Connect with us

Finance

China's Ministry of Finance is taking aim at local debt problems before tackling broader economic challenges

Published

on

China's Ministry of Finance is taking aim at local debt problems before tackling broader economic challenges

The 597-meter high Goldin Finance 117 Tower in Tianjin, China, started construction in September 2008, but still stands unfinished in this picture, taken Aug. 28, 2024.

Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

BEIJING — China’s Ministry of Finance press briefing over the weekend underscored how it is focused on tackling local government debt problems, instead of the stimulus markets have been waiting for.

In his opening remarks on Saturday, Minister of Finance Lan Fo’an laid out four measures, starting with increasing support for local governments in resolving debt risks. It was only after he outlined those four points that Lan teased that the country was looking to increase debt and the deficit.

Advertisement

“The press conference is consistent with our view that addressing local government financing struggles is a priority,” Robin Xing, chief China economist at Morgan Stanley, and his team said in a report Sunday. They also expect that the central government will play a larger role in debt restructuring and housing market stabilization.

“However, we believe upsizing consumption support and social welfare spending will likely remain gradual,” the Morgan Stanley analysts said.

China’s real estate market slump has cut into a significant source of revenue for local governments, many of which struggled financially even before needing to spend on Covid-19 measures. Meanwhile, lackluster consumption and slow growth overall have multiplied calls for more fiscal stimulus.

The four policies announced by the Ministry of Finance are focused more on tackling structural issues, Chinese economic think tank CF40 said in a report Saturday.

“They are not specifically aimed at addressing macroeconomic issues such as insufficient aggregate demand or declining price levels through Keynesian-style fiscal expansion,” the report said, in reference to expectations of greater government intervention.

CF40 estimates China does not need additional fiscal funding to achieve the full-year growth target of around 5%, as long as the spending that it has already announced happens by the end of the year.

Advertisement

Local governments drag on domestic demand

Finance Minister Lan on Saturday did say the central government would allow local governments to use 400 billion yuan ($56.54 billion) in bonds to support spending on payroll and basic services.

He added that a large plan to address local governments’ hidden debt would be announced in the near future, without specifying when. Lan claimed that hidden debt levels at the end of 2023 were half what they were in 2018.

Historically, local governments were responsible for more than 85% of expenditure but only received about 60% of tax revenue, Rhodium Group said in 2021.

Constrained local government finances have “contributed to the downward pressure on prices,” the International Monetary Fund said in an Aug. 30 report on China.

The core consumer price index, which strips out more volatile food and energy prices, rose by 0.1% in September, compared to a year ago. That’s the slowest since February 2021, according to the Wind Information database.

Advertisement

To Morgan Stanley, resolving local government debt problems is a “critical step” toward halting the declining trend of prices — almost just as important as stimulus directed at boosting demand.

Waiting for another meeting

After a flurry of policy announcements in the last few weeks, investors are looking ahead to a meeting of China’s parliament, expected at end of the month. China’s legal process requires it to approval national budget changes. The meeting last year, which ended on Oct. 24, oversaw a rare increase in the fiscal deficit to 3.8%, from 3%, according to state media.

Analysts are divided over the specific amount of fiscal support that is needed, if any.

“Whether it’s 2 trillion [yuan] or 10 trillion, for us, it actually doesn’t make so much of a difference,” Vikas Pershad, fund manager at M&G Investments, said Monday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia.” “Our bet on China is a multi-year bet. The Chinese equities are too low in valuation.”

He emphasized the policy direction is “on the right path,” regardless of the stimulus size.

Advertisement

Pershad has talked about buying opportunities in Chinese stocks since January but he said Monday that the latest flurry of activity from the region hasn’t made him any more active in the sector.

China’s policymakers have generally remained conservative. Beijing did not hand out cash to consumers after the pandemic, unlike Hong Kong or the U.S.

Julian Evans-Pritchard, head of China economics at Capital Economics, said at least 2.5 trillion yuan of additional funding is needed to keep growth around 5% this year and next.

“Anything less than that, and I think the risk really is the economy just continues to slow next year given all the structural headwinds that it faces,” he said Monday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia.”

Evans-Pritchard insisted that fiscal policy is more critical for addressing the latest economic slump since China’s other support tools have previously included real estate and credit, which are not as effective this time.

Advertisement

“It’s hard to put a specific number on it because obviously there’s a lot of talk of recapitalizing the banks, dealing with the existing debt problems among the local governments,” he said. “If a lot of the additional borrowing goes into those areas it actually does not stimulate current demand that significantly.”

— CNBC’s Sonia Heng contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

I’m a Financial Planner: Here’s Why You Can’t Judge Wealth by Appearance

Published

on

I’m a Financial Planner: Here’s Why You Can’t Judge Wealth by Appearance

BRAIN2HANDS / Shutterstock.com

Wealth isn’t about what you can see, but what you can’t. While it’s easy to assume that someone driving a luxury car or wearing designer clothes is financially successful, according to experts, wealth often lies in what isn’t visible — savings, investments and financial security.

GOBankingRates spoke with Dennis Shirshikov, head of growth at GoSummer and professor of finance at City University of New York, as well as Mafe Aclado, finance expert and general manager of Coupon Snake, to discuss why you can’t judge wealth by appearance.

See Now: 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money

Read Next: 6 Subtly Genius Moves All Wealthy People Make With Their Money

Advertisement

Trending Now: Boomers Hold Half of U.S. Wealth–So Why Are Thousands Living Without Homes?

High-Spending Habits Can Mask Financial Instability

“I’ve seen clients who lived very modestly but had substantial retirement accounts, real estate investments and portfolios,” said Shirshikov.

On the flip side, he said there are individuals who appear wealthy but are actually over-leveraged.

“These are the clients who may have an expensive lifestyle but rely heavily on credit and are often just one financial setback away from a crisis.”

Many of the Wealthiest People Practice ‘Stealth Wealth’

One of the more interesting aspects of working with affluent clients, according to Shirshikov, is discovering how many of them actively downplay their wealth.

Advertisement

“They drive regular cars, live in modest homes and avoid flashy purchases,” he said.

This concept, known as “stealth wealth,” is about avoiding the trappings of luxury and focusing instead on long-term financial goals.

“A prime example is a client who made millions through real estate investments but maintained a frugal lifestyle to ensure they could continue building generational wealth. For them, financial success was about freedom and security, not outward appearances.”

Learn More: I’m a Self-Made Millionaire: 6 Steps I Took To Become Rich on an Average Salary

Financial Success Often Comes From Discipline, Not Appearance

Experts emphasize that real wealth is built through financial discipline — consistently saving, investing and living within your means.

Advertisement

“I’ve noticed that some of the wealthiest individuals I’ve worked with never focused on appearing rich; they were focused on the long game,” Shirshikov said. “One client, who retired early with significant assets, told me they always resisted the pressure to ‘keep up with the Joneses.’”

His advice to younger generations? “Focus on making your money work for you, not on looking like you have more than you do.”

Aclado has observed the same. “The No. 1 reason why you can’t judge wealth by appearance is the fact that when it comes to how to spend their money, people have different priorities. While some may be more interested in keeping up with the Joneses, staying in touch with the latest fashion trend and owning the latest cars, others may have more ambitious desires.”

And for these groups of individuals with intense financial ambitions, she said lifestyle inflation is one of the things they consciously guard against.

Advertisement

“Not because they cannot afford more comfort or luxuries, but because they would rather plant their money in investments that would yield more profits in the future.”

The Wealthy Play the Long Game

According to Aclado, these individuals are also more likely to play the long game; that is, they choose to become strategically patient when it comes to spending and managing their money.

“And they focus on long-term goals like building generational wealth and prioritizing financial sustainability as opposed to seeking instant gratification,” Aclado said.

Living Frugally Isn’t an Attractive Option for Many

“There is also the fact that some people — especially when in their 20s — honestly believe that they still have enough time, and can therefore afford to be financially indulgent,” Aclado said.

She explained that with social media influence, fast fashion and today’s intense spending culture, people’s outward appearance can’t really be trusted as a sign that they are financially successful.

Advertisement

“Because today, living frugally isn’t exactly an attractive option, even when its benefits are clearly visible.”

More From GOBankingRates

This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: I’m a Financial Planner: Here’s Why You Can’t Judge Wealth by Appearance

Continue Reading

Finance

Jim Justice Tied West Virginia Coal to Global Financial Capital

Published

on

Jim Justice Tied West Virginia Coal to Global Financial Capital

West Virginia governor James C. Justice II seeks to fill the Senate seat left open by Joe Manchin’s retirement. “Big Jim” Justice, like Manchin, is a coal executive and former Democrat. But in contrast to Manchin’s run-of-the-mill crony capitalism, Justice has pursued innovative business practices that pushed the mines of West Virginia deep into the grasp of global financial capital.

Justice did it, he says, to keep his mines open and his businesses out of bankruptcy. But Justice’s strategy has meant that a string of unrelated third parties — JPMorgan, a Russian steel oligarch, Credit Suisse — get a little bit richer every time a coal miner goes to work for Justice. And West Virginians — local governments, Justice’s miners, small businesses, and local banks — hold the bag. If this is the way to stay out of bankruptcy, Justice’s prescribed treatment is worse than the illness.

Advertisement

How did Big Jim make such a big mess, and why? To be fair, it is not all his fault. Jim Justice’s business fortune, like the fortune of West Virginia itself, is impossible to understand without reference to the ups and downs of global commodity markets. Dealing with these commodity cycles has been the central preoccupation of the coal business for several decades. If the unemployment rate is the most important economic indicator for the world’s industrial regions, the price of commodities is the most important economic indicator for its resource-extraction regions.

Justice is a creature of resource extraction. Justice’s money comes from two sources: coal and agriculture. He inherited his stake in both the coal and agriculture industries from his father. Both coal and farming are commodity businesses.

The price fluctuation of coal has several implications for those who want to make money mining it. Coal mines are not all created equal and can be broadly sorted into two classes. There are mines that are highly productive, typically meaning that they are highly mechanized with expensive “longwall” mining machinery imported from Germany. These mines usually continue to operate when coal prices drop because their labor inputs are low and their capital costs (interest payments) remain the same whether the price is high or low. High-productivity, mechanized mines are typically operated with union labor.

Then there are low-productivity mines — sometimes called “doghole” mines. Smaller and less mechanized dogholes tend to shut down when the price of coal drops. Doghole mines close because their marginal cost (that is, the cost that they have to spend to mine an additional ton of coal) is higher than that of the high-productivity mines. The existence of doghole mines ensures that the price of coal does not rise too high. Doghole mines don’t require large investments, which means that when the price of coal rises above normal, a whole host of them open up. Doghole mines are typically nonunion.

Throughout most of the twentieth century, many large, high-productivity mines were owned and operated by large industrial corporations that consumed coal, like US Steel, Ford, and others. When demand for their goods increased, they didn’t open new mines; rather, they turned to the market and purchased coal from the doghole mines. During the industrial downturn of the 1970s and 1980s, this system of major, company-owned mines began to break down. Changes in the geography of world industrial production led to the decline of domestic coal-consuming industries. US Steel and similar companies stopped investing in coal production and shed their coal assets.

Advertisement

A new class of coal companies stepped in to develop and operate the expensive, high-productivity mines. Pure-play coal companies like Massey and Peabody expanded rapidly into central Appalachia in the 1980s. Bluestone Industries, owned by Big Jim’s father, was part of this growth.

Unlike the older major producers, the new companies engaged in both high-productivity and doghole mining — a business strategy that mitigated against the fluctuations in the price of coal. Owners of high-productivity mines had never been able to see the full benefits of their investments because the doghole mines kept prices relatively low during coal booms. For a company like US Steel, this had not been a problem. US Steel was not looking to make money mining coal. It was looking to secure a reliable supply of coal. The new companies, including the Justice family’s Bluestone, had different incentives.

As the major industrials exited coal production and left the mining business to Massey, Peabody, Bluestone, and other coal-exclusive businesses, the problem of how to increase profit margins during upswings became acute. The answer was to innovate a new method of mining that combined the low capital intensity of the doghole mine with the low marginal cost of the high-productivity mine.

That method was mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal is exactly what it sounds like: a process of removing a mountain top — “overburden,” in industry speak — so that coal can be mined with bulldozers and front loaders rather than expensive, specialized underground mining equipment. Mountaintop removal could not fully match the cost efficiency of a well-run, highly mechanized underground mining operation, but it certainly beat the older small-scale, low-productivity mines — sometimes called “doghole” mines — that it succeeded. And it beat high-intensity mines on capital cost: big trucks, bulldozers, front loaders, and dynamite are cheaper and more liquid than specialized underground mining equipment. Mountaintop removal is far more environmentally destructive than other methods of mining coal.

By the 2000s, the benefits of that companies like Massey, Peabody, and others derived from mountaintop removal and the diversification of mining interests had played out. They succeeded in taking control of the coal market away from the large industrials, but the inevitable question of question of how this new arrangement might fare in a volatile coal market was unanswered.

Advertisement

In 2009, the problem was a high price. Justice decided to sell out. He found a buyer in the Russian steelmaker Mechel, which, like many large Russian industrial concerns, maintained close ties to Vladimir Putin and, unlike most American industrials, was growing. The sale of Bluestone’s assets to Mechel went through in 2009, before the financial crisis hit the commodity markets. Bluestone’s coal assets received a high price: $425 million and preferred shares in Mechel.

Justice was riding high: he subsequently purchased the ailing luxury Greenbrier resort in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, a longtime haunt of the Washington elite. Justice relished the company that he could keep as the owner of a big fancy hotel with a large bank account.

But the party didn’t last long. By 2015, the financial crisis had hit the commodity markets. The coal market was sluggish, and global industrial demand (excluding China) recovered very slowly. Mechel, holding what was at that point a money-losing business, sold the properties back to the Justice family for $5 million paired with per-ton royalty payments on future coal sales.

Five million dollars was a low price, but it probably wasn’t low enough. The properties were saddled with delayed upkeep and unpaid invoices. When Big Jim resumed leadership of the Bluestone coal assets, the old problems of navigating a coal company through commodity cycles resumed. Justice did not want to pull money from any corner of his business empire in order to operate his coal business in a sluggish market. So he turned to the burgeoning world of shadow banking that had grown up in the era of low interest rates.

Justice has since defaulted on the royalty payments, landing him in court. A judge recently ordered the seizure of one of the Justice family helicopters that Big Jim’s son Jay regularly taxied around Beckley, West Virginia. (Justice’s Democratic opponent in this year’s Senate race has suggested that Justice’s ongoing legal entanglement with Mechel could compromise his ability to serve as a US Senator.)

Advertisement

To solve the financial problem created by the repurchase of its coal properties, Bluestone found a partner in Lex Greensill of Greensill Capital. In the Donald Trump era, Greensill Capital was a darling of the transatlantic banking world. Lex Greensill was himself deeply familiar with global commodity markets, having grown up on a sugarcane farm in Queensland, Australia (which also grew watermelons, he likes to add in a folksy flourish). He moved to London in the heady days before the financial crisis, where he worked for Morgan Stanley and Citigroup.

Founded in 2011, Greensill Capital was an “innovative” supply chain lender. Supply chain lending is a straightforward business. Sellers of goods like Bluestone make deliveries of their goods and then issue invoices to the purchaser, which are usually due sixty days from delivery. Supply-chain lending is a very useful tool for a business that has liabilities that recur regularly but have uneven payment. That business, say Foxconn, might need to take out a loan to expand its operation to produce a large shipment of iPhones. Foxconn would invoice Apple after the delivery and could expect to be paid at some point in the coming months, but it might already have interest payments due on the loan. Enter supply chain finance to smooth the cash flow problem. Foxconn could take a copy of their invoice to Greensill and get cash now.

The fees and interest rates that Greensill regularly charged on transactions like these were quite high. In the low-interest-rate environment of the late 2010s, Greensill was able to borrow money at low rates and return a much higher rate on this kind of supply chain financing. With this model, Greensill attracted enormous investments. The largest private investment fund in the world, SoftBank’s Vision Fund (funded by the Saudis), contributed $1.5 billion to the business, seeking the high returns that Greensill could generate. Greensill quickly started to roll out supply chain financing to companies like Bluestone.

Only some companies are well-suited for supply chain finance; Bluestone is not one of them. Unlike an Apple iPhone supplier, Bluestone does not go deeply into debt in order to finance coal shipments. Thanks to the changes brought about by mountaintop removal, coal mining is now an asset-light business. Expansion of mining operations ought not to impose major financial obligations. A partnership with Greensill was incorrect on the fundamentals.

Nevertheless, over the course of five years, Greensill lent Bluestone $850 million. As their relationship deepened, the loans morphed from clear-cut supply chain finance (wherein Bluestone simply got payment earlier than they might for coal that had been already shipped) into something else. As Bloomberg’s Matt Levine has reported, based on court documents, Bluestone started submitting and Greensill started accepting invoices for coal that had not been shipped. In fact, it had not even been mined, or even ordered from any coal customer whatsoever.

Advertisement

Justice’s strategy stood in stark contrast to all of his competitors in the coal business, which fell like dominoes to bankruptcy. Following a methane explosion that killed twenty-nine miners in 2010, Massey was acquired by Alpha Natural Resources. Alpha went bankrupt in 2015 along with the two largest coal companies in the nation, Peabody and Arch.

The short-term effect of Bluestone’s relationship with Greensill was to allow the Justices to continue operating without very much attention to their profit margin. Greensill treated Bluestone like a growth tech stock. To convince Greensill to continue lending, all Bluestone and the Justices had to do was invent future growth prospects.

For a coal company, the idea that one should run a deficit in the short term with the hope of future growth — the logic of tech company finance — is silly. It is silly not because betting on coal mining growth in the context of global warming is a bad bet. (It is a bleak, nihilistic bet, but it may win the day.) What makes the structure of the Greensill-Bluestone relationship incorrect, rather, is the idea that future profits in coal mining require running present-day losses. There is little reason to think that, should the market take an upswing, Bluestone would be particularly well-placed to take advantage of that upswing simply because it had continued operating when it perhaps should not have. And yet that was an implicit assumption of the relationship.

Despite its obvious flaws, that assumption would never be tested. As the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic wound through the financial system, Greensill faced increased scrutiny from lenders and insurers. Credit Suisse froze $10 billion in funds linked to the company in March of 2021. Greensill went belly-up soon after. The loans that had been made to Bluestone by Greensill were now picked up by others, including the Swiss bank UBS.

In the process of tying Bluestone to Greensill, the Justice family made a huge fiasco, not just for Bluestone Industries but for West Virginians.

Advertisement

Bluestone has a tendency to stiff those who send them an invoice or a time card. The debt to Greensill made the problem worse. Today, among the myriad parties seeking overdue payment from Bluestone is Wyoming County, West Virginia. Wyoming County is a coal county, population 20,527, where the median income is $20,607. In recent years, when it wasn’t using COVID money from the federal government, Wyoming County’s school board has been balancing its budget by selling its property after shuttering schools and offices. In part due to the inability of local governments to fund it appropriately, the local jail is a death trap, with suicides and murders (perpetrated by both inmates and correctional officers) at extraordinarily high levels. Bluestone owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes (largely tangible property tax, presumably levied on mining equipment) to Wyoming County.

Justice laments the fact that he regularly pays Russian taxes before he pays West Virginia taxes, but he defends his financial strategy: “If you’re really fair and you’ll step back from it, you’ll say ‘Well, when things were really tough, why didn’t they take bankruptcy like every coal company almost in the land that was in trouble that wrote off hundreds and hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.’ And we didn’t do it.”

Bluestone has not yet declared bankruptcy. Beyond that, much is muddy: Why should Swiss bankers, Saudi princes, and Russian oligarchs get paid before Wyoming County teachers? Because Bluestone Industries just didn’t want to declare bankruptcy?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Two big homebuilders missed Wall Street estimates on a key metric — here's why

Published

on

Two big homebuilders missed Wall Street estimates on a key metric — here's why

Housing demand has been hard to forecast even as mortgage rates have declined. Just take a look at homebuilders’ quarterly results so far this earnings season.

Two of America’s largest homebuilders, Lennar (LEN) and KB Home (KBH), reported third quarter net new home orders that have fallen short of Wall Street expectations.

Net new orders represent the number of new sales contracts that have been finalized and signed by buyers minus customer home order cancellations booked for the period. Investors and analysts pay close attention to this figure because its a leading indicator for homebuilders on housing activity.

Lennar, the nation’s second-largest homebuilder, said last month that its net new orders for the quarterly period ending Aug. 31 rose 4.7% from the prior year to 20,587. That fell short of analysts’ forecasts of 20,827 orders, per Bloomberg data.

Homebuilder KB Home also reported in September that net orders for the period ending Aug. 31 were a disappointment. The builder said orders fell 0.4% from the prior year to 3,085, lower than analysts’ estimates of 3,345 orders.

Advertisement

Part of the reason for the misses is that it’s been hard to determine how much recent mortgage rate movements would affect buyer demand. Mortgage rates have stayed stuck between 6% and 7% this year. And in June, rates were toggling just above or below 7%.

Read more: When will mortgage rates go down? A look at 2024 and 2025.

“Maybe shame on us for not modeling it more clearly, but June and July were clearly challenging months,” John Lovallo, senior equity research analyst at UBS, told Yahoo Finance in an interview.

From a buyer’s perspective, “there was uncertainty about where rates were going. There was uncertainty about where the economy and the Fed were going, and there was growing uncertainty about the election,” Lovallo added.

Two of America’s largest homebuilders Lennar (LEN) and KB Home (KBH) reported third quarter earnings that fell short of expectations for home orders, a revealing sign to what others could report.(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The uncertainty doesn’t appear to be going away despite the Federal Reserve’s jumbo interest rate cut in September. Mortgage rates had already been on the decline as investors had bet on a rate reduction ahead.

It’s unclear how much they’ll fall. Data from Freddie Mac shows the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate jumped by 20 basis points to 6.32% last week. This marks the biggest week-over-week increase since April.

Advertisement

Read more: Is this a good time to buy a house?

Goldman Sachs revised its year-end forecasts in early October for 30-year conforming mortgage rates, lowering them to 6% for this year and 6.05% for 2025, down from the previous estimates of 6.5% and 6.1%.

The firm’s strategists said in the note that there’s “limited room” for major declines. They think “the decline in mortgage rates has largely run its course.”

Lovallo warned that it’s highly likely that the other homebuilders will report misses on Q3 net orders due to rate volatility this summer. More builders are gearing up to report quarterly earnings in the next few weeks with PulteGroup (PHM) and NVR (NVR) reporting on Oct. 22 and DR Horton (DHI) on Oct. 29.

Advertisement

Dani Romero is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X @daniromerotv.

Click here for the latest stock market news and in-depth analysis, including events that move stocks

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending