Why China raise interest rate? And, what's the effect?

Yesterday, China surprisingly raised its interest rate by 0.25% as follows:
- 1 year lending rate from 5.31% to 5.56%
- 1 year deposit rate from 2.25% to 2.50%

Why China raise interest rate?
1. To cool down the over-heating property sector.
2. Combat inflation
3. Low liquidity in the banking system

While inflation was hovering around 3.5% currently, even though the deposit rate has been raised, the net real interest rate is still in negative territory (3.5% - 2.5% = -1.0%). This is one of the main reason why Chinese were going all out to invests, especially in real-estate, due to its low yield if sitting in the bank (even lower than Malaysia).


However, China would be facing another problem...

Raising interest rate would attract capital inflows, which could dampen the purpose of containing inflation. Foreign investors view Chinese renmimbi as undervalue, mainly due to interventions by Chinese government. The latest news could ignite a fresh round of thoughts, worsening the current situation, pushing renmimbi higher and faster.

In fact, China should target it's main problem specifically - real estate. Inflation there is mainly caused by high flying properties prices. Hence, measure such as property gain tax should be introduced first, before raising interest rate, to avoid further attracting inflow of hot-money.

Affecting Malaysia?

Given that China is one of the largest trade partner with us, Malaysia could see a surge in capital inflow also. In fact, the whole region will experience the same fate of stronger currency, making our export to western countries more expensive. Anyway, I believe that we can offset the negative effect with China being the largest commodities / resources consumer, which supplied by Asian countries.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"You Can Keep Your Existing Health Insurance"

I wondered about this statement at the time Obama made it.  Clearly, by changing all the rules of health care insurance and mandating conformity, it was unlikely that the vast majority of Americans would not find themselves forced by 'The Affordable Care Act' to have to deal with a completely different health insurance plan and completely different set of health care providers. I now understand what Obama meant.   He was speaking to his immediate family and (politician) friends.  They are exempt from the "Affordable Care Act."  Clearly what he meant to say was: "if you are exempt from Obamacare, like me and my family, you can keep your existing health insurance."  He never meant to mislead.
Read more

Work Ethic of 70s, 80s, 90s

Image
Different generations have their own view on working. You like it or not, working is part of our live. No work = No life. However, this equation has since changed to " Working = No life ". Do you agree? Generally, those born in 70s were perceived to be loving their job. They work hard mainly because of 3 meals/day. For them, a secured life means having a stable job with stable income. They believe that with every efforts you put in, that will reward you back later. As such, over time (OT) is nothing for them. As a responsible 70s, losing their job is a serious matter they tend to avoid. That's why they usually found another job first, before resigning. How about 80s? Other than chasing for stable income, those 80s working adults will also look into the job scope , opportunity for promotion , or working environment . They will take initiative to find for better job. Hence, job hopping is very common for them. Notably, 80s are reluctant to sacrifice their quality of life b
Read more

Things We Now Know

The poor are losing ground in the new Obama world.  The facts are showing up even in the halls of collectivist extremes like the New York Times.  The rich are getting richer and poor are being locked in place.  Big government is throttling the economy and the hopes and dreams of lower and middle class Americans. Today's Wall Street Journal's article by Simon Constable lays out some of the simple and obvious facts of the Obama era: "The richest 20% of households account for 38% of spending, according to government data for 2011, the latest available.  Compare that with 2003 when the top earners spent 26% of the total."  The article goes on to say..."it could get even worse."  It will. Who really benefits when the regulators strangle the banks?  Do banks really need to get much more conservative in their lending practices?  Why does the government know best?  How far can you stretch the FDIC guarantees before American banking is simply a subsidiary of the US g
Read more