Region: How to borrow from China
Imagine you have just been appointed the finance minister of a (fictional) Latin American country. You desperately need to raise foreign currency loans. For whatever reason, traditional western banks and international financial institutions (IFIs) are cut off to you – perhaps your country defaulted on its foreign debt in the recent past, or your government dislikes the policy conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or it has a major political quarrel with Washington. You decide to turn to China. What can you expect?
In a February 2012 paper for Boston University’s Pardee Centre, Kevin Gallagher, Amos Irwin, and Katherine Koleski examined the recent pattern of Chinese lending to Latin America. In the paper, entitled ‘The New Banks in Town: Chinese Finance in Latin America’, they sought to investigate three common claims: that the Chinese lend money to Latin America on more favourable terms than Western institutions; that Chinese lending bodies impose no policy conditions; and that they are also less stringent in terms of the environmental impact of the activities they fund.
The paper first establishes some interesting background data. Since 2005, the authors estimate, China has provided US$75bn worth of loans to Latin American countries. The volume of this financing has grown sharply: in 2010, the last year for which reasonably comprehensive data has been compiled, Chinese loans totalled US$37bn, and exceeded the combined lending to the region by the World Bank, the Inter American Development Bank (IADB) and the US Eximbank. Chinese lending growth has followed on a few years behind the rapid expansion of trade links. China is now the number one trading partner of Brazil and Chile, and the number two trading partner of Peru and Mexico.
Most of Chinese lending to the region comes from the China Development Bank (CDB), which is responsible for over 80% of the loans by value, with a smaller amount coming from China Ex-Im Bank and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC). Since 1994 CDB and China Ex-Im Bank have been designated as ‘policy banks’, designed to support Beijing’s regional objectives (as distinct from more commercial Chinese banks). Of the total disbursed since 2005, over 90% has gone to four countries: Venezuela, Brazil Argentina, and Ecuador. Two thirds of the money has gone to the region in the form of loans-for-oil.
The claim that Chinese institutions lend on ‘sweeter’ terms than their western counterparts is not always true, the paper notes. In fact, it finds that Chinese banks’ interest rates on loans are sometimes above, and sometimes below the rates offered by their Western counterparts. It notes that in 2010 the CDB offered Argentina a US$10bn loan at 600 basis points above Libor, while in the same year the World Bank’s International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) granted the same country a US$30m loan at a spread of 85 basis points over Libor. China Ex-Im Bank, on the other hand, often offered lower rates than its Western equivalents. The difference lies in the fact that the CDB is expected to cover the full cost of its loans, while China Ex-Im Bank loans are explicitly seen as including a ‘foreign aid’ element: interest rates are in the 2%-6% range.
While the researchers confirmed the claim that China does not impose policy conditions on its loans, the loans do carry certain ‘strings’. One has been a strong preference for commodity-backed deals. Over half the money lent has been in the form of loans-for-oil, which totalled US$46bn in three years and went mainly to Venezuela, Brazil and Ecuador. Usually, the CDB extends a billion-dollar loan to a Latin American state oil company, which pledges to ship a fixed volume of oil back to China for the lifetime of the loan. The value of these shipments, calculated at market prices, are then converted into loan repayments. Gallagher et al note that these deals are usually a mixture of a conventional supply contract and a loan repayment mechanism. That means that countries like Venezuela export more than would be needed purely for loan repayment purposes. Ecuador, for example, receives 79% of the market value of its oil exports to Petrochina in cash, with the remaining 21% being taken by the CDB for debt repayment purposes.
The paper rejects as incorrect the view often expressed that these are barter deals weighted in China’s favour, with repayments fixed in barrels of oil (volume), an arrangement which would allow China to profit from rising prices. In fact, it says the loans-for-oil arrangements are always based on market prices. China does of course benefit, but rather than financially, it does so principally because it gains long-term security of supply.
Gallagher has pointed out that while Chinese loans come without the irksome policy conditionalities imposed by the western IFIs (such as trade liberalisation or fiscal deficit reduction targets), there is a different set of requirements. These include commitments from the borrowers that Chinese companies be awarded related supply contracts, whether for commodities or infrastructure work. At worst, it could be argued that the cumulative effect of these deals could be to lock the Latin American borrowers into excessive dependence on raw material exports, limiting their diversification into manufacturing.
The paper also makes the point that the environmental guidelines imposed by Chinese lenders are less stringent than those now demanded by the IFIs. This can be an important issue, since much of the lending goes to oil, iron, soya, and copper projects in environmentally sensitive areas of Latin America.