Published on Jul 17, 2026 • Updated on Sep 4, 2026
This article was written by Adem Tumerkan
Content Editor, Dunham | 2025 ThinkAdvisor Luminary Award Winner | 2026 Wealthies Finalist — Thought Leader of the Year | Macroeconomics, markets, geopolitics & global trends
Subscribe to get the latest insights delivered straight to your inbox.
We care about your data in our privacy policy
China shows clear signs of a liquidity trap: rates are near record lows and banks have ample liquidity, yet households and businesses remain reluctant to borrow or spend. Over 80% of respondents said they preferred saving to spending, while new-home prices posted a 36th straight year-over-year decline in June 2026—showing why monetary stimulus is failing to revive private demand.
A liquidity trap is when rates are near zero, credit is cheap, and banks are full of cash — but the private sector still won’t borrow or spend.
New home prices fell for the 36th straight month in June, gutting the roughly 70% of household wealth tied up in real estate.
Despite record-low rates and 10.72 trillion yuan in new loans this year, over 80% of survey respondents still say they’d rather save than spend.
Chinese banks’ net interest margin hit a record-low 1.4% in Q1 while bad loans climbed to 3.7 trillion yuan — the classic signature of a liquidity trap.
Japan needed almost three decades and the U.S. needed direct fiscal support to break the same trap — and Beijing hasn’t tried either yet.
China's economy has some big problems.
Here are just some of the recent data points that should worry global markets:
So yeah, things don't look great.
But here's the weird part.
The PBOC (China’s central bank) has been pumping an absurd amount of money into the system for years to try and fix this anemia.
Interest rates are already low by China's standards - the 1-year loan prime rate at 3.0%, the 5-year mortgage-linked rate at 3.5%, and the short-term policy rate down to 1.4% (a record low).
Meanwhile, the money supply keeps growing.
M2 rose a staggering 8.6% year-over-year9 at the end of May 2026. And Chinese banks extended 10.72 trillion yuan (about $1.58 trillion) in new loans in the first six months of the year.
And – yet - the economy still isn't responding.
Normally, cheap money + new lending = more borrowing, spending, inflation, and growth.
But in China, the opposite keeps happening.
Households are cautious. Businesses are hesitant.
To put this into perspective, in a recent survey10, more than 80% of respondents said they preferred saving over spending - and lower rates, which are supposed to discourage saving, are somehow making it worse (as I’ve detailed before).
Thus, banks have money to lend. But nobody wants to take it.
That's what a liquidity trap looks like – and it’s a very bad sign for the economy.
Put simply, a liquidity trap is when rates are near zero, credit is cheap, and banks are full of cash - yet the private sector still won't borrow or spend. Thus, the “easy money” is trapped.
It's a bit like an economic form of rabies - a disease that causes hydrophobia (the fear of water, even as the patient dies of dehydration). The body desperately needs it, but the brain refuses it.
That's what cheap money can look like in a crippled economy.
The doctor (central bank) has water (money) - plenty of it, that’s near free and easy to get.
But none of it matters if the patient won't swallow (borrow).
Economists call this pushing on a string. You can pull a string. You can't push it into shape. Monetary policy works when confidence is intact. Once it breaks, a central bank can cut rates to zero and still watch credit sit unused.
For example, say a factory owner sees orders fall for three straight years. The bank offers a loan at 2%. Do they take it? Maybe - if they think demand's coming back. If they don't, more debt without more sales is just a worse situation long term.
Now imagine that across the world's second-largest economy.
When nobody wants to borrow, banks can't just sit on their cash. They still have depositors to pay and funding costs to cover.
Thus, with loan demand soft and regulators pushing them to lend anyway, they end up doing something dull - buying low-yield government bonds and parking reserves at the central bank rather than making real loans.
Think of that as the outlet for all this liquidity.
But the downside is this can negatively affect bank profits.
For instance, China's net interest margin - the spread between what banks earn on loans and what they pay on deposits - hit a record low11 of 1.4% in Q1 2026.
Banks typically need ~2% to stay healthy. Anything below that, they're lending themselves toward distress.
Meanwhile, first-quarter banking sector profits fell 3.7% year-over-year - and that number flatters the domestic picture, since mainland operations at the Big Six banks actually fell 1.3%.
Rural commercial banks had it worse - profits fell 30.2% in Q1.
Finally, toxic loans reached 3.7 trillion yuan ($544 billion) by the end of Q1 2026, up 174 billion yuan from the prior quarter, with the bad loan rate edging to 1.51%.
Put simply, banks earn a 1.4% spread while carrying 1.51% in recognized bad loans – and that’s before hidden stressors pop up.
With this backdrop, banks tend to pull back on riskier lending - to small businesses, private firms, those already in debt distress – which is the opposite of what Beijing12 is telling them to do (get out there and lend to anyone with a pulse).
Instead, they pile into the safest, lowest-yield options available – government debt.
And that money doesn’t trickle anywhere since China’s fiscal stimulus is muted at best (aka Beijing isn’t pushing that money out through government programs).
A home in China isn't just shelter.
It's basically a savings account, retirement plan, marriage collateral, developer leverage, and local government cash cow. Keep in mind that roughly 70% of household wealth sits in real estate.
So when prices fall for 36 straight months - it becomes a confidence problem which spreads.
Car sales fell 16.1% in May. Home appliances fell 15.6%. Fixed investment shrank 4.1% in the first five months of the year. Retail sales in general are very weak as consumers pull back.
New buyers wait, expecting prices to fall further. Sellers cut prices. Bank loans sour further. Families stop spending. Local governments lose land-sale income (residential land revenue is down roughly 65% from its 2020 peak, and overall fiscal revenue fell 1.7% in 2025, the first drop13 since 2020).
Round and round we go.
Historically, at this point, lower rates don't break that loop.
If buyers think prices will be lower in six months, a cheaper mortgage doesn’t matter.
A rate cut can only help when people actually want to buy.
It does nothing when people are too scared to borrow at any rate.
China isn't the first economy to find that cheap money stops working.
Two recent cases are worth knowing about as both show what the exit looks like, and how long it takes.
Japan (1991) - The asset bubble burst. Land prices had risen over 300% during the bubble years, then fell roughly 80% over the following decade14. Stocks also sank and banks were riddled with bad loans. The Bank of Japan (BoJ) cut rates aggressively - short-term rates were under 0.5% by the mid-1990s and at zero by 1999. In fact, Japan was the country that started quantitative easing (government bond buying) – which other nations later adopted after 2008.
But the system still wouldn't restart.
Corporations and households did the opposite of what cheap money is supposed to trigger - they paid down debt. Richard Koo's balance sheet recession15 concept shows how this happens – and Japanese corporate deleveraging ran for more than a decade with rates near zero. Thus, growth stagnated and deflation took hold.
This was called a lost decade. But it lasted almost three.
The United States (2008) – After the housing market imploded, the Fed cut rates to near zero and launched QE, growing its balance sheet from roughly $1 trillion to over $2.2 trillion by end of 2009. Banks got hundreds of billions in fresh liquidity – yet most just sat on it.
By 2013, U.S. banks held a record $2.3 trillion available to lend - and parked most of it back at the Fed at 0.25% rather than deploying it. The Fed had even started paying banks interest on excess reserves (IOER) in October 2008 - which critics noted was paying them not to lend.
It took years for household balance sheets to repair, trillions in fiscal support, and direct consumer help before confidence and credit began to finally pick up.
Both cases share the same pattern – an asset bubble pops, the central bank floods the system with money, banks are wary to lend, and the private sector won't absorb it = growth stays flat despite near-zero rates.
This is where Beijing's options get awkward.
More liquidity into banks isn't enough (more water doesn't matter if the patient won't drink. The trap holds because home values keep falling, youth unemployment has been stuck above 15%16 all year, and consumer confidence is still well below pre-pandemic levels.
The obvious answer is direct spending - think cash transfers, tax rebates, income support, etc. that directly reach households rather than bank vaults.
Beijing has avoided that at scale.
Why? Because it’s been cautious about overall stimulus without damaging its export economy.
Beyond that, there are reasons Beijing hesitates. Cash transfers can be saved rather than spent. They look wasteful to officials who benefit from infrastructure-led growth. They challenge the old model where the state builds, banks fund, firms produce, and households take what's left.
But if households are the missing buyer, routing more money through banks is a very roundabout way to reach them.
The water is there, but the patient won't drink.
China has every ingredient of a liquidity trap - falling asset prices, expanding money supply, cheap credit, and a private sector that isn't responding to any of it.
Its banks face the same bind: full of cash, short on good places to put it, margins at record lows, bad loans rising.
Japan took almost three decades to work through it. The U.S. took almost a decade - requiring direct fiscal support and aggressive Fed easing.
Beijing gets to decide whether it wants the short course - or the long one.
Until something changes, we can expect more of the same.
But as always, time will tell.
What is a liquidity trap, in simple terms? A liquidity trap happens when interest rates sit near zero, banks have plenty of cash to lend, but households and businesses still won't borrow or spend. The money is basically stuck. Rate cuts stop working because the problem isn't the cost of credit anymore. It's that people don't have confidence things will get better, so they'd rather hold cash than take on debt.
Why isn't China's cheap money getting people to spend? Rates are already at record lows and banks extended 10.72 trillion yuan in new loans in just six months, yet over 80% of survey respondents still say they'd rather save than spend. Falling home prices, weak job prospects, and years of uncertainty have made households cautious. When people expect things to get worse, a lower rate on a loan doesn't change their mind.
How is China's housing slump tied to this liquidity trap? Roughly 70% of Chinese household wealth sits in real estate, so 36 straight months of falling new-home prices hits confidence hard. As buyers wait for prices to drop further, sellers cut prices more, bank loans sour, and local governments lose land-sale revenue. This cycle feeds on itself, and cheaper mortgages don't fix it because people are scared to buy at any rate.
What is happening to Chinese banks because of this trap? Banks are stuck holding cash they can't profitably lend out. Their net interest margin hit a record-low 1.4% in the first quarter of 2026, below the roughly 2% level banks typically need to stay healthy. Bad loans climbed to 3.7 trillion yuan over the same stretch. With risky lending less appealing, banks are piling into low-yield government bonds instead of funding businesses or consumers.
How did Japan and the U.S. escape their own liquidity traps? Japan cut rates to zero starting in the 1990s, but corporations kept paying down debt instead of borrowing, and the country's slump stretched close to three decades. The U.S. moved faster after 2008, pairing near-zero rates and quantitative easing with direct fiscal support that reached households. Both cases show rate cuts alone rarely break the cycle without help that reaches consumers directly.
This communication is general in nature and provided for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be considered or relied upon as legal, tax or investment advice or an investment recommendation, or as a substitute for legal or tax counsel. Any investment products or services named herein are for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered an offer to buy or sell, or an investment recommendation for, any specific security, strategy or investment product or service. Always consult a qualified professional or your own independent financial professional for personalized advice or investment recommendations tailored to your specific goals, individual situation, and risk tolerance. All examples are hypothetical and are for illustrative purposes only.
Information contained in the materials included is believed to be from reliable sources, but no representations or guarantees are made as to the accuracy or completeness of information. This document is provided for information purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice.
Dunham & Associates Investment Counsel, Inc. is a Registered Investment Adviser and Broker/Dealer. Member FINRA/SIPC. Advisory services and securities offered through Dunham & Associates Investment Counsel, Inc.
