For
those who have grown bored with the ongoing US-China trade war whose
escalation was obvious to all but the dumbest BTFD algos, the biggest
news of the past week was that yet another Chinese bank was bailed out by the Chinese
government - the third in the past three months - and a substantial one
at that: with over 1.4 trillion yuan in assets ($200BN), Hang Feng
Bank's nationalization was certainly large enough to make a dent on the
Chinese financial system and on the Chinese Sovereign Wealth Fund, which
drew the short straw and was told to bailout the troubled Chinese bank (more here).
Hang Feng's bailout followed those of Baoshang and Bank of Jinzhou, which means that 3 of the top 4 most troubled banks have now been either nationalized by an SOE or seized by the government, which is effectively the same thing.
Hang Feng救済はBaoshang とBank of Jinzhouに続くものであり、4大問題銀行の内3行がすでに国有化され、国有企業化政府に吸収された、どれも似たようなものだ。
Of course, to regular readers this development was hardly surprising,
especially after our post in mid-July when we saw the $40 trillion
Chinese banking system approach its closest encounter with the
proverbial "Lehman moment" yet, when inexplicably the four-day repo rate
on China’s government bonds (i.e., the cost for investors to pledge
their Chinese government bond holdings for short-term funding) on the
Shanghai exchange briefly spiked to 1,000% in afternoon trading.
While some attributed the surge to a fat finger, far more ominous
signs were already present, and in the aftermath of the Baoshang
failure, which has sent Chinese banking stocks tumbling, one-day and
seven-day weighted average borrowing rates had remained low thanks to
huge central bank cash injections - such as the 250BN yuan we described back in May - longer tenors such as the 1 month repo have marched sharply higher.
And now, none other than Goldman points out that something is clearly
breaking inside China's banking system as one after another small bank
domino falls, and as following the Baoshang Bank takeover in late May,
interbank lenders have become more cautious towards the credit risk of
smaller and weaker financial institutions.
今や他でも無いゴールドマンがこう指摘する、中国銀行システム内部で明らかに何かが壊れている、小型銀行が次々と倒産するドミノが起きている、5月遅くにBaoshang Bank を接収した後、銀行間貸し手は更に注意深くなり、弱小金融機関の与信リスクを懸念している。
The result: a Chinese banking system in which banks have lost trust
in one another, manifested itself in much tighter liquidity in the
interbank market, with the highest intraday 7-day repo rates
staying above 8% over the past month as questions swirl over the
viability of the underlying collateral. In fact, as shown in
the chart below, the creeping funding freeze among Chinese banks is now
even worse compared to the historic episode in the summer of 2013 when
following an aggressive ramp up in Beijing's deleveraging campaign, repo
rates exploded to the point that banks effectively stopped interacting
with each other.
As Goldman observes, "the sustained spikes in intraday repo rates
suggest that some banks are still under pressure and are having to pay
higher costs to obtain funding in the interbank market. A number of
action has been taken to ease concerns regarding credit risk at smaller
banks, including the recent equity injection into Bank of Jinzhou by
ICBC Financial Asset Investment Company and China Cinda Asset
Management."
ゴールドマンの見立てでは、「日中のレポレートスパイクが常態化し、これはいくつかの銀行がまだ圧力下にあり、高い金利を負担してもインターバンク市場で資金調達せざるを得ない状況にあることを示している。小型銀行の与信リスク懸念を緩和するいくつかの措置が取られている、たとえば最近のICBC Financial Asset InvestmentCompanyとChina Cinda Asset ManagementからBank of Jinzhouへの資本注入だ。」
Nonetheless, as the bank concludes, "it will take more time before
market conditions will normalize." Meanwhile, if more banks from the
list above, or worse, larger banks, end up failing - and so far there is
every indication that the process is only getting worse - the Chinese
funding freeze could get so large that the most dreaded event finally
take place: a bank run among one of China's largest, state-owned banks,
which as a reminder, are also the largest in the world.
One final, if key, point: it's not just Chinese banks that are in
funding peril, Chinese corporations are are on the firing line, and as
Goldman points out in the same report, the pace of China onshore bond
defaults is showing no signs of slowing down. According to the bank's
estimates there were five new defaults in July, bringing the total
number of new defaults this year to 23 (Exhibit 1), compared with 38 new
defaults that occurred in 2018. These 23 issuers had RMB 90.5bn of
onshore bonds outstanding at the time of default, equating to 0.5% of all onshore corporate bonds outstanding at the start of 2019. However,
all the defaults so far this year are from privately owned enterprises
(POEs), and the RMB 90.5bn of onshore bonds outstanding at the time of
default equates to 3.5% of all POE bonds outstanding at the start of
this year. To us, the elevated level of defaults continue to impact
weaker credit, as the net issuance of bonds rated AA or lower turned
negative in July.
For those curious, below is a comprehensive, if not complete, list of
Chinese corporations that have defaulted since 2014, when China first
started permitting corporations to fail (smaller companies have been
omitted).
Amazonで買物をしてContrarianJを応援しよう 記事を紹介しようと訳を入れている間にFOMCが過ぎてしまいタイミングを逸してしまいました、前半は読み飛ばしてください。後半部分に関して、日本では一般会計と特別会計が別れていて政府財政がわかりにくいですが、米国は分離されておらず年金会計がより鮮明になります。$70Tって邦貨でいうと約7000兆円ですからね。 Whistling Past The $70 Trillion Debt Graveyard 07-26-19 Written by Lance Roberts | Jul, 27, 2019 Last week, we discussed the setup for a near-term mean reversion because of the massive extension above the long-term mean. To wit: 先週には、私どもは短期的な平均回帰のし掛けが出来上がっていることを議論した、というのも現在長期的な平均から極端に乖離しているからだ。見てみよう: “There is also just the simple issue that markets are very extended above their long-term trends, as shown in the chart below. A geopolitical event, a shift in expectations, or an acceleration in economic weakness in the U.S. could spark a mean-reverting event which would be quite the norm of what we have seen in recent years.” 「とてもかんたんなことだが、市場は長期的なトレンドからあまりに極端に上方乖離している、それは下のチャートを見れば明らかだ。地政学的出来事、期待値の変化、もしくは米国経済の弱さが加速するなら、平均回帰を引き起こすだろう、それは過去数年でみた典型的な相場の動きだ。」 This analysis is ...
Productivity: What It Is & Why It Matters Written by Michael Lebowitz | Jan, 16, 2019 The Kansas City Federal Reserve posted the Twitter comment and graph below highlighting a very important economic theme. Although productivity is a basic building block of economic analysis, it is one that few economists and even fewer investors seem to appreciate. Kansas 市FEDがツイッターにコメントを投稿した、そのグラフを下に示す、とても重要な経済テーマだ。経済分析においては生産性というのはとても重要な要素だが、ほとんどのエコノミストがこの件に言及しない、投資家は更にこのことを忘れ去っている。 The Kansas City Fed’s tweet is 100% correct in that wages are stagnating in large part due to low productivity growth. As the second chart shows, it is not only wages. The post financial-crisis economic expansion, despite being within months of a record for duration, is by far the weakest since WWII. Kansas City FEDのツイートは100%正しい、給与が停滞している原因の主要因は生産性成長が低いからだ。二番目のチャートを見ても判るように、成長鈍化は給与だけではない。あの金融危機後の経済拡大は、第二次世界大戦後で記録的長期の拡大期間だが、とても弱い拡大だ。 Productivity growth over the last 350+ years is ...
米国はよく理解してませんが、日本の場合では量的緩和で日銀が国債買い上げした資金は日銀当座預金にそのままです、市中には流れていません。でもNHKのニュース等では「ジャブジャブ」という表現をアナウンサーが使い、さらに丁寧に水道の蛇口からお金が吐き出される画像まで示してくれます。これって心理効果が大きいですよね。量的緩和とは何かを7時のニュースや新聞でこれ以上丁寧に解説するのはそう簡単ではありません。一般の人も株式をやっている人も「イメージ」で捉える以上はそう簡単にできません。多くの人は量的緩和とはなにか、を理解していないと私は想像しています。 ただし、国債を買い上げるので長期金利が低下し住宅ローン金利等が下がったのは確実な効果です。一方で長短金利差が少なくなると銀行のビジネスモデルが成り立たなくなりますが。 This Is The One Chart Every Trader Should Have "Taped To Their Screen" by Tyler Durden Sat, 01/19/2019 - 18:55 After a year of tapering, the Fed’s balance sheet finally captured the market’s attention during the last three months of 2018. 一年間のテーパリング後、FEDバランスシートがとうとう市場の注目をあびることになった、2018年の最後の3ヶ月だ。 By the start of the fourth quarter, the Fed had finished raising the caps on monthly roll-off of its balance sheet to the full $50bn per month (peaking at $30bn USTs, $20bn MBS...
この記事は投資人生を通じて有効です。 The Beginning is the End is the Beginning: A Look at Recessions Market Commentary Stocks By Liz Ann Sonders February 25, 2019 Key Points Recessions are not back-to-back negative GDP quarters; they’re instead defined using four key coincident economic indicators. 景気後退とはマイナスGDP成長四半期が連続することではない;そうではなく4つの重要経済指標で定義される。 Bear markets often overlap with recessions (and typically lead them), but not always. ベア相場は景気後退と重なることが多い(典型的には先行する)、しかし必ずそうというわけでもない。 It’s important to distinguish between leading and lagging economic indicators and to focus at least as much on trend as level. 大切なことは先行指標と遅行指標を見極めること、そしてすくなくともそのトレンドに注意せよ。 Recession chatter is abundant lately. It’s increasingly the focus of Q&A sessions at investor events at which I’ve been speaking. I also received a series of questions last week about recessions fro...