Is China Deleveraging? Part II

It has become a note of the excessively optimistic China bull to argue China is deleveraging.  In part I of this brief series, I addressed the specific and narrow data point of non-financial corporates the deleveraging crowd is relying on to argue for deleveraging.  I then also focused on the rapid rise in household debt that now amounts to 102% of household income and is rising rapidly.

To arrive at the deleveraging argument, which is not happening even using their own data, they omit multiple sectors of the credit markets.  One of the biggest that is overlooked, and very commonly overlooked by many people, is the growth in credit to the financial sector.  This is not a trivial matter.

A few years ago when McKinsey Global Institute released a study on Chinese debt levels it was criticized by some as over estimating the level of Chinese debt because it included debt owed by the financial sector.  The logic is this: if a bank borrows money to lend to a real estate developer or a coal mine, there is no fundamental difference than them accepting deposits to lend to a real estate developer or coal mine.  In short, many claimed counting  debt owed by the financial sector was double counting debt.

In fairness, there is some merit to this argument.  Think of two simple examples where this is a good argument. First, assume there is a bank and any company in the real economy. If the bank just borrows money to lend to the other company, maybe in a combination of bonds or as deposits, then we would be double counting if we counted both the financial institution debt and the other companies debt.

Second, think of an economy with two banks and a company in the real economy. Assume the real economy company asks for a $100 loan. The loan doesn’t get made because Bank A has $70 in deposits and Bank B only $51. Bank A can’t make the loan by itself and Bank B doesn’t feel comfortable using almost all its capital.  However, Bank A offers to loan Bank B some money say $9, at a rate slightly above its deposit rate, and the $100 loan gets made to the real economy company. Again, if we count the financial debt, we would be double counting the actual debt outstanding.  The key is that the financial debt nets out in the real economy between banks.

Financial debt should not be netted out however when it does not flow into the real economy and merely shifts between financial institutions increasing leverage. Assume there is one real economy asset owned by Party A. Party B thinks it will appreciate in value in borrows 90% of the money needed to purchase the asset and buys it for a slightly higher price. Party C thinks it will appreciate in value also and borrows 90% of the money needed to buy it from B and pays a slightly higher price. Repeat as needed. Here, there is only one underlying asset but debt has increased rapidly. As long as the price continues to appreciate, everyone is happy and makes money.

Anecdotally, I can personally attest to more than a few cases, where in one instance, someone owns an apartment free and clear or with virtually no balance relative to value. They take out a loan pledging the apartment as collateral using proceeds to purchase another apartment free and clear. They then go to another lender pledging the second apartment as collateral using those proceeds to purchase a third apartment.  Officially, each lender has made a loan into the real economy with high grade collateral.  In reality, financial debt has tripled and only one real asset exists.

The problem with financial debt, as noted in the example above, it is not always clear even for specific lenders much less at a more macro level to disentangle financial and non-financial debt.

If we look at the monthly balance sheet of “Other Depository Corporations”, referring to banks besides the PBOC, and their claims on financial institutions the data is very revealing.  Since February 2016, depository corporation claims on other depository corporations (read mainline traditional commercial banks) are up a paltry 3.9%.  However, claims on other financial institutions are up 29.1% and only trail total claims on DCs by 3.1 trillion RMB out of 31 trillion in claims on other DCs. At current rates of growth, even allowing for some slowing, claims on other FI’s will over take claims on DCs sometime this year.

For accounting and capital adequacy reasons, which have been well explained elsewhere, much of the financial-to-financial flows that have taken place have not taken place officially as a loan.  Whether it is in a “negotiable certificate of deposit” or “investment receivable”, much of these flows which are effectively credit instruments are not labelled as such.

In fact, if we look at the monthly data on sources and uses of funds of financial institutions, we see that “loans to non-banking financial institutions” was up a relatively modest 8.9% totaling a pretty modest 800 billion RMB. However, if we include the category “portfolio investment” which is comprised of “portfolio investments”, and “shares and other investments”, we receive a very different picture.  Portfolio investment is up 33% from February 2016 to February 2017.  In other words, according to the official uses of funds data, loans to non-bank financial institutions barely changed in relative and absolute terms. The “other” categories though exploded.

To put this in perspective, the total increase in the total use of credit funds in financial institutions in the household and non-financial sector from February 2017 to February 2016 was 13.2 trillion RMB growing by a moderately robust 12.9%.  These three categories of use of credit funds by financial institutions however grew by a total of 24.1 trillion RMB.  In other words, use of credit funds at financial institutions to “financial sectors” grew 82% faster than lending to firms, government, and households.

Even wealth management product statistics indicate that only about 60% of wealth management capital goes into the real economy, and even this number should be treated cautiously.  With the allocation of WMP capital into commodities (read coal and steel among others) recently tripling from a year earlier which was the driver of price changes not changes in supply or demand, it is clear these financial to financial flows are having a major distortionary impact on the economy and should not be treated as simple double counting as in the simple early examples.

All this leads to a couple of conclusions and scenarios. First, growth in financial related debt is rapidly outpacing growth in debt in the real sector (non-financials, governments, households) in both relative and absolute terms.  This is worrisome for what it possibly indicates and how investors view the state of the overall economy. In short, there simply are very few good projects, even by lax Chinese socialist market conditions, and banks would rather hold financial assets.

Second, one implication is that there is likely a significant upside deviation in the true value of asset prices.  This flood of financial capital into asset markets pushing prices higher appears to reflect the reality of the Chinese economy.  From tech start ups to real estate to coal, valuations and speed of price changes bear little resemblance to underlying fundamentals.  As a point of comparison, the 100 City Index average in December 2016 was 13,035 RMB/sqm while the urban per capita disposable income was 33,616. Through some additional calculations, this yields a home price to household income ratio of 14.  The evidence seems to bear out the idea that asset prices are inflated.

Third, it also implies that banks simply do not have the necessary liquidity needed potentially indicating greater credit risk than is being acknowledged.  PBOC balance sheet claims on depository corporations are up 68% from February 2016.  The explosion of financial debt and rapid increase in central bank holdings is telling us banks are liquidity constrained.  Given that financial debt has grown so much more rapidly than non-financial and household, this would imply that financial institutions and firms are being propped up to avoid significant problems.

Fourth, the reality is probably a mix of these two things as asset prices and debt are so intertwined in China that the only way things work is by keeping asset prices going up.  The problem here is that this continues to increase the multiple layers of hidden leverage.  Like the example where someone owns an apartment then borrows against it, buys another, borrows against it, then buys another, as needed, this makes any decline in real estate values potentially suicidal.

Want an example of this collision of increasing financial debt propping up asset prices? Major financial institutions are setting up subsidiaries or related companies that issue debt to buy bad loans at face or near face value.  They are even issuing bonds to buy bad loans.  Rather than acknowledging some significant loss taking a hair cut and lowering the asset value, they are reissuing debt to buy bad assets at near face value.

Given the weight of evidence, not only is China not deleveraging, its financial debt is rapidly outpacing its growth in real economy debt growth providing worrying signs about the state of Chinese finances.  It also tells us it is a major mistake to simply deduct all financial debt.

Side note: How worried is China about the rise in financial and interbank debt? Just a few days ago, Caixin had three articles about this on the cover of its landing page though with different dates. Article 1, Article 2, and Article 3.

Is China Deleveraging? Part I

It has become increasingly popular in polite circles to say that China is “deleveraging”.  Analysts in support of this “deleveraging” argument rely on a couple of very narrow data points that even then mangle the meaning of “deleveraging”.  However, it is worthwhile to ask is China deleveraging.

Just so we all start from the same starting point, deleveraging is the process of reducing debt levels.  As Wikipedia notes “It is usually measured as a decline of the total debt to GDP ratio…”. I am using Wikipedia because I want to avoid economic journals or similar technical jargon and it is a good place to start.  In other words, deleveraging is generally considered a reduction in debt in either absolute or relative terms.

Allow me a brief but important tangent on what we mean by “deleveraging” in relative terms.  Deleveraging in “relative terms” means the reduction in debt is not reduced in absolute terms, say I used to owe $10 now I paid back $5 and only owe $5 now.  In most cases, because the denominator in nominal GDP, we are looking at whether the amount owed declines relative to national output.  Put another way, does the growth rate of nominal GDP grow faster than the growth rate of debt.  When you “deleverage in relative terms”, the absolute amount of debt can and normally continues to rise but just does not grow as fast as GDP.

Let us take a brief simple example. If nominal GDP and debt are both growing at 10%, there is no change in leverage relative to nominal GDP. If nominal GDP is growing at 10% and debt is growing at 15%, leverage is increasing in relative terms (15%/10%). Conversely, if nominal GDP is growing at 10% and debt is growing at 5%, leverage is decreasing in relative terms (5%/10%)<1 but continuing to increase in absolute terms.  This will all come important later.

The deleveraging crowd are relying on two separate points from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) to make their case.  First, according to the BIS debt to GDP owned by non-financial corporates has slowed its growth.  For instance, from Q3 2015 to Q4 2015, debt to GDP of non-financial corporates grew by 6% of GDP from 239% to 245%. However, from Q2 2016 to Q3 2017, the number slowed to 1.9% from an increase of 253.7% to 255.6%.

Second, BIS reports the “credit gap” in China has declined from a peak of 28.8 in Q1 2016 to 26.3 in Q3 2016.  The BIS defines the credit gap as “as the difference between the credit-to-GDP ratio and its long-run trend” based upon the “total credit to the private non-financial sector.”

Chinese data, across a range of individual metrics, match the broad narrative that credit growth to non-financial corporates is not growing as rapidly as before.  For instance, new bank loans to non-financial corporates in 2016 was down 17% to 6.1 trillion RMB.  Another measure labelled Total Loans of Financial Institutions to Non-Financial Enterprises and Government Departments was up but a relatively modest 8.2% to a total of 74.1 trillion RMB.  Another metric labelled Depository Corporations claims on Non-Financial Institutions was up again a modest 6.2% to 85 trillion.

Time to pop the bubble China is deleveraging right? Wrong. For obvious and non-obvious reasons.  First, as you may have been able to notice by combining the data with the earlier part about how we define deleveraging, even the non-financial sector is not deleveraging in absolute or relative terms.  It has only slowed the rate of adding leverage.  This is like saying your breaking the speed limit by less so you should get a gold star.  Neither the reduction in the credit gap nor the continued increase in debt to GDP of non-financial corporates says deleveraging. It only means that the rate of speed of additional absolute and relative leverage growth has slowed.  Non-financial corporate debt to GDP isn’t leveraging up as fast but it continues to lever up.

To borrow a comparison from a previous example, if nominal GDP growth was 10% and debt growth was 15%, now nominal GDP growth is still 10% but now debt growth to non-financial corporates is only 12%.  Second, what makes this search for any grain of hope to push the deleveraging story is the absolute mountain of other financial data that shows credit to other sectors exploding.  If the Chinese economy was only comprised of non-financial corporates than there is hope that China would be beginning the deleveraging process.  However, and this may come as a shock, there are other sectors of the Chinese economy besides non-financial corporates. While non-financial corporate debt has slowed its growth rate in excess of nominal GDP, not dropped beneath nominal GDP or gone negative, other sectors have witnessed a literal explosion of debt.

Bank loans to households were up 64% in 2016 and the first two months of 2017 they are up 75% from 2016.  Nor is the household sector the insignificant after thought many make it out to be.  In fact, in 2016, new bank loans to households outpaced loans to the non-financial sector 6.3 trillion RMB to 6.1 trillion RMB.  Even the outstanding stock of loans to households and NFCs is closer than understood.  Loans to households are a little less than half of loans to NFCs at 34 trillion to 77 trillion RMB.

The stock of household loans is up 25% since February 2016 while the stock of NFC loans is up only 8%.  In short, if we take debt growth and stock from non-financial corporates in isolation, we omit one of the largest, rapid, and most important changes to Chinese credit markets. At current rates of growth, outstanding debt stock numbers will converge in about 2020 or 2021.  Consequently, even if corporate credit growth slows its rate of growth, this is essentially irrelevant to the China deleveraging story.

Let me provide one more comparison that household debt is actually much larger than is realized. If we divide total household debt owed to banks by population, we arrive at a per capita debt loan of 24,903 RMB.  If we use the per capita GDP number of 53,817 the household debt number does not look too bad.  This gives us a household debt to per capita GDP of a solid 46%.

However, given the fact income is much lower than GDP, for a number of reasons, if we base it on the cashflows households have to pay back debt, we get a decidedly different picture.  Using an urban/rural population weighting of the per capita income for urban/rural households, we produce a per capita income of 24,332.  This then gives us a Chinese household per capita debt to income ratio of 102%.  All of a sudden that 50% growth in new loans to households and 25% growth in the stock looks not just worrisome but downright ominous.  It is worth noting this debt level does not count shadow banking products that would likely add a not insignificant amount to this number.

If we combine loans outstanding to households and non-financial enterprises and government categories, we see that outstanding loans grew 12.6% in 2016. Nominal GDP grew at 8% so the great Chinese deleveraging actually saw leverage relative to nominal GDP increase if we account for the fastest growing sector of Chinese lending.  In other words, if the Chinese credit market consisted of just nonfinancial corporates and households, outstanding debt is still growing 1.59 times faster than nominal GDP.

There is one final note here.  This all relies on official data and makes no assumptions about its validity.  The calculations here are nothing more complicated than basic math using official numbers. However,  concern about official data is perfectly valid.  For instance, at the end of 2015, Liaoning would have had an official bank loan to nominal GDP ratio of 121%.  However, at the end of 2016 after the National Bureau of Statistics in Beijing adjusted its GDP downward after years of self admitted fraud, this changes the outlook enormously.  At the end of 2016 with the adjusted GDP data has a bank loan to nominal GDP ratio of 169%.

This is just a sliver of the overall story but even by this narrow definition, there is no deleveraging taking place even with the most generous of definitions.

Is the Chinese Economy Rebalancing? Credit and Investment Part I

As the depth of China’s reliance on its old stand by of investment growth fueled by increasingly risky credit becomes more apparent, Beijing and China bulls have fallen back on the old standby citing Chinese rebalancing.  Given the seeming rapid growth in metrics like investment and credit, it becomes important to unpack whether China actually is moving away from its historical growth model.

There is top line data supporting the idea that China is rebalancing away from its investment heavy model.  For instance in Q1 2010, secondary industry comprise 56.4% of the Chinese economy but has fallen steadily since then to 37.2% or by nearly 20% of GDP while the tertiary sector has seen a nearly identical corresponding increase.  Of the 6.7% GDP increase 3.9% of that supposedly came from the tertiary sector.

If we look at other related numbers, there are other top line numbers which support this idea that China is rebalancing.  According to official data, even now retail sales only recently dropped beneath to hit 9.5%  or nearly 3% more than real GDP growth.  This sounds like a nearly air tight case for rebalancing right?  As I always say, move past the headline data and you get a very different picture of what is actually happening in the Chinese economy.

Let’s start with the reliance on investment and credit to drive growth assuming for as long as possible the data is accurate.  In 2009, fixed asset investment (FAI) was equal to 56% of nominal GDP while in 2016 it was equal to 80% of nominal GDP and 80% in 2015.  However, from gross capital formation (GCF), the GDP accounting representation with some important exclusions, of FAI shows a different patter. In 2009, GCF was equal to 46% of nominal GDP while as FAI was rising rapidly through 2015, GCF actually dropped as a percentage of GDP to 45%.  In other words, while the cash value of investment in the Chinese economy has been rising rapidly since 2009, its GDP measure has actually dropped.

We are now left with a conundrum: is it possible to reconcile the rapid growth in FAI with the drop in GCF within Chinese GDP statistics? Possible but extremely unlikely and even if so leaves Chinese finances in an vastly more precarious position. The primary exclusion between FAI, the financial cost of investment, and GCF, the GDP accounting measure of investment, is the value of land is excluded.  In 2015, FAI was 80% of GDP while GCF was only 45% so this raises the question whether land sales in investment comprised 35% of GDP and whether the value of land sales have risen dramatically this decade?

Looking at the data it is very difficult to see how land value contributes to this supposed wedge or any major increase in the sales of land values.  In 2010, total land sales values in 100 large and medium sized cities was 1.8 trillion RMB.  As a point of comparison, in 2010 total FAI was 24.1 trillion RMB or 8% of the total. Given that GCF in 2010 is counted as 19.7 trillion RMB, it is not inconceivable that these numbers reconcile close enough for our purposes.  The difference between FAI, 100 city land value, and GCF (FAI-100 City Land – GCF) is only 2.6 trillion RMB. Given cities and areas outside major urban centers, it is not inconceivable that we could approach that 2.6 trillion RMB level.

However, since then this line of reasoning in the numbers fall apart.  Between 2010 and 2015, the last year we have GCF data for, total GCF has risen 59% and FAI 128%.  That implies that the wedge between GCF and FAI is due to rapidly rising land value sales.  As just noted, in 2010 total land sales value in 100 large and medium cities was 1.84 trillion RMB; in 2015, total land sales values in 100 large and medium cities was 1.81 trillion RMB.  The wedge between FAI and GCF in 2015 is now a much more substantial 23.9 trillion RMB. If we subtract out the value of land sold in 100 large and medium cities of 1.8 trillion RMB, this still leaves a wedge of 22.03 trillion.

This raises a number of key points.  First, it stretches credibility well beyond the breaking point to believe that rural and small cities sold land equal to 32% of nominal GDP in 2015.  One way we can see this is that real estate FAI simply is not that large.  The entirety of real estate FAI in in 2015 was 9.6 trillion but somehow magically land sales in China are supposed to represent nearly 24 trillion that year. It is a mathematical impossibility that both of those numbers are true.

Second, if the land sales wedge that might explain the FAI and GCF wedge is effectively non-existent, this implies that gross capital formation is radically undervalued in GDP statistics.  Take a simple assumption that rather than dropping as a share of GDP, that GCF grew more in line with FAI.  For our purposes, assume that rather than the 45% it now represents or the 81% share of GDP that FAI represents, assume we split the difference.  That means that GCF as a share of Chinese GDP would now represent a staggering 63% of GDP.  Today by official numbers GCF represents 37% of GDP and has never topped 60% since 2010.  To put this number in perspective, according to the World Bank, only 9 countries had GCF as a percentage of GDP about 40% and only economic powerhouse Suriname was above 60%.  In other words, whether you choose to believe the official GCF data or believe that GCF is somewhere closer to FAI, whatever that exact number, China remains as grossly unbalanced country, the only question is how unbalanced exactly.

Third, the next question is whether FAI data is potentially overstated.  If we compare FAI data to various forms of financing like total social financing to the real economy, we see a big discrepancy.  FAI is significantly higher than TSF and has grown much faster over time.  In 2010, FAI in China amounted to 25 trillion RMB while TSF was 14 trillion. By 2016, those numbers had become 60.6 trillion and 17.8 trillion.  In other words, somehow FAI increased by 35 trillion while TSF increased by only 3.8 trillion or by a tenth of FAI.  That may seem like an open and shut case that FAI is overstated.  However, it isn’t.

Many industries who provide the inputs for FAI activity revenue grows much more in line with the FAI growth than with financing.  Nonmetallic mineral manufacturing (think cement, glass, etc) nearly doubled their revenue growth from 2010 to 2015 while FAI  was a little above that at 120% even as yearly TSF only grew 10% during that same time.  Other industries like specialty purpose machinery and nonferrous metals grew by very similar amounts indicating there is a much closer relationship to FAI than financing metrics like TSF.

This then has two further implications. First, it seems to imply that there might be hidden financing pushing FAI as it is not statistically at least coming from TSF.  Second, it implies that FAI is a much more accurate portrayal of the Chinese economy’s reliance on investment for growth than GCF.  By virtually any real adjustment, this means the Chinese economy is more unbalanced than almost any other time in modern history.

There is one final point here. Assume for one minute that the wedge between FAI and GCF is entirely explainable by land sales in China which is subsequently being used to finance this gap. A tenuous assumption but work with me. This means Chinese public finances are increasingly fragile on many many levels. For instance, for the government to raise taxes to a level to entirely or large replace land sales, which verifiably account in many places for 50% of government revenue, they would need to raise taxes to astounding levels. It further raises the specter that Chinese governments have to increase land sales at every increasing rates. Furthermore, it implies that there is so enormous level of “hidden” debt that simply isn’t being accounted for to fund land sales on this scale to the tune of roughly $3 trillion USD yearly.  If this is true, this is truly terrifying for financial stability.

No matter how you look at it, looking at investment and credit, the Chinese economy is more reliant on investment and credit to fund growth than ever before.

 

Why You Should Hire More Women in China

I have taught at an elite institution in China for nearly eight years and been privileged to teach some of the best graduate students China has to offer.  This time has given me I think unique experience and insight into a range of topics that I  think most simply do not get access to.  With that background, as my belated contribution to Women’s Day, take my advice if you do business in China or are an HR manager here: hire the woman over the man.

Before I say specifically why I believe you should hire the woman, let me tell you what I am not saying.  I am not any type of social justice warrior or crusader.  Intellectually, I sympathize deeply with the Milton Friedman argument against instituting discrimination laws, though I break with him in practice for a variety of pragmatic reasons beyond the scope of this post.  I believe that Richard Sander in his book  Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It presents the most compelling empirical case against affirmative action in education.  Prof. Sander, a self described liberal hippie, shows the pernicious impact mismatched students suffer in outcomes from attending universities beyond their abilities.  I believe the much discussed female wage gap, is not non-existent, but poorly understood by activists and overstated in popular uses which female economists have studied extensively.

As a professor, I have little patience for non-performance, lack of drive, and hard work.    I have and will fail students no questions asked for some infractions and have no trouble telling students their work simply isn’t that good if that quality and drive to make it top quality fall short.  With the quality of students I am blessed to work with regularly, technical ability, skill, or talent are nearly (but not always) interchangeable.  Consequently, I do regularly get to understand differentiating qualities of soft skills among students and colleagues.  In a university setting, where I am the decided minority and where I am judged internally and externally on the quality of my work, it is vital I make decisions about projects based upon a competitive basis and the results.

I do not give this intellectual background to present some type credentials for righteousness, that is absolutely not the point of this background.  In fact, I almost intend to convey just the opposite.  I sympathize with NBC CEO Jack Donaghy who rightly notes “human empathy. It’s as useless as the Winter Olympics.” I am not a social justice warrior and don’t believe I am serving any students or research assistants by treating them as charity cases. They need to compete in school and when they enter the work force. I lean much more to the Sheryl Sandberg view of women in the work place in Lean In.  Rather than treating women as a social justice mission, I think we should urge women to compete, ask for greater responsibility, or push for the promotion.

Now let me tell you why you should hire a Chinese women over a Chinese man: they are generally better candidates.  Period. Even granting for a small to moderate difference in quantifiable factors, Chinese women are better job candidates then their male counterparts.

Let me give you a couple of hard reasons why.  First, their quantifiable “weaknesses” are less comparable.  Let me give you a simple example.  Assume you have a male and a female candidate with the same test scores.  It is very likely that the male had less disadvantages to overcome to get that same test score.  That female candidate very likely had to work harder with less to obtain the same test score.  That is why I said earlier, even with a small discount in quantifiable factors, female candidates are better.

Second, their “soft skills” are typically better than male candidates.  Because Chinese women have to work harder to achieve as much as Chinese men they have better developed soft skills. From things like punctuality and project management to understanding unspoken situations and flat out being prepared to work harder.  I suspect part of this comes from their need to work harder trains them better for later.

Third, however and on the negative side, Chinese women have typically been so trained not to compete that accept less than men even though they are on average, in my opinion better candidates and workers.  I have heard more than a few times: Chinese boys become investment bankers and girls become commercial bankers. The implication being men work harder, are smarter, and leave the women the administrative tasks at SOE banks that let them come home at 5 to take care of the two children.  Men in China are much more used to getting things by playing the man card even if they are not as qualified.  I urge my female students that they have to go out and compete and push for those promotions.

Maybe I notice this more because I am living in a foreign country, maybe because I’m older, or maybe I have two daughters. Could be any number of things and I do not mean to exclude US shortcomings in this area only that I focus primarily on China.  So if you are an HR director in China or hiring, trust me when I say: hire more women. This isn’t about social justice but good business.

Follow Up to Wealth Management Reform

I wanted to write a brief follow up to my BloombergView piece on reforming financial and wealth management products in China.  As usual, start there and come here.

There is fundamental problem with all the talk about financial reform and risk management that you may have seen recently and over the weekend with the NPC that you might have seen in China: it is all predestined to fail.  I know that sounds cynical but follow me here through a couple of points to remember.

First, absent true deleveraging, any attempt at risk focused financial risk management will fail.  Assume for one minute that Beijing is serious about reigning in the wealth management sector (broadly defined) but that they let  leverage go up by 15% in 2017.  If leverage grows by 1.5-2 times nominal GDP growth, as the government has forecast and seems very likely, there will be little to no change in the risk profile of Chinese finances.  Absent true deleveraging in China, any attempt at risk focused risk management will fail, it will merely reallocate where the risk lies.

Second, China simply cannot make any significant change to the wealth management industry, it has become to integral to the growth system to seriously reign in.  There is an old saying in finance “if you owe the bank $1 million and can’t pay you have a problem, if you owe the bank $100 million and can’t pay they have a problem.” Same problem here. Shadow banking in China is simply too integrated now to move with any speed.

Assume for a minute that Beijing decided to prioritize wealth management risk reduction reducing the size, structure, and products offered by the industry.  This would imply enormous changes to both the regular mainline banking system and corporate ability to meet growth targets.  If China meets its 15% growth in financing, which includes bond swaps, that would mean no growth in shadow banking and an explosion in bank lending straining balance sheets already straining.

Additionally, non-SOE’s are almost entirely dependent on shadow banking channels to finance growth.  If shadow banking is removed as a financing option, virtually the only  companies that will have access to capital in China are SOE’s.  Then given the extremely short term nature of shadow banking products, typically under 6 months, any real crack down will make this change necessary in a very short time frame.  To avoid major liquidity crunches in client firms or shadow banks themselves, mainline banks would have to ramp up activity extremely fast.

Third, and potentially most importantly, despite the talk of a super regulator or risk focus, they need to actually enforce these rules.  The halls of Beijing are filled with nearly comical stories of lending irregularities, stories of regulators of banks helping banks avoid regulation, and regulators looking the other way.  Beijing has all the tools they need right now to crack down on irregularities but they simply choose not to.  That would force banks not to make loans to zombie firms, which would force zombie firms to go out of business, which would mean that 6.5% would be nothing but a pipe dream.

Shadow banking may raise specific risks given product design and liquidity, but as long as leverage continues to rise rapidly and Beijing chooses to look the other way to prop up ailing firms and hit the growth target, there will be no change to the overall risk profile.

Why You Should be Skeptical of Chinese Debt Reform

Every time China holds some blue sky political confab and all the press releases or reports talk breathlessly about reforms, I always counsel: wait until you see it.  Do not believe the PR.

People have raised the issue about why I am so deeply cynical about claims of reform.  So rather than write a lengthy missive complete with mountains of data about how China is absolutely not deleveraging, I decided to put together a collection of articles that talk about all the “reform” related to debt.

Couple of quick points. First, this was done using a basic Google search specifying time ranges with either “China debt” or “China deleverage” as deleverage did not enter the lexicon until 2015. Second, I do not mean to impugn the journalists that might have written these pieces as they are consciously trying to report on both sides.  Third, I have chosen sections that talk about “reform” in these areas.  There is some skewing of the overall piece in most cases as they tend to be more balanced, but many cling fast to the idea that there is some type of “reform” going on.

China has been talking about “reform”, controlling debt, deleveraging, and related matters for many years and still nothing changes.  Do not believe the PR until you see it in action.

2012:

The Diplomat: When the Chinese Central Bank (the People’s Bank of China) and banking regulators sounded the alarm in late 2010, it was already too late.  By that time, local governments had taken advantage of loose credit to amass a mountain of debt, most of it squandered on prestige projects or economically wasteful investments.  The National Audit Office of China acknowledged in June 2011 that local government debt totaled 10.7 trillion yuan (U.S. $1.7 trillion) at the end of 2010.

South China Morning Post: the government must not lose sight of these reforms, including liberalisation of the banking sector, so that private capital and enterprise can play a greater role.

Bloomberg: Yet shuttering the excess production lines may not happen anytime soon. “All the big producers have strong backing from the state banks. That is why they have been adding new capacity. This is not a commercial decision but a political one,” says UOB’s Lau. It’s happening because “the government wants to boost local economies.”

China Daily: Liu Yuhui, director of the financial lab at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said: “Apparently a wide range of debt restructuring cannot be avoided. This time, the debt issue has prevailed across all areas of the economy. Adding long-term use of allied borrowing – which means a group of companies make guarantees to each other when applying for loans together – can lead to very high systemic risk,” Liu said.

People’s Daily: “We are already aware of an obvious increase in overdue loans and ‘special-mention’ loans. Further statistics and analysis are necessary for us to discover the cause of the inconsistency and how much hidden risk there is,” said the source from the China Banking Regulatory Commission, who declined to be identified.

2013:

Reuters: “China’s government debt risks are in general under control, but some areas have certain dangers,” the state auditor said.

The Diplomat: However, there was also a special focus on the issue of local government debt, which has been weighing on the minds of some observers for years already. According to the statement (available here in Chinese) released after the conference, “controlling and defusing” local government debt risks will be an “important economic task” for the coming year.

Peterson Institute: Deleveraging is the priority in solving the local government debts.

Wall Street Journal: Worried that borrowing may be out of control, the leadership has instructed the National Audit Office to do a comprehensive survey of all the official borrowing out there

New York Times: Beijing’s eagerness to combat financial risks and bring about more efficient and disciplined allocation of capital will mean slower growth and possibly isolated loan defaults in the coming years, analysts like Mr. Zhang say.

Carnegie Endowment: China’s leaders demonstrated that they realize change is needed in November 2013 at the Third Plenum meeting, when they laid out a comprehensive plan for reforming the economy.

2014:

The Diplomat: “…how the deleveraging process unfolds will be closely tied to the increased regulation or winding down of shadow banking subsectors.”

Globe and Mail: “Chief economist of Denmark’s Saxo Bank, Steen Jakobsen, like Mr. Magnus, thinks that the Chinese government will deflate the credit bubble by allowing some defaults and bankruptcies – capital destruction, in other words – and attempting to reform SOEs and local governments. The process, of course, will remove some momentum from economic growth. The question is by how much.”

Deutsche Welle: Yukon Huang “If the government then introduces appropriate reforms, it can probably push growth back up to 7 percent, may be even 7.5 percent, for the rest of the decade and beyond. But that implies the implementation of basic structural reforms as outlined in the third plenary session of the Communist Party’s Central Committee.”

China Daily: Most importantly, money is not the solution – especially when the local government debt, which totaled 20 trillion yuan at the end of 2013, may snowball if unregulated and cause a crushing threat to the whole economy. What the economy needs to do, and has been doing since last year, is to deleverage whenever it can to reduce risks and protect its financial industry.

2015:

China Daily: An executive meeting of the State Council presided over by Premier Li Keqiang on Wednesday decided to speed up the restructuring of “zombie enterprises” to encourage the market-oriented allocation of resources, a statement released after the meeting said.

Bloomberg: President Xi Jinping’s government aims to wind down that burden to more manageable levels by recapitalizing banks, overhauling local finances and removing implicit guarantees for corporate borrowing that once helped struggling companies. Those like Baoding Tianwei Group Co., a power-equipment maker that Tuesday became China’s first state-owned enterprise to default on domestic debt.

The Economist: It is not too late for China to bring its debts under control. Regulators have taken steps in the right direction. They have obliged local governments to provide better data on their debts and have forced banks to bring more of their shadow loans onto their balance-sheets, providing a clearer picture of liabilities. One reason that banks have been issuing loans so quickly this year—faster than overall credit growth—is that they are replacing shadowier forms of financing. China has also used both monetary easing and a giant bond-swap programme for local governments to reduce the cost of servicing debts.

Matthews Asia: the medicine for this problem will be another round of serious SOE reform—including closing the least efficient, dirtiest and most indebted state firms in sectors such as steel and cement—rather than broad deleveraging, leaving healthier, private SMEs with room to grow. In contrast to the experience in the West after the Global Financial Crisis, cleaning up China’s debt problem should actually improve access to capital for the SMEs that drive growth in jobs and wealth.

Xinhua: Facing the arduous task of structural reforms, five major tasks were identified — cutting excessive industrial capacity; destocking; de-leveraging; lowering corporate costs; and improving weak links.