By William B. Brown

North Korea’s won has slipped ever so slightly against the dollar in recent weeks. This is not surprising given the dollar’s worldwide strength but presents an interesting conundrum for the Chosun central bank. It no doubt knows that pegged currencies could break suddenly when a small divergence, a wiggle, catches the public’s attention. Any signs of the country running out of reserves could lead to people dumping the local money in a panic to exchange for safer assets. A self-sustaining downward spiral can occur, eviscerating the currency and causing all kinds of social instability.

North Korea Daily reports the dollar traded at 8,500 won in Pyongyang on 26 December, up from a steady 8,000 won through the middle of the year, a devaluation of 6 percent.

Against the globally weaker yuan, won has been more volatile, but without the trend decline.

An incipient currency crisis began in North Korea in 2009 and stopped only with the execution of the party finance chief and a very rare Worker’s Party apology.  Since then, financial authorities under Kim Jong-un have done an extraordinary job keeping the won stable. Despite the extremely tough sanctions against the economy, free circulation of competing assets – the U.S. dollar and the Chinese yuan – helped moderate the won’s volatility.

The gap between U.S. dollar/yuan exchange rate as measured by their value in the North Korean market (cross rate) and the actual exchange rate value in overseas markets did grow in 2018, indicating the potential for corrosive arbitrage behavior.

But the cross rate implied by the won for dollars and yuan is now exactly consistent with the overseas dollar/yuan rate. This suggests a remarkably free-flowing foreign exchange market in North Korea despite its socialist underpinnings.

Parsimonious printing of notes and limited credit expansion probably contributed to the won’s steadiness as well, although a tight monetary policy adds its own stresses to the state’s economy.

So, the question on every North Korean’s mind, and especially on Kim’s as he travels to Beijing, must be, how long this can last.

One is hesitant to guess what caused the recent dollar uptick, either market forces surrounding the strong dollar overseas or the continuing drain on the country’s foreign exchange exhibited by the huge drop in its exports due to sanctions.  Chinese merchandise trade data suggest a $200 million monthly outflow for most of 2018, unlikely offset by significant services or remittances inflows.

Recent commodity-by-country trade data released by China (with a six-month delay) reveal the conspicuous absence of exports of electrical and non-electrical machinery, and vehicles to North Korea. This may suggest that the country is running out of foreign exchange and can’t afford any investment related purchases.

Alternatively, the authorities may be trying to inoculate the market so that participants do not expect a firm peg. This ensures that future movements are not seen as policy failures or an impending crisis. If this is the case, we should see the dollar fall back to the 8,000 won level quickly as the central bank intervenes and spends dollars for won repurchases.

Another guess, expressed recently by some scholars, is that the won is actually more closely tied to yuan; therefore, the yuan’s decline against the dollar automatically made for the won decline.  As the above graphs show, however, the won’s value against the yuan has tended to be much more volatile than against the dollar.  Alternatively, some kind of basket approach may be in use but that removes the confidence-building features of a simple dollar peg, and confidence is what North Korean markets need more than anything.

What we do know is that anyone holding dollar assets in North Korea over the past few weeks has become relatively better off than those holding dollar liabilities such as apartment mortgages. One might think this could be cause for regime concern. We don’t know but is it enough for a quick trip to Beijing and a friendly chat with President Trump?

William Brown is an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and a Non-Resident Fellow at the Korea Economic Institute of America. He is retired from the federal government. The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

The author is indebted to Daily North Korea which diligently reports North Korean prices and exchange rates in its newsletter.  https://www.dailynk.com/ 

Picture from user Price Roy on flickr

By Kyle Ferrier

Analysts have attributed recent market downturns to North Korean provocations, but investors seem to be reacting more negatively to responses from the Trump administration.

Prior to North Korea’s sixth nuclear test on Sunday, Kim Jong-un was cited as a key contributor to recent developments in global markets. The fall in the value of the dollar and the strengthening of the euro and gold this summer have at least been somewhat linked to North Korean provocations. For the dollar and the euro, North Korea is at most exacerbating these trends, not causing them. Since the end of last year, the dollar has been in general decline and the value of the euro has steadily grown. This is primarily driven by looser monetary and fiscal policy in Europe as the Federal Reserve plans to unwind its balance sheet and the White House faces hurdles in its tax reform and infrastructure initiatives. It is harder, however, to argue Pyongyang has played an equally minor role in higher gold prices. Yet, movements in the price of gold and South Korea’s KOSPI stock index this year suggests investors are more concerned with uncertainty stemming from the Trump administration’s approach to North Korea.

Graph of the price of gold, March to September 2017

The conventional wisdom has been that the financial impact of North Korean provocations in South Korea decreases over time. My analysis of North Korea’s nuclear tests, long-range rocket launches, and military provocations along the DMZ through February 2016 (after its second “satellite launch” attempt) found this line of thinking applied to nuclear tests, but could not fully explain the other two categories. It is more accurate to state that the impact of North Korean provocations on markets in Seoul depends on whether a given event is viewed to be outside the context of normal geopolitical developments. That the financial impact of North Korean provocations generally diminished merely illustrated investors had been through similar events and their bottom line was minimally affected. It was not necessarily an indicator of future reactions, particularly as circumstances surrounding each provocation can change dramatically.

KOSPI stock index, March to September 2017

Significant drops in the KOSPI corresponding with North Korean provocations in January and February last year raised concerns that markets were reacting to Pyongyang at levels not seen since the shelling of Yeonpyeong island in 2010, but these can be chalked up to coincidence rather than cause. These concerns were renewed later last year in the aftermath of North Korea’s fifth nuclear test on September 9. Many news outlets linked the 1.25 percent drop in the KOSPI that day to the test, but this was also coincidence and not cause. Of the 1.25 percent drop, only around 0.07 percent occurred after news first broke of the nuclear test at 9:45am. The fall in the KOSPI as well as the won was much more likely linked to Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 woes as well as a slowdown in global markets. Thus, from 2010 through the end of 2016, North Korean provocations had a negligible impact on markets in Seoul.

The KOSPI’s reaction to the North’s latest nuclear test is the clearest indication that this trend has ended in 2017. On September 4, the first trading day after the test, the KOSPI opened 1.73 percent lower. Though some of these losses were gained back, it was down 1.19 percent by the end of trading. Unlike the previous test last year, the sixth nuclear test is most likely to blame for this drop. The only other instance of a notable drop in the KOSPI caused by a provocation was in response to the July 4 ICBM, though its impact was minimal: The KOSPI closed 0.58 percent lower that day and took five days to recover. The ICBM launch on July 28 saw almost no change in the KOSPI or the value of the won. And, the August 29 ballistic missile that flew over Japan was only met with a 0.23 drop, which was made back the next day.

Timeline of North Korea’s rocket launches and their impact on the South Korean KOSPI stock index.

That markets would react to the earlier ICBM launch and the nuclear test makes a degree of sense, considering that both added a new component of geopolitical risk on the Korean Peninsula. The July 4 missile launch was the first time Pyongyang demonstrated its capability of hitting a U.S. state and the nuclear test also possibly revealed its ability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon.

However, from stronger market responses to the Trump administration’s approach towards Kim Jong-un, it is highly likely that Washington is playing a greater role in the negative market reactions to Pyongyang this year. From April 4 to 11, the height of confusion over the whereabouts of the USS Carl Vinson, the KOSPI fell six straight days, totaling to a 2 percent loss. From August 8 to 11, after Trump’s “fire and fury” comments, it fell four consecutive days, amounting to more than a 3 percent loss. “Fire and fury” was also a retort to the July 28 ICBM launch, which ironically had no discernible financial impact in Seoul.

Table of North Korea’s nuclear tests and their impact on South Korea’s KOSPI stock index.

Both incidents also had a bigger impact on the price of gold than did North Korean provocations.  Between April 3 to 13 the price of gold shot up 2.75 percent. It rose again by 2.5 percent from August 8 to 11. Market responses to the provocations in July were mere blips by comparison. Gold rose a quarter percent on July 4, but was back to its previous price within two days, and the price actually fell after the subsequent ICBM launch. Though the August 29 and September 3 provocations were met with steep price increases – 2 percent and 0.68 percent, respectively – these reactions seem to be heavily influenced by Trump’s “fire and fury” comments, evidenced by the current increase in gold prices starting around the time of his remarks.

While harder to judge from the KOPSI alone, the comparison with gold prices implies that this week’s drop in the KOSPI was a product of market nervousness about how the U.S. might reply to the test, not North Korea. Further, if geopolitical concerns did play a role in the KOSPI in early July, they were likely caused by anxieties about a U.S. response, fueled by the USS Carl Vinson incident and Trump’s “disruptive” foreign policy.

Although these reactions are relatively minor and fleeting in the grand scheme of markets, they provide a window into how investors view geopolitical developments on the Korean Peninsula. They may only reflect temporary sentiments, but present the strongest case there has been in recent years that Washington is perceived as the primary driver of risk on the peninsula, not Pyongyang.

Kyle Ferrier is the Director of Academic Affairs and Research at the Korea Economic Institute of America. The views expressed here are the author’s alone. 

Photo from the Rafael Matsunaga’s photostream on flickr Creative Commons.

By William Brown

ICBMs are not the only things soaring in North Korean skies.  Comprehensive second quarter data released by China Customs last week shows a huge jump in North Korea’s trade deficit with China—sharply falling North Korean exports and flat imports, a double bad combination.  And, potentially troubling to the Kim regime, the composition of trade seems to be promoting market activity rather than the decrepit, but still enormous, command economy.

*  China stopped reporting crude oil shipments in first quarter 2014 but the trade is reliably said to be continuing, probably at the old aid agreement terms which provides about 150,000 tons of crude each quarter.  The charts, above and below, have added in the value of that volume at generally declining Chinese crude oil export prices–$50 million in the most recent quarter.

Pyongyang has been able to keep a clamp on the exchange rate—won can be traded informally for U.S. dollars in markets around the country—but likely at some cost to the government’s reserves and its ability to expand money supply without sparking inflation, and perhaps with a little help from the balloons. But food and other commodity prices, meanwhile, may be on an upswing as drought followed by flooding diminishes prospects for the critical fall rice crop, and as worries about Chinese supplies may have pushed up gasoline and diesel prices.  An informal inflation index produced by DailyNK has inflation rising to a 16 percent rate in July, suggesting Kim’s signal achievement of fighting inflation may be at risk.

Officially, the Chinese data show a $174 million North Korean deficit in June and $574 million for the quarter, both at record levels. Considering China has taken its crude oil exports “off the books,” the actual North Korean deficit is probably even larger — in the graphics below we have added between $115 to $50 million each quarter to North Korean imports since 2014 to account for the oil.

How North Korea finances this large deficit in the face of sanctions on its nuclear and missile activities is not well understood, making policy analysis of those sanctions next to useless. Even South Korea’s Bank of Korea, which bravely estimates North Korean GDP, says it can’t guess at the country’s balance of payments or its hard currency reserves.  But for the sake of argument, and given the trade deficit with China has averaged about $200 million a quarter for the better part of a decade, it would seem reasonable to expect that about this amount of hard currency is earned or borrowed in a combination of net trade with other countries; foreign aid to North Korea including the offset for the crude oil; UN and other international expenditures inside North Korea; small amounts of inward foreign investment and loans; remittances from overseas workers and refugees or Korean immigrant families in Japan, South Korea, China and Russia; and tourism.

• Probably to re-build domestic confidence after the country experienced a disastrous currency redenomination in 2009, followed by hyperinflation in 2010, Pyongyang’s monetary authorities appear to have fixed the unofficial won’s value at just above 8,000 won per dollar, and began to ignore the official 135 won per dollar rate.  Monetary stability since then is impressive, probably owing to some combination of market price caps, restrictions on the use of foreign currency, conservativism in expanding won credit, direct intervention using the regime’s own reserves and, most interestingly, a willingness to allow legal trading and use of dollars in the market places. And now, with five years of stability, won holders appear satisfied not to chase the dollar.

• Still, the mystery of the day is why smart money dealers in Pyongyang aren’t taking advantage of the deteriorating export situation by buying up U.S. dollars and forcing a panic.  Either something else is happening that we don’t know about or there is trouble ahead for the country’s always-tenuous finances. One easily can imagine another breakout in favor of the dollar and panic selling of won—hugely disruptive in North Korea’s newly forming half-market economy.

North Korean Exports Labor Intensive and Mining Products

North Korean exports to China fell to only $361 million in the second quarter, the lowest level since 2010, and even this was suppported by generally higher prices for most items.  Major export commodities included:

• Apparel and other textiles accounted for almost half of its exports—$149 million, up from $145 million in second quarter 2016.
• Ferrous and non-ferrous ores rose to $78 million, up from $65 million.
• Fish product exports at $67 million, were up sharply from $31 million.
• In contrast, mineral products, including coal, was recorded at only $2 million, down from $236 million in the same period of 2016.

None of these items would appear to be big hard currency earners for the regime, although they help provide employment.  Labor intensive textiles exports have grown in recent years as the industry makes better use of its antiquated mills, allowing exporters to pay workers directly in some cases and thus improving productivity of labor and capital alike.  Ore exports would seem problematic, given the UN sanctions against them, but Chinese firms were said to have invested heavily in the huge Musan iron ore complex on the border with China some years ago and may now be recouping investment costs by trucking the ore over into China.  This mine previously served North Korea’s largest industrial complex, the Kimchaek iron and steel mill in Chongjin, which is now dilapidated and only marginally productive. So the iron ore earnings may be coming at the expense of higher value-added steel products once exported from that plant and are likely controversial, even in North Korea, as they are thought of as a giveaway of the nation’s natural resources. China has also invested in a copper mine, and likely in other non-ferrous metals, but results from these are spotty and now largely sanctioned.  Fish products are essentially traded by fishing boats, with flows going both ways depending on the season.

Textiles lead North Korea’s imports

Imports from China also appear to be increasingly driven by consumer rather than government or investment demand.  Textiles, cell phones and television imports are growing at the expense of some industrial inputs and agricultural inputs, and cereals. Petroleum product imports, plus gasoline and diesel fuels, remain sanctioned and low.

• Textiles and apparel imports reached $258 million, up from $198 million in second quarter 2016.
• TV and cell phone imports totalled $50 million, up from $38 million.
• Food products of all kinds registered $123 million, up from $96 million.
• Diesel, gasoline, and kerosene imports were $19 million, down from $31 million, again from second quarter of 2016.

Visibility of Chinese-made consumer products among the general public is spreading the suggestion that the economy is doing fairly well—South Korea’s Bank of Korea estimated last week that North Korea’s proxy GDP rose 3.9 percent in 2016, the fastest in well over a decade and this despite the sanctions. But a large question is how far the regime will let this go, given what is clearly a big drain on limited foreign exchange.  Grain imports also rose slightly in the second quarter but remain much lower than in the recent past, and may need to rise much more if the fall harvest turns out to be weak.  Some grain is provided by foreign aid agencies, purchased in China and shipped to North Korea, thus counting as a North Korean import in the trade accounts, but with an offsetting credit in the (unpublished)  transfers account.

William Brown is an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and a Non-Resident Fellow at the Korea Economic Institute of America. He is retired from the federal government. The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

Illustration by Jenna Gibson, KEI.

By Patrick Niceforo

Late last year, the Bank of Korea (BoK), South Korea’s central bank, announced its plans for a “Cashless Society,” which first and foremost means getting rid of coins by 2020. A proposed method for gradually removing coins from circulation is encouraging travelers in South Korea to deposit their change onto their T-Money cards, electronic travel passes that are used to pay for metro and bus fares. But while the BoK has reduced its annual expenditure on coin production by 200 million won from 2015 to 2016, it could do more. Similar to Canada ceasing production of its penny, South Korea could simply stop minting its equivalent of a penny, the 10 won coin.

The BoK issues won banknotes in denominations of 50,000, 10,000, 5,000, and 1,000 and won coins in denominations of 500, 100, 50, and 10. According to a recent study, only 8.5 percent of 10 won coins are in circulation, with the remainder sitting in jars or private safes in peoples’ homes.  As of last year, the cost of producing the 10 won coin (0.009 USD) was reportedly twice its face value at 20 won (0.018 USD). Other sources such as KNN and Asia Economy, however, have estimated the cost of production to be as high as 40 won (0.036 USD).

Besides the fact that it costs more to mint a 10 won coin than it is actually worth, the coin’s value is so low that it has little, if any, purchasing power. At the current exchange rate, the 10 won coin is worth slightly less than an American penny. As a result, its only real use is when one needs exact change, which is rare since just 20% of financial transactions involve cash. Furthermore, given the coin’s low value, most coin-operated devices such vending and laundry machines do not even accept it.

In addition to Canada, many other countries such as Brazil, Australia, Finland, Israel, and Malaysia have removed their equivalent of a penny from circulation, primarily because inflation rendered the coin virtually useless. To compensate, many penniless countries round prices to the nearest 5 or 10 cents. South Korea could easily implement similar policies, especially since prices in Korea already include sales tax. In other words, consumers who pay with cash in South Korea can easily calculate how much one or more item costs before reaching the cash register since their final price is whatever is listed on the labels. Getting rid of the 10 won coin will not only make Koreans’ wallets lighter, it will actually expedite cash transactions.

It does seem like South Korea is naturally moving further away from physical currency, with more Koreans starting to use smartphone apps in lieu of credit cards. Nonetheless, achieving a cashless society could take some time, especially since cash discounts are common in the informal sector. Moreover, the gifting of cash is a cultural tradition in South Korea at weddings and during certain holidays. A small and cost effective step consistent with a cashless society policy could be to cease minting the 10 won coin. Many other countries have already removed the penny from circulation for these same reasons. Perhaps South Korea should, too.

Patrick Niceforo is a graduate student at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and an intern at KEI. The views expressed here are the authors’ alone.

Image from YunHo Lee’s photostream on flickr Creative Commons.