The reform legacy - Part II

Since the last post there have been a couple of articles which highlight quite well the importance of the reform debate and the main themes.  As the PBOC launched further stimulus (including via a new tool called "Pledged Supplementary Lending" involving 1 trillion yuan for new lending), James MacKintosh, Investment Editor of the Financial Times filmed an interesting presentation giving some context to the resulting rise in share prices. While ordinarily share prices would be indicative of higher confidence and expectations for growth, MacKintosh noted that the sectors which had shown the greatest share price increases (and saw the best response to stimulus measures) were companies in the banking, property and industrial sectors - all sectors which the Chinese authorities wanted to steer investment away from (and into other sectors) as part of the reform and rebalancing process.  Or as James put it:

 "a return to pre-crisis business as usual...a pause in reform means less risk in property and banking as well as the old line state-owned enterprises".

"China Property Gamble" (c) Financial Times

Of course what James didn't dwell on (but certainly implied) is that there would be more risk overall and in the medium to long term (hence the need for reform to reduce the risk, sadly not carried through).  Over at FTAlphaville, the suppression of risk was covered well in an article by David Keohane who noted falling bond yields, the bailing out of one trust which had been set to default and a pessimistic analysis from reputed analyst Diana Choyleva of Lombard Street Research who noted:

 ...But the more sinister explanation [of failure of domestic demand to drive economic growth] is that the authorities are unable to provide a significant boost to growth even if they want to. They may be trying to boost credit to SMEs, but demand for loans has come off again. China needs to clean up after its debt binge, not stoke it further. The current level of debt may just about mean that Beijing has a chance to reform successfully even if that will involve a few years of meagre growth and financial distress. But the ongoing rapid rate of increase in debt suggests that policymakers do not have too long to postpone much-needed defaults...

Zerohedge meanwhile has taken a much more vigorous editorial line and especially with the Qingdao commodity financing scandal (including discussion of a note from Goldman Sachs as to the impact from an unwinding of metal-based rehypothecation).  On the new stimulus measures and their indication of the slowdown in reforms, contributorTyler Durden is blunt:
 

So whatever way you look at it, the PBOC thinks China needs more credit (through one channel or another) to keep the ponzi alive. Anyone still harboring any belief in reform, rotation to consumerism is sadly mistaken. One day of illiquidity appears to have been enough to prove that they need to keep the pipes wide open. The question is where that hot money flows as they clamp down (or not) on external funding channels.

And also:

Simply put - you can kiss goodbye any hopes of China ceasing its exuberant credit creation... (especially now that the CCFD ponzi scheme has been exposed via Qingdao -and drastically reduced that channel). Reforms are all talk and the bubble will just grow bigger with fewer and fewer attractive outlets for that hot money (now that the US real estate transmission channel has been identified and likely closed)... cue real inflation.

From those Zerohedge articles are two charts of note, the first showing the total amount of credit (bank assets) in the Chinese economy and its rapid growth:

and the second the rise in rates which preceded the recent PBOC stimulus (after it apparently stopped conducting repo operations), which corresponds nicely with the increase in share prices mentioned before (imagine the effect on share prices if repo rates continue to rise and there is no new liquidity from the PBOC?!):

 

Finally, while it will still remain for the next post to discuss some summer reading about the history of reform in China, it can be added one extra piece of reading on exactly this point - a 2013 IMF Working Paper:  "China’s Path to Consumer-Based Growth: Reorienting Investment and Enhancing Efficiency" (here), which " proposes a possible framework for identifying excessive investment".

Crunch time!

Very contrasting news and images coming out of China at the moment.  While Wen Jiabao was singing his final swansong at the Party Congress this week amidst the formal handover of power, property owners were fleeing to government offices to process property sales before the hastily announced 20% capital gains tax commences.  It is intended to slow down rising property prices.  It may have burst the bubble instead.

Express filing, Shanghai style

He did it his way
Wen's China was on display for all American's midweek when longtime China Watcher Gillem Tulloch, of ForensicAsia (with the assistance of others behind the scenes like Patrick Chovanec), took CBS' 60 minutes team for a walk through China's ghost cities.  The empty shopping centres, half started office blocks and empty landscape is one of Wen's legacies.

Another legacy is the opening up of reporting on social issues, along with professed policies by the leadership to do something about it.  Reports have circulated of polluted "cancer villages" and the below from a Daily Mail piece captures the mood at the moment:

The Chinese government has promised to tackle 'cancer villages' - areas where pollution is so bad it has lead to a huge rise in diseases like stomach cancer - after a huge social media backlash from both ordinary Chinese people and global campaigners.There has been an explosion of outrage about cancer villages on China's social media sites and blogs, which are used by increasingly powerful activists to raise awareness.

But problems run deep.  As in the case of Dalahai, a village in Inner Mongolia profiled by Caixin magazine which has suffered from a nearby radioactive tailings dam, the villagers must drill to increasing depths to tap water which is safe to drink.  It is a moot point anyway as many villagers have fallen ill, moved away or given up hoping for promised though inadequate compensation.

Going green
The Green agenda was supposed to be one of the highlights for Wen's legacy with the push for renewables and various environmental policies which have also failed.  Instead the policy failure so evident in the Beijing smog has been upstaged by tycoon and philanthropist Chen Guangbiao, who made headlines for a number of radical stunts, including  selling cans of fresh air, recommending Chinese people eat less, and attending this week's Congress by bike, in a green suit.  While refreshing it is uncertain how likely any of his recommendations will be to advance the agenda.

The wrong type of green (c) Reuters

The dead hand of the State
One of the big obstacles to reform is the vested interests of state enterprises.  Caixin had an excellent piece on the failures at the top of State shipping company Cosco which took up the completely wrong strategy and is now hemorrhaging cash.  The FT mentioned the role that the head of M&A champion Sinopec had, in weakening regulation to restrict the sulphur content of its refineries near Beijing which have caused much of the smog.  And on the green side, Caixin has just reported details of the termination of the head of Suntech, the failed solar company which officials were saying should have been consollidated with all the other failing solar companies by now.

Most worringly in a market where risks are dire and State Owned Enterprises have lavished shareholder funds - the property sector (which is now tanking), one key sensible measure - that the SOEs withdraw from the market, has been ignored.  This and everything else does not bode well.

Learning all the right lessons

An Olympian task
With the London Olympics opening at the weekend, many have been looking back to the preceding games which were a pivotal moment for China, both in its arrival on the world stage (completed with an unprecedented opening ceremony) and its resetting of influential policy preferences.  Howie and Walter in Red Capitalism and others including Victor Shih (speaking with Carl Walter at Northwestern University here) identified 2008 as a time when western orientated reformers finally lost favour to those with a domestic bias, when attempts to continue reforms of the banks' lending processes were abandoned and the great RMB 4 trillion (USD 586 billion) stimulus plan was rolled out.  Concerns about the after-effects of that stimulus and the launch of a second stimulus continued to be raised in the last couple of weeks with some good commentary from a number of key analysts.


Insightful analysis was sparse in vulnerable nation Australia however.  While drops in China influenced iron-ore prices pressured Australian producers like Fortescue Metals (further enriching famous short seller Jim Chanos) and a sole report from one consultancy did get some attention, the political and economic establishment was basking in a moment of relative sunshine.  Economics editor Ross Gittins continued the Australian media's trend of lionising Australian Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens who was dismissive of questions to China's growth trajectory and treasurer Wayne Swan was equally confident on China's prospects, emphasising the careful management and the Chinese government's "deliberate government policy". Context is important here - as recently as the end of last year, few if anyone considered that China's GDP growth would fall below the benchmark 8% during 2012 such that any significant measures from the government would even be required.  


However new and significant measures were announced this week and an article in TIME magazine gave some good background.  The new push for growth seems to have come to life earlier in July, when Premier Wen Jiabao made some comments pointing to further investment while official GDP growth was released at a lower than expected 7.6%.  As this Reuters article points out, political concerns, chiefly the need to ensure a smooth handover in October and maintaining the current elite's legacy may have been a greater motivation for the decision makers, but this may not be wise in the long term.  In the short term, protests in Shifang and most recently Qidong (north of Shanghai) in opposition to the commencement of industrial projects no doubt encouraged authorities to focus on short term remedies.

A marketplace...being flooded with liquidity

Banking on trouble
Details of the second stimulus emerged on Friday, with Changsha, the capital of Hunan, leading a pack of other cities as it announced a huge RMB 829.2 billion (USD 130 billion) investment plan.  Immediately questions of how such amounts are to be financed spring to mind and a little investigation suggests a complete confusion in the administration's banking policy.  For most of the year Beijing's policy has focused on tightening loans in the property sector (and local government financing vehicles) to prevent price bubbles - yet the new stimulus measures aim will do the opposite.   Hence a number of contradictory headlines, indicating that the Chinese authorities wanted to maintain strict controls, yet also loosen lending, while despite Beijing's demand that local governments keep up restrictions on property purchases, at least one province capital sought to undermine the property curbs by offering cheap loans to buyers.  


Further complicating the picture is the question of where all of this leaves China's banks and financial system generally.  Plenty has been written and said about the significant issues that lurk behind the glossy profiles of China's large international banks and their smaller competitors.  Would the second stimulus result in some profitable lending for the banks? Possibly not as some of the discussion suggests the local government financing platforms which would launch the stimulus may seek funds from elsewhere - from issuing bonds and/or securitising their underlying portfolios.  Meanwhile the unregulated shadow banking sector has attracted a significant share of the market in lending to smaller businesses and attracting deposits.  Fitch has warned at the risk stored up by some of these vehicles while such a development is also dampening the effectiveness of interest rate cuts as a stimulus measure (though interest rates are not freely set in China).


Surely any doubts as to risk of further stimulus could be overcome by the end result of more infrastructure?  Probably not some experts believe.  Gordon Chang was doubtful about plans for further expansion of the airport network, while Simon Rabinovitch at the FT went so far as to find a real bridge to nowhere (or in any case a proper Japanese-style bridge with minimal traffic), the completion of which he interpreted as a signal that probably the era of big showpiece engineering led growth should come to an end.  And in light of the perceived failure of the sewers during the recent floods in Beijing, plenty think there has been misinvestment.


Stimulus or no, it appears the banks may already be heavily exposed to existing bad loans.  In a further development in the unfolding Zhejiang guarantee scheme collapse (covered previously here), Caixin reported that China Construction Bank made possibly fraudulent loans to a guarantee structure of the Zhejiang Construction conglomerate.  It could be the tip of the iceberg.


Fraud of the week
Two mentions this time.  First an allegation of insider trading by a Chinese-owned entity in the shares of Canadian company Nexen Inc., which state owned oil giant CNOOC has bid for.  News of the SEC's intervention just broke so it will be interesting to see how it develops.  Second, a listed education company called New Oriental, which has the dubious honour of being investigated by the SEC and short seller Carlson Block simultaneously.  Carlson put up his report on the Muddy Waters webpage here.  The response from Yu Minhong, New Oriental's CEO is here.


Thought for next time
Patrick Chovanec has an interesting series up on his blog, where he tries to explain recent observations of price rises for property in China.  He's midway through and examining a number of factors (in some detail and with good logic) from outright fraud to sources where some demand may have come from.  Of course given everything mentioned in this article so far it would seem that there shouldn't be a reason for property prices to increase given the fundamentals, unless there was some regulatory intervention.  A possible factor Chovanec hasn't mentioned (and this is speculation) is that perhaps a number of insiders have anticipated the stimulus measures described above and expecting prices would rise again as during 2008 onwards, have bought some more property.


The Economist also looks at the same issue, though the analysis is a bit clumsy.  It fails to explore the link between the two sectors (property and local government financing), which is the banking system, and this compromises its assumptions - e.g. it remains to be seen whether the liabilities of the local government financing vehicles don't "endanger the fiscal position of the country", or that local governments will "invest better" than in 2008.  Likewise their conclusion - if they are saying the price rise means that property in China hasn't collapsed fully yet, we should all worry.


And the playout of a collapse is really the next area for serious debate.  Given that the Chinese financial system reform period (from 2000 up to the Beijing Olympics) grew out of the last great financial system collapse - initiated with the collapse of Guangdong International Trust and Investment Corp. (GITIC, an investment arm of the Guangdong government) in 1999, it is probably a useful example to return to for guidance as to how any contagion would occur in the Chinese financial system.  Although the GITIC institution differs from modern investment trusts and local government financing platforms in China, the underlying story of excessive bad loans is similar to today.  A fair part of an Economist article from 1999 could be written verbatim today.  


One veteran of the GITIC bankruptcy is William Gamble, a lawyer who wrote a book featuring the episode. In a 2009 article cautioning creditors buying debts of any distressed Chinese companies, he noted the contagion caused by the collapse:

The effect of GITIC’s collapse was immediate. Foreign credit for China dried up almost overnight. China experienced a liquidity squeeze similar to after effects of Lehman Bros last fall. 

Thus presenting an irony - for all their hard work from 2008 to avoid the effects of Lehman Brothers' collapse, should the unlikely but possible outcome of an institutional bankruptcy occur, those effects may nevertheless occur anyway.