Are foreign investors really turning away from US debt?

The press has been full of stories about the dangers to US credit ratings and growing concerns by foreign official investors about the value of their holdings of US Treasury bonds.   A combination of concerns about the rising US fiscal deficit, Fed quantitative easing and potential monetization of US debt, have accumulated to fuel such fears. Given the symbiotic relationship between China and the US it is perhaps unsurprising that China has been one of the most vocal critics. I have highlighted this in past posts, especially related to the risks to the US dollar. Please refer to US dolllar beaten by the bears and US dolllar under pressure. However, my concerns that foreign investors have been shunning US Treasuries recently may have proved somewhat premature.

Should China or other large reserves holders pull out of US asset markets, it would imply a sharp rise in US bond yields and a much weaker dollar.  However, it is not easy for China or any other central bank to act on such concerns.  China is faced with a “dollar trap” in that any decline in their buying of US Treasuries would undoubtedly reduce the value of their existing Treasury holdings as well as drive up the value of the Chinese yuan as the dollar weakens.  Such a self defeating policy would clearly be unwelcome. 

One solution that China has proposed to reduce the global reliance on the dollar and in turn US assets was to make greater use of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) which I discussed in a previous post, but in reality this would be fraught with technical difficulties and would in any case take years to achieve.  Nor will it be quick or easy for China to persuade other countries to make more use of the yuan in the place of the dollar.  The first problem in doing so is that fact that the yuan is not a convertible currency and therefore foreign holders would have difficulties in doing much with the currency.  

Foreign official concerns are understandable but whether this translates into a major drop in buying of US Treasuries is another issue all together.  Foreign countries have been gradually reducing their share of dollars in foreign exchange reserves over a period of years.  This is supported by IMF data which shows that dollar holdings in the composition of foreign exchange reserves have fallen from over 70% in 1999 to around 64% at the end of last year.

In contrast the share of euro in global foreign exchange reserves has increased to 27% from 18% over the same period.  This process of diversification likely reflects the growing importance of other major currencies in terms of trade and capital flows, especially the euro, but the pace of diversification can hardly be labeled as rapid. 

Importantly, there is no sign that there has been an acceleration of diversification over recent weeks or months.  Fed custody holdings for foreign official investors have held up well.  In fact, these holdings have actually increased over recent weeks.  Moreover, the share of indirect bids (foreign official participation) in US Treasury auctions have been strong over recent weeks.  Taken together it provides yet more evidence that foreign official investors haven’t shifted away from US bonds despite all the rhetoric. 

Stress testing European and UK banks

The US bank stress tests are finally over and markets are breathing a massive sign of relief. 10 out of the 19 banks tested will have to raise $74.6bn in equity but none of the 19 banks will become insolvent, with additional capital requirements deemed as “manageable”.

It hardly seemed worth getting all stressed up over the stress tests but the results are likely to prompt much debate about the methodology used and will not put to bed the issue of the health of the US financial sector and potential for even more capital raising in the future. This should be the theme of another post but for now I want to discuss what this means for European and UK banks.

The stress tests raise questions about whether the European and UK banking sector should follow the US.  The US administration has used the ratio of tangible common equity to total assets for its stress tests on US banks. This measure has been labeled as old fashioned but one that investors currently prefer. This is also the measure the IMF has used in its recent calculations to work our additional capital requirements for banks globally.

The IMF financial stability report estimated additional credit related writedowns in 2009 and 2010 at $550bn in the US, $750bn in the eurozone, and $200bn in the UK. The IMF estimates that the ratio of tangible common equity to total assets was 3.7% in the US at end 2008 but only 2.5% in the eurozone and 2.1% in the UK. It concludes that the extra capital needed to increase this ratio to 6% would be $500bn in the US, $725bn in the eurozone and $250 billion in the UK.

So will be there similar stress tests in Europe and the UK? The increased transparency that the stress test results have brought about in the US is good news for investors even if no bank was ever going to fail them but they raise a potentially worrying comparison with European and UK  banks which appear to have been far less forthcoming. The figures have been disputed by eurozone and UK officials but assuming the IMF is right the estimates raise some disturbing questions about financial sector health outside the US.