The old exportweltmeister has been dethroned -- and its economy is suffering at the hand of the new exportweltmeister (China).
That is the story told by both a new ECB paper and the FT in an excellent new piece
1/
Put simply, Germany is the most exposed large G-7 economy to the second China shock (Japan has been buffered by an incredibly weak yen).
2/
The impact of the second China shock is in all the relevant data sets -- & it reflects a clear Chinese policy choice: “As a country, the Chinese have been in the last years much better, more proactive, more consistent in going after the big technologies and conquering them”
3/
Germany's industrial economy has been in a 6 year slump, which corresponds well with China's pivot during the pandemic from an investment driven toan export driven economy
4/
That corresponds with a swing in the euro area's trade with China -- falling exports (absolutely and relative to EA GDP,), a rising bilateral deficit that corresponds with a falling global surplus once Irish tax distortions are stripped out
5/
The FT highlights the swing in Germany's capital goods balance with China -- an important point. The euro area's overall auto balance with China has also swung ...
6/
Germany of course was the one major economy that really relied on exports to China from 2008 to 2018 -- so it is simply more exposed to the second China shock. Exports to China and HK are down a full p. point of German GDP
7/
And German auto exports to China are on a trajectory that takes them to zero ... or at least back to the levels last seen when China was still quite poor
8/
As an aside, auto imports are now down to about 2% of China's auto market (lots of import substitution) while China's exports are least 15% of non-Chinese auto demand globally if the closed US market is excluded (7m v 45m market)
9/
The FT story focuses on what Germany itself needs to do to respond to the new China shock (defense spending alone won't quite cut it, the internal EU market needs to be reinforced with a less "naive" / VW driven trade policy)
The ECB's paper highlights the global dimension to Germany's industrial angst -- by highlighting how China's internal imbalances have fueled its export surplus (in a much clearer way than the IMF has ... )
The ECB paper uses China's goods trade data (memo to the IMF, you cannot just use China's self reported current account numbers any more) to show that export growth and import growth have diverged, bigly
12/
That divergence maps well to the real depreciation of the Chinese yuan by the way -- Germany cannot afford to ignore currency issues any more (incidentally, the ECB paper largely ignored this, which is my only real criticism of a v good piece)
13/
Europe incidentally has not been rewarded for its relatively restraint (compared to the US) on trade protection -- China's imports from the EU have fallen by as much China's imports from the US since the pandemic (v trend)
14
The ECB paper also highlights something that is obvious in the data but that neither the IMF nor the WTO has been able to state clearly, namely that China is the deglobalizer in chief (import growth has massively lagged GDP growth)
15/
And the ECB finds that China's exports are outperforming the domestic economy across the board -- but especially in sectors where the domestic side of the Chinese economy is weak ...
16/
The ECB's paper more than justifies France's plan to make the return of global imbalances a focus on its G-7 Presidency next year
And the FT's Big Read should raise questions at the IMF about whether or not Germany is really still a big contributor to global imbalances (exports are falling, and domestic spending is set to increase) let alone a bigger contributor than China
And it also should raise questions about the IMF's advice to China over the last 2 or 3 years, which more or less was to export your way out of the property crash more aggressively (monetary easing & long-term fiscal consolidation = weaker CNY). More later
19/19
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Treasury has indicated that it will look at the activities of China's state banks in its next assessment of China's currency policies--
It is hard to see how this doesn't become a bit of an issue ... unless of course summitry gets in the way of analysis 1/
It is quite clear that state bank purchases (and in 23/ early 24 sales) of fx have replaced PBOC purchases and sales and the core technique China uses to manage the band around the daily fx -- i.e. settlement looks like an intervention variable
2/
My latest blog looks both at how fx settlement (a measure that includes the state banks) has displaced the PBOC's own reported reserves as the best metric for Chinese intervention & lat some of SAFE's balance sheet mysteries
The blog is detailed and technical -- and thus probably best read by those with a real interest in central bank balance sheets, the balance of payments and how to assess backdoor foreign currency intervention
2/
Drawing on historical data, I propose that the gap between fx settlement and the foreign assets on the PBOC's balance sheet (fx reserves + other f. assets) is a good indicator of hidden intervention --
Obviously overshadowed by the news about a Fed nomination, but the Treasury released its delated October 2025 FX report today and it is worth reading -- not the least b/c of a clear warning to SAFE.
1/
This seems clear
"An economy that fails to publish intervention data or whose data are incomplete will not be given any benefit of the doubt in Treasury’s assessment of intervention practices."
This report only covers the period between July 24 and June 25, so it misses the bulk of the 2025 surge in fx settlement (December = $100b plus). But this chart suggests the use of more sophisticated analytical techniques than those used in past reports --
A bit of background. Taiwan's lifers hold $700 billion in foreign currency assets abroad (more counting their holdings of local ETFs that invest heavily in foreign bonds) v ~ $200 billion in domestic fx policies -- so fx gap (pre hedging) of $500 billion
2/
Taiwan's regulator (perhaps the most complicit regulator on earth) not allows the lifers NOT to mark their fx holdings to the fx market -- so the lifers are incentivized not to hedge (and they are rapidly reducing their hedge ratio)
Japan is an interesting case in a lot of ways. It has a ton of domestic debt (and significant domestic financial assets) which generates heated concerns about its solvency/ ability to manage higher rates. But it is also a massive global creditor --
1/
Japan's net holdings of bonds (net of foreign holdings of JGBs) is close to 50% of its GDP (a creditor position as big v GDP as the US net det position). That includes $1 trillion in bonds held in Japan's $1.175 trillion in reserves, + over $2 trillion in other holdings
2/
That translates into big holdings of US debt -- the MoF's Treasuries all show up in the US TIC data, but the corporate bonds held by the lifers, postbank and the GPIF are only partially captured in the US data b/c of third party management/ the use of EU custodians
14m cars would be roughly 1/4th of the global market for cars outside China (the Chinese market is ~ 25m cars) ... no way that doesn't have a disruptive impact.
China would go from 6 to 14m cars in a two year period if 2025 isn't an outlier ...
2/
Not clear that German/ European politics can caught up to the scale of China's export tsunami. And some European firms think they can profit from China's subsidies and strong local supply chain by producing in China for the European market