|
The Foreign Connection Carousel
This week I take a bigger view of how the credit markets work, to put into
context the specific measure of foreign custody holdings. Credit markets, like
any market, are driven by supply and demand. Suppliers of credit are bond buyers,
and the demand for credit comes from the debt issuers. All participate in the
credit pool of the bond market.

Copyright Bud Conrad and Macronalysis March 2005
The Connection Carousel diagram above highlights key connections in today's
credit market. The heavy lines emphasize how interconnected are major worldwide
flows. The circle starts with the federal government providing additional money
to the US economy in the form of federal deficit spending. Consumers and businesses
spend this extra money. Consumers expand their ability to spend by borrowing
money against their houses, and that allows them to buy not only US products,
but also a great deal of attractively priced imports. The foreign producers
take the dollars they receive from exports to the US and exchange them into
their home currency at their foreign central banks. The central banks buy the
Treasuries that were issued by the US government to fund the original deficit,
making the connection complete. The link I have been focusing on in this series
of reports is the purchases by foreign central banks, as they provide a large
part of lendable funds to the US credit market. These central banks have been
buying Treasuries and Agencies to support the dollar so that US consumers can
afford to make foreign purchases. The US dollar has been the reserve currency
of choice for the world central banks, accounting for 60% to 80% of the backing
of their currencies. As long as the dollar remains the respected medium for
world exchange, and retains its value, it is a sensible investment for them.
These central banks are not required to buy US Treasures, but it is the most
convenient and justifiable purchase.
The BIS reported Tuesday (03/08) that Asian central and commercial banks held
only 67% of their deposits in dollars as of September 2004, down from 81% in
the Q3 2001. The big change is India, which went from 68% to 43%, while China
went from 83% to 68%, albeit mostly before Q3 2002. The BIS had earlier reported
that Middle Eastern central banks had cut dollar holdings from 75% to 61.5%
of total foreign deposits in the same period. Central bankers are questioning
the wisdom of holding so many dollars, and could shift to other currencies.
But doing so could hurt their holdings, because the shift itself would drive
the dollar down. Foreigners hold over 40% of all US government debt. These
shifts are far from dollar friendly, and the rise in rates is consistent with
a need for higher returns to cover currency depreciation expectations. The
situation is considered unsustainable by traditional economic analysis – the
US cannot simply go on buying more and issuing paper dollars to foreigners
in payment. At some point the central banks will see that the purchasing power
of those dollars is decreasing, and they will stop holding so many. If any
link in the chain goes off course, interest and exchange rates would be the
first indicators of instability. But, so far, the recycling of US trade deficit
has shown no serious sign of unwinding. The dollar has weakened, but interest
rates have not moved much. I am watching closely to see if economic tradition
will force a major change in either of these measures.
Today (0/10/05)
The trade deficit grew to the second highest ever at $58.3B for the month of
January. That's an annual deficit of $700B. The connection above implies
an equivalent demand for foreigners to loan us that amount. Imports from
China increased 1.9% in January from December, to $17.9 billion. Chinese
imports rose 27% year-over-year. There will be some limit as to how much
foreigners will continue to loan us, and it seems we are close. A big spike
in oil could make this worse, as we have no choice but to pay.
It was announced yesterday that the U.S. budget deficit widened to the biggest
monthly gap ever on surges in military and Medicare spending in February. The
$113.9 billion monthly shortfall is more than the deficit of $96.7 billion
in February 2004. As this is cycled through all the parties of the carousel,
the connections continue.
Yesterday there was a new 10-year Treasury auction from the US government
to extend its borrowing noted above. It did not surprise the market. The bid
to cover was adequate. But the notes carried a yield of 4.504%, which is sharply
above the 4.049% on the notes sold a month ago. This is the direction that
my analysis has been forecasting. I have focused on foreign purchasing. The
indirect bidders in this auction provide some idea of how active foreign central
banks may be in buying US debt. While not exactly comparable to the custody
holdings, they are a useful indicator. Indirect bidders, which include foreign
central banks, bought only 11.7% of the notes, less than their 28.5% share
a month ago.
This week, the increase in custody holdings at the Federal Reserve (purchases
of Treasuries and Agencies by foreign central banks), was small, only $1.6B.
See my article of February 14, 2004, where I describe this analysis in more
detail. The chart below updates the view. A key in this is that the rise in
rate, shown inverted in magenta, is up, as expected.
The custody holdings are only a portion of the total foreign investment in
the US. On March 15 we will get a more complete monthly report for January
in the Treasury International Capital (TIC) system.
Since we already have the weekly data from January for custody holdings, we
can estimate what the TIC data may show. Custody holdings, especially of Treasuries
are not growing as fast as before, so we can estimate that the TIC data may
reflect this slowing. I make a calculation by assuming that overall foreign
purchases stay at a similar ratio. The ratio of all Treasuries bought by foreigners
(as measured by TIC), to the custody holding, is about 60%. For January, the
custody purchases were smaller. Applying this percentage suggests that Treasury
purchases will be $10B to $15B, whereas they have been running around $15 to
$20B. Similarly, the Agency purchases in custody are only 20% of total, but
they have not fallen as much, possibly indicating $15B to $20B of Agency purchases
for January, which is in line with recent history. Looking further forward
to February, we already have an early indication, which shows foreigners returning
to buy, so the slow-down we will see in January data should not be taken as
a complete change in the cycle. The combined result suggests a drop in foreign
purchases, and that suggests interest rates could still be pressured upward.
|