nice insight by Andy Mukherjee in BS on looking beyond the rates.
This is a beautiful article by Shailesh Dobhal in BS, explaining how disruptions are changing the face of the business.
Prof. Barry Eichengreen has this nice piece in Project syndicate.
BERKELEY – On August 11, China devalued its currency by 2% and modestly reformed its exchange-rate system. This was no earth-shattering event, but financial markets responded as if a meteorite had struck them. The negative reaction is no mystery: China’s devaluation was a textbook example of how not to conduct exchange-rate policy.
If the intention of China is to depreciate the currency further there is no point in doing it in installment.
One of the government’s motivations was presumably to give a boost to China’s slowing economy. Although the service sector, which accounts for the majority of employment, is holding up relatively well, the country’s output of tradable goods, many of which are produced for export, is weakening sharply. Chinese exporters are caught between the pincers of weak foreign demand and rapidly rising domestic wages.
Devaluation is the tried and true remedy for such ills. But a 2% change in currency values is too little to make much of a difference, given that wages in Chinese manufacturing are rising at an annual rate of 10%.
It could be that Chinese policymakers regard the 2% devaluation as a down payment – the first in a succession of downward adjustments. But, in that case, they violated the first rule of exchange-rate management: Don’t cut off a cat’s tail in slices.
Next is there motive regarding the inclusion in SDR, which is of limited practical use.
Another interpretation of the August 11 move is that it paved the way for the renminbi’s inclusion in the basket of currencies that comprise the International Monetary Fund’s unit of account, Special Drawing Rights. In order to be included in the SDR basket, a currency must be widely used in international transactions. The renminbi is already widely used to invoice and settle international merchandise trade, notably other countries’ trade with China itself.
But it is less freely traded in global currency markets, ranking only 9th overall, according to the Bank for International Settlements. This relatively low standing partly reflects China’s maintenance of controls on capital flows, which make it hard for financial-market participants to get their hands on renminbi. But it is also a result of heavy-handed manipulation of the foreign-exchange market by the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), which makes changes in the price and availability of the renminbi opaque and uncertain.
The August 11 initiative may have been designed to alleviate this concern. In addition to devaluing, China announced that the opening “fix” – the price at which trading of the renminbi would commence each day – would be largely based on the previous day’s closing market price. Because the PBOC had been setting the opening fix pretty much wherever it wanted, this change could be seen as moving the renminbi toward a more market-determined exchange rate.
If so, it is at most a very modest move in that direction. The PBOC continues to intervene heavily once the market is open, thereby limiting fluctuations in the dollar-renminbi exchange rate to less than 2% a day.
In any case, gaining admission to the SDR club is a poor excuse for wrong-footing the markets. Given that the SDR, which the IMF uses to keep track of its own financial transactions, is of little practical importance, the Chinese authorities’ effort to add the renminbi to it amounts to little more than a vanity project. Inclusion would make no difference in terms of progress toward China’s goal of developing its currency into a first-class international and reserve currency widely used by private and official foreign investors.
If Chinese officials are serious about pursuing this goal, they should stop focusing on the SDR and start developing stable and liquid financial markets that are not subject to official manipulation. Only then will the international community embrace the renminbi as a proper international and reserve currency. The events of the last month suggest that China still has a long way to go.
The center of gravity for economic thought in the United States has long been found along the two miles in Cambridge, Mass., that run betweenHarvard University and M.I.T. But there is new competition for that title, and it is quite a bit farther west.
Stanford University has lured an all-star lineup of economists to Palo Alto, Calif., in the last few years — and fended off Harvard’s and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s attempts to woo Stanford economists.
The newest Stanford professors include a Nobel laureate — Alvin E. Roth, formerly of Harvard — but the shift is more noticeable among top young economists. Of the 11 people who have won the John Bates Clark Medal for best economist under age 40 since 2000, four are now at Stanford, more than at any other university. Two of them joined in the last few months: the inequality researcher Raj Chetty, who came from Harvard, and Matthew Gentzkow, who left the University of Chicago.