Bond markets react wildly to blinding glimpse of the obvious

Thu, 01/22/2009 - 4:35pm

Felix Salmon reviews Tim Geithner's written testimony and concludes that, "Geithner's answers are highly diplomatic and content-free," 

The bond market, however, appears to disagree

Mr. Geithner’s strong words on China have resulted in a sharp selloff in Treasurys. In testimony to Congress, Geithner wrote, in response to a question from Sen. Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine), that President Obama’s administration “backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists - believes that China is manipulating its currency.”

“He came right out and said Obama believes China is manipulating their currency,” says Maryann Hurley, bond market strategist at D.A. Davidson, who notes that China’s economy is slowing as well. “It’s very easy to pick another country to be your whipping boy. In an era where we’re looking at deficits as far as the eye can see all we don’t need is somebody starting to dump our debt.”

As the FT's Krishna Guha and Alan Beattie write, "experts said the declaration could fuel trade tensions at a time of global recession and fast-rising unemployment."

I'm as concerned about this as the next guy, but let's be careful here and parse things out. 

The bond market is conflating two issues here.  The first is that Geithner said out loud what everyone knows to be true.  And, to be sure, before the U.S. responds to currency manipulation, it has to say that it's happening.  So Geithner's statement is a quasi-first step. 

The second issue, however, is what kind of action Obama and Geithner are planning.  Beattie and Guha suggest options like, "punitive import tariffs on Chinese goods."

This is where a closer look at Geithner's written testimony would be a good idea.  Here are the two relevant passsages:

[W]e look forward to a productive economic dialogue with the Chinese government on a number of short- and long-tem issues. The Yuan is certainly an important piece of that discussion, but given the crisis the immediate focus needs to be on the broader issue of stabilizing domestic demand in China and the US. The latest figures show that China's growth in 2008 was 9%, a full 4 percentage points lower than in the previous year. Because China accounts for such a large fraction of the world economy, a further slowdown in China would lead to a substantial fall in world growth (and demand for US exports) and delay recovery from the crisis. Therefore, the immediate goal should be for us to convince China to adopt a more aggressive stimulus package as we do our part to try to pass a stimulus package here at home....

[T]he best approach to ensure that countries do not engage in manipulating their currencies is to demonstrate that the disadvantages of doing so outweigh the benefits. If confirmed, I look forward to a constructive dialogue with our trading partners around the world in which Treasury makes the fact-based case that market exchange rates are a central ingredient to healthy and sustained growth.

Two signals here.  First, Geithner seems more concerned about China expanding its domestidc growth than with any manipulation of the yuan right now -- a conviction shared by Brad Setser, incidentally. 

Second, it seems pretty clear that Geithner's first option on the currency issue is jaw-jaw rather than protect-protect.  In other words, the bond market should have reacted more like Felix Salmon. 

UPDATE:  Be sure to check out Salmon's follow-up post.



Advertisement

 

Branding a country a

Branding a country a 'currency manipulator' carries certain legal obligations: If Treasury decides to designate China a currency manipulator this paves the way for trade sanctions. Of course, like most legal terms, there are certain specific criteria that must be met for this designation, and it's not clear that Gaither meant that China met these specific criteria (if it was, the bond market would have responded much more dramatically). But you have a president who made clear protectionist statements during his campaign, and who, judging by his stimulus package, has little grasp of economics. Of course, it's a very bad idea to piss of one of the largest purchases of your debt right when you're about to float a lot of it.

Can you say Smoot-Hawley?

This was my point

blue13326: my point in the post is that there's a difference between Geithner saying this in testimony and Treasury officially branding China as a currency manipulator (which does require additional action). The additional statements in Geithner's testimony, in fact, suggest that the Obama administration is not going to go there anytime soon. This is a step, but it's not a terribly big step.

I understand what you're

I understand what you're saying, Professor Drezner, and I agree it's early to be alarmed, but why even take this step publicly? It doesn't seem helpful at this time to be generating headlines like this one:

Obama sets stage for likely trade war with China

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090123/pl_afp/uspoliticsobamachinafinanceforex_20090123034324

Trade war with China

It's a way off if it happens at all. People shake around 'Smoot-Hawley' as if it's the most frightening thing in the world, but let's try to figure out WHY Smoot-Hawley
was such a flaming, unmitigated disaster for the US in the 30's, and then try to determine whether similar conditions appear today?

I think it's pretty clear that the US suffered the worst damage economically during the Great Depression because international trade collaped. All trading nations suffered from the loss of trade, but the US was the biggest sufferer absolutely and relatively, because the US was the world's biggest exporter both absolutely and on a per-capita basis during the 20's. Therefore more American employment depended upon trade than any other nation. So when the trade system collapsed more US workers were released, and US unemployment hit 25%.

Is the present situation similar? No. The biggest net exporters today are Germany and China. But not all exporters are created equal; the bulk of German exports are to it's EU partners, and Germany and the US are unlikely to fall into a trade war in any case, because ties are too close. China is uniquely vulnerable to the bad effects of a trade war because it possesses few strong ties with it's market countries which might buffer the effects.

China has power over the US, because China can dump 2 trillion dollars worth of reserves. This would possibly have two effects; it would drop the value of the dollar and possibly force the US to raise interest rates, but it would have other effects that China would find very difficult to live with. The value of the Chinese currency would appreciate quickly, reducing chinese exports globally, and not just to the US. US imports would fall massively while US exports would rise quickly because of the fall in the currency. And that doesn't mention the enormous losses China would take in liquidating it's dollar reserves too quickly. If they dumped it all at once they might get half or less.

The US government would have a problem borrowing money overseas for fiscal stimulus, but might not need to as much because the increased demand for cheap US exports and services would tend to raise the demand for US labor. With US imports lower there may be more US savings available for borrowing in the longer term.

My point isn't that a Smoot-Hawley trade war is good. But it is unlikely that the US would pass a Smoot-Hawley like bill directed at the entire world. They may target trade sanctions at China, but won't go after anyone else I think.

I think China has far more to fear from such a scenario than the US does.

Freshly printed paper dollars and other paper securities

The Chinese are not manipulating their currency, they are letting it float against the dollar which rapidly loses buying power each time that the US government prints up a bunch of new paper money and other similar paper securities that have no value. The dollar buying power or value is partly about psychology when it is backed by the "full faith and credit of the US government" rather than gold. This is the same as my definition of "Junk Bonds".

They will continue to accept our freshly printed dollars, T-Bills, Government Bonds, etc. as long as we allow the Chinese and other industrial nations are allowed to redeem these freshly printed US for title to real estate, forests, industries, breweries, hotels, factories, casinos, financial institutions and everything else of value that is located in the USA.

There is (probably) a limit to the amount of paper dollars that the foreign country manufacturing people and the foreign country raw material supplying people will continue to accept in payment for USA imports. This limit will become apparent as soon as foreigners own title to everything of value in the USA and nothing is left that the foreign dollar holders want to buy with their "freshly printed" paper dollars. This is selling of our children's legacy to foreign owners. The US government calls this "Investing in America".

We paid these foreigners with our freshly printed dollars to manufacture or supply the things that we imported and consumed (rather than have our US citizens working to make these products ourselves in this country). Some government sources estimate that 25% of our property and businesses are now foreign owned (http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/ownership). Of Course these products would cost more if we paid our workers more.

In other words, the bond

In other words, the bond market should have reacted more like Felix Salmon.

It's the bond market's job to fluctuate. if prices are too stable then investors get placid and in many cases comatose. Providing lots of instability gives gamblers an opportunity to win or lose money.