Three Questions About China's Hidden Foreign Exchange Assets

Council on Foreign Relations | Brad W. Setser

China's People's Bank of China faces an unexplained $1 trillion cumulative gap between market foreign exchange settlement and reported balance sheet reserves. Between late 2025 and late 2026, state settlement purchases reached $500 to $600 billion, yet reported central bank reserves expanded by only $50 billion. This structural divergence stems from off-balance-sheet mechanisms, including state bank foreign currency absorption and entrusted loans directed through the State Administration of Foreign Exchange to institutions like the China Development Bank.

The central bank also transferred $158 billion in accumulated interest income to the Ministry of Finance without adjusting its $3.5 trillion reserve baseline. Meanwhile, domestic commercial banks boosted dollar deposit interest rates to encourage exporters to hold foreign currency offshore rather than converting proceeds into renminbi. Unrecorded currency intervention remains substantial. These hidden assets systematically depress the renminbi exchange rate, directly sustaining a record current account surplus exceeding $825 billion while shielding Beijing's monetary policy from international trade scrutiny.

Comment

By routing foreign exchange through the State Administration of Foreign Exchange into state lenders like the China Development Bank, Beijing converts liquid reserves into opaque geo-economic leverage. This off-balance-sheet capital deployment allows the central government to absorb external financial shocks while maintaining currency interventions outside the reach of IMF Article IV surveillance. Stash-funding via state-owned entities effectively insulates China's state-directed industrial policy from multilateral counter-measures.

A secondary consequence of this balance-sheet obfuscation is the creation of a shadow sovereign fund that finances strategic overseas infrastructure without public fiscal accountability. When entities such as SAFE's Buttonwood Investment Holding inject foreign currency directly into policy banks, Beijing sustains bilateral lending across developing markets regardless of global rate volatility. Consequently, OECD creditor frameworks and Western sanctions lose operational leverage against capital flows routed through the Export-Import Bank of China.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If the State Administration of Foreign Exchange continues using policy banks to absorb excess foreign currency, does multilateral surveillance under IMF Article IV retain any practical efficacy, or has state-driven off-balance-sheet intervention rendered traditional balance-of-payments monitoring obsolete?

The available evidence points toward a structural breakdown in traditional multilateral financial monitoring as sovereign capital shifts into unrecorded banking vehicles. By leveraging entities like the Export-Import Bank of China to absorb market liquidity, Beijing effectively decouples currency management from formal central bank reserves. Western economic institutions will increasingly struggle to penalize currency undervaluation or track state-backed bilateral lending without fundamental reform to international reporting standards.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here