SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Financial Collapse of 2001 Unwinding -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: pak73 who wrote (7312)2/26/2021 2:36:13 AM
From: elmatador2 Recommendations

Recommended By
DinoNavarre
pak73

  Respond to of 13796
 
China Belt and Road lending dries up


ELMAT: China needs to keep supporting Africa's energy producers because it is their only source of Dollars that enables them to keep paying the debts to China.
Covid speeds up China overseas pull out

Chinese development banks have been supporting local projects during the coronavirus pandemic

The wider drop in activity, anticipated in part because of the impact of coronavirus, coincided with mounting challenges to China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, which has since 2013 sought to build infrastructure across dozens of countries.

Lending from China’s policy banks, which are distinct from its state-backed commercial lenders and play a big role in financing official projects both within and outside of China, fell sharply last year.

Belt and Road Initiative China curtails overseas lending in face of geopolitical backlash “I think the story has changed very significantly [over recent years],” said Chen Long, a partner at Plenum in Beijing. “We don’t have a lot of outflows?.?.?.?and a lot of places don’t want Chinese capital,” though he suggested countries in Africa were still more receptive than other markets.


ELMAT: Only energy (meaning oil) is still being financed.
More than half of China’s $4.6bn in overseas energy lending went to projects in Africa in 2020, data from Boston University’s Global Energy Finance database show.


Chinese overseas energy finance collapsed to its lowest level since 2008 last year, with its struggling Belt and Road ambitions in the sector relying more heavily on projects in African countries.

China’s policy banks funded a gas pipeline in Nigeria, which drove most of the more than $3bn of financing, and smaller projects in Lesotho, Rwanda and the Ivory Coast.

Overall overseas energy finance fell by 43 per cent compared with 2019 and remained far below its level in recent years.


Energy financing has always been a big part of the BRI, conceived by Xi Jinping, China’s president, as the “project of the century”. China has promised to spend about $1tn on building infrastructure in mainly developing countries around the world. But in the past two years, Chinese lending to the BRI has slowed dramatically, analysts said.


The country’s two big state development banks, the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China, have been obliged to support more projects at home, reducing their capacity to maintain a blistering pace of lending to BRI projects.


During the coronavirus pandemic, they have helped boost activity on the Chinese mainland. A number of important BRI countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador and Pakistan, have also run into financial trouble, raising concern in Beijing over the financial sustainability of its largesse to the developing world.


Last year Zambia became the first African country to default on its debts during the pandemic. It has borrowed heavily from Chinese lenders and reached a deal in October to defer repayments to China Development Bank.


China’s overseas lending to energy specifically has declined steadily over recent years. It provided $49bn of financing between 2017-20, compared with $73bn between 2013-2016. Lending to Africa made up 37 per cent of total lending in the former period, higher than its 21 per cent share of the total over 2013-16.

Source: Financial Times.



To: pak73 who wrote (7312)3/8/2021 3:00:26 AM
From: elmatador1 Recommendation

Recommended By
pak73

  Respond to of 13796
 
Reserve Currencies enjoy privileges. Would governments let these privileges taken away by Crypto currencies?

No one enjoying such privileges would likely give them up.

The guys who do not enjoy reserve privileges would love to have them.

Bitcoin's Satoshi Nakamoto saw a market for a reserve currency that could be out of control of the present privilege holders. That currency would be the most valuable currency in the world and was worth the effort.

At any given time, governments that enjoy reserve currencies privileges, would crack down in crypto currencies if such privileges threatens to be eroded.

It is a matter of when. Not if.

Or alternatively, there will be Crypto crashes that would make people lose big and they will leave Crypto alone and it fades away.



To: pak73 who wrote (7312)6/30/2022 3:18:45 AM
From: elmatador1 Recommendation

Recommended By
pak73

  Respond to of 13796
 
A Stagflationary Debt Crisis Looms
There is ample reason to worry that major economies like the United States are heading for a recession, accompanied by cascading financial turmoil. Some of the worst elements of both the 1970s and the 2008 crash are now in play, with equity markets likely to move deeper into bear territory

Jun 29, 2022 NOURIEL ROUBINI
There is ample reason to worry that major economies like the United States are heading for a recession, accompanied by cascading financial turmoil. Some of the worst elements of both the 1970s and the 2008 crash are now in play, with equity markets likely to move deeper into bear territory.

NEW YORK – The global financial and economic outlook for the year ahead has soured rapidly in recent months, with policymakers, investors, and households now asking how much they should revise their expectations, and for how long. That depends on the answers to six questions.

First, will the rise in inflation in most advanced economies be temporary or more persistent? This debate has raged for the past year, but now it is largely settled: “Team Persistent” won, and “Team Transitory” – which previously included most central banks and fiscal authorities – must admit to having been mistaken.

The second question is whether the increase in inflation was driven more by excessive aggregate demand (loose monetary, credit, and fiscal policies) or by stagflationary negative aggregate supply shocks (including the initial COVID-19 lockdowns, supply-chain bottlenecks, a reduced US labor supply, the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine on commodity prices, and China’s “zero-COVID” policy). While both demand and supply factors were in the mix, it is now widely recognized that supply factors have played an increasingly decisive role. This matters because supply-driven inflation is stagflationary and thus raises the risk of a hard landing (increased unemployment and potentially a recession) when monetary policy is tightened.

That leads directly to the third question: Will monetary-policy tightening by the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks bring a hard or soft landing? Until recently, most central banks and most of Wall Street occupied “Team Soft Landing.” But the consensus has rapidly shifted, with even Fed Chair Jerome Powell recognizing that a recession is possible, and that a soft landing will be “ very challenging.”

Moreover, a model used by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows a high probability of a hard landing, and the Bank of England has expressed similar views. Several prominent Wall Street institutions have now decided that a recession is their baseline scenario (the most likely outcome if all other variables are held constant). In both the United States and Europe, forward-looking indicators of economic activity and business and consumer confidence are heading sharply south.

The fourth question is whether a hard landing would weaken central banks’ hawkish resolve on inflation. If they stop their policy tightening once a hard landing becomes likely, we can expect a persistent rise in inflation and either economic overheating (above-target inflation and above potential growth) or stagflation (above-target inflation and a recession), depending on whether demand shocks or supply shocks are dominant.

Most market analysts seem to think that central banks will remain hawkish, but I am not so sure. I have argued that they will eventually wimp out and accept higher inflation – followed by stagflation – once a hard landing becomes imminent, because they will be worried about the damage of a recession and a debt trap, owing to an excessive build-up of private and public liabilities after years of low interest rates.

Now that a hard landing is becoming a baseline for more analysts, a new (fifth) question is emerging: Will the coming recession be mild and short-lived, or will it be more severe and characterized by deep financial distress? Most of those who have come late and grudgingly to the hard-landing baseline still contend that any recession will be shallow and brief. They argue that today’s financial imbalances are not as severe as those in the run-up to the 2008 global financial crisis, and that the risk of a recession with a severe debt and financial crisis is therefore low. But this view is dangerously naive.

There is ample reason to believe that the next recession will be marked by a severe stagflationary debt crisis. As a share of global GDP, private and public debt levels are much higher today than in the past, having risen from 200% in 1999 to 350% today (with a particularly sharp increase since the start of the pandemic). Under these conditions, rapid normalization of monetary policy and rising interest rates will drive highly leveraged zombie households, companies, financial institutions, and governments into bankruptcy and default.

The next crisis will not be like its predecessors. In the 1970s, we had stagflation but no massive debt crises, because debt levels were low. After 2008, we had a debt crisis followed by low inflation or deflation, because the credit crunch had generated a negative demand shock. Today, we face supply shocks in a context of much higher debt levels, implying that we are heading for a combination of 1970s-style stagflation and 2008-style debt crises – that is, a stagflationary debt crisis.

When confronting stagflationary shocks, a central bank must tighten its policy stance even as the economy heads toward a recession. The situation today is thus fundamentally different from the global financial crisis or the early months of the pandemic, when central banks could ease monetary policy aggressively in response to falling aggregate demand and deflationary pressure. The space for fiscal expansion will also be more limited this time. Most of the fiscal ammunition has been used, and public debts are becoming unsustainable.

Moreover, because today’s higher inflation is a global phenomenon, most central banks are tightening at the same time, thereby increasing the probability of a synchronized global recession.
ELMAT: Brazil tigethened earlier, will start lowering first.
This tightening is already having an effect: bubbles are deflating everywhere – including in public and private equity, real estate, housing, meme stocks, crypto, SPACs (special-purpose acquisition companies), bonds, and credit instruments. Real and financial wealth is falling, and debts and debt-servicing ratios are rising.

That brings us to the final question: Will equity markets rebound from the current bear market (a decline of at least 20% from the last peak), or will they plunge even lower? Most likely, they will plunge lower. After all, in typical plain-vanilla recessions, US and global equities tend to fall by about 35%. But, because the next recession will be both stagflationary and accompanied by a financial crisis, the crash in equity markets could be closer to 50%.

Regardless of whether the recession is mild or severe, history suggests that the equity market has much more room to fall before it bottoms out. In the current context, any rebound – like the one in the last two weeks – should be regarded as a dead-cat bounce, rather than the usual buy-the-dip opportunity. Though the current global situation confronts us with many questions, there is no real riddle to solve. Things will get much worse before they get better.