The China Bubble's Coming -- But Not the One You Think

Forget about a Shanghai stock bubble. The whole Chinese economy's getting ready to burst.

BY VITALIY KATSENELSON | JULY 23, 2009

Financial commentators are obsessively debating whether the recent rise in the Chinese stock market means there's a bubble -- and if so, when it's going to burst.

My take? Who cares! What happens to the broader Chinese economy is what we should really be watching. It will have a far-reaching impact on the rest of the world -- much more far-reaching than a decline in stocks.

Despite everything, the Chinese economy has shown incredible resilience recently. Although its biggest customers -- the United States and Europe -- are struggling (to say the least) and its exports are down more than 20 percent, China is still spitting out economic growth numbers as if there weren't a worry in the world. The most recent estimate put annual growth at nearly 8 percent.

Is the Chinese economy operating in a different economic reality?  Will it continue to grow, no matter what the global economy is doing? 

The answer to both questions is no. China's fortunes over the past decade are reminiscent of Lucent Technologies in the 1990s. Lucent sold computer equipment to dot-coms. At first, its growth was natural, the result of selling goods to traditional, cash-generating companies. After opportunities with cash-generating customers dried out, it moved to start-ups -- and its growth became slightly artificial. These dot-coms were able to buy Lucent's equipment only by raising money through private equity and equity markets, since their business models didn't factor in the necessity of cash-flow generation.

Funds to buy Lucent's equipment quickly dried up, and its growth should have decelerated or declined. Instead, Lucent offered its own financing to dot-coms by borrowing and lending money on the cheap to finance the purchase of its own equipment. This worked well enough, until it came time to pay back the loans.

The United States, of course, isn't a dot-com. But a great portion of its growth came from borrowing Chinese money to buy Chinese goods, which means that Chinese growth was dependent on that very same borrowing.

Now the United States and the rest of the world is retrenching, corporations are slashing their spending, and consumers are closing their pocket books. This means that the consumption of Chinese goods is on the decline. And this is where the dot-com analogy breaks down. Unlike Lucent, China has nuclear weapons. It can print money at will and can simply order its banks to lend. It is a communist command economy, after all. Lucent is now a $2 stock. China won't go down that easily.

The Chinese central bank has a significant advantage over the U.S. Federal Reserve. Chairman Ben Bernanke and his cohort may print a lot of money (and they did), but there's almost nothing they can do to speed the velocity of money. They simply cannot force banks to lend without nationalizing them (and only the government-sponsored enterprises have been nationalized). They also cannot force corporations and consumers to spend. Since China isn't a democracy, it doesn't suffer these problems.

China's communist government owns a large part of the money-creation and money-spending apparatus. Money supply therefore shot up 28.5 percent in June. Since it controls the banks, it can force them to lend, which it has also done.

Finally, China can force government-owned corporate entities to borrow and spend, and spend quickly itself. This isn't some slow-moving, touchy-feely democracy. If the Chinese government decides to build a highway, it simply draws a straight line on the map. Any obstacle -- like a hospital, a school, or a Politburo member's house -- can become a casualty of the greater good. (Okay -- maybe not the Politburo member's house).

Although China can't control consumer spending, the consumer is a comparatively small part of its economy. Plus, currency control diminishes the consumer's buying power. All of this makes the United States' TARP plans look like child's play. If China wants to stimulate the economy, it does so -- and fast. That's why the country is producing such robust economic numbers.

Why is China doing this? It doesn't have the kind of social safety net one sees in the developed world, so it needs to keep its economy going at any cost. Millions of people have migrated to its cities, and now they're hungry and unemployed. People without food or work tend to riot. To keep that from happening, the government is more than willing to artificially stimulate the economy, in the hopes of buying time until the global system stabilizes. It's literally forcing banks to lend -- which will create a huge pile of horrible loans on top of the ones they've originated over the last decade.

But don't confuse fast growth with sustainable growth. Much of China's growth over the past decade has come from lending to the United States. The country suffers from real overcapacity. And now growth comes from borrowing -- and hundreds of billion-dollar decisions made on the fly don't inspire a lot of confidence. For example, a nearly completed, 13-story building in Shanghai collapsed in June due to the poor quality of its construction.

This growth will result in a huge pile of bad debt -- as forced lending is bad lending. The list of negative consequences is very long, but the bottom line is simple: There is no miracle in the Chinese miracle growth, and China will pay a price. The only question is when and how much.

Another casualty of what's taking place in China is the U.S. interest rate. China sold goods to the United States and received dollars in exchange. If China were to follow the natural order of things, it would have converted those dollars to renminbi (that is, sell dollars and buy renminbi). The dollar would have declined and renminbi would have risen. But this would have made Chinese goods more expensive in dollars -- making Chinese products less price-competitive. China would have exported less, and its economy would have grown at a much slower rate. 

But China chose a different route. Instead of exchanging dollars back into renminbi and thus driving the dollar down and the renminbi up -- the natural order of things -- China parked its money in the dollar by buying Treasurys. It artificially propped up the dollar. And now, China is sitting on 2.2 trillion of them. 

Now, China needs to stimulate its economy. It's facing a very delicate situation indeed: It needs the money internally to finance its continued growth. However, if it were to sell dollar-denominated treasuries, several bad things would happen. Its currency would skyrocket -- meaning the loss of its competitive low-cost-producer edge. Or, U.S. interest rates would go up dramatically -- not good for its biggest customer, and therefore not good for China.

This is why China is desperately trying to figure out how to withdraw its funds from the dollar without driving it down -- not an easy feat.

And the U.S. government isn't helping: It's printing money and issuing Treasurys at a fast clip, and needs somebody to keep buying them. If China reduces or halts its buying, the United States may be looking at high interest rates, with or without inflation. (The latter scenario is most worrying.)

All in all, this spells trouble -- a big, big Chinese bubble. Identifying such bubbles is a lot easier than timing their collapse. But as we've recently learned, you can defy the laws of financial gravity for only so long. Put simply, mean reversion is a bitch. And the longer excesses persist, the harder the financial gravity will bring China's economy back to Earth.

Flickr user Marc van der Chijs

 

Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA, is director of research at Investment Management Associates in Denver, Colo., and the author of Active Value Investing: Making Money in Range-Bound Markets.

Facebook|Twitter|Digg

FUNKRIGHT

5:38 PM ET

July 23, 2009

In light of your article..

Where should one invest to minimize losses or capitalize on gains, given this probable scenario you envisage?

 

GRANT

8:33 PM ET

August 2, 2009

Eternal question

You could always invest in areas of the international market that won't be so heavily impacted (if such a thing exists anymore) and you can also choose solid companies with a history of good business. However economics is called a dismal science for a reason, on occasions such as this even the best can't really say for sure who will and will not be engulfed by bubble bursting.

 

GIORGIO

1:30 AM ET

July 24, 2009

Two issues...

Firstly, in the last paragraph, it should be "identifying such bubbles is a lot easier THAN timing their collapse."

Secondly, this isn't the first time people have been quick to make sceptical noises about China's burgeoning economy and power. It may be very fashionable to be the hardened, unimpressed cynic, but sometimes it edges into blunting one's own analysis.

I'm not a fan of China's development strategy. I think it's inhuman, clearly undemocratic, and ultimately, it's going to leave more than 2/3 of its people behind in its rush to become a superpower. But it WILL become a superpower, of that we can be assured.

There was no shortage of people claiming that South Korea and Japan were destined to "fade back into the periphery" after the 1997 Asian financial crisis. They actually believed that development had failed there, and that they would go back to being second-class (or third-class, in South Korea's case) countries. Yet they didn't, and now they remain among the most powerful and vibrant economies in the world.

Skyscrapers don't just pack up and turn into dust farms in times of economic crisis. Financiers, lawyers, and computer techs don't just become indentured landless agricultural labourers. Especially not when there's as much forward momentum as there is in China's economy now. Parallels with the Soviet Union's slow disintegration, now continuing in Russia, are inaccurate.

China will continue to grow, obviously haltingly, as with any economy. When it spills, it will spill big. But looking at it on the long term, there's no real, rational reason to discount the probability that China will soon be the world's second superpower.

 

OCHIENG100

10:17 AM ET

July 25, 2009

75% No

It has been hotly contested about whether the Chinese economy will contract and eventually collapse. It is true the Chinese economy is centralized however that doesn't amount to terming it as totally ineffective.

The Future of china trade trade is dependent on its ability to have absolute advantage in making its export goods and comparative advantage for its export goods compared to other nations. We have seen China continue to make export good that are manufactured at cheaper cost, due to low wages and improved technology. In addition this wage and technology factor gives china a comparative advantage. Cost of export transport from china to its market in USA, Europe, India and Africa makes Chinese goods cheaper.

The myth behind this ideas is that consumer care about prices. China knows this.

For china to sustain its trade and consequent economy it has been actively involved in maintaining its investors capital, investing in capital goods, expanding domestic market demand and investing in Infrastructure and social amenities.

I believe only 25% of Bad luck can kill the Chinese dream.

 

MIRAGECITY

2:21 PM ET

July 25, 2009

a flaw in this article

China's stock market does not track China's economic. In the past 3 or 4 year before 2007, when China's economic is in its white-hot growth, China's stock market hardly grew. After a astonish growth from 1500 points to 6500 points in 2008, it collapse back to 1800 points, now in its 3200 points. When it comes to China's economy, the theory taught in school does not apply.

 

DEMONIZEDCHINA

8:28 PM ET

July 27, 2009

I am so pround of America

I feel really save by reading this article. I am so happy that we have so many finacial intellectuals to keep our dream alive. China can never be a great power, never! Only we American can be the hegemon. I firmly believe that by writting many many great articles like this one, we can keep China as a third world world. I really hate China.

 

AMERICANHICK

10:15 AM ET

July 30, 2009

WTF?

WTF?