… implying an increasingly large weight of income flows in the current account
In Figure 3, the ratio of primary income flows over trade flows is displayed for different time periods. It is calculated as the sum of income receivable and payable, divided by the sum of exports and imports. Over the last decades, this ratio has continuously increased reaching 20%-30% for some euro area economies or the United States. (A similar point is also made in Forbes et al., 2017.) While the Great Financial Crisis and low interest rates have reduced this ratio to some extent in recent years, income flows remain important for current account dynamics. This is not surprising given that the Great Financial Crisis put a halt to the expansion of gross positions, but has not led to a fundamental reversal.
In a large number of advanced economies, a decomposition of primary income by type of financial instrument shows that these income flows are to a large extent driven by large FDI yields. Curcuru et al., 2013 show for the case of the United States that the asset-liability differential for FDI is to a large extent driven by taxes. On the one hand, earnings on external assets are reported before taxes while non-resident earnings on US assets are reported after taxes. On the other hand, profit shifting results in firms reporting their earnings abroad instead of at home. A similar point is also made by Blanchard and Acalin, 2016 who show that FDI flows are driven by corporate tax rates. It has also been shown that transfer pricing, i.e. the price-setting of cross-border transactions between affiliates of the same multinational group, decreases the value of net exports. For example, Vicard (2015) estimates for the case of France that profit shifting through the use of transfer prices contributed to a worsening of the trade deficit by 9.6% in 2008 (while boosting FDI income). Though these accounting strategies do not change the overall current account balance (as the sum of the trade balance and net FDI income remain the same), they imply that the investment income balance is even more important for driving current account dynamics.
Should one be worried?
Primary income from past investment might play an ever important role in current account balances, but this should not be a reason to worry per se as these can have either a stabilising or destabilising impact, depending on whether they attenuate or reinforce trade imbalances and contribute to a widening or reduction of external positions. A prominent example is the case of the United States where positive net primary income flows have attenuated the effect of a large negative NIIP. For the case of China, the relative importance of trade and income balances has had a stabilising effect as well, though in the opposite direction: while the trade surplus has been largely positive, it has paid non-residents more on its external liabilities (high-yielding FDI) while receiving less on its external assets (mainly US government bonds with low yields). In some cases, however, the legacy of the past can represent a considerable drag on current policies that aim to reduce imbalances.