1/9

Very interesting article: China-based high-yield funds have rushed in to buy bonds of troubled Chinese state-owned enterprises on the back of a sharp sell-off caused by the default last week of a Henan coal-mining SOE.

ft.com/content/4ab1ff…
2/9

Their buying, however, has almost nothing to do with credit analyses and is little more than a highly-speculative, binomial bet on whether or not the government will step in, as they have in the past, and restructure liabilities in a way that resolves the default.
3/9

Basically these funds are betting that, once again, the regulators will be so frightened by the short-term impact of allowing a default that they back away and arrange a bailout. One fund manager cited in this article makes no bones about the strategy: “The central...
4/9

government won’t allow the situation to deteriorate as that could lead to systemic risks.”

He adds: “If they let Yongcheng or Brilliance go under, no state firms in Henan or Liaoning will ever be able to tap the bond market again. The government won’t let that happen.”
5/9

I spent much of my career trading developing-country bonds, and I've seen many versions of this game before. This really isn’t an investment “strategy”. It is nothing more than a very simple bet that the regulators still have enough firepower to prevent defaults, and that...
6/9

they think the short-term costs of allowing defaults still exceed the long-term benefits. Until the regulators decide that they cannot keep kicking the can down the road, a strategy of buying bad news will always be profitable, after which the...
7/9

strategy will always blow up.

This is just Russian roulette, in other words: you’ll probably win any given round, and every time you win you will be more convinced than ever that the odds are in your favor, but they aren’t. This “strategy” always ends the same way.
8/9

The irony here is that longer the game goes on, and the more investors play this game, the more they undermine the long-term ability of the market to act as an efficient allocator of capital, and the more costly they make it for the regulator to keep preventing defaults.
9/9

Once regulators believe that long-term costs of keeping the game going exceed short-term cost of allowing real defaults, or once too-high debt levels reduce their ability to kick the can further down the road, they will bite the bullet and allow the defaults to take place.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Pettis

Michael Pettis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelxpettis

16 Nov
1/11

There is almost as much excited the-world-is-changing nonsense generated by the signing of the RCEP as there was by the creation in 2016 of the AIIB, and because of many of the same confusions over the sources and consequences of global imbalances.

scmp.com/news/china/dip…
2/11

According to this article, "the RCEP encompasses close to one-third of the world’s population and global economy, and is projected to add US$186 billion to the world economy through improved regional trade."
3/11

How? The RCEP countries together have been running current account surpluses of more than 2% of their collective GDP, and except perhaps in the cases of Australia and New Zealand, these surpluses are based on structural savings imbalances. They are consequently...
Read 11 tweets
16 Nov
1/7

The headline is a little deceptive. While October's retail sales (a proxy for consumption) were 4.3% higher than last October, the increase was well below expectations and, more importantly, much less than the 6.9% growth in industrial production.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
2/7

October, in other words, contributed to a worsening of the domestic consumption imbalance, not an improvement. While we are seeing the beginning of a recovery in consumption, there is no way consumption this year will be up – retail sales were down 5.9% in the...
3/7

first 10 months of 2020, compared to the same period in 2019. GDP, however, will probably be up 2-3% for the year. This means that the consumption share of GDP will actually decline this year by around 2 percentage points.
Read 7 tweets
12 Nov
1/5

It’s great that the idea of raising minimum wages is become increasingly acceptable. Higher wages, in a world of weak demand, stagnant investment and underutilized resources, will boost business investment by boosting consumer demand, and this...

ft.com/content/79156f…
2/5

increase in business investment will raise total production by enough to satisfy both higher consumption and higher investment. It is high wages, after all, that encourage businesses to boost profits by investing in productivity-enhancing technology.
3/6

Unless of course they can boost profits by moving production offshore. We shouldn’t forget that what has helped drive wages down across the globe, relative to productivity, has been the need for countries to compete internationally in a world in which the frictional costs...
Read 7 tweets
12 Nov
1/5

A Shanghai professor calls Singles Day sales "a barometer to observe China’s economy". He adds that "this online shopping festival will not only serve as an incubator for business innovation, but will also boost the domestic consumer market".

en.people.cn/n3/2020/1112/c…
2/5

I've said this before, but strong online sales do not mean that consumption is reviving. They mostly mean that consumption is shifting from offline to online. It isn't that online sales will have no effect on rebalancing demand, but what matters is not more online sales.
3/5

What matters is how online sales affect the distribution of income in China. By lowering costs for consumers, online selling might indeed raise the household share of GDP, but this impact can be partly or fully mitigated by its impact on raising unemployment.
Read 5 tweets
12 Nov
1/4

Interesting article by @shuli_ren. The unusual combination in China of extremely high debt levels, slowing growth and very low default rates suggests what most of us suspected anyway: that default rates in China are largely determined...

bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
2/4

by the regulators as part of their managing risks for the banking system. Most potential defaults are postponed or avoided by forcing banks and other institutional creditors to restructure their lending.

In that case you cannot use historical data to determine...
3/4

future expected default rates. Low defaults in the past will remain low in the future until the costs to financial stability get too high, after which they will rise sharply. This seems to have happened in Japan in the early 1990s when the bubble economy began to...
Read 4 tweets
11 Nov
1/6

Good article. Winston Mok is right to argue that improved social welfare and policies that raise rural incomes will help China "rebalance" its economy towards domestic consumption as its driving force.

scmp.com/comment/opinio…
2/6

In fact anything that directly or indirectly transfers income to ordinary households will help, although as Mok points out, we are talking about huge transfers – perhaps as much as 20-30 percentage points of GDP by his count.
3/6

But what he, along with most other analysts, doesn't discuss are the political implications of rebalancing, which also explain why it has been so hard to do in the past. Given the sheer extent of the Chinese imbalances (the greatest in history) for China sufficiently...
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!