There is a certain similarity in the way China and France carry out cross-border M&A. Both countries act in a systemic manner, both when dealing with inbound and outbound transactions. However, the reality is often different and national interests prevail over liberal approaches. China tries to find a balance between those two pull factor and the recent One Belt One Road initiative, or the New Silk Road, maybe the way for China to persuade international partners that the country is indeed committed to open trade and open investments.
The One Belt One Road Initiatives is not moving as fast as originally hoped by Chinese policy makers, but not a surprise for the experts. The OBOR is part of a four-pronged approach to the expansion of Chinese economic influence that seems to have an inverse relationship between the chronology of the announcement and its feasibility: 1) the Internationalization of the RMB; 2) One Belt One Road; 3) AIIB, 4) China Manufacturing 2025.
Geraci attended China Financial Summit 2017 conference, today in Beijing. In his speech, he said Foreign investors are a little reluctant to invest in the Chinese market especially A-Shares for many reasons. Geraci also believes that Chinese interest rates are not high enough to compensate for risk. Moreover, he thinks it is more difficult for China to export its infrastructure model to foreign countries because foreign governments have no control over infrastructure development.
Geraci was a guest speaker at CGTN dialogue to comments on the issue.
G7 did not achieve its main goal because it was squeezed in between the Silk road summit in Beijing and forthcoming G20 meeting in Germany, and of course it was of the interest of Germany to make sure that the G7 held in Italy was not going to be successful so that Germany could get all the credit for any international agreement during her G20.
The Financial Times reports that the European Commission intends to launch a new type of Government bond, packaging the bonds of various countries into a single security. I think this is an extremely bad and dangerous idea. First, it is a distortion of the market that would cause large amounts of capital to flow into the bonds of the weaker economies, just as it happened when the Euro was created and interest rates started to converge. Second, The pooling of bonds carrying various risks into a single security, was at the core of the global financial crisis.
Today, in a short commentary written for Radiocor/IlSole24Ore, I discuss the issue of migrant flow into Europ and its impact on the economy of the host country. Everyone asks the question “Do migrants bring positive or negative benefits to the receiving country?”. The short answer is it depends on a number of variables and generalisation across the globe would be mis-leading. However, narrowing the focus on the Mediterrenan migrant flow into Italy, one can almost certainly affirm that in the short term, the impact is negative and that in the long term it is, at best unclear. The impact may potentially be positive only under a strict set of assumptions, that need to be carefully analysied before making irreversible decisions.
In one of my Op-Eds written for Radiocor- IlSole24Ore, Moody’s fa i conti e si allinea alla realtà dei fatti， I talked about Moody’s choice to align itself with the reality when China’s sovereign debt was downgraded from A1 to Aa3. China’s state bonds market is, currently, a non-market: the trading volume is low and the main players are state banks that buy bonds issued by the government and, almost always, they keep them in the portfolio until they expire.
Michele Geraci was a guest speaker at GAAF 2017, yesterday in Shanghai. In his speech, he shared following three viewpoints: First, RMB will never be international currency. Second, Interest rate in China needs to be brought up to the same level of GDP growth rate in order to create stable economy. Third, There will be more difficulties for China trade with the U.S. but it will be easier for China outbound investment to the U.S.
Prof Bagnai makes some important points in his article written for IlSole24Ore. The one that I find most interesting is that many economists and politicians, today, when discussing about the future of the Euro, hold the view that There Is No Alternative and that history is linear and we can only go forward. Those who maintain this view are probably not well informed or, worse, say so to hide what they really think. I would just add that Dornbursch, my economic Professor at MIT, used to tell me that disaster takes longer to materialize than we expect, but then it happens suddenly.
Last Friday, the Pangoal Institution and TWAI organized the conference “The Belt and Road Initiative and China-EU Economic and Trade Ties.” Guests included Former Prime Minister of Italy, Former President of the European Commission Romano Prodi, President of the Pangoal Institution Yi Peng, Professor from Peking University Enrico Fardella, Former Deputy Administrator of State Administration of Taxation Xu Shanda, Professor of Applied Economics, University of Ferrara Giorgio Prodi and Head of China Economic Policy Program Michele Geraci. We discussed future cooperation between China and EU under One Belt and one Road.