On January 18, according to the market chart, recently, the offshore RMB exchange rate has continued to fall, from January 16, as of 10:48 on January 18, the offshore RMB exchange rate fell by 789 points to 6.7841 in three trading days.
However, in recent days, the dollar index has not continued to rise, and has always sorted out around the 102.16-102.51 range. That is to say, recently, the US dollar index did not rise, but the offshore yuan exchange rate fell by 789 points in 3 days.
For this question, Xiaobian believes that in recent days, the reason why the offshore RMB exchange rate has not continued to fall because the US dollar index has not risen is mostly caused by the "poor" economic data recently released by the mainland.
Yesterday, China released a series of economic data, which can be described as "unsatisfactory", and this adverse effect will inevitably be reflected in the movement of the RMB exchange rate.
The data shows that China's GDP growth rate for the whole year of 2022 was 3%, compared with 8.4% in the previous month. From the data point of view, in 2022, the mainland's GDP growth rate has "declined" sharply, and at the same time, it has not achieved the 5.5% growth target set by the mainland in 2022.
In other words, in 2022, the mainland's economic growth rate has fallen sharply and the failure to achieve the set growth target of 5.5% is an important factor that has led to the continuous decline of the offshore RMB exchange rate in recent days.
In addition, in December, although the annual rate of added value of industries above designated size in the mainland was "higher" than the market expectation, it fell by 0.9 percentage points compared with the previous value.
The data showed that the annual rate of added value of China's industries above designated size in December was 1.3%, compared with an expected value of 0.5% and a previous value of 2.2%.
In addition, in December, the monthly rate of total retail sales of consumer goods in the mainland not only "lower" than the previous value, but also fell to a "negative value". The data showed that China's total retail sales of consumer goods in December were -0.14% m/m, compared with 0.15% in the previous month.
In other words, the reason why the offshore RMB exchange rate has not continued to fall because the US dollar index has not risen in recent days has a lot to do with the "unsatisfactory" economic data released by the mainland yesterday.
Second, on the other hand, the economic data released by the eurozone yesterday is not only not as "bad" as the economic data released by the mainland, but some economic data have also "improved".
The data showed that the Eurozone ZEW economic sentiment index in January was 16.7 vs -23.6 in the previous month. From the data point of view, in January, the ZEW economic climate index of the euro area not only "rebounded" sharply, but also turned from "negative" to "positive".
In addition, in January, the ZEW economic condition index of the eurozone also "picked up". The data showed that the ZEW economic condition index of the Eurozone in January was -54.8 versus -57.4 expected.
Yesterday, the euro continued to rise against the offshore yuan due to the "improvement" in economic data released by the eurozone. According to the market chart, since January 16, as of 11:41 on January 18, the exchange rate of the euro against the offshore yuan has risen by 468 points in three trading days, that is, the euro has appreciated by 0.64% relative to the offshore yuan.
Finally, in recent days, not only has the euro continued to appreciate against the offshore yuan, but the pound sterling has also "done the same". According to the market chart, from January 16, as of 11:44 on January 18, the exchange rate of the pound against the offshore yuan has risen by 1,156 points in three trading days, that is, the pound has appreciated by 1.40% against the offshore yuan.
Therefore, Xiaobian believes that in recent days, the reason why the offshore RMB exchange rate has not continued to fall because the US dollar index has not risen is mainly because of the combination of these factors. What do you think about this, and is it consistent with the editor's view?