| |
Who's Playing Poker Dangerously?
Sam Park - July 14, 2005
Will This Fight Become a Brawl?
Ignorance will cause a Chinese debacle. And the U.S. economy will also feel
the burden as the trade war with China gains momentum. Chinese authorities
continue refusing to conform to fair trade practices. Beijing has done
little to resolve the intellectual property issues and had previously
discarded the idea of floating the Yuan and/or voluntarily limiting textile
production and exports. This has seriously upset the big boys in Washington.
The Schumer-Graham bill calls for a 27.5 percent ad valorem tariff on
Chinese imports 180 days after the bill's passage if China does not
appreciate the Yuan by 27.5 percent. This percentage number represents the
average of 15 and 40 percent, which is the estimated amount that the Yuan
has been devalued.
The Chinese reluctance to comply, and their blaming the current U.S.
problems on the low American saving rate have increased U.S. policymakers'
support to pass the bill. Any economist would think this bill solves little,
if nothing. Many would also say that this highest tariff proposal since the
notorious 1930 Hawley-Smooth bill would probably exacerbate the problem.
However, the current situation is different and more complex than that of
the 1930's. While this tariff may cause the snowball to roll faster, causing
a downhill economy, Washington will not sit around and let people get away
with foul play. Sometimes punishment is necessary to teach a lesson. China
has been testing its limits, has gone too far, and a small slap on the wrist
does not seem effective.
Although the tariff makes little economic sense, perhaps it is needed to
make China a well-respected trading partner in the future if they learn from
their mistakes. However, the recent atmosphere has been hostile between
China and the U.S.A. look at the Hawley-Smoot bill passed in 1930 will
provide some insight.
Howley-Smoot
To see how this bill came to life, one should consider Hoover's promise to
the farmers during his 1928 campaign. International trade, particularly with
Canada, had brought prices down and had especially hurt the U.S. farmers'
competitiveness. Unemployment in farming had plagued America years before
Great Depression. Hoover had promised to protect U.S. farmers, and thus the
Hawley-Smoot tariff was the result. One must keep in mind that the bill was
passed after the 1929 market crash. However some believe the bill was
responsible for prolonging the Great Depression.
Some books have pointed out that other nations had retaliated to
Hawley-Smoot. However, some studies show that the tariff's impact on real
GDP may have actually been less than expected. Furthermore, current
situations and reasons for the Schumer-Graham bill are different than those
for the Hawley-Smoot bill.
What's Different?
Americans in those days faced a different situation where monetary and
fiscal policies were not employed, the U.S. had fewer trading partners, and
information flowed much more slowly. Since 1930, the Federal Reserve's role
has greatly changed, far more indeed than from its inception in 1913until
1930. As we know, the Fed now actively engages in monetary policies and will
act when it sees warning signs.
The U.S. currently has more trading partners, thus more trade options. While
China represents a large trading partner, U.S. consumers and producers will
increase trade relations with other nations if Chinese relations remain
unfavorable. At the same time, China with its 1.3 billion population
represents a marketplace that should not be ignored. Forcing them back into
isolation would present unfavorable conditions for all.
Previously inefficient information flows may have also added to the
stagnation of the major economies during the Great Depression era. With the
rise of the Internet, we have come closer to efficient markets where prices
reflect almost real-time information. Prices will correct themselves almost
instantly. If China does not comply with U.S. Congress' appeal, market
participants will position themselves accordingly. And businesses will
effectively find more reliable trading partners.
Still, it is in the best interest to China and U.S. to conclude their
negotiation amicably. Hostile relations will only leave both with bruises
and injuries. We would hate to see a Mike Tyson move, like biting off an ear
by either party. China has shown some progress toward floating the Yuan,
which will delay the immediacy of passing the Schumer-Graham bill. If China
does not act accordingly, someone is bound to lose an ear.
Is China Abusing the Carry-Trade Strategy?
The more that people have attempted to explain Greenspan's conundrum, the
more confused everyone seems to be. Well, let's break the situation down. We
know that entities have been purchasing long-term Treasuries, pushing down
the yields on these securities. Many believe the Chinese have contributed to
this phenomenon.
Here is a possible explanation to why entities have bought Treasuries.
Before the Asian crisis came to fruition, Asian institutions had been
engaged in the "carry-trade." Many hedging institutions use carry-trade
strategies to profit handsomely from discrepancies in interest rates between
economies. To briefly explain this hedging method, one borrows (short) from
the economy with the relatively lower interest rate and lends (long) to that
with the higher interest rate.
Under some crucial assumptions, this strategy virtually allows one to make
what I like to call free money. However, conventional wisdom tells us that
there is no such thing as free lunch. For instance, a cross-border
carry-trade method works only under a fixed exchange rate system with
interest rate differentials, because exchange risk must be eliminated. Under
a floating rate system, participants are vulnerable to foreign exchange
risk. If China is abusing the carry-trade strategy, then that may explain
their true reluctance to float the Yuan. China has been able to borrow on
international capital markets at a lower rate than the World Bank charges.
According to Nouriel Roubini, Associate Professor of Economics and
International Business at Stern School of Business (NYU), credit in China is
reported to be unusually low, both in nominal and real terms.
Certain requirements may provide some light to China's situation. Some
participants use derivatives like swap contracts to set their positions and
profit from carry-trade. Typically, the only capital involved in swap
agreements is the posting of collateral, which is usually in the form of G-5
currencies or government securities (excluding Japanese government
securities). Perhaps China has been using swap agreements and has bought
U.S. Treasuries for collateral.
As mentioned, this is only a possible explanation because this cannot be
confirmed by public data. Entities that use derivatives keep their positions
off-balance sheet, allowing users to elude accounting rules or government
regulations. China looks as if they are trying to play a good game of poker;
but as Kenny Rogers have sang, "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when
to fold 'em. Know when to walk away and know when to run."
Resources:
Wikipedia: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
EH.net: Smoot-Hawley Tariff
For questions and/or R.W. Wentworth & Co., Inc.'s (RWW) forecasts and
advisory services, contact the following:
Tom Au, Executive Vice President
Sam Park, Senior Associate
DISCLAIMER
The contents of the R.W. Wentworth & Co., Inc. ("RWW") website are provided
for information purposes only. While every effort is made to ensure the
timeliness and accuracy of the information, documents, data or material
(collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Information") and the links
available on this site, RWW assumes no liability or responsibility for the
completeness, accuracy or usefulness of any of the Information or links.
RWW is in no way responsible for the accuracy or reliability of any
reproduction, and no reproduction shall indicate that it was made with the
endorsement of, or in affiliation with, RWW. Users may obtain permission to
use copyright materials from the holders thereof.
Users are to exercise their own due diligence to ensure the accuracy of any
Information provided on this website. RWW cannot guarantee that all
Information is current or accurate, and Information may be changed or
updated without notice. Users should verify the Information before acting on
it.
Although RWW makes every effort to ensure that all Information is accurate
and complete, RWW cannot guarantee its integrity. RWW will not be liable for
any loss or damages of any nature, either direct or indirect, arising from
use of the Information provided on this website or Information provided at
any other site that can be accessed from this site. Nothing herein should be
construed as providing investment advice.
|
|
