The G20 and the (Non)Pursuit of Financial Stability

Leave a reply

One of the legacies of the response to global financial crisis was supposed to be a renewed focus on international financial stability. A manifestation of this effort was the transformation of the Financial Stability Forum by the Group of Twenty (G20) into the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to oversee the development of global financial and regulatory standards. A “board,” of course, sounds more substantial than a “forum,” and the membership was expanded to include more G20 emerging market countries.

But the record of the FSB does not demonstrate an organizational commitment to changing the structure of international finance. Howard Davies summarizes its performance:

“…it is a watchdog without teeth. It can neither instruct the other regulators what to do (or not do) nor force countries to comply with new regulations.”

The FSB, of course, is an agent for its principals, the member governments. Davies places the responsibility for the lack of action on the FSB’s overseers:

“So a fair verdict would be that the FSB has done no more and no less than what its political masters have been prepared to allow it to do. There is no political will to create a body that could genuinely police international standards and prevent countries from engaging in competitive deregulation —and prevent banks from engaging in regulatory arbitrage.”

International financial stability is an international public good.  While domestic public goods are the result of failures in domestic markets, international public goods reflect failures of intergovernmental action. The lack of cooperation is due in part to a prisoners’ dilemma: each individual government has an incentive to shirk if it thinks that others will contribute to the provision of the public good.  Consequently, the good is underprovided.

Inci Ötker-Robe has written about other obstacles to collective action. These include problems in formulating and transforming knowledge into action, such as information asymmetries. As an example, she points to a lack of data across financial systems, which makes identifying risks and constructing early warning systems more difficult. Similarly, uncertainties about feedback loops that cross borders can allow financial fragility to escalate and trigger crises.

Ötker-Robe also writes about the incentives that discourage effective risk management. Diverging national interests, for example, prompt governments to protect their own financial systems rather than promote global welfare. (For an example, see the debate among regulators over capital requirements for systematically important banks.) She comes to a prognosis quite similar to that of Davies cited above:

“…the absence of global enforcement authorities with appropriate powers and accountability to forge global cooperation on the different areas of risk has hindered progress.”

What would it take for the situation to change? Ötker-Robe proposes implementing incremental steps to foster cooperation. These include financial transfers to governments to lower participation costs and increase participation. The IMF’s Managing Director Christine Lagarde has called for a new multilateralism, which would ”…instill a broader sense of “civic responsibility” on the part of all players in the modern global economy, including the private sector, and specifically financial sector players”. But if it is difficult for market participants to look past their private welfare, it is also difficult for governments to look beyond national interests, despite the domestic costs if global systems fail. Davies worries that it may take another crisis for the resolve to create international institutions with the necessary powers to be created. If the G20, which recently met in Brisbane, does not back its rhetoric with concrete actions, it might be a casualty of such a crisis.

Dealing with the Fallout from U.S. Policies

Leave a reply

The divergence of monetary policies in the advanced economies continues to roil financial markets. The Federal Reserve has reacted to better labor market conditions by ending its quantitative easing policy. The Bank of Japan, on the other hand, will expand its purchases of securities, and the European Central Bank has indicated its willingness to undertake unconventional policies if inflation expectations do not rise. The differences in the prospects between the U.S. and Great Britain on the one hand and the Eurozone and Japan on the other has caused Nouriel Roubini to liken the global economy to a jetliner with only one engine still functioning.

The effect of U.S. interest rates on international capital flows is well-documented. Many countries are vulnerable to changes in U.S. policies that can reverse financial flows. Countries that have relied on capital flows searching for a higher yield to finance their current account deficits are particularly susceptible. Declining commodity prices reinforce the exposure of commodity exporters such as Brazil and Russia.

U.S. markets affect capital flows in other ways. Erlend Nier, Tahsin Saadi Sedik and Tomas Molino of the IMF have investigated the key drivers of private capital flows in a sample of emerging market economies during the last decade. They found that changes in economic volatility, as measured by the VIX (the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index, which measures the implied volatility of S&P 500 index options), are the “dominant driver of capital flows to emerging markets” during periods of global financial stress. During such periods, the influence of fundamental factors, such as growth differentials, diminishes. Countries can defend themselves with higher interest rates, but at the cost of slowing their domestic economies.

When the IMF’s economists included data from advanced economies in their empirical analysis, they found that the impact of the VIX was higher in those economies. They inferred that as countries develop financially, “capital flows could therefore be increasingly influenced by external factors.” Financial integration, therefore, will lead to more vulnerability to the VIX.

Volatility in U.S. equity markets drives up the VIX. Moreover, empirical analyses, such as one by Corradi, Distaso and Mele, find that U.S. variables, such as the Industrial Production Index and the Consumer Price Index, explain part of the changes in the VIX. U.S. economic conditions, therefore, affect global capital flows through more linkages than interest rates alone.

What are the implications for U.S. policymakers? The Federal Open Market Committee does not usually consider the impact of its policy directives on foreign economies. On the other hand, the Fed is well aware of the feedback from foreign economies to the U.S. Moreover, there are measures the U.S. could undertake to lessen the impact of its policy shifts on foreign markets.

During the global financial crisis, for example, the Federal Reserve established swap arrangements for 14 foreign central banks, including those of Brazil, Mexico, Singapore and South Korea. These gave the foreign financial regulators the ability to lend dollars to their banks that had financed holdings of U.S. assets by borrowing in the U.S. However, not all emerging markets’ central banks were deemed eligible for this financial relationship, leaving some of them disappointed (see Prasad, Chapter 11).

Federal Reserve officials have signaled that they are not interested in serving again as a source of liquidity. One alternative would be to allow the IMF to take over this capacity. But the U.S. Congress has not passed the legislation needed to implement long-overdue governance reforms at the Fund, and it is doubtful that the results of the recent elections will lead to a different stance. Not many foreign countries will be in favor of enabling the IMF to undertake new obligations until the restructuring of that institution’s governance is resolved.

Volatile capital flows have the potential of sabotaging already-anemic recoveries in many emerging market countries. The global financial architecture continues to lack reliable backstops in the event of more instability. The U.S. should cooperate with other nations and international financial institutions in addressing the fallout from its economic policies, either by directly providing liquidity or allowing the international institutions to do so.

Volatility in the Emerging Markets

Leave a reply

Volatility has returned to the financial markets. Stock prices in the U.S. have fallen from their September highs, and the return on 10-year Treasury bonds briefly fell below 2%.  Financial markets in emerging markets have been particularly hard hit. The Institute for International Finance estimates that $9 billion was withdrawn from equity markets in those countries in October, while the issuance of new bonds fell.

The increased volatility follows a period of rising allocations of portfolio investments by advanced economies to assets in the emerging market economies. The IMF’s latest Global Financial Stability Report reported that equity market allocations increased from 7% of the total stock of advanced economy portfolio investments in 2002 to almost 10% in 2012, which represented $2.4 trillion of emerging market equities. Similarly, bond allocations rose from 4% to almost 10% during the same period, reaching $1.6 trillion of emerging market bonds.

The outflows are due to several factors. The first, according to the IMF, is a decline in growth rates in these countries below their pre-crisis rates. While part of the slowdown reflects global conditions, there are also concerns about slowing productivity increases. China’s performance is one of the reasons for the lower forecast. Its GDP rose at a rate of 7.3% in the third quarter, below the 7.5% that the government wants to achieve.

Second, the prospect of higher interest rates in the U.S. following the winding down of the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing has caused investors to reassess their asset allocations. The importance of “push” factors versus “pull” factors in driving capital flows has long been recognized, but their relative importance may have grown in recent years.   A recent paper by Shaghil Ahmed and Andrei Zlate (working paper here) provides evidence that the post-crisis response in net capital inflows, particularly portfolio flows, in a sample of emerging markets to the difference between domestic and U.S. monetary policy rates increased in the post-crisis period (2009:Q3 – 2013:Q2). They also looked at the impact of the U.S. large-scale asset purchases, and found that the such purchases had a statistically significant impact on gross capital inflows to these countries.

Part of the increased response in flows between advanced and emerging market economies may reflect the actions of large asset managers. In a paper in the latest BIS Quarterly Review, Ken Miyajima and Ilhyock Shim investigate the response of asset managers in advanced economies to benchmarks of emerging market portfolios. They point out that these managers often rely on performance measures of asset markets in emerging markets, which leads to an increased correlation of the assets under the managers’ control. Moreover, relatively small shifts in portfolio allocation by the asset managers can have a significant impact on asset markets in emerging markets. As a result, in recent years “…investor flows to asset managers and EME asset prices reinforced each other’s directional movements.” Investor flows to the emerging market economies are procyclical. If other factors do not provide a reason to reverse the outflows, they will continue.

The IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report also points out that: “An unintended consequence of…stronger financial links between advanced and emerging market economies is the increased synchronization of asset price movements and volatility.” One downside of increased financial globalization, therefore, is a decline in the ability to lower risk through geographic diversification. Similarly, any notion of “decoupling” emerging markets from the advanced economies is a “mirage,” according to Mexico’s central bank head Agustin Carstens. To achieve international financial stability will require monitoring capital flows across asset markets in different countries; volatility does not respect geographic borders.

Martin Wolf’s Warning

Leave a reply

It is time for the 2014 Globie—a (somewhat fictitious) prize I award once a year to a book that deserves recognition for its treatment of the consequences of globalization. (Previous winners can be found here.) The financial turmoil of the last week makes this year’s award-winner particularly appropriate: Martin Wolf for The Shifts and the Shocks: What We’ve Learned–and Have Still to Learn–from the Financial Crisis. Wolf, a distinguished writer for the Financial Times, once viewed globalization as a positive force that enhanced welfare. But the events of the last few years have changed his views of financial markets and institutions. He now views financial flows as inherently susceptible to the occurrence of crises. And Wolf’s intellectual evolution leaves him deeply concerned about the consequences of financial globalization.

Part I of the book deals with the “shocks” to the global economy. Wolf begins in the U.S. with the crisis of 2008-09 and the relatively weak recovery. He shares the view of Richard Koo of Nomura Research that this was a “balance sheet recession,” with the private sector seeking to shed the debt it had built up during the pre-crisis period. The cutback in private sector spending was initially matched by an increase in the government’s fiscal deficit, which arose as expenditures on unemployment benefits and other programs grew and revenues fell. The rise in the fiscal deficit was particularly appropriate as the “liquidity trap” limited the downward fall of interest rates and the expansionary effects of monetary policy. However, the political acceptance of deficits and debts ended prematurely in 2010, and the recovery has not been as robust as it needs to be.

Wolf then turns to the Eurozone, which experienced its shift towards fiscal austerity after the crisis in Greece erupted. Wolf views the monetary union as “incomplete and imperfect.” On the one hand, its members have sovereign powers that include issuing debt; on the other hand, they do not have the risk-sharing mechanisms that a federal union possesses. When the capital flows that had fed housing bubbles in Spain and Ireland and financed fiscal deficits in Greece and Portugal ended, the borrowing countries were encumbered with  the debt they had accumulated either directly through fiscal borrowing or indirectly as they bailed out their domestic banks. Those increases in public  debt were seen by Germany and others as proof that the crises were due to fiscal excess, which had to be met by fiscal austerity. But Wolf claims that the German view “…was an effort at self-exculpation: as the Eurozone’s largest supplier of surplus capital, its private sector bore substantial responsibility for the excesses that led to the crisis.”

After surveying the relartvely more benign experience of the emerging and developing countries during the crisis, Wolf turns to the “shifts” that led to the breakdown of the financial system. These include the liberalization of market forces, particularly finance; technological change, which speeded up the integration of markets and financial markets; and ageing, which transformed the savings-investment balance in high-income countries. These led to an increase in financial fragility that made financial markets unstable and crises endemic. The changes took place in a global economy where global savings where channeled from oil-exporters and Asian economies, particularly China, to the U.S., thus reinforcing the credit boom.

The last section of the book deals with solutions to the crises. Wolf is ready to consider “radical reform,” which includes higher capital ratios for the banks and macroprudential policies that seek to achieve both asset market and macroeconomic stability. Policies to rebalance the global economy include encouraging less risky forms of finance, increasing insurance against external shocks, and moving towards a global reserve asset. The steps needed to assure the continued existence of the euro start with a mechanism to assure symmetrical adjustment across the Eurozone, debt restructuring, and a banking union.

None of these measures will be easy to implement. But Wolf’s willingness to discuss them is a sign of how much the crisis has unsettled those who thought they understood the risks of financial globalization. Wolf attributes the responsibility for the crisis to “Western elites,” who misunderstood the consequences of financial liberalization, allowed democracy to be weakened, and in the case of the Eurozone, imposed a system without accountability. The loss in public confidence, he writes, reduces trust in domestic legitimacy.

The title of the last chapter, “Fire Next Time,” is taken from James Baldwin’s book of the same name, which in turn borrowed from an African-American spiritual: “God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water but fire next time.” Wolf warns that the next global economic crisis “could end in the fire.” While he  does not explicitly explain what this fire will be, he mentions in the preface that his father was a Jewish refugee from Austria in the 1930s, and the historical reference is clear. At a time when right-wing parties are ascendant in Europe, Wolf’s warning is a sober reminder that unsettled economic circumstances can lead to political extremism and instability.

International Debt and Financial Crises

1 Reply

The latest issue of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook has a chapter on global imbalances that discusses the evolution of net foreign assets (also known as the net international investment position) in debtor and creditor nations. The authors warn that increases in the foreign holdings of domestic liabilities can raise the probability of different types of financial crises, including banking, currency, sovereign debt and sudden stops. A closer inspection of the evidence that has been presented elsewhere suggests that it is foreign-held debt that poses a risk.

The role of international debt in increasing the risk of crises was pointed out by Rodrik and Velasco (working paper 1999), who showed that short-term bank debt contributed to the occurrence of capital flow crises in the period of 1988-98. More recently, Joyce (2011) (working paper here) looked at systemic bank crises in a sample of emerging markets, and found that an increase in foreign debt liabilities contributed to an increase in the incidence of these crises, while FDI and portfolio equity liabilities had the opposite effect. Ahrend and Goujard (2014) (working paper here) confirmed that increases in debt liabilities increase the occurrence of systemic banking crises. Catão and Milesi-Ferretti (2014) (working paper here) found that an increase in net foreign assets lowered the probability of external crises. Moreover, they also reported that this effect was due to net debt. FDI had the opposite effect, i.e., an increase in FDI liabilities lowered the risk of a crisis. Al-Saffar, Ridinger and Whitaker (2013) have looked at external balance sheet positions during the global financial crisis and reported that gross external debt contributed to declines in GDP.

There are also studies that compare the effect of equity and debt flows. Levchenko and Mauro (2007), for example, investigated the behavior of several types of flows, and found that FDI was stable during periods of “sudden stops,” while portfolio equity played a limited role in propagating the crisis. Portfolio debt, on the other hand, and bank flows were more likely to be reversed. Similarly, Furceri, Guichard and Rusticelli (2012) (working paper here) found that large capital inflows driven by debt increase the probability of banking, currency and balance-of-payment crises, while inflows that are driven by FDI or portfolio equity have a negligible effect.

Why are debt liabilities more risky for countries than equity? Debt is contractual: the holder of the debt expects to be paid regardless of economic conditions. Equity holders, on the other hand, know that their payout is tied to the profitability of the firm that issues the debt. Moreover, during a crisis there are valuation effects on external balance sheets. The value of equity falls, which raises the net foreign asset position of those countries that are net issuers of equity, while lowering it for those that hold equity. In addition, debt may be denominated in a foreign currency to attract foreign investors worried about depreciation. A currency depreciation during a crisis raises the value of the debt on the balance sheet of the issuing country.

These results have consequences for the use of capital controls and the sequence of decontrol. Emerging markets should be careful when issuing debt. However, the evidence to date of trends in the international capital markets shows a rise in the use of debt by these countries. Emerging market governments, for example, issued $69 billion in bonds in the first quarter. In addition, the BIS has drawn attention to the issuance of debt securities by corporations in emerging markets.

The IMF has warned of a slowdown in the emerging market countries, with the Fund’s economists forecasting GDP growth rates below the pre-crisis rates.  Speculation about the impact of changes in the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policies has contributed to concerns about these countries. If a slowdown does materialize, the debt that was issued by these countries may become a burden that requires outside intervention.

The IMF and Sovereign Debt

Leave a reply

The continuing inability of the Eurozone economies to break out of their current impasse means that any optimistic projections of declining debt to GDP ratios are unlikely to be achieved. As long as European governments continue to raise funds in the financial markets on favorable terms, the current situation remains sustainable.  But the IMF is thinking ahead to the day when there is a change in the financial climate, and is proposing a change in the rules governing its ability to lend to governments that may need its assistance if they are to continue repaying their debt.

The Fund’s rethinking has been prompted by its concerns over its lending to Greece. The IMF, as part of a “troika” with the European Commission and the European Central Bank, participated in a loan arrangement in May 2010. The IMF’s contribution consisted of a $40 billion Stand-By Arrangement. The Fund had a problem, however: this amount far exceeded the normal amount of credit that the IMF normally provided to its members. Exceptions were allowed, but there were criteria to govern when “exceptional access” was permitted. One of these was a high probability that a government’s public debt was sustainable in the medium term. It was difficult to claim that was true for Greece in 2010, so an alternative criterion was established: exceptional access could also be provided if there was a “high risk of international systemic spillover effects.” This was used as grounds to justify the lending arrangement to Greece.

A restructuring of the Greek debt did take place in 2012. The IMF subsequently issued a review of its own response to debt crises, and found that “debt restructurings have often been too little and too late, this failing to re-establish debt sustainability and market access in a durable way.” The IMF was concerned that its money was used to pay off creditors who would otherwise have been forced to negotiate changes in the debt’s conditions with the Greek government.

The IMF has come back with a new lending framework for governments with problems in paying off their debt. The new option would be relevant for a country that has lost access to the capital markets, and when there are concerns about the sustainability of its debt. The government would ask for a “reprofiling” of its debt by creditors, which would consist of an extension of its maturity without a reduction in the principal or interest, while the IMF offered financial support with a plan for economic policy adjustment. Fund officials claim that “reprofiling tends to be less costly to creditors than debt reduction, less disruptive to financial markets, and hence less contagious.”

The new option would allow the IMF to operate in situations where the sustainability of a country’s debt is ambiguous. Those cases are more common than creditors want to admit. Ireland and Portugal have graduated from their respective IMF programs, and can obtain credit again. But the “good outcome” occurred in part because Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank, pledged to do “whatever it takes” to preserve the euro, and market participants took him at his word. To date, no one has called upon Mr. Draghi to back up his pledge, and lending rates to all the Eurozone members have fallen. But it is not too difficult to imagine a scenario in which the ECB’s credibility crumbles, particularly if deflation takes hold. What then happens to perceptions of debt sustainability?

As an agent of 188 sovereign principals (the member governments), the IMF is constrained in what it can do on its own initiative. But any ambiguity of the sustainability of debt gives the IMF some scope for autonomy. In addition, differences in the objectives of the members provide policy “space” for the IMF to maneuver.

Extending the maturity date of an existing bond would lower its net present value of the debt. Lenders, therefore, are unlikely to embrace the IMF’s proposal. But the concerns over the repayment of Argentine debt threaten to extend to other markets (see here), and are another source of uncertainty.  An association of lenders has issued a call for more flexibility in the terms governing collective action clauses, but these take time to implement. Moreover, European finance ministers are preoccupied by other, more pressing concerns.

As long as debt markets remain calm, “reprofiling” will be considered as an interesting policy proposal, which will be sent off for further study. But once the interests of the major stakeholders—which continue to be the G7 countries—are involved, then there will be an assessment based on the financial interests at stake. The response to the Greek debt crisis demonstrated that the European countries are quite willing to rewrite the rules governing the IMF’s policy options when they see an advantage for their national interests. But the response to a similar situation in another part of the world could be very different. And it is precisely that perception of unequal treatment that is driving dissatisfaction with current arrangements at the IMF.

 

European Doldrums

1 Reply

European economies are faltering.  The German economy contracted in the second quarter, as did those of France and Italy. Growth in Spain and the Netherlands was not enough to offset the slowdown in the Eurozone’s largest members.  An escalation in the confrontation with Russia would send shockwaves rippling from the Ukraine westwards that world worsen the situation.

The continuing slump confirms Jay C. Shambaugh’s observation (which appears in his paper in the new volume, What Have We Learned? Macroeconomic Policy After the Crisis) that much of what happened during the global financial crisis was consistent with standard international macroeconomics. For example, countries with flexible exchange rates were able to adjust more easily to the shock than those with fixed rates. Shambaugh also compares unemployment rates in the Eurozone with those across the U.S., and notes that while both the range and standard deviation of unemployment rates began to fall in the U.S. in 2010, the dispersion of national unemployment rates continued in the Eurozone. Labor conditions improved in some countries, but not others. Shambaugh cites this as evidence that there is a lack of adequate shock absorbers, such as labor mobility, within the Eurozone.

These structural problems have been exacerbated by fiscal austerity policies. Governments have sought to reestablish fiscal balance despite the impact on economic performance. The latest announcements of lowered growth have led to calls for relaxing fiscal constraints. But the incoming head of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, shows little interest in relaxing the limits on fiscal policies, nor does German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

This leaves (once again) Mario Draghi and the European Central Bank as the focus of hope and attention. The central bank is waiting for the impact of policy measures announced in June to take place. But the disappointing economic news only reinforces calls for the ECB to enact a European version of quantitative easing.

The European GDP data have troubling implications for the larger issue of European debt. Last April, the IMF offered projections for the debt/GDP ratios this year and next:

 

2014 2015
France 95.8 96.1
Greece 174.7 171.3
Ireland 123.7 122.7
Italy 134.5 133.1
Spain 98.8 102.0
Eurozone 95.6 94.5

 

The new data will not improve the forecasts for these countries. Greece’s situation, in particular, appears as dire as ever. The Greek government hopes that a cyclically-adjusted fiscal surplus of 2.1% for 2013 will allow it some reduction in the interest rates it must pay and an extension of debt repayments. But the official targets for debt/GDP ratios of 124% in 2020 and 110% in 2022 appear unrealistic.

In a recent paper by Manuel Ramos-Francia, Ana María Aguilar-Argaez, Santiago García-Verdú and Gabriel Cuadra-García (all of the Banco de México) that appeared in the English edition of Monetaria, the authors compare the Latin American debt crisis with the European crisis. They point out that the macro imbalances and the magnitudes of the debt are larger in the peripheral European countries than they were in Latin America. Moreover, the Europeans are not able to rely on exchange rate devaluations to deal with the costs of fiscal austerity. They also remind us that the Latin American situation was finally resolved in 1989 by a reduction in debt and the issuance of “Brady bonds” (see Chapter 4 here), and suggest that some form of debt relief be granted in Europe.

It took seven years from the outbreak of the Latin American crisis for a resolution to be achieved. By that reckoning, European countries have several years of continued stagnation ahead. Political leaders who have seen their predecessors swept out of office by angry voters may not be willing to wait that long.

The BRICS and the Bretton Woods Twins

1 Reply

The World Cup was not the only event of global significance to take place in Brazil this summer. The leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa met in the city of Fortaleza and announced the formation of two new financial institutions. One is the New Development Bank (NDB), which will finance “sustainable development” projects, with an eventual $100 billion in capital. The second is the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), which will make $100 billion available to lend to members in financial distress.

If these stated aims seem familiar, they should: they copy the missions of the Bretton Woods “Twins,” the World Bank and the IMF. Why, then, would we need another set of institutions with these mandates? A possible answer could be that these institutions will operate on a smaller scale, and therefore fill a gap between national organizations and international ones.  The principle of subsidiarity states that decisions should be made at the appropriate level, i.e., national policymakers address domestic needs, regional organizations deal with issues of regional relevance, and international institutions address global problems.  In this case, it might be argued that these middle-income nations are better able to make decisions on their level than in a larger forum.

However, economic efficiency is not what is driving this process. The new organizations are a response to the breakdown of quota reform at the IMF and the World Bank. A visitor to Beijing, as I recently was, will hear the complaints that the U.S. government, by not passing the measures needed to implement the reform measures, is frustrating the aspirations of the emerging market nations. Attempts to explain the inaction as the result of domestic politics are dismissed as self-serving justification.

It is difficult not to be sympathetic to these complaints. There is no reason why the long-overdue reallocation of quotas should not proceed. The governments of the emerging market economies have long been promised that an adjustment of their positions would be made, but there was always a procedural hurdle to be cleared. Now, when the world’s governments (including the Obama administration) agree on the particulars, a new reason for inaction appears.

Of course, there are details to be worked out for the new bodies. Who is eligible to borrow from the new development bank? Will it seek to compete with the World Bank by offering more money/fewer conditions? Will there be political “litmus tests” for would-be borrowers?

The new currency arrangement resembles the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization (CMIM), an agreement on currency swaps within Asia, which has been viewed as a complement, and not a substitute, for the IMF. Moreover, as under the CMIM, a country that wants to borrow more than 30% of the maximum access allocated to it would also have to enter an arrangement with —  the IMF! The world, it seems, is not quite ready to cast off the Fund.

But it would be wrong to underestimate the significance of the establishment of these institutions. They are the result of the continuing clash between the G7 countries and the emerging market nations that see themselves as perpetually marginalized within the Bretton Woods institutions. While economic growth in China may be slowing and India continues to strive to accelerate its pace of development, the size of these and other countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America ensure that they will become more dominant over time. If they are frustrated within the traditional bodies of international economic governance, they have the capacity to establish their own forums.

However, economic and financial instability does not respect political camps. Their avoidance are international public goods, requiring cooperation from the full range of nations. A breakdown in global governance only leaves the international economy more vulnerable to volatility that can sweep across borders, as we learned in 2008-09. Perhaps the biggest question about the new organizations is whether they will strengthen the resiliency of the international financial system. It may take another crisis to learn the answer.

On the Road

Leave a reply

Next week I will be in Beijing to teach international macroeconomics at the Hanqing Harris Summer School at Renmin University. I will also be attending a forum on the internationalization of the renminbi organized by the International Monetary Institute of Renmin University. I am looking forward to many interesting conversations with Chinese economists.

I will resume posting after I return.

China’s Outward FDI

Leave a reply

According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s latest World Investment Report Overview 2014, Foreign Direct Investment inflows to China reached $124 billion last year, while outflows rose to $101 billion. The Report anticipates that outflows will surpass inflows within the next few years, changing China from a net recipient of FDI to a net supplier. This change will affect China’s external balance sheet, and its response to financial crises.

China’s foreign assets have traditionally been overwhelmingly concentrated in foreign exchange reserves. In 2011, for example, reserves accounted for two-thirds of all the country’s foreign assets.  While the central bank’s holdings of foreign currencies (mostly held as U.S. Treasury securities) allowed it to deter any speculative currency attacks, they carried a low rate of return. That return fell even further during and after the global financial crisis as the Federal Reserve drove down interest rates, both short- and long-term. Therefore, China’s assets have not been very profitable. In addition, the foreign exchange reserves have lost value over time as the dollar depreciated. Menzie Chinn has pointed out that the political theater in Washington, DC only heightened Chinese concerns about their holdings of dollars.

A very large proportion of China’s foreign liabilities, on the other hand, has consisted largely of FDI; in 2011, the share of FDI in foreign liabilities was 59%. These investments were very profitable for the foreign firms that held them, producing a substantial stream of income. Consequently, as Yu Yongding, director of the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has emphasized, China’s net return on international investments has usually been negative, despite its status as a net international creditor.  China’s net international investment position in 2011 represented +21% of its GDP, but it recorded a negative net primary income flow of about -1% of its GDP.

More assets held in the form of FDI, therefore, will raise the income that China receives from its assets.  Holding FDI in other countries will also give China a chance to diversity the currency composition of its assets. But there is a downside: equity holders share the risks of the ventures they own. In the past, this meant that China’s negative net FDI position acted as a crisis buffer. China’s net primary income turned positive in 2007 and 2008; its foreign exchange assets continued to pay returns, while the return on domestic FDI fell due to the global financial crisis.  Moreover, a decline in the value of FDI as well as portfolio equity lowered China’s liabilities, contributing to an improvement in the net international investment position.

China is not unique in the composition of its foreign assets and liabilities. Philip Lane of Trinity College/Dublin has written about the “long debt, short equity” position of many emerging markets, which helped them ride out the economic turbulence of the global crisis. Many advanced economies, on the other hand, were “long equity, short debt,” which while profitable in normal times, exacerbated the decline in their economies when the crisis hit.

China’s situation will change if there is a shift towards a net positive FDI position. The flow of income from foreign assets will become more pro-cyclical. Moreover, those assets will lose value in the event of a downturn. A depreciation of the renminbi would only increase this valuation effect.

Chinese firms traditionally moved abroad to secure reliable supplies of natural resources. More recently, the surge of outward FDI has also reflected aspirations to venture into foreign markets. The movement outward will eventually raise China’s net investment return and provide it with the ability to hold assets in currencies other than the dollar. But it will also diminish the role of FDI liabilities to act as a crisis buffer. This is one factor that should be added to the list of benefits and costs of a change in China’s net FDI position.