “they’re certainly much better than holding tons of T-bills.”

    Yes, indeed. And what if the dollar loans China is making aren’t to be paid back in dollars? What if they’re to be paid back in the currency of the entity that received the loan? That provision may not have been specifically and explicitly stipulated when the agreements were entered into, but might it come into play as matter unfold? If so, then this mechanism would potentially be a very potent one for converting dollars into other assets.

  • Posted by Cedric Regula

    Dollar index down another percent today.

    http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX

    Long end on treasuries getting creamed today. Treasury today announced $101B in sales next week. Fed came in and bought $8B today. I guess the market doesn’t like the way that math works.

    I had another two handbagger day on my short so far.

  • Posted by Jian Feng

    China has too much dollar-denominated assets. Buying commodities, however much, cannot significantly reduce that. The risk of commodity is probably low right now. But China has to find a radical solution to gradually divest itself out of long-term dollar-denominated assets. One way is to let Chinese people to spend the money overseas. Right now, each Chinese citizen is allowed to exchange $50,000 worth of RMB freely. A few years ago, it was only $2000. A significant increase will allow Chinese government to collect more RMB and use its USD through its vast number of citizens. Private Chinese citizens would then take on the market risk of buying whatever they see fit, in the same way that private investors in the US decide to load up on US treasuries. However, a few million private creditors may be much more unruly than the Party boss in China, who does have a strategic interest to maintain an amicable relationship with the US, even at very high cost. Private investors can and will stampede when the loss exceed their pain thresholds. And you cannot threaten to nuke them to stop the run on a failing economy. Decoupling China from “Chiamerica” would start the end of dollar hegemony.

  • Posted by bsetser

    Figure 7 of the paper shows two things — China’s holdings of US treasuries, US agency bonds (freddie, fannie) and deposits in us banks as a share of china’s total portfolio (currently in the 55-60% range) and China’s total estimated US holdings as a share of its total portfolio. The difference is China’s holdings of US equities and its estimated holdings of US corporate bonds. Note that China’s equities are likely carried at book value in china’s reserves; as a result, i have valued them at book (their estimated purchase price) not at their current market value.

  • Posted by Bob_in_MA

    I don’t understand how commodities can be a substitute for Treasuries as far as controlling the exchange rate goes.

    Sure, commodities are priced in dollars. But most of them are bought from Australia, Brazil, etc. They don’t want dollars. If the Chinese actually pay in US dollars (do they?) the Australian miners would just need to exchange them. It added a step, but the effect on dollar demand was temporary.

  • Posted by Cedric Regula

    Bob_in_MA

    That’s correct. They would need to buy exxon to keep pegging to the dollar.

    So that means they are going to take currency loss. But I think this will happen whether they attempt to keep pegging or not. The forces on the dollar right now are much, much bigger than the Chinese trade surplus. They no longer have enough oomph to peg.

  • Posted by bsetser

    consider say Kazakhstan. w/o chinese financing it might not be able to run a current account deficit or might have had to run down its reserves. china’s financing thus sustains a higher level of imports or higher level of reserves than otherwise would be the case …

    tho if the loan to kazakhstan and the loan to russia are denominated in dollars, china hasn’t reduced its USD exposure.

  • Posted by WStroupe

    Brad said, “tho if the loan to kazakhstan and the loan to russia are denominated in dollars, china hasn’t reduced its USD exposure.”

    What complications and/or benefits if the loans were denominated in dollars (meaning China paid out dollars) but the parties agree the repayment is not in dollars, but in some other preferred currency? Wouldn’t China accumulate non-dollar assets at the expense of its dollar assets (thus decreasing its USD exposure) and wouldn’t the borrower like to repay in his own currency? If the two parties could agree on the dollar-to-XYZ currency exchange rate formula for making the loan repayment, seems like it’s win-win for both. Am I missing something here?

  • Posted by byoCarbon

    What I cannot understand is why China thinks that industrial commodities are a good investment in a recession. Yes, prices are holding up so far, and oil I can understand as its demand is fairly inelastic, but copper and other industrial metals? Copper is the most industrial of metals, its demand (and price) can drop to almost zero in a heart beat.

    Copper is still trading well above break-even price for miners. In most past recessions, it has gone well below break-even (the early 1980′s, for example, were brutal for the mining industry.) I think there is still a very large chance that prices of copper and the metals can have another very significant and very long down leg.

    If China is beginning to think that the USD is a bad investment, just wait until the value of their copper/metals investment gets cut in half.

  • Posted by WStroupe

    byoCarbon said, “If China is beginning to think that the USD is a bad investment, just wait until the value of their copper/metals investment gets cut in half.”

    But, as Brad points out here, I think the evidence is that China is moving more and more into hard assets seen as safer stores of wealth than the dollar. So there’s a significant “buy and hold” outlook, and inevitably this global downturn is going to turn to growth, and industrial metals will have/retain real value because demand will come back.

    But also, their prices are much better now than they were during the recent commodities bubble, so they are still a pretty good value as far as cinching them at these prices and looking forward to consuming them in the production of finished goods, the demand for which is also inevitably going to return. So from both aspects China is positioning itself for the global revival.

    Of course, China gets somewhat of a hit because its buys move the market, thus increasing the prices on stuff it’s buying. But that price hit isn’t enough to negate the benefits of making the buys now, in a relative price trough.

  • Posted by Don the libertarian Democrat

    “Conversely, China doesn’t seem keen to take risk in the fixed income market. The old game of buying Agencies to get a bit more yield than Treasuries offer is over. And, I would guess — based on China’s comments about the importance of protecting the value of China’s investment in the US — that China also isn’t all that keen on the long-term bonds of large financial institutions. At least those that are not guaranteed by the FDIC.”

    I’m still waiting for a good explanation of this. Even on the bonds of large financial institutions, it seems to me that the US didn’t like the idea of giving a big haircut to China.

    Unlike most people, I find the Chinese explanations for their actions, especially on their website, to make sense and appear forward looking, especially when you set them up against most other governments in this crisis.

  • Posted by locococo

    if only one could “synthesize” commodities (against payment and out of delivery)…

    … we d be right back at the good old default swapping

  • Posted by byoCarbon

    WStroupe writes, with regards to industrial metals, “Of course, China gets somewhat of a hit because its buys move the market, thus increasing the prices on stuff it’s buying. But that price hit isn’t enough to negate the benefits of making the buys now, in a relative price trough.”

    Whether this is a price trough or not is the big question. Commodities historically decrease in cost over time as technology, etc., lower their price of production. One can find charts of copper prices declining, adjusted for inflation, fairly consistently over the last 40 years or even the last 100 years. I would argue that we are still at prices above long term norms and norms 10 years from now should be even lower.

    If this is a price trough, China wins. If this is a return to the norm and commodity prices still have a way to fall now and in the long term, China loses.

  • Posted by FollowTheMoney

    Rating agencies should already have downgraded both UK and US AAA debt.

    S&P and MOODYS are behind, just like downgrades on the financial sector and the insurance sector.

    The stage for currency crisis has been set. China is simply trying to hedge itself for the “FALL”out…

    I would not be surprised to see China add alot more GOLD to it’s reserves in the coming weeks. In 5 years time, China is goin to have the world’s most attractive global reserve. A country backed by commodities, hard workers and gigantic surplus with immense trade relationships.

    The RMB/Yuan will eventually appreciate. Our standard of living will decline, a transfer of wealth from west to east.

    But look in the mirror, did we have to invade Iraq? Did we have to build McMansions? Did we have to all drive giant SUV’s? And then when the house of cards was on fire, shouldn’t we just have let it burn instead of adding more cards in hopes the wood knock out the blaze?

    AAA downgrade in my opinion is around the corner. We’re only in the middle of the largest financial crisis, a scenario far worse than the great depression of the 1930′s unraveling.

    It’s going to be epic, it’s going to be historic, and it’s going to be spoken about for generations to come.

  • Posted by WStroupe

    Don the libertarian Democrat,

    “Unlike most people, I find the Chinese explanations for their actions, especially on their website, to make sense and appear forward looking, especially when you set them up against most other governments in this crisis.”

    and

    FollowTheMoney,

    “The RMB/Yuan will eventually appreciate. Our standard of living will decline, a transfer of wealth from west to east….AAA downgrade in my opinion is around the corner. We’re only in the middle of the largest financial crisis, a scenario far worse than the great depression of the 1930’s unraveling….It’s going to be epic, it’s going to be historic, and it’s going to be spoken about for generations to come.”

    Very, very well said, by both of you.

  • Posted by bsetser

    don — you are right. the us didn’t want to do anything dramatic that china would consider an affront. like default on agencies.

    but the us didn’t protect reserve primary (which china had invested in) from the fall out of LEH, and i would be quite surprised if SAFE didn’t hold some LEH and AIG bonds (LEH bonds weren’t made whole, obviously). The total amounts involved were small, but china in the crisis discovered that it is fundamentally loss adverse and the us gov didn’t protect it from all credit losses.

    and then there is a rumor (unconfirmed) that china (via SAFE) may have had some of the agencies preferred stock (or something in the capital structure between debt and equity) and was surprised when that wasn’t protected. just a rumor tho.

    as far as i know SAFE has never tried to explain in public why it shifted into agencies or why it shifted out … nor has it said anything in public about its little foray into equities. so i guess I am a bit less impressed by china’s public policy statements than you are!

  • Posted by Albertf

    NEW YORK (Reuters) – Stock futures extended losses on Thursday as further labor market

    weakness fueled doubts about a quick economic recovery and Britain’s reduced rating outlook

    signaled more fallout from the credit crisis. S&P 500 futures fell 10 points and were below

    fair value, a formula that evaluates pricing by taking into account interest rates,

    dividends and time to expiration on the contract. Dow Jones industrial average futures shed

    90 points, and Nasdaq 100 futures dipped 15 points.

    Keep buying the dips? Or dow 5000?

  • Posted by purple

    Stimulus does not represent a restructuring of an economy. Unless there is restructuring, it just buys time until the next leg down.

    There are very little signs that any country is restructuring because it would involve the mass liquidation of their capacity, and depression level unemployment. They would prefer some other country liquidate – this perspective led to competitive devaluations during the Great Depression.

    China’s yuan swap measures seem defensive given the very real possibility of a dollar devaluation.

  • Posted by a

    “you are right. the us didn’t want to do anything dramatic that china would consider an affront. like default on agencies.”

    Good move, usa! See how badly the chinese take it if you default on Treasuries.

Pingbacks

Bad Behavior has blocked 6440 access attempts in the last 7 days.