Does Citigroup Need China?
Most of the economists and pundits who could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble are telling us that the United States desperately needs for the Chinese government to keep buying its debt. This crew of failed analysts argues that without the support of the Chinese government, interest rates in the United States will rise, choking off the recovery. In reality, the decision by China to stop buying U.S. government debt may not harm the economy's recovery, but it could be devastating to the recovery efforts at Citigroup and other basket case banks.
The basic logic is simple. China's central bank has been buying up huge amounts of dollar-based assets for the last decade. Their purchases include short and long-term government debt, mortgage backed securities and to a lesser extent private assets.
The Chinese central bank's purchases have two effects. First, they help to keep interest rates low. This supports economic growth by keeping down the interest rate on mortgages, car loans and other borrowing that boosts demand.
The other effect of China's purchase of dollar-based assets is that it keeps down the value of its currency against the dollar. This is the famed currency "manipulation," that draws frequent complaints from politicians. Of course, it is not exactly manipulation. China has an explicit policy of keeping down the value of its currency against the dollar. It is not buying up hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. assets in the dark of night. It does it in broad daylight in order to keep its currency at the targeted rate.
Suppose China stopped buying up U.S. government debt. Interest rates in the U.S. would rise, which would have some negative impact on growth. Of course, the Fed could try to offset this rise in rates by simply buying more debt itself. It has already been buying debt and it could simply buy enough to replace the lost demand from China. This would leave interest rates largely unchanged.
Suppose that the Fed doesn't intervene and lets interest rates rise. This will have some negative impact on growth, but there will also be a very positive side from China's decision to stop buying dollars. The dollar would fall in value against China's currency. This would make Chinese goods more expensive in the United States, leading U.S. consumers to purchases fewer imports from China and more domestically produced goods.
A lower-valued dollar would also make our exports cheaper in China. That would allow us to export more to China.
The net effect would be an improvement in our trade balance, bringing back some of the 5.5 million jobs that we've lost in manufacturing over the last decade. In fact, since nearly all economists agree that the current trade deficit can't persist for long, China would be helping the country bring about a necessary adjustment if it stopped buying up dollars.
Even the rise in interest rates would have a positive effect since it would allow for the completion of the deflation of the housing bubble, with house prices finally settling back to their trend levels. This drop in house prices will be a painful adjustment, but there is no way to avoid it. Bubbles cannot be sustained indefinitely and we are better off allowing the housing market to return to normal so we can get back to a path of sustainable growth.
While decision of the Chinese to stop buying dollars might be good for the economy, it is likely to be disastrous for Citigroup and the rest of the basket case banks. If interest rates rose, then the value of the government bonds they hold would plummet. If the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds goes from the current 3.5 percent to a still low 4.5 percent, then the banks will have lost 8 percent on their holdings. At a 5.5 percent interest rate, a rate that would still be far below the average for the 90s, the loss would be 15 percent. Citi and the other basket cases could not endure these losses in their current financial state.
This could be why we see shrill pronouncements from the likes of the Washington Post editors, and other "experts" who couldn't see an $8 trillion housing bubble, that we need the Chinese government to keep buying up our debt. We absolutely do not need the Chinese government to keep buying U.S. debt and would almost certainly be better off if it stopped tomorrow. Citigroup and the other big banks do need the Chinese government to keep the money flowing if they are to have a chance of getting back on their feet. And, we know where the sympathies of the Washington Post's editors and other "experts" lie.




















Well, someone needs to keep buying our debt. I mean, the government cannot continue to pay anyone for anything if it cannot issue new debt. If We the People (ie. the US Government) did our accounting the way a company does, we would be bankrupt now.
I'm no economist. And I certainly didn't "call the $8 trillion housing bubble" (though I did get my 401(k) money into cash a year before the crash). But it seems to dumb old me that somebody has to keep buying our government's IOUs.
If China stops buying, then the demand (price) for our debt would go way down, and the yield would have to go way up. Can you explain why a 10-year yield of only 4.5% or 5.5% would be likely in that scenario? Seems to me it would shoot into double-digits right away.
To me, this sounds like inflating our way out of the crisis. Maybe that's the best (only?) way out. But let's call it what it is. Why won't inflation go to 20% or 50% or 200% (annual rate)? What will stop it from rising that far?
-- ARG
October 19, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I was thinking ARG. Lets say we hold a bond auction and China doesn't show? I think what happens is that the market panics and the dollar collapses. Not good.
October 19, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points ARG.
The only ways to get out of debt is to either raise income, reduce spending, or some combination of the two. Any other proposal is just a bunch of BS. The chances of the US Congress doing either is the proverbial "slim to none".
The USA could do a lot by instituting a 10 cent a share tax on all stocks and securities traded within the USA, or traded by US citizens; placing a $50.00 per barrel tax on all crude oil, or oil products either pumped in, or imported into the USA; and ending that cash hole which is the wars in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.
Tough love, but the other answer is to cut Federal spending to match current levels of Federal income - something which is a thing of the past.
Note - a $50.00 per barrel tax on oil would be the equivalent of about $1.00 on a gallon of gasoline and would still leave gasoline prices below thew $5.00 level where they were just last summer.
.
October 19, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, really the only way out of debt this big is to grow out of it, as we saw with Clinton. If we're going to run up $9 trillion over 10 years than we'd better be producing way more than $14 trillion in GDP.
I don't think you can cut your way out of this and I doubt you can tax out either. We need a big massive new industry to emerge.
October 19, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Grow out of debt"?
You can grow as much as possible, but as long as expenditures remain higher than income, debt will increase. That is simple addition and subtraction that seems to be above the capabilities of professional economists.
Anything else is wishful thinking at its worst.
October 20, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
if china stopped buying our debt, we'd have to raise the interest rates on t-bills to attract new customers who, unlike c hina, might actually want a return (and not to manipulate our currencies). this means we can't spend as much, but it's not like there aren't any other people in the world looking for a solid relatively risk-less investment. The only other investments I can think of that's less risky are world bank bonds --which are guaranteed by all the western governments, not just the US.
And maybe the revenue thing would work out, as our exports would increase and create a bigger tax base.
October 19, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Private investors are willing to hold several trillion dollars of U.S. government debt at a 3.5 percent interest on 10-year bonds. If anyone thinks the interest rate will suddenly soar into the double-digits because China stops buying a few hundred billion a year's worth, then they have been watching too much science fiction.
The same is true if they think that we can invent some new industry that will just change everything. We might as well put our teeth under a pillow at night and hope for the tooth fairy.
October 19, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Dean. Maybe it is too much science fiction. Or too much from people trying to, ironically, make a buck off of fears of a dollar collapse. But the horror stories they weave are scary and all of the sudden you own gold...
October 19, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comment, Dean. As I said above, I'm not an economist. But I am an engineer. So I'm only convinced when I see and understand the numbers.
So you say that private investors are willing "to hold several trillion dollars of U.S. government debt at a 3.5 percent interest on 10-year bonds." Okay. How many is "several"? So we add ~1.5 trillion dollars to our debt every year (lately), while we are forced to annually re-finance some portion (1/10th, if it were all in 10-year bills, but much of it is shorter term). So how long does the desire to hold "several trillion" last?
And, perhaps more importantly, how much of that desire depends on the Chinese? The psychology of the bond market is complex and very important. If and when the Chinese decide they're "out", what does that do to the "willing"ness of these private investors to commit to hold our debt at low interest rates?
It would probably require a separate post, and it might be pretty "wonky", but I'd love to read an analysis with some numbers that would convince me that we really don't need the Chinese to buy our debt. So far you haven't disabused me of the notion that we need to keep the Chinese happy (lest we face financial armageddon).
-- ARG
October 19, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as with everything, the interest rate is set at the margin, not by overall dollar volume, so there would be some rise if China stopped buying cold-turkey, as it were.
Nonetheless, I think it would be good to wean ourselves off China, in this case.
One thing many people seem to gloss over (I wonder why sometimes) is that those with money to lend are more interested in lending it out at higher rates, so an overall rise in interest rates might dampen borrower demand, but increase loan availability ... and right now, I have the distinct impression that "availability" is more of a problem than "loan demand". (Both are problems, the question is which is a bigger one in the aggregate.)
October 20, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No dean...I think Dixie Cups, plates and plastic forks and knives would do them just fine.
C
October 19, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!! I wish I could rec this comment.
October 19, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hay Deano, Did you not hear VP Biden today ?
The rescession is over, we are now in a depression !
This is the Vice Presidnet of the United States of America. One heartbeat away from being our leader, Commander and Chief, The Big Labowsky.
October 19, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you're oh so much smarter than those corporate economists and easily predicted the "oh so obvious" 8 trillion dollar housing bubble you're now a multi-billionaire, right? Certainly, you had the courage to put your money, and that of your family and friends, where your mouth was, right?
By the way, Lloyd Blankfein - a dummy if there ever was one - did predict the collapse of the housing bubble - which is why Goldman did better than a lot of the other dummies. But he didn't foresee the depth of the recession.
October 20, 2009 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Spider... Dean is rightly famous for putting his money where his mouth was a selling his DC condo at the height of the housing bubble, taking a major risk by renting though locking in substantial gains.
October 20, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, that's a pathetic response.
October 20, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
“Suppose China stopped buying up U.S. government debt. Interest rates in the U.S. would rise, which would have some negative impact on growth.”
----Wow. Talk about the understatement of the year! If you thought the first half of 2009 was fun, you're going to love the post-China world.
.
“Of course, the Fed could try to offset this rise in rates by simply buying more debt itself. It has already been buying debt and it could simply buy enough to replace the lost demand from China. This would leave interest rates largely unchanged.”
----Riiiiight. China stops buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US paper and a simple adjustment to Feb purchase policy makes all the implications go away (“largely unchanged”). If that’s the case, then why would you have said in the previous sentence that US growth would slow? Can’t have it both ways, sir!
.
“Suppose that the Fed doesn't intervene and lets interest rates rise. This will have some negative impact on growth, but there will also be a very positive side from China's decision to stop buying dollars. The dollar would fall in value against China's currency. This would make Chinese goods more expensive in the United States, leading U.S. consumers to purchases fewer imports from China and more domestically produced goods.”
----May I ask how long you’ve had this obsession with destroying the purchasing power of America’s less well-off? You do realize that people who buy China-made goods at Wal-Mart aren’t doing it because they didn’t like the shop assistant’s attitude at Macy’s, right?
They are buying cheap stuff because THEY HAVE TO. And, you want to jack up the cost of what they buy, just because you don’t like buying from China.
Think it through. America doesn’t manufacture most of the stuff we buy from China. If we don’t buy from China, we’ll have to buy from Mexico, Brazil, India, Bangladesh or Portugal.
.
Bottom line: THERE IS NO “BUY AMERICAN” OPTION FOR THINGS AMERICA DOESN’T MAKE ANYMORE.
October 22, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink