Tag Archives: primary income

Japan’s Net Income Surplus and Its Exchange Rate

Leave a reply

Japan’s current account surplus may not be a surprise to those of us who remember Japan as a major exporter. But a closer examination shows that the current account surpluses recorded today are not due to the trade account but rather the net primary income balance. Japan used the trade surpluses of the 1970s and 1980s to build up its holdings of foreign assets and prepare for the day when it would need income from abroad to pay for its aging population. Last year, according to The Economist, the country earned a net $269 billion on its primary income balance, equal to 6% of its GDP.

Mariana Colacelli, Deepali Gautam and Cyril Rebillard of the IMF examine Japan’s income balance in their 2021 working paper,“ Japan’s Foreign Assets and Liabilities: Implications for the External Accounts.” They point out that the surplus reflects Japan’s status as a net creditor nation, as shown by its Net Investment Income Position of $5.4 billion, which equals 63% of its GDP.  The surplus reflects higher yields on its foreign assets than its liabilities , including both foreign direct investment as well as portfolio equity and debt assets. The U.S., on the other hand, has a surplus on FDI income but a deficit on its portfolio-related return.

Japan’s income balance is negatively corelated to its trade balance, and this relationship holds for other countries. They cite several factors that could be relevant in Japan’s case, including:

  • aging population, which uses its assets to finance consumption (including imports);
  • income effect, which boosts spending on imports;
  • offshoring by multinationals, which shifts income from exports to income received from the multinationals’ subsidiaries.

Colacell, Gautam and Rebillard also study the response of the income balance to changes in the real exchange rate in order to compare this with the response of the trade balance. An appreciation of the real exchange rate in a country like Japan with a large net creditor position would likely lead to a decrease in the income balance, reinforcing the expected trade response to an appreciation. On the other hand, a currency appreciation in a net debtor nation would most likely lead to an increase in the income balance, which would lead to an income surplus that could offset the trade response.

They present evidence of negative responses in the income balance to an appreciation. This result differs from that reported of Takahiro Hattori, Ayako Tomita and Kohei Asao in a new working paper from the Policy Research Institute of the Japan’s Ministry of Finance, “The Accumulation of Income Balance and Its Relationship with Real Exchange Rate: Evidence from Japan.” They use data from 1999 through 2020 and find that the real exchange rate does not have a significant impact on Japan’s real exchange rate.

They expand their empirical analysis to a panel of 39 countries, and find again that the estimates of the real exchange rate impact on the income balance are insignificant. These results are similar to those reported by Enrique Alberola of the IMF with Ángel Estrada and Francesca Viana of the Bank of Spain in their 2020 paper in the Journal of International Money and Finance, “Global Imbalances from a Stock Perspective: The Asymmetry between Creditors and Debtors.” (BIS working paper version here). They investigated the impact of the role of the net income balance on the adjustment of the current account via the real exchange rate using annual data from 1980-2015, but found no evidence of such an effect. I also looked at the response of the income balance to the dollar exchange rate in 26 emerging market countries during the period of 1998– 2015  in my 2020 paper in the Review of International Economics, “The Sources of International Investment Income in Emerging Market Economics”, and did not find evidence of an impact of the exchange rate.

Further evidence on this channel of transmission to current account imbalances via the exchange rate impact on the net income balance appears in Alberto Behar and Ramin Hasan’s of the IMF in their 2022 working paper, “The Current Income Balance: External Adjustment Channel or Vulnerability Amplifier?” They did find evidence of a significant effect of the exchange rate on income credits and debits. However, these effects are relatively small when compared with the impact on the trade balance.

Japan’s net income balance, therefore, may an outlier in terms of its size and position in that country’s current income. However, the increasing importance of net income balances and their impact on a country’s balance of payments will necessitate further work on this topic. In particular, the role of the exchange rate in determining the primary income balance canl be further examined.

China’s Missing Income

Leave a reply

The earnings of a country’s multinational firms appear in its balance of payments in the primary income component of the current income balance. Primary income includes the net flow of income received for the provision of a factor of production, such as labor, financial or other assets, to and from nonresidents. Investment income is usually the largest component of these income flows, and income from FDI appears there with income from portfolio and other types of investments (such as banks) as well as income from the central bank’s reserves.

The countries with the largest net flows of foreign direct investment income in 2021 were:

U.S.                    $348.9 billion

Japan                 $95.4 billion

Germany           $90.4 billion

France               $54.1 billion

Netherlands    $34.7 billion

U.K.                  $25.6 billion

(The Netherlands data exclude income flows associated with Special Purpose Entities, which serve as conduits for FDI flows.)

The ranking of countries by FDI income receipts can be compared with the listing of countries by the number of multinational firms with headquarters located in their borders. Pizzola, Carroll and Mackie (2020) of Ernst & Young provide a ranking of countries by the number of Fortune Global 500 firms headquartered in their jurisdictions. The U.S., Japan, France, Germany and the U.K. all appear at the top of the list. But the country at the number one position with the largest number of multinationals is China. Why doesn’t China also appear in the list of top FDI recipients?

There are several answers. First, China does not report the values of the components of its primary income, so we do not know what its net FDI income is. But it does report total net primary income, and that balance has almost always been negative. If FDI income is the largest component of primary income as it is for many other emerging market countries, then it has been contributing to the primary income deficit.

Second, while China is a net creditor nation with an overall net international investment position in 2021 of $2.2 trillion, its direct investment assets are less than its liabilities: $2.79 trillion vs $3.60 trillion, or net $ -0.82 trillion, according to the IMF’s Balance of Payments data. Similarly, while China has become a major source of FDI outflows, FDI inflows are larger: $178.8 billion in the acquisition of assets vs. $344.1 in the acquisition of liabilities in 2021. As long as investments into China exceed its own foreign acquisitions, the flow of income derived from these activities will be negative.

Brad Setser of the Council of Foreign Relations has also written about China’s primary account. He is puzzled by is decline in the decline in the balance in the second quarter of 2022 at a time when foreign holdings of Chinese bonds were falling. He also writes that:

“China was locked down and its economy shrank—not an ideal environment for foreign firms to make large profits.”

Pizzola, Carroll and Mackie point out that the headquarters of the multinational firms have over time shifted away from the U.S. and other members of the Group of 7 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, U.K., U.S.) While the U.S. still accounts for the second largest number of headquarters, its total declined between 2000 and 2020. Japan also registered a decline in the number of multinational firms headquartered there. As other counties become the headquarters of multinational firms, their FDI income receipts will rise as well

The primary account balance plays an important role in many countries’ current accounts. In China, for example, in 2022 the surplus in the current account of $401.9 billion was smaller than the trade balance surplus of $576.3 billion because of the deficit in the primary account of  $193.6 billion. (Secondary income, which includes remittances, registered a surplus of $19.1 billion.)  It would be useful to have the full data on primary income to understand what is driving this component of China’s balance of payments.

China’s Outward FDI

Leave a reply

Chinese firms that want to list their stock in U.S. equity markets face a series of hurdles. The Securities and Exchange Commission is implementing a new rule that requires the firms to provide information regarding their ties to the Chinese government, while the Biden administration is banning Americans from investing in 59 Chinese firms. Moreover, Chinese authorities have their own concerns about the foreign listing of Chinese firms. Chinese multinationals also face impediments to their foreign expansion through direct investment, but they have been successful in expanding their foreign operations, and this is slowly transforming China’s external balance sheet.

China, of course, is a creditor country, with a net international investment position (NIIP) in 2020 of $2,150 billion. Historically its balance sheet has been characterized as “long debt, short equity,” i.e., China held the debt issued by borrowers in the advanced economies (such as U.S. Treasury bonds) and issued equity liabilities, usually in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI). This strategy allowed China to benefit from the expertise of multinational firms and foreign technology, while avoiding the need to depend on its own undeveloped financial markets to arrange financing. But Chinese firms are at the stage where they can compete in foreign markets, and have been acquiring foreign affiliates.

In 2010, Chinese FDI assets were worth $317 billion, while Chinese FDI liabilities were valued at $1,570 billion, for a net FDI position of -$1,252 billion, or -20.6% of Chinese GDP. Chinese  outward FDI flows have grown since then, and the stock of assets reached $2,237 billion in 2019. (These changes also reflect the effects of currency value fluctuations.)  While the stock of liabilities was still larger at $2,796 billion, the gap between them had shrunk to $560 billion, only about 4% of GDP.

Dongkun Li and Yang Zhang provide an occount of the evolution of Chinese outward FDI in their article, “Compressed Development of Outward Foreign Direct Investment: New Challenges to the Chinese Government,” which appeared in the Journal of African and Asian Studes in 2020.  In the 1990s Chinese FDI was usually undertaken by state owned enterprises and focused on the acquisition of natural resources, particularly in developing economies. The government endorsed FDI as part of its growth strategy, however, and FDI outflows grew rapidly after 2001 as private enterprises increased their share of China’s outward expansion. There was a slowdown in 2017 when the Chinese government, concerned about capital outflows, imposed restrictions on outward FDI. Foreign expansion has continued, albeit at a slower pace, and has been given a new focus under the Belt and Road Initiative.

The increase in Chinese firms’ foreign activities has also affected China’s net investment income. Despite its NIIP creditor position, China has recorded deficits on net investment income, as payments on its FDI liabilities traditionally have exceeded the returns China received on its largely debt-dominated assets. But China’s net investment income deficit, which reached $85.3 billion in 2011, had fallen to $43.4 billion in 2019.

There was a reversal in these trends last year. China was the largest recipient of FDI in 2020, bypassing the U.S. Chinese FDI liabilities jumped to $3,179 billion, and the net FDI position fell to -$765 billion, about -5.2% of GDP. The deficit on net investment income rose to $107 billion. FDI inflows continued to be strong in the first quarter of this year. However, outward FDI increased from its depressed 2020 amount.

The future development of FDI both inside and outside China depends a great deal on government policies, as well as the uncertain course of the pandemic. In the U.S., the Committee on Foreign Investment examines proposed acquisitions of U.S. firms,  and blocks access to U.S. technology that could affect U.S. security. European governments are also scrutinizing Chinese investment, and that screening combined with the effect of the pandemic resulted in a large drop in Chinese FDI flows to Europe last year. The Chinese government also seeks to controls foreign ties as part of its overall move to assert more government control of the economy. But Chinese firms are eager to expand, and over time their search for new markets should lead to further shifts in China’s net FDI position and foreign investment earnings.

Global Firms, National Policies

Leave a reply

Studies of international transactions often assume that national economies function as separate “islands” or “planets.” Each has its own markets and currency, and international trade and finance occurs when the residents of one economy exchange goods and services or financial assets with those of another. The balance of payments keeps track of the transactions. But in reality firms treat the differences across nations as opportunities to increase their profits, and their decisions on basing the location of their activities–or how they report the basing of the activities–reflect this.

Multinational companies are not new entities; they can be traced back to the European trading companies that colonized the Americas, Asia and Africa. In the twentieth century, firms expanded across borders to get around trade barriers, to obtain access to raw materials, and to produce their goods more cheaply using foreign labor. Advances in the technology of shipping (container ships) and communications (Internet) spurred the development of global supply chains. Firms divided the production of goods among countries in order to manufacture them at the lowest cost before assembly into a final product. Shipments of these intermediate goods have become a major component of international trade, and intermediate inputs represent a significant portion of the value of exports .

This stratification of production has several implications, as Shimelse Ali and Uri Dadush of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have pointed out. Bilateral trade balances, for example, are distorted. U.S. imports from China contain a significant amount of intermediate inputs from other countries. Measuring only the value-added by Chinese firms to their exports lowers its trade surplus with the U.S. by a significant amount.

Moreover, tariffs on intermediate goods have impacts all along the global supply chain. The trade restrictions imposed by the Trump administration are rippling through the U.S. economy, raising the costs of production for those firms that depend on foreign supplies of goods that are subject to the tariffs. Daniel Ikenson of the Cato Institute has found that the U.S. transportation, construction and manufacturing sectors are those that are among those most affected by the tariffs. If the tariffs are not removed, firms will reconsider investing in new production facilities.

Global supply links also affect the current accounts of the nations where the multinationals are based. When these firms establish foreign subsidiaries in order to take advantage of cheaper costs abroad, then their home countries record less trade but more primary income resulting from the operations of the subsidiaries. The countries that receive the largest amounts of primary income include the U.S., Japan, France and Germany, all home countries of multinationals with extensive foreign operations. Net primary income does not receive as much publicity as fluctuations in the balance of trade, but the primary income balance has increased in magnitude, and in some cases dominates the current account. Japan’s net income surplus has in some years more than offset its trade deficits, while the United Kingdom’s current account deficit is due primarily to its net income deficit.

These foreign operations also give the multinational firms the opportunity to take advantage of differences in national tax systems. Stefan Avdjiev and Hyun Song Shin of the of the Bank for International Settlements and Mary Everett and Philip R. Lane of the Central Bank of Ireland have shown some of the consequences of these maneuvers. Firms can manipulate the value of their foreign profits in order to lower their tax liabilities. Until recently, the U.S. taxed multinational firms headquartered here on their global profits, with credits given for foreign taxes. The foreign profits were not taxed until they were repatriated. Firms could book profits in low-tax jurisdictions—known as “tax havens”—and keep those profits outside the U.S.

Those foreign profits could be increased by lowering the recorded cost of inputs from the U.S. and raising the value of goods sent back, thus increasing the profits recorded by the foreign subsidiary. Such “transfer prices” should be based on their market value, but in many cases there are none, which give the firms the opportunity to understate their domestic profits and overstate their foreign profits, which are subject to the lower tax. Similarly, intellectual property assets could be shifted to low-tax jurisdictions.

Thomas R. Tørsløv and Ludvig Wier of the University of Copenhagen and Gabriel Zucman of UC-Berkeley have investigated this movement of profits to tax havens. They estimate that about 40% of multinational profits are shifted to tax havens, such as Ireland, Luxembourg and Singapore.  As a result, the home countries of the multinational firms—particularly the non-haven European Union nations—lose tax revenues. The shareholders of the multinationals—particularly those based in the U.S.—are among the main winners.

Governments are well aware of the activities of the multinationals, and the loss of tax revenues. Kim Clausing of Reed College has estimated that profit shifting by U.S. multinational corporations reduces U.S. government tax revenues by more than $100 billion each year. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development has taken the lead in formulating policies to tackle what it calls “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). To date over 100 countries have agreed to participate. The recent tax code changes in the U.S. have greatly reduced the incentive for U.S. firms to record and hold profits overseas. Multinationals such as Google and Starbucks are receiving close scrutiny of their international profits, and Apple has been ordered to pay back taxes to Ireland.

The OECD’s initiative, as well as the work of advocacy groups such as the Tax Justice Network, has increased the visibility of the activities of the multinationals designed to lower taxes. But the existence of different factor costs and divergent tax codes will always provide incentives for tax lawyers and accountants to devise new ways of lowering the taxes of the multinationals. In a Westphalian world, domestic governments are reluctant to give up their sovereignty. As a result, multinationals that are much more adept in dancing around national borders will  take advantage of any opportunities they see.