Rebalancing in the Baltics - A Preliminary Assessment

"In my view … it is impossible to understand this crisis without reference to the global imbalances in trade and capital flows that began in the latter half of the 1990s." Bernanke (2009)

Executive Summary

• Compared with the average quarterly value of GDP in 2007-08, the first two quarters of 2009 are down in nominal terms to the tune of 15.9%, 15.4% and 10.5% in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia respectively.

• The average quarterly current account deficit of the Baltics from Q3 2008 to Q2 2009 was mill 500 Euros. This amount to just 18% of the average quarterly current account deficit two years prior to the crisis. Consequently, the Baltics have delevered to the tune of 80% over the course of less than 1 year.

• In the two first quarters of 2009 (relative to Q1-2006 to Q4-2008), imports have contracted 16%, 33% and 11.5% more than exports in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia respectively.

• In Euro terms, the Baltics have lost external financing to the tune of bn 1.87 Euros in the first half of 2009 compared to the peak of the boom which amounts to 12.6% of the entire region's GDP in the same period.

The quote above from Fed chairman Bernanke is ripped from the introduction of a recent conference paper drafted by international economics icons Kenneth Rogoff and Maurice Obstfeld who suggest that the financial and economic crisis that is currently making its presence felt across the global economy, at least in part, has something to do with the notion of global current account imbalances. Now, and in all modesty, this is something I have argued extensively at this space and in this way I welcome the likes of Messieurs Rogoff and Obstfeld in the fold. I tend to go, of course, for the big prize in my stubborn persistence on the link between global ageing, global imbalances and thus by way of deduction the economic crisis as we have come to know it.

Now, I am not going to treat this link here but merely point to the rather obvious question at this point in time, in the form of whether in fact the crisis itself has been a catalyst of re-balancing? At a first glance this would clearly seem to be the case. In a crisis driven decisively by a violent process of deleveraging, those economies who had hitherto relied on borrowing have now been forced to scale back (and essentially correct either through a debasement of their currency, internal price correction, or a combination of these two) and the nations that had delivered the funding have likewise been forced to accept that their external surpluses have shrunk in a comparative manner.

So far so good then, but what happens when we have to get the patient out of intensive ward; who will run the deficits and surpluses and what size will the imbalances, if any, be. This is a difficult question to answer, but it appears that with the US economy now being effectively forced to correct its external imbalance (be it with Europe, China, Japan et al kicking and screaming or not), we have a situation with a lot of would be exporters and very little importers.

If this is the general set piece, it was with some interest that I read this VOX.eu piece by Mr. Richard Baldwin and Ms Daria Taglioni which dryly submits the thesis that although it may appear that rebalancing is occurring, this is only as a byproduct of the crisis. From ther horse's own mouth;

Global imbalances are shrinking at a fabulous rate. This column argues that these improvements are mostly illusory – the transitory side-effect of the greatest trade collapse the world has ever seen. A global recovery will almost surely return the US, Germany, China and others to their old paths.

Not exactly the prospect we were all hoping for, but in the main I agree with this point except of course the small and important qualifier that the US economy will have to deleverage and reduce the external (and indeed internal) borrowing. Whether Germany, Japan, China will also need to export ... well, this is ultimately a question of finding a customer.

Rebalancing the Baltics?

The obvious question to arise at this point is obviously what all this has to do with the Baltics? Well, in a direct sense not a whole lot since as the Economist so famously put it, the Baltics remain piqsqueaks and whether we observe current account positions, of either negative or positive pedigree, at some 20% of GDP it won't do much to affect the global imbalances. However, in the light of the idea of rebalancing on the back of the economic crisis and whether this is sustainable let alone feasible, the Baltics become very interesting not least since they have chosen (or have been led into) a process of rebalancing through internal price deflation (devaluation) as their currencies, for now, remain fixed to the Euro. In that vein, I thought it interesting to have a look at how the Baltics have faired so far with a specific focus on the external balance.

Beginning however with a general view of the correction so far the picture is definitely one of a hard landing on the back of the economic crisis.

 Most of the readers of this space will be well acquainted with travails of the Baltic economies (and in particular, the near collapse observed in Latvia earlier this year). In all three Baltic economies the Euro value of their GDP peaked in 2007-08 and has since fallen back dramatically. Compared with the average quarterly value of GDP in 2007-08, the first two quarters of 2009 are down in nominal terms to the tune of 15.9%, 15.4% and 10.5% in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia respectively. The Baltic economies have lost bn. 2.2 Euros worth of GDP in 2009 from the GDP output observed in 2007-08 which amounts to a loss of some 21% of the average value of the quarterly GDP output for all Baltic economies combined from 1999 to 2009. In short; these economies have taken some blow to the kidneys and even if we can safely say that the levels of nominal GDP observed in 2007-08 were unsustainable the way down is still rough, very rough.

On the price front the correction has indeed begun and the graph above actually underestimates the current bout of price deflation as it smoothes away, as it were, the fact all three Baltic economies are in deflation on a m-o-m basis. Only Estonia registers deflation on my representation with Latvia basically hovering at the 0% line and Lithuania still producing inflation rates at some 2%.

Moving on to the external balance it is worthwhile splitting up the analysis by having a look at first the import/exports picture and then grinding down to the income level and finish off with a look at the financial accounts and thus the inflows used to finance the deficit (or how the surplus is invested abroad).

This is perhaps the best picture of the Baltic correction there is and nicely illustrates the point emphasised by Baldwin and Taglioni that the correction of imbalances, at this point in time, has been very much forced upon the deficit economies. Consider consequently the average quarterly current account deficit of the Baltics from Q3 2008 to Q2 2009 at mill 500 Euros; i.e. at the point when the crisis made its mark decisively.This amount to just 18% (!) of the average quarterly current account deficit two years prior to the crisis. This means that the Baltics have delevered to the tune of 80% relative to the level of the current account deficit observed up to the crisis. Again and with the benefit of hindsight, we know that these levels were unsustainable, but please do remember that it was only back in the H02 2008 that we were discussion whether the Baltics were going to have a hard or a soft landing. It is remarkable to note the example of Latvia here which has gone from a current account deficit of -17.6% of GDP in the period 2007-08 to a current account surplus of 14% of GDP (mill 681.3 Euros) in Q2 2009 due mainly to the fact that imports and GDP have plunged.

This point in particular is important to emphasize since the extent to which we are able to talk to about a sustainable (or benign if you will) process of rebalancing rather than one entirely driven by a sharp correction in internal demand and thus imports. The intuition tells us that Baltics are currently subject to the latter form of rebalancing and thus it remains to be seen whether there is a virtuous circle of increasing competitiveness and rising export shares (and values) on the back of the current vicious circle. But just how vicious is the current circle then?

The graph to the right attempts to answer this question as it plots the equally weighted average of the evolution of exports and imports in the Baltics. The time series corresponds to the value of exports and imports in million of Euros of the three Baltic economies and is indexed with the average quarterly value between Q1-1999 and Q2-2009 of imports and exports as 100.

The graph easily shows how imports have contracted much more than exports and it is consequently here that we must look for the driver of rebalancing in the Baltics. If we take Q1-2006 to Q4-2008 as the peak of the boom (in terms of the external deficits), exports are down 10.8% in the first half of 2009 whereas imports are down a full 33.4% in the same period. This suggests that more than anything that rebalancing in the Baltics are currently driven by a sharp contraction of domestic demand. Splitting up the result on the three economies and looking exclusively at the second quarter of 2009, imports have contracted 16%, 33% and 11.5% more than exports in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia respectively.

Another way to look at this is to approach the external deficit from the financing side and consequently have a look at the inflows used to finance the external deficits. In principle, you would normally and in the perfect world mainly look at portfolio and investment flows, but in the case of the Baltics we cannot neglect credit flows which, through all those Euro denominated loans supplied by Scandinavian banks, have been instrumental in driving the external deficits during the peak of the boom. If we begin with the inflows as a share of GDP we observe the drastic way in which the financing have been withdrawn in the context of the crisis.

Observe in particular the Latvian situation where an external surplus has been forced upon the economy, proxied here by "negative" inflows and thus outflows. In Lithuania, the total sum of important inflows had declined, as a share of GDP, to 60% in Q2-2009 relative to value recorded during the peak of the boom (Q1-2006 to Q4-2008). The corresponding figure for Estonia is 23% whereas for Estonia it has changed signs all together due to the fact that financing here has come to a complete standstill. In Euro terms, the Baltics have lost external financing to the tune of bn 1.87 Euros in the first half of 2009 compared to the peak of the boom which amounts to 12.6% of the entire region's GDP in the same period.

As noted extensively above, this process is natural since we can say with some confidence that whatever the level (and flow) of incoming investment and credit during the peak years it was not sustainable. However, when it happens with such force in the context of the global financial crisis and, moreover, in relation to fixed exchange regimes and thus internal devaluation the obvious question that begs is what the risk is of pushing these economies into a hole from which they cannot emerge. One particularly important point here is what kind of general (and domestic!) credit and financing environment we will see as the external funding is ground down and thus, in some sense, what kind of domestic environment the Baltics will have to stage a recovery in.

This last point is perhaps the most important underlying theme to think about when assessing the situation in the Baltics. We could almost say that the extent and pace to which the Baltics' growth path has crumbled is also the extent to which expectations of convergence, Euro membership, underlying growth potential etc have crumbled. Where we go from here is consequently anybody's guess. A lot of unresolved question still clouds the horizon not least the continuing unravelling in Latvia where the IMF has so stuck with the country despite the increasing dire outlook as long as the currency peg remains. What I can tell you however is that the Baltics are going to rebalance, but the key is the extent to which it happens so as to allow the Baltic economies to enter a virtuous circle somewhere down the road.

So far, a preliminary assessment suggests that while the Baltics are indeed rebalancing, they are only doing so because internal demand has caved in. We are yet to see whether the dose of internal devaluation/deflation will bring back competitiveness in due time to turn a vicious cycle into a virtuous one.

Risk On/Off?

Before I left for my summer break in Greece I asked, among other things, whether Hungary was trying to escape original sin or more specifically (and implicitly) whether Hungary is using the current relatively favorable market environment to claw back control over monetary policy. Recent comments from central bank Deputy Governor Ferenc Karvalits suggest that this may very well be the case (quote below from Bloomberg);

Investors see Hungary becoming “significantly” less risky, allowing for further reductions in interest rates, central bank Deputy Governor Ferenc Karvalits said. “Over the past few months, international risk appetite has improved significantly, the risk assessment of the region and Hungary has stabilized, and this allows for further easing of monetary conditions,” Karvalits said in an interview on Kossuth Radio today.

The Magyar Nemzeti Bank lowered its benchmark interest rate by half a percentage point to 8 percent on Aug. 24 as it works to jolt the economy out of its worst recession in 18 years. The bank has shaved 1.5 points off the key rate since July as confidence rises in the first European Union nation to get a bailout. Hungary received 20 billion euros ($28.5 billion) in an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund, the EU and the World Bank.

The country has a “good chance” to finance its budget deficit from the market and may not need the next installment of the IMF loan, Karvalits said. The forint weakened 0.3 percent against the euro and was trading at 268.82 at 7:48 a.m. in Budapest.

You see, one of the principal reason why Hungary is in such a mess is that as inflation shot up in the months leading up to the crisis Hungary chose to loosen its peg against the Euro. At the time, the rationale seemed wise albeit very bold. In an environment where investors were willing to take risk (i.e. hunting for yield) their objectives could be aligned with that of public authorities in the sense that the former got their yield whereas the latter got the nominal appreciation needed to keep inflation in check.

It did not work quite like that.

As the crisis hastened its grip on global markets and as its locus steadily moved to Eastern Europe the Hungarian Forint plummeted and lay bare the country's vulnerabilities in the context of balance sheet (on the liability) side denominated in Swiss Francs. The result was that Hungary crashed into a recession unable to tweak monetary policy downwards because of a fear that this would scythe the Forint and thus essentially bankrupt scores of households and companies. On the other, the government also had (and has) difficulties raising funds on international capital markets.

Now however things appear to have changed at least for a moment and Hungary's central seem poised to take advantage of the relatively benign market conditions to lower interest rates to support its ailing economy. The underlying idea is simple. If you believe that risk aversion is to stay low, the Forint should not be sensitive towards the lowering of nominal interest rates since after all the carry remains plentiful. In this way, my view is that Hungary's central bank is trying to claw back the control over monetary policy by locking in a lower interest rate for the Forint. The key question which we should be asking ourselves however is of course whether Hungary could actually be forced to raise rates further down the road to defend the Forint. Clearly, bets are being made inside Hungary at the moment that this is not the case.

This is very interesting in a practical as well as a theoretical sense as I have discussed for example in this post about carry trade and global monetary policy. More recently, Edward Hugh mused on the same topic (more or less) invoking the idea of the (eternal) triangle of monetary policy in an open economy context.

In the case of the Central Europe "four", Poland and the Czech Republic opted for maintaining their grip on monetary policy, thus accepting the need for their currency to "freefloat" and move according to the ebbs and flows of market sentiment. As it turns out this decision has served them remarkably well, since the real appreciation in their currencies which accompanied the good times helped take some of the sting out of inflation, while their ability to rapidly reduce interest rates into the downturn has lead to currency depreciation, helping to sustain exports and avoid deflation related issues.

The other two countries (Hungary and Romania), to a greater or lesser degree prioritised currency stability, and as a result had to sacrifice a lot of control over monetary policy, in the process exposing themselves to the risk of much more violent swings in market sentiment when it comes to capital flows. Having been pushed by the logic of their currency decision towards tolerating higher inflation, they have seen the competitiveness of their home industries gradually undermined, and as a consequence found themselves pushed into large current account deficits for just as long the market was prepared to support them, and into sharp domestic contractions once they were no longer disposed so to do.

Edward's account here is important since it alerts us to the fact that it was only at the very end that e.g. Hungary opted for float because it was believed that it would make the inflation problem go away. At that point however, the structural imbalances and essentially damage were already embedded in the system of course. Nevertheless, it is unequivocally the fact that Hungary, at the moment, is attempting to benefit from the relative benign market conditions which means that risk aversion remains relatively subdued.

Elsewhere in Market Land ...

If our little trip to Hungary suggests that risk is on, if only a little bit and potentially in the case of Hungary news elsewhere suggest that the waters are more choppy. Of course, none of this is earth shattering by any means of the word, but since much, if not everything, seems to be revolving around China at the moment it seems worthwhile to dwell at recent news on how China are expected to "tweak" its hitherto lax lending policies to skim the worst of the mounting bubble (quote below from Bloomberg).

China’s banking regulators are “tweaking” lending policies to remove “froth” from the system while growth remains the top priority for policymakers, according to Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc. The goal is to manage risk exposure among banks and asset quality by checking lending from going into A-shares traded on the mainland and properties, Wendy Liu, Hong Kong-based head of China research at RBS ABN Amro, said in a report dated yesterday.

(...)

The banking regulator sent draft rule changes to banks on Aug. 19 that would require lenders to deduct all existing holdings of subordinated and hybrid debt sold by other lenders from supplementary capital, said the people, who have seen the document and declined to be named as the matter is private. This may cut lending by as much as 700 billion yuan ($102 billion), China International Capital Corp. said Aug. 24.

Of course, the main bias of the Chinese stimulus program and thus the authorities' objective remain one of promoting growth through the expansion of domestic investment and, one would assume, consumption. As RBS ABN Amro's Wendy Liu is quoted of saying; "policymakers have a far greater tolerance for asset-price appreciation over the medium term than before". That sounds about right to me even if I am no sage, at all, on China.

What is interesting in the case of the recent news from China was also the following piece by Bloomberg whose headline (Yen Strengthens as China Policy Concern Spurs Demand for Safety) makes a direct link between policies in China and risk sentiment in the market and thus also the movement of the Yen and the USD (remembering of course the narrative that repatriation of profits may ultimately be the main driver of the Yen at the moment).

The yen rose for a third day against the euro in the longest stretch of gains since July on concern Chinese production curbs would slow economic recovery, fanning demand for the relative safety of Japan’s currency. The currency gained versus major counterparts including the pound on speculation Japan’s exporters are repatriating earnings to take advantage of a new tax law. A government report today may show a faster contraction in the U.S. economy than previously estimated.

“We have talks from China cutting back expanding, trying to sort out the balance sheet and prevent too much reckless lending,” said Peter Frank, a London-based currency strategist at Societe Generale SA. “But domestic factors, like capital repatriation, are driving yen’s strength right now.”

Whether there is a history to be made here is debatable, but one thing is certain. China seems to have decidedly taken center stage in the global market discourse. Finally and essentially as a small footnote, yours truly took notice of the fact that despite the decidedly positive sentiment in the core of Europe at the moment on the back of the Q2 GDP print and upbeat confidence readings in Germany, aggregate retail sales continued their steady decline.

Whether all this signifies that risk is "on" or "off" I will allow the reader to decide for themselves. Personally, I am still bearish, but it is difficult to deny that the relative calm and positive environment that has prevailed since spring seems rather strong. I would expect sentiment to change once we return to "normal" in Q4 once the elections in Germany and Japan have been resolved and, more importantly, once OECD stimulus packages start to wane. Most importantly however, there is the situation in Southern and Eastern Europe still loom as the most likely harbringers of, if you will, black swans in which case risk almost surely would be off.

Is This Really a Global Recovery ?

China! China! burning bright

In a bubble, Day and Night

Is it Bust or is it Boom

That frames thy fearful asymmetry?*

 (click on pictures to enlarge)

Can you feel it? That calm and soothing feeling of low volatility and heaven bound risky assets driven by green shoots and second derivatives. Well, if you can't you are excused since neither can yours truly, or more precisely; he has a distinctly difficult time seeing from where people get the idea that we are headed for a broad based global recovery. However, beauty as always lies in the eye of the beholder and whichever way you look at it would be difficult to completely deny that the three key ingredients for a global recovery (and a resurgence of carry trade) in the form of low volatility, steadily climbing risky assets, and benign credit wholesale market credit conditions certainly seem to be present in ample quantities.

Now, while it is true that the level of volatility is still higher now than it was pre Q4-2008 and indeed pre August 2007 the trend so far this year has been inexorably down which reflects the perception that the worst may be over as well as the discourse of second derivatives and green shoots which has been with us throughout Q2 2009. With respect to equities they have equally begun to nudge up and are up some 5-10% from the beginning of the year in relation to Europe and the US. If you count from the trough reach some time during the first quarter this year, the increase would of course be bigger. The strength of the recovery discourse has taken many by surprise or perhaps more precisely, it has frustrated many. For example, I take note of the fact that two of the most astute macro traders (at least in my book) are feeling decidedly puzzled by the way the market is behaving at the moment. I cannot say that I blame them. For someone who take pride in being up to date in terms of macroeconomic data and analysis one would find it difficult to track the amount of bullishness which currently appear to have taken hold.

Now, I should immediately point out that I am not blind to the existence of the second derivative. I mean, I took calculus and I can also eyeball a graph in changes when I see one. My only gripe is that it only takes the faintest of scratch in the surface of the second derivative/green shoot glamour image to see that the fundamentals have not changed and moreover that the crisis has now moved its locus away from the US and right smack into the mainland of Europe in the form of significant downside risks in relation to Southern Europe and the ongoing mess in the CEE.

Yet, who is listening to a Danish student of economics anyway?

Consider consequently that the past couple of weeks brought us Bernanke's "exit talk" testimony to congress, news that a certain Mervyn residing at Threadneedle street would beat Bernanke to the exit, news that Russia is actually seriously considering issuing (and expecting foreign investors to bite) debt to cover its 2010 deficit, news that Hungary actually lowered interest rates despite, one could easily infer, an abyss of downside in the form of a plunging forint and a liability side denominated in Swiss francs, and finally Timmy's trip to China where it seems that the main message carried was one of reassurance that the US most certainly intend to vigilant towards the rising deficit.

We could add the Q2 GDP print in the US (preliminary) put up a much better figure, - 1% annualised, than expected which has so far been interpreted as a sign of recover although yet again I think that narrating this as a sign of an impending recovery is somewhat of a stretch. Meanwhile, Europe is heading straight for deflation and although I know that some economists, especially those of the old academic guard, consistently have been pointing to the benign effects of rigidness on the downside it is very important to remember that those same prices will need to adjust in key Eurozone countries absent a currency to bear some of the burden and thus price/wage rigidity may turn out to be a curse rather than a blessing.

Where is the Recovery?

The easiest way to approach this question is perhaps to point out where the recovery isn't and here I am talking about the OECD in general. Surely, we may succeed to avoid future cataclysmic events but the something has changed and new fundamentals are taking over. For example, I seriously doubt that many people have considered what it means for the global economy that the US economy will need to run an external surplus and I also think that most people have not yet realized the consequences of the unfolding mess in Europe and the Eurozone. On the other hand I have also stressed before how I am not, after all, a permabear in the sense that I do indeed see positive signs in emerging economies such as for example Brazil, India, Chile, Turkey, and China (although the latter is different for a number of reasons). I won't call this decoupling because evidently it isn't. To stay in the jargon I would rather call it re-coupling since this is essentially what it is and one key issue is the extent to which the new global economic system will help to even out the present imbalances and what consequences this, in some sense, inevitable rebalancing will have on surplus and deficit economies respectively. In this context and although one should always be careful in quoting onself, the following from an entry back in May still sums up quite well how I see the world at the moment;

We are very much still stuck in the mire and especially so in the context of the so-called developed OECD economies where it is difficult to see where any speedy recovery is going to come from. On the other hand the world is not made up entirely by the OECD edifice and it is exactly the potential for an asymmetric "recovery" and how global monetary policy might serve to transmit such a recovery which is the topic of this entry.

For the specifics of how I see the role of global monetary policy and global liquidity I recommend you to visit the actual post. However, it is worth noting that in a world where major global central banks are destined to keep rates low for an extended period it does not take much creativity to imagine the dynamics by which the global economy may potentially move forward driven by carry trade flows financed in the developed world seeking yield in whatever economies that might be able (and willing) to absorb the tide which is coming.

As I have stressed on several occasions it is exactly this reshuffling of the global economy on the back of the financial crisis which is at the heart of the matter. One obvious consequence is thus that the global economy, at one and the same time, increasingly will be populated by an increasing amount of economies with the need (and desire) to deleverage as well as an increasing amount of economies dependent on exports to achieve economic growth. In wonkish terms, global economies will tend to move towards the same intertemporal preference for consumption and saving and since global intertemporal smoothing, by definition, occurs through current account imbalances it is not difficult to see how there is a constraint on many economies’ ability to smooth their consumption and saving decisions optimally in the case of a process of crowding in one end of the spectrum.

An obvious question here becomes; who, if any, will be the economies tilting the scale in the other direction through their ability to provide capacity (return) for other nations' desire to save more?

How are things in Emerming Market Land then?

Personally, I have tended to put my focus elsewhere than China most prominently because I think that the old narrative of the BRIC economies taking over the helm is not an adequate way to look at it. Essentially, I would put Brazil and India one one side and Russia and China on the other side since in the case of the latter they are about to grow old much before they become the economies so many people expect to become. Apart from Brazil and India I also see a fairly wide batch of emerging economies with the potential to do the heavy lifting as we move forward and I would include here economies such as Chile, Indonesia, Turkey, Morroco and a number of others. Much more than quibbling about the actual candidates here I want to emphasise the importance in realizing how this global realignment won't take place with the emergence of one single economy taking over from the US, but rather with a "basket" of economies/currencies driving the realignment.

Having said all this, it is pretty difficult to get around the fact that everything seems to be revolving around China at the moment. More specifically fears are growing that in an effort the counter the global recession and in a world where 6-8% growth rates are, in general, difficult to come by Chinese authorities as well as foreign investors are fuelling a bubble in China which may look like the one currently unravelling in e.g. the Baltics look minuscule [quote from Bloomberg and the FT]. Thus and even though I would argue that the analysis should have a different fundamental focus it is still cast in the perspective of, first China and then the BRICs in general.

The BRIC nations, which also include India and Russia, have the four best performing stock markets in dollar terms this year among the world’s 20 biggest, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. China’s Shanghai Composite Index has soared 85 percent in dollars while Brazil’s Bovespa Index rose 77 percent. India’s Sensitive Index, or Sensex, climbed 61 percent and Russia’s RTS Index gained 60 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index in the U.S., by comparison, is up 8.4 percent while Japan’s Nikkei 225 Stock Average rose 7.5 percent.

Investor appetite for emerging-market assets is building on speculation that countries such as China and Brazil will be among the first to recover from the worst global recession since World War II, said Vinicius Silva, New York-based emerging markets strategist for Morgan Stanley. “It highlights the fact that demand for emerging-market assets remain strong and that companies, particularly in the BRIC markets, are using the improvements in capital markets to raise capital,” Silva said.

(FT)

Shares in Shanghai and Hong Kong tumbled on Wednesday as investors snapped up two newly listed mainland construction groups while selling down the rest of the market after reports that China’s central bank might rein in bank lending. Shares in China State Construction Engineering rose by as much as 90 per cent on their debut before closing 56 per cent stronger in Shanghai. China’s largest house-builder had last week raised Rmb50.2bn ($7.34bn) in the world’s biggest initial public offering since Visa raised $19bn in March 2008.

It is way beyond the scope of this post to open the box on what is really going on China. In terms of that topic I reserve the right to deal with it later and refer, thus far, to my styling on Blake above. However, I did like the recent analysis by Morgan Stanley's Qing Wang in which he talks about whether China is over-investing or over saving as well as the very relevant question of where the money would be spent were it not being used to finance the massive infrastructure investment program. Or, what is the opportunity cost of China's fixed asset investment program?

Given China's high national savings rate, from the perspective of the economy as a whole, there are only three forms in which China can deploy its savings: 1) onshore physical assets; 2) offshore physical assets; and 3) offshore financial assets. Since China maintains tight controls over outbound capital flows, about 70% of China's total offshore assets are in the form of official FX reserve assets as a result of investment made by a single-largest investor - the central bank. Moreover, we estimate that about 65-70% of China's official FX reserves are invested in US dollar assets, the bulk of which are US government bonds.

In response to this I ask the simple question. What is actually the capacity in China to create return on current and future investment of the magnitudes we are talking about both in the context of money supplied by domestic stimulus packages as well as foreign money thirsty for yield? Wang touches exactly upon this question as he questions just how much China can suck up. I would put it much more bluntly. China's capacity is declining and will continue to do so as we move forward as a result of the ageing which the one child policy is set to produce. This is really the missing story on China at the moment I feel and one story which could go a long way to differentiate the story. In this respect I do agree wholeheartedly with Michael Pettis when he says;

I have warned for a long time that it would be very difficult for China to make the necessary transition to a consumption-led economy quickly enough to accommodate the global adjustment taking place. Unless it is willing to see its economy collapse, there is simply no way China can reduce its negative net demand quickly enough to match the contraction in US demand and so avoid squeezing the hell out of the global tradable goods sectors. That is why policy coordination is so important, especially between China and the USD, and of course that is why I continue to be a pessimist. I do not think this policy coordination is taking place. I will write about this more later this week.

The only thing I would add is that this is not simply a question of correcting US-China imbalances, but a more more deep rooted issue in terms of fundamental drivers of international capital flows and the future supply of net capacity.

Moving on to safer ground I recently did a lengthy analysis on Chile in which I concluded that the economy was one of to watch for relative good news in relation to the financial crisis. Recently, we learned how Chilean banks booked a healthy US 959 million profit in the first half of 2009 and although this number is useless in itself I think that it is pretty obvious from digging into the specifics (see article) that although Chile financial sector has seen its share of losses, the picture is a lot less dire than elsewhere. In fact, if we look at one of graphs that I showed in my analysis of Chile, we see that financial services have held up remarkably well during the financial crisis (see also here), no doubt due to strong underlying fundamentals as well as a very aggressive policy reaction from the central bank. 

Generally, analysts and local observers in Chile are beginning to notice green shoots with increasing regularity and unlike the ones observed in Europe or elsewhere in the OECD I am more confident that the ones in Chile are going to be long lived although 2009, in all likelihood, will be a tough year when the chapter is closed. The following quote is from Bloomberg;

Chile’s economy may be starting to recover from its slump as extra government spending spurs growth, Finance Minister Andres Velasco said today. Velasco has spent more than $4 billion this year on tax cuts and extra outlays. He will pull $8 billion from Chile’s offshore savings funds in 2009 to help pay for the stimulus as well as to plug the budget deficit caused by slowing growth and lower receipts from mining.

Chile is facing the deepest recession since 1999 after revenue from exports declined and a virus ravaged its salmon farming industry. The economy shrank faster than forecast in the first half and probably contracted in the second quarter from the first, the central bank said on July 8.

“These policies have effects, but they don’t occur overnight, they don’t happen in one month or one quarter,” Velasco said. “We have to continue working, we have to keep a cool head and at the same time be prudently optimistic.”

Now, Velasco has a distinct interest, of course, in spinning the story in a certain way but until evidence surfaces to the contrary I am willing to buy this story. More generally, the influence of China also pops up in the context of copper prices where many suggest that a large part of the recent increase in Copper prices (and indeed commodities) owes itself exactly to the stimulus money from China. As a side note on this, it seems that the link between rising Copper (and commodities in general) is being increasingly linked to a story of stockpiling in China and then of course, what will happen when China decides that it has had enough. This was a story I picked up on in my analysis of Chile (picked off from Macro Man) and it appears to be gaining traction as an actual analytical explanation.

Elsewhere in Latin America, Morgan Stanley's Latam analyst on Brazil Marcelo Carvalho simply throws in the towel, as it were, devotes an entire note to the link between Brazil and China and what this means for the economic growth of the former. As will come as no surprise Carvalho notes the strong link between Brazil's economic performance and commodity prices and since China certainly seems to be driving the latter, if not directly, then through its effect on overall global sentiment then the rampant growth in China may add positively to the outlook in Brazil.

Moving the perspective up a further notch and as a concluding remark on my, admittedly, selective tour of the emerging market edifice I will leave you with the recent general statement from Morgan Stanley's Manoj Pradhan;

The strong worldwide rally in risky assets since March reflects not just the relief that the worst is likely behind us, but also anticipation of a return to growth for most economies. Much is expected from Emerging Markets, particularly from Asia ex-Japan, which is expected to outperform the rest of the world. Markets and investors realize, however, that not all EM economies are alike, and some will show output growth that is lower than the 1.3% growth our global team expects from the G10 economies in 2010.

Thanks for nothing might be your immediate response here and although I agree that this is extremely general it does sum up the main discourse at the moment whether you agree or not.

Bottomline - What to Watch?

The answer to this question depends on your perspective of course but it seems abundantly clear that if the locus of the financial and economic crisis has moved from the US to the shores of Europe and in particular Eastern and Southern Europe, the corresponding locus of the recovery has moved to Asia (ex-Japan) and most forcefully China. I think it is important to understand how and why these two discourses may co-exist as we move forward.

I believe it is obviously clear that the global economy is not heading for a quick rebound here, but it is equally as clear that some economies will be able to post growth rates that are much above the mean of what the OECD is able to. In this way, one key theme to watch is how this difference is transmitted through to the global economy e.g. in the form of carry trade flows but also in the form of an evolving process by which some economies begin, and go through, their inevitable adjustment and rebalancing phase.

In this specific context I have to be more than a little bit skeptical about the capabilities of China. This is not out of an inherent disdain towards the country but, on the contrary, because I fear that China may ultimately succumb to all those hopes and subsequent load pinned on her shoulders. In this sense I think, although I acknowledge that I have presented no formal analysis to back it up, that the recovery is some way to really materialize and that it may just ultimately be bust and not boom that frames China's economy.

---

* Apologies to William Blake; and of course to Macro Man for encroaching on his territory.