One fact about the global economy should not be subject to debate any more -- the US is more than meeting global demand for reserve assets (a significant change from 2002 to 2014 ... )
1/ many
And since China has had a policy of limiting its Treasury holdings (and shifting fx reserves over to the SCBs and policy banks) since around 2010, China's share of the Treasury market has shrunk radically ...
2/
The split is imprecise (Treasuries held by central banks in offshore custodians count as "private") but there is no real doubt that the role of official investors in the market has shrunk -- and there has been a big increase in private US holdings ...
3/
The stock in private domestic hands still is absolutely huge (it is around 50% of GDP) but it is up ~ 20 pp of GDP compared to the pre-COVID era, and a lot of that increase has been funded by US money market funds, either directly or indirectly (via repo)
4/
These structural shifts help explain why the Treasury issued a lot of bills in 2022 and 2023 -- that was where the demand was ...
Note issuance actually picked up significantly over the course of 2024 ...
5/
Note issuance is now running at just under 5% of US GDP -- a level consistent with a stable bill share if the fiscal deficit is around 6% of GDP. Counting QT, the market absorbed note supply equal to the fiscal deficit last year ...
6/
Foreign demand for notes has been stable at around 1.5 pp of GDP/ $450b -- a decent number absolutely and relative to history, but modest v total supply.
7/
Increased note (coupon paying Treasuries, bills are sold at a discount to pay) issuance has been facilitated by gigantic fall off in mortgage issuance (Fed tightening clearly impacted the secondary market in housing)
8/
And shifting from the flow of funds data to the Bertaut Judson monthly flow data, the bulk of foreign demand for Treasury coupons does look to be from true private holders. b/c China shifted to bills at the margins, my estimates imply its note holdings fell modestly in 2024
9/
Bottom line -- the increase in the stock of Treasuries in the market since the start of the pandemic has largely been absorbed domestically ... a point that is well known among actual market participants (who like to point that there are more price sensitive buyers)
10/
& absent a very elastic definition of reserve demand that includes private holdings abroad, it no longer is really accurate to say the US external deficit reflects excess global demand for reserve assets. That was the case imo from 03 to 13 -- but the world has changed
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Secretary Bessent has a bit of work to do to convince Americans (and perhaps the market) that the bailout of Argentina (and direct peso purchases):
a) will work
b) is a good idea
1/
My former colleague Mark Sobel
“Were the United States to offer Argentina a longer-term support package to back an unsustainable exchange rate, that would be a major folly and waste of U.S. taxpayer resources"
2/
There is a pretty broad consensus that putting US money into Argentina to backstop the current exchange rate regime (i.e. the peso's current trading band) isn't a good use of taxpayer funds
The IMF needs to take a serious look at its methodology for forecasting the current account balance in key countries -- the current approach is yielding somewhat absurd outcomes that forecast real problems (notably China's surplus) away
1/
The WEO forecast for China's 2025 surplus is 3.3% of GDP (the h1 surplus) so an upward adjustment from the absurd $370b surplus in the ESR. That surplus is forecast to fall to 2.8% of GDP in 26, and then down to 2% of GDP in 2020. No problem here worth global concern ...
2/
The basis for the forecast seems to be Chinese policies that now support domestic demand ..
"China and Germany have recently announced and expanded spending measures to boost domestic demand, which will lower net savings and reduce external surpluses"
3/
Building out capacity (including refining capacity) for rare earths/ other critical minerals should indeed by a real priority now, and the risk of weaponization of this this and other supply chains should have been taken more seriously in the past. But it won't be easy
Just as an example of how far the political debate has come -- Bob Lighthizer (no China dove) excluded rare earths and permanent magnets from the 301 tariffs back in 18 and 19 ...
3/
Pharmaceuticals from China too (why raise the price of meds ... )
For rare earths and magnets there was essentially no US supply, so the tariffs just raised costs (absent a plant o build out capacity over time)
4/
China -- per the excellent reporting on the WSJ/ @Lingling_Wei -- appears to be pursuing a strategy of applying maximum pressure in pursuit of maximum concessions ... full tariff rollback, rollback of export controls, relaxation of nat'l security review on Chinese investment
1/
China though may have miscalculated -- Trump's "Truth" suggested real frustration. Betting on an even bigger (and more publicly visible TACO) has its own risks
China really has put its full economic toolkit on the table -- using its control of grain and oil seed imports (COFCO) to zero out orders for beans (having a bit of a stockpile helps), and rolling out an extraordinary set of export controls ...
3/
There are rumors -- based on material reported in the Argentine press -- that suggest the US lifeline to Argentina will be funded using Special Drawing Right certificates, and that the BCRA will on lend some funds to the MoF to do bond buybacks ...
1/
The logic of using the SDRs (The Treasury technically borrows dollars from the Fed using SDR certificates as collateral) is simple: the ESF has $173b of SDRs, and only ~ $23b of dollars ...
2/
So if the US is thinking that the $20b may not be enough (and if it is financing bond buybacks as well as a peso defense it may not be enough ... ) using SDRs opens a path to an even bigger program