中国银行(香港)-经济月刊:本轮全球量化宽松会带来大通胀吗?

页数: 10页
发布机构: 中国银行(香港)
发布日期: 2020-04-28
歡迎關注「中銀香港研究」公眾 號,經濟金融深度分析盡在掌握 2020 年 4 月 http://www.bochk.com 本輪全球量化寬鬆會帶來大通脹嗎? 經濟研究員 丁孟 3 23 2008 2008 一、經典理論與現實 世界的差 異 在 經 濟 理 論 假 設 下, 量 化 寬 鬆 必 然 帶 來 全 球 大 通 脹: MV=PQ 但現實經濟中,理論假設至少有如下幾條是不成立的: MV=PQ 2001 聲明:本文觀點僅代表作者個人判斷,不反映所在機構意見,不構成任何投資建議。 1.4 1.04 2014 2008 二、歐 元、日圓和人民幣對美 元匯率的調整 使得美國之外 主要 央 行的量化寬 鬆對於 全球通 脹的影 響 很有限 2008 1.4 1.04 25% 75 125 60% 2014 10% 2 三、全球化帶來可貿易部門產出量擴 大和大宗商品價格下跌 是 上一輪全球量化寬 鬆未能帶來大通 脹的主要 原因 圖 1:美聯儲資產負債表與 M2 貨幣流通速度 MV 2008 M2 2008 1 2008 2 資料來源:Wind、BOCHK Research 圖 2:美國存款機構超額準備金 2008 4 資料來源:Wind、BOCHK Research 3 dU8VqVpZlUlWlXfWxUpPtQaQdNbRnPmMtRnNiNoOmQlOoMrO9PoMmMNZnMsQMYrRoN PQ Q M P 表 1:中國的大宗商品消費量佔全球大宗商品消費量估計 PQ 資料來源:Bloomberg、BOCHK Research OPEC+ 95 50 2 2014 6 2016 CPI 0.7 0.8 1 四、疫情 給 全球 產業鏈帶來的負面衝擊 意味 著本輪全球央 行 量化寬鬆後全球經濟面臨的通脹壓力顯著大於 2008 年金融危機後 2008 2008 2018 70% W TO 2000 1 2 4 7.6% 16.2% 3 9% 10% 70 表 2:各國疫情開始大規模爆發月份製造業 PMI 2 資料來源:Bloomberg、BOCHK Research 2014 20 CPI 2008 2008 -2014 5 ECONOMIC REVIEW (A Monthly Issue) April, 2020 http://www.bochk.com Will global quantitative easing (QE) lead to high inflation this time? Ding Meng, Economist In response to the coronavirus epidemic, the Federal Reserve launched unlimited quantitative easing on March 23. Other central banks, including the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan, also launched or added QE. Will this round of globalized quantitative easing cause higher global inflation? Unlike the 2008 financial crisis, the coronavirus epidemic has disrupted global supply chains and damaged some countries’ industrial production capacity. The total output of the global economy will decline significantly. QE will lead to more currencies chasing fewer goods in this environment. Hence, the risk of a sharp increase in global inflation is rising. 1. The difference between theory and the real world means QE does not necessarily bring higher inflation Under the assumption of economic theory, quantitative easing will inevitably bring global inflation higher. According to the monetary economics equation: MV = PQ, the amount of currency in the economy times the speed of currency circulation is always equal to the amount of goods in the economy times the prices of goods. Assuming that the output and speed of currency circulation in the economy remain the same for a short time period, then there will be a positive relationship between the amount of money printed in the economy and the price of commodities. Therefore, QE, which creates more money, will inevitably bring the price of goods up. But in the real world, things are different: 1. The currency circulation rate may slow down. 2. The output in the economy may increase. In both situations, even if the amount of money in the economy increases, goods prices may not rise sharply accordingly. 3. the definitions of currencies and goods in monetary economic equations are different from those in the real world. First, in the real world, not all currencies can be considered as having the same purchasing power. For example, the Bank of Japan launched quantitative easing policy as early as 2001, but it has not clearly exported any inflation to the world. Yen’s over-supply was partially offset by its depreciation vs US dollar. Disclaimer : This article reflects only the viewpoints of the author. It neither represents the opinion of the institution nor constitute any investment advice. The difference between theory and reality helps to explain why global quantitative easing after the 2008 financial crisis did not bring about global inflation, and why this time the inflation scenario will be different. 2. The adjustment of exchange rates in the euro and yen vs the US dollar makes other central banks’ quantitative easing to have limited impact on global inflation compared with the US Although the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan introduced unprecedented quantitative easing after the 2008 financial crisis, the effect of these QEs on global inflation were limited due to the adjustment of exchange rates of these countries’ currency vs the US dollar. For example, although the European Central Bank launched a similar asset purchase program during the European debt crisis, the exchange rate of the euro vs US dollar fell from a high of 1.4 to a low of 1.04, a decline of more than 25%. The purchase power of euro fell significantly; Similarly, the dollar-yen exchange rate has risen from 75 to 125, an increase of more than 60%, limiting the effect of multiple rounds of quantitative easing by the Bank of Japan on global inflation. In the absence of major changes in the foreign exchange market, the only QE that can cause significant inflation pressure globally is Fed’s quantitative easing. 3. The main reasons why QE from the Fed after the 2008 financial crisis failed to bring higher inflation lay on structural decline in the U.S. currency multiplier, globalization, and the sharp fall of oil price The Fed’s quantitative Figure 1: Fed balance sheet and speed of currency (M2) circulation easing in response to the 2008 financial crisis led to a large expansion of its balance sheet, but at the same time, there was a structural decline in the U.S. currency multiplier measu red by M 2 af ter the 2008 financial crisis, (see Figure 1). The rise in excess reserves of US com mercial ban ks can reflect the slowdown in the rate of currency creation Source: Wind, BOCHK Research 2 in the US financial system Figure 2: Excess reserve for US depository institution after the 2008 financial crisis (see Figure 2). The US economy has not fully absorbed the liquidit y created by the Fed through quantitative easing. So, t h e l e f t - h a n d s i d e of t h e e q u a t io n M V=P Q remained unchanged. Af ter the f inancial c r i si s i n 20 08 , C h i n a launched a four trillion- Source: Wind, BOCHK Research yuan economic stimulus package and expanded its production capacity rapidly; Under globalization, China’s action means more tradable goods are produced in a short time period. Global layout of supply chains made the allocation of resources globally more efficient, hence global output increased accordingly. Both of these factors contributed to the expansion of Q in the MV=PQ equation. So certain amount of M increases in this equation does not necessarily lead to an increase in P. The last factor is the fall in oil prices. More crude oil production from U.S. shale oil mining has transformed the United States from a net importer of crude oil to a net exporter of crude oil. Global crude oil production surplus did not ease until OPEC+ reached a production restriction agreement. During this period, the US crude oil futures price dropped from around US$ 95 To around 50. With the falling of oil price from the beginning of 2014 to February 2016, oil price changes accounted for most of the change in US inflation. The correlation between the year-on-year growth rate of the US CPI and the crude oil price reach as high as 0.7. The correlation between US import price and crude oil price exceeded 0.8. The same happened between EU HICP year over year growth rate and crude oil price in the same time period. At the same time, China ’s deleveraging amplified the decline in global commodity prices, which fueled the dropping of inflation globally. 4. The negative impact of the epidemic on the global supply chain and industrial production capacity, together with QE, will create inflation pressure The biggest difference between economic recession caused by the coronavirus epidemic and the 2008 financial crisis is the impact on the supply side: First, compared with the 2008 financial crisis, the integration of the global supply chain has upgraded. As of 2018, more than 70% of global trade volume was intermediate goods such as parts and materials. China’s importance in the global supply chain is increasing. Compared with 3 2000, China has replaced Japan as the core of supply chain in the Asia-Pacific region according to the WTO. Since the outbreak of the epidemic in China, the global supply chain has been severely impacted. China’s imports and exports of mechanical and electrical products, which play an important role in global supply chain, fell by 7.6% and 16.2% year-on-year respectively in the first two months of 2020. In March, exports of mechanical and electrical products continued to decline by 9% year-on-year. As the epidemic spreads, its negative impact on the global supply chain has become more obvious. Taking the automotive industry as an example, the initial impact of the epidemic on China hindered the supply of auto parts. Hubei, as one of China’s important automobile and parts manufacturing centers, accounts for about 10% of China’s total output. In this epidemic, the return of workers to the factory and the resumption of the production have been delayed, causing many manufacturers to suspend the production of some vehicle factories. Although China’s epidemic prevention and control has controlled the situation for now and the supply of auto parts has gradually recovered, global auto production is still facing difficulties due to the epidemic in Europe. With the rapid spread of the epidemic in Europe, the manufacturing of complete vehicles has been greatly affected. Car companies such as Volkswagen, Renault, Regal, Ford, Chrysler, and others have closed more than 70 plants in Italy, Spain, and Hungary. Second, due to the implementation of certain degrees of social distancing around the world, industrial production in various countries has shrunk significantly. The risk of rising industrial goods prices increased due to a shortage of supply. Third, the epidemic of coronavirus in some countries may impact agricultural production and cut global supply, as in the case of ASEAN and South America. Finally, the current round of oil price declines come more from concerns over demand than capacity, as was the case in 2014. Lower oil prices have caused shale oil producer bankruptcies in the United States. Large oil service companies are also facing the threat of bankruptcy or layoffs, as oil price kept falling. As the oil price goes lower and lower, things may get worse for these companies. This will cause irreversible damage to the future production capacity of crude oil, which may create a shortage of this important raw material globally. Based on the foregoing analysis, the negative impact of the current epidemic on the supply side is much greater than what happened during the 2008 financial crisis. Coupled with the unprecedented level of quantitative easing launched by global central banks, the risk of more currencies chasing fewer goods in the future will increase significantly. The medium-term inflation outlook may look very different from the one in the previous Fed quantitative easing period (2008-2014). 4 主 要 經 濟 指 標 (Key Economic Indicators) 一 . 本地生產總值 GDP 總 量 ( 億元 ) GDP($100 Million) 升幅 ( % ) C h a n ge(%) 2018 2019 2019/Q3 2019/Q4 27,355 2.9 27,030 - 1.2 6,996 - 2.8 6, 738 - 2. 9 2020/2 2020/1-2 二 . 對外貿易 External Trade 外 貿總值 ( 億元 ) Total trade($100 Million) 總出口 T o t al exports 進 口 T o t al imports 貿易差額 T rade balance 年 增長率 ( % ) YOY Growth(%) 總出口 T o t al exports 進 口 I m p orts 41,581 47,214 - 5,633 40,961 45,714 -4,753 2,386 2,771 - 386 5, 079 5, 770 - 691 7.3 8.4 -5.6 - 8.1 4.3 - 0.1 - 12 - 9. 3 2.4 2.9 2.2 1. 8 79,193 -5.5 74,804 -5.5 2020/3 2020/1-3 2019/122020/2 2020/12020/3 2020/2 2020/1-2 -44.0 - 46.7 - 31. 8 - 33. 9 2020/3 2020/1-3 2020/1 2020/2 三 . 消費物價 Consumer Price 綜 合消費物價升 幅 (%) Change in Composite CPI(%) 四 . 樓宇買賣 Sale & Purchase of Building Units 合 約宗數 ( 宗 ) No. of agreements 年升幅 ( % ) C h ange(%) 五 . 勞動就業 Employment 失 業人數 ( 萬人 ) Unemployed(ten thousands) 失 業率 ( % ) U n employment rate(%) 就業不足率 ( % ) Underemployment rate(%) 10.5 2.8 1.1 12.4 3.3 1.2 六 . 零售市場 Retail Market 零 售額升幅 ( % ) Change in value of total sales(%) 零售量升幅 ( % ) Change in volume of total sales(%) 8.8 7.6 -11.1 - 12.3 6,515 11.4 5,590 - 14.2 七 . 訪港遊客 Visitors 總人數 ( 萬人次 ) arrivals (ten thousands) 年升幅 ( % ) C h ange(%) 八 . 金融市場 Financial Market 港幣匯價 ( U S $ 100=HK$) H . K . D o l l a r Exchange Rate (US$100 = HK$) 貨幣供應量升幅 (%) change in Money Supply(%) M1 M2 M3 4,555 - 29.1 13.4 3.7 1.5 8.2 - 98.6 12, 744 - 25. 1 16. 2 4. 2 2. 1 348. 9 - 80. 9 783.6 779.3 776.6 779. 3 - 0.4 4.3 4.3 2.6 2.8 2.7 3.2 2.3 2.2 4. 7 2. 3 2. 2 存 款升幅 ( % ) Change in deposits(%) 總存款 T o t al deposits 港元存款 I n HK$ 外幣存款 I n foreign currency 5.0 3.6 6.4 2.9 2.5 3.2 2.1 2.5 1.7 1. 9 1. 8 2. 0 放款升幅 ( % ) in loans & advances(%) 總放款 T o t al loans & advances 當地放款 u se in HK 海外放款 u s e outside HK 貿易有關放款 Trade financing 4.4 4.0 5.3 - 7.7 6.7 7.1 5.8 - 0.7 6.4 7.0 5.2 - 6.5 6. 8 7. 9 4. 2 - 3. 2 5.1250 25,846 5.0000 28,189 5.0000 26,312 5. 0000 26, 130 最 優惠貸款利率 (%) Best lending rate (%) 恆 生指數 H a n g Seng index
经济月刊:本轮全球量化宽松会带来大通胀吗?
提示:通过电脑端浏览器访问本站体验更佳哦! 免费查看研报全文
中国银行(香港) - 经济月刊:本轮全球量化宽松会带来大通胀吗?
页码: /
该研报暂无在线预览,请下载后查看!
Loading...
经济月刊:本轮全球量化宽松会带来大通胀吗?
声明:本站内容均收集整理于互联网,目的在于传递更多信息,并不代表本站及子站赞同其观点和对其真实性负责,我们仅如实呈现供网友学习和参考。如有侵权和不妥请联系(hello#ulapia.com)告知,我们会立即删除。
分享
客服