Liberty Street Economics

« | Main | »

May 21, 2021

Is the United States Relying on Foreign Investors to Finance Its Bigger Budget Deficit?

Is the United States Relying on Foreign Investors to Finance Its Bigger Budget Deficit?

The fiscal packages passed in 2020 and 2021 to help the economy cope with the pandemic caused a dramatic increase in federal government borrowing. One might have expected that foreign investors were important buyers of this new debt, but that was not the case. They were instead net sellers of Treasury securities. Still, the amount of money flowing into the United States increased last year, which helped fund the government’s borrowing, if only indirectly. The upturn in inflows, though, was quite modest as a surge in domestic personal saving largely covered the government’s heightened borrowing needs. How the reliance on foreign funds changes in 2021, when the government deficit will again be quite elevated, will depend on whether domestic personal saving remains high.


Foreign Purchases of U.S. Government Securities

Federal government actions during the pandemic caused a surge in the amount of federal debt outstanding. Specifically, the level of U.S. government marketable debt held by the public, pulled from the Treasury’s Statement of the Public Debt, rose by $4.3 trillion over the course of 2020, climbing from $16.7 trillion to $21.0 trillion. For comparison, this measure of debt increased by $1.1 trillion in 2019.

Balance of payments data show that foreign investors did not step in to buy this additional debt. Instead, they were net sellers of federal government securities, to the tune $75 billion. This was a change from being net buyers of $226 billion of these securities in 2019. Foreign investors were interested in other assets, with cross-border financial inflows going toward purchases of equities and investment funds ($726 billion) and corporate bonds ($194 billion).

Considering just Treasury securities in examining the role of foreign investors, though, misses the more important question of how much financial inflows rose to help fund the U.S. economy. From this perspective, increased foreign investment in U.S. assets created a pool of money that would not have been there otherwise, indirectly supporting sales of Treasury securities.

Government Saving versus Personal Saving during the Pandemic

One way to connect the change in the budget deficit with the change in borrowing from abroad is to rely on national income identities. Start with the notion that someone’s spending is another person’s income. To simplify the discussion, assume the U.S. economy is closed to the rest of the world so that domestic spending always equals domestic income. Spending can be broken down into consumption and physical investment spending and income can be broken down into consumption and saving. Consumption is the same for both identities, so you are left with the identity that investment spending must equal domestic saving.

Removing the assumption of a closed economy allows for a country to borrow from the rest of the world or lend depending on the difference between its saving and investment spending. In the case of the United States, the economy borrows from the rest of the world because domestic saving is insufficient to finance investment spending. For financial markets, this plays out as follows: the amount of cross-border financial inflows (for example, to buy Treasury securities) exceeds financial outflows from U.S. investors buying foreign assets by the amount determined by the domestic saving-investment spending gap.

To see what happened to U.S. borrowing in 2020, we break down U.S. saving into public (federal government, state and local government) and private (personal, business) components. (Note that government saving is not the same as the budget deficit because the saving calculation considers the difference between government income and consumption and does not include the government’s investment spending.)

The table below shows how all these components fit into the saving-investment spending framework. There was a $217 billion decline in saving in 2020 relative to the 2019 level, with a huge deterioration in federal government saving mostly offset by a jump in personal saving and a more modest increase in state and local government saving. Adding in a decline in investment spending ($105 billion) leaves the saving gap only $113 billion wider than it was in 2019. (The United States borrowed $503 billion in 2019.) Put another way, 90 percent of the $2.1 trillion decrease in federal government saving in 2020 was offset by increases in other sources of domestic saving and lower investment spending.


Is the United States Relying on Foreign Investors to Finance Its Bigger Budget Deficit?

From this perspective, foreigners helped offset the increase in federal government dissaving, but the scale of their contribution was modest.

What to Look For Going Forward

The fiscal support packages passed in December 2020 and March 2021 will substantially increase the amount of Treasury debt again this year. So, will the pace of net foreign investment continue to be relatively stable? Unfortunately, while the saving-investment spending framework is useful for understanding what happened, it is less useful in predicting what will happen going forward. It is just an identity, after all, and offers no insights about the interactions between the various forms of saving and the economy.

One is thus left to speculate. A retreat in state and local saving and an increase in investment spending would seem to be in the cards, judging by their levels last year relative to pre-pandemic times. Both developments would increase foreign borrowing.

The table above, though, suggests that the most important unknown is whether personal saving will again offset high federal government dissaving. Consider two extreme outcomes. In one case, consumers take the “extra” saving accumulated in 2020 as an increase in their wealth and do not let it affect their spending behavior. As a result, personal saving remains high this year, again boosted by government transfer payments, and there is little effort to spend down this accumulated savings going forward. The other extreme has consumers running down the extra savings when the pandemic eases over the course of the year and spending rises to match income. The flow of personal saving then disappears and the economy’s reliance on foreign financial inflows jumps.

A further complicating factor in anticipating how this plays out is that the amount of U.S. borrowing has to be equal to the sum of net lending by the rest of the world. Essentially, any increase in the U.S. saving shortfall has to be matched by a bigger saving surplus elsewhere and the mechanism that makes this identity hold has very unclear implications for exchange rates and global asset prices.

Thomas KlitgaardThomas Klitgaard is a vice president in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

How to cite this post:

Thomas Klitgaard, “Is the United States Relying on Foreign Investors to Finance Its Bigger Budget Deficit?,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, May 21, 2021, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2021/05/is-the-united-states-relying-on-foreign-investors-to-finance-its-bigger-budget-deficit.html


Disclaimer

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About the Blog

Liberty Street Economics features insight and analysis from New York Fed economists working at the intersection of research and policy. Launched in 2011, the blog takes its name from the Bank’s headquarters at 33 Liberty Street in Manhattan’s Financial District.

The editors are Michael Fleming, Andrew Haughwout, Thomas Klitgaard, and Asani Sarkar, all economists in the Bank’s Research Group.

Liberty Street Economics does not publish new posts during the blackout periods surrounding Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the New York Fed or the Federal Reserve System.

Economic Research Tracker

Liberty Street Economics is now available on the iPhone® and iPad® and can be customized by economic research topic or economist.

Comment Guidelines

We encourage your comments and queries on our posts and will publish them (below the post) subject to the following guidelines:

Please be brief: Comments are limited to 1500 characters.

Please be quick: Comments submitted after COB on Friday will not be published until Monday morning.

Please be aware: Comments submitted shortly before or during the FOMC blackout may not be published until after the blackout.

Please be on-topic and patient: Comments are moderated and will not appear until they have been reviewed to ensure that they are substantive and clearly related to the topic of the post. We reserve the right not to post any comment, and will not post comments that are abusive, harassing, obscene, or commercial in nature. No notice will be given regarding whether a submission will or will not be posted.‎

Send Us Feedback

Disclosure Policy

The LSE editors ask authors submitting a post to the blog to confirm that they have no conflicts of interest as defined by the American Economic Association in its Disclosure Policy. If an author has sources of financial support or other interests that could be perceived as influencing the research presented in the post, we disclose that fact in a statement prepared by the author and appended to the author information at the end of the post. If the author has no such interests to disclose, no statement is provided. Note, however, that we do indicate in all cases if a data vendor or other party has a right to review a post.

Archives