Opinion

China’s financial opening: Will it be different this time?

It is hard to judge whether China will indeed carry out a substantial opening of its financial sector, despite the significant external pressure it faces from countries such as the United States to liberalise its economy.

By: and Date: May 9, 2018 Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation

This opinion piece was published in China Us Focus

President Xi Jinping, in his speech at the 17th Boao Forum, announced plans to further open China’s economy. One of the key highlights of these new measures is the opening of the financial sector to foreign competition, which was confirmed by the recently-nominated governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), Yi Gang. Although the official list of reforms is quite long, covering 11 different items ranging from relaxing foreign ownership in financial institutions to substantially expanding the business scope of foreign banks, most of the reforms had already been announced during President Trump’s visit to China last November or were scheduled to have been fulfilled after China’s entry to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001.

It is obviously hard to judge whether China will indeed carry out a substantial opening of its financial sector, despite the significant external pressure it faces from countries such as the United States to liberalise its economy. The reaction of potentially interested investors to President Xi’s announced reforms has been muted. The only significant announcement came from UBS, which has secured a private-funds license, allowing it to start managing money for mainland institutional and high-net-worth investors in China for the first time. This licence allows foreign banks to set up a wholly owned onshore enterprise to offer fixed income, equity, and multi-asset private funds in China. However, UBS’ stand-alone securities investment had actually been in place months before the announcement of the opening up process in November 2017.

Governor Yi Gang offered more detail on the Chinese government’s plans for financial opening during a panel discussion at the Boao Forum, specifically regarding the banking, insurance, and securities and asset management sectors. He described the measures as “a prudent, cautious, gradualist move” towards reform. Firstly, China has provided a timeline for the elimination of foreign shareholder restrictions on banks and asset management companies, which will occur by June 2018. Compared to the announcement during Trump’s visit to China last year, President Xi’s speech came with an additional phrase that mentioned the Chinese government’s plans to substantially expand the business scope of foreign banks. However, it is still uncertain which type of business regulations will be relaxed. The market has speculated that the opening could include the credit card business, which is largely dominated by U.S. corporations globally.

Secondly, the opening of the insurance sector has been confirmed. The Chinese government plans to fast-track the progress of opening up by raising the foreign shareholder limit to 51% by June 2018, and eventually removing the ceiling after three years. This plan was originally announced during President Trump’s visit to China last year, including the provision to fully liberalise the sector within five years. In addition, foreign insurance companies will no longer need to have a representative office in China for two consecutive years prior to establishing a fully-owned institution.

Thirdly, the caps on foreign ownership in security, fund and future companies will be increased to 51%, without further limits after three years. This, also, had been previously announced. This time, however, Yi Gang provided further details on the removal of restrictions on the business scope of jointly-funded securities companies. This also includes the removal of any cap on foreign ownership of financial asset investment companies and wealth management companies newly-established by commercial banks. However, even though this looks like an immediate move towards opening up, a company that wishes to take a controlling stake in joint ventures is required to have a large net asset value of at least ¥100 billion, which is not practical for many corporations.

Of course, China clearly has a lot to gain in opening up the markets above. After the massive growth of bank balance sheets and the piling up of non-performing loans, Chinese regulators hope that the market (with Chinese characteristics) will do the cleaning up. This includes sharing the loss with different financial institutions, corporations and households. The massive securitisation that has occurred in China over the last couple of years would clearly benefit from foreign participation— even better if foreign players bring along foreign investors to share in the potential losses. Within this context, one should not be too surprised at the general lack of interest in the opening up of China’s financial sector.

If China’s moves towards financial opening did not soften the U.S. administration’s stance toward China after Trump’s visit last year, why would this year’s Boao Forum speech, containing mostly old ideas, be any different? The U.S. has officially declared its opposition to China obtaining market economy statusfrom the World Trade Organization. Now the stance of the U.S. on trade with China is increasingly strict, due to what the U.S. government perceives as significant issues, such as intellectual property theft and the “Made in China 2025” program, which threatens the U.S.’ comparative advantage in technology. Obtaining a couple of licenses to operate in China’s financial market will not palm off the United States government or the U.S. business community. The delegation of American trade and economic officials set to visit China in early May will likely demand negotiations over whether China’s opening up process can be sped up or extended to cover other sectors. Even though the speed of China’s financial opening has somewhat increased, it would be hard to expect an auspicious 2018 for the Trump-Xi relationship— probably the most important one on earth.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to communication@bruegel.org.

View comments
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

What 2019 could bring: A look inside the crystal ball

Economic performance prospects in Europe, the US and Asia in 2019. We start off by reviewing commentaries and predictions about the euro zone, which many commentators expect to perform below potential as uncertainties continue to dampen a still robust recovery.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: January 14, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Feb
8
08:30

The world’s response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative

This event will look at the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative as well as the response from the rest of the world.

Speakers: Alicia García-Herrero, Jean-Francois Di Meglio, Theresa Fallon and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

The Belt and Road turns five

Five years after its launch, Michael Baltensperger and Uri Dadush reflect on China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The plan to revive ancient trade routes has the potential to enhance development prospects across the world and in China, but that potential might not be realised because the BRI’s objectives are too broad and ill-defined, and its execution is too often non-transparent, lacking in due diligence and uncoordinated.

By: Michael Baltensperger and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 10, 2019
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Feb
12
12:30

Is the European automotive industry ready for the global electric vehicle revolution?

How can Europe catch up on the global electric vehicle race?

Speakers: Simone Tagliapietra and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Energy & Climate, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Lose-lose scenario for Europe from ongoing China-US negotiations

Without an expectation of a larger market for European exports in the absence of additional opening up by Chinese authorities, European exporters should not enjoy the ongoing China-US negotiations.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 9, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Deep Focus: Europe's auto industry and the global electric vehicle revolution

Bruegel fellows Reinhilde Veugelers and Simone Tagliapietra elaborate on the recent Policy Contribution they co-authored on the European automotive industry in the light of the global electric vehicle revolution.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 8, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

Is the European automotive industry ready for the global electric vehicle revolution?

This Policy Contribution investigates the position of the European automotive industry in a scenario in which electrification substantially progresses. Europe cannot follow China in the adoption of centrally-planned industrial policy measures. But it certainly can and should do more to stimulate the transformation of its automotive industry through more ambitious policies.

By: Gustav Fredriksson, Alexander Roth, Simone Tagliapietra and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: December 20, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China’s view of the trade war has changed—and so has its strategy

The truce agreed on by China and the United States at the sidelines of the recent G-20 meeting in Buenos Aires doesn’t really change the picture of the U.S.’s ultimate goal of containing China. The reason is straightforward: The U.S. and China have become strategic competitors and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, which leaves little room for any long-term settlement of disputes.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 19, 2018
Read article More by this author

Opinion

The world deserves a more effective G20

As the presidency shifts from Argentina to Japan at Buenos Aires (and then to Saudi Arabia) it is worth asking why the G20 has endured this long and what it needs to remain relevant in a dramatically changed world.

By: Suman Bery Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: November 29, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

The G20 turns ten: what’s past is prologue

This Policy Contribution assesses the performance of the G20 since its first summit held in November 2008 to understand what could lie ahead for the institution.

By: Suman Bery Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 15, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

US mid-term elections and the global economy

Democrats won control of the House and Republicans held onto the Senate in the most consequential US mid-term elections in decades. Bowen Call reviews economists’ and scholars’ analyses of the impact this might have on the world economy.

By: Bowen Call Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 12, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The global economy’s three games

In this column, Jean Pisani-Ferry portrays the current international economic and geopolitical order as increasingly reminiscent of chess. Three key players: the US, China and a loose coalition of the other G7 members play three games simultaneously, and no one knows which game will take precedence.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 29, 2018
Load more posts