FX dips to $19.96b despite SBP's uptick
Pakistan's total liquid foreign exchange reserves stood at $19.96 billion as of July 11, 2025, marking a marginal decline of $71.6 million over the previous week, according to data released by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) on Thursday.
The reserves held by the SBP rose by $23 million, reaching $14.53 billion, compared to $14.50 billion recorded a week earlier. This reflects the second consecutive weekly increase in central bank reserves. However, commercial banks saw a notable dip in their net foreign holdings, which fell by $95 million to $5.43 billion.
The current foreign reserves provide Pakistan with over three months of import cover. Out of the SBP's total foreign exchange holdings of $14.5 billion, approximately $9.4 billion comprises deposits from friendly countries. In June 2025, China rolled over $3.4 billion in commercial loans, with $2.1 billion deposited directly with the SBP. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have provided up to $2 billion and $1 billion, respectively, while Qatar has contributed around $3 billion through deposits and direct investments.
Moreover, the central bank conducted two separate Open Market Operations (OMOs) on Thursday to inject a liquidity of Rs902.5 billion into the banking system - one under the Shariah-compliant Mudarabah-based framework and the other through a conventional reverse repo arrangement. Both operations were conducted with an eight-day tenor.
In the Shariah-compliant OMO, the central bank accepted all three submitted quotes within a narrow rate band of 11.13% to 11.15% per annum. The total injection was Rs37.39 billion (realised value) against a face value of Rs37 billion, with the rate of return fixed at 11.13%.
Simultaneously, the SBP carried out a conventional reverse repo OMO, receiving 13 quotes, of which 11 were accepted. The accepted bids amounted to a face value of Rs883.2 billion, with a realised value of Rs865.13 billion. The rate of return was 11.08% per annum.
In the latest Pakistan Investment Bonds' (PIBs) auction held on July 16, the government raised Rs311.82 billion, surpassing its target of Rs300 billion, mainly through five-year bonds.
Cut-off yields dropped significantly across all tenors by 19 to 54 basis points compared to June, which reflected strong market confidence and expectations of policy rate cut amid easing inflation and improving macroeconomic indicators. Notably, the two-year and five-year bonds saw the steepest decline in yields, while the 15-year bond got no bids.
"The sharp decline in yields signals growing market anticipation of a policy rate cut in the upcoming monetary policy, likely driven by easing inflation and improved macro indicators," noted Ali Najib, Deputy Head of Trading at Arif Habib Limited.
The Pakistani rupee remained stable against the US dollar on Thursday, closing at 284.97, down by just one paisa from 284.96 a day earlier.
Meanwhile, gold prices in Pakistan continued to slide, mirroring a downturn in the international market, where bullion extended losses following robust US economic data. The data bolstered expectations that the Federal Reserve would remain cautious in resuming monetary easing this year, putting pressure on safe-haven assets like gold.
According to the All Pakistan Sarafa Gems and Jewellers Association, the price of gold dropped by Rs900 per tola, settling at Rs355,100.
Interactive Commodities Director Adnan Agar noted, "After dipping slightly, the market has rebounded somewhat. The $3,300 level is acting as a strong support," he said. "If prices fall below that, we could see a bearish trend. However, if this level holds, resistance lies ahead at $3,350, then $3,380 and eventually at $3,400."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Trump increases tariff on Canada to 35% from 25%, cites fentanyl
WASHINGTON/TORONTO: US President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order increasing tariffs on Canadian goods to 35% from 25% on all products not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, the White House said. Goods transshipped to another country to evade the new tariffs would be subject to a transshipment levy of 40%, according to a White House fact sheet. The move - which Washington linked in part to what it said was Canada's failure to stop fentanyl smuggling - is the latest blow in a months-long tariff war which Trump initiated shortly after taking power. The announcement blaming Canada's 'continued inaction and retaliation' comes after Trump said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney reached out ahead of an August 1 tariff deadline, but no conversations between the two took place. Trump had said any country failing to strike a deal with the U.S. before Friday will be subjected to higher tariffs imposed on goods. Carney's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Officials in Ottawa have repeatedly noted that only a miniscule amount of fentanyl entering the United States originates from Canada but they have already taken measures to strengthen the border. Carney said on Wednesday that the trade talks had been constructive but might not conclude by the deadline. He reiterated a deal removing all U.S. tariffs was unlikely. Carney has to coordinate his reaction with that of the 10 provinces, some of whom want a hard line and others who prefer a softer approach. Premier Doug Ford of Ontario, which accounts for around 40% of Canadian GDP and is the country's industrial heartland, demanded Ottawa slap a 50% counter tariff on imports of U.S. steel and aluminum. 'Canada shouldn't settle for anything less than the right deal. Now is not the time to roll over. We need to stand our ground,' he said in a post on X. Trump said that while he loved Canada, it had treated the United States 'very badly' for years. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Trump could reconsider the tariff if Carney 'starts turning on the charm and if he takes off his retaliation.' Earlier Thursday, Trump agreed to give Mexico a 90-day window to work toward a deal, allowing it to avoid a 30% tariff that he threatened to impose by August 1. Mexico will still have to pay a 25% duty on U.S.-bound exports that are non USMCA-compliant, a tariff that Trump has linked to demands that Mexico do more to curb drug and human smuggling. Canada sends around 75% of all its exports south of the border and is vulnerable to U.S. trade action. The increase in tariffs to 35% will hit exports of steel, aluminum and automobiles and the products that are not compliant with the three-nation USMCA free trade deal. The economy has shown surprising resilience in the face of tariffs and is expected to avoid recession, economists say. About 90% of Canadian exports to the U.S. in May were exempt under the USMCA. The compliance level has shot up dramatically in the last few months, while some companies have diversified exports to avoid tariffs. Canadian government data shows exports to the U.S. dropped by 10 percentage points to 68% of total exports between May 2024 and May 2025, focused on manufacturing products such as cars and parts, and products made with steel and aluminum. Carney told reporters in June that if the two countries do not reach a trade deal by August 1, Canada would likely impose more counter levies on U.S. exports of steel and aluminum.
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SBP's over-cautious and lopsided monetary policy
In their August 2024 published article 'Understanding the international rise and fall of inflation since 2020' in the 'Journal of Monetary Economics', three writers from the Research Department of International Monetary Fund (IMF), and one other highlighted two reasons broadly that are apparently at odds with the otherwise policy prescription from both IMF through its extended fund facility (EFF) programme, and by 'Chicago boys'-styled local policymakers. Hence, while the research paper, which is based on data from 10 advanced economies and 4 emerging economies, saw broadly the role of external factors in driving up inflation, and that the secondary cause in the shape of monetary policy needed lesser usage in terms of tightening given such shocks had mostly influenced core inflation; that does not include the food and energy components, and in turn highlights the advanced impact of such shocks that have come through as secondary impacts after first influencing inflation that in turn is captured by more volatile measure of inflation in the shape of overall consumer price index (CPI). The paper points out in this regard: 'Our results strongly suggest that global drivers, especially the sharp movement in energy prices, played a dominant role in driving the international rise and fall in inflation since 2020. Local policies also played a role. First, the transmission of headline shocks to underlying inflation was shaped by local characteristics. …However, our estimates suggest that the role of relative price shocks and their pass-through into core has at this point largely faded, facilitating the convergence of inflation to target-consistent levels. The continued stability of long-term inflation expectations on average across economies is also facilitating the return of inflation to target.' It is important to note that both the IMF and the SBP remained overly cautious with regard to monetary policy stance even though nothing significant has been transmitted in terms of global oil prices – which have mostly remained low relative to the highs seen during the early phase of Russia-Ukraine conflict, and mostly stable in general over the last number of months – and tariffs that were first announced in early April, and continued to remain paused most time since then, with the likelihood of being tapered down in general for most trading partners of United States, including for Pakistan. Yet, such relative easing of inflationary impact – both evidenced from the paper cited above, for instance, and the fact that monetary tightening has already run a lot of course, squeezing immensely aggregate demand for many months – continues to be met by unwarranted caution from both IMF and SBP. Hence, in their most recent country report on Pakistan that was released in May, which indicated that 'Monetary policy should remain tight and data dependent to ensure that inflation stays moderate, within the SBP's target range', and the latest monetary policy released in July 30 by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) also surprisingly saw 'global oil prices' as 'volatile', and 'the impact of global trade tariffs as uncertain' and, in turn, kept policy rate well above both the CPI, and core inflation rate. The most shocking part is that mainly aggregate supply related causes like 'higher than anticipated adjustment in energy prices' are also being seen by SBP as grounds for involving the role of policy rate! Such over-cautious approach by IMF and SBP has already cost the economy dearly – average economic growth over the last few years of around the population growth rate of between 2-3 percent has already pushed significant number of people below the poverty line, while absolute numbers close in close to half of the population now below it as per recent World Bank figures in this regard, while unemployment rate is running very high when compared with numbers traditionally. The extent of over-caution by SBP can be seen from the fact that while inflation during the last eight months, that is during November 2024 to June 2025 has averaged 2.6 percent, policy rate has not come down in a way as to keep positive real interest rate in any reasonable limits, which as compared with June CPI numbers stands at 7.8 percent, and at 4.1 percent for the same month when compared with core inflation (non-food, non-energy). Hence, the decision to keep policy rate unchanged at 11 percent is surprising to say the least, and to say that it should have come down considerably, and well back in time is an understatement, and that is even after factoring in the role of base effect, not to mention the primarily aggregate supply side nature of external factors, and domestic energy price adjustments. The reason it is an understatement is because policy rate should not have gone up so high in the first place in response to considerable rise in inflation in recent years – before inflation started to come down – because in developing countries like Pakistan, and especially in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, inflation is at least equally a supply-side/fiscal phenomenon. SBP as per its January 28, 2022 amended 'State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956' is mandated 'to achieve domestic price stability by way of regulating the monetary and credit system' as its 'primary objective', it also carries the role to see its contribution towards 'supporting the general economic policies of the Federal Government to foster development and fuller utilization of the country's productive resources.' In that sense, a question that needs a plausible answer is whether an over-cautious approach of SBP – both under over-board austerity minded successive IMF programmes in general, including the current EFF programme, and similar mindset reflected by SBP outside of these programmes as well — where it has over-utilised the instrument of policy rate at the back of wrongly seeing the over-board need to restrict aggregate demand, when clearly there is a strong footprint of aggregate supply side factors in determining inflation can be seen both traditionally, and especially in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, and in an overall world of existential threat of climate change crisis. It can clearly be seen that the mandate of SBP is not just price stability, but it also has the secondary concern to target inflation in a way that allows economic development, and utilisation of 'country's productive resources'. Clearly, an over-board monetary austerity mindset, in turn, unnecessarily squeezing the aggregate demand and not placing enough emphasis on improving institutional factors on the aggregate supply side — like fixing economic institutional quality, and improving productive—, and allocative efficiencies of underlying organisations, and markets through bettering governance, and incentive structures, including regulation — has allowed the endeavour of price stability to unnecessarily result in excessive economic growth sacrifice, along with producing only short-term reduction in inflation, with secondary impacts feeding into inflation in terms of higher transaction costs, and greater inflationary built-up cost-push inflationary channel at the back of lack of aggregate supply-related focus. More broadly, protecting fiscal space, especially in the wake of heightened geopolitics related security, and greater climate change/SDGs/economic resilience related spending needs in recent times require lowering the debt burden for instance, and SBP's overcautious and lopsided approach to rely too much on policy rate to control inflation is not allowing it to play its role for overall economic development. In this regard, while the independence of SBP needs to be protected, yet greater say of government needs to be reflected through greater footprint of government in the monetary policy committee (MPC) of SBP, in addition to filling MPC with more broad-based economic thinking in terms of economic ideological representation; it appears the neoliberal-minded influence, both traditionally and currently, seems to be in majority in terms of most members of the committee apparently showing strong signs of following this school of thought, as reflected through the overall arguments in monetary policy statements in general, including the latest one. More perhaps could be learnt from the workings of Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in this regard. A mind-set of shock therapy has not helped the economy. What is needed is adopting both macro- and micro-level initiatives in a more focused and innovative way. Excessive market power – for instance in the case of sugar sector – resulting in price gouging or, in other words, dealing with 'greedflation' or 'seller's inflation' requires adopting a more balanced aggregate demand, and supply side focus. External factors influencing inflation also need to be taken in the same balanced way. For instance, noted economist Isabella M. Weber along with her co-authors, in their (2025) published article 'Implicit coordination in sellers' inflation: How cost shocks facilitate price hikes' point towards the need to make microeconomic policy interventions at the sectoral level to deal with cost-push inflation that results from seller's inflation. The paper pointed out in this regard, 'we provide descriptive evidence in support of the hypothesis that economy-wide cost shocks function as implicit coordinators for price-making firms to hike prices, which translates supply shocks and commodity market fluctuations into price increases across sectors. In the absence of coordination, price-making firms risk losing market share when they increase prices. But economy-wide cost shocks signal to all firms that this is the moment to increase prices and thus coordinate pricing while the window of opportunity is open. If supply constraints occur in addition to cost shocks, that can further strengthen the coordination signal.' Moreover, the research paper recommended, among other things, the following: 'First, measures should be taken to reduce price volatility in critical upstream sectors to prevent economy-wide cost shocks in the first place… Greater regulation and oversight, sector investigations, and antitrust enforcement in too-essential-to-fail sectors can further help contain sharp price increases. Price controls can be an emergency measure of last resort, if other stabilization efforts fail. Second, policy measures can be implemented to impose a potential cost on firms that excessively hike prices in response to cost shocks.' This provides one way that rather than seeing an otherwise wrongly over-board role of interest rate as a policy instrument to control inflation, for instance, sector specific price controls can be adopted. Another way, as a complimentary step could be to adopt 'dual-track' pricing system as adopted by China during the 1980s, for instance. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
3 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Recovery planning: SBP unveils regulatory framework for banks
KARACHI: In a major step towards enhancing financial stability, the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) has introduced a comprehensive 'Regulatory Framework on Recovery Planning' for all banks. Aimed at aligning domestic practices with international standards and best practices, the framework outlines the SBP's supervisory expectations and seeks to harmonize recovery planning across the banking industry. The basic objectives of recovery planning are to ensure that the banks are prepared for periods of financial stress, can stabilize their financial position, recover from financial losses, and avoid failure. SBP injects record high Rs14.3trn in banks for seven days The SBP has asked banks to develop and maintain recovery plans that include a number of recovery options, and test their plans to assess their effectiveness. The recovery plan should include measures to reduce the risk profile of a bank and conserve capital in case of need. It should also include strategic options, such as, the divestiture of business lines and restructuring of liabilities, a circular issued by the SBP said. In order to strengthen recovery and resolution regime in Pakistan, various amendments in relevant laws i.e. Banking Companies Ordinance (BCO), 1962 and Deposit Protection Corporation (DPC) Act, 2016 have recently been enacted. The amendments provide explicit legal powers to State Bank to require the banks to submit a recovery plan in the form, content and manner as directed by the SBP, remove any impediments to the implementation of the plan, revise and update recovery plan etc. Accordingly, the SBP has developed a regulatory framework on recovery planning, in line with the international standards and best practices. As per framework, the banks are required to develop and maintain comprehensive recovery plans on group wide basis including their subsidiaries and associates, where applicable. The banks shall develop and submit their first Recovery Plans in light of this framework, duly approved by their Board of Directors to relevant Banking Supervision Departments by June 30, 2026 based on the audited financial statements as of December 31, 2025. Subsequently, all the banks are required to submit their Board approved recovery plans to relevant Supervision Department by 30th June of each year based on the latest audited financial statements or within 15 days of the Board's approval in case of revision in the plan based on material changes during the year. The recovery planning requirements would be applicable on banks requiring them to prepare and maintain comprehensive recovery plans on group wide basis including their subsidiaries and associates, where applicable. The banks may adjust their recovery plans keeping in view their size, complexity of operations, and risk profile while ensuring that at a minimum, key components set out in this framework are duly covered. The SBP has also directed the foreign bank branches to must align their recovery plans with those developed by their Head Office, ensuring consistency with the applicable provisions in this document with respect to their operations in Pakistan. While, the Islamic Banking Institutions (IBIs) will ensure that the recovery plans are in conformity with Shariah principles, and the role of Shariah Board has been appropriately defined (if required). In this regard, the banks are now required to incorporate their contingency funding plans in the board approved recovery plans prepared under this framework to effectively deal with unusual situations in a timely and effective manner. The SBP has warned that any violation of these instructions shall attract strict punitive action under the relevant provisions of the BCO, 1962. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
