The Rising Risk of a Hard Landing in China: The Two Engines of Global Growth – U.S. and China – are Now Stalling
Nouriel Roubini
For
the last few years the global economy has been running on two engines,
the U.S. on the consumption side and China on the production side, both
lifting the entire global economy. The U.S. has been the consumer of
first and last resort spending more than its income and running large
current account deficits while China (and other emerging market
economies) has been the producer of first and last resort, spending
less than its income and running ever larger current account surpluses.
For
the last few months the first engine of global growth has effectively
shut down as the latest batch of macro news from the U.S. are worse
than awful: collapsing consumption and consumer confidence, plunging
housing, collapsing auto sales, plunging durable goods spending (while
supply side indicators such as production, ISM (factory index) and
employment are also free falling). The U.S. is entering its worst
consumer recession in decades both supply and demand data look worse
than in the severe recessions of 1974-75 and 1980-82. And in due time
this tsunami of awful macro news, together with ugly downside surprises
to earnings will take another toll on equity valuations that are now
temporarily lifted by another bear market sucker’s rally.
More
worrisome there are now increasing signs that the other main engine of
the global economy – China - is also stalling. Let us consider now in
detail the evidence that China may be on its way to a hard landing…
The
latest batch of macro data from China are mixed but all point towards a
sharp deceleration of economic growth: official GDP data showing growth
down to 9% from the 12% of a couple of years ago; sharply falling
spending on consumer durables (autos); falling home sales and sharp
fall in construction activity; leading indicators of the manufacturing
sector (the Chinese Purchase Management Index (PMI)) showing a value of
44.6% (i.e. an outright contraction of manufacturing to a level below
50% indicates a contraction), its lowest level ever since its
publication. 9 out of 11 PMI sub indices showed contraction - Output,
New Orders, Input Prices, Purchases of Inputs, New Export Orders,
Imports, Backlogs of Orders, Stocks of Major Inputs. Output index fell
to 44.3 from 54.6 in September, while new orders dropped to 41.7 from
51.3, while the inventory index climbed to 51.4 from 50.5. The decline
in total orders has been even stronger than in export orders, thus
suggesting a weakening in both domestic and export demand. And the
decline in construction activity is without doubt a major contributor
to the recent weakness in industrial activity in China.
China’s exports to the US as a motor of growth
Note
also that manufacturing, which accounts for 40% of China's GDP, is
slowing based on surveys of manufacturers, matching with anecdotal
reports of factory closures in China's southeast coast. Industrial
production has slowed to the lowest level in 6 years (output rose 11.4%
in September, from 12.8% in August). While slowdown may have been
exacerbated by the Olympics shut-down, it has been on a slowing trend
for months. The Federation of Hong Kong Industries predicts that 10% of
an estimated 60 to 70 thousands Hong Kong-run factories in the Pearl
River Delta will close this year. And of course the Chinese equity
bubble (P/E ratios reached a ridiculous level of 60 plus late last
year) has now gone bust big time with the Shanghai index having fallen
over 60% from its bubbly peak.
There is thus now a growing risk
of a hard landing in China. Let us be clear what we mean by hard
landing. In a country with the potential growth of China, a hard
landing would occur if the growth rate of the economy were to slow down
to 5-6% as China needs a growth rate of 9-10% to absorb about 24
million folks joining the labor force every year; it needs a growth
rate of 9-10% to move every year about 12-14 million poor rural farmers
to the modern industrial/manufacturing urban sector. The whole social
and political legitimacy of the regime of the ruling Communist party
rests on continuing to deliver this high growth great transformation of
the economy. Thus, a slowdown of growth from 12% to 5-6% would be the
equivalent of a hard landing or a recession for China. And now a
variety of macro indicators suggest that China is indeed headed towards
a hard landing.
Note that China is an economy that is
structurally dependent on exports: net exports (or the trade balance
surplus) are close to 12% of GDP (up from 2% earlier in the decade) and
exports represent about 40% of GDP. Real investment in China is about
45% of GDP and, leaving aside the part of this investment that is
housing and infrastructure spending, about half of this capex spending
goes towards the production of new capital goods that produces more
exportable goods. So, with the sum of exports and investment
representing about 80% of GDP, most of Chinese aggregate demand depends
on its ability to sustain an export based economic growth.
The
trouble, however, is that the main outlet of Chinese exports – the U.S.
consumer – is now collapsing for the first time in two decades. Chinese
exports to the U.S. were growing at an annualized rate of over 20% a
year ago; while the most recent bilateral trade data from the U.S. show
that this export growth has now fallen to 0%. But the worst is still to
come in the next few quarters: after an ok second quarter in the U.S.
(boosted by the tax rebates) U.S. retailers hoped that the consumer
downturn would be minor: they thus placed over the summer massive
orders for Chinese (and other imported) goods for Q3 and Q4. But now
the U.S. holiday season clearly looks like the worst that the U.S. will
experience in decades and the result of it will be a huge overhang of
unsold Chinese goods. Thus, you can expect that orders of Chinese goods
for Q1 of 2009 and the rest of 2009 will be sharply down dragging
Chinese exports to the U.S. into sharply negative territory. And it is
not just Chinese exports to the U.S.
Until a few months ago
the U.S. was starting to contract but the rest of the advanced
economies (Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia/New Zealand) were
growing at a sustained rate, thus boosting Chinese exports. But there
is strong evidence that a severe recession has now started in almost
all of the advanced economies. You can thus expect that Chinese export
growth to Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. will sharply decelerate in the
next few quarters, thus adding to the fall in Chinese net exports. And
once Chinese export growth sharply decelerates and net exports sharply
fall you can expect a severe fall in capex spending in China as there
is already a large excess capacity of exportable goods given the
massive overinvestment of the last few years. Thus, a sharp fall in net
exports and a sharp fall in real investment will likely trigger a hard
landing in China. Considering the certainty of a recession in advanced
economies and the high likelihood of a global recession, there is now a
very high probability that Chinese growth could slow down to 7% or even
lower in 2009 (7% growth for China is indeed now the forecast of a
leading bank such as Standard Chartered); and 7% is just a notch above
the 6% that would represent a near hard landing for China.
China’s real growth rates, 2003-2008
Can
aggressive monetary/credit and fiscal policy easing prevent this hard
landing? Not necessarily. First note that China has already reduced
interest rates three times in the last few months and easing some
credit controls. But monetary and credit policy easing may be
ineffective: if capex spending by the corporate sector will start to
fall sharply as the fall in next exports leads to a sharp fall in the
expected return on new capital spending on exportables a reduction of
interest rates and/or an easing of credit controls will make little
difference to such capex spending: easing money and credit will be like
pushing on a string as the overinvestment of the last few years has led
to a glut of capital goods. There is indeed already evidence that but
corporate loan demands have diminished sharply while commercial banks
have hesitated to lend while choosing to firewall risks. The government
can ease money and credit but it cannot force corporations to spend and
banks to lend if loan demand is falling because of low expected returns
on investment.
Could fiscal policy rescue the day and prevent a
Chinese hard landing? The optimists argue yes by pointing out that
fiscal deficits and public debt are low in China and that China has the
resources to engineer a rapid fiscal stimulus in a short period of
time. But the ability of China to implement a rapid and massive fiscal
stimulus is limited for a variety of reasons.
First, as pointed
out by recent research (Global Insight) the combined effects of natural
disasters, social strife in China’s West, and the Olympics have created
a large hole in the central government budget this fiscal year. The
Ministry of Finance may have dipped into various stabilisation funds to
avoid the appearance of running a large deficit. For regional and
municipal governments, the decline in turnover in local property
markets has reduced the flow of fees and taxes, causing them to delay
ambitious industrial development plans in some cases.
Second, a
hard landing in the economy and in investment would lead to a sharp
increase in non-performing loans of the – still mostly public – state
banks; the implicit liabilities from a serious banking problem would
then add to the implicit and explicit budget deficits and public debt.
Note that the poor quality of the underwriting by Chinese banks – that
financed a huge overinvestment in the economy - has been hidden for the
last few years by the high growth of the economy. Once net exports go
bust and real investment sharply falls we will see a massive surge in
non-performing loans that financed low return and marginal investment
projects. The ensuing fiscal costs of cleaning up the banking system
could be really high.
Third, as pointed out by Michael Pettis –
a leading expert on the Chinese economy – a surge in tax revenues in
the last 4 years has been more than matched by a surge in spending so
that if revenue growth diminishes/reverses it might not be easy to slow
spending growth proportionately. Contingent liabilities from
non-performing loans could also reduce resources available for a fiscal
stimulus. As argued by Pettis: Total direct and indirect debt
(excluding long term obligations like unfunded pension liabilities) is
probably much higher than the official numbers which, depending on how
you count, range from 15% to 30% of GDP…However, for reasons I have
discussed many times before, I think actual Chinese government debt
exceeds the visible debt. My guess is that without counting the
possibility of rising non-performing loans (NPLs) in case of an
economic slowdown (which ultimately can become contingent liabilities
of the government), total government debt in China is probably 50% of
GDP or higher. That means that China has a lot less room for running
large fiscal deficits than we might suppose, and during the time it
most needs to run a deficit – when the economy is slowing sharply – we
may anyway see a surge in contingent debt as bank NPLs surge.
Fourth,
while a fiscal policy stimulus has already started, its scope and size
has been so far relatively modest. Major stimulus measures announced by
the Chinese government have included a major export tax rebate hike and
a new state infrastructure plan and agreement to increase grain
purchases to prop up export and investment growth. Further spending may
include tax reform (value added tax to support fixed investment), more
infrastructure spending, and on social security as well as government
activities to provide capital to small and medium sized enterprises
which can't access credit yet. The big question is, however, whether
the Chinese government could increase the fiscal stimulus by an order
of magnitude larger than the current effort if a quick order hard
landing were to occur. The answer is probably not as moving a massive
amount of economic resources from the tradeable sector to the
non-tradeable sector (infrastructure and government spending on goods
and services) will take time and cannot be done in a short period of
time: the Chinese government has massive infrastructure projects for
the next 5-10 years; but front-loading most of that multi-year spending
over the next 12 to 18 months (if a hard landing risks occurs) will be
close to mission impossible.
In conclusion the risk of a hard
landing in China is sharply rising; a deceleration in the Chinese
growth rate to 7% in 2009 - just a notch above a 6% hard landing – is
highly likely and an even worse outcome cannot be ruled out at this
point. The global economy is already headed towards a global recession
as advanced economies are all in a recession and the U.S. contraction
is now dramatically accelerating. The first engine of global growth –
the U.S. on the consumption side – has now already shut down. The
second engine of global growth – China on the production side – is also
on its way to stalling. Thus, with the two main engines of global
growth now in serious trouble a global hard landing is now almost a
certainty. And a hard landing in China will have severe effects on
growth in emerging market economies in Asia, Africa and Latin America
as Chinese demand for raw materials and intermediate inputs has been a
major source of economic growth for emerging markets and commodity
exporters. The sharp recent fall in commodity prices and the near
collapse of the Baltic Freight index are clear signals that Chinese and
global demand for commodities and industrial inputs is sharply falling.
Thus, global growth – at market prices – will be close to zero in Q3 of
2008, likely negative in Q4 of 2009 and well into negative territory in
2009. So brace yourself for an ugly and protracted global economic
contraction in 2009.
This article appeared at Nouriel Roubini’s Global EconoMonitor on November 4, 2008. It was posted at The Asia-Pacific Journal:Japan Focus on November 4, 2008.
Nouriel
Roubini is Professor of Economics and International Business Stern
School of Business, New York University and Faculty Research Fellow of
the National Bureau of Economic Research. |