• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Michael Pettis"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Bad Loans Could Take Their Toll on China’s Growth

Although China could easily avoid a banking collapse in the face of rising non-performing loans, that effort would place even more pressure on low-consuming Chinese households and make economic rebalancing more difficult.

Link Copied
By Michael Pettis
Published on Apr 21, 2010

Source: Financial Times

Bad Loans Could Take Their Toll on China’s GrowthWill China have a banking crisis? Beijing’s massive credit stimulus will almost certainly lead to a future surge in bad loans, but so what? As the more optimistic of China analysts have pointed out many times, the last jump in non-performing loans a decade ago was also widely cited as a sign of impending doom, and yet nothing happened. China grew its way out of the loan mess at little apparent cost.

But did it? The optimists have almost certainly failed to understand how Beijing paid for its earlier banking crises. In fact, the cost of resolving the previous surges in non-performing loans exacerbated China’s domestic imbalances. The current build-up of bad debt may very well do the same.

Beijing used three main tools to manage previous increases in bad loans, all of which passed costs on to bank depositors. First, the central bank slowed the accumulation of non-performing loans by keeping lending rates low. Low borrowing costs made it easier for struggling businesses to roll over the debt as the economy grew and reduced the real value of debt payments.

Second, policymakers infused the banks with additional equity, partly directly and partly by purchasing bad loans at above their liquidation value. They financed these capital infusions by borrowing, which at artificially low rates has the effect of passing the repayment burden on to lenders. Finally and most importantly, the central bank mandated a wide spread between the bank lending and the deposit rate, which increased the profitability of banks substantially and so helped to recapitalise them.

Beijing’s strategy was very successful and certainly prevented a banking crisis, but there was nonetheless a cost. The bail-out implicitly required that bank depositors subsidise the cleaning up of the banking industry. This in effect represented a large transfer of income from the household sector to the banks, to government and to businesses. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that during the period of the bail-out household income, already a relatively low share of gross domestic product, declined to alarming levels.

This is the real risk of rising non-performing loans in China. It is not that China’s banks are likely to collapse. Debt levels are certainly high and highly pro-cyclical – normally a toxic combination – but Beijing largely controls domestic funding and can protect itself from the bank runs that plagued the US and Europe. Like Tokyo in the 1990s, Beijing is in a strong position to continue to fund its rising bank-related liabilities and will not have a debt problem any time soon.

The danger is that the cost of cleaning up the banking system will fall, as in the past, on the household sector. China must reduce its excessive reliance on exports and investment to fuel its continued growth, and the only way that can happen is if household consumption rises as a share of GDP. But since growth in household consumption has always been constrained by growth in household income, it may be unreasonable to expect a surge in consumption when households are also required to clean up a sharp increase in bad loans.

Over the next few years, as trade tensions increase and the world finds it increasingly difficult to absorb China’s rising capacity, the country’s growth will rely more than ever on the growth of household consumption. If the worriers are right and non-performing loans surge, China can nonetheless easily avoid a banking collapse. But that does not mean the cost of cleaning up the banks will be negligible. On the contrary, it will put even more pressure on low-consuming Chinese households and will make the inevitable rebalancing of China’s economy much more difficult than many expect.

Japan showed how difficult. Since 1990 Japanese consumption growth has limped along at between 1 and 2 per cent annually as households have been forced indirectly to clean up their own bad loans. The economy grew much more slowly. Just as Japan slowly rebalanced its economy towards consumption, so must China.

If future Chinese consumption growth also slows because households are forced to foot the new bad-debt bill, we may see the real cost of the current explosion in bad loans – several years of sub-par growth.

About the Author

Michael Pettis

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie China

Michael Pettis is a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. An expert on China’s economy, Pettis is professor of finance at Peking University’s Guanghua School of Management, where he specializes in Chinese financial markets. 

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?

      Michael Pettis

  • Commentary
    What GDP Means in a Soft Budget Economy Like China

      Michael Pettis

Michael Pettis
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie China
Michael Pettis
EconomyEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone Attacks

    The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Could the Iran War Push Japan to Restore Russian Oil Imports?

    Tokyo would have to surmount a lot of obstacles—not least Western sanctions—if it wanted to return Russian oil imports to even modest pre-2022 volumes.

      Vladislav Pashchenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Much-Touted Middle Corridor Transport Route Could Prove a Dead End

    For the Middle Corridor to fulfill its promises, one of these routes must become scalable. At present, neither is.

      Friedrich Conradi

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What Does Nuclear Proliferation in East Asia Mean for Russia?

    Troubled by the growing salience of nuclear debates in East Asia, Moscow has responded in its usual way: with condemnation and threats. But by exacerbating insecurity, Russia is forcing South Korea and Japan to consider radical security options.

      James D.J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia’s Coal Industry Is Running on Borrowed Time

    Powerful lobbyists and inertia led to Russia’s coal-mining sector missing an excellent opportunity to solve its structural problems.

      Alexey Gusev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.