Opinion

Global markets’ tepid reaction to China’s new opening

China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001 was greeted with great fanfare. But near silence has greeted the recent removal by the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission of caps on foreign ownership of Chinese financial institutions. For Beijing, the apparent lack of interest might be an issue of too little, too late.

By: Date: October 11, 2018 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

This opinion piece was already published in AsiaGlobal Online

Soon after U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, met in Beijing last year, China announced that it would relax or eliminate foreign ownership limits in commercial banking, securities, futures, asset management, and insurance.

After an initial bout of media coverage, the subsequent reaction has been muted: no stock market reaction (certainly not positive) and a distinct lack of enthusiasm from foreign financial institutions about acquiring majority stakes in Chinese financial institutions. These foreign institutions have expressed a similar dearth of interest in increasing their business in China’s financial markets, worth about US$40 trillion in 2016. Surely, such access to the world’s second-largest economy would be a major milestone for the global financial economy. This article attempts to explain why such a ground-breaking initiative fell flat.

Interpreting the Announcement

The first potential reason could be the announcement’s lack of clarity or precision, as this has been the case in previous instances, such as the contradictory announcements of China’s lifting of its “negative list” of banned foreign investment categories. This time, however, the message could not be clearer. The long-standing 20% limit on foreign participation in Chinese banks by a single entity (and 25% if joint entities) has been lifted with immediate effect. The same is the case for securities houses and insurers with the limit being raised to 51%.

The announcement was a way for the Chinese leadership to show it is still committed to financial liberalisation and opening up. It also alleviated pressure from the U.S. government that had been building up under the Trump administration, though the U.S. had been lobbying China on financial services for many years.

The idea of being able to control a Chinese financial institution, even a bank, is probably more than what foreign players expected after so many years of disappointment since 2001. Foreign banks held RMB 2.9 trillion of assets in China at the end of 2016, about 1.3% of the total and the lowest share since 2003, China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission data show. While Goldman Sachs, HSBC, UBS, Citigroup, and the Bank of America had acquired strategic stakes in big Chinese commercial lenders in the early 2000s, they have since divested most of their holdings. The investments yielded significant capital gains but did not help foreign banks build business in China.

Understanding Foreign Institutions

If clarity is not the problem, the answer may lie in the other side of the story: the foreign financial institutions. One can think of three reasons why their interest may have faded. The first and most obvious is that it has been too long a wait. After pleading with China for so long to lift its regulatory limits on foreign investment, the recent announcement might no longer be credible. In fact, the credibility of the Chinese government in terms of its reform agenda is certainly not at its highest from a foreign perspective. The position papers produced by the American and European chambers of commerce over the past few years are testimony to the growing disenchantment.

The idea of being able to control a Chinese financial institution, even a bank, is probably more than what foreign players expected after so many years of disappointment since 2001.

Secondly, foreign financial institutions’ aversion to risk has massively increased after the Global Financial Crisis, not only because bankers might have become more virtuous since the pre-2008 excesses, but also because of regulatory limits and a much higher cost of raising capital. The latter is especially important when understanding why foreign financial institutions may be reluctant to invest in their peers in China. A huge amount of capital is needed if one wants to have a decent market quota to compete with incumbents. This is truer in China than anywhere else, as the financial sector has grown hugely after years of massive asset growth. The still-expensive cost of capital for banks in the U.S. or Europe is clearly a deterrent to exploring growth in China’s financial market.

The third reason, and perhaps the most important, is how much more hostile China’s relations with the West have become since the beginning of this year. To understand the reason for such a development, one might need to go back to Trump’s visit to Asia in November, which was interpreted by most commentators as a milestone in the increasingly rapid transfer of power from the U.S. to China. Xi’s consolidation of power during the 19th Communist Party Congress as China’s leader for the foreseeable future did most of the work, but Trump also helped by failing to advance a clear agenda for the U.S. to articulate key national interests regarding China.

Against such a negative backdrop, Trump’s hurricane of trade restrictions started as early as February 7, with the introduction of import tariffs on solar panels and washing machines. Several other larger import tariffs have followed since, connected to China’s breaches of U.S. intellectual property rights.

China’s strategy so far has been to retaliate but the room to do so is narrowing, especially if the U.S. administration imposes the final batch of tariffs on US$200 billion worth of Chinese imports. In the absence of enough imports from the U.S. to retaliate, China will need to resort to other measures if it continues with its tit-for-tat strategy. A very obvious one could be to target U.S. investment in China, which cannot but discourage U.S. financial institutions from exploring acquisition opportunities in China. This is probably true for Europe as well, as its dependence on the U.S. market is clearly greater than its dependence on that of China.

Beijing Considers Its Options

The clarity of China’s announcement—at least compared with previous experiences—might not be coincidental. It may well reflect the immediate benefits that China’s financial sector could draw from opening up to foreign competition. In fact, after the massive growth of bank balance sheets and the accumulation of non-performing loans, Chinese regulators seem to prefer to have a more market-driven clean-up process than the one that took place in the early 2000s when a good chunk of public money was devoted to recapitalising banks.

What the Chinese authorities were not expecting, though, is that foreign authorities would have lost their appetite for such a huge and seemingly appealing market.

This time around, the use of debt-to-equity swaps and, more generally, the massive securitisation over the past couple of years point to the market playing more of a role in the restructuring of China’s banking sector after years of excess credit growth. In that regard, foreign players are probably much more welcome, not only as a source of expertise to manage distressed assets but even to help redistribute the risk, if not the losses.

What the Chinese authorities were not expecting, though, is that foreign authorities would have lost their appetite for such a huge and seemingly appealing market.  The reality is that they have. Firstly, one deterrent for foreign financial institutions toward acquiring stakes in their Chinese counterparts is high valuations. In addition, foreign banks would be wary of being forced into the “policy bank” role of executing state economic ideas that is often forced upon Chinese institutions. Most foreign banks are in a much weaker position in terms of raising capital to acquire a major stake in a Chinese financial institution.

In addition, Trump’s gyration from China’s friend to its enemy, of which the trade war is a good testimony, does not bode well for any U.S. investor operating in China. Financial institutions, being part of a heavily regulated sector, are in an even riskier position than other sectors as they depend on Chinese government actions and reactions to Trump’s increasingly obvious intention to contain China.

All in all, one should not be too surprised at the glacial silence of markets and foreign financial institutions to even a wholehearted opening-up of the Chinese financial sector. We probably all wish it had happened earlier, as a good deal of the current conflict we are in could have been averted.


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 about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The trade crisis: good and bad scenarios and the EU's response

What role will the EU play in the resolution of the global trade crisis?

Speakers: Uri Dadush, Maria Demertzis and Denis Redonnet Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 20, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China’s debt is still piling up – and the pile-up is getting faster

With looser monetary policy, China's policymakers hope to encourage banks to lend more to the private sector. This seems to imply a change from the deleveraging drive begun in mid-2017. Although this should be good news for China's growth in the short term, such a continued accumulation of debt cannot but imply deflationary pressures and a lower potential growth further down the road.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 19, 2019
Read article More by this author

Opinion

New EU industrial policy can only succeed with focus on completion of single market and public procurement

France and Germany recently unveiled a manifesto for a European industrial policy fit for the 21st century, sparking a lively debate across the continent. The fundamental idea underpinning the manifesto is a good one: Europe does need an industrial policy to ensure that EU companies remain highly competitive globally, notwithstanding strong competition from China and other big players. However, the Franco-German priorities are unsuitable for the pursuit of this goal.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: March 18, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Tense transatlantic relations put EU in tough spot

The global multilateral system is being challenged by the US and China, which prompts the EU to rethink how well it can compete in the world.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 5, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The possible Chinese-US trade deal

The future of Sino-American relations after the incoming end of trade talks between Beijing and Washington. We review opinions in the English-speaking blogosphere on the likely content of the deal and the message this agreement sends to the world.

By: Jan Mazza Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 4, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China's strategy: Growth, alliances, and tech acquisition

Despite the pause in the US-China trade war, the US and China are strategic competitors, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. China realizes that there is little room to settle long-term disputes and, as a result has shifted towards a strategy that focuses on sustaining growth at any cost, expanding alliances, and advancing its technology.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 27, 2019
Read article

Opinion

What can the EU do to keep its firms globally relevant?

There is a fear that EU companies will find it increasingly difficult to be on top of global value chains. Many argue that EU-based firms simply lack the critical scale to compete and, in order to address this problem, that Europe’s merger control should become less strict. But the real question is where the EU can strengthen itself beyond the realm of competition policy.

By: Georgios Petropoulos and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 15, 2019
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

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

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

Speakers: Eric Feunteun, Jacques Pieraerts, Julia Poliscanova, Simone Tagliapietra and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Energy & Climate, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: February 12, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

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: George Cunningham, Uri Dadush, Jean-Francois Di Meglio, Theresa Fallon, Alicia García-Herrero and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: February 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: Reflections on five years of China's Belt and Road Initiative

Bruegel fellows Alicia García-Herrero and Uri Dadush join Guntram Wolff for this Director's Cut of 'The Sound of Economics', focusing on the progress made by China's Belt and Road Initiative, how it will continue to develop, and the reactions it has stirred across the world.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 7, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

Countries’ perceptions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: A big data analysis

Drawing on a global database of media articles, the authors quantitatively assess perceptions of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in different countries and regions. They also identify the topics that are most frequently associated with the BRI.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 6, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Chinese growth: A balancing act

China’s GDP growth in 2018 was 6.6%, its lowest annual growth rate in more than two decades, and the rate is expected to slow further this year. What is driving the slow-down in Chinese growth and what are the implications for Chinese policymakers and the global economy? This post reviews the blogosphere’s take.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 28, 2019
Load more posts