|
The "through train" scheme
The scheme is an important step towards an orderly outflow of funds from the Mainland.
There is much discussion about when the "through train" for Mainland
individual investors to invest in Hong Kong equity will arrive. The
launch of the scheme seems to be taking longer than expected in the
earlier press reports, perhaps understandably because the
implementation details need to go through a co-ordination process
among the regulatory authorities on the Mainland. In any event, I
have little doubt that it is in the interest of the Mainland to
start the train running. It is important for the Mainland to induce
an orderly outflow of capital on a meaningful scale, having regard
to the macroeconomic imbalances on the Mainland.
The
balance-of-payments surplus of the Mainland is getting bigger and
bigger, exerting considerable market, as well as political, pressure
on the renminbi to appreciate. With fairly tight capital account
controls, and justified concerns over the risk of allowing the
exchange rate to appreciate too quickly, the situation has resulted
in a rapid and large accumulation of foreign reserves. In monetary
policy terms, this means a rapid increase in the monetary base, or
the renminbi balances held by commercial banks at the People¡¦s Bank
of China. In an environment of accelerating inflation, there is
a strong need for the monetary effects of the rapid increase in
the monetary base to be at least "sterilised". Indeed, monetary
tightening seems well justified. The sterilisation is done through
successive increases in the reserve ratio, which will rise to
12.5% on 25 September, forcing commercial banks to hold reserves at the central
bank, earning fairly low interest, currently 1.89%; and by issuance of central bank bills through which the renminbi injected
into the banking system in exchange for foreign reserves are
borrowed back by the central bank. The outstanding amount of bills
issued by the People¡¦s Bank of China for this purpose was RMB 4
trillion at the end of August. The current yield of the one-year
central bank bills is about 3% and the paper is mostly held by the
commercial banks.
One
can of course argue that the reserve ratio could be increased
further to sterilise continuing capital inflows, although the ratio
is not far below its historical high of 13%. The People¡¦s Bank of
China can also issue more central bank paper. But either way the
effect will be the same: the commercial banks maintaining reserves
with the central bank and holding the central bank¡¦s paper are
forced to accumulate low-yield assets in their books. These
low-yield assets obviously will affect the profitability of the
banks, and as some have argued, may induce them to take an
aggressive stance in corporate and household lending to
compensate for the narrowing of the net interest margin. When the
economy grows rapidly and bank loans perform well, this may not be a
concern. But it would be another story if the general economy were
to slow down or a particular sector of the economy were adversely
affected by macro adjustment and control measures.
The
combination of continuing rapid accumulation of foreign assets and
an appreciating exchange rate is problematic in itself. Whether it
is booked on the balance sheet of the People¡¦s Bank of China or the
China Investment Corporation or in the financial accounts of
other official entities, the long foreign-exchange position is quite
costly to run. This is particularly so because the official
agencies that manage these foreign assets have to be accountable to
the people and would therefore avoid taking too much risk in the
investment of foreign reserves. Complicating the situation further
is the dilemma that, while monetary tightening is needed to control
accelerating inflation, higher interest rates also risk attracting
more of the capital inflows that are causing the problem in the
first place.
The
solution, quite clearly, is further liberalisation of the capital
account. In fact now is a golden opportunity to do so.
Understandably, there would be concern over the possibility of
illegal outflow of public money and so a tightly controlled
mechanism must be established. But there should be much less
concern over the outflow of money owned by individuals or private
enterprises. It is, after all, their money, particularly when we
are talking about foreign currencies already held by them and
trapped in bank accounts earning low interest. And so we have the
"through train" scheme for individuals to invest in Hong Kong
equities, although in my opinion the structure of the scheme still
involves too many controls. These controls, no doubt, reflect,
among other considerations, the desire of policy makers to protect
the interest of individual investors on the Mainland, and this is a
reasonable concern.
Protection of investors is obviously an important responsibility of
the authorities, but it should be discharged through measures such
as disclosure requirements, to ensure that investors have the
necessary information to make their own investment decisions, and
market regulation, to ensure that the markets are not manipulated
for the benefit of a few at the expense of the majority of
investors. Hong Kong, being an international financial centre, is
possibly at the forefront of investor protection. It is important
to remember that stock prices fluctuate, sometimes wildly, and it is
always difficult to judge the right entry points. But
investors themselves, not the government, should be in the best
position to decide when, where and at what prices to invest. To
help investors make such decisions, it is important to increase
their knowledge about the financial market in which they invest, in
this case the Hong Kong stock market. At the initial stage of the
"through train" scheme, it may also be helpful to impose a minimum
amount of investment or limit access to the scheme to investors in
major cities who probably are more aware of the risks involved and
in a better position to manage them than other investors in the
country.
Being so used to financial freedom, my views are perhaps biased.
Some may even think that the scheme is another gift from the
central government to Hong Kong. But they are missing the bigger
picture. The "through train" scheme will undoubtedly benefit Hong
Kong, bringing in more business and helping the development of our
financial market, but that is not its purpose. The scheme is about
inducing an orderly outflow of capital from the Mainland to help
address the issues arising from the large and persistent balance of
payments surpluses. It does seem to me that the "through train" is
the right step for the country to take to tackle its macro economic
problems.
Joseph Yam
20
September 2007
¡@
Click here
for previous articles in this column.
¡@
|
|