Dealing with the new abnormal negative interest rate policies with exceptional high debt

Negative rates: ECB president Mario Draghi at the Brussels Economic Forum on Thursday. The ECB and Bank of Japan are already experimenting with negative interest rate policies. – Reuters

HOW can this be normal?

Twenty-nine countries with roughly 60% of the world’s GDP have monetary policy rates of less than 1% per annum. The world is awash with debt, with sovereign, corporate and household debt of over US$230 trillion or roughly three times world GDP.

To finance their large debt and deal with deflation, both the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan are already experimenting with negative interest rate policies (NIRP). If these do not work, look out for helicopter money, which means central bank funding of even larger fiscal deficits.

Either way, at near zero interest rates, the business model of banks, insurers and fund managers are broken. Deutschebank’s CEO has recently warned that European bank profits will struggle more as negative interest rates play into deposit rates. No wonder bank shares are trading below book value.

The problem with the current economic analysis is that no one can ascertain whether exceptionally low interest is a symptom or a cause of deep chronic malaise. Exceptionally high debt burden can only be financed by exceptionally low interest rates. The Fed now feels confident enough to raise interest rates, which means that the US asset bubbles will begin to deflate, spelling trouble to those who borrow too much in US dollars, which would include a number of emerging markets.

As Nomura chief economist Richard Koo asserts, the world has followed Japan into a balance sheet recession, with the corporate sector refusing to invest and consumer/savers too worried about outcomes to spend. The solution to a balance sheet (imbalanced) story is to re-write the balance sheet, which most democratic government cannot do without a financial crisis. 

Like Japan, China’s dilemma is an internal debt issue of left hand owing the right hand, since both countries are net lenders to the world. This means that foreigners cannot trigger a crisis by withdrawing funds. The Chinese national balance sheet is also almost unique because the financial system is largely state-owned lending mostly (about two thirds) to state-owned enterprises or local governments. The Chinese household sector is also lowly geared, with most debt in residential mortgages and even these were bought (until recently) with relatively high equity cushions.

Unlike the US federal government which had a net liability of US$11 trillion or 67% of GDP at the end of 2013, the Chinese central government had net assets of US$4 trillion or 42% of GDP. Chinese local governments had net assets of a further US$11 trillion or 123% of GDP, compared to US local government net assets of 45% of GDP. Local governments hold more assets than central or federal government because most state land and buildings belong to provincial or local authorities.

Thus, unlike the US where households own 95% of net assets in the country, Chinese households own roughly half of national net assets, with the corporate sector (at least half of which is state-owned) owning roughly 30% and the state the balance. In total, the Chinese state owns roughly one-third of the net assets within the country, compared to net 4% for the US federal and state governments.

Sceptics would argue that Chinese statistics are overstated, but even if the Chinese state net assets are halved in value (because land valuation is complicated), there would be at least US$7.5 trillion of state net assets (net of liabilities) or 82% of GDP to deal with any contingencies.

Furthermore, unlike the Fed, ECB or Bank of Japan, the People’s Bank of China derives its monetary power mostly from very high levels of statutory reserves on the banking system, which is equivalent to forced savings to finance its foreign exchange reserves of US$3.2 trillion. Thus, the central bank has more room than other central banks to deal with domestic liquidity issues.

What can be done with this high level of state net assets, which is in essence public wealth? My crude estimate is that if the rate of return on such assets can be improved by 1% under professional management, GDP could be increased by at least 1.5 percentage points (1% on 165% of GDP of net state assets).

How can this re-writing of the balance sheet be achieved? There are two possibilities. One is to allow local governments to use their net assets to deleverage their own local government debt and their own state-owned enterprise debt. This could be achieved through professionally managed provincial level asset management/debt restructuring companies.

The second method is inject some of the state net assets into the national and provincial social security funds as a form of returning state assets to the public. People tend to forget that other than the painful restructuring of state-owned enterprises in the late 1990s, which led to the creation of China’s global supply chain, the single largest measure to create Chinese household wealth was the selling of residential property at below market prices to civil servants.

The size of the wealth transfer was never officially calculated, but it paved the way for boosting of domestic consumption by giving many households the beginnings of household security.

The injection of state assets into national and social security funds was not achieved in the 1990s, because the state of provincial social security fund accounting was not ready. But if China wants to boost domestic consumption and improve healthcare and social security, now is the time to use state assets to inject into such funds.

At the end of 2014, Chinese social security fund assets amounted to 4 trillion yuan, compared with central government net assets of 27 trillion yuan (Chinese Academy of Social Science data, 2015). Hence, the injection of state assets (including injection by provincial and local government) into social security funds as a form of stimulus to domestic consumption and more professional management of public wealth is clearly an affordable policy option.

In sum, at the individual borrower level, there is no doubt an ever increasing leverage ratio in China is not sustainable. But the big picture situation is manageable. If the policy objective is to improve overall productivity (and GDP growth) by improving the output of public assets, the timing is now.

By Tan Sri Andrew Sheng who is Distinguished Fellow, Asia Global Institute, University of Hong Kong.


Related posts:

 

 Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme!

Mar 5, 2016 ... Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme! Economic Collapse soon? Ponzi schemes and modern finance. Andrew...

 Beware when elephants Trump-et! Trump victory a major ...

Mar 19, 2016 ... When bull elephants like Trump trumpet their charge, beware of global consequences. By Andrew Sheng Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on...

 Hedge funds invasion of US treasuries puts bond at risk ...

Mar 29, 2016 ... While the Federal Reserve doesn't break out hedge-fund ownership, a group seen as a proxy increased its holdings to a record $1.27 trillion in...

 One phone to rule all; Fintech, the healthy disruptors of ...

Apr 16, 2016 ... That belongs to the realm of politics and education, which is another story. Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective.

Malaysia's ringgit has done a stunning about-face as China starts buying Malaysian bonds

 

The market is saying that this recovery in oil prices will be pretty positive for the Malaysian economy," said Kelvin Tay, chief investment officer for southern Asia Pacific at UBS Wealth Management in Singapore.

SINGAPORE: Malaysia's ringgit has done a stunning about-face this year, with surging capital inflows turning it into Asia's best-performing currency from the region's worst in 2015.

Still, few expect the ringgit to regain all the ground lost last year, as inflows may have peaked as Malaysian risk assets are starting to look pricey to investors and analysts.

The ringgit strengthened 10 percent against the U.S. dollar in January-March, its largest quarterly gain since 1973, Thomson Reuters data shows.

In 2015, the ringgit had its worst year since 1997, shedding 18.5 percent on the back on plunging oil prices, anticipated higher U.S. interest rates and a financial scandal at state-owned 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Driving the currency's U-turn is the return of foreign investors, who have poured into Malaysian stocks and bonds on better crude oil prices, a surprisingly resilient economy and easier monetary policies from major central banks.

"The market is saying that this recovery in oil prices will be pretty positive for the Malaysian economy," said Kelvin Tay, chief investment officer for southern Asia Pacific at UBS Wealth Management in Singapore.

In February, exports rose faster than expected. Sales of electrical and electronic products, the biggest item, increased 8.9 percent from a year earlier.

JACKED-UP HOLDINGS

Through the week ended April 1, foreign investors bought a net 5.5 billion ringgit ($1.4 billion) of Kuala Lumpur stocks this year, data from the research arm of Malaysian Industrial Development Finance showed. Last year had total outflows of 19.5 billion ringgit, it said.

Offshore investors have raised their local bond holdings by 11.8 billion ringgit in January-March, central bank data shows, with increased interest in longer-tenor debt. For all of last year, foreigners slashed holdings by 11.1 billion ringgit.

The cautious stance of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on U.S. rate hikes has caused investors to seek higher yields in Asia, aiding flows into Malaysia.

"This combination of an attractive currency valuation and higher yields in a world of low or negative interest rates is drawing foreign investors back to the local Malaysian market," said Eric Delomier, Asia fixed income investment specialist for Capital Group of the U.S.

Analysts and investors have concerns, including valuations of Malaysian assets and leadership of the central bank as its internationally-respected governor, Zeti Akhtar Aziz, retires at the end of April, and her successor has not been named.

Malaysian bonds seem "a bit rich," said Maybank Investment Bank's fixed income analyst Winson Phoon in Kuala Lumpur. Earlier this month, the 10-year yield fell to 3.77 percent, the lowest since February 2015.

SMALL INFLOWS AHEAD?

"I don't expect to see a repeat large inflows in months ahead, although the direction should remain slightly positive," Phoon said.

On share valuations, "Malaysia is actually not particularly cheap or attractive, compared to other markets," Tay of UBS said. "We don't think earnings growth has actually improved among Malaysian corporates."

Local stocks were trading at about 17.3 times the past 12 months' earnings, according to Thomson Reuters data. That compared with 11.8 times for Indonesian stocks, according to exchange data.

Zeti has led Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) since 2000, and investors are hoping for a successor with her credibility to help Malaysia's standing at a time of political crisis for Prime Minister Najib Razak, chairman of 1MDB's advisory board.

"Given the near-term challenges to a new BNM governor, oil prices and festering political risk from 1MDB, among other things, the ringgit's upside is limited," said Andy Ji, Asian currency strategist for Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Singapore.

His year-end target for the ringgit is 3.70 per dollar, 16 percent appreciation from its 2015 closing. Late Friday, the ringgit was at 3.90.- Reuters

China starts buying Malaysian bonds

 

Ong: ‘The Chinese government is keen to buy more Malaysian bonds

KUALA LUMPUR: China’s government has started buying more Malaysian government securities (MGS) and this inflow of new foreign money could rise to 50 billion yuan (RM30bil) in total, according to International Trade and Industry Minister II Datuk Seri Ong Ka Chuan.

In an exclusive interview with The Star, Ong said a senior representative of the Bank of China told him about this development recently when he met with the bank on issues pertaining to the use of yuan and ringgit in Malaysia-China direct trade.

“This could be one of the key factors contributing to the strength of the ringgit lately. China’s purchase of our MGS, which I am under the impression could rise to 50 billion yuan, will be very positive for our currency as it shows China’s confidence in our economy,” Ong said.

Other factors that had contributed to the strength of the ringgit in recent weeks included the recovery of crude oil prices, softer US dollar and the successful debt rationalisation of 1MDB, he added.

If China were to buy RM30bil worth of MGS, it would mean supporting 8.5% of Malaysia’s debts in the current MGS market. According to Bank Negara’s website, the value of outstanding MGS stood at RM352.06bil as at April 5, 2016.

Meanwhile, Malaysia’s debt markets saw inflows of RM11.5bil, versus RM1.4bil of outflows in February. The March foreign inflow was the largest monthly inflow since May 2014, according to a Nomura research note on April 7.

The inflows pushed foreign holdings of MGS to a historical high of RM171.5bil, the Japanese research house said. As a result, foreign ownership in outstanding MGS has risen to 48.7%.

Ong noted that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang had pledged to support the Malaysian economy – which was hit by a slowdown, local political problems, heavy outflow of funds and consequent plunge of the ringgit – when he visited Kuala Lumpur last November.

On Nov 23, the Chinese leader announced at a local forum that China would buy more MGS, issue yuan bonds in Kuala Lumpur and grant local institutional funds a quota of 50 billion yuan under the Renminbi Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor programme to invest directly in Chinese equities in the mainland.

The following day, the ringgit reacted positively gaining about 1% and the currency stabilised at around 4.25 to a US dollar in early December. MGS also gained.

“I was told China would use its reserves to buy our bonds. Its international reserves are high, at US$3.21 trillion (RM12.5 trillion) in March. With this development, I don’t think our ringgit will fall to 4.46 again,” said Ong.

Last month, Bank Negara said there were now more foreign governments and central banks holding MGS. A total of 29% was held by these two groups and 13% by pension funds.

The presence of these long-term investors is seen as reducing the risk of Malaysia facing sudden and massive outflows of capital in the event of unfavourable conditions, just like what had occurred last September, which saw the ringgit weakening to a multi-year low of 4.46.

Foreign inflow into the local stock market might be another factor that has boosted the ringgit. According to a Credit Suisse report, Malaysia saw a record net foreign equity inflow of RM6.1bil in March, which contributed to the ringgit’s 10.3% rise against the dollar in January-March 2016. At late trades on Friday, the ringgit stood at 3.9096.

Due to the recent new inflows, Bank Negara’s foreign exchange reserves had risen to RM412.3bil (US$96.1bil) as at March 15 from RM408.5bil (US$95.1bil) as at Jan 15. This reserves figure is an important buffer against capital flows and has an impact on the ringgit and the sovereign credit rating of the country. Moody’s recently noted this buffer has improved.

Ong also said China would like to see Malaysia conducting roadshows in the mainland so that there is better understanding of Malaysia’s fundamentals and its bonds.

“The representative of Bank of China also told me the Chinese government is keen to buy more MGS, but they also hope our central bank could go there to market our MGS. I have conveyed this to Bank Negara. It is up to them to act,” says Ong.

Ong, who is also MCA secretary-general, noted that China’s huge direct investments had also boosted the ringgit’s sentiment.

The ringgit rose sharply in March partly due to the conclusion of the sale of 1MDB’s energy assets to China’s state-owned China General Nuclear Power Corp for RM9.83bil, as the absorption of all the debts of Edra Global Energy Bhd has reduced the systemic risk to pubic finance, banking system and economy.

Ong is confident that Kuala Lumpur is able to attract more major Chinese investments into the country this year due to Malaysia’s strong bilateral ties with China as well as the many free trade agreements – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – Malaysia has signed with various countries and groupings.

By Ho Wah Foon The Star

Related articles:

 Ringgit opens higher against the dollar

 Boston Scientific plant in Penang to be ready by 2017



Related posts:

Malaysia's pragmatic patriot: friends with benefits

The South China Sea dispute. The global terrorism threat. Malaysia’s foreign policy is back in the world’s spotlight and it is exciting

Oil Prices: What’s Behind the Drop? Simple Economics

      Some think it will be years before oil returns to $90 or $100 a barrel, a price that was pretty much the norm over the last decade....

 Foreign funds comeback, rising interests in Malaysian properties and equities

Foreign interest in Malaysian real estate picks up: Knight Frank

Asian banks remain to be seen more scandals will surface

HSBC, Standard Chartered and DBS were among 20 banks at which 133 traders tried to manipulate the Singapore interbank offered rate (Sibor). Photo: Bloomberg

HSBC, Standard Chartered, JP Morgan Chase, Barclays and DBS were among 20 banks at which 133 traders tried to manipulate the Singapore interbank offered rate (Sibor), swap offered rates and currency benchmarks in the city state, [the Monetary Authority of Singapore] said.

BANKING scandals are surfacing in Asia, this time in the form of a US$250mil (RM799mil) fine on Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc on claims that it had transferred money to countries facing US sanctions.

According to the South China Morning Post, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd, the main lending unit of Japan's biggest bank by market value, moved an estimated US$100bil through the state for government and privately owned entities on the Specially Designated Nationals list.

This list was issued by the US Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control between 2002 and 2007, the New York State Department of Financial Services and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said in a statement recently.

Just about two weeks earlier, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) had cracked down on the rigging of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate or Sibor.

HSBC, Standard Chartered, JP Morgan Chase, Barclays and DBS were among 20 banks at which 133 traders had tried to manipulate the Sibor, swap offered rates and currency benchmarks in the city-state, MAS said in a statement recently.

Greedy

These incidents within Asian banks are significant, as the European and US banks have been bearing the brunt of criticism.

The major UK banks have been fined for the Libor (the London equivalent of Sibor) rigging and the mis-selling of products.

Due to their role in the churning of derivatives, these banks in the West have been described as greedy, careless and manipulative.

The recent scandals seem to involve only a few Asian banks, but it remains to be seen how many more names will surface and what sort of rules have been flouted.

In view of their important role in the economic growth of Asia, they will be closely watched in terms of risk exposure and ethical banking practices.

So, Asian banks, some of which have become very profitable, beware on all fronts.

In Europe, overnight talks aimed at ensuring shareholders and bond holders bear the brunt of bank failures collapsed after almost 20 hours of discussion, reports The Telegraph.

After investors, the proposals would impose losses on savers with more than 100,000 euros in their account, but France and non-eurozone countries want the ability to tailor the rules, the report says.

Discussing possible bank failures may not be the most urgent agenda, although extreme stress testing and estimation of potential bank losses should be conducted.

This is tied to the capital position of the bank.

However, there should be a constructive approach to boosting capital buffer and ensuring that the bank does not fail rather than what to do if it fails.

It is like pointing a gun at a man's head even before the crime is committed.

Bond bubble

There is said to be a “bond crisis” out there, where the bond bubble is about to burst, with investors looking for other asset classes to invest in.

With the impending halt to the US quantitive easing programme of additional liquidity, this search for other asset classes has become more urgent.

Nevertheless, 'We see improving US gross domestic product as a positive support to risk' assets such as shares, but would expect liquidity reductions to remove some of the froth' from current valuations, including in corporate bonds.

“Where we have the biggest concern is some of the riskier banks.

'Even five years on from the financial crisis, we cannot with any confidence say we are happy with the quality of their balance sheets; this is where risks of capital losses are highest,'' says Chris Bowie, manager of Ignis fund management.

Such is the reality of investing. It involves constant assessment of risk, changes in the markets and valuations.
Micromanagement is usually discouraged but may be useful in this case.

 By Yap Leng Kuen
Columnist Yap Leng Kuen cautions on the headwinds.
Related post:
For the sake of money people will risk anything