1/4
Alibaba (and others) are aggressively buying back shares. This may turn out in retrospect to have been a good strategy, but its worth remembering that large-scale share buybacks are highly pro-cyclical for the economy.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
2/4
Buybacks, in other words, reinforce improvements in the underlying economy to the same extent that they reinforce further deterioration. By expanding leverage ratios they multiply gains for investors on the way up while multiplying losses on the way down.
3/4
Last week when regulators were determined to arrest the stock market collapse, encouraging share buybacks probably seemed like a good idea. But for those worried more generally about excessive debt build-up, they might make things worse in the longer term.
4/4
In my 2001 book I discussed how, in rapidly-growing developing economies, when the economy starts to slow policymakers often turn to measures that are implicitly pro-cyclical to support growth. Beijing should be very aware of this risk.

• • •

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

Mar 23
1/8
I think this is a pretty important article. It points out that China is embracing supply-side policies even though analysts increasingly recognize that fiscal support would be better targeted at households than at businesses.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
2/8
In fact China has embraced supply-side policies for at least three decades, but I wouldn't suggest it is a conservative policy. Supply-side policies make sense in economies in which productive investment is constrained by scarce savings or by logistical bottlenecks.
3/8
The problem is that while this was true of China for most of the period since the 1980s, it stopped being true about a decade ago, after which the main constraint on productive investment was no longer scarce savings but rather weak domestic demand.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 23
1/4
This is interesting. Evergrande has just "discovered" that RMB 13 billion in pledged deposits have been seized by banks. Depending on how this is treated by the authorities, it could have an adverse impact on the way insolvency occurs within China.
caixinglobal.com/2022-03-23/eve…
2/4
A well-functioning insolvency process reduces financial distress costs for the economy by, among other things, ensuring creditors are treated fairly. But if creditors with insider access are allowed to seize assets ahead of other creditors, the process can become chaotic.
3/4
Rather than an orderly restructuring designed to maximize enterprise value and limit the damage to the underlying economy, this would encourage a disorderly restructuring in which agents tear apart the company as they try to maximize the share they retain of the carcass.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 22
1/7
Senator Cotton says "There’s no natural level of people, goods, or money moving across borders; it’s a policy choice that must be made by the people and their representatives.”
ft.com/content/58700e…
2/7
He's right, of course, and Republicans should question a commitment to financial globalization that was always more ideological than practical (and out of synch with the party's history). Their views however are still based on Peter Navarro's obsolete understanding of trade.
3/7
If this were just about measures to prevent core US technologies and industries from being acquired by China or undermined by foreign mercantilism, it might make sense. There is nothing wrong with Washington being as protective of strategic industries as Beijing.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 20
1/4
"China has had a long-standing objective of greater 'internationalization' of the yuan - but its mantra on seeking stability would likely trump that for the foreseeable future."
reuters.com/markets/europe…
2/4
In fact "internationalizing" the RMB means that Beijing must give up control of its capital and current accounts, force down the national savings rate, liberalize the banking system and eliminate policy distinctions between Chinese and foreign financial institutions.
3/4
Beijing won't want to do that any time in the foreseeable future. In fact until it rebalances domestic demand, cleans up the banking system and eliminates moral hazard, internationalizing the RMB would be financially very disruptive.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 16
1/14
Good piece by @TomFStevenson on one of the reasons why, for all the damage it does to the US economy, Washington is unlikely to want to constrain the global use of the US dollar.
lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v44/…
2/14
“The fact is," he notes, "that Washington controls access to the international financial system. Much as a naval blockade denies access to the seas, US sanctions are based on monopoly power over a global commons: the world’s reserve currency and medium of exchange.”
3/14
But this comes at a cost to the US too. The dollar is widely used not because of US military power but rather in spite of it. Much of the world suffers from growth policies that reward domestic elites at the cost of structurally weak domestic demand and excess savings.
Read 15 tweets
Mar 16
1/5
To me what's most impressive about this story is not the story itself, but rather its relatively muted impact. Even a few years ago I suspect this story would have unleashed an orgy of predictions about the imminent demise of the US dollar.
wsj.com/articles/saudi… via @WSJ
2/5
Today, while there has been some hyperventilating, the reaction is generally much less excited than it would have been. More people seem to understand that the dominance of the dollar has nothing to do with the currency denomination of the price of oil (or anything else).
3/5
After all, with a smart phone you can denominate any trade in any currency you like. What matters ultimately is how trade surpluses are recycled into assets and which countries will accept the corresponding deficits, and this has nothing to do with currency denomination.
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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(