Even the Chinese find China bonds confusing

The Brics New Development Bank (NDB) executed a landmark trade on July 18, making its capital markets debut with a Rmb3bn ($450m) bond in China. But when even the authorities have trouble knowing whether to classifying it as green or Panda debt, it is clear the need for unambiguous and official bond regulation is long overdue.

  • By Rev Hui
  • 21 Jul 2016
Email a colleague
Request a PDF

Trying to understand China’s debt capital markets is an uphill task. There are many different regulators and industry bodies, who in many instances oversee the same areas but often with conflicting rules.

If that is not enough, China has also adopted the slightly confusing practice of allowing deals to price before official rules are put in place.

The National Association of Financial Market Institutional Investors (Nafmii), for example, has yet to release the revised version of its Panda bond framework but we’ve already seen five issues in the interbank bond market this year worth a combined Rmb15bn.

While the lack of rules has not really affected the outcome of those Pandas, it has, however, created a muddle about a deal that was not classified as a Panda – the NDB bond.

The NDB notes are officially classified as green financial bonds as they were issued under the People’s Bank of China’s (PBoC) December 2015 guidelines for green bond issuance in the interbank bond market.

But here's where the confusion begins.

NDB is a supranational, so calling the notes financial bonds is already somewhat misleading. In addition, NDB is technically a foreign issuer even though it is based in China – meaning the bonds should also have been classified as a Panda bond. In fact, technically they are the first green Panda.

But the formal explanation from NDB as to why the bonds were not given the Panda tag was because of the lack of a definitive framework for the asset class. As a result, they can only brand the notes as green, which does benefit from a proper set of rules, even if the notes are a Panda in all but name.

The only problem with this explanation is that it undermines all the Panda issuance since the asset class was brought back to life in September 2015. Based on the same rationale, none of those should be considered Pandas either.

Panda puzzle

This messy green/financial/Panda concoction clearly took its toll on some market organisations as well.

The China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS), which contains the offering documents of all interbank issuance, was clearly in two minds. When it first uploaded the offering documents for the NDB notes on July 13, they were put into the financial bond section.

But on the day of bookbuilding (July 18), they were moved to the supranational section, which also houses the Panda bond offering documents of Asian Development Bank and International Finance Corp. It was still there whenGlobalRMB went to press.

Whether an offering is called a green financial bond or a green Panda bond really shouldn’t have much impact on a transaction. Investors put their money in based on risk returns not gimmicky names, or at least, that is the theory.

However, this particular event does point towards a deeper issue within China’s capital markets, which is the uncertain nature of the regulatory environment.

None of this would have been an issue if a Panda bond framework was in place. While it does take time for a regulator to formulate practical and workable rules, it has taken far too long for new Panda bond guidelines to be published. To refresh memories, the rules were first expected to launch last year. The word around the street is the holdup is now with the Ministry of Finance, not Nafmii.

Hungary, Poland and Exchange-Import Bank of Korea (Kexim) are just some of the names waiting for clarity on the rules and you have to wonder how the treasury officials feel about the endless wait. Thankfully, all three are looking at Pandas as a diversification exercise rather than as a core funding market.

As GlobalRMB has written before, Beijing really does need to work on its market communication. It would surely make market participants feel more assured to provide some sort of progress report on the rules.

Even better would be for China to start looking at its long list of regulators and industry bodies. Consolidation has been talked about for a long time but if Beijing is serious about reforming its financial markets, this will need to start happening soon. After all, what hope is there for the rest of us if even China is confused? 

New Panda bond database_450px

  • By Rev Hui
  • 21 Jul 2016

Panda Bonds Top Arrangers

Rank Arranger Share % by Volume
1 Bank of China (BOC) 18.86
2 Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) 14.39
3 China Merchants Bank Co 14.21
4 China Merchants Securities Co 8.85
5 Agricultural Bank of China (ABC) 5.90

Bookrunners of Asia-Pac (ex-Japan) ECM

Rank Lead Manager Amount $bn No of issues Share %
  • Last updated
  • Today
1 China International Capital Corp Ltd 3.17 12 17.43%
2 Morgan Stanley 2.81 6 15.46%
3 CITIC Securities 1.85 5 10.20%
4 China Securities Co Ltd 1.51 2 8.30%
5 Citi 1.18 4 6.47%

Bookrunners of Asia Pacific (ex-Japan) G3 DCM

Rank Lead Manager Amount $bn No of issues Share %
  • Last updated
  • Today
1 Citi 3.59 16 8.36%
2 HSBC 3.24 28 7.54%
3 JPMorgan 2.54 13 5.92%
4 RBC Capital Markets 2.22 5 5.17%
5 Barclays 2.03 16 4.74%

Asian polls & awards

  • GlobalCapital China 2019 awards winners: Part III

    In the final part of GlobalCapital China’s awards announcement, we discuss the key innovation of 2019, and reveal the individual that has made the greatest contribution to reforming and internationalising the Chinese onshore market.

  • GlobalCapital China 2019 awards winners: Part II

    In the second part of GlobalCapital China’s awards announcement, we reveal the winning banks across Panda bonds, G3 bonds and ABS, as well as the best bank for securities services and the most impressive law firm.

  • GlobalCapital Asia capital markets awards 2019: Investment banks

    In the fourth and final instalment of GlobalCapital Asia’s capital markets awards announcements, find out which firms have been named the Best Asian Investment Bank and the Best Investment Bank in the region for 2019.

  • GlobalCapital China announces 2019 awards winners: Part I

    GlobalCapital China, previously GlobalRMB, is pleased to announce the winners of its annual capital markets awards, honouring the banks, companies and individuals that have made the biggest contribution to bridging the gap between China’s markets and the rest of the world. In part one of the awards, we reveal the most impressive issuers in the FIG, corporate and SSA categories.

  • GlobalCapital Asia capital markets awards 2019: Bonds

    In part three of GlobalCapital Asia's awards results announcements, we reveal the winning bond deals across a variety of categories. In addition, we also name the Best G3 Bond House, Best High Yield Bond House and the winner of the Best House for SRI Financing.