原创 2016-02-26 季天鹤央行观察

感谢彭博和路透的记者提问，让我有了新思路来完成这篇早已开始构思的文章。金融机构外汇占款指标的消失，乃是标志了一个时代的结束。现在我们进入了一个新时代，一个金融机构外汇占款指标因为包含越来越多噪声而失去意义的时代。而之所以如此，乃是因为人民币汇率双向波动，结售汇操作越发复杂，参与市场的主体越来越多，金融机构外汇占款一个指标已经独木难支，由此也完成了它十多年的历史使命

外汇占款、贷款占款、汽车占款、黄金占款

外汇局说，“金融机构外汇占款反映了金融机构买入外汇占用的人民币资金”。央行说，“国家外汇储备占款核算本行经营国家外汇储备占用的人民币资金”。由此我们看出，外汇占款之所以是一个人民币值，不像外汇储备是一个美元值，因为其反映的就是所谓的“占用人民币资金”，所以我们也看到任何时点的外汇占款和外汇储备的比例都不是当期美元人民币汇率，因为外汇占款根本不是把外汇储备价值折换成人民币。

我们可以考虑一家银行，从我手里收到美元纸币，并让我有了在这家银行的人民币存款。这里面的人民币存款是新创造的，在我和银行碰头之前并不存在，而新创造的原因乃是因为我在银行结汇的行为。又比如说，银行给我放贷100万，我通过贷款获得100万银行存款后，转帐给开发商完成买房。那么这100万在银行那里就被看作是100万的贷款资产。我们完全可以把这个东西叫做贷款占款。如果银行从我这里买了一辆车，我把车给了银行后多了50万在银行的存款，那么银行资产侧出现的汽车，也可以被叫做汽车占款。

但在这个过程中，我们看到，银行收入的外汇的价值，恰恰等于银行给我的人民币的价值。银行收入100元美元纸币，给我650元人民币，那么这100元美元纸币就值650元人民币，在银行资产侧就可以计一个650元人民币的外汇。所以外汇占款在上述的情况下，就既表示了创造的人民币，又表示了外汇的价值。

这和银行贷款项目表示了有多少人民币被通过贷款创造出来，同时也表示了这个贷款的价值是一样的。这当然也和银行资产侧的汽车既表示了车，又表示了买车创造了多少人民币，是一样的。不要嘲笑汽车占款哦，央行有一个专门的项目叫黄金占款，其含义和汽车占款完全一致。

外汇占款一人分饰两角的成立与破灭

之所以出现上述的外汇占款一人分饰两角的情况——外汇占款既表示负债侧产生了多少人民币，但自己又在资产方表示某个资产的人民币价值——和货币是银行负债有关。企业支出资产侧现金购买汽车，是不可能产生汽车占款的，因为有汽车便没现金，有现金便没汽车。但银行买汽车，则会产生汽车与货币共存的奇景，这当然是因为货币是银行存款，放在银行的负债侧。

此外，上述一人分饰两角的情况的出现，也因为信贷收支表整个体系乃是一个现金流表的资产负债相关部分，而非资产负债表。在资产负债表上，每个项目就是那个东西自己，比如汽车就是汽车自己的价值，应发工资就是应发工资的规模。但在现金流表上，有些现金流是和收入与费用有关，而有些现金流是和资产负债有关的。

在这些与资产负债有关的项目方面，每个项目既表明了这个项目本身，也表明了与之相关的现金流动情况。比如银行资产负债表的“购建固定资产、无形资产和其他长期资产所支付的现金”这项，既表明了与之相关的现金，但同时也表明了那个资产形成时的货币价值。一脉相承地，外汇占款当然也就既表明了银行的外汇的货币价值，也表明了银行创造的“现金”了。

但是，我们一定要记住，外汇占款衡量的毕竟不是外汇本身。比如银行给我放了100万人民币房贷，我给了开发商。这时候开发商把这100万人民币存款购汇成了15万美元存款。在这个操作中，外汇占款当然是减少了100万人民币，但银行的资产侧没有任何外汇资产变化，没有任何这个意思。外汇占款的变化在这个时候，完全表示的是银行负债侧人民币和外币的转化，而不再能用来代表资产侧外汇的变化了。

又比如，银行发放了100万美元贷款给我，我在银行多了100万美元存款，如果结汇的话，会不会形成650万人民币的外汇占款？当然，现在的监管基本上不会允许这个样的情况发生，所以这个操作也不会对统计数据造成影响，但细思恐极，上述操作里面的新增外汇占款完全不对应任何银行可以用来汇款的外汇头寸。

之所以在过去的分析中，我们把外汇占款当作是外汇资产自己的衡量，强调其两个角色中的资产价值的一面，是因为在很长的时期里，人民币升值使得银行客户在收到外汇的同时结汇。无论是强制结售汇的制度也好，还是为了从人民币升值中获利的动机也罢，都无形中把结售汇和外汇流入绑在了一起，外汇占款和外汇本身变动一致。

久而久之，人们忘记了外汇占款的本质含义，而把外汇占款简单等同于国外资产了。可惜变动再一致，外汇占款和外汇本身毕竟是两个东西。而且我们会看到，央行自己其实知道外汇占款和外汇不是一回事，以及在811汇改中，我们也看到央行除了外汇占款背后的外汇之外，还有其他的外汇资产用来稳定汇率。

央行外汇占款和其他国外资产

我们知道人行的国外资产分为央行外汇占款和其他国外资产两个部分，其中央行外汇占款衡量了央行通过创造人民币方式吸纳了多少外汇。而其他国外资产部分当然包含多种可能，但其中一个重要的部分，就是银行在央行的外币存款对应的外汇资产。注意，银行在央行的外币存款在央行负债方，本身不可能是央行资产侧的其他国外资产。

我们可以从2011年12月以及2015年8月的央行资产负债表上很清楚地看到这个项目的变化，即银行把外汇缴存的人民币准备金变为人民币（2011年12月那次有外汇局明确指出这一操作）后，首先使得这个项目减少，而随之增加的肯定是央行的外汇占款。只不过在上述两个月当中，银行从央行提取了很多外汇，所以外汇占款都是净减少的。如果没有提取的话，银行把在央行的外汇存款变为人民币存款，肯定会增加央行的外汇占款。

而我们知道，无论银行在央行的存款是人民币还是外币，央行的资产总和其实是没有变的，一部分其他国外资产划分到外汇资产里面，乃是资产分类的变化而不是总量变化。由此我们更能看出，央行外汇占款所表示的，肯定不是央行所有的外汇资产了，因为央行还有其他国外资产游离在外汇占款之外，其与外汇占款以及黄金一起共同组成央行的整个国外资产项目。

也就是说，银行收到客户汇来的外币后，银行自己的资产侧会增加国外资产。如果客户结汇，那么银行和整个金融机构外汇占款都会增加，如果客户不结汇就没有变化。此后银行把资产侧的国外资产存到央行，从而增加了银行在央行的外币存款。如果银行不把这外币存款变成人民币存款，那么央行的外汇占款就没有变化，只是央行其他国外资产的增加。而如果银行把外币存款变成人民币存款，那么央行的外汇占款增加，其他国外资产减少。

央行的外汇占款和其他国外资产这两个资产侧的项目，居然会因为央行负债侧银行存款的币种变化而产生变化，这对于正常的资产负债表来说是不可思议的，但对于央行来说则是很正常的，因为外汇占款反映的是其创造的央行负债侧人民币，当然会随着央行负债侧银行存款币种的变化而变化了。这说明央行对于外汇占款的概念是非常清楚的，并且采取了增加一个“其他国外资产”项目的办法，来帮忙解决外汇占款无法对应所有外汇资产的情况。

以及我们要注意：当我们提到外汇买卖的时候，一定要分清楚其中的存入与购汇操作。前面提到的我拿着100美元找银行换了650人民币存款，其中包括了我拿着100美元存入银行形成100美元存款、以及我把100美元存款换为650元人民币两步。很多时候人们用“买卖”等词汇一语带过，但背后的真相应该搞清。更多的细节可以参考《人民币汇率分析的基本问题-外汇、外汇存款、外汇储备》一文。

增加复杂度的境外银行直接在银行间结汇

关于外汇占款，外汇局提到除了前面的结售汇之外，“金融机构还买入了其他外汇资金，主要包括：跨境人民币业务发展以来，一些境外金融机构直接进入我国银行间外汇市场开展的人民币对外汇交易；外汇储备在经营管理中产生和积累的外币形态收益，会不定期在银行间外汇市场卖出兑换为人民币。”

境外金融机构直接向境内银行卖出外汇的意思，乃是使境内银行直接在资产侧增加境外外汇资产，这点比较清楚。境外金融机构在境内持有的人民币是什么状态有两种可能。一种是，这个人民币乃是境内银行负债侧的某种存款／债务，而第二种是这个人民币乃是直接在央行负债侧的某种存款／债务。两者的区别来自于境外机构在哪里开户。

如果是第一种情况，那么卖出人民币的银行会发现自己资产侧增加境外外汇资产，负债侧增加同业人民币存款；如果是第二种情况，那么卖出人民币的银行会发现自己资产侧增加境外外汇资产，并且减少境内在央行人民币存款。在第一种情况里，境内银行的外汇占款增加，央行外汇占款由于央行没有参加交易而无变化，而金融机构外汇占款增加。我怀疑银行把自己在央行的人民币存款给外资行换取外汇是否算作外汇占款。

为何这里强调境外银行结汇而不是境外主体结汇？因为境外非银行主体的负债并不是“外汇”，境外非银行主体拿来的外汇肯定也是境外银行的负债侧存款，因此境外非银行主体向境内银行汇入外汇并结汇的操作，和境内主体从国外收到外汇并结汇在银行资产侧是一样的：银行都是增持了境外银行负债侧的债务。

增加复杂度的央行外汇储备收益结汇

外汇储备收益虽然会增加外汇储备，但本身并不会增加央行外汇占款，因为它只有收到外币而没有把外币变成人民币的操作。所以这里存在一个问题：外汇储备的外汇形态收益是如何体现在央行的资产负债表上的？如果不结汇，央行外汇占款就不会变化，央行资产负债表也就无法产生净资产的增加，更不用说对财政的划拨了。

当然，这方面直接的证据肯定是央行的某个文件，我无从知晓。不过从原理上来看，央行可以通过把外汇储备收益结汇来让这部分收益“浮现”在资产负债表上，而不是被掩盖在央行外汇占款后面。一种办法或许是直接增加央行外汇占款，同时增加央行的所有者权益，并在支出中跑到其他的帐户里。

比如说上缴财政就是央行所有者权益减少，财政在央行存款增加；央行支付运营费用就是直接往收款人帐户划拨，最终体现为央行所有者权益减少，收款人所在银行在央行的存款增加。这相当于先把资产和所有者权益做大，然后资产不变所有者权益和负债间调整。这种操作也符合“央行外汇占款”这一概念的精神：因为外汇而出现人民币。

另一个办法会比较复杂，即央行拿着外汇找银行去结汇。我们知道银行在央行是有存款帐户的，但事实上央行在银行也有存款帐户，中行的财报上就赫然列着“国家外汇存款”一项，作为负债侧“向中央银行借款”的一个项目。如果央行收到了外汇储备收益后存入中行，那么央行对中行债权增加，同时所有者权益会增加，而中行的资产和负债双增。也就是说，外币收益通过存入中行而“浮现”。

这个时候，如果央行找中行结汇，那么我们会看到中行负债侧的外币存款会变成人民币存款，银行外汇占款由此增加，而央行外汇占款不变，意味着金融机构外汇占款随银行外汇占款同时增加。央行拿着在中行的人民币存款，自然也可以上缴财政或者支付运营费用了，不过所有者权益的增加已经在前面增加过了。这里再一次体现存入外汇和结汇是两个操作。

增加复杂度的银行外汇占款

银行外汇占款是金融机构外汇占款减去央行外汇占款，外汇局说银行外汇占款可以和外汇信贷收支表中的外汇买卖比对，历史数据上的关系也差不多如此。但从前面的分析看出，银行外汇占款同时涉及到两个层次的人民币：央行负债侧的银行人民币存款，以及银行负债侧的人民币存款。

央行的外汇占款比较单纯，因为它只在银行间市场操作，对手都是银行，仅仅涉及央行负债侧人民币这一个层面。但即使如此，央行的外汇占款项目也无法刻画央行所有的外汇资产。相比之下，银行的外汇占款不但涉及央行、境外金融机构和非银行部门在它这里的结售汇，还涉及银行在央行这里的结售汇。如果等人民币国际化了，境内银行用外汇买入境外银行和央行的人民币，也会影响银行外汇占款。所以叠加了央行外汇占款和银行外汇占款的金融机构外汇占款，由于银行外汇占款的复杂所影响，也日趋复杂。

本来金融机构外汇占款这个指标就和真正的外汇资产不一定贴在一起，过去的贴合很大程度上是一种特殊历史情况下的巧合，现在随着新的情况而越发分离。而人们本来又对其的理解不精确，对外汇市场也不够了解，表达上还不够清晰（用买卖代替了存入并结汇/购入并取出），如果继续保留外汇占款，市场在被其变动吸引之余，又不明白其中的含义，最后的结果恐怕是越来越混乱。

未来的分析指标：央行系列数据和外汇局跨境收付

于是现在我们看到，留下了一个还算好理解的央行外汇占款，辅助上同一张表里的央行其他国外资产，我们就可以比较好的了解央行这边外汇操作对人民币流动性的影响，以及央行外币头寸因人民币购汇并取出/外币存入并结汇/外币存入不结汇而导致的种种变化。而银行也有自己的国外资产项目，当然银行的国外资产不都是高流动性资产，但作为参考还是可以的。

市场一个较少关注的点是，央行和银行的全部国外资产的月度变化，和银行代客外币跨境收付款数据（特别注意：不包含人民币）的月度数据，在很长时间里是颇为吻合的。这彰显了把结售汇当作资金跨境流动乃是一种错误认识。因为外币汇款里面，只有银行和央行的国外资产才能够被汇出，所以外币跨境收付款和银行和央行国外资产变动一致就并不奇怪了。

当然，银行和央行的国外资产未必都用来客户跨境汇款。银行和央行自己也可以安排其变动。比如银行发行境外美元债，那么银行的国外负债增加，同时国外资产也会增加。相反，如果银行偿还国外债务，那么银行的国外资产也会有所减少。也就是说，在发债和还债的情况下，银行国外资产的变动不和非银行部门存款一起变动，而是和银行国外负债一起变动。

另一个市场较少关注的点是：银行国外负债的月度变化在2010年之后和银行代客人民币跨境收付数据走势比较一致，这显然也是因为人民币跨境流动的机制所致。但在2015年8月汇改之后，我们发现两者走势的巨大背离。这当然也和前面提到的银行用国外资产还国外负债有关。还债操作既不涉及外币收付款，也不涉及本币收付款，反而同时给两组数据分别与国外资产和国外负债间的走势一致性造成了破坏。

未来的分析指标：外汇局结售汇

而除了跨境收付款、央行和银行的国外资产和负债之外，我们还可以仔细考虑结售汇数据。当然，作为外汇占款变化的重要原因，外汇占款指标的问题结售汇也都有，比如说结售汇不能完全代表外汇头寸的变化等。不过外汇局的数据分为代客、远期签约以及银行自身三个部分，尽管银行自身结售汇仍然是个比较复杂的项目（招行找中行结汇和央行无关，招行找央行结汇就又和央行有关，本身也会涉及两个层面的流动性：央行负债侧和银行负债侧），但代客结售汇和代客远期结售汇签约是比较清楚的，毕竟客户也只和银行负债侧打交道。

银行自身结售汇反映的是银行由于某些“自身”的理由所进行的结售汇操作。外汇局说的很清楚：外汇利润、外汇资本金（营运资金）结汇是银行自身结汇的主要来源；支付境外股东红利、境外直接投资、购买外汇营运资金、缴纳存款准备金购汇等是银行自身售汇的主要用途。当然，外汇局延续了一贯的“日常”说法，事实上，银行自身结售汇也是银行把自己在央行和其他银行的人民币存款和外币存款来回调整。

外汇利润、外汇资本金等之所以是来源，其根源在于收到利润和资本金后结汇。如果不结汇的话，当然就算不上自身结汇的来源了。同理，缴纳存款准备金购汇等都是把在央行或另一银行的人民币存款变为外币存款，而变为外币存款后当然有个用途，但这里面还是“人民币存款变为外币存款”这一步导致自身售汇。

如果银行支付境外股东红利就用人民币支付的话，恐怕就谈不上什么自身售汇了。此外，缴纳人民币存款准备金这一操作更说明，即使没有汇出，仅是币种转换，就是自身售汇。这再一次提醒我们注意，前面的所谓来源和用途等，看起来好像和外汇汇入和汇出有关，但事实上乃是币种转换才算数。只有汇入汇出但没有币种转换，就不是结售汇。反之，只有币种转换没有汇入汇出，就不是资金跨境流动。

由此我想就银行自身结售汇和央行其他国外资产的关系做一个猜测。首先，银行自身结售汇不一定非要涉及到央行，因此银行自身结售汇和央行外汇占款或央行其他国外资产未必有完全联系。其次，如果银行自身结售汇涉及到央行，那么很多操作恐怕不会最终体现在央行其他资产的变化上。

比如说银行要汇出外币利润，但银行没有外币资产，无从汇出。因此它把在央行的人民币存款转化为外币存款，同时把央行资产侧的外汇资产拿走交给股东。这个过程中，央行其他国外资产恐怕不会变化，变化的乃是央行外汇占款的减少。境外直接投资、购买外汇营运资金等用途也应该都差不多。当然，产生这个效果的原因在于银行直接就把央行的外汇提走了。

银行自身结售汇的汇改实例

如果没提走而是以外汇存款方式留在央行，那就进入了外汇缴存人民币准备金制度的情景，这个制度本身的操作不涉及存入和提取。央行其他国外资产之所以在2015年8月以及更早时候的2011年12月与自身结售汇变动一致，是因为银行把在央行的外汇缴存人民币准备金这个外汇存款转变成人民币存款的操作，在当月同时支配了自身结售汇和央行国外资产的变动，而外汇缴存人民币准备金是自身结售汇的内容之一。

具体而言，银行把外汇缴存人民币准备金变成在央行人民币存款，本身是银行自身结汇，而这个操作会使央行其他国外资产减少，央行外汇占款增加，银行外汇占款减少。当然，此后银行纷纷把在央行的人民币存款变为外汇并直接持有，导致央行外汇占款锐减，银行的国外资产增加，但这又被看作是外汇交易，央行外汇占款减少，银行外汇占款增加。

不过，增加的银行占款又遇到了更大规模的客户购汇，于是银行占款在上述操作中先减后增再减，最后是净减少。这个例子显示出银行外汇占款同时涉及在央行负债和客户在银行负债两侧。同时我们也注意到，在银行自身结售汇当中，顺差意味着银行把外汇变成了人民币（结汇），售汇意味着银行把人民币变成外币。

只有参透上述过程，2015年8月的央行其他国外资产减少、银行国外资产增加、银行自身结售汇顺差、银行外汇占款减少等才能够全部解释清楚。否则，银行国外资产增加4500亿元人民币，就和银行外汇占款减少以及自身结售汇顺差看上去十分矛盾。但确实，这些指标实在是有点太复杂了。

此外，银行自身结售汇的术语有点反直觉。比如关于银行贵金属投资，外汇局说“境内相关银行通常采取从境内高价出售、境外低价进口的平补汇率敞口，形成自身净售汇。2007 年7 月出台相关政策以来到2011年底，银行此类净购汇累计达177亿美元。”前面说形成自身净售汇，后面说购汇，这当然是因为结售汇是从操作主体对手方的角度来讲，而购汇则是从操作主体自己角度讲。

这里再一次强调结售汇不是跨境资金流动的衡量指标。虽然我们看到结售汇和汇出有着很多时间顺序上的先后性，但结售汇和汇款毕竟不是两件事。美元存款汇出未必有结售汇，人民币存款变为美元存款未必有汇出，两者乃是单独的两个操作。在未来境内主体在境内银行把越来越多的人民币存款转换成美元存款，导致代客结售汇逆差越来越大的时候，如果把这一逆差当作是跨境资金流动，将会对市场的理解出现偏差，乃至自乱阵脚。这一点可能需要外汇局自己在表述中也密切注意。

小结

最好的情况应该是调查统计司所说的“完成从信贷收支表向资产负债表的转化”。把估值的因素，流动性的因素等等都反映在表格上。外汇占款可以原原本本地作为一种资产放在资产侧，而不用考虑对应了多少人民币的投放。当然，现在的外汇储备与央行外汇占款的安排就挺不错的。

相比之下，银行资产负债表披露比信贷收支表慢半个月，以及存款贷款数据等都按照信贷收支表来公布，并且信贷收支表有很多细项，使得银行资产负债表很难受到重视。如果银行资产负债表能提前公布，细项可以更多一些，就会好很多。银行资产负债表能够包括所有的M2-M0，分析价值是非常高的。

此外我们还不要忘了其他的分析工具：外汇信贷收支表、更为低频的“境外机构和个人持有境内人民币金融资产情况”、国际收支平衡表、外债报表、国际投资头寸表、银行季报和半年报的外汇相关信息披露等等。数据是丰富的，指标是多元的，外汇市场是极为精彩的。如果你因失去了金融机构外汇占款而流了泪，那么你也将错过异彩纷呈的其他数据了。

Thank Bloomberg and Reuters reporters for their questions, which have given me new ideas to complete this article that I had already begun conceptualizing. The disappearance of the indicator of foreign exchange holdings by financial institutions signifies the end of an era. We have now entered a new era, in which the indicator of foreign exchange holdings by financial institutions has lost its significance due to the increasing noise it contains. The reason for this is the bidirectional fluctuation of the RMB exchange rate, the increasing complexity of foreign exchange buying and selling operations, the growing number of market participants, and the fact that the indicator of financial institution foreign exchange holdings has become unsustainable. In doing so, it has also fulfilled its mission of over a decade.

Foreign exchange holdings, loan holdings, car holdings, gold holdings.

SAFE (State Administration of Foreign Exchange) states, 'The financial institution's foreign exchange holdings reflect the RMB funds occupied by financial institutions when purchasing foreign exchange.' The central bank states, 'The account for reserve holdings by the central bank reflects the RMB funds occupied by the central bank when operating reserve holdings.' From this, we can see that the reason foreign exchange holdings are in RMB and not in USD, unlike foreign exchange reserves, is because they reflect the so-called 'occupation of RMB funds.' Therefore, the ratio of foreign exchange holdings to foreign exchange reserves at any given point is not the current USD-RMB exchange rate, as foreign exchange holdings do not convert the value of foreign exchange reserves into RMB.

Let's consider a bank that receives US dollars from me and gives me RMB deposits at the same bank. The RMB deposits here are newly created; they did not exist before I interacted with the bank. This creation is due to my foreign exchange transaction with the bank. For instance, if the bank lends me 1 million RMB, and I obtain a deposit of 1 million RMB through the loan and transfer it to a developer to buy a house, then the 1 million RMB in the bank is considered a loan asset of 1 million RMB. We can completely call this loan holding. If the bank buys a car from me and, after giving the car to the bank, I have an additional deposit of 500,000 RMB in the bank, then the car that appears on the bank's asset side can also be called a car holding.

However, in this process, we see that the value of the foreign exchange received by the bank is exactly equal to the value of RMB given to me by the bank. If the bank receives 100 US dollars and gives me 650 RMB, then the 100 US dollars are worth 650 RMB. Thus, a 650 RMB foreign exchange holding can be calculated on the bank's asset side. Therefore, in the above situation, foreign exchange holdings represent both created RMB and the value of foreign exchange.

This is similar to a bank loan project that represents how much RMB is created through loans and also represents the value of the loan. Similarly, the car on the bank's asset side not only represents the car but also represents how much RMB was created through the car purchase. Don't ridicule car holdings; the central bank has a specific item called gold holdings, which is entirely equivalent to car holdings.

The Dual Role and Demise of Foreign Exchange Holdings

The reason for the situation where foreign exchange holdings play a dual role—one representing how much RMB has been created on the liability side and simultaneously representing the RMB value of an asset—is related to the fact that currency is a bank liability. It's impossible for a company to use cash on the asset side to buy a car and create car holdings because having a car means there is no cash, and having cash means there is no car. However, when a bank buys a car, the phenomenon of both the car and currency coexisting occurs. This is because currency is a bank deposit and falls on the liability side of the bank.

Furthermore, the emergence of this dual-role situation is also due to the fact that the credit and payment sheet system is a part of the cash flow statement related to the balance of assets and liabilities, not the balance sheet itself. In the balance sheet, each item is its own entity. However, in the cash flow statement, some cash flows are related to income and expenses, while others are related to assets and liabilities.

Regarding the items related to assets and liabilities, each item not only indicates the nature of the item itself but also reflects the cash flow associated with it. For example, the item "cash paid for the purchase, construction, and development of fixed assets, intangible assets, and other long-term assets" in the central bank's balance sheet indicates both the associated cash and the monetary value when the asset was formed. Similarly, foreign exchange holdings undoubtedly indicate both the monetary value of the central bank's foreign exchange and the "cash" created by the central bank.

However, we must remember that foreign exchange holdings ultimately do not measure foreign exchange itself. For example, if a bank lends me 1 million RMB for a house mortgage, and I give it to a developer, the developer might convert this 1 million RMB deposit into a deposit of 150,000 USD. In this operation, foreign exchange holdings certainly decrease by 1 million RMB, but there is no change in the bank's foreign exchange asset side. The change in foreign exchange holdings at this point completely indicates the conversion between RMB and foreign currency on the liability side, and it no longer represents changes in foreign exchange assets on the asset side.

Similarly, if a bank grants me a loan of 1 million USD, and I have an additional deposit of 1 million USD in the bank, could this result in a foreign exchange holding of 6.5 million RMB? Of course, current regulations would generally not allow such a situation to occur, so this operation would not affect statistical data. However, considering this scenario, the increase in foreign exchange holdings here does not correspond to any foreign exchange position that the bank can use for remittance.

The reason why we previously regarded foreign exchange holdings as a measure of foreign exchange assets themselves and emphasized the aspect of asset value in the two roles is that, for a long period of time, the appreciation of the RMB led customers of the bank to remit the foreign exchange received. Whether it was due to the mandatory foreign exchange settlement and sales system or the motive to profit from the appreciation of the RMB, foreign exchange settlement and foreign exchange inflows became interconnected. The change in foreign exchange holdings and foreign exchange itself was consistent.

Over time, people forgot the essence of foreign exchange holdings and simply equated them with foreign assets. Unfortunately, despite the consistent changes, foreign exchange holdings and foreign exchange itself are fundamentally distinct. Moreover, we can see that the central bank itself knows that foreign exchange holdings and foreign exchange are not the same. In the foreign exchange reforms of August 2011, we also saw that apart from the foreign exchange holdings behind the central bank, there are other foreign exchange assets used to stabilize the exchange rate.

Central Bank's Foreign Exchange Holdings and Other Foreign Assets

We know that the central bank's foreign assets are divided into the central bank's foreign exchange holdings and other foreign assets. Among them, the central bank's foreign exchange holdings measure the foreign exchange absorbed by the central bank through the creation of RMB. The other foreign assets naturally include various possibilities, but an important part of this is the foreign exchange assets corresponding to foreign currency deposits at banks. Note that a bank has deposit accounts with the central bank, but the central bank also has deposit accounts with banks. Bank of China's financial report prominently lists an item called 'National Foreign Exchange Deposits,' which is classified as a liability and falls under the category of 'borrowings from the central bank.' If the central bank receives foreign exchange reserve earnings and deposits them in Bank of China, then the central bank's claim on Bank of China increases, and the owner's equity increases. At the same time, Bank of China's assets and liabilities both increase. In other words, foreign currency earnings become 'visible' through the deposit in Bank of China.

In this case, if the central bank seeks to settle foreign exchange with Bank of China, we will see that Bank of China's foreign currency deposits on the liability side will become RMB deposits, and the bank's foreign exchange holdings will increase, while the central bank's foreign exchange holdings will remain unchanged. This means that the foreign exchange holdings of financial institutions will increase simultaneously with the bank's foreign exchange holdings. The central bank holds RMB deposits in Bank of China and can naturally remit funds to the government or pay operational expenses. However, the increase in owner's equity has already been accounted for previously. This once again reflects that depositing foreign currency and settling foreign exchange are two distinct operations.

Increasing Complexity of Bank Foreign Exchange Deposits

Bank foreign exchange deposits are financial institution foreign exchange deposits minus central bank foreign exchange deposits. The State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) states that bank foreign exchange deposits can be compared with foreign exchange transactions in the foreign exchange credit and debit statement. The historical data relationship is also similar. However, from the analysis above, it can be seen that bank foreign exchange deposits involve two levels of renminbi (RMB): central bank liability-side bank RMB deposits and bank liability-side RMB deposits.

Central bank foreign exchange deposits are relatively simple because they only operate in the interbank market, with counterparties being banks, involving only the liability side of central bank RMB. However, even so, the central bank's foreign exchange deposit item cannot depict all of the central bank's foreign exchange assets. In contrast, bank foreign exchange deposits not only involve foreign exchange buying and selling by the central bank, overseas financial institutions, and non-banking sectors, but also involve foreign exchange buying and selling by banks with the central bank. If the RMB internationalizes, domestic banks using foreign exchange to buy RMB from overseas banks and the central bank will also impact bank foreign exchange deposits. Therefore, due to the complexity of bank foreign exchange deposits, the financial institution's foreign exchange deposits, which are superimposed with central bank foreign exchange deposits and bank foreign exchange deposits, are also becoming more complex.

Originally, the indicator of financial institution foreign exchange deposits is not necessarily closely related to actual foreign exchange assets. The previous alignment was largely a coincidence under special historical circumstances. Now, with new situations emerging, the separation is becoming more pronounced. People's understanding of it is imprecise, and their understanding of the foreign exchange market is inadequate. The expressions used are not clear enough (using buying and selling instead of depositing and exchanging/buying and taking out). If foreign exchange deposits continue to be retained, the market will be increasingly confused by its fluctuations without understanding the underlying meanings, leading to increasing confusion.

Future Analytical Indicators: Central Bank Data Series and Cross-Border Payments by SAFE

Therefore, we now see that leaving a relatively understandable central bank foreign exchange deposit, coupled with other foreign assets of the central bank in the same table, we can better understand the impact of central bank foreign exchange operations on RMB liquidity and the various changes in foreign currency positions due to RMB purchases and withdrawals/foreign currency deposits and non-withdrawal. Banks also have their own foreign assets, although not all of the bank's foreign assets are highly liquid assets, it can still serve as a reference.

A less recognized point in the market is that the monthly changes in the total foreign assets of the central bank and banks, and the monthly data on banks' customer cross-border RMB payments (please note: excluding RMB) have been relatively consistent for a long time. This demonstrates that treating foreign exchange transactions as cross-border fund flows is a misunderstanding. Because in foreign currency remittances, only banks and the central bank's foreign assets can be remitted. Therefore, it's not surprising that cross-border payments and receipts in foreign currencies align with changes in banks' and central banks' foreign assets.

Of course, not all of banks' and central banks' foreign assets are necessarily used for customer cross-border remittances. Banks and central banks can also arrange for their changes. For example, if a bank issues overseas US dollar bonds, the bank's foreign liabilities will increase, and foreign assets will also increase. Conversely, if the bank repays foreign debt, its foreign assets will decrease. In other words, in the case of issuing and repaying debt, changes in bank foreign assets do not change together with non-banking sector deposits, but change together with bank foreign liabilities.

Another less recognized point in the market: the monthly changes in bank foreign liabilities have been consistent with the trend of RMB cross-border payments by bank clients since 2010, but after the August 2015 exchange rate reform, we found a significant deviation between the two trends. This is, of course, related to banks using foreign assets to repay foreign liabilities mentioned earlier. The repayment of debt operations does not involve foreign exchange payments or domestic currency payments. On the contrary, it damages the consistency between these two data sets with foreign assets and foreign liabilities.

Future Analytical Indicators: Foreign Exchange Transactions by SAFE

In addition to cross-border payments, the central bank's and banks' foreign assets and liabilities, we can also carefully consider the balance of payments data. Of course, as important factors in the change of foreign exchange deposits, the problems of balance of payments also exist in foreign exchange transactions. For example, balance of payments cannot fully represent changes in foreign exchange positions, etc. However, the data from SAFE is divided into customer transactions, forward contracts, and bank's own transactions. Although the bank's own transactions are still a relatively complex item (for example, when one bank asks another bank for a foreign exchange transaction, it's not related to the central bank, but when it asks the central bank for a foreign exchange transaction, it is related to the central bank, and it also involves two levels of liquidity: central bank liability and bank liability), customer transactions and customer forward transactions are quite clear, as customers only deal with the bank's liability side.

Bank's own transactions reflect foreign exchange transactions conducted by banks for their own reasons. SAFE is clear about this: foreign exchange profit, foreign exchange capital (operational funds) transactions are the main sources of the bank's own transactions; payment of dividends to foreign shareholders, foreign direct investment, purchase of foreign exchange operational funds, payment of deposit reserve requirements, etc., are the main purposes of the bank's own sales transactions. Of course, SAFE continues with its usual statement, in fact, banks' own transactions also involve banks adjusting their RMB deposits and foreign currency deposits at the central bank and other banks.

The source of foreign exchange profits and foreign exchange capital lies in receiving profits and capital and then making transactions. If these are not converted, they cannot be considered sources of the bank's own transactions. Similarly, paying deposit reserve requirements and purchasing foreign exchange operational funds also indicate that even if no remittance is made, currency conversion is still considered the bank's own sales transactions. This once again reminds us to pay attention to the fact that the so-called sources and uses, which seem to be related to foreign exchange inflows and outflows, are actually currency conversions. Only with inflows and outflows but without currency conversion, it's not a transaction. Conversely, only currency conversion without inflows and outflows means that there is no cross-border fund flow.

From this, I would like to make a conjecture about the relationship between the bank's own transactions and the central bank's other foreign assets. Firstly, the bank's own transactions do not necessarily have to involve the central bank, so the bank's own transactions and the central bank's foreign exchange deposits or other foreign assets may not be completely linked. Secondly, if the bank's own transactions involve the central bank, many operations probably won't ultimately manifest in changes in other central bank assets.

For example, if a bank wants to remit foreign currency profits but doesn't have foreign currency assets, it can't be remitted. Therefore, it converts RMB deposits at the central bank into foreign currency deposits, while also transferring the central bank's foreign exchange assets to shareholders. In this process, it's unlikely that other foreign assets of the central bank will change, but rather the central bank's foreign exchange deposits will decrease. Overseas direct investment, purchase of foreign exchange operational funds, and other purposes should be similar. Of course, the reason for this effect is that the bank directly takes the central bank's foreign exchange away.

The case of the bank's own transactions and exchange rate reform in August 2015

If it's not taken away but instead remains in the form of foreign exchange deposits at the central bank, it enters the scenario of the foreign exchange deposit reserve requirement system, and the operation of this system does not involve deposits and withdrawals. The reason why the central bank's other foreign assets were consistent with the bank's own transactions in August 2015 and even earlier in December 2011 was that the bank converted the foreign exchange deposit reserve requirement at the central bank into RMB deposits, which was one of the contents of the bank's own transactions.

Specifically, the bank converted the foreign exchange deposit reserve requirement into RMB deposits at the central bank, which itself was a bank's own transaction. This operation would reduce the central bank's other foreign assets, increase the central bank's foreign exchange deposits, and decrease the bank's foreign exchange deposits. Of course, later on, banks converted their RMB deposits at the central bank into foreign exchange and held them directly, resulting in a sharp decrease in the central bank's foreign exchange deposits and an increase in the bank's foreign assets. However, this was seen as a foreign exchange transaction, resulting in a decrease in the central bank's foreign exchange deposits and an increase in the bank's foreign exchange deposits.

However, the increased bank deposits encountered larger-scale customer purchases of foreign exchange, so the bank deposits first decreased, then increased, and then decreased again in the above operations. This example shows that bank foreign exchange deposits involve both the central bank's liability side and the customer's liability side at the bank. At the same time, we also noticed that in the bank's own transactions, a surplus means that the bank converts foreign exchange into RMB (purchase), and selling means that the bank converts RMB into foreign currency.

Only by understanding the above process can the decrease in the central bank's other foreign assets, the increase in the bank's foreign assets, the surplus in the bank's own transactions, and the decrease in the bank's foreign exchange deposits in August 2015 be fully explained. Otherwise, the increase of 450 billion RMB in the bank's foreign assets would seem contradictory to the decrease in the bank's foreign exchange deposits and the surplus in its own transactions. However, these indicators are indeed quite complex.

In addition, the terminology of the bank's own transactions is a bit counterintuitive. For example, regarding the bank's precious metal investment, SAFE states that "domestic related banks usually adopt a forward exchange rate exposure strategy of selling at a high price domestically and importing at a low price abroad, forming a net sales transaction. Since the introduction of relevant policies in July 2007 to the end of 2011, banks have accumulated a net purchase of $17.7 billion for such transactions." The previous statement mentions forming a net sales transaction, and the latter statement mentions purchasing, this is because foreign exchange transactions are seen from the perspective of the operational counterparty, while purchases refer to the perspective of the operation's initiator.

Once again, it's emphasized that exchange transactions are not a measure of cross-border capital flows. Although we see many temporal sequences of exchanges and remittances, exchanges and remittances are not the same thing. Remitting a US dollar deposit may not involve exchange transactions, and converting an RMB deposit into a US dollar deposit may not involve remittances. These are separate operations. In the future, when domestic entities increasingly convert RMB deposits into US dollar deposits at domestic banks, leading to a growing deficit in customer transactions, if this deficit is considered as cross-border capital flow, it will lead to a deviation in the market's understanding and even a loss of direction. This is something that even SAFE should pay close attention to in its own statements.

Summary

The best situation would be what the Investigation and Statistics Department said, "Completing the transition from the credit and debit statement to the balance sheet." Reflecting valuation factors, liquidity factors, etc., on the form. Foreign exchange deposits can be left as assets on the balance sheet without worrying about how much RMB they correspond to. Of course, the current arrangement of foreign exchange reserves and central bank foreign exchange deposits is quite good.

In comparison, the disclosure of bank balance sheets is half a month slower than that of credit and debit statements, and deposit and loan data are announced according to the credit and debit statement, and the credit and debit statement has many detailed items, making it difficult for bank balance sheets to receive attention. If bank balance sheets could be released in advance, with more detailed items, it would be much better. Bank balance sheets can include all of M2-M0, and analyzing their value is very important.

Furthermore, we shouldn't forget other analytical tools: foreign exchange credit and debit statements, the less frequent "Overseas Institutions and Individuals Holding RMB Financial Assets in China," balance of payments, foreign debt statement, international investment position statement, bank quarterly and semi-annual reports' foreign exchange-related information disclosure, etc. The data is abundant, and the indicators are diverse. The foreign exchange market is extremely fascinating. If you shed tears over losing bank foreign exchange deposits, you will also miss out on the brilliance of other data.