29 Sep 2021
Paras Anand
Property developer China Evergrande Group’s debt problems have rattled global financial markets. But Asia Pacific CIO Paras Anand believes comparisons likening this to a ‘Lehman moment’ for China appear overstated, with the Chinese authorities focused on managing long-term economic and societal risks.
Key points
Reports on the financial strains at the property developer Evergrande have been unnerving global markets, drawing comparisons to a level of systemic risk akin to a ‘Lehman Brothers moment’. I think this tends to overstate what are better understood as the isolated challenges of an overstretched firm. What we are seeing is in part the direct outcome of a proactive policy tightening and more stringent regulation of the property development sector that has taken shape in China over recent times.
The convergence of monetary, fiscal and regulatory tightening that we’ve recently seen in China has come as policymakers seek to reinforce a strategy that places the paramount focus on ensuring more sustainable development. In practical terms, this means a shift away from targeting high levels of nominal GDP expansion and towards a sustainable growth agenda that looks to consider societal and systemic risks.
Naturally, these conditions have created a challenging environment for highly leveraged firms as well as those in sectors that find themselves in the eye of the regulatory storm. Policymakers are particularly focused on avoiding rampant speculation in the property market, which has also been subject to a number of sector-specific measures to stabilise price inflation and curtail excessive leverage.
Want to hear more of our views on Evergrande? Catch-up on-demand with the below recent webinar where our team review the fallout and investment implications in detail.
A lot of what we are seeing represents an aggregate strategy of avoiding longer-term economic and societal risks, and part of what has informed this latest iteration of China’s economic growth strategy has been studying where issues have arisen elsewhere in the world.
It is fair to say that this is a delicate balance, one that calls for enforcing discipline on the market but with an eye on localised systemic risks that can emerge as a result. For example, we have previously seen smaller property developers go bust, and a number of private and state-owned firms defaulted in the onshore market last year. But intervention and financial support are also quick to emerge for firms that have greater systemic significance, such as we saw earlier this year with China Huarong Asset Management.
The vast majority of instances where individual events create wider contagion tend to be in circumstances where excess leverage has been allowed to build up broadly within certain parts of the economy, normally in the blind spot of policymakers and capital market participants. Given the focus on areas such as shadow banking, leverage in the property sector, and lending through payment apps, it would be hard to argue that there is a broader ‘reset’ to come. Of course, there can always be policy missteps, but it feels like commentary describing the events around Evergrande as China's ‘Lehman Brothers moment’ is wide of the mark.
Important information
This information is for investment professionals only and should not be relied upon by private investors. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Investors should note that the views expressed may no longer be current and may have already been acted upon. Investments in emerging markets may be more volatile than other more developed markets. Changes in currency exchange rates may affect the value of investments in overseas markets. The value of bonds is influenced by movements in interest rates and bond yields. If interest rates and so bond yields rise, bond prices tend to fall, and vice versa. The price of bonds with a longer lifetime until maturity is generally more sensitive to interest rate movements than those with a shorter lifetime to maturity. The risk of default is based on the issuers ability to make interest payments and to repay the loan at maturity. Default risk may therefore vary between government issuers as well as between different corporate issuers. Due to the greater possibility of default, an investment in a corporate bond is generally less secure than an investment in government bonds. Sub-investment grade bonds are considered riskier bonds. They have an increased risk of default which could affect both income and the capital value of the fund investing in them. Reference in this document to specific securities should not be interpreted as a recommendation to buy or sell these securities and is only included for illustration purposes.