by Roy C. Smith
from eFinancial News, May 25, 2105
Many China observers have pointed out that rapid
growth without basic reforms brings the risk of a major financial
crisis. China said it would undertake the reforms, but last week,
fearful of strikes and other protests amidst declining
growth, it abandoned them. Fasten your seat belts.
After the financial crisis of 2008, China did what
other countries did – it provided fiscal and monetary stimulus to
restore growth, at the cost of significant increases in debt and the
risk of nonrepayment. Unimpeded by a democratic political
process, China’s fiscal and monetary stimulus efforts were the largest
ever undertaken by any country.
It worked,but only for a while. China’s GDP growth
rate, which had been 13% in 2007 but more than halved to 6% in 2009,
rebounded to 12% in 2010, but its total debt increased by $21 trillion,
from 158% of GDP in 2007 to 282% in mid 2014,
according to a McKinsey study. Loans issued by financial institutions
and non-financial corporations grew from 96% of GDP to 190%. Nearly half
of this debt was related to real estate, but much of the rest is in
stimulus projects undertaken by various provincial,
city and other local governments.
During this time, the central bank was seeking to
reform the financial system, by clarifying the limits of deposit
insurance, adopting market rate lending and deposit taking practices and
by reining in lending for real estate and stock
purchases, and for speculative projects by local governments.
To get around these rules, the loans were made
instead to off-balance sheet subsidiaries of local authorities known as
“local government financing vehicles”. By the end of 2014, $560 billion
of such debt was outstanding.
But China’s growth rate has declined sharply since
2010, putting serious pressure on the ability of local governments to
repay debt amounting in total to about $3.5 trillion. Debts to
money-losing state owned enterprises (SOEs) and other
corporations (about $6 trillion altogether) are also a problem.
China has been awash in money for the past few
years in an effort to reverse the declining growth conditions. Instead,
the excess liquidity has pushed up real estate prices in major cities by
50% since 2008 and the Shanghai Stock Index
by 120% since November.
Even so, large parts of China are still suffering from deteriorating economic conditions.
In April, Premier Li Keqiang visited three
“rustbelt” provinces in the northeast where he observed much weaker
growth than expected and disgruntled workers. Strikes and other worker
protests have been running about three times the rate
of recent years.
Few existential threats to the ruling Communist Party are greater than massive worker protests.
So the Party did the most pragmatic thing it could to safeguard its interests – it abandoned reform to renew monetary stimulus.
In April, the Politburo announced a programme of
“prudent monetary policy” to offset the effects of the cyclical downturn
into which the economy has settled. This was followed by a joint
directive issued by the finance ministry, the banking
regulator and the central bank, explicitly banning financial
institutions from delaying funding to any local government project
started before the end of 2014, and requiring that any projects unable
to pay existing loans should have their debts renegotiated
and extended.
SOEs in similar difficulties would no doubt receive
the same benefit, though such too-big-to-fail treatment presumably
could be managed quietly.
Accordingly local government and SOE debt will
increase further, as will the portion of it that is distressed, hoping
to push the problems far out into the future.
Thus, China seems to be sliding into an inevitable
financial crisis similar to those experienced by Japan in the early
1990s and by Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia in the late 1990s.
These earlier Asian crises were similar in nature –
they all contained stimulus efforts to encourage growth, asset bubbles,
massive lending to SOEs or large, distressed industrial groups, and
market crashes once the difficulties became
publicly known. The crashes brought tough economic times, changes in
government and long periods of growth rates well below pre-crisis
levels.
In 1978, Deng Xiaoping announced a fundamental
change in government policy to achieve economic growth by allowing a
private sector to develop. At the time, the average Chinese had realised
very little, if any, economic improvement since
Mao’s Revolution in 1949, the Great Leap Forward of 1958-61 and the
1966-76 Cultural Revolution.
Deng’s policy has been a great success, but having
now abandoned Communism, the people may wonder why they need a Communist
Party running everything. The president, Xi Jinping, is well aware of
the dichotomy, and is hoping to trade more
prosperity, less corruption and an enhanced, more powerful national
image for continued Party control.
But there is another side to the bargain. The
opening of the economy to market forces that is part of Deng’s legacy
had to be accompanied by reforms and disciplines necessary to make a
market economy function effectively. Otherwise the
massive Chinese economy, spurred on by recurring stimulus,
misallocation of resources, corruption and devolution of decision making
authority away from Beijing, could tear itself apart.
The government has apparently understood the need
for such reforms, and recognised that the growth rate is likely to
settle at around 7%. But implementing reforms in a decelerating economy
has proved more difficult than Xi and his colleagues
expected.
Recent indicators suggest that China’s growth rate
in 2015 may fall below 7%, which could result in a nasty backlash from
the 280 million indigenous migrant workers likely to be the first to
face layoffs. Hence, all hands to the pumps to
check any further decline in growth.
However, having suspended reforms to sustain growth
puts China in danger of greatly expanding its already large supply of
non-performing loans, and one day having to face the consequences of
owning up to them.
All this suggests a financial reckoning to come, one that could be very rough.
No comments:
Post a Comment