Blog Post

Tweaking China’s loan-deposit ratio rule

In the wake of the latest easing of Chinese monetary policy, the CBRC, China’s banking regulator, has recently modified a few details of how it calculates the bank loan/deposit ratio, which is currently capped at 75 percent by the country’s banking law.

By: Date: September 30, 2014 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

In the wake of the latest easing of Chinese monetary policy, the CBRC, China’s banking regulator, has recently modified a few details of how it calculates the bank loan/deposit ratio, which is currently capped at 75 percent by the country’s banking law. This move, in combination with an easier monetary policy stance, aims to ease the tight Chinese financial conditions, allocate more credit to Chinese agriculture and SMEs, and adapt China to its rapidly changing financial landscape.

The newly announced changes to the computation formula of the loan/deposit ratio fall into three categories, all in an apparent attempt to make the 75% cap less of a constraint on bank lending.

First, the numerator of the ratio (‘loan’) is shrunk by excluding certain categories of bank loans extended to agriculture and SMEs or funded by non-puttable term debt securities.

Second, the denominator (‘deposit’) is widened to include new financing instruments such as certificates of deposits (CDs) issued to firms and households and net term deposits from foreign parent banks.

Third, the currency relevant for calculating the ratio is now restricted to local currency only (involving both ‘loan’ and ‘deposit’). Since the foreign-currency loan/deposit ratio is over 100 percent for China’s banking sector, the change helps ease the constraint system-wide.

Together, this CBRC move might manage to expand the aggregate lending capacity of Chinese banks by some 1 percent

Together, this CBRC move might manage to expand the aggregate lending capacity of Chinese banks by some 1 percent, easing the tight financial conditions while in theory favouring lending to agriculture and SME borrowers and bank loans funded by new instruments such as CDs, which are supposedly priced by market demand and supply.

This is no doubt a positive policy move that may mitigate the prevailing tightness in Chinese financial conditions, as the overall banking sector has approached the 75 percent regulatory ceiling (Graph 1). The measure also may facilitate further interest rate liberalisation.

Graph 1: Loan-to-deposit ratios of Chinese banks listed in Hong Kong (In Percent, June 2014)

Note: CMB=China Merchant Bank; BOCOM=Bank of Communication; BOC=Bank of China; Minsheng= Minsheng Bank; CITIC=CITIC Bank; CCB=China Construction Bank; ICBC=Industrial and Commercial Bank of China; ABC=Agricultural Bank of China; CRCB= Chongqing Rural Commercial Bank.

So far, so good. But then why all the fuss for the CBRC to painstakingly refine technical calculation details of this loan/deposit ratio? Why not simply to raise the official 75 percent cap outright to say 90 percent or 100 percent?

That is because that the 75 percent cap on the loan/deposit ratio is precisely set in stone by the 1995 Chinese Banking Law that can only be changed by the Chinese national legislature. Indeed, the CBRC was not even born yet when this banking law first came into effect.

So there is nothing the CBRC can do but to enforce, tweak or wait at least until the Chinese national legislature convenes in the first quarter next year. In hindsight, it would be better if the Chinese banking law had simply stated that the bank regulator can impose and adjust some loan/deposit ratio as it sees fit.

The 75 percent cap on the loan/deposit ratio was introduced two decades ago, with good reasons. First, inflation was running at double-digit in 1994. Second, China did not yet embrace the Basel capital requirement then. Third, there was a forthcoming policy of abolishing official bank loan quotas at the time. Therefore, the Chinese government hastily formulated this blunt rule into a national banking law in early 1995, as a major policy tool to manage the banking sector.

This 20-year old regulatory rule has become essentially outdated

But by now, this 20-year old regulatory rule has become essentially outdated, also for good reasons.

First, it favours big state-controlled banks which have vast retail and corporate deposit bases and disadvantages the smaller banks that tend to lend more to SMEs, thereby adding to the financial tightness in the broader economy. Structurally, the ratio may also inhibit the growth of the more productive sectors.

Second, banks attempt to circumvent the rule by shifting some lending off balance sheet, thus fuelling excessive shadow banking in China, which is in part the product of regulatory arbitrage in response to a more binding loan/deposit ratio, high reserve requirements and partially regulated interest rates.

Third, the funding sources of Chinese banks have become more diversified over time, with more debt securities including CDs and the declining importance of deposits in the recent years.

Fourth, China’s banking regulatory regime has now supposedly more embraced the new Basel Accord III that features enhanced capital and liquidity requirements, thus possibly rendering the 75 percent cap on the loan/deposit ratio redundant.

While helpful both cyclically and structurally, the latest CBRC tweaking to the loan/deposit ratio is no more than a stopgap measure. Those who fancy that this tweaking can meaningfully boost SME financing would be very disappointed, if experience in other economies without such a regulatory cap is any guide.

In my view, the most underappreciated benefit of the latest tweak is to remind us the risk that greater competition for deposits among smaller banks facing this old cap may mix with the new interest rate liberalisation to produce the chemicals that could poison China’s financial system. Indeed, such a dated, rigid regulatory rule itself could become a potential source of financial instability in a more liberalised environment.

This also highlights the need for complementary institutional changes in order to enhance the potential benefits and mitigate the potential risks associated with rate deregulation. This strengthens the case for a financial liberalisation strategy of faster exchange rate liberalisation ahead of full interest rate deregulation in China.

While time is ripe for a removal of any specific numerical cap on the loan/deposit ratio from the Chinese banking law, a smart way going forward would be to keep the loan/deposit ratio as a supplementary policy instrument but grant the CBRC the full discretion to adjust its ceiling. A heavy, broken umbrella could turn out to be handy on a day of pouring rain.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Can Multilateralism Adapt?

Global governance requires rules, because flexibility and goodwill alone cannot tackle the hardest shared problems. With multilateralism under attack, the narrow path ahead is to determine, on a case-by-case basis, the minimum requirements of effective collective action, and to forge agreement on reforms that fulfill these conditions.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 3, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

US tariffs and China's holding of Treasuries

China has the biggest bilateral trade surplus vis-à-vis the US but is also a top holder of US government bonds. While China has started to counteract US trade tariffs, economists have been discussing the case of China acting on its holdings of US Treasuries. We review recent contributions.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: July 2, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Trade war trinity: analysis of global consequences

Analysis of the long-term impact of the trade war and its three key players: EU, US, and China.

Speakers: Alicia García-Herrero, Ignasi Guardans and Carl B Hamilton Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: June 28, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

China’s strategic investments in Europe: The case of maritime ports

The EU is currently working on a new framework for screening foreign direct investments (FDI). Maritime ports represent the cornerstone of the EU trade infrastructure, as 70% of goods crossing European borders travel by sea. This blog post seeks to inform this debate by looking at recent Chinese involvement in EU ports.

By: Shivali Pandya and Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: June 27, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

The G7 is dead, long live the G7

The summit in Charlevoix left behind a Group of Seven in complete disarray. The authors think that the G-group, in its current formulation, no longer has a reason to exist, and it should be replaced with a more representative group of countries. In this fast-changing world, is the G7 only a relic of the past?

By: Jim O‘Neill and Alessio Terzi Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: June 13, 2018
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Oct
11-12
20:00

Policy responses for an EU-MENA shared future

In the third edition of the "Platform for Advanced & Emerging Economies Policy Dialogue" we will discuss trade flows and trade policy between Europe and MENA, integration of developing economies into global value chains, and regional energy relations.

Speakers: Karim El Aynaoui and Guntram B. Wolff Location: Rome
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

European and Chinese trade competition in third markets: the case of Latin America

While Europe continues to hold important trade powers, the rise of China in the global economy has significantly reshaped international trade and competition. In this paper, the authors show that the degree of competition between both powers in Latin America has risen in the past decade due to China's increased trade of high-quality products. They address whether China is an increasingly relevant competitor for Europe in Latin America and in which sectors China-EU competition is fiercer. These findings should be a wake-up call to Europe in its quest to remain competitive at the global level.

By: Alicia García-Herrero, Thibault Marbach and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: June 7, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
17-18
10:00

Asia-Europe Economic Forum 2018

This years Asia-Europe Economic Forum (AEEF) will be held in Brussels on 17-18 October

Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

China’s new role in the global economy

The changing role of China in the world economy has recently been highlighted by its registering of a first current account deficit in 17 years. We review the economists’ analyses of this new role and associated challenges.

By: Nicolas Moës Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 28, 2018
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

Where is China’s financial system heading? Implications for Europe

How ready is China for the transformation of its financial system and how will this effect Europe?

Speakers: Elena Flores, Alicia García-Herrero, Gene Ma, Hu Yuwei and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: May 25, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

How big is China’s digital economy?

The rise of influential Chinese digital giants, including Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent and Xiaomi has shown the world that China is a global leader in digital innovation and it is not surprising that China has started to influence the global digital market. But is China exploiting its full potential in this area? To answer this question, the authors assess how big China’s digital economy is relative to the rest of its economy, and how China performs compared to the rest of the world.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 17, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Trade war: How tensions have risen between China, the EU and the US

The multilateral trading system has been challenged by unilateralist measures and subsequent threats of retaliation. We collect the main events that have shaped the current situation and show which trade flows have been and will potentially be affected by the various measures. We end by discussing possible scenarios moving forward for the EU.

By: Francesco Chiacchio Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 15, 2018
Load more posts