Brief follow up on some of the more technical issues from my piece yesterday about OBOR funding from Bloomberg Views.
- Let’s use the $5 trillion over 5 years number reported by Nataxis (which I would highly recommend reading their research report on financing OBOR which is a link in the BV piece) but also note that other outlets like The Economist have reported similar numbers (theirs was $4 trillion). Use simple numbers for our purposes and assume it is all equally divided into equal blocks so every year sees $800b-$1t per year in overseas lending by China. That is an enormous, enormous, enormous jump in overseas lending. For thought experiment purposes, we have even extend this to 10 years. To put this in perspective, ODI from China to the ROW in 2016 after an enormous surge was $170 billion. Then ODI is down 49% YTD from 2016.
- Assume that all OBOR lending is done in USD, this means that either a) China is going to tap PBOC USD or b) they are going to do tap the USD bond market to fund these lendings. If China taps PBOC FX reserves to pay for this, with the numbers reported, they will have no USD left in the reserves. None. Zero. Zilch. In fact, not only will they have nothing left, they will have to begin borrowing on international USD to fund investments in such credit worthy places as Uzbekistan. For simplicity sake, assume they plan to invest $5 trillion, they use up all $3t in PBOC FX reserves and then they have to go borrow $2t on international markets. Frankly, this is a crazy financial risk by China.
- However, it isn’t fundamentally any better if China opts for option B to raise all the funding on international USD bond markets. If China raises the entire amount, as Nataxis noted, this raises Chinese external debt levels by about 40% of GDP and more importantly makes China exceedingly risky to any type of devaluation. Even small devaluations of the RMB would then become important. All of a sudden China becomes a very risky borrower with high levels of external debt and an increasingly risky tie to the USD. What is so crazy about this situation is that China has tied itself and its stability to the USD to Pakistani bridge repayment. Stop and wrap your mind around that for one second.
- Now here is the absolute kicker for all of this. Assume that China funds this through either of these ways and is lending to countries like Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc etc. China as the middle man is essentially absorbing the risk on international markets or using its FX reserve to lend to these countries. Think about it another way, if a bond holder lends to China for an OBOR project to lend to Pakistan where China has admitted it expects to lose a lot of money. The bond holder is not holding a Pakistani bond but a Chinese bond. If Pakistan can’t pay China, China still needs to pay that international bondholder. China is putting its FX and or credit rating and domestic financial stability at the mercy of Uzbeki toll road repayment. Neither the Chinese people, if they use FX reserves, or international investors (if they tap the bond market) will care why Pakistan can’t repay and China is defaulting. China will essentially be absorbing the credit risk index of its basket of underlying sovereigns and industries (in an overly simplistic way of thinking). OBOR borrowing or FX lending is an index of Uzbeki, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan infrastructure.
- I can hear some asking why don’t they just take over assets as they have done in Sri Lanka. If the asset isn’t cash flowing enough to repay the debt, China can take it over, but they are still left with an asset below the value of what they invested in it. That may change the physical ownership of the asset but they will still require large write downs in the assets they are obtaining.
- The last thing that has been raised is that the numbers from the Nataxis report or other outlets reporting these numbers are inaccurate. Let’s assume they are and that OBOR will amount to much smaller numbers say $25 billion a year which China could afford. I don’t want to dismiss this is irrelevant but at the very least most definitely not worth in reality the pomp and circumstance surrounding it. To put this in perspective, the US is a foreign direct investor to the tune of around $300 billion per year. China is on track in 2017 to come in about 75% less than the US. Broadly similar differences in other financial flows. In other words, even if China funds OBOR to the tune of $25 billion per year, this will amount to little more than another good conference in three years.