|
|
|
|
The Recovery
in Asia
|
|
Nov
18th 2009, C.P. Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh |
|
As
the world looks to full stabilisation and a rebound
from the crisis due to the efforts of governments, clearly,
it is finance rather than the real economy that has
benefited more from those initiatives. In fact, the
turnaround in the financial sector, which was responsible
for the crisis in the first instance, has been faster
and more noticeable than in the real economy. What is
more, as the popular concern about swelling bonuses
for financial managers illustrates, the recovery of
finance is seeing a return to practices that generated
the imbalances that underlay the crisis.
Chart
1 >>
This is not true just at the level of individual institutions
or countries, but globally as well. Thus, the financial
recovery has resulted in a revival of capital flows
to emerging markets since March 2009 (Chart 1), even
while the flow of credit to the real sector in the developed
countries is still limited. Much of these flows are
concentrated in Asian emerging markets that have been
less adversely affected by the crisis than other countries,
and therefore promise quick returns to a financial sector
that is yet to write off a large volume of bad assets.
The surge is clearly feeding on itself inasmuch as it
has generated an asset price boom in recipient countries,
encouraging further speculative flows. As the International
Monetary Fund's Regional Economic Outlook released in
October reports, ''emerging Asia … has especially benefited
from equity market inflows, which have not only exceeded
those to other regions, but have also returned to levels
prevailing before the crisis. External equity and bond
issues by emerging Asian economies have also returned
to pre-crisis levels, a much stronger rebound than in
other regions. Even inflows of syndicated loans have
resumed to emerging Asia—unlike elsewhere, primarily
reflecting the healthier state of banks in the region.''
This turnaround is worsening an imbalance that was seen
as being a medium-term influence that triggered the
crisis of 2008: the imbalance in the distribution of
global reserves. The surge in capital inflows to Asian
emerging markets puts upward pressure on the currencies
of these countries, which can ill-afford currency appreciation
at a time when they are just recovering from the decline
in exports that the recession generated. Such appreciation
makes their exports more expensive in foreign currency
terms and erodes export competitiveness.
Not surprisingly, central bankers have stepped in to
manage exchange rates and stall or dampen appreciation
by buying up dollars and adding it to their reserves.
According to the IMF, from March through September 2009,
emerging Asian countries accumulated US$510 billion
in reserves, compared with US$69 billion in emerging
Europe and US$17 billion in Latin America. Cumulatively,
emerging Asia's stock of reserves has risen from about
US$3.4 trillion at end-August 2008 to about US$3.9 trillion
at end-September. This makes the stock of reserves in
Asia much higher than in other emerging markets in absolute
dollar values and as a share of GDP (Chart 2).
Chart
2 >>
When reserves accumulate rapidly, central banks look
for liquid and safe assets. And since the dollar remains
the world's reserve currency and the US the world's
leading political and military power, the flight to
safety is biased in favour of dollar-denominated assets.
In the case of Asia this seems to be true even when
the dollar is weak and depreciates. Data from the US
Federal Reserve relating to US Government agency bonds
held by foreign official institutions shows that while
they increased by $119 billion in 2007, in the wake
of the crisis they fell by $31 billion in 2008 and by
another $31 billion in the first seven months of 2009.
However, not only was the contribution of non-oil exporting
Asian countries even more significant, it actually continued
to be positive even in 2008. Asian holdings of US public
bonds increased by $131.6 billion in 2007 and by $32.4
billion in 2008. Even in the first seven months of 2009,
total Asian holding of US government bonds remained
largely stable, with a small increase of $2.3 billion
for Middle Eastern oil exporters and a small decline
of $2.5 billion for all other Asian countries.
This reverse flow of capital from developing to developed
countries had in the past been held responsible for
the excess liquidity, credit and consumption in the
US, which was seen as absorbing the excess savings from
Asia. Thus a significant part of the blame for the debt-financed
consumption that led to the crisis of 2008 was placed
at Asia's door. In particular, it was argued that some
Asian countries were using undervalued exchanged rates
to generate the trade and current account surpluses
that accumulate as reserves and then flow to US.
What the recent Asian experience illustrates is that
financial rather trade flows often generate the imbalances
reflected in the uneven distribution of global balance
of payments surpluses and foreign exchange reserves.
If those reserves are seen as contributing to a process
that leads to a financial and economic crisis, then
the fault possibly lies in the structures created by
the financial policies of the developed countries rather
than in the exchange rate policies of the developing
countries.
What is more the revival of financial flows has been
accompanied by tendencies, the full import of which
has been ignored, in the complacence generated by the
recovery in Asia. It is now well accepted that the recovery
of the world economy from the worst recession since
the Second World War is being led by Asia, which thus
far has displayed a V-shaped short-term growth trajectory.
The sharp rebound has many causes to it, including the
fiscal stimulus in countries like China, which has played
a role nationally and regionally. But one that has been
important, at least in some countries, is the effort
of central banks and governments to reduce interest
rates and push credit. Besides opting for a fiscal stimulus
to combat the recession that was imported into Asia
from the developed industrial countries, policy makers
in Asia have persuaded central banks to pump liquidity
into the system and stimulate credit offtake by cutting
interest rates.
Chart
3 >>
Not surprisingly, the IMF reports that evidence for
the year since September 2008 indicates that unlike
the developed countries where bank credit flows froze
in the wake of the crisis, bank credit growth in Asia
has only slowed and that in some cases such as China
it has, in fact, risen sharply (Chart 3). There are
many benign explanations for this, including the strong
balance sheets of the banks that have recapitalized
themselves since the 1997 crisis and been more cautious
in their practices. As the IMF puts it: ''Unlike in Europe,
Asian banks had little exposure to U.S. toxic assets,
and the rise in domestic non-performing loans has been
modest, so the damage to their capital positions from
the crisis has been relatively small. Moreover, they
have been quick to replenish their buffers, raising
more than US$106 billion in capital since fall 2008.
As a result, the declines in their capital-asset ratios
have been negligible; in some countries, capital ratios
have even risen compared with pre-crisis levels. So
as liquidity conditions improved, Asian banks were in
a strong position to resume lending.'' To this we must
add, the lower leverage in a restructured corporate
sector that had burnt its fingers in 1997.
There is, however, some danger. Whenever credit remains
high or surges because of easy liquidity, some of it
flows into risky assets. This is visible in China, which
was not a victim of the 1997 crisis and had not seen
restructuring of the kind noted above. The evidence
suggests that credit growth in China has accelerated
since the beginning of 2009, facilitated by the government's
decision to relax informal quantitative limits on bank
credit growth as a response to the growth slowdown resulting
from the deceleration in export growth. The resulting
credit boom raised the level of net new bank credit
by 50 per cent compared with its level of 2008 as a
whole.
Such credit has financed a surge in public investment
which when mandated by government is not constrained
by expectations of market demand and profitability.
But it has also hiked private consumption as well as
private investment, particularly in real estate. According
to estimates, about 40 per cent of the private investment
undertaken in the first eight months of 2009 went into
real estate. There is reason to believe that this is
true in other Asian countries as well, where the liquidity
resulting from the return of capital that had initially
exited the country has helped sustain a regime of easy
liquidity and credit with low interest rates.
Needless to say, a credit surge of this kind encourages
speculation, leads to asset price inflation and runs
the risk of fuelling a bubble based on loans of poor
quality. This not only questions the sustainability
of the resulting recovery but makes the growth process
partially one that rides on a bubble. As and when governments
seek to reduce their fiscal deficits and exit from the
fiscal stimulus they chose to provide, this aspect of
the growth process could come to dominate. If that happens,
Asian growth would increasingly take on characteristics
similar to those displayed by the developed industrial
countries in the years before the onset of their financial
crisis with real economy expansion being driven by debt-financed
private (particularly housing) investment and consumption.
Such growth is obviously vulnerable, since a credit
surge cannot be sustained for long without undermining
the confidence of lenders and of those willing to carry
risk on their behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|