But all that extra financial scaffolding has a subtle, potentially deleterious effect: it obscures the size and direction of global investment in securities, the researchers find.
Understanding the true financial linkages between countries is important, in part so that investors and policy makers can predict how shocks in other countries will affect their country’s wealth. Further, the global pattern of investment positions can have implications for key macroeconomic values such as the exchange rate. “For decades, there have been dire forecasts of a collapsing US dollar to reconcile US imbalances with China,” says Neiman. “But if, in fact, global holdings of China’s assets are much bigger [than the statistics suggest], the imbalance is a lot smaller.”
To get a clearer picture, the researchers rebuilt the aggregate numbers. Using an algorithm fed by seven commercially available data sets, they matched the universe of traded securities with their ultimate parent companies—not with the subsidiaries, affiliates, and shell companies that issued them. Having established those links, they could then restate the value of the outstanding securities by nationality, rather than by residency.
In some cases, as with China and Brazil, the changes were large. At the end of 2017, the US held $547 billion of common stock in the Cayman Islands and another $195 billion in Bermuda, according to official statistics. Reallocating by nationality revealed that the bulk of those investments were ultimately tied to China. As for Brazil, its corporate bonds appear to be more popular than advertised: after making the nationality adjustment, the researchers observe that 66 percent of all Brazilian bonds held by US investors were corporate bonds, as opposed to the just 25 percent recorded in the official statistics. More visibility helps: if the COVID-19 crisis sparks problems in debt markets in a given country, central bankers and other policy makers will want to know which foreign investors will be most affected.
The prevalence of offshore issuance may also make it less clear in a crisis who gets paid. Warns Neiman, “The fact that so much cross-border lending is intermediated through tax havens means that, if there ever is a debt crisis—and there’s cause to be more worried about this now than during typical times—it will be more complicated. Any resolution would have to involve investors in one country, issuers in a second country, and ultimate parent companies located in a third.”